イールドカーブ

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

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

Highlights Chart 1Inflation Pressures Building As expected, base effects kicked in and pushed 12-month core PCE inflation from 1.37% to 1.83% in March. But a favorable comparison to last year’s depressed price level only explains part of inflation’s jump. Core PCE also rose at an annualized monthly rate of 4.4% in March, one of the highest readings seen during the past few years (Chart 1). Jerome Powell spoke about the Fed’s view of inflation at last week’s FOMC press conference and he reiterated that the Fed views current upward price pressures as transitory, the result of both base effects and temporary bottlenecks resulting from an economic re-opening where demand recovers more quickly than supply. Powell’s message is that the Fed won’t lift rates until the labor market returns to “maximum employment” and it won’t start tapering asset purchases until it sees “substantial further progress” toward that goal. Our view remains that the Fed will see enough improvement in the labor market to start tapering asset purchases in late-2021 or early-2022. It will also begin lifting rates before the end of 2022. As a result, we continue to recommend below-benchmark portfolio duration. Feature Table 1Recommended Portfolio Specification Table 2Fixed Income Sector Performance Investment Grade: Neutral Chart 2Investment Grade Market Overview Investment grade corporate bonds outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 13 basis points in April, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +111 bps. The combination of above-trend economic growth and accommodative monetary policy supports positive excess returns for spread product versus Treasuries. At 149 bps, the 2/10 Treasury slope is very steep and the 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rate sits at 2.26% – almost, but not quite, equal to the lower-end of the 2.3% - 2.5% range that the Fed considers “well anchored”. The message from these two indicators is that the Fed is not yet ready to turn monetary policy more restrictive. Despite the positive macro back-drop, investment grade corporate valuations are extremely tight. The investment grade corporate index’s 12-month breakeven spread is down to its 1st percentile (Chart 2). This means that the breakeven spread has only been tighter 1% of the time since 1995. The same measure shows that Baa-rated bonds have only been more expensive 2% of the time (panel 3). We don’t anticipate material underperformance versus Treasuries, but we see better opportunities outside of the investment grade corporate space. Specifically, we advise investors to favor both tax-exempt and taxable municipal bonds over investment grade corporates with the same credit rating and duration (see page 9). We also prefer USD-denominated Emerging Market Sovereign bonds over investment grade corporates with the same credit rating and duration (see page 8). Finally, the supportive macro environment means we are comfortable adding credit risk to a portfolio. With that in mind, we encourage investors to pick up the additional spread offered by high-yield corporates (see page 6). Table 3ACorporate Sector Relative Valuation And Recommended Allocation* Table 3BCorporate Sector Risk Vs. Reward* High-Yield: Overweight Chart 3High-Yield Market Overview High-Yield outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 70 basis points in April, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +335 bps. In a recent report, we looked at the default expectations that are currently priced into the junk index and considered whether they are likely to be met.1 If we demand an excess spread of 100 bps and assume a 40% recovery rate on defaulted debt, then the High-Yield index embeds an expected default rate of 3.2% (Chart 3). Using a model of the speculative grade default rate that is based on gross corporate leverage (aka pre-tax profits over debt) and C&I lending standards, we can estimate a likely default rate for the next 12 months using assumptions for profit and debt growth. The median FOMC forecast of 6.5% real GDP growth in 2021 is consistent with 31% corporate profit growth. We also assume that last year’s debt binge will be followed by relatively weak corporate debt growth in 2021. According to our model, 30% profit growth and 2% debt growth is consistent with a default rate of 3.4%, very close to what is priced into junk spreads. Given that the large amount of fiscal stimulus coming down the pike makes the Fed’s 6.5% real GDP growth forecast look conservative, and the fact that the combination of strong economic growth and accommodative monetary policy could easily cause valuations to overshoot in the near-term, we are inclined to maintain an overweight allocation to High-Yield bonds. MBS: Underweight Mortgage-Backed Securities outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 11 basis points in April, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +26 bps. The nominal spread between conventional 30-year MBS and equivalent-duration Treasuries tightened 5 bps in April. This spread remains wide compared to levels seen during the past few years, but it is still tight compared to the recent pace of mortgage refinancings (Chart 4). The conventional 30-year MBS option-adjusted spread (OAS) currently sits at 11 bps. This is considerably below the 51 bps offered by Aa-rated corporate bonds, the 33 bps offered by Agency CMBS and the 24 bps offered by Aaa-rated consumer ABS. All in all, the value in MBS is not appealing compared to other similarly risky sectors. In a recent report, we looked at recent MBS performance and valuation across the coupon stack.2 We noted that high coupon MBS have delivered strong excess returns versus Treasuries since bond yields troughed last August, while low coupon MBS have lagged (panel 4). This divergence occurred because the higher coupon securities are less negatively convex and thus their durations didn’t extend as much during the back-up in yields. Looking ahead, we recommend favoring 4% and 4.5% coupons and avoiding 2%, 2.5% and 3% coupons. The higher OAS and less negative convexity of those higher coupon securities will cause them to outperform in an environment of flat or rising bond yields. Lower coupon MBS only look poised to outperform in an environment of falling bond yields, which is not our base case. Chart 4MBS Market Overview Government-Related: Neutral The Government-Related index outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 6 basis points in April, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +72 bps (Chart 5). Sovereign debt underperformed duration-equivalent Treasuries by 19 bps in April, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to +21 bps. Foreign Agencies outperformed the Treasury benchmark by 2 bps on the month, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +34 bps. Local Authority bonds outperformed by 41 bps in April, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +329 bps. Domestic Agency bonds outperformed by 5 bps, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +19 bps. Supranationals outperformed by 3 bps, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +16 bps. We recently took a detailed look at USD-denominated Emerging Market (EM) Sovereign valuation.3 We found that, on an equivalent-duration basis, EM Sovereigns offer a spread advantage over investment grade US corporates. Attractive countries include: Mexico, Russia, Indonesia, Colombia, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and UAE. We prefer US corporates over EM Sovereigns in the high-yield space where there is still some value left in US corporate spreads and where the EM space is dominated by distressed credits like Turkey and Argentina. Chart 5Government-Related Market Overview Municipal Bonds: Overweight Chart 6Municipal Market Overview Municipal bonds outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 17 basis points in April, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +308 bps (before adjusting for the tax advantage). We took a detailed look at recent municipal bond performance and valuation in last week’s report and came to the following conclusions.4 First, the economic and policy back-drop is favorable for municipal bond performance. The recently passed American Rescue Plan includes $350 billion of funding for state & local governments, a bailout that comes after state & local government revenues already exceeded expenditures in 2020 (Chart 6). President Biden has also proposed increasing income tax rates. Though these increases may not pass before the 2022 midterm, the threat of higher tax rates could increase interest in municipal bonds. Second, Aaa-rated municipal bonds look expensive relative to Treasuries (top panel). Muni investors should move down the quality spectrum to pick up additional yield. Third, General Obligation (GO) and Revenue munis offer better value than investment grade corporates with the same credit rating and duration, particularly at the long-end of the curve. Revenue munis in the 12-17 year maturity bucket offer a before-tax yield pick-up versus corporates, while GO munis offer a breakeven tax rate of just 7% (panel 2). Fourth, taxable munis offer a yield advantage versus investment grade corporates (panel 3), one that investors should take advantage of. Finally, high-yield muni spreads are reasonably attractive relative to high-yield corporates, offering investors a breakeven tax rate of 19% (panel 4). Despite the attractive spread, we only recommend a neutral allocation to high-yield munis versus high-yield corporates since high-yield munis’ deep negative convexity makes the sector prone to extension risk if bond yields should rise. Treasury Curve: Buy 5-Year Bullet Versus 2/10 Barbell Chart 7Treasury Yield Curve Overview The Treasury curve bull-flattened in April, even as the economic data continued to surprise on the upside. The 2/10 Treasury slope flattened 9 bps to end the month at 149 bps. The 5/30 slope flattened 5 bps to end the month at 144 bps (Chart 7). As we showed in a recent report, the Treasury curve continues to trade directionally with yields out to the 10-year maturity point.5 Beyond 10 years, the curve has transitioned into a bear-flattening/bull-steepening regime where higher yields coincide with a flatter curve and vice-versa (bottom panel). For now, we are content to stick with our recommended steepener: long the 5-year bullet and short a duration-matched 2/10 barbell. However, we will eventually be close enough to an expected Fed liftoff date that the 5/10 slope will follow the 10/30 slope and transition into a bear-flattening/bull-steepening regime. When that happens, it will make more sense to either position in a steepener at the front-end of the curve (long 3-year bullet / short 2/5 barbell) or a flattener at the long-end of the curve (long 5/30 barbell / short 10-year bullet). We don’t yet see sufficient evidence of 5/10 bear-flattening to shift out of our current recommended position and into these new ones, and so we stay the course for now. TIPS: Overweight Neutral Chart 8TIPS Market Overview​​​​​​ TIPS outperformed the duration-equivalent nominal Treasury index by 52 basis points in April, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +394 bps. The 10-year and 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rates rose 4 bps and 5 bps on the month, respectively. At 2.43%, the 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate is near the top-end of the 2.3% to 2.5% range that is consistent with inflation expectations being well anchored around the Fed’s target (Chart 8). Meanwhile, at 2.26%, the 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rate is just below the target band (panel 3). This week, we are downgrading our TIPS allocation from overweight to neutral for two reasons. First, as noted above, long-maturity breakevens are consistent with the Fed’s target. The Fed has so far welcomed rising TIPS breakeven inflation rates, but it will have an increasing incentive to lean against them if they continue to move up. Second, TIPS breakevens and CPI swap rates are even higher at the front-end of the curve – the 1-year CPI swap rate is currently 2.93% – and there is a good chance that those lofty expectations will not be confirmed by the realized inflation data. In addition to shifting from overweight to neutral on TIPS versus nominal Treasuries, we also book profits on our inflation curve flattener trade (panel 4) and on our real yield curve steepener (bottom panel). The inflation curve will likely stay inverted, but it will have difficulty flattening further unless short-maturity inflation expectations move even higher. The real yield curve may continue to steepen as bond yields rise, but without additional inflation curve flattening it is better to position for that outcome along the nominal Treasury curve. ABS: Overweight Chart 9ABS Market Overview Asset-Backed Securities outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 4 basis points in April, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +19 bps. Aaa-rated ABS outperformed by 4 bps on the month, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +13 bps. Non-Aaa ABS outperformed by 2 bps on the month, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +58 bps. The stimulus from last year’s CARES act led to a significant increase in household savings when individual checks were mailed last April. This excess savings has still not been spent and already the most recent round of stimulus is pushing the savings rate higher again (Chart 9). The large stock of household savings means that the collateral quality of consumer ABS is very high, with many households using their windfalls to pay down debt (bottom panel). Investors should remain overweight consumer ABS and should also take advantage of the high quality of household balance sheets by moving down the quality spectrum.       Non-Agency CMBS: Neutral Chart 10CMBS Market Overview Non-Agency Commercial Mortgage-Backed Securities outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 44 basis points in April, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +121 bps. Aaa Non-Agency CMBS outperformed Treasuries by 36 bps in April, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +50 bps. Meanwhile, non-Aaa Non-Agency CMBS outperformed by 70 bps, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +365 bps (Chart 10). Though returns have been strong and spreads remain attractive, particularly for lower-rated CMBS, we continue to recommend only a neutral allocation to the sector because of the structurally challenging environment for commercial real estate. Even with the economic recovery well underway, commercial real estate loan demand continues to weaken and banks are not making lending standards more accommodative (panels 3 & 4). Agency CMBS: Overweight Agency CMBS outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 38 basis points in April, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +87 bps. The average index option-adjusted spread tightened 4 bps on the month and it currently sits at 33 bps (bottom panel). Though Agency CMBS spreads have completely recovered to their pre-COVID levels, they still look attractive compared to other similarly risky spread products. Stay overweight. Appendix A: Butterfly Strategy Valuations The following tables present the current read-outs from our butterfly spread models. We use these models to identify opportunities to take duration-neutral positions across the Treasury curve. The following two Special Reports explain the models in more detail: US Bond Strategy Special Report, “Bullets, Barbells And Butterflies”, dated July 25, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com US Bond Strategy Special Report, “More Bullets, Barbells And Butterflies”, dated May 15, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Table 4 shows the raw residuals from each model. A positive value indicates that the bullet is cheap relative to the duration-matched barbell. A negative value indicates that the barbell is cheap relative to the bullet. Table 4Butterfly Strategy Valuation: Raw Residuals In Basis Points (As Of April 30TH, 2021) Table 5 scales the raw residuals in Table 4 by their historical means and standard deviations. This facilitates comparison between the different butterfly spreads. Table 5Butterfly Strategy Valuation: Standardized Residuals (As Of April 30TH, 2021) Table 6 flips the models on their heads. It shows the change in the slope between the two barbell maturities that must be realized during the next six months to make returns between the bullet and barbell equal. For example, a reading of 47 bps in the 5 over 2/10 cell means that we would only expect the 5-year to outperform the 2/10 if the 2/10 slope steepens by more than 47 bps during the next six months. Otherwise, we would expect the 2/10 barbell to outperform the 5-year bullet. Table 6Discounted Slope Change During Next 6 Months (BPs) Appendix B: Excess Return Bond Map The Excess Return Bond Map is used to assess the relative risk/reward trade-off between different sectors of the US bond market. It is a purely computational exercise and does not impose any macroeconomic view. The Map’s vertical axis shows 12-month expected excess returns. These are proxied by each sector’s option-adjusted spread. Sectors plotting further toward the top of the Map have higher expected returns and vice-versa. Our novel risk measure called the “Risk Of Losing 100 bps” is shown on the Map’s horizontal axis. To calculate it, we first compute the spread widening required on a 12-month horizon for each sector to lose 100 bps or more relative to a duration-matched position in Treasury securities. Then, we divide that amount of spread widening by each sector’s historical spread volatility. The end result is the number of standard deviations of 12-month spread widening required for each sector to lose 100 bps or more versus a position in Treasuries. Lower risk sectors plot further to the right of the Map, and higher risk sectors plot further to the left. Chart 11Excess Return Bond Map (As Of April 30TH, 2021)   Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “That Uneasy Feeling”, dated March 30, 2021. 2 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “A New Conundrum”, dated April 20, 2021. 3 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Searching For Value In Spread Product”, dated January 26, 2021. 4 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Making Money In Municipal Bonds”, dated April 27, 2021. 5 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The Fed Looks Backward While Markets Look Forward”, dated March 23, 2021.

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

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

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

Highlights Chart 1How Long Until Full Employment? It’s official. The vaccination roll-out is successfully suppressing the spread of COVID-19 throughout the United States and the associated economic re-opening is leading to a surge in activity. Not only did March’s ISM Manufacturing PMI come in at 64.7, its highest reading since 1983, but the economy also added 916 thousand jobs during the month. Interestingly, the 10-year Treasury yield was relatively stable last week despite the eye-catching economic data. This is likely because the Treasury curve already discounted a significant rebound in economic activity and last week’s data merely confirmed the market’s expectations. At present, the Treasury curve is priced for Fed liftoff in September 2022 and a total of five rate hikes by the end of 2023. By our calculations, the Fed will be ready to lift rates by the end of 2022 if monthly employment growth averages at least 410k between now and then (Chart 1). If payroll growth can somehow stay above 701k per month, then the Fed will hit its “maximum employment” target by the end of this year. While a lot of good news is already priced in the Treasury curve, the greatest near-term risk is that the data continue to beat expectations. Maintain below-benchmark portfolio duration. Feature Table 1Recommended Portfolio Specification Table 2Fixed Income Sector Performance Investment Grade: Neutral Chart 2Investment Grade Market Overview Investment grade corporate bonds outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 29 basis points in March, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +98 bps. The combination of above-trend economic growth and accommodative monetary policy supports positive excess returns for spread product versus Treasuries. Though Treasury yields have risen, this does not yet pose a risk for credit spreads. The 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rate remains below the Fed’s target range of 2.3% to 2.5%. We won’t be concerned about restrictive monetary policy pushing spreads wider until inflation expectations are well-anchored around the Fed’s target. Despite the positive macro back-drop, investment grade corporate valuations are extremely tight. The investment grade corporate index’s 12-month breakeven spread is down to its 2nd percentile (Chart 2). This means that the breakeven spread has only been tighter 2% of the time since 1995. The same measure shows that Baa-rated bonds have also only been more expensive 2% of the time (panel 3). We don’t anticipate material underperformance versus Treasuries, but we see better value outside of the investment grade corporate space.1 Specifically, we advise investors to favor tax-exempt municipal bonds over investment grade corporates with the same credit rating and duration. We also prefer USD-denominated Emerging Market Sovereign bonds over investment grade corporates with the same credit rating and duration. Finally, the supportive macro environment means we are comfortable adding credit risk to a portfolio. With that in mind, we encourage investors to pick up the additional spread offered by high-yield corporates. Table 3ACorporate Sector Relative Valuation And Recommended Allocation* Table 3BCorporate Sector Risk Vs. Reward* High-Yield: Overweight Chart 3High-Yield Market Overview High-Yield outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 83 basis points in March, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +263 bps. In last week’s report we looked at the default expectations that are currently priced into the junk index and considered whether they are likely to be met.2 If we demand an excess spread of 100 bps and assume a 40% recovery rate on defaulted debt, then the High-Yield index embeds an expected default rate of 3.4% (Chart 3). Using a model of the speculative grade default rate that is based on gross corporate leverage (aka pre-tax profits over debt) and C&I lending standards, we can estimate a likely default rate for the next 12 months using assumptions for profit and debt growth.  The median FOMC forecast of 6.5% real GDP growth in 2021 is consistent with 31% corporate profit growth. We also assume that last year’s debt binge will be followed by relatively weak corporate debt growth in 2021. According to our model, 30% profit growth and 2% debt growth is consistent with a default rate of 3.4% for the next 12 months, exactly matching what is priced into junk spreads. Given that the Fed’s 6.5% real GDP growth forecast looks conservative given the large amount of fiscal stimulus coming down the pike, and the fact that the combination of strong economic growth and accommodative monetary policy could easily cause valuations to overshoot in the near-term, we are inclined to maintain an overweight allocation to High-Yield bonds. MBS: Underweight Chart 4MBS Market Overview Mortgage-Backed Securities outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 17 basis points in March, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +15 bps. The nominal spread between conventional 30-year MBS and equivalent-duration Treasuries tightened 12 bps in March. This spread remains wide compared to levels seen during the past few years, but it is still tight compared to the recent pace of mortgage refinancings (Chart 4). The MBS option-adjusted spread (OAS) currently sits at 19 bps. This is considerably below the 52 bps offered by Aa-rated corporate bonds, the 38 bps offered by Agency CMBS and the 27 bps offered by Aaa-rated consumer ABS. All in all, the value in MBS is not appealing compared to other similarly risky sectors. The plummeting primary mortgage spread was a key reason for the elevated refi activity seen during the past year. However, the spread has now recovered back to more typical levels (bottom panel). The implication is that further increases in Treasury yields will likely be matched by higher mortgage rates, meaning that mortgage refinancings have probably peaked. The coming drop in refi activity will be positive for MBS returns, but we aren’t yet ready to turn bullish on the sector. First, as mentioned above, value is poor compared to other similarly risky sectors. Second, the gap between the nominal MBS spread and the MBA Refinance Index remains wide (panel 2) and we could still see spreads adjust higher. Government-Related: Neutral Chart 5Government-Related Market Overview The Government-Related index outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 45 basis points in March, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +66 bps (Chart 5). Sovereign debt outperformed duration-equivalent Treasuries by 157 bps in March, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +40 bps. Foreign Agencies outperformed the Treasury benchmark by 8 bps on the month, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +33 bps. Local Authority bonds outperformed by 81 bps in March, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +286 bps. Domestic Agency bonds underperformed by 2 bps, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to +14 bps. Supranationals outperformed by 7 bps, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +13 bps. We recently took a detailed look at valuation for USD-denominated Emerging Market (EM) Sovereigns.3 We found that, on an equivalent-duration basis, EM Sovereigns offer a spread advantage over investment grade US corporates. Attractive countries include: Qatar, UAE, Mexico, Russia and Colombia We prefer US corporates over EM Sovereigns in the high-yield space. Ba-rated high-yield US corporates offer a spread advantage over Ba-rated EM Sovereigns and the lower EM credit tiers are dominated by distressed credits like Turkey and Argentina. Municipal Bonds: Overweight Chart 6Municipal Market Overview Municipal bonds outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 187 basis points in March, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +291 bps (before adjusting for the tax advantage). Municipal bond spreads have tightened dramatically during the past few months and Aaa-rated Munis now look expensive compared to Treasuries, with the exception of the short-end of the curve (Chart 6). That said, if we match the duration and credit rating between the Bloomberg Barclays Municipal bond indexes and the US Credit index, we find that both General Obligation (GO) and Revenue Munis appear attractive compared to US investment grade Credit, with the possible exception of some short-maturity GO bonds. Revenue Munis offer a before-tax yield pick-up relative to US Credit for maturities above 12 years (bottom panel). Revenue bonds in the 8-12 year maturity bucket offer an after-tax yield pick-up versus Credit for investors with an effective tax rate above 13% (panel 3). Revenue bonds in the 6-8 year maturity bucket offer an after-tax yield pick-up versus Credit for investors with an effective tax rate above 24%. GO Munis with 17+ years to maturity offer an after-tax yield pick-up relative to Credit for investors with an effective tax rate above 1%. This breakeven effective tax rate rises to 6% for the 12-17 year maturity bucket, 23% for the 8-12 year maturity bucket (panel 3) and 32% for the 6-8 year maturity bucket. All in all, municipal bond value has deteriorated markedly in recent months and we downgraded our recommended allocation from “maximum overweight” to “overweight” in January. However, investors should still prefer municipal bonds over investment grade corporate bonds with the same credit rating and duration. Treasury Curve: Buy 5-Year Bullet Versus 2/10 Barbell Chart 7Treasury Yield Curve Overview Treasury yields moved up dramatically in March, with the curve steepening out to the 10-year maturity point and flattening thereafter. The 2/10 Treasury slope steepened 28 bps to end the month at 158 bps. The 5/30 slope steepened 7 bps to end the month at 149 bps (Chart 7). As we showed in a recent report, the Treasury curve continues to trade directionally with yields out to the 10-year maturity point.4 Beyond 10 years, the curve has transitioned into a bear flattening/bull steepening regime where higher yields coincide with a flatter curve and vice-versa (bottom panel). For now, we are content to stick with our recommended steepener: long the 5-year bullet and short a duration-matched 2/10 barbell. However, we will eventually be close enough to an expected Fed liftoff date that the 5/10 slope will follow the 10/30 slope and transition into a bear-flattening/bull-steepening regime. When that happens, it will make more sense to either position for a steepener at the front-end of the curve (long 3-year bullet / short 2/5 barbell) or a flattener at the long-end of the curve (long 5/30 barbell / short 10-year bullet). We don’t yet see sufficient evidence of 5/10 bear-flattening to shift out of our current recommended position and into these new ones, and so we stay the course for now. TIPS: Overweight Chart 8TIPS Market Overview TIPS outperformed the duration-equivalent nominal Treasury index by 155 basis points in March, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +341 bps. The 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate rose 22 bps on the month and it currently sits at 2.38%. The 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rate rose 30 bps in March and it currently sits at 2.15%. Despite last month’s sharp move higher, the 5-year/5-year forward breakeven rate is still below the Fed’s target range of 2.3% to 2.5% (Chart 8). This means that the rising cost of inflation protection is not yet a concern for the Fed, and in fact, the Fed would like to encourage it to rise further still. Our recommended positions in inflation curve flatteners and real curve steepeners continued to perform well last month. The 5/10 TIPS breakeven inflation slope was relatively stable, but the 2/10 CPI swap slope flattened 8 bps (panel 4). The 2/10 real yield curve steepened 31 bps in March to reach 169 bps (bottom panel). An inverted inflation curve has been an unusual occurrence during the past few years, but we think it will be the normal state of affairs going forward. The Fed’s new strategy involves allowing inflation to rise above 2% so that it can attack its inflation target from above rather than from below. This new monetary environment is much more consistent with an inverted inflation curve than an upward sloping one, and we would resist the temptation to put on an inflation curve steepener. ABS: Overweight Chart 9ABS Market Overview Asset-Backed Securities underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 4 basis points in March, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to +16 bps. Aaa-rated ABS underperformed by 5 bps on the month, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to +8 bps. Non-Aaa ABS underperformed by 2 bps, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to +56 bps. The stimulus from last year’s CARES act led to a significant increase in household savings when individual checks were mailed last April. This excess savings has still not been spent and now another round of checks is poised to push the savings rate higher again (Chart 9). The large stock of household savings means that the collateral quality of consumer ABS is very high, with many households using their windfall to pay down debt (bottom panel). Investors should remain overweight consumer ABS and take advantage of strong collateral performance by moving down in credit quality. The Treasury department’s decision to let the Term Asset-Backed Loan Facility (TALF) expire at the end of 2020 does not alter our recommendation. Spreads are already well below the borrowing cost that was offered by TALF, and these tight spread levels are justified by strong household balance sheets. Non-Agency CMBS: Neutral Chart 10CMBS Market Overview Non-Agency Commercial Mortgage-Backed Securities underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 10 basis points in March, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to +77 bps. Aaa Non-Agency CMBS underperformed Treasuries by 23 bps in March, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to +14 bps. Meanwhile, non-Aaa Non-Agency CMBS outperformed by 30 bps, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +293 bps (Chart 10). We continue to recommend an overweight allocation to Aaa-rated Non-Agency CMBS and an underweight allocation to non-Aaa CMBS. Even with the expiry of TALF, Aaa CMBS spreads are already well below the cost of borrowing through TALF and thus won’t be negatively impacted. Meanwhile, the structurally challenging environment for commercial real estate could lead to problems for lower-rated CMBS (panels 3 & 4). Agency CMBS: Overweight Agency CMBS outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 10 basis points in March, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +49 bps. The average index option-adjusted spread tightened 5 bps on the month and it currently sits at 38 bps (bottom panel). Though Agency CMBS spreads have completely recovered back to their pre-COVID lows, they still look attractive compared to other similarly risky spread products. Stay overweight. Appendix A: Butterfly Strategy Valuations The following tables present the current read-outs from our butterfly spread models. We use these models to identify opportunities to take duration-neutral positions across the Treasury curve. The following two Special Reports explain the models in more detail: US Bond Strategy Special Report, “Bullets, Barbells And Butterflies”, dated July 25, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com US Bond Strategy Special Report, “More Bullets, Barbells And Butterflies”, dated May 15, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Table 4 shows the raw residuals from each model. A positive value indicates that the bullet is cheap relative to the duration-matched barbell. A negative value indicates that the barbell is cheap relative to the bullet. Table 4Butterfly Strategy Valuation: Raw Residuals In Basis Points (As Of March 31ST, 2021) Table 5 scales the raw residuals in Table 4 by their historical means and standard deviations. This facilitates comparison between the different butterfly spreads. Table 5Butterfly Strategy Valuation: Standardized Residuals (As Of March 31ST, 2021) Table 6 flips the models on their heads. It shows the change in the slope between the two barbell maturities that must be realized during the next six months to make returns between the bullet and barbell equal. For example, a reading of 43 bps in the 5 over 2/10 cell means that we would only expect the 5-year to outperform the 2/10 if the 2/10 slope steepens by more than 43 bps during the next six months. Otherwise, we would expect the 2/10 barbell to outperform the 5-year bullet. Table 6Discounted Slope Change During Next 6 Months (BPs) Appendix B: Excess Return Bond Map The Excess Return Bond Map is used to assess the relative risk/reward trade-off between different sectors of the US bond market. It is a purely computational exercise and does not impose any macroeconomic view. The Map’s vertical axis shows 12-month expected excess returns. These are proxied by each sector’s option-adjusted spread. Sectors plotting further toward the top of the Map have higher expected returns and vice-versa. Our novel risk measure called the “Risk Of Losing 100 bps” is shown on the Map’s horizontal axis. To calculate it, we first compute the spread widening required on a 12-month horizon for each sector to lose 100 bps or more relative to a duration-matched position in Treasury securities. Then, we divide that amount of spread widening by each sector’s historical spread volatility. The end result is the number of standard deviations of 12-month spread widening required for each sector to lose 100 bps or more versus a position in Treasuries. Lower risk sectors plot further to the right of the Map, and higher risk sectors plot further to the left. Chart 11Excess Return Bond Map (As Of March 31st, 2021) Footnotes 1 For a look at alternatives to investment grade corporates please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Searching For Value In Spread Product”, dated January 26, 2021, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “That Uneasy Feeling”, dated March 30, 2021, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Searching For Value In Spread Product”, dated January 26, 2021, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 4 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The Fed Looks Backward While Markets Look Forward”, dated March 23, 2021, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com   Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance

Dear client, In addition to this abbreviated weekly report, we are also sending you an in-depth report on the euro, written by my colleague Mathieu Savary. Mathieu argues that the euro could continue to face some downside in the near-term, creating perfect conditions for a buying opportunity below 1.15. We agree with Mathieu’s assessment and are shorting EUR/JPY this week as a tactical trade. Finally, last week, we held a webcast during which I discussed the key themes that will shape the dollar landscape in the coming months. In case you missed it, you can listen to the replay here. Kind regards, Chester Highlights Being long the dollar is now a consensus trade. A new US infrastructure bill will be positive for US growth. However, the new package also increases the probability that inflation will be higher in the US, which will depress relative real rates. Go short EUR/JPY as a tactical trade. Feature Chart I-1Dollar Sentiment Has Been Reset The DXY index is fast approaching our 94-95 target and it is an open question whether the rally will stall at these levels, or punch through for new highs this year. Historically, the dollar has tended to move in long cycles, with the latest bull and bear markets lasting about a decade or so. If, as we believe, a dollar bear market did indeed commence in 2020, then the historical evidence is that any bounce will be capped around 4-6%. This was the experience of the 2000s. The defining landscape during the latter stages of the dollar bull market in 2018 and 2019 was deteriorating global growth, with financial conditions which remained relatively too tight. The situation today is extremely easy financial conditions and improving global growth. As such, our bias remains that the landscape is more characteristic of a dollar bear market.  Speculators are now long the dollar and our capitulation index is approaching overbought levels (Chart I-1). So while there is scope for the dollar to continue to rise in the near term, the big gains are behind us. US Infrastructure Spending And Bond Yields President Joe Biden’s American Jobs Plan did little to lift US long bond yields. This suggests that most of the improvement to aggregate demand may have already been priced in. The big driver of the US dollar this year has been the improvement in yields, particularly at the long end of the curve. Short yields have remained anchored near zero (Chart I-2). If this improvement in long rates is torpedoed by lack of bi-partisan support for a larger fiscal package, then this will provide less scope for the US dollar to rise. Economically, a large infrastructure package makes sense. The neutral rate of interest in the US is well above the Fed funds target rate. A widening gap suggests underlying financing conditions (short rates) are low relative to the potential growth rate of the economy (long rates). Not surprisingly, this also tends to track the yield curve pretty closely (Chart I-3). This incentivizes banks to lend, and fund these projects. Chart I-2The Move In Rates Has Been On The Long End Chart I-3A Steeping Curve Usually Encourages Lending The feedback loop with the dollar could however be negative. First, while the boost to aggregate demand supports US growth in the short term, there will be spillovers to other countries. The net beneficiaries might also be the countries that have the raw materials needed to realize this infrastructure plan. The proposal has a largely “buy American” tilt, but this will also create sharp domestic shortages as the US is not a manufacturing-based economy. An increase in imports will widen the US trade deficit. Second, the returns on infrastructure investments tend to be large in lower-productivity countries. Meanwhile, the increase in US taxes to fund these deficits will lower the return on capital for US assets. This might limit foreign inflows into US capital markets. Third, the US output gap is slated to close faster than in other economies, meaning the increase in aggregate demand will soon become inflationary. This could further depress real rates in the US. There is a longstanding correlation between US relative real rates and the dollar (Chart I-4). Chart I-4The Dollar Moves With Relative Real Rates Chart I-5The Dollar Is Overvalued Finally, it is important to remember that the starting point for the US dollar is as an expensive currency. According to our PPP models, the dollar is overvalued by over 10% (Chart I-5). This is already manifesting itself in a deteriorating trade balance. It also suggests that should the dollar continue to rise significantly, it will negatively impact US growth. Trading Strategy Amidst Market Uncertainty The near term outlook for the dollar remains bullish. Vaccinations are progressing at the fastest pace in the US and in the UK while the euro area, Canada and Japan are seeing a third wave of infections underway (Chart I-6). New lockdown measures have been implemented in these latter countries, which will further dent their Q2 outlook. While our bias is that these economies eventually benefit as their vaccination program progresses, the dollar remains in a sweet spot for now. Chart I-6AA Third Wave Is Underway Chart I-6BA Third Wave Is Underway Chart I-6CA Third Wave Is Underway One hedge to this scenario is to go short the EUR/JPY cross. First, our Chief European Investment Strategist Mathieu Savary argues that the euro could undershoot to 1.12 in the near term. This suggests that EUR/JPY which faces critical resistance a nudge above 130, will stage a countertrend reversal (Chart I-7). Both EUR/USD and EUR/JPY tend to be positively correlated. Second, European bourses are underperforming those in Japan in common-currency terms. The relative performance of the equity markets have usually moved in lockstep with the currency, but a divergence has opened up (Chart I-8). In fact, given very similar sector compositions across both bourses, this divergence might be down to competitiveness, given the rally in EUR/JPY. Should profits in Europe suffer relative to those in Japan, this will cap EUR/JPY gains (Chart I-9) Chart I-7EUR/JPY Faces Strong Resistance At 130 Chart I-8EUR/JPY Moves With Relative Share Prices   Chart I-9EUR/JPY And Relative Profits Finally, monetary policy is more accommodative in Europe than in Japan. Interest rates are lower, and the ECB’s balance sheet is rising more aggressively. This has historically been accompanied by a lower EUR/JPY exchange rate (Chart I-10). Chart I-10EUR/JPY And Relative Monetary Policy We eventually expect EUR/JPY to break higher, but for now, we are opening a short position in this cross as a portfolio hedge. In line with this view, we are tightening stops on all of our trades this week. The dollar could be set for violent moves in the coming weeks. Stay tuned.   Chester Ntonifor Foreign Exchange Strategist chestern@bcaresearch.com Trades & Forecasts Forecast Summary Core Portfolio Tactical Trades Limit Orders Closed Trades

  The BCA Research Global Asset Allocation (GAA) Forum will take place online on May 18th. We have put together a great lineup of speakers to discuss issues of importance to CIOs and asset allocators. These include the latest thinking on portfolio construction, factor investing, alternatives, and ESG. Our keynote speaker will be Keith Ambachtsheer, founder of KPA Advisory and author of many books on investment management including "The Future of Pension Management: Integrating Design, Governance and Investing" (2016). His presentation will be followed by a panel discussion of top CIOs including Maxime Aucoin of CDPQ, James Davis of OPTrust, and Catherine Ulozas of the Drexel University Endowment. The event is complimentary for all GAA subscribers, who can see a full agenda and register here. Others can sign up here. We hope you can join us on May 18th for what should be a stimulating and informative day of ideas and discussion. Highlights Recommended Allocation Global growth will rebound later this year, fueled by an end of lockdowns and generous fiscal stimulus. Despite that, central banks will not move towards tightening until 2023 at the earliest. This remains a very positive environment for risk assets like equities, though the upside is inevitably limited given stretched valuations. We continue to recommend a risk-on position, with overweights in equities and higher-risk corporate bonds. It is unlikely that long-term rates will rise much further over the coming months. But there is a risk that they could, and so we become more wary on interest-sensitive assets. Accordingly, we cut our overweight on the IT sector to neutral, and go overweight Financials. We continue to prefer cyclical sectors, and stay overweight Industrials and Energy. Chinese growth is slowing and so we cut our recommendation on Chinese equities to underweight. Some Emerging Markets will suffer from tighter US financial conditions, so we would be selective in our positions in both EM equity and debt. We stay firmly underweight government bonds, and recommend an underweight on duration, and favor linkers. Within alternatives, we raise Private Equity to overweight. The return to normality will give PE funds a wider range of opportunities, and allow them to pick up distressed assets at attractive valuations. Overview What Higher Rates Mean For Asset Allocation The past few months have seen a sharp rise in long-term interest rates everywhere (Chart 1). These have reflected better growth prospects, but also a greater appreciation of the risk of inflation over the next few years (Chart 2). Our main message in this Quarterly Portfolio Outlook is that we do not expect long-term rates to rise much further over the coming months, but that there is a risk that they could. This would be unlikely to undermine the positive case for risk assets overall, but it would affect asset allocation towards interest-rate sensitive assets such as growth stocks and Emerging Markets, and could have an impact on the US dollar. Chart 1Rates Are Rising Everywhere Chart 2...Because Of Both Growth And Inflation Expectations     We accordingly keep our recommendation for an overweight on equities and riskier corporate credit on the 12-month investment horizon, but are tweaking some of our other allocation recommendations. The macro environment for the rest of the year continues to look favorable. Pent-up consumer demand will be released once lockdowns end. In the US, this should be mid-July by when, at the current rate, the US will have vaccinated enough people to achieve herd immunity (Chart 3). Excess household savings in the major developed economies have reached almost $3 trillion (Chart 4). At least a part of that will be spent when consumers can go out for entertainment and travel again. Chart 3US On Track To Hit Herd Immunity By July Chart 4Global Excess Savings Total Trillion     Fiscal stimulus remains generous, especially in the US after the passing of the $1.9 trillion package in March (with another $2 trillion dedicated towards infrastructure spending likely to be approved within the next six months). The OECD estimates that the recent US stimulus alone will boost US GDP growth by almost 3 percentage points in the first full year and have a significant knock-on effect on other economies (Chart 5). Central banks, too, remain wary of the uneven and fragile nature of the recovery and so will not move towards tightening in the next 12 months. The Fed is not signalling a rate hike before 2024 – and it is likely to be the first major central bank to raise rates. In this environment, it is not surprising that long-term rates have risen. We showed in March’s Monthly Portfolio Update that, since 1990, equities have almost always performed strongly when rates are rising. This is likely to continue unless there is either (1) an inflation scare, or (2) the Fed turns more hawkish than the market believes is appropriate. Inflation could spike temporarily over the coming months, which might spook markets (see What Our Clients Are Asking on page 9 for more discussion of this). But sustained inflation is improbable until the labor market recovers to a level where significant wage increases come through (Chart 6). This is unlikely before 2023 at the earliest. Chart 5US Fiscal Stimulus Will Help Everyone Chart 6Labor Market Still Well Away From Full Employment   BCA Research’s fixed-income strategists do not see the US 10-year Treasury yield rising much above 1.8% this year.1 Inflation expectations should settle down around the current level (shown in Chart 2, panel 2) which is consistent with the Fed achieving its 2% PCE inflation target on average over the cycle. Treasury yields are largely driven by whether the Fed turns out to be more or less hawkish than the market expects (Chart 7). The market is already pricing in the first Fed rate hike in Q3 2022 (Chart 8). We think it unlikely that the market will start to price in an earlier hike than that. Chart 7The Fed Unlikely To Hike Ahead Of What Market Expects... Chart 8...Since This Is As Early As Q3 2022 How much would a further rise in rates hurt the economy and stock market? Rates are still well below a level that would trigger problems. First, long-term rates are considerably below trend nominal GDP growth, which is around 3.5% (Chart 9). Second, short-term real rates are well below r* – hard though that is to measure at the moment given the volatility of the economy in the past 12 months (Chart 10). Finally, one of the best indicators of economic pressure is a decline in cyclical sectors (consumer spending on durables, corporate capex, and residential investment) as a percentage of GDP (Chart 11). This is because these are the most interest-rate sensitive parts of the economy. But, at the moment, consumers are so cashed up they do not need to borrow to spend. The same is true of corporates, which raised huge amounts of cash last year. The only potential problem is real estate, buoyed last year by low rates which are now reversing (Chart 12). But mortgage rates are still very low and this is not a big enough sector to derail the broader economy. Chart 9Long-Term Rates Well Below Damaging Levels... Chart 10...Such As The R-Star   Chart 11Interest-Rate Sensitive Sectors Are Robust... Chart 12...With The Possible Exception Of Housing   Chart 13Debt Levels Are High In Emerging Markets... Chart 14...Which Makes Them Vulnerable To Tightening Financial Conditions         This sanguine view may not apply to Emerging Markets, however. Given the amount of foreign-currency debt they have built up in the past decade (Chart 13), they are very sensitive to US financial conditions, particularly a rise in rates and an appreciation of the US dollar (Chart 14). Accordingly, we have become more cautious on the outlook for both EM equity and debt over the next 6-12 months.   Garry Evans, Senior Vice President Chief Global Asset Allocation Strategist garry@bcaresearch.com   What Our Clients Are Asking What will happen to inflation? How can we tell if it is trending up? Chart 15Watch The Trimmed Mean Inflation Measure How much inflation rises will be a key driver of asset performance over the next 12-18 months. Too much inflation will push up long-term rates and undermine the case for risk assets. But the picture is likely to be complicated. US inflation will rise sharply in year-on-year terms in March and April because of the base effect (comparison with the worst period of the pandemic in 2020), pricier gasoline, rising import prices due to the weaker dollar, and supply-chain bottlenecks that are pushing up manufacturing costs. Core PCE inflation could get close to 2.5% year-on-year (Chart 15, panel 1). In the second half, too, an end to lockdowns could push up service-sector inflation – which has unsurprisingly been weak in the past nine months – as consumers rush out to restaurants and on vacation (panel 3). The Fed has signalled that it will view these as temporary effects. But they may spook the market for a while. Next year, however, it would be surprising to see strong underlying inflation unless employment makes a miraculous recovery. Payrolls would have to increase by 420,000 a month to get back to “maximum employment” by end-2022.2 Absent that, wage growth is likely to stay muted. Conventional inflation gauges may not be very useful at indicating underlying inflation pressures, in a world where consumers switch their spending depending on what is currently allowed under pandemic regulations. The Dallas Fed’s Trimmed Mean Inflation indicator (which excludes the 31% of the 178 items in the consumer basket with the highest price rises each month, and the 24% with the lowest) may be the best true measure. Research shows that historically it has been closer to trend headline PCE inflation in the long run than the core inflation measure, and predicts future inflation better (panel 4). Currently it is at 1.6% year-on-year and trending down. Investors should focus on this measure to see whether rising inflation is becoming a risk.   How can investors best protect against rising inflation? In May 2019 we released a report describing how to best to hedge against inflation.3 In that report, we analyzed every period of rising inflation dating back to the 1970s. Our conclusions were the following: The level of inflation will determine how rising inflation affects assets. When inflation goes from 1% to 2%, the macro environment is entirely different from when it goes from 5% to 6%. Thus, inflation hedging should not be thought of as a static exercise but a dynamic one (Table 1). Table 1Winners During Different Inflationary Regimes As long as the annual inflation rate is below about 3%, equities tend to be the best performing asset during high inflation periods, surpassing even commodities. This is because monetary policy tends to stay accommodative and cost pressures remain benign for most companies. However, as inflation passes this threshold, things start to change. Central banks start to become restrictive as they seek to curb inflation. This rise in policy rates starts to choke off the bull market. Meanwhile cost pressures become more significant and, as a result, equities begin to suffer. It is at this time when commodities – particularly oil and industrial metals – and US TIPS become a much better asset to hold. Finally, if the central bank fails to quash inflation, inflation expectations become unanchored, creating a toxic cocktail of rising prices and poor growth. During such periods, the best strategy is to hold the most defensive securities in each asset class, such as Health Care or Utilities within the equity market, or gold within commodities.   Can the shift to renewables drive a new commodities supercycle? Chart 16The Shift To Renewables Is Likely To Be A Tailwind For Metal Prices... The rise in commodity prices in H2 2020 has made investors ask whether we are on the verge of a new commodities “supercycle” (Chart 16). Our Commodity & Energy strategists argue that the fundamental drivers of each commodities segment differ. Here we focus on industrial metals – particularly those pertaining to renewable energy and transport electrification. Prices of metals used in electric vehicles (EVs) have risen by an average 53% since July 2020, reflecting strong demand that is outstripping supply (Chart 16). In the short-term, metals markets are likely to be in deficit, especially as demand recovers after the pandemic. Modelling longer-term demand is tricky since it relies on assumptions for the emergence of new technologies, metals’ efficiency, recycling rates, and the share of renewables. A study by the Institute for Sustainable Futures showed that, in the most positive scenarios, demand for some metals will exceed available resources and reserves (Table 2).4 The most pessimistic scenarios – which, for example, assume no major electrification of the transport system – show demand at approximately half of available resources. It is likely that demand will lay somewhere between those scenarios. Table 2...As Future Demand Exceeds Supply Supply is concentrated in a handful of countries: For example, the DR Congo is responsible for more than 65% of cobalt production and 50% of the world’s reserves;5 Australia supplies almost 50% of the world’s lithium and has 22% of its reserves.6 Production bottlenecks could therefore put significant upside pressures on prices. Factoring in supply/demand dynamics, as well as an assessment of future technological advancements, we conclude that industrial metals might be posed for a bull market over the upcoming years.   How can we add alpha in the bond bear market? Chart 17Government Bond Yield Sensitivities To USTs For a portfolio benchmarked to the global Treasury index, one way to add alpha is through country allocation. BCA’s Fixed Income Strategy recommends overweighting low yield-beta countries (Germany, France, and Japan) and underweighting high yield-beta countries (Canada, Australia, and the UK).7 The yield beta is defined as the sensitivity of a country’s yield change to changes in the US 10-year Treasury yield, as shown in Chart 17. BCA’s view is that the Fed will be the first major central bank to lift interest rate, therefore investors' underweights should be concentrated in the US Treasury index. It’s worth noting, however, that yield beta is influenced by many factors, and can change over time. When applying this approach, it’s important to pay attention to key factors in each country, especially those that are critical to central bank policy decisions (Table 3). Table 3A Watch List For Bond Investors Global Economy Chart 18US Growth Already Looks Strong... Overview: Growth continues to recover from the pandemic, although the pace varies. Manufacturing has rebounded strongly, as consumers spend their fiscal handouts on computer and household equipment, but services remain very weak, especially in Europe and Japan. Successful vaccination programs and the end of lockdowns in many countries should lead to strong growth in H2, as consumers spend their accumulated savings and companies increase capex to meet this demand. Perhaps the biggest risk to growth is premature tightening in China, but the authorities there are very aware of this risk and so it is unlikely to drag much on global growth. US: Although the big upside surprises to economic growth are over (Chart 18, panel 1), the US continues to expand more strongly than other major economies, due to its relatively limited lockdowns and large fiscal stimulus (which last year and this combined reached 25% of GDP, with another $2 trillion package in the works). Fed NowCasts suggest that Q1 GDP will come in at around 5-6% quarter-on-quarter annualized, with the OECD’s full-year GDP growth forecast as high as 6.5%. Nonetheless, there is still some way to go: Consumer expenditure and capex remain weak by historical standards, and new jobless claims in March still averaged 727,000 a week. Euro Area: More stringent pandemic regulations and slow vaccine rollout mean that the European service sector has been slow to recover. The services PMI in March was still only 48.4, though manufacturing has rebounded strongly to 64.2 (Chart 19, panel 1). Fiscal stimulus is also much smaller than in the US, with the EUR750 billion approved in December to be spent mostly on infrastructure over a period of years. Growth should rebound in H2 if lockdowns end and the vaccination program accelerates. But the OECD forecasts full-year GDP growth of only 3.9%. Chart 19...But Chinese Growth Has Probably Peaked Japan has seen the weakest rebound among the major economies, slightly puzzlingly so given its heavy weight in manufacturing and large exposure to the Chinese economy. Industrial production still shrank 3% year-on-year in February (Chart 19, panel 2), exports were down 4.5% YoY in February, and the manufacturing PMI is barely above 50. The main culprit remains domestic consumption, with confidence very weak and wages still declining, leading to a 2.4% YoY decline in retail sales in January. The OECD full-year GDP growth forecast is just 2.4%. Emerging Markets: The Chinese authorities have been moderately tightening policy for six months and this is starting to impact growth. Both the manufacturing and services PMIs have peaked, though they remain above 50 (panel 3). The policy tightening is likely to be only moderate and so growth this year should not slow drastically. Nonetheless, there remains the risk of a policy mistake. Elsewhere, many EM central banks are struggling with the dilemma of whether to cut rates to boost growth, or raise rates to defend a weakening currency. Real policy rates range from over 2% in Indonesia to below -2% in Brazil and the Philippines. This will add to volatility in the EM universe. Interest Rates: Policy rates in developed economies will not rise any time soon. The Fed is signalling no rise until 2024 (although the futures are now pricing in the first hike in Q3 2022). Other major central banks are likely to wait even longer. A crucial question is whether long-term rates will rise further, after the jump in the US 10-year Treasury yield to a high of 1.73%, from 0.92% at the start of the year. We see only limited upside in yields over the next nine months, as underlying inflation pressures should remain weak and central banks will remain highly reluctant to bring forward the pace of monetary policy normalization.   Global Equities Chart 20Has The Equity Market Priced In All The Earnings Growth? The global equities index eked out a 4% gain in Q1 2021, completely driven by a rebound in the profit outlook, since the forward PE multiple slightly contracted by 4%. Forward EPS has now recovered to the pre-pandemic level, while both the index level and PE multiple are 52% and 43% higher than at the end of March 2020 (Chart 20). While BCA’s global earnings model points to nearly 20% earnings growth over the next 12 months and analysts are still revising up earnings forecasts, the key question in our mind is whether the equity market has priced in all the earnings growth. Equity valuations are still not cheap by historical standards despite the small contraction in PEs in Q1. In addition, the VIX index has come down to 19.6, right at its historical average since January 1990, and profit margins in both EM and DM have come under pressure. As an asset class, however, stocks are still attractively valued compared to bonds (panel 5). Given our long-held approach of taking risk where risk will most likely be rewarded, we remain overweight equities versus bonds at the asset-class level, but we are taking some risk off the table in our country and sector allocations by downgrading China to underweight (from overweight) and upgrading the UK to overweight (from neutral), and by taking profits in our Tech overweight and upgrading Financials to overweight (see next two pages). To sum up, we are overweight the US and UK, underweight Japan, the euro area, and China, while neutral on Canada, Australia, and non-China EM. Sector-wise, we are overweight Industrials, Financials, Energy, and Health Care; underweight Consumer Staples, Utilities, and Real Estate; and neutral on Tech, Consumer Discretionary, Communication Services, and Materials.   Country Allocation: Downgrade China To Underweight From Overweight Chart 21China Is Risking Overtightening We started to separate the overall EM into China and Other EM in the January Monthly Portfolio Update this year. We initiated China with an Overweight and “Other EM” with a Neutral weighting in the global equity portfolio. The key rationale was that Chinese growth would remain strong in H1 2021 due to its earlier stimulus, while some EM countries would benefit from Chinese growth but others were still suffering from structural issues. In Q1, China underperformed the global benchmark by 4.5%, while the other EM markets underperformed slightly. China’s National People’s Congress (NPC) indicated that Chinese policymakers will gradually pull back policy support this year. BCA’s China Investment Strategists think that fiscal thrust will be neutral in 2021 while credit expansion will be at a lower rate compared to 2020. The Chinese economy should remain strong in H1 but will slow to a benign and managed growth rate afterwards. Therefore, the risk of policy overtightening is not trivial and could threaten China’s economic growth and corporate profit outlook. The outperformance of Chinese stocks since the end of 2019 has been largely driven by multiple expansion (Chart 21, panel 1), but the slowdown in the credit impulse implies that the recent underperformance of Chinese equities has not run its course because multiple contraction will likely have to catch up and will therefore put more downward pressure on price (panels 2 and 3). We remain neutral on the non-China EM countries, implying an underweight for the overall EM universe. We use the proceeds to fund an upgrade of the UK to Overweight from Neutral because the UK index is comprised largely of globally exposed companies and because we have upgraded GBP to overweight (see page 21).   Sector Allocation: Upgrade Financials To Overweight By Downgrading Tech To Neutral Chart 22Financials And Tech: Trading Places One year ago, we upgraded Tech to overweight and downgraded Financials to neutral given our views on the impact of the pandemic and interest rates.8 This position has netted out an alpha of 1123 basis points in one year. BCA Research’s House View now calls for somewhat higher global interest rates and steeper yield curves (especially in the US) over the next 9-12 months. Accordingly, we are downgrading Tech to neutral and upgrading Financials to overweight. Financials have outperformed the broad market by about 20% since September 2020 after global yields bottomed in July 2020. We do not expect yields to rise significantly from the current level, nor do we expect Tech earnings growth to slow significantly (Chart 22, panel 5). So why do we make such shift between Financials and Tech? There are three key reasons: First, the Tech sector is a long-duration asset with high sensitivity to changes in the discount rate. In contrast, Financials’ earnings benefit from steepening yield curves. If history is any guide, we should see more aggressive analyst earnings revisions going forward in favor of Financials (Chart 22, panel 3). Second, the performance of Financials relative to Tech has been on a long-term structural downtrend since the Global Financial Crisis. A countertrend rebound to the neutral zone from the currently very oversold level would imply further upside (Chart 22, panel 1). Last, Financials are trading at an extremely large discount to the Tech sector (Chart 22, panel 2). In an environment where overall equity valuations are stretched by historical standards, it is prudent to rotate into an extremely cheap sector from an extremely expensive sector.   Government Bonds Chart 23Policy Mix Is Bond-Bearish Maintain Below-Benchmark Duration. Global bond yields have climbed sharply in Q1, supported by strong economic growth, mostly smooth rollout of vaccination and the Biden Administration’s very stimulative fiscal package of USD1.9 trillion. The US stimulus package changes the trajectory of the 2021 US fiscal impulse from a $0.8 trillion contraction to a $0.3 trillion expansion, according to estimates from the US Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. Going forward, the path of least resistance for global yields is still up, though the upside will be limited given the resolve of central banks to maintain accommodative monetary policies (Chart 23). Chart 24Stay Long TIPS Still Favor Linkers Vs. Nominal Bonds. Our overweight position in inflation-linked bonds relative to nominal bonds has panned out well so far this year, as has our positioning for a flattening inflation-protection curve. Even though inflation expectations have run up quickly, the 5 year-5 year forward inflation breakeven rate is still below 2.3-2.5%, the range that is consistent with core PCE reaching the Fed’s 2% target in a sustainable fashion (Chart 24). The US TIPS 5/10-year curve is inverted already, but our fixed income strategists are still reluctant to exit the curve-flattening position for two key reasons: 1) The Fed has indicated that it will tolerate core PCE overshooting the 2% target because it will try to hit the target from above rather than from below; and 2) the short end of the inflation expectation curve is more sensitive to actual inflation than the long end. There are signs (core producer prices, prices paid in the ISM manufacturing survey, and NFIB reported prices are all rising) that core PCE will reach 2% in the next 12 months.   Corporate Bonds Chart 25High-Yield Offers Best Value In Fixed Income Since the beginning of the year, investment-grade bonds have outperformed duration-matched Treasurys by 62 basis points, while high-yield bonds have outperformed duration-marched Treasurys by 232 basis points. In the current reflationary environment, we believe that the best strategy within fixed-income portfolios is to overweight low-duration assets and maximize credit exposure where the spread makes a large portion of the yield. Thus, we remain overweight high-yield bonds. We believe that high yield offers much better value than higher quality credits. Currently spreads for high-yield bonds are in the middle of their historical distribution – a stark contrast from their investment-grade counterparts, which are trading at very expensive levels (Chart 25, panel 1). Moreover, the reopening of the economy should help the more cyclical sectors of the bond market, where the lower credit qualities are concentrated. But could a rise in yields start hurting sub-investment-grade companies and increase their borrowing costs? We do not think this is likely for now. Most of the bonds in the US high-yield index mature in more than three years, which means that high-risk corporates will not have to finance themselves with higher rates yet (Chart 25, panel 2). On the other hand, we remain underweight investment-grade credit. Not only are these bonds expensive, but they offer very little upside in any scenario. On the one hand, these bonds should underperform further if raise continue to rise – a result of their high duration. On the other hand, if a severe recession were to hit, spreads would most likely widen, which will also result in underperformance.   Commodities Chart 26Limited Upside For Oil From Here Energy (Overweight): Despite the recent mid-March selloff, which was most likely triggered by profit taking, oil prices are still up 25% since the beginning of the year. This happened on the back of the restoration of some economic activity, the OPEC 2.0 coalition maintaining production discipline and therefore keeping supply in check, and the recovery in crude demand drawing down inventory. However, earlier forecasts of the 2021 oil demand recovery were a bit too optimistic amid continuing pandemic uncertainty. There is now, therefore, only limited upside for the oil price, at least this year. Our Commodity & Energy strategists expect the Brent crude price to average $65/bbl this year (Chart 26, panels 1 & 2). Industrial Metals (Neutral): We have previously highlighted that Chinese restocking activity in 2020 was a big factor behind the rally in industrial metals prices. As this eases, and Chinese growth slows, commodity prices might correct somewhat in the short term. However, fundamental changes in demand for alternative energy makes us ask whether we are now entering a new commodities “supercycle” for certain metals (for more analysis of this, see What Our Clients Are Asking on page 11). If history is any guide, however, the commodities bear market may have a little longer to run. Historically, commodity bear cycles lasted 17 years on average and we are only 10 years into this one (panel 3). On balance, therefore, we remain neutral on industrial metals for now. Precious Metals (Neutral): After peaking last August, the gold price has continued to tumble, down almost 19% since and 11% since the beginning of the year. We have been wary of the metal’s lofty valuation – the real price of gold remains near a historical high. The recent rise in real rates put more downside pressure on gold. However, the pullback in prices should provide investors who see gold as a long-term inflation hedge and do not buy the metal with a view to strong absolute performance over the next 12 months, with an attractive entry point. We maintain a slight overweight position to hedge against inflation and unexpected tail risks (panel 4).   Currencies US Dollar Chart 27Vaccinations will help USD and GBP in 2021 While we still believe that the dollar is in a major bear market, the current environment could see a significant dollar countertrend. Thanks to its gargantuan fiscal stimulus as well as its relatively fast vaccination campaign, the US is likely to grow faster than the rest of the world during 2021 (Chart 27, panel 1). This dynamic should put further upward pressure on US real rates relative to the rest of the world, helping the dollar in the process. To hedge this risk, we are upgrading the US dollar from underweight to neutral in our currency portfolio. Euro The euro should experience a temporary pullback. Economic activity in Europe, particularly in the service sector is lagging the US – a consequence of Europe’s slow vaccination campaign. This sluggishness in economic activity will translate into a worse real rate differential vis-a-vis the US, dragging the euro lower in the process. Thus, we are downgrading the euro from overweight to neutral. British Pound One currency that might perform well in this environment is the British pound. Consumer spending in the UK was particularly hard hit during the pandemic, since such a high share of it is geared towards social activities like restaurants and hotels (Chart 27, panel 2). However, thanks to Britain’s successful vaccination campaign, UK consumption is likely to experience a sharp snapback. As growth expectations improve, real rates should grind higher vis-à-vis the rest of the world, pushing the pound higher. Moreover, valuations for this currency are attractive: The pound currently trades at a 10% discount to purchasing power parity fair value. As a result, we are upgrading the GBP from neutral to overweight.   Alternatives Chart 28Turning More Positive On Private Equity Return Enhancers: In last October’s Quarterly Outlook, we advised investors to prepare for new opportunities in Private Equity (PE) as fund managers look to deploy record high dry power. A gradual return to normality is likely to provide PE funds with a wider range of opportunities, while still allowing them to pick up distressed assets at attractive valuations. This is illustrated by the annualized quarterly returns of PE funds in Q2 and Q3 2020, which reached 43% and 56% respectively. PE funds raised in recession and early-cycle years tend to have a higher median net IRR than those raised in the latter stages of bull markets. This suggests that returns from the 2020 and 2021 vintages should be strong. In recent years, capital flows have increasingly gone to the longer established and larger funds, which tend to have better access to the most attractive deals and therefore record the strongest returns. This trend is likely to continue. Given the time it takes to shift allocations in private assets, we increase our recommended allocation in PE to overweight. Inflation Hedges: It is not clear that inflation will come roaring back in the next couple of years. But what is certain is that market participants are concerned about this risk, which should give a boost to inflation-hedge assets. Given this backdrop, we continue to favor commodity futures (Chart 28, panel 2). In other circumstances, real estate would also have been a beneficiary in this environment. But the slowdown in commercial real estate, as many corporate tenants review whether they need expensive city-center space, makes us remain cautious on real estate. Volatility Dampeners: We continue to favor farmland and timberland over structured products, particularly mortgage-backed securities (MBS). Farmland offers attractive yields and should continue to provide the best portfolio protection in the event of any market distress (Chart 28, panel 3).   Risks To Our View The main risks to our central view are to the downside. Because global equities have risen by 55% over the past 12 months, and with the forward PE of the MSCI ACWI index at 19.5x (Chart 29), the room for price appreciation over the next 12 months is inevitably limited. There are several things that could undermine the economic recovery and equity bull market. The COVID-19 pandemic remains the greatest unknown. The vaccination rollout has been very uneven (Chart 30). New strains, especially the one first identified in Brazil, are highly contagious and people who previously had COVID-19 do not seem to have immunity against them. Behavior once COVID cases decline is also hard to predict. Will people be happy again to fly, attend events in large stadiums, and socialize in crowded bars, or will many remain wary for years? This would undermine the case for a strong rebound in consumption. Chart 29Is Perfection Priced In? Chart 30Vaccination Has Been Spotty Vaccination Has Been Spotty   Chart 31China Slowing Again? As often, a slowdown in China is a risk. The authorities there have signalled a pullback in stimulus, and the credit impulse has begun to slow (Chart 31). Our China strategists think the authorities will be careful not to tighten too drastically (with the fiscal thrust expected to be neutral this year), and that growth will slow only to a benign and moderate rate in the second half.9 But there is a lot of room for policy error. Finally, inflation. As we argue elsewhere in this Quarterly, it will inevitably pick up for technical reasons in March and April, and then again in late 2021 as renewed consumer demand for services (especially travel and entertainment) pushes up prices. The Fed has emphasized that these phenomena are temporary and that underlying inflation will not emerge until the economy returns to full employment. But the market might get spooked for a while when inflation jumps, pushing up long-term interest rates and triggering an equity market correction. Footnotes 1 Please see US Bond Strategy Report, “The Fed Looks Backward While Markets Look Forward,” dated March 23, 2021. 2 Please see US Bond Strategy Report, “The Fed Looks Backward While Markets Look Forward,” dated March 23, 2021, 3 Please see Global Asset Allocation Special Report, “Investors’ Guide To Inflation Hedging: How To Invest When Inflation Rises,” dated May 22, 2019. 4 Dominish, E., Florin, N. and Teske, S., 2019, Responsible Minerals Sourcing for Renewable Energy. Report prepared for Earthworks by the Institute for Sustainable Futures, University of Technology Sydney. The optimistic scenario is referred to as “total metals demand” scenario, which assumed current materials intensity and market share continues into the future without recycling or efficiency improvements. This study is based on 2018 production levels and therefore expansion of future production may vary results. 5US Geological Survey, Mineral Commodity Summaries 2021. 6 Chile is estimated to have the largest reserve of lithium. 7 Please see Global Fixed Income Strategy Report, “Harder, Better, Faster, Stronger,” dated March 16, 2021. 8 Please see Global Asset Allocation, “Quarterly Portfolio Outlook: Playing The Optionality,” dated April 1, 2020. 9 Please see China Investment Strategy Report, “National People’s Congress Sets Tone For 2021 Growth,” dated March 17, 2021. GAA Asset Allocation  

特別レポート

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