イールドカーブ

Highlights President Biden has called for the US intelligence community to investigate the origins of COVID-19 and one of Biden’s top diplomats has stated the obvious: the era of “engagement” with China is over. This clinches our long-held view that any Democratic president would be a hawk like President Trump. The US-China conflict – and global geopolitical risk – will revive and undermine global risk appetite. China faces a confluence of geopolitical and macroeconomic challenges, suggesting that its equity underperformance will continue. Domestic Chinese investors should stay long government bonds. Foreign investors should sell into the bond rally to reduce exposure to any future sanctions. The impending agreement of a global minimum corporate tax rate has limited concrete implications that are not already known but it symbolizes the return of Big Government in the western world. Our updated GeoRisk Indicators are available in the Appendix, as well as our monthly geopolitical calendar. Feature In our quarterly webcast, “Geopolitics And Bull Markets,” we argued that geopolitical themes matter to investors when they have a demonstrable relationship with the macroeconomic backdrop. When geopolitics and macro are synchronized, a simple yet powerful investment thesis can be discerned. The US war on terror, Russia’s resurgence, the EU debt crisis, and Brexit each provided cases in which a geopolitically informed macro view was both accessible and actionable at an early stage. Investors generally did well if they sold the relevant country’s currency and disfavored its equities on a relative basis. Chart 1China's Decade Of Troubles Of course, the market takeaway is not always so clear. When geopolitics and macroeconomics are desynchronized, the trick is to determine which framework will prevail over the financial markets and for how long. Sometimes the market moves to its own rhythm. The goal is not to trade on geopolitics but rather to invest with geopolitics. One of our key views for this year – headwinds for China – is an example of synchronization. Two weeks ago we discussed China’s macroeconomic challenge. In this report we discuss China’s foreign policy challenge: geopolitical pressure from the US and its allies. In particular we address President Biden’s call for a deeper intelligence dive into the origins of COVID-19. The takeaway is negative for China’s currency and risk assets. The Great Recession dealt a painful blow to the Chinese version of the East Asian economic miracle. By 2015, China’s financial turmoil and currency devaluation should have convinced even bullish investors to keep their distance from Chinese stocks and the renminbi. If investors stuck with this bearish view despite the post-2016 rally, on fear of trade war, they were rewarded in 2018-19. Only with China’s containment of COVID-19 and large economic stimulus in 2020 has CNY-USD threatened to break out (Chart 1). We expect the renminbi to weaken anew, especially once the Fed begins to taper asset purchases. Our cyclical view is still bullish but US-China relations are unstable so we remain tactically defensive. Forget Biden’s China Review, He’s A Hawk Chinese financial markets face a host of challenges this year, despite the positive factors for China’s manufacturing sector amid the global recovery. At home these challenges consist of a structural economic slowdown, a withdrawal of policy stimulus, bearish sentiment among households, and an ongoing government crackdown on systemic risk. Abroad the Democratic Party’s return to power in Washington means that the US will bring more allies to bear in its attempt to curb China’s rise. This combination of factors presents a headwind for Chinese equities and a tailwind for government bonds (Chart 2). This is true at least until the government should hit its pain threshold and re-stimulate. Chart 2Global Investors Still Wary New stimulus may not occur in 2022. The Communist Party’s leadership rotation merely requires economic stability, not rapid growth. While the central government has a record of stimulating when its pain threshold is hit, even under the economically hawkish President Xi Jinping, a financial market riot is usually part of this threshold. This implies near-term downside, particularly for global commodities and metals, which are also facing a Chinese regulatory backlash to deter speculation. In this context, President Biden’s call for a deeper US intelligence investigation into the origin of COVID-19 is an important confirming signal of the US’s hawkish turn toward China. Biden gave 90 days for the intelligence community to report back to him. We will not enter into the debate about COVID-19’s origins. From a geopolitical point of view it is a moot point. The facts of the virus origin may never be established. According to Biden’s statement, at least one US intelligence agency believes the “lab leak theory” is the most likely source of the virus (while two other agencies decided in favor of animal-to-human transmission). Meanwhile Chinese government spokespeople continue to push the theory that the virus originated at the US’s Fort Detrick in Maryland or at a US-affiliated global research center. What is certain is that the first major outbreak of a highly contagious disease occurred in Wuhan. Both sides are demanding greater transparency and will reject each other’s claims based on a lack of transparency. If the US intelligence report concludes that COVID originated from the Wuhan Institute of Virology, the Chinese government and media will reject the report. If the report exonerates the Wuhan laboratory, at least half of the US public will disbelieve it and it will not deter Biden from drawing a hard line on more macro-relevant policy disputes with China. The US’s hawkish bipartisan consensus on China took shape before COVID. Biden’s decision to order the fresh report introduces skepticism regarding the World Health Organization’s narrative, which was until now the mainstream media’s narrative. Previously this skepticism was ghettoized in US public discourse: indeed, until Biden’s announcement on May 26, the social media company Facebook suppressed claims that the virus came from a lab accident or human failure. Thus Biden’s action will ensure that a large swathe of the American public will always tend to support this theory regardless of the next report’s findings. At the same time Biden discontinued a State Department effort to prove the lab leak theory, which shows that it is not a foregone conclusion what his administration will decide. The good news is that even if the report concluded in favor of the lab leak, the Biden administration would remain highly unlikely to demand that China pay “reparations,” like the Trump administration demanded in 2020. This demand, if actualized, would be explosive. The bad news is that a future nationalist administration could conceivably use the investigation as a basis to demand reparations. Nationalism is a force to be reckoned with in both countries and the dispute over COVID’s origin will exacerbate it. Traditionally the presidents of both countries would tamp down nationalism or attempt to keep it harnessed. But in the post-Xi, post-Trump era it is harder to control. The death toll of COVID-19 will be a permanent source of popular grievance around the world and a wedge between the US and China (Chart 3). China’s international image suffered dramatically in 2020. So far in 2021 China has not regained any diplomatic ground. Chart 3Death Toll Of COVID-19 The US is repairing its image via a return to multilateralism while the Europeans have put their Comprehensive Agreement on Investment with China on hold due to a spat over sanctions arising from western accusations of genocide (a subject on which China pointedly answered that it did not need to be lectured by Europeans). Notably Biden’s Department of State also endorsed its predecessor’s accusation of genocide in Xinjiang. Any authoritative US intelligence review that solidifies doubts about the WHO’s initial investigation – even if it should not affirm the lab leak theory – would give Biden more ammunition in global opinion to form a democratic alliance to pressure China (for example, in Europe). An important factor that enables the US to remain hawkish on China is fiscal stimulus. While stimulus helps bring about economic recovery, it also lowers the bar to political confrontation (Chart 4). Countries with supercharged domestic demand do not have as much to fear from punitive trade measures. The Biden administration has not taken new punitive measures against China but it is clearly not worried about Chinese retaliation. Chart 4Large Fiscal Stimulus Lowers The Bar To Geopolitical Conflict China’s stimulus is underrated in this chart (which excludes non-fiscal measures) but it is still true that China’s policy has been somewhat restrained and it will need to stimulate its economy again in response to any new punitive measures or any global loss of confidence. At least China is limited in its ability to tighten policy due to the threat of US pressure and western trade protectionism. Simultaneous with Biden’s announcement on COVID-19, his administration’s coordinator for Indo-Pacific affairs, Kurt Campbell, proclaimed in a speech that the era of “engagement” with China is officially over and the new paradigm is one of “competition.” By now Campbell is stating the obvious. But this tone is a change both from his tone while serving in President Obama’s Department of State and from his article in Foreign Affairs last year (when he was basically auditioning for his current role in the Biden administration).1 Campbell even said in his latest remarks that the Trump administration was right about the “direction” of China policy (though not the “execution”), which is candid. Campbell was speaking at Stanford University but his comments were obviously aimed for broader consumption. Investors no longer need to wait for the outcome of the Biden administration’s comprehensive review of policy toward China. The answer is known: the Biden administration’s hawkishness is confirmed. The Department of Defense report on China policy, due in June, is very unlikely to strike a more dovish posture than the president’s health policy. Now investors must worry about how rapidly tensions will escalate and put a drag on global sentiment. Bottom Line: US-China relations are unstable and pose an immediate threat to global risk appetite. The fundamental geopolitical assessment of US-China relations has been confirmed yet again. The US is seeking to constrain China’s rise because China is the only country capable of rivaling the US for supremacy in Asia and the world. Meanwhile China is rejecting liberalization in favor of economic self-sufficiency and maintaining an offensive foreign policy as it is wary of US containment and interference. Presidents Biden and Xi Jinping are still capable of stabilizing relations in the medium term but they are unlikely to substantially de-escalate tensions. And at the moment tensions are escalating. China’s Reaction: The Example Of Australia How will China respond to Biden’s new inquiry into COVID’s origins? Obviously Beijing will react negatively but we would not expect anything concrete to occur until the result of the inquiry is released in 90 days. China will be more constrained in its response to the US than it has been with Australia, which called for an international inquiry early last year, as the US is a superior power. Australia was the first to ban Chinese telecom company Huawei from its 5G network (back in 2018) and it was the first to call for a COVID probe. Relations between China and Australia have deteriorated steadily since then, but macro trends have clearly driven the Aussie dollar. The AUD-JPY exchange rate is a good measure for global risk appetite and it is wavering in recent weeks (Chart 5). Chart 5Australian Dollar Follows Macro Trends, Rallies Amid China Trade Spat Tensions have also escalated due to China’s dependency on Australian commodity exports at a time of spiking commodity prices. This is a recurring theme going back to the Stern Hu affair. The COVID spat led China to impose a series of sanctions against Australian beef, barley, wine, and coal. But because China cannot replace Australian resources (at least, not in the short term), its punitive measures are limited. It faces rising producer prices as a result of its trade restrictions (Chart 6). This dependency is a bigger problem for China today than it was in previous cycles so China will try to diversify. Chart 6Constraints On China's Tarrifs On Australia By contrast, China is not likely to impose sanctions on the US in response to Biden’s investigation, unless Biden attacks first. China’s imports from the US are booming and its currency is appreciating sharply. Despite Beijing’s efforts to keep the Phase One trade deal from collapsing, Biden is maintaining Trump’s tariffs and the US-China trade divorce is proceeding (Chart 7). Bilateral tariff rates are still 16-17 percentage points higher than they were in 2018, with US tariffs on China at 19% (versus 3% on the rest of the world) while Chinese tariffs on the US stand at 21% (versus 6% on the rest of the world). The Biden administration timed this week’s hawkish statements to coincide with the first meeting of US trade negotiators with China, which was a more civil affair. Both countries acknowledged that the relationship is important and trade needs to be continued. However, US Trade Representative Katherine Tai’s comments were not overly optimistic (she told Reuters that the relationship is “very, very challenging”). She has also been explicit about maintaining policy continuity with the Trump administration. We highly doubt that China’s share of US imports will ever surpass its pre-Trump peaks. The Biden administration has also refrained so far from loosening export controls on high-tech trade with China. This has caused a bull market in Taiwan while causing problems for Chinese semiconductor stocks’ relative performance (Chart 8). If Biden’s policy review does not lead to any relaxation of export controls on commercial items then it will mark a further escalation in tensions. Chart 7US Tarrifs Reduce China In Trade Deficit Bottom Line: Until Presidents Biden and Xi stabilize relations at the top, the trade negotiations over implementing the Phase One trade deal – and any new Phase Two talks – cannot bring major positive surprises for financial markets. Chart 8US Export Controls Amid Chip Shortage Congress Is More Hawkish Than Biden Biden’s ability to reduce frictions with China, should he seek to, will also be limited by Congress and public opinion. With the US deeply politically divided, and polarization at historically high levels, China has emerged as one of the few areas of agreement. The hawkish consensus is symbolized by new legislation such as the Strategic Competition Act, which is making its way through the Senate rapidly. Congress is also trying to boost US competitiveness through bills such as the Endless Frontier Act. These bills would subject China to scrutiny and potential punitive measures over a broad range of issues but most of all they would ignite US industrial policy , STEM education, and R&D, and diversify the US’s supply chains. We would highlight three key points with regard to the global impact of this legislation: Global supply chains are shifting regardless: This trend is fairly well established in tech, defense, and pharmaceuticals. It will continue unless we see a major policy reversal from China to try to court western powers and reduce frictions. The EU and India are less enthusiastic than the US and Australia about removing China from supply chains but they are not opposed. The EU Commission has recommended new defensive economic measures that cover supply chains in batteries, cloud services, hydrogen energy, pharmaceuticals, materials, and semiconductors. As mentioned, the EU is also hesitating to ratify the Comprehensive Agreement on Investment with China. Hence the EU is moving in the US’s direction independently of proposed US laws. After all, China’s rise up the tech value chain (and its decision to stop cutting back the size of its manufacturing sector) ultimately threatens the EU’s comparative advantage. The EU is also aligned with the US on democratic values and network security. India has taken a harder stance on China than usual, which marks an important break with the past. India’s decision to exclude Huawei from its 5G network is not final but it is likely to be at least partially implemented. A working group of democracies is forming regardless. The Strategic Competition Act calls for the creation of a working group of democracies but the truth is that this is already happening through more effective forums like the G7 and bilateral summits. Just as the implementation of the act would will ultimately depend on President Biden, so the willingness of other countries to adopt the recommendations of the working group would depend on their own executives. Allies have leeway as Biden will not use punitive measures against them: Any policy change from the EU, UK, India, and Australia will be independent of the US Congress passing the Strategic Competition Act. These countries will be self-directed. The US would have to devote diplomatic energy to maintaining a sustained effort by these states to counter China in the face of economic costs. This will be limited by the fact that the Biden administration will be very reluctant to impose punitive measures on allies to insist on their cooperation. The allies will set the pace of pressure on China rather than the United States. This gives the EU an important position, particularly Germany. And yet the trends in Germany suggest that the government will be more hawkish on China after the federal elections in September. Bottom Line: The Biden administration is unlikely to use punitive measures against allies so new US laws are less important than overall US diplomacy with each of the allies. Some allies will be less compliant with US policies given their need for trade with China. But so far there appears to be a common position taking shape even with the EU that is prejudicial to China’s involvement in key sectors of emerging technologies. If China does not respond by reducing its foreign policy assertiveness, then China’s economic growth will suffer. That drag would have to be offset by new supply chain construction in Southeast Asia and other countries. Investment Takeaways The foregoing highlights the international risks facing China even at a time when its trend growth is slowing (Chart 9) and its ongoing struggle with domestic financial imbalances is intensifying. China’s debt-service costs have risen sharply and Beijing is putting pressure on corporations and local governments to straighten out their finances (Chart 10), resulting in a wave of defaults. This backdrop is worrisome for investors until policymakers reassure them that government support will continue. Chart 9China's Growth Potential Slowing Chart 10China's Leaders Struggle With Debt China’s domestic stability is a key indicator of whether geopolitical risks could spiral out of control. In particular we think aggressive action in the Taiwan Strait is likely to be delayed as long as the Chinese economy and regime are stable. China has rattled sabers over the strait this year in a warning to the United States not to cross its red line (Chart 11). It is not yet clear how Biden’s policy continuity with the Trump administration will affect cross-strait stability. We see no basis yet for changing our view that there is a 60% chance of a market-negative geopolitical incident in 2021-22 and a 5% chance of full-scale war in the short run. Chart 11China PLA Flights Over Taiwan Strait Putting all of the above together, we see substantial support for two key market-relevant geopolitical risks: Chinese domestic politics (including policy tightening) and persistent US-China tensions (including but not limited to the Taiwan Strait). We remain tactically defensive, a stance supported by several recent turns in global markets: The global stock-to-bond ratio has rolled over. China is a negative factor for global risk appetite (Chart 12). Global cyclical equities are no longer outperforming defensives. There is a stark divergence between Chinese cyclicals and global cyclicals stemming from the painful transition in China’s bloated industrial economy (Chart 13). Global large caps are catching a bid relative to small caps (Chart 14). Chart 12Global Stock-To-Bond Ratio Rolled Over Chart 13Global Cyclicals-To-Defensives Pause Chart 14Global Large Caps Catch A Bid Versus Small Caps Cyclically the global economic recovery should continue as the pandemic wanes. China will eventually relax policy to prevent too abrupt of a slowdown. Therefore our strategic portfolio reflects our high-conviction view that the current global economic expansion will continue even as it faces hurdles from the secular rise in geopolitical risk, especially US-China cold war. Measurable geopolitical risk and policy uncertainty are likely to rebound sooner rather than later, with a negative impact on high-beta risk assets. Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Coda: Global Minimum Tax Symbolizes Return Of Big Government On Thursday, the US Treasury Department released a proposal to set the global minimum corporate tax rate at 15%. The plan is to stop what Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen has referred to as a global “race to the bottom” and create the basis for a rehabilitation of government budgets damaged by pandemic-era stimulus. Although the newly proposed 15% rate is significantly below President Biden’s bid to raise the US Global Intangible Low-Taxed Income (GILTI) rate to 21% from 10.5%, it is the same rate as his proposed minimum tax on corporate book income. Biden is also raising the headline corporate tax rate from 21% to around 25% (or at highest 28%). Negotiators at the OECD were initially discussing a 12.5% global minimum rate. The finance ministers of both France and Germany – where the corporate income tax rates are 32.0% and 29.9%, respectively – both responded positively to the announcement. However, Ireland, which uses low corporate taxes as an economic development strategy, is obviously more comfortable with a minimum closer to its own 12.5% rate. Discussions are likely to occur when G7 finance ministers meet on June 4-5. Countries are hoping to establish a broad outline for the proposal by the G20 meeting in early July. It is highly likely that the OECD will come to an agreement. However, it is not a truly “global” minimum as there will still be tax havens. Compliance and enforcement will vary across countries. A close look at the domestic political capital of the relevant countries shows that while many countries have the raw parliamentary majorities necessary to raise taxes, most countries have substantial conservative contingents capable of preventing stiff corporate tax hikes (Table 1, in the Appendix). Our Geopolitical strategists highlight that the Biden administration’s compromise on the minimum rate reflects its pragmatism as well as emphasis on multilateralism. Any global deal will be non-binding but the two most important low-tax players are already committed to raising corporate rates well above this level: Biden’s plan is noted above, while the UK’s budget for March includes a jump in the business rate to 25% in April 2023 from the current 19%. Ireland and Hungary are the only outliers but they may eventually be forced to yield to such a large coalition of bigger economies (Chart 15). Chart 15Global Minimum Corporate Tax Impact Is Symbolic Rather Than Concrete Thus a nominal minimum corporate tax rate is likely to be forged but it will not be truly global and it will not change the corporate rate for most countries. The reality of what companies pay will also depend on loopholes, tax havens, and the effective tax rate. Bottom Line: On a structural horizon, the global minimum corporate tax is significant for showing a paradigm shift in global macro policy: western governments are starting to raise taxes and revenue after decades of cutting taxes. The experiment with limited government has ended and Big Government is making a comeback. On a cyclical horizon, the US concession on global minimum tax is that the Biden administration aims to be pragmatic and “get things done.” Biden is also working with Republicans to pass bills covering some bipartisan aspects of his domestic agenda, such as trade, manufacturing, and China. The takeaway from a global point of view is that Biden may prove to be a compromiser rather than an ideologue, unlike his predecessors.   Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com   Roukaya Ibrahim Vice President Daily Insights RoukayaI@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Kurt M. Campbell and Jake Sullivan, "Competition Without Catastrophe," Foreign Affairs, September/October 2019, foreignaffairs.com. Section II: Appendix Table 1OECD: Which Countries Are Willing And Able To Raise Corporate Tax Rates? GeoRisk Indicator China Russia UK Germany France Italy Canada Spain Taiwan – Province Of China Korea Turkey Brazil Australia Section III: Geopolitical Calendar

Highlights Monetary Policy: The Fed will not immediately change its policy stance in response to rising inflation and inflation expectations. Rather, it will follow its current forward guidance and only lift rates off zero once the labor market has reached “maximum employment”. However, once the first rate hike has occurred, the Fed will shift its focus toward inflation and inflation expectations. Duration: The overnight index swap curve is priced for a total of 77 bps of rate hikes by the end of 2023. We see strong odds that more hikes will be delivered and therefore continue to recommend a below-benchmark portfolio duration stance. Corporate Bonds: High and rising inflation expectations will eventually pose a risk to credit spreads, but only once the Fed tightens policy in response. For now, we remain overweight spread product versus Treasuries, though we maintain a preference for high-yield corporates, USD-denominated EM Sovereigns and municipal bonds over investment grade corporate bonds. Feature Recent inflationary trends are making the Fed’s job more difficult. Not only was April’s increase in core CPI the largest since 1981, but measures of long-term inflation expectations have also jumped. The 5-year/5-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate has quickly risen to levels that are consistent with the Fed’s 2% inflation target (Chart 1). What’s more, survey measures of inflation expectations have also moved up, in many cases to uncomfortably high levels (Chart 2). Chart 1Back To Target Chart 2Inflation Expectations Have Jumped All of this makes the Fed’s zero-lower-bound interest rate policy look increasingly untenable. Can the Fed really just sit on the sidelines as inflation and inflation expectations rise to above-target levels? Our expectation is that the Fed will ignore rising inflation until the labor market is fully recovered, but it may then need to move quickly to contain inflationary pressures. The result could very well be a rate hike cycle that takes a long time to start, but then proceeds at a rapid pace. The Fed’s Liftoff Criteria Are Different Than Its Criteria For Pace A crucial point about the Fed’s forward guidance is that the criteria that will determine the timing of the first rate hike are different than the criteria that will determine the post-liftoff pace of rate hikes. Liftoff Criteria Table 1A Checklist For Liftoff For liftoff, the Fed has been very explicit that three conditions must be met before it will raise rates off the zero bound (Table 1). Of the three conditions listed in Table 1, the timing of when the labor market will reach “maximum employment” is the most uncertain. We have written extensively about how the Fed defines “maximum employment” and about the pace of employment growth that’s necessary to achieve that goal by specific future dates.1 To summarize, we calculate that average monthly nonfarm payroll growth of at least 698k is required to reach “maximum employment” by the end of this year and average monthly payroll growth of at least 412k is required to hit that target by the end of 2022 (Chart 3). Chart 3Employment Growth Chart 4Labor Demand Is Strong Our assessment is that “maximum employment” will be achieved in time for the Fed to lift rates in 2022, largely because employment growth must rise quickly in order to catch up with skyrocketing indicators of labor demand (Chart 4). The risk, of course, is that inflation continues to run hot as the Fed waits for its “maximum employment” condition to be met. If this occurs, we believe that the Fed will stick to its current forward guidance. It will ignore rising inflation until its liftoff criteria are met. Only then, will Fed policy turn toward containing inflation. Pace Criteria In a recent speech, Fed Vice-Chair Richard Clarida laid out three indicators that he will track to guide the pace of policy tightening post Fed liftoff.2 First, he pointed to inflation expectations. In particular, the Fed’s index of Common Inflation Expectations (CIE):3 Other things being equal, my desired pace of policy normalization post-liftoff to return inflation to 2 percent […] would be somewhat slower than otherwise if the CIE index is, at time of liftoff, below the pre-ELB level. [ELB = effective lower bound]. Chart 2 shows that the CIE index has already broken above its 2018 peak. It stands to reason that, all else equal, an elevated CIE index would speed up the post-liftoff pace of rate hikes. Chart 5Inflation Since August 2020 Second, Clarida noted that: Another factor I will consider in calibrating the pace of policy normalization post-liftoff is the average rate of PCE inflation since the new framework was adopted in August 2020. The annualized rate of change in core PCE since August 2020 is almost at the Fed’s 2% target already, and it will certainly rise to above-target levels when the April data are released, as was the case with core CPI (Chart 5). Finally, Clarida offered up a detailed Taylor-type monetary policy rule that he says he will consult once the conditions for liftoff are met: Consistent with our new framework, the relevant policy rule benchmark I will consult once the conditions for liftoff have been met is an inertial Taylor-type rule with a coefficient of zero on the unemployment gap, a coefficient of 1.5 on the gap between core PCE inflation and the 2 percent longer-run goal, and a neutral real policy rate equal to my SEP forecast of long-run r*. Chart 6Balanced Approach (Shortfalls) Rule* Recommendations Chart 6 shows the results of a very similar policy rule using median FOMC estimates for r*, NAIRU and the path of inflation. We use a slightly more pessimistic forecast for the unemployment rate and assume that it reaches 4.5% by the end of 2022 and 4% by the end of 2023. Even with those conservative assumptions, the rule still recommends a policy rate of 1.5% by the end of 2022 and 2.65% by the end of 2023. This is not to say that the Fed will immediately lift rates to those levels once it is ready to hike, only that the Fed will have a strong incentive to pursue a rapid pace of rate hikes once it finally lifts rates off the zero bound. Investment Implications For investors, the bottom line is that the Fed will not immediately change its policy stance in response to rising inflation and inflation expectations. Rather, it will follow its current forward guidance and only lift rates off zero once the labor market has reached “maximum employment”. However, once the first rate hike has occurred, the Fed will shift its focus toward inflation and inflation expectations. If inflation and inflation expectations rise further, or even remain sticky near current levels, the Fed will lift rates more quickly than many anticipate. At present, the overnight index swap curve is priced for a total of 77 bps of rate hikes by the end of 2023. We see strong odds that more hikes will be delivered and therefore continue to recommend a below-benchmark portfolio duration stance. Is Inflation A Risk For Spread Product? Yes it is, but not just yet. In past reports, we’ve often pointed to 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rates in a range between 2.3% and 2.5% as a reason to turn more cautious on spread product (see Chart 1), and the recent rise in inflation expectations certainly does set off some alarm bells. High inflation expectations pose a risk to credit spreads because of what they signal about the future course of Fed policy. If the Fed responds to high inflation expectations by tightening policy into restrictive territory, then economic growth and credit spreads are at risk. All this remains true, but the Fed’s willingness to ignore rising inflation expectations – at least until “maximum employment” and fed funds liftoff are achieved – gives spread product a little more runway than usual. One way to illustrate this dynamic is with the slope of the yield curve (Chart 7). Historically, corporate bond (both investment grade and junk) excess returns are strong at least until the 3-year/10-year Treasury slope flattens to below 50 bps (Table 2). Currently, the 3-year/10-year Treasury slope is well above 100 bps and has shown few signs of rolling over. If the Fed was still following its old forward-looking policy framework, then the yield curve would likely be much flatter today. That is, the curve would be pricing-in some policy tightening in response to high and rising inflation expectations. However, as discussed above, inflation expectations are not currently the Fed’s primary concern and they will only become the Fed’s primary concern once “maximum employment” has been achieved and the funds rate has been lifted off the zero bound. Chart 7Spread Product Returns Are Strong When The Curve Is Steep Table 2Corporate Bond Performance In Different Phases Of The Cycle All in all, we are concerned that, if inflation expectations remain elevated, the Fed may quickly ramp up its post-liftoff pace of rate hikes, sending credit spreads wider. But we are reluctant to position for that outcome when we are still many months away from Fed liftoff and the slope of the yield curve remains so steep. Chart 8Low Expected Returns In IG Another factor to consider is that value in spread product is extremely tight. In fact, our measure of the 12-month breakeven spread for the quality-adjusted investment grade corporate bond index is almost at its most expensive level since 1995 (Chart 8). This doesn’t change our assessment of when restrictive Fed policy will cause spreads to widen, but it does reduce our return expectations in the interim. All else equal, since the rewards from being overweight spread product versus Treasuries are low, we will be quicker to reduce our recommended spread product allocation when our indicators start to point toward the end of the credit cycle. Though, at the very least, we will still want to see the 3-year/10-year Treasury slope start to flatten and approach 50 bps before we get too pessimistic on spread product. The bottom line is that high and rising inflation expectations will eventually pose a risk to credit spreads, but only once the Fed tightens policy in response. For now, we remain overweight spread product versus Treasuries, though we maintain a preference for high-yield corporates, USD-denominated EM Sovereigns and municipal bonds over investment grade corporate bonds.   Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Overshoot Territory”, dated April 13, 2021. 2 https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/clarida20210113a.htm 3 The CIE is a composite measure of different market-based and survey-based indicators of inflation expectations. https://www.federalreserve.gov/econres/notes/feds-notes/index-of-common-inflation-expectations-20200902.htm  Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification

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

ハイライト ECBのテーパリング？：ECBがカナダ銀行やイングランド銀行に続き、予想より早く国債買入を縮小し始める—ひょっとすると来月の政策会合で—かもしれないという投資家の懸念は的外れです。ECBが最も避けたいのは、欧州の成長とインフレの加速を先取りして金融緩和の縮小に踏み切った結果としてユーロ高とイタリア国債利回りの急騰を招くことです。 ユーロ圏債券ストラテジー：我々は現在の欧州債券に関する推奨を維持します：グローバル債券ポートフォリオ内で欧州をオーバーウェイトとし、コア国の国債に対してペリフェラル（周辺国）ソブリンおよびコーポレートを優先する一方、ブレークイーブンが割安なフランス、イタリア、ドイツのインフレ連動債もオーバーウェイトとします。また、ECBの利上げ織り込みを織り戻す新たな戦術取引として、2023年12月ユーロイボー金利先物（3か月）ロングを提案します。 特集 親愛なる顧客の皆様へ、 来週、月刊のバンク・クレジット・アナリスト誌の同僚と共同で、現在の世界的な住宅ブームが投資に与える影響についてのスペシャルレポートを発表します。そのレポートは5月28日金曜日にお届けします。通常の週次発行スケジュールには6月1日火曜日に戻ります。 - Rob Robis 今週のチャート 欧州債利回りの期待外れの上昇 欧州債券利回りの期待外れの上昇 欧州債券利回りの期待外れの上昇 来月の金融政策会合に向けて、欧州中央銀行（ECB）総裁のクリスティーヌ・ラガルドは、パンデミック開始以来初めて理事会メンバーを対面で招集する予定だと伝えられています。これは、ワクチン接種が進んでCOVID-19の深刻な局面から脱しつつある欧州に対して、どの程度の金融支援がまだ必要かを巡る議論が行われるであろう会合において興味深い副次的要素を提供します。先の4月のECB会合の議事要旨によれば、既に一部のECB関係者は経済成長とインフレ期待のリスクが「上振れに傾いている」と指摘しています。 欧州の景況感が改善する中、欧州の債券利回りは反応して上昇しています（今週のチャート）。ベンチマークである10年ドイツ国債利回りは現在-0.11%で、年初来46bp上昇しましたが、その半分は過去１か月での動きです。利回りの上昇はドイツやフランスといったコア国に限定されたものではなく、10年イタリア国債利回りは現在1.11%に達し、2021年初めの水準（0.52%）の倍以上になっています。インフレ期待も急速に高まっており、5年先5年物フォワードのユーロ消費者物価指数スワップは現在1.63%で、2018年12月以来の水準です。 これらの利回り上昇は他国で見られる大きな上昇に比べると遅れています。米国とカナダの10年国債利回りは年初来それぞれ72bp、90bpの上昇を記録しています。これらの国々で利回りが急騰したのは、インフレ期待の上昇と中央銀行の国債買入縮小（テーパリング）への懸念が原因であり、カナダについては先月、実際にカナダ銀行が国債買入ペースの減速を発表して的中しました。 我々の見解では、ECBがよりタカ派的な政策スタンスへの転換を検討するにはまだ時期尚早です。この見解は、上昇したものの依然としてより引き締めを示唆していない我々のECBモニターによって裏付けられます。欧州の債券売りは「過剰で、速すぎる」ケースに見えます。 ECBは今や多くの課題を抱えている 最近のユーロ圏の経済指標は、米国で先行して見られた強さに追いついただけでなく、場合によっては長年見られなかった水準に戻っています。ドイツのZEW景気期待指数の期待項目は5月に約14ポイント急上昇し、2000年以来の水準に達しました。製造業のMarkit PMIは4月に過去最高の62.9に達しました。欧州委員会のユーロ圏消費者信頼感指数はほぼパンデミック前の水準に戻っており（チャート2）、サービス業のMarkit PMIの回復継続に良い前兆です。 パンデミックに関する良いニュースが成長見通しの急伸を後押ししています。新規COVID-19感染者の増加ペースは着実に低下しており、パンデミック初期に最も深刻な被害を受けた地域の一つであるイタリアでは現在（7日移動平均）10月以来で最も低い新規感染率を示しています。一方で、ワクチン接種のペースは当初の遅い立ち上がりから加速しており、1日あたりの接種回数（100人当たり）はドイツ、フランス、イタリアで米国を上回っています（チャート3）。 チャート2 欧州の成長は回復中 欧州の成長は回復している 欧州の成長は回復している チャート3 欧州での接種加速 欧州におけるワクチン接種の加速 欧州におけるワクチン接種の加速 チャート4 欧州の余剰生産能力はどの程度か？ 欧州にはどれだけの余剰生産能力があるのか？ 欧州にはどれだけの余剰生産能力があるのか？ 接種の急速な進展は、2020年Q4と2021年Q1のロックダウンによる二番底型リセッションからの確かな回復を欧州にもたらす見込みです。欧州委員会は先週、ユーロ圏の成長見通しを上方修正し、実質GDPは2021年に4.3%、2022年に4.4%の拡大を見込むとしました（従来見通しは両年とも3.8%）。NGEU（ネクスト・ジェネレーションEU）パッケージを通じた公共投資の回復が夏の後半に資金支出を始めることで、全てのユーロ圏諸国は2022年末までにパンデミック前の生産水準に回帰する見込みです。 ECBは6月の会合で、自らの経済成長およびインフレ見通しを引き上げることは確実でしょう。後者の見通しは、ECBの理事会内で最大の議論材料になる可能性が高いです。 製造業PMIのような調査ベースの指標が比較的協調的に回復しているにもかかわらず、失業率や一般的な余剰生産能力の指標にはユーロ圏内で大きなばらつきが残っています（チャート4）。これは、ヘッドラインHICPインフレ率の年次増加率が多くのユーロ圏国で約2%に近づいている一方で、イタリアやスペインのように依然として非常に高い失業率に苦しむ国々があるため、ECBがこの実現インフレの上昇が持続するかを判断するのを難しくします。 ユーロ圏内の失業率の広い分布は、現行の政策金利水準（0%前後かそれ以下）が適切であることも示唆しています。ヨーロッパの労働市場の強さの「幅」を測る単純な指標の一つは、OECDが推定する完全雇用のNAIRU以下の失業率を有するユーロ圏国の割合を見ることです。1 この指標は、基本的なテイラールールにより算出されるユーロ圏短期金利の適正水準の推定と良く相関します。現時点では、ユーロ圏諸国のうち完全雇用を超えているのはわずか43%であり、これはECBの政策金利がおおむね0%付近である状況と整合します（チャート5）。 チャート5 政策金利が0%付近であるのが依然適切 政策金利が0％近辺でも依然として適切である 政策金利が0％近辺でも依然として適切である やや多めの国（47%）は賃金上昇の加速を見ています（下段）。これは、一部の国のNAIRU推定が低すぎる可能性があり、2015年以降のユーロ圏全体の賃金上昇加速と整合します。しかし、多くのユーロ圏国がパンデミックで増加した失業の処理途上にあることを踏まえると、ECBが労働市場の動態を十分に把握し、必要な金融政策の調整を決めるまでには時間がかかるでしょう。 データトレンドの「幅」はテイラールールのような理論的な金利指標とだけ相関するわけではありません。実際のECBの政策決定は、高い成長とインフレがユーロ圏全域にどの程度広がっているかによって動機付けられます。 チャート6では、チャート5の労働市場の幅指標と類似の指標を、他の経済・インフレデータを用いて示しています。具体的には、以下を観察するユーロ圏各国の割合を示しています： チャート6 ECBは成長とインフレが広範に及ぶときに引き締める傾向 成長かつインフレが広範に及ぶとき、ECBは通常、金融政策を引き締める 成長かつインフレが広範に及ぶとき、ECBは通常、金融政策を引き締める a) OECD景気先行指数が1年前の水準より高く、成長モメンタムが加速していること； b) ヘッドラインHICPインフレの最新値が1年前と比べて上昇しており、インフレモメンタムが加速していること； c) ヘッドラインHICPインフレがECBの「ほぼ2%未満」目標を上回っており、比較的高いインフレであること。 1998年のユーロ導入以降の過去のECBの金融引き締め局面（実際の政策金利の引上げ、あるいはECBのバランスシートの横ばい～縮小トレンドの形をとったもの）をすべて見ると、ECBは少なくともユーロ圏国の75%が成長とインフレの両方で加速していない限り引き締めに踏み切らないことが明らかです。実際の利上げは、2000年、2005～2007年、2011年の利上げサイクルのように、少なくとも75%の国でインフレ率が2%を超えていたときに発生しました。より最近では、2017年にECBは成長とインフレが加速した際にバランスシートの拡大を停止しましたが、インフレが2%を超える国が50%にとどまったため、政策金利の調整は行いませんでした。 今日、実質的に全てのユーロ圏国がパンデミックで落ち込んだ1年前の水準と比べて成長モメンタムが加速しています。ユーロ圏の59%の国でインフレが加速しており、この数字は欧州のさらなるロックダウン解除と世界的なコモディティ価格の上昇に伴いさらに上昇する可能性があります。しかし、ヘッドラインインフレが2%を超える国はわずか12%にとどまっており、2017年の経験に照らすと、実現インフレはECBのバランスシート調整を引き起こすほど強くはありません。 6月のECBテーパリングに賭けるな 過去のECBの行動から判断すると、6月の政策会合で国債買入のテーパリングを発表するのは時期尚早です。より可能性が高いのは、ECBの成長・インフレ見通しの上方修正がきっかけとなり、量的緩和、TLTROのような銀行向け資金供給プログラム、政策金利といったECBの金融刺激策の各要素をどう扱うかという議論が始まることです。しかし、ECBが方針の次の一手を決定するには、インフレ目標自体の性質がまもなく変わる可能性があるため、6月会合で結論に達するのは不可能でしょう。 ECBは現在、2003年以来初となる金融政策ストラテジーのレビューを行っており、今年後半に完了する予定です。インフレ目標にはある程度の柔軟性を持たせる調整が予想されますが、その具体的な内容はまだ不明です。ECBが連邦準備制度（Fed）の先例に倣い「平均インフレ目標」政策へ移行し、目標を下回る期間の後にインフレ目標の超過を許容する可能性はあるのでしょうか？ ECBのチーフエコノミストであるフィリップ・レーンは3月に、FRBの新たなアプローチには「非常に強い論理性がある」と述べています。同時に、いくつかの欧州諸国における「非常に異なるインフレの歴史」が、一時的に高めのインフレを許容するような制度について合意に達することを難しくする可能性があるとも指摘しました。2 より最近では、フィンランド中央銀行総裁であり理事会の穏健派メンバーで現在のECB総裁候補とも見なされたオッリ・レーンが、5月9日のフィナンシャル・タイムズのインタビューでECBが米国型の平均インフレ目標へ移行することを支持すると述べました。3 レーンは、失業を最小化することに重きを置く米国型の焦点は「より低い自然利子率という現状では理にかなっている」と述べ、ECBの現在のインフレ目標の文言は「非対称性の認識を生んでおり、『2%が上限である』と見なされてインフレ期待を抑制している」と説明しました。 我々は、ドイツ連銀のイェンス・ヴァイトマンが、ECBのインフレ目標を2%超の一時的な上振れを容認するように変更することに激しく反対するだろうと想像します。ドイツのヘッドラインHICPインフレは既に4月に2.1%に達しており、ドイツ経済の長期にわたるロックダウン解除に伴いさらに上昇する可能性があります。しかし、たとえヴァイトマンが「緩和」のいかなる動きにも強硬に反対しないとしても、ECBのストラテジーレビューの完了が近づいていることを考えると、テーパリングのような政策変更がそれ以前に信頼性を持って発表される可能性は非常に低いでしょう。もし高めのインフレが容認されるなら、そもそもなぜテーパリングを行う必要があるのでしょうか？ インフレ戦略レビューを越えて見れば、ECBが次の金融政策の一手を検討する際に重荷となり得る他の要因もあります： 中国の政策引き締め：欧州の最大の貿易相手である中国は、2020年にパンデミック対応で成長を支えるために許容した借入の急増後、信用成長や財政支出を抑制し始めています。我々の中国クレジット・インパルス指標は、欧州から中国への輸出の年次成長率を約9か月先行しており（チャート7）、今年後半に輸出の劇的な減速を示唆しています。これは特にドイツのように中国向け輸出依存度が高い国々にとってユーロ圏成長の下振れリスクとなります。 貸出成長の鈍化：ユーロ圏全体の銀行貸出の年次成長率は2月に12.2%でピークを迎え、現在は10.9%に低下しています（チャート8）。軟化の多くはドイツとフランスで発生しており、これらの国はECBのTLTROを通じた優遇銀行資金の大幅な活用を見ていました。最新のTLTROプログラムのためにECBが設定した価格面でのインセンティブは非常に魅力的であり、ドイツとフランスの銀行は安い資金を利用して貸出を拡大したようです。これは銀行貸出データの経済的解釈をECBにとってより難しくしており、特にイタリアの貸出成長とTLTRO利用が現在加速している点がそれに拍車をかけています。 チャート7 欧州の輸出需要に対する警告サイン 欧州の輸出需要の警戒サイン 欧州の輸出需要の警戒サイン チャート8 ECBのTLTROはイタリア重視に ECBのLTROがイタリアに焦点を当てつつある ECBのLTROがイタリアに焦点を当てつつある NGEU支出：前述の通り、€7,500億のNGEU（ネクスト・ジェネレーションEU、別名「リカバリー・ファンド」）からの支払いは、各国の政府投資提案がEUの承認を得れば今年後半に開始される見込みです。NGEU資金はデジタルやグリーン関連の投資など、将来の経済成長を押し上げるイニシアティブを資金供給することを目的としています。多くのユーロ圏国がすでに提案を提出しており、イタリアは€1,920億の要求で主導しています。 チャート9 NGEUは今後5年間で欧州成長に大きく寄与する ECBの見通し：卵の殻の上を歩く ECBの見通し：卵の殻の上を歩く チャート10 NGEUの影響は前倒しで現れる NGEUの影響は前倒しで現れる NGEUの影響は前倒しで現れる S&Pグローバルの最近の研究は、NGEU投資によりユーロ圏全体の成長が2021年から2026年にかけて累積で1.3～3.9ポイント押し上げられる可能性があると結論づけています（チャート9）。4 同研究はまた、支出の影響は次の2年間に前倒しで現れるだろうと指摘しています（チャート10）。イタリア政府はNGEU投資がイタリアの低迷するトレンド成長率を1.5%まで倍増させる可能性があると考えています。多くのECB関係者は、NGEUのような構造的財政刺激があれば極めて緩和的な金融政策を維持する必要性が低くなると指摘しています。しかし、NGEU提案が最終化され、承認された資金額が配分されるまでは、ECBは政府投資を考慮に入れた経済予測を調整することができません。 これらの即時的な不確実性、特に欧州がパンデミックのロックダウンからどれだけうまく再開できるかを含め、我々はECB理事会が6月の政策会合で現行の金融政策ツールやガイダンスの即時変更が必要だと結論付けるという筋の通ったシナリオは見ていません。 結論：ECBがカナダ銀行やイングランド銀行に続いて予想より早く国債買入を縮小し始める—ひょっとすると来月の政策会合で—という投資家の懸念は的外れです。 ECBの次の可能性のある動きと投資への影響 6月にテーパリング発表があるとは考えにくい一方で、将来の動きに向けた示唆が出る可能性は十分あります。ECBは政策転換のかなり前から市場を準備させることで悪名高く、したがって6月会合後の公式声明やラガルド総裁の記者会見には、ECBの次の動きに関する手がかりが含まれる可能性があります。 チャート11 ECBの緩和は多様な形態をとる ECBの金融緩和は様々な形を取る ECBの金融緩和は様々な形を取る 来年3月に終了予定のパンデミック緊急購入プログラム（PEPP）についての議論が6月に持ち上がる可能性はあります。欧州経済の再開の成功やNGEU資金の最終承認額がより明確になる9月の政策会合で取り上げられる可能性の方が高いと考えられます。これらが、COVID-19ショックに起因して導入された資産買入プログラムを維持する必要性を決定づけるからです。 緩和を段階的に縮小する際にECBが選択できる政策オプションは多岐にわたります。 調整可能な政策金利は複数あります。ECBが次に利上げを試みる際、最初に動く金利はおそらく短期金利の「下限」を示す預金金利（現在-0.5%）になるでしょう（チャート11）。 ただし、利上げはバランスシート関連ツールの縮小・巻き戻しの前には発生しないでしょう。つまり、まず資産買入が縮小されます。市場参加者はその政策選択の順序を良く認識しており、短期金利の非常にフラットな経路が欧州のOISカーブに織り込まれています。 OISとCPIスワップ曲線のフォワードレートのスプレッドは、市場の実質金利のフォワード価格付けの代理として使えます。現状、市場が示唆する実質ECB政策金利は今後10年で-2%から-1%の間にとどまると織り込まれています（チャート12）。言い換えれば、市場は今後10年間で予想インフレを上回らない非常にフラットなECB政策金利の経路を織り込んでいます。 欧州の自然実質利子率はトレンド成長が低いため非常に低い可能性がありますが、実質金利が-2%といった水準にあるということは、欧州経済に関する多くの悪い構造的ニュースを織り込んでいることを意味します。比較すると、NY連銀がパンデミック前の2020年第2四半期に算出した欧州の自然実質利子率（r-star）は+0.6%とプラスでした。 このように実質金利のマイナス期待が長期化すると、ベンチマークであるドイツ国債利回り曲線上に実質的にマイナスの実質利回りが持続することの説明がつきます。単純に言えば、ECBが本格的な利上げサイクルを演出できると信じられていないのです—これは日本のフィクスト・インカム投資家には馴染みのある結果です。 ECBがユーロの水準を常に懸念しており、それが欧州の成長とインフレ期待に影響する役割を果たすことを考えると、市場がECBにとって金利を大きく引き上げるのは通貨高を招きかねず難しいと考えるのは正しいでしょう。ECBが2014年にマイナス金利政策に移行して以来、購買力平価（PPP）ベースで一貫してユーロが過小評価されてきたのは偶然ではありません（チャート13）。 チャート12 市場は今後10年の欧州実質金利のマイナスを予想 市場は今後10年間、欧州の実質金利がマイナスになると予想している 市場は今後10年間、欧州の実質金利がマイナスになると予想している 先を見れば、ECBは市場に対して金利の将来経路を上方修正させユーロを大幅に押し上げるような政策変更（テーパリングを含む）を示唆する際には慎重である必要があります。 チャート13 低いECB金利がユーロの過小評価を維持 低いECB金利がユーロの割安感を維持している 低いECB金利がユーロの割安感を維持している つまり、欧州の実質債利回りは少なくとも2021年後半にかけて深くマイナスのままである可能性が高く、名目利回りの追加上昇は主にインフレ期待の上昇によることになります（チャート14）。これにより、現在水準から欧州債利回りがさらに上昇できる余地は限定されます。 チャート14 欧州債券ストラテジーの要約 欧州債券ストラテジー概要 欧州債券ストラテジー概要 我々は引き続き、コア欧州債利回りは少なくとも2021年後半は米国債利回りに対して「低いイールドベータ」で推移すると考えており、2022年にフェデラル・リザーブが国債買入のテーパリングを開始すると予想しています。したがって、グローバル債券ポートフォリオではコア欧州国債を米国債に対して戦略的にオーバーウェイトするという推奨を維持します。米国でのテーパリングの発生確率が欧州より高く、その後の利上げもECBよりFRBの方が実施する可能性が高いと見ているからです。 専用の欧州債券ポートフォリオ内では依然としてベンチマークよりやや短めのデュレーションを推奨しますが、もし10年ドイツ国債利回りが大きくプラス領域に上昇した場合には、欧州のデュレーションエクスポージャーを引き上げることを検討します。 我々はまた、ドイツ、フランス、イタリアのブレークイーブンが我々のグローバル評価モデル群で唯一割安であるため、欧州のインフレ連動債に対するオーバーウェイト推奨を維持します。 欧州のクレジットでは、スプレッド商品をソブリン債に対してオーバーウェイトすることを引き続き推奨します。これはイタリアやスペインの国債だけでなく、投資適格およびハイイールドのコーポレート債を含みます。これらの市場に対してより弱気になるべきタイミングは、ECBが資産買入をテーパリングし始めた時です。クレジットスプレッドはECBのバランスシートの成長が鈍化している期間に拡大する傾向があります（チャート15）。 ECBが最終的にテーパリングを決定した際には、TLTROのネット残高は現在水準近くで維持される可能性が高いと考えています（満期を迎えるものを置き換える新たなTLTROを導入することで）。これにより、イタリアのような脆弱な国々でECBのイタリア国債買入減少と安価なECB資金へのアクセス減少という二重の打撃で借入コストが急騰する事態を避けることができます。 最後に一言—我々は今週、戦術的オーバーレイ・ポートフォリオの第19ページで、市場がよりタカ派なECB見通しを織り込むのを織り戻すための新たなトレードを導入します。最初のECBによる利上げの最も可能性の高い規模は10bpであり、これはOISカーブで2023年中頃に織り込まれています。2023年末までにはフォワードレート曲線でほぼ25bpの利上げが織り込まれています。我々はECBが2023年に利上げするとは予想していませんが、たとえ利上げがあっても、6か月以内に累積で25bpの利上げが実現する可能性は低いと考えます。したがって、エントリープライス100.27で2023年12月限の3か月ユーロイボー金利先物ロングを推奨します（チャート16）。 チャート15 ECBのテーパリングは欧州クレジットにとって悪材料 ECBのテーパリングは欧州クレジットにとって悪いニュースになるだろう ECBのテーパリングは欧州クレジットにとって悪いニュースになるだろう チャート16 2023年12月ユーロイボー先物をロング 2023年12月限ユーロイボー・フューチャーズをロングする 2023年12月限ユーロイボー・フューチャーズをロングする 結論：ECBが最も避けたいのは、欧州の成長とインフレの加速に事前対応して金融緩和を縮小し始めた結果として必然的に生じるユーロ高とイタリア国債利回りの急騰です。我々は現在の欧州債券に関する推奨を維持します：グローバル債券ポートフォリオ内で欧州をオーバーウェイトとし、コア国の政府債に対してペリフェラルのソブリンおよびコーポレートを優先するとともに、ブレークイーブンが割安なフランス、イタリア、ドイツのインフレ連動債もオーバーウェイトとします。   Robert Robis, CFA チーフ・フィクスト・インカム・ストラテジスト rrobis@bcaresearch.com 脚注 1 NAIRUは失業率の非加速的インフレ率（Non-Accelerating Inflation Rate of Unemployment）の略称です。 2 レーンのコメントは、2021年3月16日にフィナンシャル・タイムズで掲載された広範なインタビューに由来します。記事はこちらで参照できます： https://www.ft.com/content/2aa6750d-48b7-441e-9e84-7cb6467c5366 3 レーンのコメントは今月初めの5月9日に公表され、こちらで参照できます： https://www.ft.com/content/05a12645-ceb2-4cd5-938e-974b778e16e0 4 S&Pグローバルのレポート「Next Generation EU Will Shift European Growth Into A Higher Gear」はこちらで参照できます： https://www.spglobal.com/ratings/en/research/articles/210427-next-generation-eu-will-shift-european-growth-into-a-higher-gear-1192994 推奨 GFIS推奨ポートフォリオ対カスタムベンチマーク指数 ECBの見通し: 卵の殻の上を歩く ECBの見通し: 卵の殻の上を歩く デュレーション 地域配分 スプレッド商品 戦術的トレード 利回りとリターン グローバル債利回り 過去のリターン

特別レポート

Dear Client, This week, the US Bond Strategy service is hosting its Quarterly Webcast (May 19 at 10:00 AM EDT, 3:00 PM BST, 4:00 PM CEST, 11:00 PM HKT). In addition, we are sending this Quarterly Chartpack that provides a recap of our key recommendations and some charts related to those recommendations and other areas of interest for US bond investors. Please tune in to the Webcast and browse the Chartpack at your leisure, and do let us know if you have any questions or other feedback. To view the Quarterly Chartpack PDF please click here. Best regards, Ryan Swift, US Bond Strategist

ハイライト 米国は、欧州水準の債券利回りまで、あと1回のデフレーション・ショックを残すのみです。 複数年の視野では、デフレーション・ショックはほぼ確実です。 そのショックはデフレ型になります。仮に当初はインフレ型で始まっても、やがて迅速にデフレに転じるためです。 理由は、インフレ型ショックによる債券利回りの急上昇が、世界の不動産300兆ドル相当の価値を損ない、結果として大規模なデフレーション衝撃を引き起こすからです。 したがって、米国の30年債は最終的に、絶対リターンで概ね100％に近いリターンをもたらすでしょう… …およびコアな欧州および日本の債券に対する相対的リターンでも。 フラクタルトレード候補：株式は債券に対して調整を挟む見込み；コモディティは危険なほど過熱している；USD/CADの買い。 特集 今週のチャート 債券利回りの構造的水準は、持続的なデフレーション・ショックの回数に依存する 債券利回りの構造的水準は、持続的なデフレショックの回数によって決まる。 債券利回りの構造的水準は、持続的なデフレショックの回数によって決まる。 10年前、米国、英国、ドイツの30年債利回りはほぼ同水準の約3％でした。しかし今日ではそれらの利回りは大きく乖離しており、米国は2.3％、英国は1.3％、ドイツは0.3％です。 何が起きたのか？ 2012年、ドイツの債券利回りは英国や米国と分岐しました。ユーロ債務危機によるデフレーション・ショックがユーロ圏に集中したためです。さらに2016年には、ブレグジットによるデフレーション・ショックが英国およびEU27に集中したため、英国の債券利回りが米国から分離しました（今週のチャート）。 債券利回りの『ショック理論』 ここで新たな概念──債券利回りの『ショック理論』──へようこそ。この理論によれば、高格付け国債の構造的利回り水準は、経済が受けた持続的なデフレーション・ショックの回数の関数に過ぎません。各デフレーション・ショックは債券利回りをより低い構造的水準へと押し下げ、下限に達するまでこれが続きます（チャート I-2）。 チャート I-2 各デフレーション・ショックは債券利回りをより低い構造的水準へ押し下げ、下限に達するまで続く 次々と起きるデフレショックは債券利回りをより低い構造的水準へと引き下げ、もはやこれ以上下げられなくなるまで続く。 次々と起きるデフレショックは債券利回りをより低い構造的水準へと引き下げ、もはやこれ以上下げられなくなるまで続く。 2011年以降、米国、英国、ドイツの債券利回りが乖離したのは、米国が英国より1回、ドイツより2回少ないデフレーション・ショックの影響を受けてきたためです。しかし重要な結論は、米国は欧州水準の債券利回りまであと1回のデフレーション・ショックしかない、ということです。 そのデフレーション・ショックが到来し、米国の30年債利回りが英国で記録された最近の安値に達すれば、債券価格は50％超の上昇に相当します。さらにドイツで記録された最近の安値に達すれば、価格上昇は100％を大幅に上回ることになります。 多くの人はそのような上昇は不可能だと言います。しかし10年前、同じ人々が英国やドイツの長期債利回りがゼロ近傍まで低下することはあり得ないと言っていたのを思い出してください。結果はご覧の通りです。 我々の高い確信度を持つ見解は、米国の長期債が最終的に優れた絶対リターンと、欧州および日本のコア債券に対する優れた相対リターンをもたらす、というものです。 その単純な理由は、別のデフレーション・ショックは時間の問題に過ぎない、ということです。 長期投資家は常にショックに備えるべき 大半のストラテジストや投資家は、パンデミックのようなショックは本質的に予測不可能であり、したがって備えることはできないと主張します。 我々はそうは思いません。 確かに、個々のショックの発生時期や性質は本質的に予測不可能です。しかし我々がショックを予測する方法で説明したように、ショックの統計的な分布は高度に予測可能です。 ショックとは何か？確立された定義はないため、我々の定義は、主要国の長期債価格が少なくとも25％上昇または下落する事象とします。1 （チャート I-3）この定義で過去50年を通して見た場合、任意の10年期間におけるショックの回数の統計分布はポアソン（3.33）であり、ショック間の時間の統計分布は指数分布（3.33）です。 チャート I-3 ショックとは長期債価格の25%の変動であり、ショックはおおむね3年ごとに発生する傾向がある ショックとはデュレーションの長い債券の価格が25％変動することであり、ショックはおおむね3年ごとに発生する傾向がある。 ショックとはデュレーションの長い債券の価格が25％変動することであり、ショックはおおむね3年ごとに発生する傾向がある。 したがって、任意の10年期間にショックが発生する確率はほぼ確実な96％です（チャート I-4）。さらに任意の5年期間でも、ショックの発生確率は非常に高い81％です。 チャート I-4 複数年の視野では、ショックはほぼ確実である 債券利回りの「ショック理論」 債券利回りの「ショック理論」 多くの人にとって、これは認知的不協和を生みます。ショックがほぼ確実であっても、その正確な性質や発生時期を思い描けないために、備えることを回避します。しかし長期投資家は常にショックに備えなければなりません。備えないことは許されません。 インフレ型ショックは迅速にデフレ型へ転じる 重要な問題は、次のショックがデフレ型かインフレ型かということです。我々の高確度の見解は、ネットでデフレ型になるというものです。つまり、たとえ当初はインフレ型で始まっても、すぐにデフレ型へ移行するということです。 その単純な理由は、インフレ型ショックによる債券利回りの急上昇が、世界の不動産300兆ドル相当の価値を損ない、結果として大規模なデフレーション衝撃を引き起こすからです。 2010年代の住宅ブームはその浸透力と地域的広がりにおいて前例がなく、北米、欧州、アジア、オーストララシアの都市部、郊外、農村部を同時に包含しました。ほぼすべての地域で価格が倍増した結果、世界の不動産価値は$150兆増加しました（チャート I-5）。そのうち$75兆は債券利回りの低下による評価上昇が原因です（チャート I-6）。文脈化すると、債券利回りの低下は世界の不動産価値を世界GDPに匹敵する規模だけ押し上げたことになります！ チャート I-5 2010年代の住宅ブームで、世界の不動産価値は$150兆増加した… 2010年代の住宅ブームで、世界の不動産の価値は150兆ドルも急増しました... 2010年代の住宅ブームで、世界の不動産の価値は150兆ドルも急増しました... チャート I-6 …そのうち$75兆は債券利回りの低下によるものだった ...そのうち75兆ドルは債券利回りの低下によるものです ...そのうち75兆ドルは債券利回りの低下によるものです 多くの人は不動産や株式などの実物資産はインフレ型ショックで強いと信じていますが、これは誤解です。確かに実物資産が生む収益は名目GDPに追随するはずです。しかし、その収益に対して支払われる評価が現在のように高い水準から始まっている場合、評価は崩壊します。 インフレ型ショック下で所望の実質リターンを生むために必要な初期評価は、価格安定下よりもはるかに低くなります。例えば、低インフレの1990年代・2000年代の株式では、初期の株価収益率（PER）が15であれば、一貫して将来10年の実質リターンが10％となりました。しかし1970年代のインフレショックでは、同じ初期PER15でも実質リターンはゼロでした。実質リターン10％を得るには、初期PERを7に半減させる必要がありました（チャート I-7）。 チャート I-7 1970年代のインフレ型ショックでは評価が崩壊した 1970年代のインフレ・ショックでは、バリュエーションが崩壊した 1970年代のインフレ・ショックでは、バリュエーションが崩壊した 債券利回りは世界の不動産価値を損なうまでどれだけ上昇し得るのか？過去10年で、世界の賃料利回りは世界の長期債利回りから100ベーシスポイント以上乖離したことがありません。2 現在、債券利回りは賃料利回りより約25bp高いため、世界の不動産価格が傷む前に長期債利回りが上昇できるのは最大75bpに過ぎないと推定されます（チャート I-8）。  チャート I-8 世界の不動産価格が損なわれる前に、債券利回りが上昇できるのは最大75bp 世界の不動産価格が悪影響を受ける前に、債券利回りは最大でも75ベーシスポイントしか上昇できない 世界の不動産価格が悪影響を受ける前に、債券利回りは最大でも75ベーシスポイントしか上昇できない 当社の重要な構造的推奨を改めて繰り返すと、米国の長期債は最終的に卓越した絶対リターンと、欧州および日本のコア債券に対する卓越した相対リターンをもたらすでしょう。 カウンタートレンド反転の候補 今週は、株式対債券（MSCIオール・カントリー・ワールド対30年米国債）におけるラリーが、260日フラクタル構造の脆弱性が2008、2010、2013、2020の節目と類似していることから、今後数か月で調整を挟む可能性が高いことに注目します（チャート I-9）。 チャート I-9 株式対債券のラリーは今後数か月で調整に入る可能性が高い 株式と債券のラリーは今後数か月で持ち合いになる可能性が高い。 株式と債券のラリーは今後数か月で持ち合いになる可能性が高い。 また、コモディティから距離を置くよう改めて警告します。すべてのコモディティのラリーが危険なほど過熱しており、2008年に見られたフラクタルの脆弱性の極端さを呈しています（チャート I-10およびチャート I-11）。 チャート I-10 コモディティのラリーは危険なほど過熱している... コモディティのラリーが危険なほど過熱している... コモディティのラリーが危険なほど過熱している... チャート I-11 …2008年に見られたフラクタルの脆弱性の極端さを示している …2008年に見られたフラクタル脆弱性の極端な状態を表示しています …2008年に見られたフラクタル脆弱性の極端な状態を表示しています 現時点で良いトレードはカナダドルのショートです。ルーニーの複合フラクタル構造に基づくと、多くの好材料がすでに織り込まれており、危険なほど過熱したコモディティ市場やカナダ銀行の（タカ派）資産買入のテーパリングを含んでいます。したがって、カナダドルは今後数か月で反転すると予想します（チャート I-12）。 チャート I-12 カナダドルをショート カナダドルをショートする カナダドルをショートする USD/CADをロングし、利益目標と対称的なストップロスを3.7％に設定してください。 Dhaval Joshi チーフ・ストラテジスト 脚注 1 債券利回りが下限に近づくにつれて、このショックの定義は変更する必要があります。長期債価格が25％上昇することが不可能になるためです。 2 ここでの世界の長期債利回りは、米国と中国の30年利回りの平均として定義しています。 フラクタル・トレーディング・システム フラクタルトレード 6か月の推奨 構造的推奨 決済済みフラクタルトレード 決済済みトレード 資産パフォーマンス 株式市場のパフォーマンス   注視すべき指標 - 債券利回り チャート II-1 注視すべき指標 - 債券利回り - ユーロ圏 注目すべき指標 - 債券利回り - ユーロ圏 注目すべき指標 - 債券利回り - ユーロ圏 チャート II-2 注視すべき指標 - 債券利回り - 欧州（ユーロ圏除く） 注目指標 - 債券利回り - 欧州（ユーロ圏を除く） 注目指標 - 債券利回り - 欧州（ユーロ圏を除く）     チャート II-3 注視すべき指標 - 債券利回り - アジア 注目すべき指標 - アジアの債券利回り 注目すべき指標 - アジアの債券利回り チャート II-4 注視すべき指標 - 債券利回り - その他先進国 注目指標 - 債券利回り - その他の先進国 注目指標 - 債券利回り - その他の先進国     注視すべき指標 - 金利見通し チャート II-5 注視すべき指標 - 金利見通し 注目すべき指標 - 金利見通し 注目すべき指標 - 金利見通し チャート II-6 注視すべき指標 - 金利見通し 注目すべき指標 - 金利見通し 注目すべき指標 - 金利見通し     チャート II-7 注視すべき指標 - 金利見通し 注目すべき指標 - 金利見通し 注目すべき指標 - 金利見通し チャート II-8 注視すべき指標 - 金利見通し 注目すべき指標 - 金利見通し 注目すべき指標 - 金利見通し    

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