Dinero/Crédito/Deuda

Informe especial

Highlights The Scottish parliamentary election does not present a near-term risk of a second referendum on Scottish independence. Independence is possible down the road but very unlikely due to a host of economic and geopolitical challenges still relevant in the twenty-first century. Book gains on long CHF-GBP. Go long FTSE 100 versus developed markets excluding the United States. Feature British equities have underperformed developed markets over the past decade – even if we exclude the market-leading United States (Chart 1). The British equity market is heavily concentrated in cyclical sectors like financials and materials and has a low concentration in information technology and communications services. As such the bourse has sprung to life since the advent of the COVID-19 vaccine and the prospect of a government-stimulated global growth recovery. In keeping with our strategic preference for value over growth we also look constructively at British equities. A potential source of geopolitical and political risk is Britain’s ongoing constitutional crisis, which flared up with the failed Scottish independence referendum in 2014 and the successful referendum to leave the EU in 2016. Tensions within the UK and between the UK and EU are part of the same problem – a loss of popular confidence and trust in the current nation-state and governing institutions in the aftermath of hyper-globalization.1 This constitutional crisis added insult to injury for UK stocks by jacking up policy uncertainty and undermining the attractiveness of domestic-oriented UK companies that suffered from trade disruptions with the European Union. Chart 1UK Referendums Added Insult To Injury Chart 2Post-Brexit Trading Range For GBP-EUR Now the COVID-19 pandemic and its aftermath have changed the global scene entirely and Brexit is no longer Britain’s chief concern. But there is still a lingering question over Scotland’s status. The Scottish question has recently weighed on the British pound and reinforced the new trading range for the GBP-EUR exchange rate in the aftermath of a “hard” exit from the European Union (Chart 2). Scotland voted for a new parliament on May 6 and the preliminary results are coming in as we go to press. The pro-independence Scottish National Party is still the most popular party and even if it falls short of a majority, as online betting markets expect, it has pro-independence allies with which it could form a coalition (Chart 3). Its leader, Scottish First Minister Nicola Sturgeon, has promised to pursue a second popular referendum on seceding from the United Kingdom by 2023. Chart 3Betting Markets Doubt Single-Party Majority For SNP British Prime Minister Boris Johnson, backed by a strong Conservative Party parliamentary majority, has vowed not to allow a second referendum, arguing that the 2014 plebiscite was supposed to lay the question to rest for a while. Scottish opinion in favor of secession stands at 43.6% today, right near the 44.7% that nationalists achieved in 2014 (Chart 4). Chart 4Support For Independence Ticks Down, Still Shy Of Majority Our takeaway is to fade the Scottish risk. Book gains on our long CHF-GBP tactical trade. Go long British equities relative to DM-ex-US on the expectation of global economic normalization, which is beneficially for the outwardly oriented British multinationals that dominate the British bourse. Does Scotland Have Grand Strategy? The history of Scotland is marked by internal differences that prevent it from achieving unity and independence. Even in the twenty-first century, when many factors have coalesced to make Scottish independence more likely than at any time since the eighteenth century, the 2014 referendum produced a 10% gap in favor of remaining in the United Kingdom. This majority is all the more compelling when viewed from the perspective of geography because cross-regional support for the union is clear (Map 1). Map 1Scottish Independence Referendum Result, 2014 Why is Scotland always divided? Because it is trapped by the sea and adjacent to a greater power, England. England is usually strong enough to keep Scotland from consolidating power and asserting control over its maritime and land borders. Specifically, Scotland contains a small population (at 5.5 million today) and small economic base (GBP 155 billion in economic output at the end of 2022) dispersed over an inconvenient geography. The low-lying plains around the Firth of Forth that form the historic core of Scotland share a porous border with England. The highlands provide a retreat for Scottish forces during times of conflict, which makes it extremely difficult for southern forces, whether Roman or Anglo-Saxon, to conquer Scotland. But the highlands are equally hard for any standalone Scottish state to rule. Meanwhile the western isles are even more remote from the seat of Scottish power and vulnerable to foreign maritime powers. Since England could never conquer Scotland, its solution was to coopt the Scottish elite, who reciprocated, culminating in a merger of the two monarchies and then the two states in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. The British empire provided Scotland with peace, prosperity, and access to the rest of the world. History and geopolitics do not imply that Scottish independence is impossible, i.e. that union with the rest of Britain is inevitable and permanent. The Anglo-Scots union is only 314 or 418 years old, whereas Scotland existed as a recognizable kingdom for roughly six centuries prior to the joining of the crowns in 1603. It is entirely possible for Scotland to secede and break up the union known as Great Britain. The principle of rule by consent and modern democratic ideology make it difficult for London and Westminster to force Scotland into subjection like in the old days. In particular, American hegemony over Europe since WWII and the rise of the European Union have created a pathway for Scottish independence. England is no longer the indispensable gateway to peace and prosperity. Scotland can exist independently under the EU’s economic umbrella and the American security umbrella.   Europe has always played a major role in Scotland’s political fate and has always held the key to independence. Independence usually failed because European powers failed to devote large and steady resources to supporting Scotland militarily and economically. France was Scotland’s greatest patron and would lend its support for Scottish rebellion. But France also consistently failed Scotland (and Ireland) at critical junctures when independence might have been obtained. This is because France’s interests lay in distracting England rather than adopting Scotland. Chart 5Scottish Energy Production In Decline Today’s unified European continent could be a much greater patron than France ever was alone. The EU could assure Scotland of investment and access to markets even in the face of British resistance. However, the EU is still not politically unified: some members fear separatism in their own borders and therefore tend to oppose Scottish accession. It is possible that the EU could overcome this difficulty but only after a series of major events (on which more below). It took an American empire to clear the way for Irish independence. But Ireland has the moat of the Irish Sea – and the United Kingdom still retained Northern Ireland. Today the United States can be expected to keep its distance from quarrels within the UK or between the UK and EU. However, it does not have an interest in Scottish secession or any other disintegration of the UK, whether from a global security point of view (the West’s conflict with Russia) or even from the point of view of US grand strategy relative to Europe (prevention of a European empire that could challenge the US). An independent Scotland would struggle economically. Its declining base of fossil fuel reserves illustrates the problem of generating sufficient revenue to maintain the Scandinavian-style social welfare state that Scotland’s nationalists imagine (Chart 5). Scottish nationalists are keen to embrace renewable energy – and the Scottish Greens are pro-independence – yet Scotland is not a manufacturing powerhouse that will produce its own solar panels and windmills. In the face of economic difficulties, Scotland would become politically divided like it was for most of its history prior to union with England. England would revert to an obstructive or sabotaging role. It is telling that the Scottish voter turnout in the 2014 independence referendum was very strong – much stronger than in other recent elections and plebiscites, including the Brexit referendum in Scotland (Table 1). The implication is that it is much harder for Scotland to strike out on its own than it appears. Opinion polling cited above suggests that neither Brexit nor the COVID-19 pandemic has moved the needle decisively in the direction of independence. If anything it is the opposite. The Scottish National Party has lost momentum since 2014 and is losing momentum in advance of today’s local election, which has been pitched as the opportunity to make a second go at independence (Chart 6). Table 1Scotland: High Turnout In 2014 Independence Referendum Implies Firm Conclusion To Stay In UK Chart 6Scottish National Party Losing Momentum Just Ahead Of Holyrood Election Bottom Line: History suggests that the geopolitical and macroeconomic barriers to a unified and independent Scottish state are higher and stronger than they may appear at any given time, including the inevitable periods of tensions with England like today. The UK’s Saving Graces A fair question is whether the UK’s decision to leave the EU since 2016 has changed Scotland’s calculus. Brexit may also have affected the international context, reducing the EU’s willingness to intervene on the UK’s behalf and discourage Scottish ambitions. However, a handful of factors supports the continuation of the union despite Scotland’s grievances. The UK proved a boon amid COVID-19: While 62% of Scots voted against Brexit, the COVID-19 pandemic and recession have supplanted Brexit as the nation’s chief cause of concern. The UK and Scotland saw a higher rate of deaths during the biggest waves of the pandemic but now the pandemic is effectively over in the UK and Scotland, in stark contrast with the European Union (Chart 7). The UK has provided a net benefit to Scotland by inventing the vaccine and distributing it effectively (Chart 8). Scottish voters would have been worse off had they left the UK in 2014. Of course, Scottish nationalism is apparent in the fact that voters give the credit to Edinburgh while blaming London over its handling of the pandemic (Chart 9). But the underlying material reality – that being part of the UK provided a net benefit – will discourage independence sentiment. The Scottish Conservative Party and Labour Party are both in favor of sustaining the union and have benefited in opinion polling since the pandemic peaked. Chart 7COVID Deaths Collapse In ##br##United Kingdom Chart 8Scotland Benefited From UK Vaccine And Rollout   Chart 9Scots Praise Edinburgh, Blame London On COVID Handling Brexit is a cautionary economic tale: If Brexit is relevant to Scottish voters, it is not the source of grievance that it could have been. Prime Minister Boris Johnson achieved an exit and trade deal at the end of 2019-20 that largely preserves economic ties with the EU. True, the deal has problems that undermine the UK economy and enhance Scottish grievances. But these also serve as a warning to Scots who would attempt to exit the UK, highlighting the economic pitfalls of raising borders and barriers against one’s chief market. The UK’s trade is far more critical to Scotland’s economy than that of the EU (Chart 10).   Chart 10Major Constraint On Scottish Independence Unlike in the case of the UK and EU, Scotland shares the same currency and central bank with the UK. Scotland’s large banking sector stands to suffer drastically if the Bank of England ceases to be a lender of last resort. This would become a major problem at least until Scotland could be assured of admission into the EU and Euro Area. Otherwise redenomination into a national currency would deal an even greater financial and economic blow. Scots  would face a far more painful economic divorce from the UK than the UK faced with the EU. The UK’s fiscal blowout helped Scotland: Since the bank run at Northern Rock in 2007, the UK and Scotland have suffered a series of crises. This instability should discourage risk appetite today when contrasted with the possibility of stimulus-fueled economic recovery. In particular, the UK government is no longer pursuing fiscal austerity – an economic policy that fanned the flames of Scottish secession back in 2012. Indeed, the UK tops the ranks of global fiscal stimulus, according to the change in government net lending and borrowing as reported by the IMF. The UK’s outlier status ensures that Scotland receives more fiscal support than it otherwise would have (Chart 11). A brief comparison with comparable countries – Ireland, Belgium, France, Norway, Portugal – reinforces the point. Chart 11Scotland Benefited From UK Fiscal Blowout The UK’s aggressive policy of monetary and fiscal reflation is not a coincidence. It stems from the past two decades’ constitutional and political struggles – it is an outgrowth of domestic instability and populism. It includes an industrial policy, a green energy policy, and other rebuilding measures to combat the erosion of the state in the wake of hyper-globalization. Essentially the UK, even under a Tory government, is now about debt monetization and nation-building. While Scotland would have trouble bargaining for its share of EU resources, it benefits from the UK’s shift to government largesse and can use the threat of independence to receive greater funds from the United Kingdom. Geopolitics discourages a fledgling Scottish nation. Scotland hosts naval and air bases of considerable value to the UK, US, and broader NATO alliance. Former US President Trump’s punitive measures against the European allies and open doubts about the US’s commitment to NATO’s collective security illustrated the dangers of western divisions in the face of autocratic regimes like Russia and China. The US and EU are now recommitting to their economic and security bonds under the Biden administration. Scottish independence would undermine this recommitment and as such the small country would pit itself against the US, EU, and NATO. While the US and NATO would ultimately admit Scotland into collective security, for fear of cultivating a neutral Scotland that could eventually be exploited by Russia, they would likely discourage independence ahead of time to prevent a historic division within the UK and NATO. Chart 12No Urgency For A Second Referendum As for the EU, the Spanish government has indicated that it would be willing to make an exception for Scottish independence if it were negotiated amicably with the United Kingdom.2 Such statements are doubtful, however, as any successful secession would lend ideological credibility to Spanish secessionism – not only in Catalonia but also in the Basque country and elsewhere. And Spain is not the only country that harbors deep hesitations over Scottish accession to the European Union. Belgium, Slovakia, and Cyprus could also oppose it. It only takes a single veto to halt the whole accession process. Ultimately the EU could accept Scotland, just as would NATO, to avoid the dangers of having a neutral state in a strategic location. But the point is that Scottish voters cannot be certain. For example, Scotland cannot secure EU accession prior to leaving the UK and yet to leave the UK and fail to achieve EU accession would render it a fledgling. This explains why Scottish voters are not eager to hold a new independence referendum (Chart 12). Bottom Line: The UK offers medical, economic, fiscal, and geopolitical advantages to Scotland that independence would revoke. The context of Great Power struggle with Russia and China means that an independent Scotland would probably ultimately be admitted into NATO and the EU – but Scottish voters cannot be certain, a factor that discourages independence at least in the short and medium run. Scottish Hurdles Table 2 highlights the historic results of Scottish elections according to political party, popular vote share, and share of seats in parliament. Early, tentative signs suggest that the Scottish National Party maxed out in 2011. The party has suffered from a leadership schism, offshoot parties, and a distraction of its key message since 2014. The implication is not only that Scottish independence is on ice for now but also that the tumultuous constitutional disagreements are subsiding and voters want to focus on economic recovery. Table 2Scottish National Party Hit High-Water Mark In 2011? If the Scottish National Party manages to form a majority coalition capable of pushing forward a second referendum, it will face several hurdles. It will need a UK Supreme Court ruling on the legality of a referendum. If a referendum is declared legal (as it very likely will be), Scotland will need to forge an agreement with Prime Minister Boris Johnson to hold a referendum. If a referendum eventually is held and passes, an exit will need to be negotiated. In a post-Brexit world, investors cannot assume that any referendum will fail or that a referendum is a domestic political ploy that the ruling party has no serious intention of following through. Nevertheless it is true that the Scottish National Party could use the threat of a referendum to agree to negotiate a greater devolution of power from Westminster. The party could hold up England’s concessions as a victory while retaining the independence threat as leverage for a later date. Devolution in the past has strengthened the independence cause, as in the creation of the Scottish parliament in 1999. After all, a referendum loss would be devastating for the nationalists, whereas the threat of a referendum could yield victories without depriving the nationalists of their reason for being. It is notable that First Minister Nicola Sturgeon promised not to hold a “wildcat” referendum, in which Scotland holds a referendum regardless of what Westminster or the UK Supreme Court say. The implication is that Scottish nationalism is looking for a stable way to exit. But if stability is the hope then there is dubious support for independence in the first place. A wildcat referendum is theoretically still an option but a formal process with popular support is much more likely to result in a successful referendum than an informal process with dubious popular support. Chart 13Scotland’s Chronic Deficits If Scottish independence succeeded in any wildcat referendum, an extreme controversy would follow as Edinburgh tried to translate this result to the formal political and constitutional sphere. If the referendum were not recognized by the UK then Scotland would be forced to secede unilaterally at greater economic cost. Otherwise a third referendum (second formal referendum) would need to be held to confirm the results. Any third referendum would be irrevocable. As with Brexit, the secessionists would have to carry one or more subsequent elections to execute the political will in the event of secession. The point for investors is that volatility would be prolonged as was the case with Brexit. A major complication in Scottish independence remains the problem of public finances. Scotland’s fiscal standing is weak. Scotland ran a 9.4% of GDP budget deficit prior to COVID-19, excluding transfers from the UK, which compensates for a gap of about 6% of GDP (Chart 13).3 The country maintains generous social spending alongside a low-tax regime. There is no sign of correction as all Scottish parties are proposing more expansive social spending in the parliamentary election. The Scottish National Party is even proposing universal basic income. Scotland’s emergency COVID deficits are larger than the UK’s as well and projections over the coming years suggest that they will stay elevated. Historically economic growth keeps closely in line with the rest of the UK and there is no reason to believe independence would boost growth. The implication is that Scotland would have to curtail spending or raise taxes to come into line with UK-sized deficits, which are not small (Chart 14).4 Of course Scotland would not embrace austerity unless financial market pressure forced it to do so. Chart 14Scottish Deficit Projected Larger Than UK Scotland would become a high-debt economy. Its public debt-to-GDP ratio would be about 97%, on a back-of-the-envelope calculation. Back in 2013 estimates ranged around 80% of GDP.5 The Scottish National Party’s Sustainable Growth Commission projected in 2018 – before the pandemic blew an even wider hole in the budget deficit – that deficits would nearly have to be cut in half (i.e. capped at 5% of GDP and falling) to achieve a 50% debt-to-GDP ratio over 10 years.6 This is not going to happen. Scotland would also have to take on a portion of the UK’s national debt if it were to have an amicable divorce from the UK and retain the pound sterling. But then much of its newfound independence would be compromised from the beginning by legacy debt and monetary policy shackles. Similar restrictions would come with EU and euro membership. Any accession process after the pandemic would require conformity to the EU’s growth and stability pact, which limits deficits and debt. Redenomination into a national currency, as noted, would dilute domestic wealth, zap the financial industry, and self-impose austerity. Bottom Line: Even if the Scottish nationalists manage to put together a pro-independence majority in Edinburgh, they face a complex process in setting up a referendum. Its passage is doubtful based on the current evidence. But obviously in the wake of Brexit investors should not assume that a referendum attempt will fail or that a successful referendum will be thwarted by parliament after a “leave” vote. The timeline for a second referendum is not imminent – and Scottish independence is highly unlikely, albeit possible at some future date given that middle-aged Scots lean in favor of independence.   Investment Takeaways We will conclude with two market takeaways: Chart 15UK Stocks Recovering From Referendum Fever Chart 16Hindsight On How To Play A Constitutional Struggle The UK’s referendum fever has compounded political uncertainty and contributed to negative factors for the UK equity market over the past decade. A segmentation of the FTSE 100 according to country shows that Scottish-based companies’ share prices rolled over in the aftermath of the 2014 referendum, while the non-Scottish segment performed better (Chart 15). The implication is not that the referendum caused stocks to fall but that the 2014 independence push was the result of national exuberance supercharged by high commodity prices. Enthusiasm for independence has been flat since that time. What is clear is that financial markets look even less favorably upon Scottish equities than other British equities – another sign of the economic problems that will ultimately discourage Scottish voters from going it alone. In advance of the Scottish election, we went tactically long the Swiss franc relative to the British pound to capitalize on jitters that we expected to hit the currency. This trade was in keeping with the long fall of GBP-CHF over the past decade (Chart 16). But the stronger forces of global stimulus, vaccination, economic normalization, and recovery will soon provide a tailwind for sterling yet again. Therefore we are booking 1% gains and shifting to a more optimistic outlook on the pound. With the Brexit saga and the COVID crisis in the rear view mirror, and the tail risk of Scottish independence unlikely, the pound can resume its upward trajectory – at least relative to the Swiss franc. International equities and cyclicals are also poised to continue rising as the world recovers. We recommend investors go long the FTSE 100 relative to developed markets excluding the United States. Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Jeremy Black, “The Legacy of the Scottish Referendum,” Foreign Policy Research Institute E-Notes, September 22, 2014, fpri.org. 2 See Akash Paun et al, "Scottish Independence: EU Membership And The Anglo-Scottish Border," Institute For Government, March 2021, instituteforgovernment.org.uk. 3 See Eve Hepburn, Michael Keating, and Nicola McEwen, "Scotland’s New Choice: Independence After Brexit," Centre on Constitutional Change, 2021, centreonconstitutionalchange.ac.uk. 4 See David Phillips, "Updated projections of Scotland’s fiscal position – and their implications," Institute for Fiscal Studies, April 29, 2021, ifs.org.uk. 5 Granting that the UK’s general government gross debt stood at GBP 1.88 trillion at the end of 2020, and assuming that Scotland takes on a share of this debt equivalent to Scotland’s share of the UK’s total population and output (roughly 8%), the Scottish debt would stand at GBP 150 billion out of a Scottish GDP at current market prices of GBP 156 billion, or 97% of GDP. For the 2013 estimate of at least 80% of GDP, see David Bell, "Scottish Independence: Debt And Assets," Centre on Constitutional Change, December 3, 2013, centreonconstitutionalchange.ac.uk.  6 Scottish National Party, "Part B: The Framework & Strategy for the Sustainable Public Finances of an Independent Scotland," Sustainable Growth Commission, May 2018, sustainablegrowthcommission.scot. The commission’s debt curbs will have to be revised in the wake of COVID-19. For discussion see Chris Giles and Murie Dickie, "Independent Scotland would face a large hole in its public finances," Financial Times, April 2, 2021, ft.com.  

Highlights Biden’s first 100 days are characterized by a liberal spend-and-tax agenda unseen since the 1960s. It is not a “bait and switch,” however. Voters do not care about deficits and debt. At least not for now. The apparent outcome of the populist surge in the US and UK in 2016 is blowout fiscal spending. Yet the US and UK also invented and distributed vaccines faster than others. US growth and equities have outperformed while the US dollar experienced a countertrend bounce. While growth will rotate to other regions, China’s stimulus is on the wane. Of Biden’s three initial geopolitical risks, two are showing signs of subsiding: Russia and Iran. US-China tensions persist, however, and Biden has been hawkish so far. Our new Australia Geopolitical Risk Indicator confirms our other indicators in signaling that China risk, writ large, remains elevated. Cyclically we are optimistic about the Aussie and Australian stocks. Mexico’s midterm elections are likely to curb the ruling party’s majority but only marginally. The macro and geopolitical backdrop is favorable for Mexico. Feature US President Joe Biden gave his first address to the US Congress on April 28. Biden’s first hundred days are significant for his extravagant spending proposals, which will rank alongside those of Lyndon B. Johnson’s Great Society, if not Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s New Deal, in their impact on US history, for better and worse. Chart 1Biden's First 100 Days - The Market's Appraisal The global financial market appraisal is that Biden’s proposals will turn out for the better. The market has responded to the US’s stimulus overshoot, successful vaccine rollout, and growth outperformance – notably in the pandemic-struck service sector – by bidding up US equities and the dollar (Chart 1). From a macro perspective we share the BCA House View in leaning against both of these trends, preferring international equities and commodity currencies. However, our geopolitical method has made it difficult for us to bet directly against the dollar and US equities. Geopolitics is about not only wars and trade but also the interaction of different countries’ domestic politics. America’s populist spending blowout is occurring alongside a sharp drop in China’s combined credit-and-fiscal impulse, which will eventually weigh on the global economy. This is true even though the rest of the world is beginning to catch up in vaccinations and economic normalization. As for traditional geopolitical risk – wars and alliances – Biden has not yet leaped over the three initial foreign policy hurdles that we have highlighted: China, Russia, and Iran. In this report we will update the view on all three, as there is tentative improvement on the Russian and Iranian fronts. In addition, we will introduce our newest geopolitical risk indicator – for Australia – and update our view on Mexico ahead of its June 6 midterm elections. Biden’s Fiscal Blowout From a macro point of view, Biden’s $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) was much larger than what Republicans would have passed if President Trump had won a second term. His proposed $2.3 trillion American Jobs Plan (AJP) is also larger, though both candidates were likely to pass an infrastructure package. The difference lies in the parts of these packages that relate to social spending and other programs, beyond COVID relief and roads and bridges. The Republican proposal for COVID relief was $618 billion while the Republicans’ current proposal on infrastructure is $568 billion – marking a $3 trillion difference from Biden. In reality Republicans would have proposed larger spending if Trump had remained president – but not enough to close this gap. And Biden is also proposing a $1.8 trillion American Families Plan (AFP). Biden’s praise for handling the vaccinations must be qualified by the Trump administration’s successful preparations, which have been unfairly denigrated. Similarly, Biden’s blame for the migrant surge at the southern border must be qualified by the fact that the surge began last year.1 A comparison with the UK will put Biden’s administration into perspective. The only country comparable to the US in terms of the size of fiscal stimulus over 2019-21 so far – excluding Biden’s AJP and AFP, which are not yet law – is the United Kingdom. Thus the consequence of the flare-up of populism in the Anglo-Saxon world since 2016 is a budget deficit blowout as these countries strive to suppress domestic socio-political conflict by means of government largesse, particularly in industrial and social programs. However, populist dysfunction was also overrated. Both the US and UK retain their advantages in terms of innovation and dynamism, as revealed by the vaccine and its rollout (Chart 2). Chart 2Dysfunctional Anglo-Saxon Populism? No sharp leftward turn occurred in the UK, where Prime Minister Boris Johnson and his Conservatives had the benefit of a pre-COVID election in December 2019, which they won. By contrast, in the US, President Trump and the Republicans contended an election after the pandemic and recession had virtually doomed them to failure. There a sharp leftward turn is taking place. Going forward the US will reclaim the top rank in terms of fiscal stimulus, as Biden is likely to get his infrastructure plan (AJP) passed. Our updated US budget deficit projections appear in Chart 3. Our sister US Political Strategy gives the AJP an 80% chance of passing in some form and the AFP only a 50% chance of passing, depending on how quickly the AJP is passed. This means the blue dashed line is more likely to occur than the red dashed line. The difference is slight despite the mind-boggling headline numbers of the plans because the spending is spread out over eight-to-ten years and tax hikes over 15 years will partially offset the expenditures. Much will depend on whether Congress is willing to pay for the new spending. In Chart 3 we assume that Biden will get half of the proposed corporate tax hikes in the AJP scenario (and half of the individual tax hikes in the AFP scenario). If spending is watered down, and/or tax hikes surprise to the upside, both of which are possible, then the deficit scenarios will obviously tighten, assuming the economic recovery continues robustly as expected. But in the current political environment it is safest to plan for the most expansive budget deficit scenarios, as populism is the overriding force. Chart 3Biden’s Blowout Spending Biden’s campaign plan was even more visionary, so it is not true that Biden pulled a “bait and switch” on voters. Rather, the median voter is comfortable with greater deficits and a larger government role in American life. Bottom Line: The implication of Biden’s spending blowout is reflationary for the global economy, cyclically negative for the US dollar, and positive for global equities. But on a tactical time frame the rotation to other equities and currencies will also depend on China’s fiscal-and-credit deceleration and whether geopolitical risk continues to fall. Russia: Some Improvement But Coast Not Yet Clear US-Russia tensions appeared to fizzle over the past week but the coast is not yet clear. We remain short Russian currency and risk assets as well as European emerging market equities. Tensions fell after President Putin’s State of the Nation address on April 21 in which he warned the West against crossing Russia’s “red lines.” Biden’s sanctions on Russia were underwhelming – he did not insist on halting the final stages of the Nord Stream II pipeline to Germany. Russia declared it would withdraw its roughly 100,000 troops from the Ukrainian border by May 1. Russian dissident Alexei Navalny ended his hunger strike. Putin attended Biden’s Earth Day summit and the two are working on a bilateral summit in June. Chart 4Russia's Domestic Instability Will Continue De-escalation is not certain, however. First, some US officials have cast doubt on Russia’s withdrawal of troops and it is known that arms and equipment were left in place for a rapid mobilization and re-escalation if necessary. Second, Russian-backed Ukrainian separatists will be emboldened, which could increase fighting in Ukraine that could eventually provoke Russian intervention. Third, the US has until August or September to prevent Nord Stream from completion. Diplomacy between Russia and the US (and Russia and several eastern European states) has hit a low point on the withdrawal of ambassadors. Fourth, Russian domestic politics was always the chief reason to prepare for a worse geopolitical confrontation and it remains unsettled. Putin’s approval rating still lingers in the relatively low range of 65% and government approval at 49%. The economic recovery is weak and facing an increasingly negative fiscal thrust, along with Europe and China, Russia’s single-largest export destination (Chart 4). Putin’s handouts to households, in anticipation of the September Duma election, only amount to 0.2% of GDP. More measures will probably be announced but the lead-up to the election could still see an international adventure designed to distract the public from its socioeconomic woes. Russia’s geopolitical risk indicators ticked up as anticipated (Chart 5). They may subside if the military drawdown is confirmed and Biden and Putin lower the temperature. But we would not bet on it. Chart 5Russian Geopolitical Risk: Wait For 'All Clear' Signal Bottom Line: It is possible that Biden has passed his first foreign policy test with Russia but it is too soon to sound the “all clear.” We remain short Russian ruble and short EM Europe until de-escalation is confirmed. The Russian (and German) elections in September will mark a time for reassessing this view. Iran: Diplomacy On Track (Hence Jitters Will Rise) While Russia may or may not truly de-escalate tensions in Ukraine, the spring and summer are sure to see an increase in focus on US-Iran nuclear negotiations. Geopolitical risks will remain high prior to the conclusion of a deal and will materialize in kinetic attacks of various kinds. This thesis is confirmed by the alleged Israeli sabotage of Iran’s Natanz nuclear facility this month. The US Navy also fired warning shots at Iranian vessels staging provocations. Sporadic attacks in other parts of the region also continue to flare, most recently with an Iranian tanker getting hit by a drone at a Syrian oil terminal.2 The US and Iran are making progress in the Vienna talks toward rejoining the 2015 nuclear deal from which the US withdrew in 2018. Iran pledged to enrich uranium up to 60% but also said this move was reversible – like all its tentative violations of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPA) so far (Table 1). Iran also offered a prisoner swap with the US. Saudi Arabia appears resigned to a resumption of the JCPA that it cannot prevent, with crown prince Mohammed bin Salman offering diplomatic overtures to both the US and Iran. Table 1Iran’s Nuclear Program And Compliance With JCPA 2015 Still, the closer the US and Iran get to a deal the more its opponents will need to either take action or make preparations for the aftermath. The allegation that former US Secretary of State John Kerry’s shared Israeli military plans with Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif is an example of the kind of political brouhaha that will occur as different elements try to support and oppose the normalization of US-Iran ties. More importantly Israel will underscore its red line against nuclear weaponization. Previously Iran was set to reach “breakout” capability of uranium enrichment – a point at which it has enough fissile material to produce a nuclear device – as early as May. Due to sabotage at the Natanz facility the breakout period may have been pushed back to July.3 This compounds the significance of this summer as a deadline for negotiating a reduction in tensions. While the US may be prepared to fudge on Iran’s breakout capabilities, Israel will not, which means a market-relevant showdown should occur this summer before Israel backs down for fear of alienating the United States. Tit-for-tat attacks in May and June could cause negative surprises for oil supply. Then there will be a mad dash by the negotiators to agree to deal before the de facto August deadline, when Iran inaugurates a new president and it becomes much harder to resolve outstanding issues. Chart 6Iran Deal Priced Into Oil Markets? Hence our argument that geopolitics adds upside risk to oil prices in the first half of the year but downside risk in the second half. The market’s expectations seem already to account for this, based on the forward curve for Brent crude oil. The marginal impact of a reconstituted Iran nuclear deal on oil prices is slightly negative over the long run since a deal is more likely to be concluded than not and will open up Iran’s economy and oil exports to the world. However, our Commodity & Energy Strategy expects the Brent price to exceed expectations in the coming years, judging by supply and demand balances and global macro fundamentals (Chart 6). If an Iran deal becomes a fait accompli in July and August the Saudis could abandon their commitment to OPEC 2.0’s production discipline. The Russians and Saudis are not eager to return to a market share war after what happened in March 2020 but we cannot rule it out in the face of Iranian production. Thus we expect oil to be volatile. Oil producers also face the threat of green energy and US shale production which gives them more than one reason to keep up production and prevent prices from getting too lofty. Throughout the post-2015 geopolitical saga between the US and Iran, major incidents have caused an increase in the oil-to-gold ratio. The risk of oil supply disruption affected the price more than the flight to gold due to geopolitical or war risk. The trend generally corresponds with that of the copper-to-gold ratio, though copper-to-gold rose higher when growth boomed and oil outperformed when US-Iran tensions spiked in 2019. Today the copper-to-gold ratio is vastly outperforming the oil-to-gold on the back of the global recovery (Chart 7). This makes sense from the point of view of the likelihood of a US-Iran deal this year. But tensions prior to a deal will push up oil-to-gold in the near term. Chart 7Biden Passes Iran Test? Likely But Not A Done Deal Bottom Line: The US-Iran diplomacy is on track. This means geopolitical risk will escalate in May and June before a short-term or interim deal is agreed in July or August. Geopolitical risk stemming from US-Iran relations will subside thereafter, unless the deadline is missed. The forward curve has largely priced in the oil price downside except for the risk that OPEC 2.0 becomes dysfunctional again. We expect upside price surprises in the near term. Biden, China, And Our Australia GeoRisk Indicator Ostensibly the US and Russia are avoiding a war over Ukraine and the US and Iran are negotiating a return to the 2015 nuclear deal. Only US-China relations utterly lack clarity, with military maneuvering in the Taiwan Strait and South China Sea and tensions simmering over the gamut of other disputes. Chart 8Biden Still Faces China Test The latest data on global military spending show not only that the US and China continue to build up their militaries but also that all of the regional allies – including Japan! – are bulking up defense spending (Chart 8). This is a substantial confirmation of the secular growth of geopolitical risk, specifically in reaction to China’s rise and US-China competition. The first round of US-China talks under Biden went awry but since then a basis has been laid for cooperation on climate change, with President Xi Jinping attending Biden’s virtual climate change summit (albeit with no bilateral summit between the two). If John Kerry is removed as climate czar over his Iranian controversy it will not have an impact other than to undermine American negotiators’ reliability. The deeper point is that climate is a narrow basis for US-China cooperation and it cannot remotely salvage the relationship if a broader strategic de-escalation is not agreed. Carbon emissions are more likely to become a cudgel with which the US and West pressure China to reform its economy faster. The Department of Defense is not slated to finish its comprehensive review of China policy until June but most US government departments are undertaking their own reviews and some of the conclusions will trickle out in May, whether through Washington’s actions or leaks to the press. Beijing could also take actions that upend the Biden administration’s assessment, such as with the Microsoft hack exposed earlier this year. The Biden administration will soon reveal more about how it intends to handle export controls and sanctions on China. For example, by May 19 the administration is slated to release a licensing process for companies concerned about US export controls on tech trade with China due to the Commerce Department’s interim rule on info tech supply chains. The Biden administration looks to be generally hawkish on China, a view that is now consensus. Any loosening of punitive measures would be a positive surprise for Chinese stocks and financial markets in general. There are other indications that China’s relationship with the West is not about to improve substantially – namely Australia. Australia has become a bellwether of China’s relations with the world. While the US’s defense commitments might be questionable with regard to some of China’s neighbors – namely Taiwan (Province of China) but also possibly South Korea and the Philippines – there can be little doubt that Australia, like Japan, is the US’s red line in the Pacific. Australian politics have been roiled over the past several years by the revelation of Chinese influence operations, state- or military-linked investments in Australia, and propaganda campaigns. A trade war erupted last year when Australia called for an investigation into the origins of COVID-19 and China’s handling of it. Most recently, Victoria state severed ties with China’s Belt and Road Initiative. Despite the rise in Sino-Australian tensions, the economic relationship remains intact. China’s stimulus overweighed the impact of its punitive trade measures against Australia, both by bidding up commodity prices and keeping the bulk of Australia’s exports flowing (Chart 9). As much as China might wish to decouple from Australia, it cannot do so as long as it needs to maintain minimum growth rates for the sake of social stability and these growth rates require resources that Australia provides. For example, global iron ore production excluding Australia only makes up 80% of China’s total iron ore imports, which necessitates an ongoing dependency here (Chart 10). Brazil cannot make up the difference. Chart 9China-Australia Trade Amid Tensions Chart 10China Cannot Replace Australia This resource dependency does not necessarily reduce geopolitical tension, however, because it increases China’s supply insecurity and vulnerability to the US alliance. The US under Biden explicitly aims to restore its alliances and confront autocratic regimes. This puts Australia at the front lines of an open-ended global conflict. Chart 11Introducing: Australia GeoRisk Indicator (Smoothed) Our newly devised Australia GeoRisk Indicator illustrates the point well, as it has continued surging since the trade war with China first broke out last year (Chart 11). This indicator is based on the Australian dollar and its deviation from underlying macro variables that should determine its course. These variables are described in Appendix 1. If the Aussie weakens relative to these variables, then an Australian-specific risk premium is apparent. We ascribe that premium to politics and geopolitics writ large. A close examination of the risk indicator’s performance shows that it tracks well with Australia’s recent political history (Chart 12). Previous peaks in risk occurred when President Trump rose to power and Australia, like Canada, found itself beset by negative pressures from both the US and China. In particular, Trump threatened tariffs and the Australian government banned China’s Huawei from its 5G network. Today the rise in geopolitical risk stems almost exclusively from China. There is potential for it to roll over if Biden negotiates a reduction in tensions but that is a risk to our view (an upside risk for Australian and global equities). Chart 12Australian GeoRisk Indicator (Unsmoothed) What does this indicator portend for tradable Australian assets? As one would expect, Australian geopolitical risk moves inversely to the country’s equities, currency, and relative equity performance (Chart 13). Australian equities have risen on the back of global growth and the commodity boom despite the rise in geopolitical risk. But any further spike in risk could jeopardize this uptrend. Chart 13Australia Geopolitical Risk And Tradable Assets An even clearer inverse relationship emerges with the AUD-JPY exchange rate, a standard measure of risk-on / risk-off sentiment in itself. If geopolitical risk rises any further it should cause a reversal in the currency pair. Finally, Australian equities have not outperformed other developed markets excluding the US, which may be due to this elevated risk premium. Bottom Line: China is the most important of Biden’s foreign policy hurdles and unlike Russia and Iran there is no sign of a reduction in tension yet. Our Australian GeoRisk Indicator supports the point that risk remains very elevated in the near term. Moreover China’s credit deceleration is also negative for Australia. Cyclically, however, assuming that China does not overtighten policy, we take a constructive view on the Aussie and Australian equities. Biden’s Border Troubles Distract From Bullish Mexico Story The biggest criticism of Biden’s first 100 days has been his reduction in a range of enforcement measures on the southern border which has encouraged an overflow of immigrants. Customs and Border Patrol have seen a spike in “encounters” from a low point of around 17,000 in 2020 to about 170,000 today. The trend started last year but accelerated sharply after the election and had surpassed the 2019 peak of 144,000. Vice President Kamala Harris has been put in charge of managing the border crisis, both with Mexico and Central American states. She does not have much experience with foreign policy so this is her opportunity to learn on the job. She will not be able to accomplish much given that the Biden administration is unwilling to use punitive measures or deterrence and will not have large fiscal resources available for subsidizing the nations to the south. With the US economy hyper-charged, especially relative to its southern neighbors, the pace of immigration is unlikely to slacken. From a macro point of view the relevance is that the US is not substantially curtailing immigration – quite the opposite – which means that labor force growth will not deviate from its trend. What about Mexico itself? It is not likely that Harris will be able to engage on a broader range of issues with Mexico beyond immigration. As usual Mexico is beset with corruption, lawlessness, and instability. To these can be added the difficulties of the pandemic and vaccine rollout. Tourism and remittances are yet to recover. Cooperation with US federal agents against the drug cartels is deteriorating. Cartels control an estimated 40% of Mexican territory.4 Nevertheless, despite Mexico’s perennial problems, we hold a positive view on Mexican currency and risk assets. The argument rests on five points: Strong macro fundamentals: With China’s fiscal-and-credit impulse slowing sharply, and US stimulus accelerating, Mexico stands to benefit. Mexico has also run orthodox monetary and fiscal policies. It has a demographic tailwind, low wages, and low public debt. The stars are beginning to align for the country’s economy, according to our Emerging Markets Strategy. US and Canadian stimulus: The US and Canada have the second- and third-largest fiscal stimulus of all the major countries over the 2019-21 period, at 9% and 8% of GDP respectively. Mexico, with the new USMCA free trade deal in hand, will benefit. US protectionism fizzled: Even Republican senators blocked President Trump’s attempted tariffs on Mexico. Trump’s aggression resulted in the USMCA, a revised NAFTA, which both US political parties endorsed. Mexico is inured to US protectionism, at least for the short and medium term. Diversification from China: Mexico suffered the greatest opportunity cost from China’s rise as an offshore manufacturer and entrance to the World Trade Organization. Now that the US and other western countries are diversifying away from China, amid geopolitical tensions, Mexico stands to benefit. The US cannot eliminate its trade deficit due to its internal savings/investment imbalance but it can redistribute that trade deficit to countries that cannot compete with it for global hegemony. AMLO faces constraints: A risk factor stemmed from politics where a sweeping left-wing victory in 2018 threatened to introduce anti-market policies. President Andrés Manuel López Obrador (known as AMLO) and his MORENA party gained a majority in both houses of the legislature. Their coalition has a two-thirds majority in the lower house (Chart 14). However, we pointed out that AMLO’s policies have not been radical and, more importantly, that the midterm election would likely constrain his power. Chart 14Mexico’s Midterm Election Looms These are all solid points but the last item faces a test in the upcoming midterm election. AMLO’s approval rating is strong, at 63%, putting him above all of his predecessors except one (Chart 15). AMLO’s approval has if anything benefited from the COVID-19 crisis despite Mexico’s inability to handle the medical challenge. He has promised to hold a referendum on his leadership in early 2022, more than halfway through his six-year term, and he is currently in good shape for that referendum. For now his popularity is helpful for his party, although he is not on the ballot in 2021 and MORENA’s support is well beneath his own. Chart 15AMLO’s Approval Fairly Strong MORENA’s support is holding at a 44% rate of popular support and its momentum has slightly improved since the pandemic began. However, MORENA’s lead over other parties is not nearly as strong as it was back in 2018 (Chart 16, top panel). The combined support of the two dominant center-right parties, the Institutional Revolutionary Party and the National Action Party, is almost equal to that of MORENA. And the two center-left parties, the Democratic Revolution Party and Citizen’s Movement, are part of the opposition coalition (Chart 16, bottom panel). The pandemic and economic crisis will motivate the opposition. Chart 16MORENA’s Support Holding Up Despite COVID Traditionally the president’s party loses seats in the midterm election (Table 2). Circumstances are different from the US, which also exhibits this trend, because Mexico has more political parties. A loss of seats from MORENA does not necessarily favor the establishment parties. Nevertheless opinion polling shows that about 45% of voters say they would rather see MORENA’s power “checked” compared to 41% who wish to see the party go on unopposed.5 Table 2Mexican President’s Party Tends To Lose Seats In Midterm Election While the ruling coalition may lose its super-majority, it is not a foregone conclusion that MORENA will lose its majority. Voters have decades of experience of the two dominant parties, both were discredited prior to 2018, and neither has recovered its reputation so quickly. The polling does not suggest that voters regret their decision to give the left wing a try. If anything recent polls slightly push against this idea. If MORENA surprises to the upside then AMLO’s capabilities would increase substantially in the second half of his term – he would have political capital and an improving economy. While the senate is not up for grabs in the midterm, MORENA has a narrow majority and controls a substantial 60% of seats when its allies are taken into account. In this scenario AMLO could pursue his attempts to increase the state’s role in key industries, like energy and power generation, at the expense of private investors. Even then the Supreme Court would continue to act as a check on the government. The 11-seat court is currently made up of five conservatives, two independents, and three liberal or left-leaning judges. A new member, Margarita Ríos Farjat, is close to the government, leaving the conservatives with a one-seat edge over the liberals and putting the two independents in the position of swing voters. Even if AMLO maintains control of the lower house, he will not be able to override the constitutional court, as he has threatened on occasion to do, without a super-majority in the senate. Bottom Line: AMLO will likely lose some ground in the lower house and thus suffer a check on his power. This will only confirm that Mexican political risk is not likely to derail positive underlying macro fundamentals. Continue to overweight Mexican equities relative to Brazilian.   Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com   Appendix 1 The market is the greatest machine ever created for gauging the wisdom of the crowd and as such our Geopolitical Risk Indicators were not designed to predict political risk but to answer the question of whether and to what extent markets have priced that risk. Our Australian GeoRisk Indicator (see Chart 11-12 above) uses the same simple methodology used in our other indicators, which avoid the pitfall of regression-based models. We begin with a financial asset that has a daily frequency in price, in this case the AUD, and compare its movement against several fundamental factors – in this case global energy and base metal prices, global metals and mining stock prices, and the Chilean peso. Australia is a commodity-exporting country. It is the largest producer of iron ore and is among the largest producers of coal and natural gas. It is also a major trading partner for China. Due to the nature of its economy the Australian dollar moves with global metal and energy prices and the global metals and mining equity prices. Chile, another major commodity producer also moves with global metal prices, hence our inclusion of the peso in this indicator. The AUD has a high correlation with all of these assets, and if the changes in the value of the AUD lag or lead the changes in the value of these assets, the implication is that geopolitical risk unique to Australia is not priced by the market. We included the peso as Chile is not as affected as Australia by any conflict in the South China Sea or Northeast Asia, which means that a deviation of the AUD from CLP represents a unique East Asia Pacific risk. Our indicator captures the involvement of Australia in a few regional and international conflicts. The indicator climbed as Australia got involved in the East Timor emergency and declined as it exited. It continued declining even as Australia joined the US in the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, which showed that investors were unperturbed by faraway wars, while showing measurable concern in the smaller but closer Timorese conflict. Risks went up again as the nation erupted in labor protests as the Howard government made changes to the labor code. We see the market pricing higher risk again during the 2008 financial crisis, although it was modest and Australia escaped the crisis unscathed due to massive Chinese stimulus. Since then, investors have been climbing a wall of worry as they priced in Northeast Asia-related geopolitical risks. These started with the South Korean Cheonan sinking and continued with the Sino-Japanese clash over the Senkaku islands. They culminated with the Chinese ADIZ declaration in late 2013. In 2016, Australia was shocked again when Donald Trump was elected, and investor fears were evident when the details of Trump-Turnbull spat were made public. The risk indicator reached another peak during the trade wars between the US and the rest of the world. Investors were not worried about COVID-19 as Australia largely contained the pandemic, but the recent Australian-Chinese trade war pushed the risk indicator up, giving investors another wall of worry. If the Biden administration forces Australia into a democratic alliance in confrontation with autocratic China then this risk will persist for some time.   Jesse Anak Kuri Associate Editor Jesse.Kuri@bcaresearch.com We Read (And Liked) ... The Narrow Corridor: States, Societies, And The Fate Of Liberty This book is a sweeping review of the conditions of liberty essential to steering the world away from the Hobbesian war of all against all. In this unofficial sequel to the 2012 hit, Why Nations Fail: The Origins Of Power, Prosperity, And Poverty, Daron Acemoglu (Professor of Economics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology) and James A. Robinson (Professor of Global Conflict Studies at the University of Chicago) further explore their thesis that the existence and effectiveness of democratic institutions account for a nation’s general success or failure. The Narrow Corridor6 examines how liberty works. It is not “natural,” not widespread, “is rare in history and is rare today.” Only in peculiar circumstances have states managed to produce free societies. States have to walk a thin line to achieve liberty, passing through what the authors describe as a “narrow corridor.” To encourage freedom, states must be strong enough to enforce laws and provide public services yet also restrained in their actions and checked by a well-organized civil society. For example, from classical history, the Athenian constitutional reforms of Cleisthenes “were helpful for strengthening the political power of Athenian citizens while also battling the cage of norms.” That cage of norms is the informal body of customs replaced by state institutions. Those norms in turn “constrained what the state could do and how far state building could go,” providing a set of checks. Though somewhat fluid in its definition, liberty, as Acemoglu and Robinson show, is expressed differently under various “leviathans,” or states. For starters, the “Shackled Leviathan” is a government dedicated to upholding the rule of law, protecting the weak against the strong, and creating the conditions for broad-based economic opportunity. Meanwhile, the “Paper Leviathan” is a bureaucratic machine favoring the privileged class, serving as both a political and economic brake on development and yielding “fear, violence, and dominance for most of its citizens.” Other examples include: The “American Leviathan” which fails to deal properly with inequality and racial oppression, two enemies of liberty; and a “Despotic Leviathan,” which commands the economy and coerces political conformity – an example from modern China. Although the book indulges in too much jargon, it is provocative and its argument is convincing. The authors say that in most places and at most times, the strong have dominated the weak and human freedom has been quashed by force or by customs and norms. Either states have been too weak to protect individuals from these threats or states have been too strong for people to protect themselves from despotism. Importantly, many states believe that once liberty is achieved, it will remain the status quo. But the authors argue that to uphold liberty, state institutions have to evolve continuously as the nature of conflicts and needs of society change. Thus society's ability to keep state and rulers accountable must intensify in tandem with the capabilities of the state. This struggle between state and society becomes self-reinforcing, inducing both to develop a richer array of capacities just to keep moving forward along the corridor. Yet this struggle also underscores the fragile nature of liberty. It is built on a precarious balance between state and society; between economic, political, and social elites and common citizens; between institutions and norms. If one side of the balance gets too strong, as has often happened in history, liberty begins to wane. The authors central thesis is that the long-run success of states depends on the balance of power between state and society. If states are too strong, you end up with a “Despotic Leviathan” that is good for short-term economic growth but brittle and unstable over the long term. If society is too strong, the “Leviathan” is absent, and societies suffer under a pre-modern war of all against all. The ideal place to be is in the narrow corridor, under a shackled Leviathan that will grow state capacity and individual liberty simultaneously, thus leading to long-term economic growth. In the asset allocation process, investors should always consider the liberty of a state and its people, if a state’s institutions grossly favor the elite or the outright population, whether these institutions are weak or overbearing on society, and whether they signify a balance between interests across the population. Whether you are investing over a short or long horizon, returns can be significantly impacted in the absence of liberty or the excesses of liberty. There should be a preference among investors toward countries that exhibit a balance of power between state and society, setting up a better long-term investment environment, than if a balance of power did not exist.   Guy Russell Research Analyst GuyR@bcaresearch.com GeoRisk Indicator China Russia UK Germany France Italy Canada Spain Taiwan – Province Of China Korea Turkey Brazil Australia Footnotes 1 "President Biden’s first 100 days as president fact-checked," BBC News, April 29, 2021, bbc.com. 2 "Oil tanker off Syrian coast hit in suspected drone attack," Al Jazeera, April 24, 2021, Aljazeera.com. 3 See Yaakov Lappin, "Natanz blast ‘likely took 5,000 centrifuges offline," Jewish News Syndicate, jns.org. 4 John Daniel Davidson, "Former US Ambassador To Mexico: Cartels Control Up To 40 Percent Of Mexican Territory," The Federalist, April 28, 2021, thefederalist.com. 5 See Alejandro Moreno, "Aprobación de AMLO se encuentra en 61% previo a campañas electorales," El Financiero, April 5, 2021, elfinanciero.com. 6 Penguin Press, New York, NY, 2019, 558 pages. Section III: Geopolitical Calendar

Informe especial

Highlights The US fiscal outlook has deteriorated substantially over the past two decades, as a consequence of the fiscal response to both the global financial crisis and the COVID-19 pandemic. US government debt-to-GDP is now nearly as high as it was at the end of the Second World War, and is projected by the US Congressional Budget Office (CBO) to explode higher over the coming 30 years. Some investors argue that extreme levels of government debt now virtually guarantee that interest rates will remain structurally low, and we test this claim alongside a scenario that limits the projected rise in the primary deficit. We find that US fiscal reform, when it eventually occurs, will likely be negative for health care stocks. We also note that even in a scenario where the US limits the size of its future primary budget deficit, net interest outlays will likely rise to elevated levels compared to history. A comparison with the Canadian experience in the 1990s suggests a structurally negative outlook for the US dollar, from an overvalued starting point. Finally, we note that the US fiscal outlook does not necessarily prevent an increase in interest rates over the coming few years in a scenario where investors raise their expectations for the neutral rate of interest, a possibility that we discussed in last month’s report. This scenario is not our base case view, but it is plausible and should actively be monitored by investors over the coming one to two years. For now, we do not expect that rising interest rates pose a risk to stocks over the coming 6-12 months. Investors should remain cyclically overweight equities within a multi-asset portfolio, and should maintain a below-benchmark level of duration on a risk-adjusted basis. In 2001, US government debt held by the public as a share of GDP stood at 31.5%, after having fallen roughly 16 percentage points from early 1993 levels. Today, as a result of both the global financial crisis and the COVID-19 pandemic, the debt to GDP ratio has risen to a whopping 100%, and is projected to rise meaningfully higher over the coming decades. Feature In this report we review the long-term US fiscal outlook in the wake of the pandemic, with a focus on the implications for interest rates. Some investors argue that extreme levels of government debt now virtually guarantee that interest rates will remain structurally low, and we test this claim alongside a scenario that limits the projected rise in the primary deficit. We find that US fiscal reform, when it eventually occurs, will likely be negative for health care stocks, whose fundamental performance has outstripped that of the broad equity market since the mid-1990s (reflecting pricing power that stands to be curtailed through regulation). We also note that even in a scenario where the US limits the size of its future primary budget deficit, net interest outlays will likely rise to elevated levels compared to history. A comparison with the Canadian experience in the 1990s suggests a structurally negative outlook for the US dollar, from an overvalued starting point. Finally, we note that the US fiscal outlook does not necessarily prevent an increase in interest rates over the coming few years in the hypothetical scenario that we described in last month’s report,1 i.e., an environment where the narrative of secular stagnation is challenged and investor expectations for the neutral rate rise closer to trend rates of economic growth. This scenario is not our base case view, but it is plausible and should actively be monitored by investors over the coming one to two years. For now, investors should remain cyclically overweight equities within a multi-asset portfolio, and should maintain a below-benchmark level of duration on a risk-adjusted basis. Debt Sustainability, And The CBO’s Baseline Projection When analyzing the US fiscal outlook, the Congressional Budget Office’s Long-Term Budget Outlook report is typically the reference point for investors. The report provides annual projections for the budget deficit and the debt-to-GDP ratio for the next three decades, as well as a breakdown of the projected deficit into its primary (i.e., non-interest) and net interest components. Charts II-1 and II-2 present the most recent baseline projections from the CBO, which clearly present a dire long-term outlook. The deficit and debt-to-GDP ratio are projected to be relatively stable over the next decade, but explode higher over the subsequent 20 years. In 2051, the CBO’s baseline projects that the budget deficit will be roughly 13% of GDP, with net interest costs accounting for approximately two-thirds of the deficit. Chart II-1The CBO’s Fiscal Outlook Is Extremely Negative Chart II-2In 2051, The CBO Projects A 13% Annual Budget Deficit In order to understand what is driving the CBO’s dire long-term budget and debt forecast, it is important to review the government debt sustainability equation shown below. The equation highlights that the change in a government’s debt-to-GDP ratio is approximately equal to 1) the primary deficit plus 2) net interest costs as a share of GDP, the latter being defined as the product of last year’s debt-to-GDP ratio and the difference between the average interest rate on the debt and the rate of GDP growth. Δ Debt-To-GDP Ratio ≈ Primary Deficit As A % Of GDP2 + (r-g)*(Prior Period Debt-To-GDP Ratio) Where: r = Average interest rate on government debt and g = Nominal GDP growth The equation highlights that expectations of a persistently rising debt-to-GDP ratio must occur either because of expectations of a persistent primary deficit, or expectations that interest rates will persistently exceed the rate of economic growth (or some combination of the two). This underscores why debt sustainability analysis often focuses on the primary budget balance, as a country’s debt-to-GDP ratio will be stable if no primary deficit exists and interest costs are at or below the prevailing rate of economic growth. Chart II-3 illustrates the source of the CBO’s projected rise in debt-to-GDP beyond 2031, by presenting the two components of the debt sustainability equation alongside the projected annual change in the debt-to-GDP ratio. The chart makes it clear that while the CBO is forecasting a sizeable primary deficit to continue, it is projected to grow at a slower pace than the debt-to-GDP ratio itself. The increasing rate at which the debt-to-GDP ratio is projected to grow in the latter years of the CBO’s forecast period is clearly driven by the interest rate component, meaning that “r” is projected to be greater than “g”. Chart II-4 presents this point directly, by highlighting that the CBO is forecasting the average interest rate on government debt to exceed that of nominal GDP growth in 2038, and to continue to exceed growth (by an increasing amount) thereafter. Chart II-3Decomposing The CBO's Projected Change In The Debt-To-GDP Ratio Chart II-4The CBO's Projections Rest, In Part, On Rates Eventually Exceeding Growth   Three Adjustments To The CBO’s Baseline We make three adjustments to the CBO’s baseline in order to assess how the US fiscal outlook shifts under an interest rate path that is different than that projected by the CBO. First, we adjust the CBO’s projected budget deficit over the coming few years based on deficit forecasts from our US Political Strategy service following the passage of the American Recovery Plan act.3 Chart II-5We Test The Effect Of An Initially Higher, But More Sustainable, Rate Path Next, we adjust the interest component of the total budget deficit based on a new path for short- and long-term interest rates that models a scenario in which the neutral rate of interest rises to, but not above, GDP growth (Chart II-5). In last month’s report we outlined a scenario in which this could feasibly occur,1 and the hypothetical path for interest rates shown in Chart II-5 thus incorporates both the negative budgetary impact of an earlier rise in interest rates and the positive budgetary impact of “r” never rising above “g”. We explicitly exclude any crowding out effect on long-term interest rates, based on the view that term premia are likely to remain muted in a world of low potential economic growth, unless a fiscal crisis appears to be imminent (see Box II-1). Box II-1 Arguing Against The CBO’s Crowding Out Assumption The CBO’s projection that interest rates will ultimately rise above the rate of economic growth rests on the view that increased government spending will absorb savings that would otherwise finance private investment (a “crowding out” effect). We agree that crowding out can occur over the course of the business cycle, especially in a scenario where increased government spending pushes output above its potential (creating a cyclical acceleration in inflation and eventually an increase in interest rates). But the CBO is assuming that high government debt-to-GDP ratios will crowd out private investment on a structural basis, and on this basis we disagree. First, Chart Box II-1 highlights that there is essentially no empirical relationship across countries between a country’s debt-to-GDP ratio and its long-term government bond yield. Japan is a clear outlier in the chart, but including Japan implies that the relationship is negative, not positive. Chart Box II-1There Is No Empirical Relationship Between Debt-To-GDP And Interest Rates In addition, given that central banks directly control interest rates at the short-end of the curve, a structural crowding out effect can only manifest itself in the form of an elevated term premium embedded in longer-term government bond yields. Our bet is that term premia are likely to stay low in a world of low falling nominal growth, as evidenced by the experience of the past decade.4 Finally, we model the impact of two changes, beginning in 2031, that would work towards reducing the primary deficit: an increase in average government revenue to 20% of GDP (its peak level reached in 2000), and a slower pace of increase on major health care program spending. Despite the fact that population aging will increase mandatory spending on social security and health care over the coming three decades, the CBO has highlighted that the majority of the increase in spending towards these programs is projected to occur due to rising health care costs per person (Chart II-6). We thus model the impact of medical care cost control by limiting the rise in net mandatory outlays on health care programs between 2021 and 2051 to roughly half of what the CBO baseline projects. This adjustment does not prevent mandatory spending on health care programs from rising, given the strong political challenges involved in limiting spending increases that are caused by an aging population. Chart II-6The US Structural Primary Balance Is Heavily Impacted By Medical Costs Charts II-7 and II-8 illustrate how these three adjustments impact the long-term US fiscal outlook. Relative to the CBO’s baseline projections, the American Recovery Plan (ARP) budget deficit forecasts from our US Political Strategy service imply that the debt-to-GDP ratio will be approximately three to four percentage points higher over the very near term, and roughly ten points higher over the long term. Chart II-7Even With Higher Rates, The Fiscal Outlook Is Meaningfully Less Bad… Relative to this new baseline, an increase in interest rates to, but not above, the projected rate of nominal economic growth increases the debt-to-GDP ratio by an additional ten percentage points (20 points higher versus the CBO’s baseline) in the middle of the forecast period, but it lowers the debt-to-GDP ratio over the longer run by eliminating the effect of outsized interest rates magnifying a persistent primary deficit. Still, the debt-to-GDP ratio is projected to rise to a whopping 207% of GDP by 2051 in this scenario, with a budget deficit in excess of 10% of GDP. The third adjustment shown in Charts II-7 and II-8 underscores the impact on the US fiscal outlook of actions aimed at reducing the primary deficit. Increases in government revenue and the prevention of rising health care costs per person results in the debt-to-GDP ratio that is 64 percentage points lower in 2051 than in our normalized interest rate scenario. The budget deficit in this scenario still increases to approximately 6% of GDP thirty years from today, but in this case most of the deficit is due to the net interest component rather than the primary deficit, meaning that the debt-to-GDP ratio would be increasing at a much slower rate if interest rates were no higher than the rate of economic growth. Chart II-8 highlights that net interest spending in this scenario would rise to 4.5% of GDP, which would be meaningfully higher than the prior high of roughly 3% in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Chart II-8...With Higher Taxes And Medical Cost Control Chart II-9A Meaningful, But Not Unprecedented, Rise In Net Interest Outlays But that is far from unprecedented or necessarily consistent with a fiscal crisis. Chart II-9 also shows that Canada’s public debt charges rose to 6.5% of GDP in the early 1990s without triggering a public debt crisis. It is true that Canada subsequently embarked on a painful fiscal consolidation program in order to reduce its public debt burden, but this, in part, occurred because of a cyclically-adjusted primary deficit of approximately 3% - twice as large as that projected for the US in 2051 in our adjusted scenario shown in Charts II-7 and II-8. Revenue And Health Care Cost Reform Our third adjustment to the CBO’s long-term budget outlook involved changes to revenue and health care cost control to reduce the US’ projected primary deficit. Are these adjustments achievable? In our view, the answer is yes: As noted above, our scenario modeled these changes taking place a decade from today, which allows for policymakers and stakeholders to have a substantial amount of time to act and adjust to these changes. On the revenue front, we noted above that US government revenue has reached 20% of GDP in the past, in the year 2000. Chart II-10 highlights that while raising taxes will likely reduce US competitiveness, the US maintains a sizeable tax advantage relative to other advanced economies, and that this was true prior to the tax cuts that took place under the Trump administration. On the health care cost front, Chart II-11 highlights that US healthcare expenditure is much larger as a share of GDP than other countries, which was not the case prior to the 1980s. Chart II-12 highlights that this cost difference is entirely due to inpatient (i.e., hospital) and outpatient (i.e., drug) costs. While it is not clear what form it will take, it seems likely that future reforms by policymakers to eliminate rising health care costs per person will occur and can be achieved. Chart II-10The US Government Can Afford To Raise Revenue Chart II-11The US Spends Much More On Health Care Than Other Countries   Chart II-12The US Significantly Outspends The World On Hospital And Drug Costs The key point for investors is not whether these changes should or should not occur, but whether there are any feasible scenarios in which spiraling government debt and interest payments are avoided without the Fed purposely maintaining monetary policy at levels persistently below the rate of economic growth – and thus risking major inflationary pressure. Our analysis above highlights that there are; the question is when policymakers will choose to act and in what form. A potential tipping point may be when US government spending on net interest as a % of GDP exceeds its prior high, which occurs in 2026 in the scenario modeled in Chart II-8. In a scenario where reforms fail to materialize or where financial markets force policymakers to act, a fiscal risk premium could certainly emerge in longer-term government bond yields, which could lead the Fed to maintain lower short-term interest rates than it otherwise would. But this scenario is only likely to emerge after interest rates converge towards rates of economic growth, as US government debt will remain highly serviceable for some time if "r" remains meaningfully lower than "g". Investment Conclusions There are three potential investment implications of our research. First, the fact that rising medical costs have such a significant impact on the CBO’s projections of the primary deficit implies that fiscal reform, when it eventually occurs, will be negative for US health care stocks. Chart II-13 highlights that US health care sector earnings have outperformed broad market earnings since the mid-1990s, and that the sector has consistently delivered an above-average return on equity. This historical performance likely reflects the sector’s pricing power, which stand to be curtailed through regulatory efforts in a world where rising health care costs per person collide with fiscal belt-tightening. Interestingly, Chart II-12 highlighted that US per capita spending on medical goods is not significantly higher than in other developed markets, suggesting that the health care equipment & supplies industry may fare better over a very long term time horizon than overall health care. Second, Charts II-7 and II-8 highlighted that even if the US does raise revenue as a share of GDP and limits excessive growth in medical costs, a primary deficit will still exist and net interest outlays will still rise to elevated levels compared to what has historically been the case. We noted that Canada experienced a higher public debt burden in the 1990s and did not suffer from a fiscal crisis, but Chart II-14 highlights that the fiscal situation did weigh on the Canadian dollar, which progressively traded 10-20% below its PPP-implied fair value level over the course of the 1990s. Thus, the implication is that eventual fiscal reform in the US may be structurally negative for the US dollar, from an overvalued starting point (panels 3 and 4 of Chart II-14). Chart II-13Eventual Fiscal Reform Will Likely Be Negative For Health Care Stocks Chart II-14The US Fiscal Outlook, Even With Some Reforms, Is Dollar-Negative   Finally, our scenario analysis highlights that very elevated levels of government debt do not guarantee that interest rates will remain structurally low, especially over the next decade when the US primary deficit is projected to remain relatively stable. For investors focused on forecasting the direction of 10-year Treasury yields from the perspective of valuation, it should be noted that the next decade is the relevant projection period for the Fed funds rate, not what occurs to net interest outlays in the two decades that follow. Over the very long run, it is true that there may ultimately be very strong political pressure on the Fed to keep interest rates below the prevailing rate of economic growth, as policymakers in 2030 will be able to avoid a structural adjustment to the primary deficit of roughly 1.1-1.3% of GDP for every percentage point that average interest rates on government debt are below nominal GDP growth. However, we noted above that this pressure is unlikely to build before the second half of this decade even in a scenario where interest rates rise significantly over the coming few years, and it remains an open questions whether the Fed will acquiesce to this pressure given its strong potential to fuel excess private sector leveraging. Over the coming one to two years, the key conclusion is that the US fiscal outlook is not likely to prevent an increase in interest rates over the coming few years in the hypothetical scenario that we described in last month’s report, i.e., an environment where the narrative of secular stagnation is challenged and investor expectations for the neutral rate rise closer to trend rates of economic growth. This remains a risk to our overweight stance towards risky assets and is not our base case view. But it does highlight the importance of monitoring long-dated rate expectations over the coming year, and argues, on a risk-adjusted basis, for a below-neutral duration stance within a fixed-income portfolio. Jonathan LaBerge, CFA Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst Footnotes 1 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst Special Report "R-star, And The Structural Risk To Stocks," dated March 31, 2021, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 2 Presented in this fashion, a budget deficit (surplus) is recorded with a positive (negative) sign. 3 For more information, please see US Political Strategy report “Biden’s Pittsburgh Speech And Legislative Agenda,” dated April 1, 2021, available at usp.bcaresearch.com 4 Please see “Term premia: models and some stylised facts”, by Cohen, Hördahl, and Xia, BIS Quarterly Review, September 2008.

Highlights Developed economies continue to transition towards a post-pandemic state. Europe has further to go, but it is lagging the US at a constant rate and is thus merely delayed – not on a different path. This ongoing transition is also reflected in the global macro data, which continues to surprise to the upside. Widespread optimism about the outlook for economic activity and earnings over the coming year has led some investors to ask whether an imminent peak in the rate of growth could be a potentially negative inflection point for richly valued risky asset prices. Using our global leading economic indicator as a guide, we find that a peak in growth momentum in and of itself is not likely to be enough of a catalyst for meaningful risky asset underperformance versus government bonds. A sizeable shock to sentiment would likely be required, causing either a very serious growth slowdown, outright fears of recession, or some other event that negatively impacts earnings growth or raises the equity risk premium (“ERP”). We can identify several candidates for such a shock, including the emergence of new, vaccine-resistant variants of COVID-19, the impact of higher taxes on earnings, overtightening in China, and a potentially hawkish shift in monetary policy in the developed world. But none of these risks individually appears to be likely enough to warrant reducing cyclical portfolio exposure. We continue to expect positive absolute single-digit returns from stocks over the coming 6-12 months, and would recommend that investors remain overweight stocks versus bonds in a multi-asset portfolio. We remain overweight global ex-US equities vs. the US, but expect that euro area stocks will have to do the heavy lifting, driven either by the underperformance of global technology stocks or the outperformance of euro area financials. Within a fixed-income portfolio, we recommend a modestly short duration stance, but do so primarily on a risk-adjusted basis. Feature Chart I-1Europe Is Behind The US, But On The Same Path Over the past month, developed economies have continued to transition towards a post-pandemic state. While the number of new confirmed COVID-19 cases remains relatively high on a per capita basis in the US and Europe, there continues to be significant progress on the vaccination front in all Western advanced economies. Europe continues to lag the US and the UK in terms of the share of the population that has received at least one dose of vaccine, but Chart I-1 highlights that the gap has remained constant at approximately six weeks (to the US). Panel 2 of Chart I-1 highlights that the US and UK both experienced either falling or a stable number of new cases once the number of first doses reached current European levels; Israel required significant further gains in the breadth of vaccinations before it altered COVID-19’s transmission dynamics in that country, but this appears to have occurred because of a much higher pace of spread earlier this year. The negative impact on advanced economies from reduced services activity is strongly linked to pandemic control measures (such as stay-at-home orders, curfews, forced business closures, etc). We have argued that, outside of the US, the implementation and removal of these measures is being driven by the impact of the pandemic on the medical system, rather than the sheer number of new cases and deaths. Chart I-2 highlights that, based on this framework, Europe still has further to go – current per capita hospitalizations remain much higher in France and Italy than in the US, UK, or Canada. But the nature of the disease means that hospitalizations begin to fall even if case counts remain relatively stable, and fall rapidly once new cases trend lower. Given the steady gains that European countries are making in providing first vaccine doses to their populations, it seems likely that hospitalizations there will peak sometime in the coming four to six weeks. This underscores that Europe is not on a different path than that of the US, it is simply further behind in the process (and will ultimately catch up). The transition towards a post-pandemic state is also reflected in the global macro data, which continues to positively surprise in all three major economies (Chart I-3). In Europe, the April services PMI rose back above the 50 mark, April consumer confidence surprised to the upside, and February retail sales came in better than expected (Table I-1). In the US, the March services PMI was also very strong, the labor market continued to meaningfully improve, and several measures of inflation surprised to the upside. Chart I-2Euro Area Hospitalizations Remain High, But Will Soon Decline Chart I-3The Macro Data Continues To Positively Surprise   Table I-1Services PMIs And The Labor Market Continue To Meaningfully Improve Chart I-4China's Current Contribution To Global Demand Is Strong In China, the recent tick higher in the surprise index likely reflects the recognition of some data series whose release was delayed due to the Chinese New Year, as well as significant base effects (compared with Q1 2020) in many data series recorded in year-over-year terms. On a quarter-over-quarter basis, Chinese economic activity decelerated last quarter to 0.6% from the upwardly revised 3.2% in Q4 2020 – which was below the anticipated 1.4% q/q. Still, Chinese RMB-denominated import growth closely matches (lagging) data on global exports to China (in US$ terms), with the former suggesting that China’s current contribution to global external demand remains strong (Chart I-4). This is also consistent with rising producer prices, which had fallen back into deflationary territory last year (panel 2). Peaking Growth Momentum: Should Investors Be Worried? The continued increase in the number of vaccine doses administered, positive data surprises, and bullish global growth forecasts for this year have understandably led to extremely optimistic investor sentiment. It has also naturally raised the question of “what could go wrong?”, with some investors pointing to an imminent peak in the rate of growth as a potentially negative inflection point for richly valued risky asset prices. Chart I-5 addresses this question by examining 12 episodes of waning growth momentum since 1990, defined as an identifiable peak in our global leading economic indicator. Panel 2 shows the 12-month rate of change in the relative performance of global equities versus a US$-hedged 7-10 year global Treasury index. Chart I-5Is Peaking Growth Momentum A Risk For Stocks? At first blush, the chart does support the notion that a peak in growth momentum is generally negative for risky asset prices. The subsequent 12-month relative return from stocks versus bonds following a peak in the LEI has been negative in 8 out of the 12 episodes, suggesting that the risks of an equity correction are currently quite elevated. However, there is more to the story than this simple calculation implies (Table I-2). First, two of the twelve episodes saw the global LEI peak in the context of an eventual US recession, so it is not surprising that stocks underperformed bonds in those episodes. Second, out of the six non-recessionary episodes, only two of them involved significant underperformance, in 2002 and in 2015. Table I-2Peak Growth Momentum Is An Insufficient Catalyst For Equity Underperformance US equities underperformed in the former case because of the persistently damaging impact of corporate excesses that built up during the dot-com bubble, and predominantly global ex-US equities underperformed bonds in the latter case because of a combination of the significant impact on global CAPEX from the 2014 dollar and oil price shock, as well as a major decline in global bond yields. In the four other non-recessionary examples of equity underperformance, stocks only modestly underperformed bonds, and often this occurred in the context of significant events: surprising Fed hawkishness in 1994, the Asian financial crisis in 1997, a major slowdown in China in 2013, and the combination of a domestically-driven Chinese economic slowdown coupled with the Sino/US trade war in 2017/2018. The key point for investors is that a peak in growth momentum is in and of itself not enough of a catalyst for meaningful risky asset underperformance versus government bonds. A sizeable shock to sentiment would likely be required, causing either a very serious growth slowdown, outright fears of recession, or some other event that negatively impacts earnings growth or raises the equity risk premium (“ERP”). What Else Could Go Wrong? There are four other plausible risks that we can identify to a bullish stance towards risky assets over the coming 6-12 months. We discuss each of these risks below. New COVID-19 Variants Chart I-6 highlights that bottom up analysts expect global earnings per share to be 12% higher than their pre-pandemic level in 12-months’ time. This expectation is driven by extraordinarily easy fiscal and monetary policy, but also the view that vaccination against COVID-19 will allow social distancing policies to end and services activity to fully recover. However, as India is clearly – and tragically – demonstrating at present, the emerging world is lagging in terms of vaccinating its population. India’s per capita case count has soared (Chart I-7), which is surprising given that the country’s COVID-19 infection rate has been significantly below that of more advanced economies over the past year. It is therefore likely that India’s case count explosion is due to new variants of the disease, and periodic outbreaks in less developed countries – as well as vaccine hesitancy in more developed economies – risks the emergence of even newer variants that may be partially or substantially vaccine-resistant. Chart I-6Earnings Expectations Already Price In A Normalization In Services Activity Chart I-7India's COVID-19 Situation Is Tragic, And Concerning   New variants of COVID-19 may prove to be less deadly, but the economic impact of the pandemic has come mainly from its potential to collapse the medical system via high rates of serious illness requiring hospitalization, not strictly from its lethality. As such, potentially new vaccine-resistant variants of the disease resulting in similar or higher rates of hospitalization pose a risk to a bullish economic outlook. Taxation Both corporate and individual tax rates are set to rise in the US over the coming 12-18 months which, at first blush, could certainly qualify as a non-recessionary event that negatively impacts earnings or raises the ERP. Corporate taxes are set to rise first as part of the American Jobs Plan, which our political strategists have argued will probably take the Biden administration most of this year to pass. The plan involves a proposed increase in the domestic corporate income tax rate to 28% from 21%, a higher minimum tax on foreign profits, and a 15% minimum tax on “book income”. In addition, as part of the American Families Plan, Biden is proposing to increase the top marginal income tax rate for households earning $400,000 or more to 39.6% (from 37%), and to substantially increase the capital gains tax rate for those earning $1 million or more from a base rate of 20% to 39.6%. The 3.8% tax on investment income that funds Obamacare would be kept in place, which would bring the total capital gain tax rate to 43.4% for that income group. Peter Berezin, BCA’s Chief Global Strategist, made two points about higher corporate taxes in a recent report.1 First, he noted that the changes would likely result in an 8% decline in forward earnings if passed as currently proposed, but that various tax credits as well as opposition to a 28% corporate tax rate from Democratic Senator Joe Manchin would likely cap the impact at 5%. Second, he argued that the behavior of 12-month forward earnings and the performance of stocks that benefitted the most from President Trump’s corporate tax cuts suggest that very little impact from these changes has been priced in. Peter argued in his report that the effect of strong economic growth will likely offset the negative impact of higher taxes on earnings, and we are inclined to agree. Chart I-8 highlights that a 5% reduction in 12-month forward earnings would reduce the equity risk premium by roughly 20-25 basis points, which would not be disastrous on its own. Still, the fact that these changes have not been priced in means that corporate tax hikes could be a more meaningful driver of lower stock prices if the impact is ultimately larger than we currently expect or if the growth outlook suddenly shifts in a negative direction. In terms of changes to individual taxes, our sense is that the proposed increase in the capital gains tax rate is more significant than the modest proposed change to the top marginal income tax rate for higher-income households. For individuals earning $1 million or more, Chart I-9 highlights that the proposed change to the capital gains rate would bring it to the highest level seen since the late 1970s. Given the rich valuation of equities, it seems inconceivable that such a change would not trigger some short-term selling of equities to lock in long-term gains at lower tax rates. Chart I-8Higher Corporate Taxes Will Only Modestly Reduce the Equity Risk Premium Chart I-9Biden's Capital Gains Tax Proposal Would Lead To Some Selling Of Stocks...   But like upcoming changes to corporate taxes, we see the potential for higher taxes on wealthy individuals as a risk to the equity market and not as a likely driver of stock prices over a cyclical time horizon. First, our political strategists see 50/50 odds that the American Families Plan will be passed this year, meaning that short-term tax avoidance selling may be postponed until 2022. In addition, Chart I-10 highlights that over the longer term, the relationship between the maximum capital gains tax rate and the ERP is weak or nonexistent. The chart highlights that the perception of a positive relationship rests entirely on the second half of the 1970s, when the maximum capital gains tax rate was between 30-40%. However, it seems clear from the chart that the stagflationary environment of that period was responsible for a high ERP, as the capital gains rate fell from 1977 to 1982 without any significant decline in risk premia. It took until the end of the 1982 recession and the beginning of the structural disinflationary period for the equity risk premium to decline, suggesting that there is effectively no relationship between the two (and therefore no reason to believe that higher capital gains taxes will lead to sustained declines in stock market multiples). Chart I-10…But The Effect Would Not Likely Last Overtightening In China Chart I-11Leading Indicators Of China's Economy Are Pointing Down, Not Up Even though Chart I-4 highlighted that Chinese import demand is currently strong, we expect China’s growth impulse to weaken in the second half of the year. Chart I-11 highlights that our leading indicator for China’s Li Keqiang index has done a good job of predicting Chinese import growth, and the indicator is now in a clear downtrend. Panel 2 presents the components of the indicator, and shows that all three are trending lower. Monetary conditions are potentially rebounding from extremely weak levels (due to past deflation and a rise in the RMB versus the US dollar and other Asian currencies), but money supply and credit measures are deteriorating. Leading indicators for China’s economy are deteriorating because Chinese policymakers have already tightened liquidity conditions in response to the country’s rebound from the pandemic and following a surge in the credit impulse. The 3-month repo rate returned to pre-pandemic levels in the second half of last year (Chart I-12), and consequently the private sector credit impulse (particularly that of corporate bond issuance) fell despite robust medium-to-long term loan growth. Chart I-12Chinese Interest Rates Have Already Returned To Pre-COVID Levels We noted in our January report that China’s credit impulse has consistently followed a 3½-year cycle since 2010, and this year has been no different. This cycle is not exogenous or mystical; it has been caused by the repeated “oversteering” of activity by Chinese policymakers who frequently oscillate between the need to fight deflation and the strong desire to curb additional private sector leveraging. Our base case view is that policymakers will not accidentally overtighten the economy, and that the credit impulse will settle somewhere between late 2019 levels and the peak rate reached in the latter half of last year. But the risk of significant oversteering cannot be ruled out, and will likely remain a downcycle risk for investors for several years to come. A Hawkish Shift In Monetary Policy In Developed Markets Last week the Bank of Canada announced that it would taper its pace of government debt purchases from 4 billion to 3 billion CAD per week. The announcement was noteworthy for many investors, as it suggested that asset purchase reductions could also be announced by the Fed and other major central banks by the end of the second or third quarter. Many investors are sensitive to the tapering question because of what transpired during the “Taper Tantrum” episode of 2013. During an appearance before Congress in late May of that year, then Chair Ben Bernanke stated that the Fed could “step down” the pace of its asset purchases in the next few FOMC meetings if economic conditions continued to improve. The result was that 10-year Treasurys fell roughly 10% in total return terms over the subsequent three-month period. While stocks rallied in response to the growth-positive implications of the move, this occurred from a much higher ERP starting point than exists today. The risk, in the minds of some investors, is that tapering today could thus lead to a correction in stock prices. There are two counterpoints to this view. First, bonds have already sold off meaningfully over the past several months in response to a significant improvement in the economic outlook, and investors already expect the Fed to raise interest rates earlier than it is publicly forecasting. It is thus difficult to see how an announcement of tapering from the Fed would significantly alter the outlook for monetary policy over the coming 6-18 months. Chart I-13Another Taper Tantrum-Like Selloff Would Necessitate Higher Expectations For R-star Second, it is notable that the “Taper Tantrum” began at yield levels at the front end of the curve that are roughly similar to what prevails today. 5-year/5-year forward bond yields stood at roughly 3% at the beginning of the “Tantrum”, compared with 2.3% today. Chart I-13 highlights how high forward bond yields would need to rise in order to generate another selloff of similar magnitude from 10-year Treasury yields (roughly 3.65%). In our view, a rise to this level over the coming year is essentially impossible without a major shift in investor expectations about the natural rate of interest. We highlighted the risk of such a shift in last month’s report,2 but for now it would likely necessitate hard evidence of little-to-no permanent damage to the labor market from the pandemic. This is not our base case view, but it will be an important possibility to monitor as the decisive end to social distancing and other pandemic control measures draws nearer. Investment Conclusions As noted above, there are several identifiable risks to a bullish outlook for risky assets, but none of these risks individually appear to be likely. Given this, we continue to expect positive absolute single-digit returns from stocks over the coming 6-12 months, and would recommend that investors remain overweight stocks versus bonds in a multi-asset portfolio. We favor value versus growth stocks, cyclical versus defensive sectors, and small versus large cap stocks, although there is more return potential over the coming year in value versus growth than the latter two positions. We also remain short the US dollar over a cyclical time horizon. Within a global equity portfolio, we remain overweight global ex-US equities vs the US, but this position has moved against us over the past two months. Chart I-14 highlights that global ex-US equities have given back all of their October – January gains versus US equities, most of which has occurred since late-February. The chart also highlights that all of this underperformance has been driven by emerging market stocks, as euro area equity performance has been mostly stable year-to-date. Chart I-15 highlights that EM underperformance has occurred both in the broadly-defined tech sector as well as when measured in ex-tech terms. To us, this suggests that EM stocks are responding to the deterioration in leading indicators for the Chinese economy that we noted above, which implies that they are not likely to lead global ex-US equity performance higher over the course of the year barring an imminent shift in Chinese policy. We continue to expect that euro area stocks will have to do the heavy lifting, driven either by the underperformance of global technology stocks or the outperformance of euro area financials – which are extremely cheap relative to US banks and have much further scope for earnings to normalize as the pandemic draws to a close. Chart I-14Emerging Markets Have Caused Global Ex-US Stocks To Underperform Chart I-15EM's Underperformance Has Been Broad-Based   As a final point, investors should note that we are recommending a modestly short duration stance within a fixed-income portfolio, but that we make this recommendation primarily on a risk-adjusted basis. Chart I-16 highlights that Treasury market excess returns (relative to cash) have historically been driven by whether the Fed funds rate increases by more or less than what is currently priced into the market. Over the past 12 months, the Treasury index has very substantially underperformed cash without a hawkish surprise, and the rate path that is currently implied by the OIS curve is already more hawkish than the Fed is (for now) projecting. On this basis, a neutral duration stance could be justified, but we would still prefer a modestly short duration stance due to the risk of a potential increase in investor expectations for the neutral rate of interest late this year or in early 2022. Chart I-16Policy Rate Surprises Tend To Drive The Duration Call Jonathan LaBerge, CFA Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst April 29, 2021 Next Report: May 27, 2021   II. In COVID’s Wake: Government Debt And The Path Of Interest Rates The US fiscal outlook has deteriorated substantially over the past two decades, as a consequence of the fiscal response to both the global financial crisis and the COVID-19 pandemic. US government debt-to-GDP is now nearly as high as it was at the end of the Second World War, and is projected by the US Congressional Budget Office (CBO) to explode higher over the coming 30 years. Some investors argue that extreme levels of government debt now virtually guarantee that interest rates will remain structurally low, and we test this claim alongside a scenario that limits the projected rise in the primary deficit. We find that US fiscal reform, when it eventually occurs, will likely be negative for health care stocks. We also note that even in a scenario where the US limits the size of its future primary budget deficit, net interest outlays will likely rise to elevated levels compared to history. A comparison with the Canadian experience in the 1990s suggests a structurally negative outlook for the US dollar, from an overvalued starting point. Finally, we note that the US fiscal outlook does not necessarily prevent an increase in interest rates over the coming few years in a scenario where investors raise their expectations for the neutral rate of interest, a possibility that we discussed in last month’s report. This scenario is not our base case view, but it is plausible and should actively be monitored by investors over the coming one to two years. For now, we do not expect that rising interest rates pose a risk to stocks over the coming 6-12 months. Investors should remain cyclically overweight equities within a multi-asset portfolio, and should maintain a below-benchmark level of duration on a risk-adjusted basis. In 2001, US government debt held by the public as a share of GDP stood at 31.5%, after having fallen roughly 16 percentage points from early 1993 levels. Today, as a result of both the global financial crisis and the COVID-19 pandemic, the debt to GDP ratio has risen to a whopping 100%, and is projected to rise meaningfully higher over the coming decades. In this report we review the long-term US fiscal outlook in the wake of the pandemic, with a focus on the implications for interest rates. Some investors argue that extreme levels of government debt now virtually guarantee that interest rates will remain structurally low, and we test this claim alongside a scenario that limits the projected rise in the primary deficit. We find that US fiscal reform, when it eventually occurs, will likely be negative for health care stocks, whose fundamental performance has outstripped that of the broad equity market since the mid-1990s (reflecting pricing power that stands to be curtailed through regulation). We also note that even in a scenario where the US limits the size of its future primary budget deficit, net interest outlays will likely rise to elevated levels compared to history. A comparison with the Canadian experience in the 1990s suggests a structurally negative outlook for the US dollar, from an overvalued starting point. Finally, we note that the US fiscal outlook does not necessarily prevent an increase in interest rates over the coming few years in the hypothetical scenario that we described in last month’s report,3 i.e., an environment where the narrative of secular stagnation is challenged and investor expectations for the neutral rate rise closer to trend rates of economic growth. This scenario is not our base case view, but it is plausible and should actively be monitored by investors over the coming one to two years. For now, investors should remain cyclically overweight equities within a multi-asset portfolio, and should maintain a below-benchmark level of duration on a risk-adjusted basis. Debt Sustainability, And The CBO’s Baseline Projection When analyzing the US fiscal outlook, the Congressional Budget Office’s Long-Term Budget Outlook report is typically the reference point for investors. The report provides annual projections for the budget deficit and the debt-to-GDP ratio for the next three decades, as well as a breakdown of the projected deficit into its primary (i.e., non-interest) and net interest components. Charts II-1 and II-2 present the most recent baseline projections from the CBO, which clearly present a dire long-term outlook. The deficit and debt-to-GDP ratio are projected to be relatively stable over the next decade, but explode higher over the subsequent 20 years. In 2051, the CBO’s baseline projects that the budget deficit will be roughly 13% of GDP, with net interest costs accounting for approximately two-thirds of the deficit. Chart II-1The CBO’s Fiscal Outlook Is Extremely Negative Chart II-2In 2051, The CBO Projects A 13% Annual Budget Deficit In order to understand what is driving the CBO’s dire long-term budget and debt forecast, it is important to review the government debt sustainability equation shown below. The equation highlights that the change in a government’s debt-to-GDP ratio is approximately equal to 1) the primary deficit plus 2) net interest costs as a share of GDP, the latter being defined as the product of last year’s debt-to-GDP ratio and the difference between the average interest rate on the debt and the rate of GDP growth. Δ Debt-To-GDP Ratio ≈ Primary Deficit As A % Of GDP4 + (r-g)*(Prior Period Debt-To-GDP Ratio) Where: r = Average interest rate on government debt and g = Nominal GDP growth The equation highlights that expectations of a persistently rising debt-to-GDP ratio must occur either because of expectations of a persistent primary deficit, or expectations that interest rates will persistently exceed the rate of economic growth (or some combination of the two). This underscores why debt sustainability analysis often focuses on the primary budget balance, as a country’s debt-to-GDP ratio will be stable if no primary deficit exists and interest costs are at or below the prevailing rate of economic growth. Chart II-3 illustrates the source of the CBO’s projected rise in debt-to-GDP beyond 2031, by presenting the two components of the debt sustainability equation alongside the projected annual change in the debt-to-GDP ratio. The chart makes it clear that while the CBO is forecasting a sizeable primary deficit to continue, it is projected to grow at a slower pace than the debt-to-GDP ratio itself. The increasing rate at which the debt-to-GDP ratio is projected to grow in the latter years of the CBO’s forecast period is clearly driven by the interest rate component, meaning that “r” is projected to be greater than “g”. Chart II-4 presents this point directly, by highlighting that the CBO is forecasting the average interest rate on government debt to exceed that of nominal GDP growth in 2038, and to continue to exceed growth (by an increasing amount) thereafter. Chart II-3Decomposing The CBO's Projected Change In The Debt-To-GDP Ratio Chart II-4The CBO's Projections Rest, In Part, On Rates Eventually Exceeding Growth   Three Adjustments To The CBO’s Baseline We make three adjustments to the CBO’s baseline in order to assess how the US fiscal outlook shifts under an interest rate path that is different than that projected by the CBO. First, we adjust the CBO’s projected budget deficit over the coming few years based on deficit forecasts from our US Political Strategy service following the passage of the American Recovery Plan act.5 Chart II-5We Test The Effect Of An Initially Higher, But More Sustainable, Rate Path Next, we adjust the interest component of the total budget deficit based on a new path for short- and long-term interest rates that models a scenario in which the neutral rate of interest rises to, but not above, GDP growth (Chart II-5). In last month’s report we outlined a scenario in which this could feasibly occur,3 and the hypothetical path for interest rates shown in Chart II-5 thus incorporates both the negative budgetary impact of an earlier rise in interest rates and the positive budgetary impact of “r” never rising above “g”. We explicitly exclude any crowding out effect on long-term interest rates, based on the view that term premia are likely to remain muted in a world of low potential economic growth, unless a fiscal crisis appears to be imminent (see Box II-1). Box II-1 Arguing Against The CBO’s Crowding Out Assumption The CBO’s projection that interest rates will ultimately rise above the rate of economic growth rests on the view that increased government spending will absorb savings that would otherwise finance private investment (a “crowding out” effect). We agree that crowding out can occur over the course of the business cycle, especially in a scenario where increased government spending pushes output above its potential (creating a cyclical acceleration in inflation and eventually an increase in interest rates). But the CBO is assuming that high government debt-to-GDP ratios will crowd out private investment on a structural basis, and on this basis we disagree. First, Chart Box II-1 highlights that there is essentially no empirical relationship across countries between a country’s debt-to-GDP ratio and its long-term government bond yield. Japan is a clear outlier in the chart, but including Japan implies that the relationship is negative, not positive. Chart Box II-1There Is No Empirical Relationship Between Debt-To-GDP And Interest Rates In addition, given that central banks directly control interest rates at the short-end of the curve, a structural crowding out effect can only manifest itself in the form of an elevated term premium embedded in longer-term government bond yields. Our bet is that term premia are likely to stay low in a world of low falling nominal growth, as evidenced by the experience of the past decade.6 Finally, we model the impact of two changes, beginning in 2031, that would work towards reducing the primary deficit: an increase in average government revenue to 20% of GDP (its peak level reached in 2000), and a slower pace of increase on major health care program spending. Despite the fact that population aging will increase mandatory spending on social security and health care over the coming three decades, the CBO has highlighted that the majority of the increase in spending towards these programs is projected to occur due to rising health care costs per person (Chart II-6). We thus model the impact of medical care cost control by limiting the rise in net mandatory outlays on health care programs between 2021 and 2051 to roughly half of what the CBO baseline projects. This adjustment does not prevent mandatory spending on health care programs from rising, given the strong political challenges involved in limiting spending increases that are caused by an aging population. Chart II-6The US Structural Primary Balance Is Heavily Impacted By Medical Costs Charts II-7 and II-8 illustrate how these three adjustments impact the long-term US fiscal outlook. Relative to the CBO’s baseline projections, the American Recovery Plan (ARP) budget deficit forecasts from our US Political Strategy service imply that the debt-to-GDP ratio will be approximately three to four percentage points higher over the very near term, and roughly ten points higher over the long term. Chart II-7Even With Higher Rates, The Fiscal Outlook Is Meaningfully Less Bad… Relative to this new baseline, an increase in interest rates to, but not above, the projected rate of nominal economic growth increases the debt-to-GDP ratio by an additional ten percentage points (20 points higher versus the CBO’s baseline) in the middle of the forecast period, but it lowers the debt-to-GDP ratio over the longer run by eliminating the effect of outsized interest rates magnifying a persistent primary deficit. Still, the debt-to-GDP ratio is projected to rise to a whopping 207% of GDP by 2051 in this scenario, with a budget deficit in excess of 10% of GDP. The third adjustment shown in Charts II-7 and II-8 underscores the impact on the US fiscal outlook of actions aimed at reducing the primary deficit. Increases in government revenue and the prevention of rising health care costs per person results in the debt-to-GDP ratio that is 64 percentage points lower in 2051 than in our normalized interest rate scenario. The budget deficit in this scenario still increases to approximately 6% of GDP thirty years from today, but in this case most of the deficit is due to the net interest component rather than the primary deficit, meaning that the debt-to-GDP ratio would be increasing at a much slower rate if interest rates were no higher than the rate of economic growth. Chart II-8 highlights that net interest spending in this scenario would rise to 4.5% of GDP, which would be meaningfully higher than the prior high of roughly 3% in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Chart II-8...With Higher Taxes And Medical Cost Control Chart II-9A Meaningful, But Not Unprecedented, Rise In Net Interest Outlays But that is far from unprecedented or necessarily consistent with a fiscal crisis. Chart II-9 also shows that Canada’s public debt charges rose to 6.5% of GDP in the early 1990s without triggering a public debt crisis. It is true that Canada subsequently embarked on a painful fiscal consolidation program in order to reduce its public debt burden, but this, in part, occurred because of a cyclically-adjusted primary deficit of approximately 3% - twice as large as that projected for the US in 2051 in our adjusted scenario shown in Charts II-7 and II-8. Revenue And Health Care Cost Reform Our third adjustment to the CBO’s long-term budget outlook involved changes to revenue and health care cost control to reduce the US’ projected primary deficit. Are these adjustments achievable? In our view, the answer is yes: As noted above, our scenario modeled these changes taking place a decade from today, which allows for policymakers and stakeholders to have a substantial amount of time to act and adjust to these changes. On the revenue front, we noted above that US government revenue has reached 20% of GDP in the past, in the year 2000. Chart II-10 highlights that while raising taxes will likely reduce US competitiveness, the US maintains a sizeable tax advantage relative to other advanced economies, and that this was true prior to the tax cuts that took place under the Trump administration. On the health care cost front, Chart II-11 highlights that US healthcare expenditure is much larger as a share of GDP than other countries, which was not the case prior to the 1980s. Chart II-12 highlights that this cost difference is entirely due to inpatient (i.e., hospital) and outpatient (i.e., drug) costs. While it is not clear what form it will take, it seems likely that future reforms by policymakers to eliminate rising health care costs per person will occur and can be achieved. Chart II-10The US Government Can Afford To Raise Revenue Chart II-11The US Spends Much More On Health Care Than Other Countries   Chart II-12The US Significantly Outspends The World On Hospital And Drug Costs The key point for investors is not whether these changes should or should not occur, but whether there are any feasible scenarios in which spiraling government debt and interest payments are avoided without the Fed purposely maintaining monetary policy at levels persistently below the rate of economic growth – and thus risking major inflationary pressure. Our analysis above highlights that there are; the question is when policymakers will choose to act and in what form. A potential tipping point may be when US government spending on net interest as a % of GDP exceeds its prior high, which occurs in 2026 in the scenario modeled in Chart II-8. In a scenario where reforms fail to materialize or where financial markets force policymakers to act, a fiscal risk premium could certainly emerge in longer-term government bond yields, which could lead the Fed to maintain lower short-term interest rates than it otherwise would. But this scenario is only likely to emerge after interest rates converge towards rates of economic growth, as US government debt will remain highly serviceable for some time if "r" remains meaningfully lower than "g". Investment Conclusions There are three potential investment implications of our research. First, the fact that rising medical costs have such a significant impact on the CBO’s projections of the primary deficit implies that fiscal reform, when it eventually occurs, will be negative for US health care stocks. Chart II-13 highlights that US health care sector earnings have outperformed broad market earnings since the mid-1990s, and that the sector has consistently delivered an above-average return on equity. This historical performance likely reflects the sector’s pricing power, which stand to be curtailed through regulatory efforts in a world where rising health care costs per person collide with fiscal belt-tightening. Interestingly, Chart II-12 highlighted that US per capita spending on medical goods is not significantly higher than in other developed markets, suggesting that the health care equipment & supplies industry may fare better over a very long term time horizon than overall health care. Second, Charts II-7 and II-8 highlighted that even if the US does raise revenue as a share of GDP and limits excessive growth in medical costs, a primary deficit will still exist and net interest outlays will still rise to elevated levels compared to what has historically been the case. We noted that Canada experienced a higher public debt burden in the 1990s and did not suffer from a fiscal crisis, but Chart II-14 highlights that the fiscal situation did weigh on the Canadian dollar, which progressively traded 10-20% below its PPP-implied fair value level over the course of the 1990s. Thus, the implication is that eventual fiscal reform in the US may be structurally negative for the US dollar, from an overvalued starting point (panels 3 and 4 of Chart II-14). Chart II-13Eventual Fiscal Reform Will Likely Be Negative For Health Care Stocks Chart II-14The US Fiscal Outlook, Even With Some Reforms, Is Dollar-Negative   Finally, our scenario analysis highlights that very elevated levels of government debt do not guarantee that interest rates will remain structurally low, especially over the next decade when the US primary deficit is projected to remain relatively stable. For investors focused on forecasting the direction of 10-year Treasury yields from the perspective of valuation, it should be noted that the next decade is the relevant projection period for the Fed funds rate, not what occurs to net interest outlays in the two decades that follow. Over the very long run, it is true that there may ultimately be very strong political pressure on the Fed to keep interest rates below the prevailing rate of economic growth, as policymakers in 2030 will be able to avoid a structural adjustment to the primary deficit of roughly 1.1-1.3% of GDP for every percentage point that average interest rates on government debt are below nominal GDP growth. However, we noted above that this pressure is unlikely to build before the second half of this decade even in a scenario where interest rates rise significantly over the coming few years, and it remains an open questions whether the Fed will acquiesce to this pressure given its strong potential to fuel excess private sector leveraging. Over the coming one to two years, the key conclusion is that the US fiscal outlook is not likely to prevent an increase in interest rates over the coming few years in the hypothetical scenario that we described in last month’s report, i.e., an environment where the narrative of secular stagnation is challenged and investor expectations for the neutral rate rise closer to trend rates of economic growth. This remains a risk to our overweight stance towards risky assets and is not our base case view. But it does highlight the importance of monitoring long-dated rate expectations over the coming year, and argues, on a risk-adjusted basis, for a below-neutral duration stance within a fixed-income portfolio. Jonathan LaBerge, CFA Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst III. Indicators And Reference Charts BCA’s equity indicators highlight that the “easy” money from expectations of an eventual end to the pandemic have already been made. Our technical, valuation, and sentiment indicators are very extended, highlighting that investors should expect positive but more modest returns from stocks over the coming 6-12 months. Our monetary indicator has aggressively retreated from its high last year, reflecting a meaningful recovery in government bond yields. The indicator remains above the boom/bust line, however, highlighting that monetary policy remains supportive for risky asset prices. Forward equity earnings already price in a complete earnings recovery, but for now there is no meaningful sign of waning forward earnings momentum. Net revisions remain positive, and positive earnings surprises have risen to their strongest levels on record. Within a global equity portfolio, EM stocks have dragged down global ex-US performance, likely in response to deteriorating leading indicators for the Chinese economy. This implies that they are not likely to lead global ex-US equity performance higher over the course of the year barring an imminent shift in Chinese policy. We continue to expect that euro area stocks will have to do the heavy lifting, driven either by the underperformance of global technology stocks or the outperformance of euro area financials – which are extremely cheap relative to US banks and have much further scope for earnings to normalize as the pandemic draws to a close. The US 10-Year Treasury yield has edged lower over the past month, after having risen to levels that were extremely technically stretched. Despite this pause, our valuation index highlights that bonds are still expensive, and that yields could move higher over the cyclical investment horizon. We expect the rise to be more modest than our valuation index would imply, but we would still recommend a modestly short duration stance within a fixed-income portfolio. Commodity prices, particularly copper, lumber, and agricultural commodities, are screaming higher. This reflects bullish cyclical conditions, but also pandemic-induced supply shortages that are likely to wane later this year. Commodity prices are technically extended and sentiment is extremely bullish for most commodities, suggesting that a breather in commodity prices is likely at some point over the coming several months. US and global LEIs remain in a solid uptrend, and global manufacturing PMIs are strong. Our global LEI diffusion index has declined significantly, but this likely reflects the outsized impact of a few emerging market countries (whose vaccination progress is lagging). Strong leading and coincident indicators underscore that the global demand for goods is robust, and that output is below pre-pandemic levels in most economies because of very weak services spending. The latter will recover significantly later this year, as social distancing and other pandemic control measures disappear. EQUITIES: Chart III-1US Equity Indicators Chart III-2Willingness To Pay For Risk Chart III-3US Equity Sentiment Indicators   Chart III-4Revealed Preference Indicator Chart III-5US Stock Market Valuation Chart III-6US Earnings Chart III-7Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Chart III-8Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance   FIXED INCOME:   Chart III-9US Treasurys And Valuations Chart III-10Yield Curve Slopes Chart III-11Selected US Bond Yields Chart III-1210-Year Treasury Yield ComponentsChart III-13US Corporate Bonds And Health Monitor Chart III-14Global Bonds: Developed Markets Chart III-15Global Bonds: Emerging Markets   CURRENCIES: Chart III-16US Dollar And PPP Chart III-17US Dollar And Indicator Chart III-18US Dollar Fundamentals Chart III-19Japanese Yen Technicals Chart III-20Euro Technicals Chart III-21Euro/Yen Technicals Chart III-22Euro/Pound Technicals   COMMODITIES: Chart III-23Broad Commodity Indicators Chart III-24Commodity Prices Chart III-25Commodity Prices Chart III-26Commodity Sentiment Chart III-27Speculative Positioning   ECONOMY: Chart III-28US And Global Macro Backdrop Chart III-29US Macro Snapshot Chart III-30US Growth Outlook Chart III-31US Cyclical Spending Chart III-32US Labor Market Chart III-33US Consumption Chart III-34US Housing Chart III-35US Debt And Deleveraging   Chart III-36US Financial Conditions Chart III-37Global Economic Snapshot: Europe Chart III-38Global Economic Snapshot: China   Jonathan LaBerge, CFA Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst Footnotes 1 Please see Global Investment Strategy "Taxing Woke Capital," dated April 16, 2021, available at gis.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst Special Report "R-star, And The Structural Risk To Stocks," dated March 31, 2021, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst Special Report "R-star, And The Structural Risk To Stocks," dated March 31, 2021, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 4 Presented in this fashion, a budget deficit (surplus) is recorded with a positive (negative) sign. 5 For more information, please see US Political Strategy report “Biden’s Pittsburgh Speech And Legislative Agenda,” dated April 1, 2021, available at usp.bcaresearch.com 6 Please see “Term premia: models and some stylised facts”, by Cohen, Hördahl, and Xia, BIS Quarterly Review, September 2008.

Informe especial

Highlights Cryptocurrencies have a long march ahead to be able to displace fiat currencies. While cryptocurrencies are improving tremendously as a medium of exchange, they lag fiat as a store of value and a unit of account. Contrary to popular belief, fiat money has outperformed anti-fiat assets over time as a store of value. Many central banks will replicate the advantages and success of bitcoin through the issuance of central bank digital currencies (CBDCs). Cryptocurrencies are unlikely to disappear anytime soon and can be wonderful speculative investments. However, conservative investors should stick with gold and silver. Feature Chart I-1Spectacular Returns From Cryptocurrencies The rise in the prices of various cryptocurrencies1 has taken many investors by surprise. $1000 invested in bitcoin at the start of 2012 is worth around $10 million today. If you were lucky enough to get in on the first day of trading, when it was worth a fraction of a cent, your initial $1000 investment will be worth around $60 billion today. Meanwhile, many other cryptocurrencies are also sporting legendary returns, not even replicable in the most obscure corners of the options market (Chart I-1). There is some merit to cryptocurrencies, or more specifically, blockchain technology that is the bedrock of their invention. In this decentralized, peer-to-peer system, the need for an intermediary to validate transactions and arbitrate disputes is eliminated. This can greatly reduce transaction costs, especially when compared to banking/legal fees. The autonomy and anonymity that comes with their use is also a desirable feature. For example, anti-fiat enthusiasts welcome the fact that the creation, distribution, and use of cryptocurrencies is outside the purview of central banks. As this asset class continues to garner popularity and capture the imagination of investors, the implications run the gamut from potential future returns (or losses) to the impact on other asset classes. For currency investors, the key question is whether any of these seemingly attractive features have a sizeable impact on the value and use of other developed market currencies. In short, will cryptocurrencies displace fiat? To answer this question, we have to start from the very basic definition of what money is.  Is Bitcoin Money? The three basic functions of money are a store of value, unit of account and a medium of exchange. On at least two of these three basic functions, bitcoin fails. Bitcoin has been improving as a medium of exchange. The ability to swap fiat currency into bitcoins and back is fairly easy. More importantly, more and more merchants are accepting bitcoin as a form of payment. Globally, the turnover of cryptocurrencies is about $200 billion or roughly 3% of overall foreign exchange turnover. This is higher than daily trading in the Mexican peso, the New Zealand dollar, and the Swedish krona, an impressive feat (Chart I-2). This is also evidenced by the rise in the market capitalization of cryptocurrencies, to around $2 trillion today (Chart I-3). Chart I-2An Improving Medium Of Exchange Chart I-3Gold Versus Cryptocurrencies However, as Peter Berezin, our Chief Global Strategist has pointed out, this does not necessarily trump the use of fiat money.2  The Visa network, for example, handles over 5,000 times more transactions a second than the bitcoin mempool (the pool of unconfirmed transactions). Meanwhile, if one were to take a vacation in exotic places like Manila or Mumbai, what medium of exchange will one hold? Cryptocurrency, gold or the US dollar? Experience tells us you will be much better off holding greenbacks or even gold. Bitcoin is certainly not a store of value. The drawdown in cryptocurrency prices has been around 80% a year or 40%-50% over three months. This is much more volatile than currencies such as the Turkish lira or Argentinian peso, from countries fraught with political instability and economic fragility (Chart I-4). It appears that the lack of central bank oversight is a vice and not a virtue. Stability in a currency allows for confidence in savings, future purchases, and investment decisions. A monetary system based on cryptocurrencies deprives citizens of this basic tenet.   Chart I-4Bitcoin Is A Poor Store Of Value Bitcoin’s inherent volatility also makes it unsuitable as a unit of account. Prices quoted in bitcoin units will need to be revised daily. Although not a parallel comparison, this is reminiscent of hyperinflationary Zimbabwe, where retail store prices were adjusted several times a day to reflect the rapid depreciation in the currency. This is hardly a monetary regime suitable for the developed world, or any other economy for that matter. In a nutshell, cryptocurrencies do not yet satisfy the basic functions of money. Yes, they are portable, divisible, fungible and in limited supply. However, they have yet to gain wider acceptance, and are not a store of value nor a unit of account. As such, they remain speculative investments rather than money. The Demise Of Fiat Is Exaggerated Even if bitcoin is not money, the question remains whether it should be held in currency portfolios as insurance against fiat money debasement. After all, central bank quantitative easing since the global financial crisis has benefited other monetary assets such as gold and silver. Should investors also accumulate cryptocurrencies? The answer will depend on the type of investor. Dedicated currency investors need not worry about bitcoin. As a starting point, the US dollar very much remains the reserve currency today. About 60% of global reserve allocation is in USD. This position has often been challenged over the last few decades but has never been threatened (Chart I-5). This puts cryptocurrencies a long way from the starting line. Chart I-5The US Dollar Remains King It is worth noting that over time, fiat assets have done much better than anti-fiat alternatives. Using Bank of England data from the 19th century, we can see that over time, government bonds did much better than gold, or even stocks and real estate (Chart I-6). The reason is that most currencies provide a yield, while cryptocurrencies and gold do not. Chart I-6Fiat Versus Anti-Fiat Assets Chart I-7The DXY Has Faced Strong Resistance At 100 If one is worried about the path of the US dollar (like us), there are many other established fiat currencies to choose from. Since 2015, global allocation of FX Reserves to US dollars has fallen from almost 66% to around 60% today. The rotation has favored other currencies such as the Japanese yen, Chinese yuan and even gold (Chart I-7). From a longer-term perspective, this will place a durable floor under developed market currencies. Cryptocurrencies Versus Gold The degree to which cryptocurrencies can benefit from a shift away from dollars will depend on whether private investors or central banks drive the outflows. Central banks have a natural imperative to defend fiat currencies, since these are the very tools they use to implement monetary policy. As such, when diversifying out of dollars, their choice is other fiat currencies or gold, the latter having been a monetary standard for centuries. Private investors, some wanting to cut the cord to a centralized monetary system, may chose cryptocurrencies. Since the peak in the DXY index in 2020, both gold and US Treasuries are down significantly, while bitcoin has catapulted to new highs (Chart I-8). This has occurred because of a change in leadership, where the biggest sellers of US Treasuries have not been official concerns, but private investors (Chart I-9). Foreign central banks still dominate the holding of US Treasuries, to the tune of 60% versus 40% for private investors (bottom panel). But the bulk of outflows has been coming from private investors. Chart I-8Bitcoin Thrives When Mainstream Havens Are Rolling Over Chart I-9A Treasury Liquidation From ##br##Private Investors Central banks (the biggest holders of US Treasuries) tend to have stronger hands. This is because central banks are ideological while private investors can be swayed by momentum. For example, China and Russia have a geopolitical imperative to diversify out of dollars. As a result, Russia now has almost 25% of its foreign exchange reserves in gold and China almost 4%. A conservative investor looking to diversify out of fiat currency should naturally choose gold, which is backed by strong buyers. For more speculative investors, a simple rule of thumb could work: Buy cryptocurrencies when they drop 50% and sell when they overtake their previous highs. As we showed in Chart I-3, cryptocurrencies drop at least 40%-50% every year or so, providing ample opportunity to accumulate long positions. It is worth noting that my colleagues have a different approach. Dhaval Joshi, who heads our Counterpoint product, suggests holding cryptocurrencies in inverse proportion to their relative volatility to gold. In other words, given that bitcoin is three times more volatile than gold, your anti-fiat portfolio should have a 25% allocation to cryptocurrencies.3 Peter Berezin, our Chief Global Strategist, will not touch bitcoin. We tend to agree that cryptocurrencies could be a playable mania but would not recommend this asset class for the longer term. Central Bank Digital Currencies   One argument for why cryptocurrencies may not survive over the longer term is that there is a natural limit to how much widespread acceptance they will achieve before central banks start clamping down on them. The first reason will be due to the loss in seigniorage revenue for central banks. Between 2009 and 2019, the US and China generated about $140bn a year in seigniorage revenue (Chart I-10). These are non-negligible sums, which the rapid proliferation of cryptocurrencies threaten. Moreover, as the turnover in cryptocurrencies overtakes global trading in various domestic currencies, many countries are moving to ban bitcoin transactions (Table I-1). Chart I-10Seigniorage Revenue Is Significant Table 1A Rising List Of Cryptocurrency Bans Second, the use of cryptocurrencies can encourage the proliferation of illegal activities. This is a well-known flaw, and something governments will push back against. Meanwhile, many central banks are moving to establish their own digital currencies. Some of these could be based off the same blockchain technology that underpins bitcoin. This will provide many of the advantages of using a cryptocurrency without some of the known pitfalls. Map I-1 highlights that most G10 central banks have a digital currency plan. Map I-1Many Central Banks Are Planning A Digital Currency Some advocates for bitcoin point to its limited supply (21 million coins) as evidence for monetary prudence. Even the gold standard had more flexibility, since gold mining expanded about 2% a year. Yet that still proved to be extremely deflationary. A monetary standard that includes both paper currency and CBDCs provides the flexibility that central bankers need to smooth out economic cycles. A bitcoin-based standard will take us back to the middle ages. Once CDBCs become mainstream, the need for alternative cryptocurrencies will not disappear but fall greatly. This will also happen as the number of cryptocurrencies being created will likely balloon, given the very impressive price rallies in recent years. The IPO of Coinbase, an exchange for trading cryptocurrencies, may have heralded the peak in sentiment. Investment Conclusions The dollar faces many headwinds over the next 12 months. A rebound in global growth that begins to favor non-US economies will benefit pro-cyclical currencies. The Federal Reserve’s liquidity injections have assuaged the dollar shortage that held markets hostage last year. Interest rates are now moving against the dollar. Meanwhile, the greenback is expensive (Chart I-11), with a negative balance of payments backdrop. Chart I-11The US Dollar Is Expensive Chart I-12Hold Precious Metals Our favorite vehicles to play against coming weakness in the dollar have been the Scandinavian currencies, precious metals and commodity currencies. Within the precious metals sphere, we like both gold and silver but are short the gold/silver ratio as a hedged trade with little downside and much upside (Chart I-12). In particular, precious metals benefit from reserve diversification out of US dollars. In this light, cryptocurrencies could have intermittent rallies. However, given the regulatory and structural issues they face, we will not be holders for the long term.   Chester Ntonifor Foreign Exchange Strategist chestern@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 We use bitcoin and cryptocurrencies interchangeably in this text. We do acknowledge that there are various other cryptocurrencies and these are shown in Chart 1. 2 Please see Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "Bitcoin: A Solution In Search Of A Problem," dated February 26, 2021. 3 Please see Counterpoint Strategy Special Report, "Why Cryptocurrencies Are Here To Stay And Bitcoin Is Worth $120,000," dated April 8, 2021. Currencies U.S. Dollar Chart II-1USD Technicals 1 Chart II-2USD Technicals 2 March housing starts came in at 1.7 million, versus expectations of 1.6 million. This was a 19.4% month-on-month rise. Building permits were equally strong at 1.8 million for the month of March. The University of Michigan sentiment indicator rose to 86.5 in April from 84.9. The jump in the current conditions component from 93 to 97.2 was noteworthy. Initial jobless claims continue to decline, coming in at 547K for the week of April 17. Existing home sales remained strong at 6 million, even though they fell 3.7% month-on-month. The DXY Index fell by 0.3% this week. Speculators pared back a bit of their bullish positioning on the dollar. The overhang of a risk-off event continues to anchor dollar bulls, but interest rate differentials are now moving against the greenback. Report Links: Arbitrating Between Dollar Bulls And Bears - March 19, 2021 The Dollar Bull Case Will Soon Fade - March 5, 2021 Are Rising Bond Yields Bullish For The Dollar? - February 19, 2021 The Euro Chart II-3EUR Technicals 1 Chart II-4EUR Technicals 2 Recent euro area data have been mixed. The trade balance came in at €18.4 billion in February, versus €24.2 billion the previous month. This supported a current account balance of €25.9 billion. Construction output fell 5.8% year-on-year in February. Consumer confidence came in at -8.1 in April, versus -10.8 in March. The euro rose by 0.3% this week. The ECB kept monetary policy on hold this week, leaving the deposit facility rate at -0.5% and the marginal lending facility at 0.25%. This garnered little market reaction. With a few euro area countries under lockdown, this was the correct stance. Covid-19 will continue to dictate the near-term path of policy and the euro, but we remain bullish longer term. Report Links: Relative Growth, The Euro, And The Loonie - April 16, 2021 Portfolio And Model Review - February 5, 2021 On Japanese Inflation And The Yen - January 29, 2021 Japanese Yen Chart II-5JPY Technicals 1 Chart II-6JPY Technicals 2 Recent data from Japan have been robust. Exports surged 16.1% year-on-year in March. Imports were also robust at +5.7% year-on-year. This boosted the trade balance to ¥298 billion. Tokyo condominiums for sale are rising 45% year-on-year. Supermarket sales rose 1.3% year-on-year in March. This is a tentative but positive sign of a consumption recovery. The Japanese yen rose 0.6% this week. The yen has been the best performing currency this week, a sign that sentiment was overly bearish and the currency was much oversold. Our intermediate-term indicator remains at bombed-out levels and speculators are still short the yen. This provides further upside for this defensive currency. As a portfolio hedge, we are short EUR/JPY. Report Links: The Dollar Bull Case Will Soon Fade - March 5, 2021 On Japanese Inflation And The Yen - January 29, 2021 The Dollar Conundrum And Protection - November 6, 2020 British Pound Chart II-7GBP Technicals 1 Chart II-8GBP Technicals 2 There was an avalanche of positive data from the UK this week. Rightmove house prices came in at 5.1% year on year in April. The labor report was mixed. While the UK lost 73 thousand jobs in February, this was below expectations of a 145 thousand loss. Core CPI came in at 1.1% in March. The RPI index came in at 1.5% year-on-year, in line with expectations. The CBI business optimism survey came in at 38 in April, versus -22 the previous month. Cable rose by 0.4% this week. The UK economy continues to benefit from its strong vaccination campaign. With the prospect of the rest of the world catching up, this trade is now long in the tooth. In short, we are neutral the pound in the short term, but remain bullish longer-term. Report Links: Portfolio And Model Review - February 5, 2021 The Dollar Conundrum And Protection - November 6, 2020 Revisiting Our High-Conviction Trades - September 11, 2020 Australian Dollar Chart II-9AUD Technicals 1 Chart II-10AUD Technicals 2 There was scant data out of Australia this week. The NAB business confidence index came in at 17 in Q1 versus 14 the prior quarter. The Australian dollar fell by 0.6% against the US dollar this week. The Aussie came out of the Covid-19 crisis as one of the best performing currencies, so some measure of consolidation is to be expected. Our intermediate-term indicator continues to blast downward, while sentiment towards the Aussie remains quite elevated. However, we believe that this will be a healthy consolidation in what could prove to be a multi-year bull market in the Australian dollar. Report Links: The Dollar Bull Case Will Soon Fade - March 5, 2021 Portfolio And Model Review - February 5, 2021 Australia: Regime Change For Bond Yields & The Currency? - January 20, 2021 New Zealand Dollar Chart II-11NZD Technicals 1 Chart II-12NZD Technicals 2 There was scant data out of New Zealand this week. CPI came in at 1.5% in Q1, in line with expectations. The Kiwi fell by 0.2% against the US dollar this week. Like Australia, New Zealand has managed the Covid-19 crisis quite well and the new travel bubble between the two countries will help lift economic activity. From a technical perspective however, room for further consolidation in the Kiwi remains. Our intermediate-term indicator continues to drift lower, while speculators are slightly long the cross. In our models, the Kiwi also appears overvalued. We were long AUD/NZD but were stopped out this week for modest profits. We will look to reestablish the trade. Report Links: Portfolio And Model Review - February 5, 2021 Currencies And The Value-Versus-Growth Debate - July 10, 2020 Updating Our Balance Of Payments Monitor - November 29, 2019 Canadian Dollar Chart II-13CAD Technicals 1 Chart II-14CAD Technicals 2 The recent data out of Canada has been quite strong. Foreigners continue to flock into Canadian capital markets, to the tune of C$8.5bn in February. Housing starts came in at 335 thousand in March, the highest since the 70s. The Teranet house price index rose 10.8% year-on-year in March. The CPI release for March was better than expected. Headline was at 2.2%, the core median was at 2.1% and the trimmed mean came in at 2.2%. The Canadian dollar rose by 0.3% this week. The Bank of Canada kept rates on hold, but trimmed asset purchases. This follows a very generous budget from the Liberal party earlier this week. The loonie loved the news and Canadian government bonds sold off. We remain bullish CAD/USD on valuation grounds, spillovers from US fiscal stimulus and a constructive oil backdrop.  Report Links: Relative Growth, The Euro, And The Loonie - April 16, 2021 Will The Canadian Recovery Lead Or Lag The Global Cycle? - February 12, 2021 Currencies And The Value-Versus-Growth Debate - July 10, 2020 Swiss Franc Chart II-15CHF Technicals 1 Chart II-16CHF Technicals 2 The recent data out of Switzerland has been quite strong. Producer and import prices fell by 0.2% year-on-year in March. This is a tremendous improvement from the previous 1.1% drop. M3 money supply continues to expand at a robust 5.6% clip. Exports rose 4.5% month-on-month in March. Watch exports surged 37% year-on-year. The Swiss franc rose 0.5% this week. The Swiss franc is the second best performing currency this week after the yen. With US interest rates stabilizing, the rationale for CHF carry trades is slowly fading. Our intermediate-term indicator shows the franc at bombed-out levels, and speculators are still short. This provides some margin for further upside. We are long EUR/CHF, but with very tight stops. Report Links: Portfolio And Model Review - February 5, 2021 The Dollar Conundrum And Protection - November 6, 2020 On The DXY Breakout, Euro, And Swiss Franc - February 21, 2020 Norwegian Krone Chart II-17NOK Technicals 1 Chart II-18NOK Technicals 2 There was scant data out of Norway this week. Industrial confidence came in at 8.2 in Q1, versus a prior reading of 3.1. The Norwegian krone was flat against the US dollar this week. Norway is setting the tone in terms of what monetary policy and sovereign wealth management could look like for many countries in the coming years. First, the Norges Bank announced they would be testing digital currency solutions over the coming two years. This is the way forward for central banks. Second, the sovereign wealth fund, the biggest in the world, is using its influence to effect policy changes towards the environment. Should the returns from its investments pay off in the years ahead, this could generate powerful repatriation flows for Norway. We are strategically bullish the NOK. Report Links: Portfolio And Model Review - February 5, 2021 Revisiting Our High-Conviction Trades - September 11, 2020 A New Paradigm For Petrocurrencies - April 10, 2020 Swedish Krona Chart II-19SEK Technicals 1 Chart II-20SEK Technicals 2 There was no data out of Sweden this week. The Swedish krona rose by 0.2% this week. Swedish 2-year real rates recently punched above US levels, suggesting downward pressure on the krona should soon be abating. Our intermediate-term indicator suggests weakness in the krona is mostly done, while the currency appears cheap in most of our models. The handicap for Sweden is successfully dealing with the pandemic, after having a model that stood apart from what other countries were following. Over the longer-term, we are bullish SEK, just like the NOK, against both the euro and the dollar. Report Links: Revisiting Our High-Conviction Trades - September 11, 2020 Updating Our Balance Of Payments Monitor - November 29, 2019 Where To Next For The US Dollar? - June 7, 2019 Trades & Forecasts Forecast Summary Core Portfolio Tactical Trades Limit Orders Closed Trades

Informe especial

El Foro de Asignación Global de Activos (GAA) de BCA Research se llevará a cabo en línea el 18 de mayo. Hemos reunido un excelente grupo de ponentes para discutir cuestiones importantes para los CIOs y los asignadores de activos. Estos incluyen las ideas más recientes sobre construcción de carteras, inversión por factores, alternativas y ESG. Nuestro orador principal será Keith Ambachtsheer, fundador de KPA Advisory y autor de numerosos libros sobre gestión de inversiones, incluyendo "The Future of Pension Management: Integrating Design, Governance and Investing" (2016). Su presentación será seguida por un panel de destacados CIOs, entre ellos Maxime Aucoin de CDPQ, James Davis de OPTrust y Catherine Ulozas del Endowment de la Drexel University. El evento es gratuito para todos los suscriptores de GAA, que pueden ver la agenda completa y registrarse aquí. Otros pueden inscribirse aquí. Esperamos que pueda acompañarnos el 18 de mayo en lo que debería ser un día estimulante e informativo de ideas y discusión. Destacados La búsqueda de rendimiento por parte de los inversores en los últimos años les llevó a considerar los préstamos apalancados como una inversión atractiva. Caracterizados por baja volatilidad y rendimientos ajustados por riesgo atractivos, los préstamos apalancados pueden aportar valor a una cartera. Los préstamos apalancados tienden a superar a sus contrapartes de tasa fija (por ejemplo, los bonos high-yield) en un entorno de subida de tipos y partiendo de una valoración atractiva. Actualmente solo se cumple el primer criterio. Sin embargo, existen riesgos. El aumento de la proporción de emisiones covenant-lite y el incremento del apalancamiento en el sector corporativo son particularmente preocupantes. En los próximos 6 a 12 meses, no esperamos que las tasas suban sustancialmente, lo que hace que la clase de activo sea algo poco atractiva a corto plazo. No obstante, la perspectiva a más largo plazo resulta atractiva, ya que es probable que las tasas suban conforme la inflación aumente en los próximos años. Artículo En el entorno actual de política monetaria ultraaccesible, con tipos de interés bajos y valoraciones poco atractivas para activos de riesgo de renta fija, los inversores no tienen más opción que mirar más allá de los instrumentos convencionales de renta fija y aumentar su apetito por el riesgo. En este Informe Especial, repasamos la mecánica del mercado de préstamos apalancados. Analizamos las características históricas de riesgo y retorno y comparamos los préstamos apalancados con otros activos. También evaluamos su comportamiento durante periodos de tensión en los mercados financieros así como en periodos de subida de tipos e inflación. Finalmente, discutimos los riesgos asociados a la tenencia de préstamos apalancados. ¿Qué son los préstamos apalancados? Los préstamos apalancados son un tipo de préstamo sindicado otorgado a empresas por debajo del grado de inversión. Generalmente, estas empresas tienen un alto endeudamiento y bajas calificaciones crediticias. Un préstamo sindicado es estructurado, organizado y administrado por uno o varios bancos comerciales o de inversión.1 La mayoría de estos préstamos son préstamos garantizados senior y se basan en una tasa flotante, mayoritariamente LIBOR más una prima (más de 150-200 puntos básicos) para reflejar su mayor riesgo y atraer a inversores institucionales no bancarios. Los tipos de interés de estos préstamos se ajustan a intervalos regulares para reflejar cambios en los tipos de interés a corto plazo; esto constituye un beneficio para los inversores preocupados por la subida de tipos. Las definiciones varían cuando se trata de categorizar los préstamos apalancados. Algunos los agrupan según el riesgo del prestatario y su calificación crediticia. Otros consideran métricas de apalancamiento como deuda sobre capital o deuda sobre EBITDA. Otras clasificaciones analizan el spread en la emisión o el propósito de la captación de fondos, que puede incluir financiar fusiones y adquisiciones (M&A), adquisiciones apalancadas (LBO), refinanciación de deuda existente o financiación general. En los últimos cinco años, aproximadamente el 50% de los préstamos apalancados emitidos en EE. UU. fueron para fines de refinanciación (Gráfico 1, panel 1). Dentro de las tres categorías, la financiación de LBO se considera la más arriesgada, lo que se refleja en su mayor spread (Gráfico 1, panel 2). El mercado de préstamos apalancados se volvió particularmente popular a mediados de los años 80 cuando la actividad de M&A se disparó (Gráfico 2). Gráfico 1 Usos de los préstamos apalancados ¿Es el momento adecuado para los préstamos apalancados? ¿Es el momento adecuado para los préstamos apalancados? Gráfico 2 El auge de la actividad corporativa en los años 80 impulsó el crecimiento de los préstamos apalancados El auge de la actividad corporativa en la década de 1980 impulsó el crecimiento de los préstamos apalancados El auge de la actividad corporativa en la década de 1980 impulsó el crecimiento de los préstamos apalancados Existen dos tipos comunes de facilidades de financiación:2 Préstamos a plazo: Un acuerdo para pedir prestada una suma de dinero que se devuelve según un calendario de pagos determinado. Estos préstamos son proporcionados principalmente por entidades no bancarias. Facilidades revolventes: Un tipo de préstamo que puede ser dispuesto y reembolsado repetidamente. Estos préstamos son en su mayoría originados y mantenidos por bancos. Las estimaciones del tamaño del mercado de préstamos apalancados varían según los criterios y definiciones utilizados. El tamaño del mercado de préstamos apalancados, tras un rápido crecimiento desde el inicio de la última década, se estima en más de $1.2 billones a finales del segundo trimestre de 2020.3 Aunque esto representa solo una pequeña porción de la deuda corporativa total (es solo el 15% del tamaño del mercado de bonos corporativos), las interconexiones entre los participantes clave del mercado y el papel de los bancos en el mercado han llamado la atención de varios reguladores como la secretaria del Tesoro de EE. UU., Janet Yellen, inversores de deuda como Howard Marks, e instituciones internacionales como el Bank For International Settlements (BIS). El foco de sus preocupaciones ha sido el deterioro de los estándares de crédito para los préstamos apalancados – en particular, el incremento en la emisión de préstamos “covenant-lite” (cov-lite), definiciones inconsistentes de EBITDA en los acuerdos de préstamo, el aumento en el uso de “añadidos de EBITDA”,4 y la precisión de las calificaciones de los préstamos apalancados.5 Discutimos algunas de esas preocupaciones en la sección de Riesgos. Tabla 1 Los préstamos arriesgados están principalmente en manos de entidades no bancarias… ¿Es el momento adecuado para los préstamos apalancados? ¿Es el momento adecuado para los préstamos apalancados? Durante las últimas décadas, el papel de los bancos en proporcionar capital al mercado de préstamos apalancados se ha reducido y ha sido reemplazado por prestamistas no bancarios como fondos mutuos, hedge funds, compañías de seguros y gestores de activos.6 Datos del programa Shared National Credit (SNC)7 muestran que las entidades no bancarias en EE. UU. ahora poseen cerca del 83% de todos los préstamos a plazo no investment-grade (Tabla 1). Además, estimaciones del Bank of England8 muestran que una cuarta parte del stock global de préstamos apalancados (que estima en cerca de $3.4 billones) se mantiene a través de obligaciones colateralizadas de préstamos (CLOs)9 y aproximadamente la mitad es propiedad de instituciones no bancarias. A su vez, esas instituciones no bancarias poseen una porción significativa de los CLOs – particularmente los tramos más arriesgados. Esto no significa que los bancos no estén expuestos a los préstamos apalancados. Pero los bancos invierten predominantemente en los tramos más altos, AAA, de los CLOs, y en préstamos con grado de inversión.10 Los préstamos con calificaciones más riesgosas son sostenidos por CLOs, fondos mutuos y otros prestamistas como los hedge funds (Gráfico 3).11 Gráfico 3 …Particularmente aquellos calificados por debajo de BB ¿Es este el momento adecuado para los préstamos apalancados? ¿Es este el momento adecuado para los préstamos apalancados? Riesgo y retorno históricos Gráfico 4 El desempeño relativo de los préstamos apalancados se mueve con las tasas de interés El rendimiento relativo de los préstamos apalancados se mueve con las tasas de interés El rendimiento relativo de los préstamos apalancados se mueve con las tasas de interés Desde 1997, los préstamos apalancados12 han retornado un 4.9% anualizado, 25 puntos básicos por encima de los Treasuries de EE. UU. y aproximadamente 100 y 200 puntos básicos menos que los bonos corporativos investment-grade y high-yield de EE. UU., respectivamente. Han tenido un desempeño inferior a las acciones estadounidenses por 400 puntos básicos anualizados en el mismo periodo. La caída de las tasas durante las últimas dos décadas es la razón más probable por la que los préstamos apalancados han quedado rezagados respecto a sus contrapartes de tasa fija. El desempeño relativo de los préstamos apalancados frente a los bonos investment-grade ha seguido de cerca la trayectoria de los rendimientos del Treasury (Gráfico 4). Aunque el caso no es tan claro para el desempeño relativo frente a los bonos high-yield, la tendencia es similar. Sin embargo, en términos de retorno ajustado por riesgo, debido a la menor volatilidad, los préstamos apalancados superaron tanto a las acciones como a los bonos corporativos high-yield (Tabla 2). No obstante, creemos que la volatilidad está probablemente subestimada dada la elevada curtosis. La mayor asimetría negativa y la curtosis excesiva podrían indicar probabilidades más altas de grandes rendimientos negativos (Gráfico 5).   Tabla 2 Características históricas de riesgo-retorno ¿Es este el momento adecuado para los préstamos apalancados? ¿Es este el momento adecuado para los préstamos apalancados? Gráfico 5 Los retornos de los préstamos apalancados muestran alta curtosis y asimetría negativa Los rendimientos de los préstamos apalancados presentan alta curtosis y sesgo negativo Los rendimientos de los préstamos apalancados presentan alta curtosis y sesgo negativo ¿Por qué deberían los inversores considerar los préstamos apalancados? Gráfico 6 Las tasas en alza apoyan un mayor rendimiento de los préstamos apalancados... Tasas al alza respaldan un mayor rendimiento de los préstamos apalancados... Tasas al alza respaldan un mayor rendimiento de los préstamos apalancados... Nuestros estrategas de bonos de EE. UU. han mostrado que las probabilidades de que los préstamos apalancados superen a los bonos high-yield de tasa fija aumentan cuando se cumplen ciertos criterios – especialmente cuando las valoraciones están inclinadas a favor de los préstamos y los rendimientos del Treasury están subiendo.13 Actualmente solo se cumple el último criterio. En lo que va del año, los préstamos apalancados han retornado 2.2%, por encima del -3.2%, -3.4%, 1.6% y -3.4% de los Treasuries de EE. UU., bonos investment-grade, bonos high-yield y deuda soberana de mercados emergentes, respectivamente (Gráfico 6). Durante el mismo periodo, los rendimientos del Treasury aumentaron 65 puntos básicos. Observamos que los periodos de subida de los rendimientos del Treasury se asocian con mayores flujos hacia la clase de activo (Gráfico 7). Más interesante aún, los préstamos apalancados superan a los bonos basura cuando los rendimientos del Treasury suben más de lo que descuentan las curvas a plazo durante los siguientes 12 meses (Gráfico 8). Gráfico 7 ...Así como mayores flujos hacia los fondos ...Así Como Mayores Flujos de Fondos ...Así Como Mayores Flujos de Fondos Gráfico 8 Los préstamos apalancados se beneficiarán si las tasas aumentan más de lo que descuenta la curva forward Los préstamos apalancados se beneficiarán si los tipos de interés suben más de lo que está descontado en la curva a plazo Los préstamos apalancados se beneficiarán si los tipos de interés suben más de lo que está descontado en la curva a plazo     Sin embargo, hoy esto no parece ser el caso, con el forward a 1 año sobre 5 años aproximadamente 40 puntos básicos por encima del rendimiento actual del Treasury a 5 años. Esto está en línea con nuestra visión de que es poco probable que las tasas suban sustancialmente en los próximos 6 a 12 meses. La inflación, más allá de un pico temporal en los próximos meses, debería mantenerse contenida, al menos hasta que el empleo vuelva a un nivel que ejerza presión al alza sobre los salarios. Esto es improbable antes de 2023. También es importante considerar la trayectoria potencial de la política monetaria así como los cambios en los rendimientos a largo plazo. La Fed, a través de su dot plot, está señalando que no habrá incremento en la tasa de los fondos federales antes de 2024, pero el mercado se está preocupando por las presiones inflacionarias y está anticipando una subida de la Fed antes. Creemos que es improbable que la Fed eleve las tasas antes de lo que el mercado espera, a menos que el mercado laboral vuelva a un nivel de “empleo máximo” en los próximos 12 meses. El rendimiento de los préstamos apalancados ha sido inferior al de los bonos high-yield durante la mayor parte del periodo del que disponemos de datos, salvo a principios de 2020. Dada la posición senior de los préstamos apalancados en la estructura de capital de una empresa, tiene sentido que sus rendimientos sean más bajos. Además, la composición sectorial de los dos mercados juega un papel: los préstamos apalancados están más expuestos a los sectores de Tecnología y Comunicaciones y tienen una asignación limitada (promediando 1% en los últimos siete años) al sector Energía, a diferencia de los bonos high-yield de tasa fija (donde el peso de Energía ha promediado 13%) (Gráfico 9). Esto fue especialmente evidente cuando la diferencia de rendimiento se colapsó por debajo de -3% durante el choque del petróleo de 2014/2015 (Gráfico 10). Gráfico 9 Pesos sectoriales de los préstamos apalancados ¿Es el momento adecuado para los préstamos apalancados? ¿Es el momento adecuado para los préstamos apalancados? Gráfico 10 Los spreads de los préstamos no parecen atractivos Los diferenciales de los préstamos no parecen atractivos. Los diferenciales de los préstamos no parecen atractivos. Gráfico 11 La demanda reciente de inversores elevó los precios de los préstamos apalancados La reciente demanda de inversores elevó los precios de los préstamos apalancados. La reciente demanda de inversores elevó los precios de los préstamos apalancados. Sin embargo, la diferencia de rendimiento ha estado tendiendo al alza desde entonces y, a los precios actuales, el potencial de revalorización puede ser limitado. El reciente aumento de la demanda de inversores ha reducido los rendimientos de los préstamos apalancados recién emitidos, llevando el precio medio de oferta de los préstamos apalancados por encima de su máximo prepandemia (Gráfico 11). En la siguiente sección, analizamos cómo se comportaron los préstamos apalancados durante recesiones y otros periodos de tensión en los mercados financieros.   Tensión en los mercados financieros Desempeño en crisis Dada la corta historia del índice, solo podemos cubrir las últimas tres recesiones (el estallido de la burbuja puntocom, la Crisis Financiera Global (GFC) y la recesión por COVID-19). También analizamos el Taper Tantrum de 2013 y el choque del precio del petróleo de 2014/2015. En todos los casos, los préstamos apalancados cayeron y posteriormente se recuperaron junto con otras clases de renta fija. El Taper Tantrum fue el más favorable para los préstamos apalancados: los rendimientos del Treasury a 10 años subieron 100 puntos básicos en cuatro meses (Gráfico 12). Tabla 3 muestra que los periodos de subida de tipos son un mejor entorno para los préstamos apalancados que los de caída de tipos. También analizamos un periodo de ciclos de endurecimiento y relajación de la Fed –aunque la sincronización de los ciclos de relajación coincide con recesiones, lo que lastró el desempeño de los préstamos apalancados. También evaluamos el impacto de la inflación en los préstamos apalancados usando el marco de nuestro Informe Especial sobre cobertura frente a la inflación,14 que descomponía la inflación en cuatro cuartiles/regímenes: niveles de inflación por debajo de 2.3%, entre 2.3% y 3.3%, entre 3.3% y 4.9%, y por encima de 4.9%. Añadimos a nuestro análisis periodos de inflación decreciente. Observamos, sin embargo, que solo hubo un periodo en que la inflación superó el umbral de 4.9%. Gráfico 12 Los préstamos apalancados se comportaron bien en periodos de tensión crediticia y específica por sector Los préstamos apalancados resistieron bien durante periodos de estrés crediticio y de dificultades específicas por sector Los préstamos apalancados resistieron bien durante periodos de estrés crediticio y de dificultades específicas por sector   Tabla 3 Desempeño de los préstamos apalancados durante diferentes ciclos de tipos... ¿Es el momento adecuado para los préstamos apalancados? ¿Es el momento adecuado para los préstamos apalancados? Tabla 4 ...Y regímenes de inflación ¿Es el momento adecuado para los préstamos apalancados? ¿Es el momento adecuado para los préstamos apalancados? Durante periodos en el primer y segundo cuartil de inflación, los préstamos apalancados, en términos absolutos, tuvieron los mayores retornos anualizados medios, 8.1% y 10% respectivamente. Esto tiene sentido ya que en esos regímenes las tasas de política son bajas y los rendimientos de los bonos comienzan a subir ante un crecimiento sólido. Sin embargo, los préstamos apalancados tuvieron un desempeño inferior al de los bonos de tasa fija durante esos periodos. La inflación por encima del 3.3% representa un entorno en el que la economía comienza a recalentarse y el crecimiento a debilitarse. Este régimen mostró que los préstamos apalancados superaron a los bonos high-yield por 1.5% anualizado. Los periodos de inflación decreciente también mostraron retornos anualizados moderadamente positivos para los préstamos apalancados (Tabla 4).   Riesgos Gráfico 13 La salud corporativa ha empeorado... La salud corporativa ha empeorado... La salud corporativa ha empeorado... El crecimiento del mercado de préstamos apalancados refleja múltiples tendencias pero, lo más importante, un aumento general del apalancamiento corporativo, impulsado por la caída de los tipos de interés y la mayor disponibilidad de financiación barata. La ratio deuda/activos de las empresas no financieras, un indicador del apalancamiento corporativo, está en su nivel más alto en 20 años (Gráfico 13, panel 1). Esto plantea preocupaciones sobre la salud general del sector corporativo –en particular la capacidad de las empresas para atender su deuda– ya que la mediana de la ratio de cobertura de intereses está cerca de un nivel visto por última vez durante la GFC. Esta medida es incluso negativa para las empresas dentro del percentil 25, lo que significa que las compañías en ese grupo carecen de fondos para mantener sus pagos de intereses (Gráfico 13, panel 2). Las tendencias en el mercado de préstamos apalancados muestran un panorama similar. La proporción de préstamos recién emitidos por las empresas más apalancadas –aquellas con una ratio deuda/EBITDA de 6x o superior– ha alcanzado nuevos máximos, llegando al 37% de los nuevos préstamos en el tercer trimestre de 2020 (Gráfico 14). Gráfico 14 ...Incluso para préstamos apalancados ¿Es el momento adecuado para los préstamos apalancados? ¿Es el momento adecuado para los préstamos apalancados? Gráfico 15 Las emisiones cov-lite representan casi el 80% de las nuevas emisiones ¿Es el momento adecuado para los préstamos apalancados? ¿Es el momento adecuado para los préstamos apalancados? Los proveedores de capital tienen parte de la culpa. Incluso con el deterioro de los estándares de crédito, las empresas que buscaban capital pudieron, en su mayor parte, encontrarlo. La proporción de estructuras cov-lite –préstamos que carecen de las cláusulas protectoras presentes en los préstamos tradicionales– sigue creciendo y ahora comprende casi el 80% de las nuevas emisiones (Gráfico 15). Los préstamos cov-lite normalmente no tienen covenants de mantenimiento, requisitos para mantener ciertos ratios como los de apalancamiento o cobertura de intereses.15 En su lugar, incluyen covenants de incurencia que deben cumplirse solo si el emisor desea realizar acciones concretas, como asumir más deuda.16 Esta relajación de los términos de crédito es principalmente una función del aumento de la demanda, especialmente por parte de compradores de CLO y otros inversores institucionales no bancarios, en un entorno de bajos rendimientos. Algunos incluso han advertido que las vulnerabilidades en el mercado de préstamos apalancados podrían causar perturbaciones en el sistema financiero en general. En particular, los recuerdos de la GFC y las preocupaciones sobre el modelo "originar-para-distribuir" –por el cual los bancos originan préstamos pero solo retienen una fracción en sus balances– han llevado a algunos observadores a sugerir que todo esto podría conducir a una expansión de crédito arriesgada y desencadenar una nueva crisis financiera. Gráfico 16 Los préstamos apalancados tienen calificaciones crediticias medias más altas… ¿Es el momento adecuado para los préstamos apalancados? ¿Es el momento adecuado para los préstamos apalancados? No compartimos ese escepticismo. La exposición de los bancos a los préstamos apalancados es principalmente a través de los tramos más altos de los CLOs. Los requisitos de liquidez de los bancos han aumentado desde la GFC y, por tanto, la contagión debería ser mínima en caso de problemas en el mercado de préstamos. Un informe reciente de la Government Accountability Office (GAO) de EE. UU. no encontró evidencia de que la concesión de préstamos apalancados representara una amenaza significativa para la estabilidad financiera.17 Además, casi todos los préstamos apalancados son de primer gravamen, tienen una posición garantizada senior en la estructura de capital, calificaciones crediticias medias superiores a las de los bonos high-yield (Gráfico 16), y tasas de impago más bajas (Gráfico 17). Además, su tasa de recuperación promedio a cinco años del 63% supera al 40% de los bonos senior no garantizados (Gráfico 18). Gráfico 17 ...Tasas de impago más bajas... ...Menores Tasas de Incumplimiento,... ...Menores Tasas de Incumplimiento,... Gráfico 18 ...Y tasas de recuperación más altas que los bonos high-yield ...Y tasas de recuperación más altas que las de los bonos de alto rendimiento ...Y tasas de recuperación más altas que las de los bonos de alto rendimiento   Conclusión En un periodo de tipos de interés ultra bajos y valoraciones estiradas para activos de riesgo, los préstamos apalancados han surgido como una clase de activo interesante para los inversores. Debido a su menor volatilidad, los préstamos apalancados han producido históricamente mayores retornos ajustados por riesgo que los bonos high-yield de tasa fija. Sin embargo, la volatilidad probablemente esté subestimada dada la elevada curtosis. Históricamente, las subidas de los rendimientos del Treasury y un punto de partida de valoración atractivo proporcionaron una señal de sobrerendimiento para los préstamos apalancados. Actualmente solo se cumple uno de esos dos criterios. En los próximos 6 a 12 meses, no creemos que las tasas suban sustancialmente, lo que hace que esta clase de activo sea algo poco atractiva a corto plazo. Sin embargo, la perspectiva a más largo plazo para los préstamos apalancados es atractiva. A medida que la inflación, y por tanto las tasas, aumenten en los próximos dos a tres años, una asignación moderada a préstamos apalancados podría ser una cobertura útil para los inversores.   Amr Hanafy Analista senior amrh@bcaresearch.com   Notas al pie 1 Consulte “LCD Loan Primer – Syndicated Loans: The Market and the Mechanics,” S&P Global Market Intelligence. 2 Consulte “Leverage Lending FAQ & Fact Sheet,” SIFMA, febrero de 2019. 3 Consulte “Federal Reserve Financial Stability Report,” noviembre de 2020. 4 Los “añadidos de EBITDA” suman gastos y ahorros de costos a las ganancias y podrían inflar la capacidad proyectada de los prestatarios para reembolsar sus préstamos. 5 Consulte Todd Vermilyea, “Perspectives On Leveraged Lending,” The Loan Syndications and Trading Association 23rd Annual Conference, Nueva York, 24 de octubre de 2018. 6 Consulte “Global Financial Stability Report: Vulnerabilities in a Maturing Credit Cycle, Chapter 1,” IMF, abril de 2019. 7 El Programa SNC es un programa interinstitucional diseñado para revisar y evaluar el riesgo en los créditos más grandes y complejos compartidos por múltiples instituciones financieras. El Programa SNC está gobernado por un acuerdo interinstitucional entre las tres agencias federales reguladoras bancarias - la Junta de Gobernadores del Sistema de la Reserva Federal (FRB), la Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), y la Office Of the Comptroller Of The Currency (OCC). 8 Consulte “Financial Stability Report,” Bank of England, agosto de 2020. 9 Los CLOs son valores respaldados por activos emitidos por un vehículo de propósito especial que adquiere una cartera de préstamos apalancados. 10 Consulte “Turns Out Leveraged Loans Aren’t a Systemic Risk After All,” Bank Policy Institute, 8 de febrero de 2020. 11 Consulte Seung Jung Lee, Dan Li, Ralf R. Meisenzahl, y Martin J. Sicilian, “The U.S. Syndicated Term Loan Market: Who holds what and when?”, 25 de noviembre de 2019. 12 Para los fines de este informe, usamos el S&P/LSTA Leveraged Loan Index, que sigue el desempeño ponderado por mercado de las carteras institucionales de préstamos apalancados denominadas en dólares. 13 Consulte el US Bond Strategy Report, “The Price Of Safety,” con fecha 27 de enero de 2015. 14 Consulte el Global Asset Allocation Special Report, “Investors’ Guide To Inflation Hedging: How To Invest When Inflation Rises,” con fecha 22 de mayo de 2019. 15 Consulte Eric Goodison And Margot Wagner, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison Llp, “Covenant-Lite Loans: Overview,” agosto de 2019. 16 Consulte Scott Essexx, Alexander Ott, Partners Group, “The Current State Of The Leveraged Loan Market: Are There Echoes Of The 2008 Subprime Market?”, marzo de 2019. 17 Consulte “Financial Stability: Agencies Have Not Found Leveraged Lending To Significantly Threaten Stability But Remain Cautious Amid Pandemic,” United States Government Accountability Office, diciembre de 2020.

Aspectos destacados Gráfico de la semana ¿Se está transfiriendo a Canadá el manto del oso de los bonos? ¿Se está pasando el manto del oso de los bonos a Canadá? ¿Se está pasando el manto del oso de los bonos a Canadá? Bonos del Tesoro de EE. UU.: La subida sostenida de los rendimientos de los bonos estadounidenses ha dejado a los bonos con vencimientos más largos en una posición de sobreventa. Sin embargo, el impulso subyacente del crecimiento y la inflación sigue siendo bajista para los bonos y es probable que la Fed comience a preparar el mercado más adelante este año para una reducción de las compras de activos en 2022. Mantener una postura defensiva a medio plazo respecto a los bonos del Tesoro de EE. UU. (duración por debajo del índice de referencia y una asignación de país con infraponderación). Canadá: La economía canadiense está ganando un impulso positivo significativo, con un ritmo de vacunación más rápido que aumenta el optimismo a pesar de una tercera ola de COVID-19. Ahora vemos un riesgo creciente de que el Banco de Canadá cambie a una postura de política menos acomodaticia en los próximos meses, liderado por una reducción de sus compras de bonos, quizá incluso antes de que la Fed haga lo mismo (Gráfico de la semana). Rebajar la calificación de los bonos gubernamentales canadienses a infraponderación en las carteras globales de renta fija. Bonos del Tesoro de EE. UU.: La pausa que refresca Gráfico 2 La tendencia alcista del rendimiento del Tesoro de EE. UU. se ha detenido La tendencia alcista del rendimiento del UST se ha pausado La tendencia alcista del rendimiento del UST se ha pausado Tras liderar la caída del mercado global de bonos gubernamentales en los últimos meses, los rendimientos de los bonos del Tesoro de EE. UU. se han calmado últimamente. El rendimiento a 10 años del Tesoro ha caído 14 pb desde el pico más reciente de 1,74% alcanzado el 31 de marzo, mientras que el rendimiento del Tesoro a 30 años ha caído 16 pb desde el pico de 2,45% alcanzado el 18 de marzo. Estos movimientos se han concentrado en el componente de rendimiento real, con las expectativas de inflación estables, ya que los rendimientos TIPS a 10 y 30 años han bajado -15 pb y -20 pb, respectivamente, desde las fechas de esos picos en rendimientos nominales (Gráfico 2). La tendencia a la baja de los rendimientos estadounidenses se ha producido en medio de un explosivo repunte de los datos económicos de EE. UU. Las ventas minoristas subieron +9,8% en marzo respecto a febrero y un asombroso +27,7% en términos interanuales. Las encuestas regionales de manufactura de la Fed mostraron resultados muy robustos para abril, con el índice Empire State de Nueva York alcanzando su nivel más alto desde octubre de 2017 y el índice principal de la Fed de Filadelfia disparándose a un nivel no visto desde 1973. Esto sigue a los muy fuertes datos de nóminas y del ISM de marzo publicados a principios de abril. Sin embargo, los datos económicos de EE. UU. no son unánimemente positivos. Las últimas lecturas de la encuesta de confianza del consumidor de la Universidad de Michigan y de la encuesta de optimismo de pequeñas empresas de la NFIB se mantienen muy por debajo de los picos previos a la pandemia (Gráfico 3). La inflación anual del IPC subyacente apenas aumentó 0,2 puntos porcentuales en marzo hasta el 1,6%, un movimiento débil en comparación con el repunte impulsado por el efecto base que llevó la inflación anual del IPC general del 1,7% en febrero al 2,6%. Gráfico 3 Algunos mensajes mixtos de los datos recientes de EE. UU. Algunos mensajes mixtos de los datos recientes de EE. UU. Algunos mensajes mixtos de los datos recientes de EE. UU. Gráfico 4 Menos sorpresas positivas en los datos de EE. UU. Menos sorpresas positivas en los datos de Estados Unidos Menos sorpresas positivas en los datos de Estados Unidos El flujo general de datos económicos de EE. UU. ha sido decepcionante frente a las expectativas elevadas, como lo evidencia la caída casi ininterrumpida del índice de sorpresas de datos de EE. UU. de Citigroup desde su pico en julio de 2020 (Gráfico 4). Este indicador se correlacionaba de forma fiable con el impulso de los rendimientos del Tesoro antes del brote de COVID-19 y ahora, dado el combo alcista de crecimiento derivado del optimismo por las vacunas y el estímulo fiscal, el mercado de bonos vuelve a centrarse en cómo evolucionan los datos de EE. UU. frente a las expectativas y qué significa eso para las futuras acciones de la Fed en materia de política monetaria. La máxima dirección de la Fed sigue enviando un mensaje coherente sobre la política, sin aumentos de tasas esperados antes de 2024 y sin indicios de cuándo podría comenzar la reducción del estímulo cuantitativo (QE). Sin embargo, algunos funcionarios de la Fed han empezado a mostrarse algo más vocales sobre su nivel de comodidad con la postura de política acomodaticia actual y los riesgos asociados para la estabilidad financiera y la inflación. La semana pasada, el presidente de la Fed de Dallas, Robert Kaplan, señaló que le gustaría ver a la Fed comenzar a retirar su apoyo a la economía "a la primera oportunidad". El presidente de la Fed de St. Louis, James Bullard, fue aún más específico, señalando que una vez que la proporción de estadounidenses vacunados alcance niveles de "inmunidad de rebaño" del 75-80%, será el momento para que la Fed debata la reducción del QE. Por el momento, sin embargo, no hay necesidad de que la Fed actúe de forma preventiva. Nuestro Monitor de la Fed, compuesto por datos económicos, de inflación y de mercados financieros que señalarían presión para que la Fed afloje o endurezca la política, se encuentra en un nivel neutral (Gráfico 5). Nuestro descontador de la Fed a 12 meses, que mide el cambio en las tasas de interés en el próximo año que está implícito en la curva de swaps de tipo interbancario overnight de EE. UU. (OIS), está en 7 pb, coherente con una Fed que mantiene el statu quo. La última lectura de este mes de la Encuesta de Distribuidores Primarios de la Fed de Nueva York (y la Encuesta de Participantes del Mercado) no mostró cambios en la expectativa mediana de largo plazo para la tasa de fondos federales del 2,25% que ha prevalecido durante el último año (panel medio), pese a una fuerte recuperación en las expectativas de crecimiento de EE. UU. Gráfico 5 Las valoraciones de los UST están algo tensas Valoraciones de UST algo estiradas Valoraciones de UST algo estiradas El precio de mercado del próximo movimiento de la Fed sigue siendo relativamente benigno, sin expectativa de subida hasta febrero de 2023. Esto sugiere que la pausa en la tendencia de aumento de los rendimientos del Tesoro fue esencialmente el mercado adelantándose un poco al precio de rendimientos a más largo plazo más altos. Esto puede verse al observar diversas medidas de valoración. Por ejemplo, el rendimiento forward a 5 años/5 años del Tesoro ahora se sitúa en 2,4%, que está en el extremo alto del rango de expectativas de la tasa de fondos federales a más largo plazo de la encuesta a distribuidores primarios. Además, varias medidas de la prima por plazo en los rendimientos del Tesoro a 10 años han vuelto a niveles por encima de cero no vistos desde el ciclo de subidas de la Fed de 2016-2018, incluso sin que la Fed haya señalado la necesidad de endurecer la política en respuesta al aumento de las expectativas de inflación. A pesar de estas señales de valoraciones algo tensas a corto plazo para los UST, todavía no hay indicios de que los grandes inversores globales en bonos estén cómodos aumentando su exposición a los Tesoro de EE. UU. Por ejemplo, pese a que los rendimientos de los Treasuries a 10 años (cobertura en euros y yenes) parecen históricamente atractivos en comparación con los rendimientos casi nulos de los bonos del gobierno japonés y los rendimientos negativos de los bonos alemanes, los datos de flujos de capital del Tesoro estadounidense muestran que los inversores extranjeros siguen siendo vendedores netos de Treasuries (Gráfico 6). Es posible que esos compradores extranjeros necesiten más evidencia de una disminución sostenida en la volatilidad de los bonos estadounidenses antes de mover dinero a los Treasuries, donde las pérdidas por duración derivadas de mayores rendimientos podrían anular la ganancia por rendimiento de entrar en bonos estadounidenses. Aunque las valoraciones están algo estiradas para los Treasuries, los aspectos técnicos parecen muy sobrevendidos. Tanto la desviación del rendimiento del Tesoro a 10 años respecto a su media móvil de 200 días, como la tasa de cambio a 6 meses del índice de retorno total Bloomberg Barclays US Treasury, están en niveles que solo se han visto cuatro veces desde 2010 (Gráfico 7). Las encuestas de posicionamiento de duración a clientes de JP Morgan y el índice de sentimiento de Tesoro de Market Vane también se acercan a extremos bajistas posteriores a 2010. Cabe señalar que ambas medidas alcanzaron extremos aún más bajistas durante la segunda mitad del ciclo de endurecimiento de la Fed de 2026-2018, por lo que existe potencial de que el sentimiento sobre los Tesoro se vuelva aún más bajista una vez que la Fed empiece a endurecer la política monetaria, un escenario que parece cada vez más probable en los próximos 6-12 meses. Gráfico 6 Aún no hay demanda extranjera por UST Sin ofertas extranjeras por los USTs (por ahora) Sin ofertas extranjeras por los USTs (por ahora) Gráfico 7 Los UST están técnicamente sobrevendidos USTs Están Técnicamente Sobrevendidos USTs Están Técnicamente Sobrevendidos Seguimos esperando que una economía estadounidense robusta y una inflación al alza obliguen a la Fed a comenzar a preparar el mercado en la segunda mitad de 2021 para una reducción del QE en 2022, con la primera subida de tasas del próximo ciclo de endurecimiento llegando a finales de 2022. Dado que ese resultado parece en gran medida coherente con el precio actual del mercado, en medio de aspectos técnicos sobrevendidos, es probable que los rendimientos del Tesoro continúen moviéndose lateralmente al menos durante las próximas semanas. Sin embargo, hay poco que sugiera que los rendimientos han alcanzado techo y estén a punto de entrar en una nueva tendencia bajista, dado el ritmo acelerado de vacunación en EE. UU. que aumenta el optimismo sobre un eventual fin de la etapa estadounidense de la pandemia. Manténgase defensivo respecto a la exposición a los Tesoro de EE. UU., ya que el aumento cíclico de los rendimientos aún no ha terminado. Conclusión: La subida sostenida de los rendimientos de los bonos estadounidenses ha dejado a los bonos con vencimientos más largos en una posición de sobreventa. Sin embargo, el impulso subyacente del crecimiento y la inflación sigue siendo bajista para los bonos y es probable que la Fed comience a preparar el mercado más adelante este año para la reducción de las compras de activos en 2022. Mantener una postura defensiva a medio plazo respecto a los bonos del Tesoro de EE. UU. (duración por debajo del índice de referencia y una asignación de país con infraponderación). Canadá: Rebajar a infraponderación En un Informe Especial publicado en febrero junto con nuestros colegas de BCA Foreign Exchange Strategy, expusimos el caso para colocar la deuda gubernamental canadiense en "observación de rebaja" en las carteras globales de renta fija.1 Esperábamos que los rendimientos de los bonos canadienses continuaran subiendo junto con el aumento de los rendimientos globales y, por tanto, mantuvimos nuestra recomendación de exposición de duración por debajo del índice de referencia dentro de Canadá. Gráfico 8 Canadá: Un mercado de bonos de alta beta una vez más Canadá: un mercado de bonos de alta beta una vez más Canadá: un mercado de bonos de alta beta una vez más Sin embargo, concluimos que era demasiado pronto para cambiar a una postura de infraponderación total sobre los bonos gubernamentales canadienses con los casos de COVID-19 aún azotando el país, el programa de vacunación comenzando muy lentamente y el programa de QE del Banco de Canadá (BoC) impidiendo que los bonos canadienses volvieran a su estado habitual de "alta beta" dentro de los mercados de bonos de economías desarrolladas. Ahora parece que fuimos demasiado cautelosos en ese aspecto. Los bonos gubernamentales canadienses han sido uno de los mercados con peor desempeño en lo que va del año dentro del índice Bloomberg Barclays Global Government, registrando un retorno en moneda local de -4,1% - peor que el retorno de -3,5% obtenido por los bonos del Tesoro de EE. UU. hasta ahora en 2021.2 Está claro que los bonos gubernamentales canadienses vuelven a ser un mercado más sensible a los movimientos de las tasas de interés globales (Gráfico 8). En ese Informe Especial de febrero, expusimos tres factores que podrían empujar al BoC a pasar a una postura de política menos dovish, y más bajista para los bonos, más rápido de lo que esperábamos. Gran parte de esa lista ya ha comenzado a materializarse. 1) Buenas noticias sobre el despliegue de la vacuna Lamentablemente, Canadá está sufriendo una tercera ola de casos de COVID-19 que ha llevado a la provincia más poblada de la nación, Ontario, a implementar el confinamiento más severo visto hasta ahora durante la pandemia. Sin embargo, el ritmo de vacunación también ha aumentado, con la proporción de canadienses que han recibido al menos una dosis siendo ahora del 21% (Gráfico 9), superior al del conjunto de la Unión Europea (UE). Canadá está administrando ahora más vacunas diarias que tanto el Reino Unido como la UE. El ritmo acelerado de las vacunaciones ya está proporcionando un gran impulso a la confianza económica canadiense. El índice de confianza del consumidor Bloomberg Nanos está en un máximo histórico (Gráfico 10), mientras que la Encuesta de Perspectivas Empresariales del BoC para la primavera de 2021 fue increíblemente sólida. Dos tercios de las empresas de esa encuesta esperan que las ventas superen los niveles previos a la pandemia, incluso con el reciente repunte de casos de COVID-19. Gráfico 9 Mejora en el despliegue de vacunas en Canadá Algunas historias bajistas sobre bonos de ambos lados del paralelo 49 Algunas historias bajistas sobre bonos de ambos lados del paralelo 49 Gráfico 10 Optimismo en auge Optimismo en auge Optimismo en auge La Encuesta de Consumidores del BoC del primer trimestre de 2021 mostró niveles similares de optimismo. El 74% de los canadienses encuestados de entre 25 y 54 años planean participar en niveles de actividad social y económica iguales o superiores a los previos a la pandemia una vez que la mayoría esté vacunada (Gráfico 11). Una mayoría neta (18%) de los encuestados planea gastar más en los tipos de servicios "de alto contacto" no disponibles durante la pandemia, como viajes, cine y comer en restaurantes, una vez que la mayoría esté vacunada (Gráfico 12). Gráfico 11 Los canadienses están listos para divertirse de nuevo Algunas historias bajistas sobre bonos desde ambos lados del paralelo 49 Algunas historias bajistas sobre bonos desde ambos lados del paralelo 49 Todos los datos de encuestas canadienses envían un mensaje claro: un despliegue de vacunación más rápido conducirá a un gasto mucho más rápido por parte de consumidores y empresas. 2) Señales de riesgos para la estabilidad financiera El amor de los canadienses, altamente endeudados, por los bienes raíces siempre ha preocupado al BoC. Aunque una combinación de recorte de las tasas de política a cero y el aumento del QE ayudó a estabilizar los mercados financieros canadienses durante el shock pandémico de 2020, también ha desencadenado un nuevo auge de la especulación inmobiliaria. Según la encuesta de consumidores Bloomberg Nanos, el 67% de los canadienses ahora espera que los precios de la vivienda se revaloricen. La demanda de viviendas ha dado un impulso a la economía canadiense a través de un aumento en los inicios de viviendas nuevas (la inversión residencial representa el 8% del PIB real canadiense), mientras empuja la inflación nacional de los precios de la vivienda nuevamente por encima del 10% (Gráfico 13). Gráfico 12 Un aumento del gasto "de alto contacto" espera a la inmunidad de rebaño canadiense Algunas historias bajistas sobre bonos desde ambos lados del paralelo 49 Algunas historias bajistas sobre bonos desde ambos lados del paralelo 49 A medida que los hogares canadienses ya endeudados contraen más deuda para participar en otra fiesta nacional de compra de viviendas, el BoC debe ahora preocuparse por los riesgos de estabilidad financiera derivados de un aumento demasiado rápido del valor de la vivienda. Gráfico 13 Otro auge inmobiliario canadiense Otro auge inmobiliario canadiense Otro auge inmobiliario canadiense En un discurso reciente, la subgobernadora del BoC, Toni Gravelle, señaló que el BoC tuvo que introducir QE en 2020 para ayudar a combatir la disfunción relacionada con el COVID en una variedad de mercados financieros canadienses, incluidos los bonos gubernamentales donde la liquidez se secó.3 Gravelle también señaló que el BoC comenzaría a reducir el QE una vez que quedara claro que los mercados financieros ya no necesitaban el apoyo del QE. Con las acciones canadienses en auge y los diferenciales de los bonos corporativos canadienses cerca de los niveles más bajos de la última década (Gráfico 14), parece evidente que el BoC puede comenzar a reducir su programa de compra de bonos gubernamentales si ya no es necesario y probablemente esté alimentando otra burbuja inmobiliaria. 3) Estímulo fiscal adicional de gran envergadura El gobierno liberal gobernante de Canadá del primer ministro Justin Trudeau entregó una gran cantidad de estímulo fiscal a la economía canadiense afectada por la pandemia en 2020. En el presupuesto federal 2021/22 anunciado ayer, se introdujo otro gran paquete de gasto, equivalente a 101.000 millones de dólares canadienses o 4,2% del PIB canadiense durante los próximos tres años. El gasto fue descrito como otro paquete de ayuda por COVID, pero incluyó muchos programas a largo plazo como cuidado infantil nacional, aumento del salario mínimo e incremento de las inversiones verdes. Según las proyecciones del último World Fiscal Monitor del FMI, el "empujón fiscal" para Canadá –el cambio en el saldo primario cíclicamente ajustado como proporción del PIB– se proyectó que pasara de un estímulo de +9% en 2020 a un lastre de -2% en 2021 (Gráfico 15). El gasto anunciado en el último presupuesto eliminará efectivamente ese lastre durante los próximos tres años. Esto proporcionará un gran impulso a una economía que ya probablemente verá un fuerte crecimiento pospandemia. Gráfico 14 El QE del BoC ya no es necesario La QE del BoC ya no es necesaria La QE del BoC ya no es necesaria Gráfico 15 Ahora no se espera arrastre fiscal en 2021 Algunas historias bajistas sobre bonos de ambos lados del Paralelo 49 Algunas historias bajistas sobre bonos de ambos lados del Paralelo 49 Gráfico 16 Los rendimientos reales canadienses son demasiado bajos Los rendimientos reales canadienses son demasiado bajos Los rendimientos reales canadienses son demasiado bajos Dada la combinación de aumento de las vacunaciones, el repunte de la confianza, un renovado auge inmobiliario y mercados financieros en alza, será difícil para el BoC mantener su configuración de política actual por mucho más tiempo. Este es un banco central que accedió a hacer QE con reticencia el año pasado y numerosos funcionarios del BoC han declarado –incluso en los peores días de la pandemia global– que comenzarían a retirar la acomodación una vez que ya no fuera necesaria. Los mercados de tasas de interés ya han pasado a descontar un ciclo de endurecimiento completo del BoC. La curva OIS canadiense ahora descuenta el "despegue" (una subida completa de 25 pb) en octubre de 2022, con 163 pb de subidas de tasas descontadas hasta finales de 2024 (Gráfico 16). La trayectoria proyectada de las tasas está por debajo de las previsiones de inflación del BoC hasta 2023. Por tanto, se espera que la tasa de política real implícita canadiense permanezca negativa durante los próximos dos años, aunque el BoC estima que el rango de la tasa de política neutral es del 1,75% al 2,75%, es decir, -0,25% a +0,75% en términos reales después de restar el punto medio de la banda objetivo de inflación del BoC del 1-3%. En otras palabras, los mercados de tasas de interés canadienses son vulnerables a cualquier cambio del BoC en una dirección menos dovish, como parece cada vez más probable en algún momento de los próximos meses. Nuestro Monitor del BoC se está alejando rápidamente de la zona de "se requiere política más acomodaticia" (Gráfico 17), y la rápida mejora en la situación del empleo canadiense sugiere que el BoC estará bajo más presión para comenzar a señalar un camino hacia la retirada del apoyo de la política. Esto comenzará con un anuncio de reducción de las compras de QE, quizás incluso antes de cualquier señal de la Fed de que hará lo mismo (Gráfico 18). Esto justifica una postura más cautelosa sobre la exposición a la renta fija canadiense. Gráfico 17 Rebajar los bonos gubernamentales canadienses a infraponderación Rebajar a infraponderados los bonos del Gobierno de Canadá Rebajar a infraponderados los bonos del Gobierno de Canadá Gráfico 18 ¿Podría el BoC comenzar a reducir antes que la Fed? ¿Podría el BoC comenzar a reducir sus compras de activos antes que la Fed? ¿Podría el BoC comenzar a reducir sus compras de activos antes que la Fed? Aunque un anuncio de reducción del BoC antes que la Fed probablemente presionaría al alza al dólar canadiense frente al dólar estadounidense, sería algo con lo que el BoC podría convivir si la economía estuviera ganando fuerza rápidamente, especialmente porque nuestros estrategas de divisas creen que el "loonie" está infravalorado. Por tanto, estamos rebajando formalmente nuestra asignación estratégica recomendada a los bonos gubernamentales canadienses a infraponderación (2 de 5, ver la tabla en la página 16). También mantenemos nuestra recomendación de exposición de duración por debajo del índice de referencia dentro de las carteras dedicadas a bonos canadienses. También estamos reduciendo la asignación a Canadá a infraponderación en nuestra cartera modelo de bonos y colocando los ingresos tanto en EE. UU. como en la Europa central (ver páginas 14-15). Conclusión: La economía canadiense está ganando un impulso positivo significativo, con un ritmo de vacunación más rápido que aumenta el optimismo a pesar de una tercera ola de COVID-19. Ahora vemos un riesgo creciente de que el Banco de Canadá cambie a una postura de política menos dovish en los próximos meses, liderado por una reducción de sus compras de bonos. Rebajar los bonos gubernamentales canadienses a infraponderación en las carteras globales de renta fija.   Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com Notas al pie 1 Consulte el Informe Especial de BCA Research Foreign Exchange Strategy/Global Fixed Income Strategy, "¿La recuperación canadiense liderará o se rezagará respecto al ciclo global?", fechado el 12 de febrero de 2021, disponible en fes.bcaresearch.com y gfis.bcaresearch.com. 2 Ese rendimiento canadiense es prácticamente el mismo después de cubrirse a dólares estadounidenses, por lo que ese rendimiento en moneda local se puede comparar con el rendimiento del mercado de Tesoro denominado en dólares estadounidenses. 3https://www.bankofcanada.ca/2021/03/market-stress-relief-role-bank-canadas-balance-sheet Recomendaciones La cartera recomendada por GFIS frente al índice de referencia personalizado Algunos relatos bajistas sobre bonos de ambos lados del paralelo 49 Algunos relatos bajistas sobre bonos de ambos lados del paralelo 49 Duración Asignación regional Productos de spread Operaciones tácticas Rendimientos & retornos Rendimientos de bonos globales Rentabilidades históricas

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

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