ポリシー

特別レポート

Highlights As US and China’s grand strategies collide, expect major and minor geopolitical earthquakes whose epicenter will now lie in South Asia and the Indian Ocean basin. Another tectonic change will drive South Asia’s emergence as a new geopolitical battle ground - South Asia is now heavily weaponized. All key players operating in this theater are nuclear powers. South Asia’s democratic traditions are well-known but notable institutional and social fault lines exist. These could trigger major geopolitical events in Afghanistan, Pakistan and in pockets of India too. We are bullish on India strategically but bearish tactically. Dangerous transitions are underway to India’s east and west. Within India, key elections are approaching, and it is possible that growth may disappoint. For reasons of geopolitics, we are strategically bullish on Bangladesh but strategically bearish on Pakistan and Sri Lanka. We are booking gains of 9% on our long rare earths basket and 1% on our long GBP-CZK trade. Feature Over the 1900s, East Asia and the Middle East emerged as two key geopolitical focal points on the world map. Global hegemons flexed their muscles and clashed in these two theaters. Meanwhile South Asia was a geopolitical backstage at best. The majority of South Asia was a British colony until the second half of the twentieth century. After WWII it struggled with the difficulties of independence and mostly missed out on the prosperity of East Asia and the Pacific. But will the twenty-first century be any different? Absolutely so. We expect the current century to be marked by major and minor geopolitical earthquakes in which South Asia and the Indian Ocean basin will play a major part. This seismic change is likely to be the result of several tectonic forces: Population: A quarter of the world’s people live in South Asia today and this share will keep growing for the next four decades. India will be the most populous country in the world by 2027 and will account for about a fifth of global population. Supply: China’s growth model has left it heavily dependent on imports of raw materials from abroad. It is clashing with the West over markets and supply chains. Beijing is building supply lines overland while developing a navy to try to secure its maritime interests. These interests increasingly overlap with India’s, creating economic competition and security concerns over vital sea lines of communication. Access: Whilst the Himalayas and Tibetan plateau have historically prevented China from expanding its influence in South Asia, China’s alliance with Pakistan is strengthening. Physical channels like the China Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), and other linkages under the Belt and Road Initiative, now provide China a foot in the South Asian door like never before (Map 1). Weapons: The second half of the twentieth century saw China, India, and Pakistan acquire nuclear arms. Consequently, South Asia today is one of the most weaponized geographies globally (Map 1). Map 1South Asia To Emerge As A Key Geopolitical Theater In The 21st Century With the South Asian economy ever developing, and US-China confrontation here to stay, we expect China to make its presence felt in South Asia over the coming decades. The US’s recent withdrawal from Afghanistan, and the failure of democratization in Myanmar, are but two symptoms of a grand strategic change by which China seeks to prevent US encirclement and Indo-American cooperation develops to counter China. Throw in the abiding interests of all these powers in the Middle East and it becomes clear that South Asia and the Indian Ocean basin writ large will become increasingly important over the coming decades. The Lay Of The Land - India Is The Center Of Gravity Chart 1South Asia Managed Rare Feat Of ‘Steady’ Growth South Asia stands out amongst developing regions of the world for its large and young population. In recent decades, South Asia has also managed to grow its economy steadily, surpassing Sub-Saharan Africa and rivaling the Middle East (Chart 1). While South Asia’s growth rates have not been as miraculous as East Asia post World War II, its growth engine has managed to hum slowly but surely. India and Bangladesh have been the star performers on the economic growth front (Chart 2). Despite decent growth rates, the South Asian region is characterized by very low per capita incomes due to large population. On per capita incomes, Sri Lanka leads whilst Pakistan finds itself at the other end of the spectrum (Chart 3). Chart 2India And Bangladesh Have Been Star Performers Chart 3Per Capita Incomes In South Asia Have Grown, But Remain Low Chart 4India Accounts For About 80% Of South Asia’s GDP South Asia constitutes eight nations. However only four are material from an investment perspective: India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, and Bangladesh. India is the center of gravity as it offers the most liquid scrips and accounts for 80% of the region’s GDP (Chart 4). In addition: India accounts for 101 of the 110 companies from South Asia listed on MSCI’s equity indices. MSCI India’s market capitalization is about $1 trillion. In fact, India’s equity market could soon become larger than that of the UK and join the world’s top-five club.1 The combined market cap of MSCI Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, and Pakistan amounts to only about $6 billion. Liquidity is a constraint that investors must contend with whilst investing in these three countries in South Asia. Pakistan is the home of 220 million – set to grow to 300 million by 2040. It lags its neighbors on economic growth and governance but has nuclear weapons and a 650,000-strong military. Bottom Line: India is the center of gravity for the regional economy and financial markets in South Asia. Sri Lanka and Bangladesh are small but are developing. Pakistan is the laggard, but is militarily strong, which raises political and geopolitical risks. South Asia: Major Consumer, Minor Producer Chart 5Manufacturing Capabilities Of South Asian Economies Are Weak South Asia’s defining economic characteristic is that it is a major consumer. This feature contrasts with the region’s East Asian cousins, which worked up economic miracles based on their manufacturing capabilities. South Asia’s appetite to consume is partly driven by population and partly driven by the fact that this region’s economies have an unusually underdeveloped manufacturing base (Chart 5). It’s no surprise that all countries in South Asia (with the sole exception of Afghanistan) are set to have a current account deficit over the next five years (Charts 6A and 6B). Chart 6ASouth Asian Economies Tend To Be Net Importers Chart 6BSouth Asian Economies Tend To Be Net Importers India is set to become the third largest global importer of goods and services (after the US and UK) over the next five years. Its rise as a large client state of the world will be both a blessing and a curse, as increased business leverage will coincide with geopolitical insecurity. Structurally, Sino-Indian tensions are rising and growing bilateral trade will not be enough to prevent them. Meanwhile dependency on the volatile Middle East is a geopolitical vulnerability. Either way, India and its region become more important to the rest of the world over time. Whilst the structure of South Asia’s economy is relatively rudimentary, it is worth noting that Bangladesh and Sri Lanka present an exception. Bangladesh has embarked on a path of manufacturing-oriented development via labor-intensive production. Sri Lanka has a well-developed services sector (Chart 7). In particular: Bangladesh: Within South Asia, Bangladesh’s manufacturing sector stands out as being better developed than regional peers. More than 95% of Bangladesh’s exports are manufactured goods –a level that is comparable to China (Chart 8). China’s share in the global apparel and footwear market has been systematically declining and Bangladesh is one of the countries that has benefited most from this shift. Bangladesh’s share in global apparel and footwear exports to the US as well as EU has been rising steadily and today stands at 4.5% and 13% respectively.2 Chart 7Bangladesh’s And Sri Lanka’s Economies Are Relatively Modern Chart 8Bangladesh Has The Most Developed Exports Franchise In South Asia Sri Lanka: Whilst Sri Lanka social complexities are lower and per capita incomes are higher as compared to peers in South Asia, its transition from a long civil war to a focus on economic development recently suffered a body blow, first owing to terrorist attacks in 2019 and then owing to the pandemic. The economic predicament was then worsened by its government’s hasty transition to organic farming which hit domestic food production. Geopolitically it is worth noting that China is one of the largest lenders to Sri Lanka. Whilst Sri Lanka’s central bank may be able to convince markets of the nation’s ability to meet debt obligations for now, its foreign exchange reserves position remains precarious and public debt levels remain high. Sri Lanka’s vulnerable finances are likely to only increase Sri Lanka’s reliance on capital-rich China. Despite Democracy, South Asia Has Political Tinderboxes Another factor that sets South Asia apart from developing regions like Africa, the Middle East, and Central Asia is the region’s democratic moorings. India and Sri Lanka lead the region on this front, although the last decade may have seen minor setbacks to the quality of democracy in both countries (Chart 9). Pockets of South Asia are socially and politically unstable, characterized by religious or communal strife, terrorist activity, and even the occasional coup d'état. Risk Of Social Conflict Most Elevated In Pakistan And Afghanistan India’s demographic dividend is real, but its benefits should not be overstated. For instance, India’s northern region is a demographic tinderbox. It is younger than the rest of the country, yet per capita incomes are lower, youth underemployment is higher, and society is more heterogeneous. The rise of nationalism in India is an important consequence and could engender potential social unrest. Chart 9India’s Democracy Strongest, But May Have Had Some Setbacks Chart 10South Asia Is Young And Will Age Slowly   Chart 11Social Complexities Are High In Afghanistan & Pakistan A similar problem confronts South Asia as a whole. Pakistan and Afghanistan are younger than India by a wide margin (Chart 10). But both countries are economically backward and have either poor or non-existent democratic traditions. Lots of poor youths and inadequate political valves to release social tensions make for an explosive combination. These countries are highly vulnerable to social conflict that could cause political instability at home or across the region via terrorism (Chart 11). The Gatsby Effect Most Prominent In Pakistan While various regions struggle with inequality, South Asia has less of a problem that way (Chart 12). However South Asia is characterized by very low levels of social mobility as compared to peer regions. This can partially be attributed to two centuries of colonial rule as well as to endemic traditions of social stratification. Chart 12Gatsby Effect: Social Mobility Is Lowest In Pakistan Within South Asia it is worth noting that social mobility is the lowest in Pakistan and highest in Sri Lanka. Chart 13Military’s Influence Most Elevated In Pakistan And Nepal Too Military Influential In Pakistan (And Nepal) Events that transpired over January 2020 in the US showed that even the oldest constitutional democracy in the world is not immune to a breakdown of civil-military relations. South Asia has seen the occasional coup d'état, one reason for the political tinderboxes highlighted above. Obviously, Myanmar is the worst – it saw its nascent democratization snuffed out just last year. But other countries in the region could also struggle to maintain civilian order in the coming decades. The military’s influence is outsized in Pakistan as well as Nepal (Chart 13). India maintains high levels of defense spending but has a strong tradition of civilian control (Chart 14). Chart 14Pakistan’s Military Budget Is Most Generous, India A Close Second South Asia: A New Global Battle Ground Historically global hegemons have sought to assert their dominance by staking claim over coastal regions in Europe and Asia. Over the past two centuries Asia has emerged as a geopolitical theater second only to Europe. Naval and coastal conflicts have emerged from the rise of Japan (the Russo-Japanese War) and the Cold War (the Korean War & the Vietnam War). Today the rise of China is the destabilizing factor. The “frozen conflicts” of the Cold War are thawing in Taiwan, South Korea, and elsewhere. China is pursuing territorial disputes around its entire periphery, including notably in the East and South China Seas but also South Asia. Meanwhile the US, fearful of China, is struggling to strike a deal with Iran and shift its focus from the Middle East to reviving its Pacific strategic presence. A budding US-China competition is creating conditions for a new cold war or a series of “proxy battles” in Asia. Over the next few decades, we expect disputes to continue. But the focal points are likely to cover South Asia too. In specific, landlocked regions in South Asia are likely to see rising tensions in the twenty-first century (Map 2). Also as mentioned above, China’s naval expansion and the US’s attempt to form a “quadrilateral” alliance with India, Japan, and Australia will generate tensions and potentially conflict. European allies are also becoming more active in Asia as a result of US alliances as well as owing to Europe’s independent need for secure supply lines. Map 2China’s Interest In Landlocked Regions Of South Asia Is Rising While border clashes between India and China will ebb and flow, Indo-Chinese confrontations along India’s eastern border will become a structural theme. Arguably, Sino-Indian rivalries pre-date the twenty-first century. But in a world in which the Asian giants are increasingly economically and technologically developed, Sino-Indian confrontations are likely to persist and result in major geopolitical events. Consider: China is adopting nationalism and an assertive foreign policy to cope with rising socioeconomic pressures on the Communist Party as potential GDP growth slows. China is developing a navy as well as a stronger alliance with Pakistan, which includes greater lines of communication. North India is a key constituency for the political party in power in India today (i.e., the Bhartiya Janata Party or BJP) and this geography harbors especially unfavorable views of Pakistan (Chart 15). Thus, there is a risk that the India of today could respond far more decisively or aggressively to threats or even minor disputes. More broadly, nationalism is rising in India as well as China. India is shedding its historical stance of neutrality and aligning with the US, which fuels China’s distrust (Chart 16). Chart 15Northern India Views Pakistan Even More Unfavorably Than Rest Of India Chart 16India Has Aligned With The QUAD To Counter The Sino-Pak Alliance Turning attention to India’s western border, clashes between India and Pakistan relating to landlocked areas in Kashmir will also be a recurring theme. Whilst India currently has a ceasefire agreement in place with Pakistan, peace between the two countries cannot possibly be expected to last. This is mainly because: Kashmir: Core problems between the two countries, like India’s control over Kashmir and Pakistan’s use of militant proxies, remain unaddressed. India’s unexpected decision in 2019 to abrogate article 370 of the Indian constitution has reinforced Pakistan’s attention on Kashmir. Sino-Pak Alliance: Pakistan accounted for 38% of China’s arms exports over 2016-20. Pakistan accounts for the lion’s share of Chinese investments made in South Asia (Chart 17). Sino-India rivalries will spill into the Indo-Pak relationship (and vice versa). Revival Of Taliban: The US withdrawal from Afghanistan has revived Taliban rule in that country. Taliban’s rise will resuscitate a range of dormant terrorist movements in Afghanistan as well as in Pakistan. India has a long history of being targeted. South Asia today is very different from what it looked like for most of the post-WWII era: it is heavily weaponized. India, Pakistan, and China became nuclear powers in the second half of the twentieth century and have been steadily building their nuclear stockpiles ever since (Chart 18). North Korea’s growing arsenal is theoretically able to target India, while Iran (more friendly toward India) may also obtain nuclear weapons. Chart 17China And Pakistan: Joined At The Hip? Chart 18South Asia: The New Epicenter For Nuclear Activity While nuclear arms create a powerful incentive for nations to avoid total war, they can also create unmitigated fear and uncertainty during incidents of major strategic tension. This is especially true when countries have not yet worked out a mode of living with each other, as with the US and USSR in the early days of the Cold War. Investment Takeaways For investors with an investment horizon exceeding 12 months, we highlight that India presents a long-term buying opportunity for two key reasons: China’s Internal And External Troubles Will Benefit India: As long as US and China do not reengage in a major way, global corporations will fall under pressure to diversify from China and the US will pursue closer relations with India. China faces an array of challenges across its periphery, whereas India need only focus on the South Asian sphere. India Is Rising As A Global Consumer: As long as a major Middle East war and oil shock is avoided (not a negligible risk), India should see more benefits than costs from its growing importance as a client of the world. However, over the next 12 months we worry that India is priced for perfection. India currently trades at a punchy premium relative to emerging markets (Table 1) at a time of when both geopolitical and macroeconomic headwinds are at play. In particular: Table 1We Are Bearish On India Tactically, But Bullish On India & Bangladesh Strategically Major Transitions Are Dangerous: Recent developments in South Asia have added to geopolitical risks for India. The assumption of power by Taliban in Afghanistan will activate latent terrorist forces that could target India. Pakistan’s chronic instability combined with the change of power in Afghanistan could set off an escalation in Indo-Pakistani tensions, sooner rather than later. On India’s eastern front, China’s need to distract its population from a souring economy could trigger a clash between China and India. Down south, China’s rising influence over crisis-hit Sri Lanka is notable and could potentially engender security risks for India. Chart 19Politics Can Trump Economics In Run Up To General Elections Growth Slowing, Elections Approaching: We worry that India’s growth engine may throw up a downside surprise over the next 12 months owing to poor jobs growth and poor investment growth. History suggests that politics often trumps economics in the run up to general elections (Chart 19). Hence there is a real risk that policy decisions will be voter-friendly but not market-friendly over 2022. As both India and Pakistan are gearing up for elections in the coming years, major military showdown or saber rattling should not be ruled out. Both countries may engineer a rally around the flag effect to bump up their pandemic-battered approval. Tension with China may escalate as Xi Jinping extends his term in power next year and seeks to enforce red lines in China’s eastern and western borders. Globally what are the key geopolitical factors that could lead to India’s underperformance in the short run? We highlight a checklist here: China Stimulates: The near-term clash between markets and policymakers in China should eventually give way to meaningful fiscal stimulus by Chinese authorities. This buoys China as well as emerging markets that depend on China for their growth. However, even if China flounders, India may not continue to outperform. The correlation between MSCI India and China equities has been positive. Fed Tightens Quickly: A faster-than-expected taper and tightening guidance could cause those emerging markets that are richly priced like India to correct. A Crisis Over Iran’s Nuclear Program: If the US is unable to return to diplomacy, tensions in the Middle East will rise and stoke oil prices. This will affect India adversely, given global price pressures and India’s high dependence on oil imports. Conversely, if these developments fail to materialize then that would lower our conviction regarding India’s underperformance in the short run. In summary, we are bullish India strategically but bearish tactically. As regards the three other investable markets in South Asia: We are bearish on Pakistan and Sri Lanka on a strategic time horizon. Whilst both nations’ rising alignment with China could be an advantage ceteris paribus, ironically their deteriorating finances are driving their proximity to capital-rich China (Chart 20). To boot, Sri Lanka’s ability to pay its way out of its economic crisis on its own steam is worsening. This is evident from its rising debt to GDP ratio (Chart 21). Chart 20Pakistan And Sri Lanka Running Low On Reserves Pakistan faces elevated risks of internal social conflict, must deal with a rapidly changing external environment, has a weak democracy and an unusually influential military. Sri Lanka’s social risks are low, but its economic crisis appears likely to persist. The fact that both markets have been characterized by a high degree of volatility in earnings in the recent past implies that even a cyclical “Buy” case for either of these markets is fraught with risks (Table 1). The outlook for Bangladesh is better. Exports account for 15% of GDP and the US and Europe account for around 70% of its exports. Strong fiscal stimulus in these developed markets should augur well for this frontier market. Additionally, Bangladesh is characterized by moderate social risks, reasonably strong democracy scores and low levels of influence from the military. Its healthy public finances (Chart 21) and the fact that it shares no border with China creates the potential to leverage a symbiotic relationship with China. Chart 21Sri Lanka’s Debt Now Exceeds Its GDP But there is a catch. Bangladesh as a market has a low market cap and hence offers low levels of liquidity (Table 1). We thus urge investors to avoid making cyclical investment calls on this South Asian market. However, from a long-term perspective we highlight our strategic bullish view on Bangladesh given supportive geopolitical factors. Watch out for an upcoming report from our Emerging Markets Strategy team, that will delve into the macroeconomic aspects of Bangladesh.   Ritika Mankar, CFA Editor/Strategist ritika.mankar@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Abhishek Vishnoi and Swetha Gopinath, "India's stock market on track to overtake UK in terms of m-cap: Report" Business Standard, October 2021. 2 Arianna Rossi, Christian Viegelahn, and David Williams, "The post-COVID-19 garment industry in Asia" Research Brief, International Labour Organization, July 2021. Open Trades & Positions

Highlights Cross-Atlantic Policy Divergence: A steadily tightening US labor market means that the Fed remains on track to formally announce tapering next month. Meanwhile, the ECB is signaling that they are in no hurry to do the same given scant evidence that surging energy prices are seeping into broader European inflation. This leads us to make the following changes to our tactical trade portfolio – taking profits on the 10-year French inflation breakeven spread widener; while switching out of the long December 2023 Euribor futures trade into a 10-year US Treasury-German Bund spread widening trade. Surging Antipodean Inflation: Australia and New Zealand are both seeing higher realized inflation, but market-based inflation expectations are falling in the former and rising in the latter. This leads us to make the following changes to our tactical trades: taking profits on the Australia-US 10-year spread widener; entering a new 10-year Australia inflation breakeven spread widener; and closing the underwater 2-year/5-year New Zealand curve flattening trade. Feature This week, we present a review of the shorter-term recommendations currently in our list of Tactical Overlay trades. These are positions that are intended to complement our strategic Model Bond Portfolio, with shorter holding periods – our goal is no longer than six months - and sometimes in smaller markets that are outside our usual core bond market coverage. As can be seen in the table on page 17, we typically organize these ideas by the type of trade (i.e. yield curve flatteners or cross-country spread wideners). Yet for the purposes of this review, we see two interesting themes that better organize the current trades and help guide our decision to keep them or enter new ones. Playing A Hawkish Fed Versus A Dovish ECB Federal Reserve officials have spent the past few months signaling that a tapering of bond purchases was increasingly likely to begin before year-end given the steadily improving US labor market. The September payrolls report released last Friday, even with the headline employment growth number below expectations for the second consecutive month, does not change that trajectory. Chart of the WeekCyclical UST Curve Flattening Pressures The US unemployment rate fell to 4.8% in September, continuing the uninterrupted decline from the April 2020 peak of 14.8% (Chart of the Week). The pace of that decline has accelerated in recent months, although the Delta variant surge in the US has created distortions in both the numerator and denominator of the unemployment rate. Now that the US Delta wave has crested and case numbers are falling, growth in both employment and the labor force should start to accelerate in the next few payrolls reports. This will result in a faster pace of US job growth, albeit with a slower decline in the unemployment rate, likely starting as soon as the October jobs report. The US Treasury curve has already been reshaping in preparation for a less accommodative Fed, with flattening seen beyond the 5-year point (middle panel). We have positioned for a more hawkish Fed, and a flatter Treasury curve, in our Tactical Overlay via a butterfly trade. Specifically, we are short a 5-year Treasury bullet versus a long position in a 2-year/10-year barbell, all using on-the-run cash Treasuries. That trade was initiated on June 22, 2021 and has so far generated a small profit of +0.27%. Our butterfly spread valuation model for that 2/5/10 Treasury butterfly shows that the 5-year bullet has not yet reached an undervalued extreme versus the 2/10 barbell (Chart 2). We are keeping this trade in our Tactical Overlay, as the current 2/5/10 butterfly spread of 23bps is still 6bps below the +1 standard deviation level implied by our model. Chart 2Stay In Our 2/5/10 UST Butterfly Trade Moving across the Atlantic, our trades have been the mirror image of our Fed recommendations, positioning for a continued dovish, reflationary ECB policy bias. We have expressed that via two trades: long 10-year French inflation breakevens and long December 2021 Euribor futures. We continue to see no reason for the ECB to follow the Fed’s path towards imminent tapering and signaling future rate hikes. Growth momentum has cooled in the euro area, with both the Markit composite PMI and the ZEW growth expectations index having peaked in June (Chart 3). At the same time, inflation expectations have picked up. The 5-year/5-year forward CPI swap rate has risen to 1.8%, still below the ECB’s 2% inflation target but well above the 2020 low of 0.7% (middle panel). Markets are focusing on the higher inflation and not the slowing growth, with the EUR overnight index swap (OIS) curve now pricing in 12bps of rate hikes in 2022 (bottom panel). We see that as a highly improbable outcome. There is little evidence that the latest pickup in euro area realized inflation is broadening out beyond surging energy price inflation and supply-constrained goods inflation (Chart 4). Euro area headline CPI inflation hit a 13-year high of 3.0% in August, with the “flash” estimate for September showing a further acceleration to 3.4%. Yet core inflation only reached 1.6% in August - a month when the trimmed mean euro area CPI inflation rate calculated by our colleagues at BCA Research European Investment Strategy was a scant 0.2%. Chart 3ECB Will Not React To This Cyclical Bout Of Inflation Chart 4Euro Area Inflation Upturn Is Not Broad-Based While the September flash estimate of core inflation did perk up to 1.9%, the trimmed mean measure shows that the rise in euro area inflation to date has not been broad based. Like the Fed, ECB officials have indicated that they view this pick-up in inflation as “transitory”, fueled by soaring energy costs and base effect comparisons to low inflation in 2020. Signs that higher inflation was feeding into “second round” effects like rising wage growth might change the ECB’s thinking. From that perspective, the recent increase in labor strike activity in Germany is a potentially worrisome sign, but the starting point is one of low wage growth – the latest available data on euro area wage costs showed a -0.1% decline during Q2/2021. Chart 5Close Our Long Dec/23 Euribor Futures Trade We have been trying to fade ECB rate hike expectations via our long December 2023 Euribor futures trade. That position, initiated on May 18, 2021 has generated a small loss of -0.11% (Chart 5). We still expect the ECB to keep rates on hold in 2022, and most likely 2023, so there is the potential for that trade to recover that underperformance. However, that position has now reached the six-month holding period “re-evaluation” limit that we have imposed on our Tactical Overlay trades. Thus, we are closing that trade this week. In its place, we are initiating a new tactical trade to position for not only persistent ECB dovishness but a more hawkish Fed – a US Treasury-German Bund spread widening trade using 10-year bond futures. The specific details of the trade (futures contracts, duration-neutral weightings on each leg of the trade) can be found in the table on page 17. This new UST-Bund trade is attractive for three reasons: Our valuation model for the Treasury-Bund spread - which uses relative policy interest rates, relative unemployment, relative inflation and the relative size of the Fed and ECB balance sheets as inputs – shows that the spread is currently undervalued by more than one full standard deviation, and fair value is rising (Chart 6). The technical backdrop for the Treasury-Bund spread has turned more favorable for wideners, with the spread having fallen back to its 200-day moving average and the 26-week change in the spread now down to levels that preceded past turning points in the spread (Chart 7). Chart 6Enter A New 10yr UST-Bund Spread Widening Trade Relative data surprises are pointing to relatively higher US yields and a wider Treasury-Bund spread, with the Citigroup Data Surprise Index for the US now rising and the euro area equivalent measure falling (Chart 8). Chart 7UST-Bund Technical Backdrop Positioned For Widening Chart 8Relative Data Surprises Favor Wider UST-Bund Spread While we are entering a new trade to play for a relatively dovish ECB, we are also choosing to take the substantial profit in our tactical trade in French inflation breakevens. Specifically, we are closing our 10-year French inflation breakeven spread widening position – long a 10-year cash OATi bond, short 10-year French bond futures – with a solid gain of +6.3%. Chart 9Take Profits On Our Long 10yr French Breakevens Trade We have held this trade for nine months, a bit longer than our typical tactical trade holding period. We did so because French 10-year breakevens continued to look cheap on our valuation model. Now, the breakeven spread has risen to fair value (Chart 9), prompting us to take our gains and move on. Diverging Inflation Expectations In Australia & New Zealand Playing Fed/ECB policy divergence was the first main theme of this Tactical Overlay trade review. The second broad theme is also a divergence, between inflation expectations in New Zealand (which are rising) and Australia (which are falling). This trend leads us to close two existing trades and enter a new position. Chart 10An Inflation-Induced Bear Steepening Of Yield Curves In New Zealand, we are closing out our 2-year/5-year government bond yield curve flattener trade, initiated on July 21, for a loss of -0.32%. While we were correct in our expectation of ramped-up hawkishness from the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (RBNZ), we were caught offside by persistently sticky inflation which has become a headache for global central bankers. With supply squeezes and high commodity prices not going away anytime soon, sovereign curves have bear-steepened across developed markets, driven by rising long-dated inflation expectations (Chart 10). This global steepening pressure also hit the New Zealand curve, to the detriment of our domestic RBNZ-focused flattener trade. There was also a technical component to the steepening in the New Zealand 2-year/5-year curve (Chart 11). With the 2-year/5-year curve having dipped far below its 200-day moving average and the 26-week rate of change at stretched levels, the flattener was already “overbought” when we entered the trade. Despite a steady stream of hawkish messaging from the RBNZ, leading to an actual rate hike last week, technicals did win out in the short term as the 2-year/5-year spread steepened back up towards the 200-day moving average. Chart 11The NZ 2s/5s Curve Has Also Steepened Due To Technical Factors On the positive side, our decision to implement this trade as a duration-neutral “butterfly”, selling a 2-year bond, and using the proceeds to buy a weighted combination of a 5-year bond and a 3-month treasury bill with an equivalent duration to the 2-year bond, worked as intended with the butterfly underperforming as the underlying 2-year/5-year curve steepened. Looking forward, technicals are still some distance from turning favorable and will remain a headwind for the flattener trade. Implied forward rates are also not in our favor, with markets already pricing in some flattening, making this a negative carry trade. Over a cyclical horizon – i.e. beyond our normal six-month holding period for tactical trades - we still expect the shorter-end of the New Zealand to flatten. The experience of past hiking cycles shows that the 2-year/5-year curve tends to continue flattening during policy tightening, usually leveling out at 0bps before re-steepening (Chart 12). Considering that we have already been in this trade for three months, however, we do not believe our initial curve flattening bias will play out successfully over the remainder of our six-month tactical horizon. While we are closing out our flattener trade, we will investigate ways to better express our bearish cyclical view on New Zealand sovereign debt in a future report. Turning to Australia, we are closing out our long Australia/short US spread trade, implemented using 10-year bond futures, taking a healthy profit of +2.1%. We have held this trade for longer than our typical six-month holding period (the trade was initiated on January 26, 2021) because our Australia-US 10-year spread valuation model has continued to flash that the spread was too wide to its fair value (Chart 13). The model has been signaling that the spread should be negative, yet Australian yields have been unable to trade below US yields for any sustained length of time in 2021. Furthermore, the model-implied fair value is now starting to bottom out, suggesting a diminishing tailwind from the relative fundamental drivers of the spread embedded in our model. Chart 12The NZ 2s/5s Curve Will Flatten Over A Cyclical Horizon Chart 13Take Profits On Our 10-Yr Australia-US Spread Narrowing Trade Chart 14Inputs Into Our Australia-US Spread Model The inputs into our 10-year spread model are relative policy interest rates, core inflation, unemployment and the size of central bank balance sheets (to incorporate QE effects) for Australia and the US. Of these variables, the biggest drivers of the decline in the fair value since the start of the COVID pandemic in 2020 have been relative inflation and the relative size of the Fed and Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) balance sheets as a percentage of GDP (Chart 14). Both of those trends are related. Persistently underwhelming Australian inflation – despite accelerating inflation in the US and other developed economies over the past year – has forced the RBA into a pace of asset purchases relative to GDP that exceeded even what the Fed has done since the pandemic started (bottom panel). However, Australian inflation finally began catching up to the rising trends seen elsewhere in the spring of this year, with headline CPI inflation jumping from 1.1% to 3.8% on a year-over-year basis during Q2. Australian bond yields have traded more in line with US yields since that mid-year pop in inflation, preventing the Australia-US spread from narrowing below zero and converging to our model-implied fair value. This is despite a severe COVID wave that forced much of Australia into the kind of severe lockdowns that the nation avoided during the worst of the global pandemic in 2020. With Australian inflation now moving higher and converging towards US levels, economic restrictions starting to be lifted thanks to a rapid vaccination campaign, and the RBA having already done some tapering of its asset purchases before the Fed, the fundamental rationale for holding our Australia-US trade is no longer valid, leading us to take profits. The convergence to fair value in our spread model is now more likely to come from fair value rising rather than the actual spread falling. The pickup in Australian inflation also leads us to enter a new trade Down Under. This week, we are initiating a new trade, going long 10-year Australia inflation breakevens, implemented by going long a 10-year cash inflation-linked bond and selling 10-year bond futures. The details of the new trade are shown in the table on page 17. Despite the uptick in realized Australian inflation, breakevens have actually been declining over the past several months, falling from a peak of 247bps on May 13 to the current 208bps. That move has accelerated more recently due to a rise in Australian real yields that has coincided with markets pricing in more future RBA rate hikes. Our 24-month Australia discounter, which measures the total amount of tightening over the next two years discounted in the AUD OIS curve, now shows that 104bps of rate hikes are expected by the fourth quarter of 2023 (Chart 15, bottom panel). This has occurred despite Australian wage growth remaining well below the 3-4% range that the RBA believes is consistent with underlying Australian inflation returning sustainably to the RBA’s 2-3% target band (top two panels). Chart 15Market Expectations For The RBA Are Too Hawkish Chart 16Go Long 10-Yr Australian Inflation Breakevens Australian real bond yields have begun to move higher in response to this more hawkish market policy expectation that seems overdone, helping push breakeven inflation even lower more recently. This has helped unwind some of the overvaluation of 10-year inflation breakevens from earlier in 2021. Our fundamental model for the 10-year Australian breakeven showed that the spread was over two standard deviations above fair value to start 2020 (Chart 16). The decline in the spread since that has largely eliminated that overvaluation, providing a better entry point for a new breakeven spread widening trade. With survey-based measures of inflation expectations rising even as breakevens fall back to fair value (bottom panel), we see a strong case for adding a new Australian inflation trade to our Tactical Overlay.   Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com Shakti Sharma Senior Analyst ShaktiS@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 Spread Product: Investors should stay overweight spread product versus Treasuries for now (with a preference for high-yield corporates over investment grade). But recent shifts in the yield/spread correlation suggest that the credit cycle is getting a bit long in the tooth. We will be quick to recommend a reduction in spread product exposure once the monetary tightening cycle is more advanced and the 3-year/10-year Treasury slope flattens to below 50 bps. We expect this could occur in the first half of 2022. Labor Market & Fed: September’s employment report likely doesn’t alter the Fed’s timeline. The Fed is still on track to announce a tapering of its asset purchases next month and we expect employment growth will be sufficiently strong for the Fed to start hiking rates in December 2022. The Treasury curve will bear-flatten as that outcome is priced in. Duration: Investors should maintain below-benchmark portfolio duration with an expectation that the 10-year Treasury yield will reach a range of 2%-2.25% by the time of Fed liftoff in December 2022. Feature Chart 1A December Debt Ceiling Debate The creditors of the United States government can breathe a little easier, at least for a couple of months, as Congress reached an agreement last week to punt debt ceiling negotiations until December. T-bills maturing this month reacted sharply to price-out the risk of technical default, though December bill yields have already started to push higher in anticipation of more turmoil (Chart 1). Of course, the political incentives to lift the debt ceiling will be the same in December as they are today, and Congress will ultimately act to avert economic disaster.1 Financial markets seem to realize this, and Treasury note and bond yields have been unphased by the drama. Instead, Treasury yields have moved higher in recent weeks alongside other indicators of optimism surrounding economic reflation and re-opening (Chart 2). However, there is one troubling signal from financial markets that warrants further investigation. Corporate bonds (both investment grade and high-yield) have underperformed duration-matched Treasuries so far in October, even as Treasury yields have moved higher (Chart 3). Typically, Treasury yields and corporate bond spreads are negatively correlated – spreads tighten as Treasury yields rise, and vice-versa – so it is notable when the correlation flips. Chart 2The Reflation Trade Is Back Chart 3Bad Times For Bonds   The next section of this report explores the economic drivers of the yield/spread correlation and considers whether the flip to a positive yield/spread correlation signals anything about future corporate bond performance. An Examination Of The Yield/Spread Correlation The simple economic explanation for the negative yield/spread correlation is that an improved economic outlook leads to both a better environment for credit risk (i.e. tighter corporate bond spreads) and the expectation that higher interest rates will be needed to cool the economy in the future (i.e. higher Treasury yields). With that in mind, when spreads and yields both rise at the same time it usually means that the Fed is “over-tightening”. That is, tightening monetary policy so much that the near-term credit environment is deteriorating. This could be because the Fed is making a policy mistake – tightening into an economic slowdown – or because inflation is high enough that the Fed is deliberately slowing growth in an effort to bring down prices. A Technical Examination Looking at the history of monthly changes in Treasury index yields and High-Yield index spreads since 1994, we see that it is quite unusual for yields and spreads to both rise in the same month (Chart 4). In fact, monthly yield and spread changes are negatively correlated 65% of the time and have only risen together in 15% of the months since 1994. Chart 4Monthly Junk Spread Changes Versus Monthly Treasury Yield Changes Since 1994 Second, we observe in Chart 4 that almost all months of large spread widening or tightening occur against the back-drop of a negative yield/spread correlation. This shouldn’t be too surprising. The worst months for corporate bond performance occur during economic recessions when the Fed is cutting interest rates. Conversely, the best months for corporate bond performance occur just after the recession-peak in spreads when the Fed has finished cutting rates and the economic recovery is starting up. Tables 1A and 1B delve deeper into the return numbers. Table 1A shows average High-Yield excess returns over different investment horizons following a signal from the yield/spread correlation. For example, the second row shows that after a month when both Treasury yields and junk spreads rise, high-yield bonds deliver average excess returns of 24 bps during the following 3 months, 116 bps during the following 6 months and 75 bps during the following 12 months. Table 1B provides even more detail by showing 90% confidence intervals for each number. Table 1AAverage High-Yield Excess Returns After A Signal From Yield/Spread Correlation Table 1BHigh-Yield Excess Returns After A Signal From Yield/Spread Correlation: 90% Confidence Intervals We draw two conclusions from this analysis. First, a month when spreads widen and yields fall sends the worst signal for near-term (3-month) corporate bond performance, though a month where both yields and spreads rise is a close second. Second, and most relevant for the current market, a month when yields and spreads rise together sends the worst signal for junk bond performance over the following 12 months. In fact, it is the only signal where the 90% confidence interval shows the chance of negative excess returns during the following 12 months. This second conclusion aligns with our intuition. A period of both rising Treasury yields and junk spreads likely signals that the market is pricing-in some move toward a tighter monetary policy stance, though not a severe enough move to send long-maturity Treasury yields down. This is most likely to occur in the very early stages of a monetary tightening cycle, when monetary conditions are still accommodative but recent shifts in Fed policy suggest that they will become more restrictive down the road. A Historical Examination A look back through history confirms our analysis of when yields and spreads tend to rise concurrently. The solid line in the third panel of Chart 5 shows the number of months when both junk spreads and Treasury yields rose out of the most recent trailing 12-month period. The dashed line shows the same measure over the trailing 3-month period, multiplied by 4 to put it on the same scale as the solid line. A spike in these lines indicates that Treasury yields and junk spreads were rising at the same time. Chart 5Rising Yields And Spreads Is A Warning Signal For Monetary Tightening We identify four relevant historical periods. First, yields and spreads rose concurrently during the 1999/2000 Fed tightening cycle. Specifically, yields and spreads rose together in the early stages of the tightening cycle, then spreads continued to widen as yields fell during the 2001 recession. Second, our indicator showed a couple blips higher during the 2004/06 tightening cycle, though corporate bond returns were solid during this period, at least until after the tightening cycle ended and the recession began. Third, the 2013 taper tantrum coincided with a temporary increase in both yields and spreads as investors worried that the Fed was moving too quickly toward rate hikes. Fourth, yields and spreads both moved higher in 2015 as the Fed was heading toward a December 2015 rate hike against a back-drop of slowing economic growth. Turning to today, we view the recent jump in our indicator as similar to the jump seen during the 2013 taper tantrum. Not only is the Fed once again about to taper asset purchases, but the tapering of asset purchases suggests that the Fed’s next move will be a rate hike at some point down the road. We view this as an early warning sign for corporate bond spreads. While the monetary environment remains supportive for positive corporate bond returns for now, this may not be true by this time next year when the Fed is that much closer to liftoff. Bottom Line: Investors should stay overweight spread product versus Treasuries for now (with a preference for high-yield corporates over investment grade). But recent shifts in the yield/spread correlation suggest that the credit cycle is getting a bit long in the tooth. We will be quick to recommend a reduction in spread product exposure once the monetary tightening cycle is more advanced and the 3-year/10-year Treasury slope flattens to below 50 bps. We expect this could occur in the first half of 2022. Labor Market Update: Still On Track For November Taper And December 2022 Liftoff Chart 6Employment Growth Slowed in September September’s employment report delivered a disappointing headline number, with nonfarm payrolls growing only 194 thousand on the month compared to a consensus estimate of 500k (Chart 6). The details of the report were slightly better: August’s nonfarm payroll growth number was revised higher, our measure of the unemployment rate adjusted for distortions in the number of people employed but absent from work fell from 5.5% to 4.9% (Chart A1) and average hourly earnings rose at an annualized monthly rate of 7.7% (Chart 6, bottom panel). Expect A November Taper For bond investors, the most pressing question is whether the report is bad enough to delay the Fed’s tapering announcement past November. We doubt it. The Fed’s test for when to taper asset purchases, that it gave itself last December, is “substantial further progress” back to pre-COVID levels of employment. Since December 2020, total nonfarm payroll employment is 50% of the way back to its February 2020 level (Chart 7) and there are several good reasons to believe that employment growth will be much stronger in October and November. First, the delta wave of COVID cases clearly weighed on employment growth in September, much like it did in August. The Leisure & Hospitality sector only added 74 thousand jobs in September, compared to an average monthly pace of 349 thousand jobs between February and July of this year before the delta wave struck. With a shortfall of almost 1.6 million Leisure & Hospitality jobs compared to pre-COVID levels (Table 2), job growth in this sector will bounce back sharply during the next few months now that new COVID cases are receding (Chart 8). Chart 7"Substantial Further Progress" Has Been Made Chart 8Delta Wave Has Crested   Second, the last column of Table 2 shows that the government sector accounted for net job loss of 123 thousand in September. This negative number was driven by state & local government education jobs and is almost certainly a statistical artifact. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ release notes: Recent employment changes [in state & local government education] are challenging to interpret, as pandemic-related staffing fluctuations in public and private education have distorted the normal seasonal hiring and layoff patterns. Table 2Employment By Industry Expect December 2022 Liftoff As for what this labor market report means for when the Fed will start lifting rates, we believe that we are still on track for liftoff in December 2022. The Appendix to this report updates our scenarios that show the average monthly nonfarm payroll growth that is required to reach different combinations of the unemployment and labor force participation rates by specific future dates. If we use the median assumption from the New York Fed’s Survey of Market Participants that the Fed will lift rates when the unemployment rate is 3.5% and the participation rate is 63%, we calculate that average monthly nonfarm payroll growth of +453k is required to reach those targets by the end of 2022. We see that threshold as eminently achievable.2 Bottom Line: September’s employment report likely doesn’t alter the Fed’s timeline. The Fed is still on track to announce a tapering of its asset purchases next month and we expect employment growth will be sufficiently strong for the Fed to start hiking rates in December 2022. Investors should maintain below-benchmark portfolio duration and hold Treasury curve flatteners in anticipation of that outcome. Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Appendix: How Far From “Maximum Employment” And Fed Liftoff? Chart A1Defining “Maximum Employment” The Federal Reserve has promised that the funds rate will stay pinned at zero until the labor market returns to “maximum employment”. The Fed has not provided explicit guidance on the definition of “maximum employment”, but we deduce that “maximum employment” means that the Fed wants to see the U3 unemployment rate within a range consistent with its estimates of the natural rate of unemployment, currently 3.5% to 4.5%, and that it wants to see a significant increase in the labor force participation rate (Chart A1). Alternatively, we can infer definitions of “maximum employment” from the New York Fed’s Surveys of Primary Dealers and Market Participants. These surveys ask respondents what they think the unemployment and labor force participation rates will be at the time of Fed liftoff. Currently, the median respondent from the Survey of Market Participants expects an unemployment rate of 3.5% and a participation rate of 63%. The median respondent from the Survey of Primary Dealers expects an unemployment rate of 3.8% and a participation rate of 62.8%. Tables A1-A4 present the average monthly nonfarm payroll growth required to reach different combinations of unemployment rate and participation rate by specific future dates. For example, if we use the definition of “maximum employment” from the Survey of Market Participants, then we need to see average monthly nonfarm payroll growth of +453k in order to hit “maximum employment” by the end of 2022. Table A1Average Monthly Nonfarm Payroll Growth Required For The Unemployment Rate To Reach 4.5% By The Given Date Table A2Average Monthly Nonfarm Payroll Growth Required For The Unemployment Rate To Reach 4% By The Given Date Table A3Average Monthly Nonfarm Payroll Growth Required For The Unemployment Rate To Reach 3.5% By The Given Date Table A4Average Monthly Nonfarm Payroll Growth Required To Reach “Maximum Employment” As Defined By Survey Respondents Chart A2 presents recent monthly nonfarm payroll growth along with target levels based on the Survey of Market Participants’ definition of “maximum employment”. This chart is to help us track progress toward specific liftoff dates. For example, if monthly nonfarm payroll growth prints +400k per month going forward, we would expect Fed liftoff between December 2022 and June 2023. We will continue to track these charts and tables in the coming months, and will publish updates after the release of each monthly employment report. Chart A2Tracking Toward Fed Liftoff Footnotes 1 For more details on the politics of the debt ceiling please see US Political Strategy Weekly Report, “The House Ways And Means Tax Plan”, dated September 15, 2021. 2 For a discussion about what unemployment and participation rate targets to use in this analysis please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “2022 Will Be All About Inflation”, dated September 14, 2021.   Recommended Portfolio Specification Other Recommendations Treasury Index Returns Spread Product Returns

特別レポート

Highlights Taiwan remains the epicenter of global geopolitical risk, as highlighted by the past week’s significant increase in saber-rattling around Taiwan and across East Asia and the Pacific. Tensions may subside in the short run, as the US and China resume high-level negotiations. But then again they may not. And they will most likely escalate over the long run. Investors should judge the Taiwan scenario based on China’s capabilities rather than intentions. China’s intentions may never be known but it is increasingly capable of prevailing in a war over Taiwan. Before then, economic sanctions and cyber attacks are highly likely. The US has a history of defending Taiwan from Chinese military threats. Washington is trying to revive its strategic commitment to Asia Pacific. But US attempts to increase deterrence could provoke conflict. The simplest solution to Taiwan tensions is for a change of party in Taiwan. This would require an upset in the 2022 and especially 2024 elections. China may try to arrange that. Otherwise the risk of conflict will increase. A sharp economic slowdown in China is the biggest risk for investors, as it would not only be negative for the global economy but also would threaten domestic political stability, discredit the gradual and non-military approach to incorporating Taiwan, and boost nationalist and jingoistic pressures directed against Taiwan. Feature Chart 1China's Confluence Of Internal And External Risks China faces a historic confluence of internal and external political risks. This was our key view for 2021 and it continues to be priced by financial markets (Chart 1). The latest example of these risks is the major bout of saber-rattling over Taiwan. The US sent two aircraft carriers, and the UK one carrier, to the waters southwest of Okinawa for naval drills with Japan, Canada, the Netherlands, and New Zealand. Related drills are occurring across Southeast Asia, including Vietnam, Singapore, Malaysia, and others. Meanwhile the Chinese air force let loose its largest yet intrusion into Taiwan’s air defense identification zone (Chart 2). The US assured Japan that it would defend the disputed Senkaku islands, while Japan said that it would seek concrete options – beyond diplomacy – for dealing with Chinese pressure. Chart 2China’s Warning To Taiwan Chart 3Market Response To Saber-Rattling Over Taiwan Strait Yet, at the same time, a diplomatic opening emerged between the US and China. A virtual summit is expected to be scheduled between Presidents Joe Biden and Xi Jinping. The Biden administration unveiled its review of US trade policy toward China, with mixed results (i.e. imply a defensive rather than offensive trade policy). China offered to join the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal (the CPTPP). All sides exchanged prisoners, with Huawei’s Meng Wanzhou back in China. In the short run global investors will cheer attempts by the US and China to stabilize relations. But over the long run tensions over Taiwan suggest the underlying US-China strategic confrontation will persist. We do not doubt that global risk appetite will improve marginally on the news, including toward Chinese and Taiwanese assets (Chart 3). But investors should not mistake summitry for diplomacy, or diplomacy for concrete and material strategic de-escalation. The geopolitical outlook is gloomy for China and Taiwan. Grand Strategies Collide US grand strategy forbids countries from creating regional empires lest they challenge the US for global empire. China has the long-term potential to dominate the eastern hemisphere. The US now quite explicitly seeks to counter China’s growing economic, technological, military, and political influence. China’s grand strategy forbids countries from interfering in its domestic affairs and undermining its economic and political stability. This could include eroding its territorial integrity, jeopardizing its supply security, or denying its maritime access. The US still has considerable capabilities on this front, particularly due to its control of the oceans and special relationship with Taiwan, the democratic island that China claims as a province but that the US supplies with arms. Historically, the Kingdom of Tungning (1661-83) exemplifies that a rival political and naval power rooted in Taiwan can jeopardize the security of southern China and hence all of China (Map 1). Taiwan’s predicament is geopolitically unsustainable and the difference between the past 72 years and today is that Beijing increasingly has the military means of doing something about it. Map 1Why Taiwan’s Status Quo Is Geopolitically Unsustainable China seeks to establish maritime access, expand its navy, and improve supply security. This process points toward turf battles with the US and its allies and could easily lead to conflict over Taiwan, the East and South China Seas, and other strategic approaches to China. It could also lead to conflict over technological access. The latter is an economic and supply vulnerability that relates directly to Taiwan, which produces the world’s most advanced computer chips. The Chinese strategy since the Great Recession, under two presidents of two different factions, has been to take a more assertive stance on domestic and foreign policy, economic policy, territorial disputes, and supply security. This hawkish turn occurred in response to falling potential GDP growth, which ultimately threatens social stability and the survival of the political regime. Hong Kong was long the symbol that the western liberal democracies could coexist with the Chinese Communist Party. China’s reduction of Hong Kong’s political autonomy over the past decade violated this understanding. Taiwan is now increasingly concerned about its autonomy while the West is looking to deter China from attacking Taiwan. China is willing to wage war if the West attempts to make Taiwan’s autonomous status permanent through increased military support. The US strategy since the Great Recession, under three presidents of two different parties, has been to raise the costs on China for its increasingly assertive policies, particularly in acquiring technology and using economic and military coercion against neighbors. The US is increasing its use of sanctions, secondary sanctions, tariffs, export controls, cyber warfare, and regional strategic deterrence. Hence the policy consensus in both the US and China is more confrontational than cooperative. The Biden administration is largely maintaining President Trump’s punitive measures toward China while trying to build an international coalition to constrain China more effectively. Meanwhile the Xi administration is refusing to hand over power to a successor in 2022, so there will not be a change in Chinese strategy. The US is politically divided, a major factor in Beijing’s favor. China is politically unified, particularly on the question of Taiwan. But one area of national consensus in the US is the need to become “tougher” with respect to China. President Trump’s policies and the COVID-19 pandemic reinforced this consensus. The number of Americans who would support sending US troops to Taiwan if China invaded has risen from 19% in 1982 to 52% today – meaning that the country is divided but fear of China is driving a shift in opinion.1 Chart 4Taiwan Strait Risk Shoots Up To 1950s Levels And Beyond The China Cross-Strait Academy, a new think tank with pro-mainland sympathies, has produced a Cross Strait Relations Risk Index that goes back to 1950 and utilizes 59 factors ranging from politics and diplomacy to military and economics. It suggests that tensions have reached historically high levels, comparable to the 1950s, when the first and second Taiwan Strait crises occurred (Chart 4). Beware Chinese Economic Crisis – Or Concerted US Action Tensions across the Taiwan Strait began to rise in 2012 when the Communist Party adopted a more hawkish national policy in response to potential threats to its long-term rule arising from the Great Recession. The 2014 “Sunflower Protests” in Taiwan and “Umbrella Protests” in Hong Kong symbolized the rise in tension as Beijing sought to centralize control across Greater China. Support for the political status quo in Taiwan peaked around this time, although most Taiwanese still prefer the status quo to any final decision on the island’s status, which could trigger conflict (Chart 5). China’s militarization of rocks and reefs in the South China Sea throughout the 2010s gave it greater control over the strategic approaches to Taiwan. Since 2016, we have argued that geopolitical risk in the Taiwan Strait would rise on a structural, long-term basis for the following reasons: (1) China’s economic downshift triggered power consolidation and outward nationalism (2) Taiwanese opinion was shifting away from integration with the mainland (3) the US was attempting a strategic shift of focus back to Asia and countering China. Underlying this assessment was the long-running trend of rising support for independence and falling support for unification with China (Chart 6). Chart 5Taiwanese Favor Status Quo Indefinitely Chart 6Very Few Taiwanese Favor Reunification, Now Or Later China’s crackdown on Hong Kong from 2016-19 escalated matters further as it removed the “one country, two systems” model for Taiwan (Chart 7). China continues to insist on this solution. In 2013 and again in 2019, Xi Jinping declared that the Taiwan problem cannot be passed down from one generation to another, implying that he intended to resolve the matter during his tenure, which is expected to extend through 2035. Whether Xi has formally altered China’s cross-strait policy is debatable.2 But his use of military intimidation is not. The US policy of “strategic ambiguity” is debatable but the historical record is clear. In the three major crises in the Taiwan Strait (1954-55, 1958, and 1995-96), the US has sent naval forces to the area and clearly signaled that it would defend Taiwan against aggression.3 However, in diplomatic matters, the US has constantly downgraded Taiwan: for instance, transferring its United Nations seat to China in 1971, revoking its mutual defense treaty in 1980, and prioritizing economic cooperation with China in recent decades. The implication is that the US will not stand in the way of unification unless Beijing attempts to achieve it through force of arms. China’s conclusion from US behavior must be that it can definitely overtake Taiwan by means of economic attraction and diplomacy over time. For example, Beijing’s assertion of direct control over Hong Kong took 20 years and ultimately occurred without any resistance from the West. By contrast, a full-scale attack poses major logistical and military risks and potentially devastating costs if the US upholds its historic norm of defending Taiwan. China’s economy and political system could ultimately be destabilized, despite any initial nationalistic euphoria. Taiwan’s wealth (and semiconductor fabs) would be piles of ash. Of course, Taiwan is different from Hong Kong. The Taiwanese people can believe realistically that they have an alternative to direct rule from Beijing. If mainland China’s economic trajectory falters then the option of absorbing Taiwan gradually will fall away. Today about 30%-40% of Taiwanese people believe cross-strait economic exchange should deepen (Chart 8). Only one period of Taiwanese policy since 1949, the eight years under President Ma Ying-jeou (2008-16), focused exclusively on cross-strait economic integration and deemphasized the tendency toward greater autonomy. If China’s economic prospects dim, then Beijing will become more inclined toward the military option, both to distract from domestic instability and to prevent Taiwan from entertaining independence. Chart 7Taiwanese Oppose "One Country, Two Systems" Chart 8Taiwanese Not Enthusiastic About Cross-Strait Economic Integration Chart 9Taiwanese Identify Exclusively As Taiwanese, Not Chinese Most likely China already has the capability to fight and win a war within the “first island chain,” including over Taiwan, especially if US intervention is hesitant or limited. But any doubts will likely be dispelled in the coming years. As long as China’s military advantage continues to grow, Beijing will increasingly view Taiwan as an object that it can take at will, regardless of whether economic gradualism would eventually work. The Taiwanese increasingly view themselves as distinctly Taiwanese – not Chinese or a mix of Taiwanese and Chinese (Chart 9). The implication is that it may be too late for China to win over hearts and minds. However, Beijing will presumably want to see whether Taiwan’s pro-independence Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) can be dislodged from power in the 2024 elections before making a drastic leap to war. Taiwan, like the US and other democracies, is internally divided. President Tsai Ing-wen’s narrative of Taiwan’s democratic triumph over authoritarianism is not only applied to the mainland but also directed against Taiwan’s own Kuomintang (KMT).4 The country is unified on its right to expand economic and diplomatic cooperation with the West but it is starkly divided on whether the US should formally ally with Taiwan, sell it arms, and defend it from invasion (Chart 10A). Kuomintang supporters say they are not willing to fight and die for Taiwan in the face of any invasion (Chart 10B). American policymakers complain that Taiwan’s military structure and policies – long managed by the KMT – are not seriously aimed at preparing for asymmetric warfare against Chinese invasion. Chart 10ATaiwan Divided On Whether US Should Increase Military And Strategic Support Chart 10BTaiwan Divided On War Sacrifice The international sphere also matters for Beijing’s calculus. If the US remains divided and distracted – and allies curry favor with China – then China will presumably continue the gradualist approach. But if the US unifies at home and forges closer ties with allies, aiming to curb China’s economy and defend Taiwan’s democracy, then China may be motivated to take military action sooner. If the US and allies want to deter an attack on Taiwan, they need to signal that war will exact profound costs on China, such as crippling economic sanctions, a full economic blockade, or allied military intervention. But the West’s attempts to increase deterrence could spur China to take action before the West is fully prepared. Unlike the US in the Cuban Missile Crisis, China cannot accept a defeat in any showdown over arms sales to Taiwan. Its own political legitimacy is tied up with Taiwan, contrary to that of the US with Cuba. Given the lack of American willingness to fight a nuclear war over a non-treaty ally, the probability of China launching air strikes would be much higher (Diagram 1). Diagram 1Game Theory Of A Fourth Taiwan Strait Crisis The US is not trying to give Taiwan nuclear arms, or other game-changing offensive systems, although the US has sent marines and special operations forces to help train Taiwanese troops. It is up to Beijing when to make an ultimatum regarding US military support.5 Ultimately the US still controls the seas and China depends on the Persian Gulf for nearly half of its oil imports. This is a good reason for China not to invade Taiwan. But if the US imposes an oil blockade, then the US and China will go to war – this is how the US and Japan came to blows in World War II. The danger is that China assesses that the US will not go that far. Will Biden-Xi Summit Reduce Tensions? Not Over The Long Run True, strategic tensions could be calmed in the short run. The US is restarting talks with China and setting up a bilateral summit between Presidents Biden and Xi. The two sides have exchanged prisoners (e.g. Meng Wanzhou), held climate talks, and Beijing has offered to join the Trans-Pacific Partnership. The US Trade Representative is suggesting it could ease some of President Trump’s tariffs under pressure from corporate lobbyists. The Biden administration is also likely to seek Beijing’s cooperation in other areas, such as North Korea and Iran. Biden has an urgent problem with Iran and may need China’s help constraining Iran’s nuclear program. However, none of the current initiatives change the underlying clash of grand strategies outlined above. A fundamental US-China reengagement is not in the cards. China is adopting nationalism and mercantilism to deal with its slowing potential growth, while China-bashing is one of the few areas of US national consensus. Specifically: Democracy over autocracy: The Biden administration cannot afford to be seen as smoothing the way for Xi Jinping to restore autocracy in the twentieth National Party Congress 12 months from now. China doubles down on manufacturing: China is not making liberal reforms to its economy to lower trade tensions but rather doubling down on state-led manufacturing and technological acquisition, according to the US Trade Representative.6 The US trade deficit is surging due to US fiscal stimulus. Biden will maintain or even expand high-tech export controls. Climate cooperation is limited: The US public does not agree that it should exchange its homegrown fossil fuels for Beijing’s renewable energy equipment, and the US and EU are flirting with “carbon adjustment fees,” which would be tariffs on carbon-intensive goods imports from places like China. Meanwhile China just told its state-owned enterprises to do everything in their power to secure coal for electricity and ordered banks to lend more to coal companies. North Korea is already a nuclear-armed state, which China condoned, despite multiple rounds of negotiations with the West. No agreement on Iran: If China helps force Iran to accept restrictions on its nuclear program, then that could mark a substantial improvement. But China has made long term commitments to Iran recently and probably will not backtrack on them unless the US makes major concessions that would undermine its attempts to counter China. The Taiwan conundrum undermines trust. If China can be brought to help the US with historic deals on North Korea or Iran, it will expect the US to stand back from Taiwan. The US may not see it that way. A failure to do so will appear a betrayal of trust. Consider China’s bid to join the Trans-Pacific Partnership. China’s state-driven economic model is fundamentally at odds with the TPP. It only takes one member to veto China’s membership, and Australia and Japan would defer to the US on this issue. The US is only likely to rejoin the TPP, which requires Republican support in Congress, on the basis that it is a vehicle for countering China. Even if the TPP members could be convinced to accept China, they would also want to accept Taiwan, which Beijing would refuse. Ultimately if China’s membership is vetoed, then it will conclude that the West is not serious about economic integration. China will be excluded and will be more inclined to pursue its own solutions to problems. China possesses or is close to possessing the capability of taking Taiwan by force today. We cannot rule it out. Taiwanese Defense Minister Chiu Kuo-cheng just claimed it could be attempted as early as 2025. Other estimates point to important Chinese calendar dates as deadlines for Taiwan’s absorption: 2027 (centenary of the People’s Liberation Army), 2035 (Xi Jinping’s long-term policy program), and 2049 (centenary of the People’s Republic of China). The truth is that any attack on Taiwan would not be based on symbolic anniversaries but on maximizing the element of surprise, China’s military capabilities, and foreign lack of readiness and coordination. Given that China’s capabilities are in place, or nearly in place, and nobody can predict such things precisely, investors should be prepared for conflict at any time. Investment Takeaways Chart 11Taiwanese Dollar Strengthened Since Trump The Taiwanese dollar has rallied since the escalation of US-China strategic tensions in 2016. The real effective exchange rate is now in line with its historic average after a long period of weakness (Chart 11). The trade war and COVID-19 have reinforced Taiwan’s advantage as a chokepoint for semiconductors and tech exports. If we thought there was no real risk of a war, we would not stand in the way of this rally. But based on geopolitical assessment above, the rally could be cut short at any time. Taiwanese equities have also rallied sharply for the same reasons – earnings have exploded throughout the pandemic and semiconductor shortage (Chart 12). Equities are not overly expensive on a cyclically adjusted price-to-earnings basis. But they are meeting resistance at a level that is slightly above fair value. Again, the macro and market fundamentals are positive but geopolitics is deeply negative. We remain underweight Taiwan. China’s willingness to try to stabilize relations with the US is an important positive sign that global investors will cheer in the short run. However, with the US economy fired up, and China’s export machine firing on all cylinders, Chinese authorities apparently believe they can maintain relatively tight monetary, fiscal, and regulatory policy, according to our Emerging Markets Strategy and China Investment Strategy. This will lead to negative outcomes in China’s economy and financial markets. The domestic economy is weak and animal spirits in the private sector are depressed. Retail sales, for example, have dropped far beneath their long-term trend (Chart 13). Chart 12Taiwanese Stocks Not Exactly Cheap Chart 13China: Consumer Sentiment Weak The regulatory crackdown on the property sector could trigger an economic and financial crisis (Chart 14). Chinese onshore equity markets were ultimately not able to sustain the collapse in sentiment this year that hit offshore equities even harder. China’s technology sector will continue to struggle under the burden of hawkish regulation, while Chinese stocks ex-tech have long underperformed the broad market (Chart 15). Chart 14China's Huge Property Sector Looking Wobbly Chart 15Beware Financial Turmoil In Mainland China We maintain the view that Chinese authorities will ease policy when necessary to try to prevent deleveraging in the property sector from triggering a crisis ahead of the twentieth national party congress. A look at past five-year political rotations suggests that bank loans will be flat-to-up over the coming 12 months and that fixed asset investment will tick up (Chart 16). But as long as policymakers are reluctant, risks lie to the downside for Chinese assets and related plays. Chart 16National Party Congress 2022 Requires Overall Stability Chart 17GeoRisk Indicators Flash Warnings China’s shift from “consensus rule” to “personal rule,” i.e. reversion to strongman rule or autocracy, permanently increases the risk of policy mistakes. This could apply to fiscal and regulatory policy as much as to cross-strait policy or foreign policy. It is appropriate that our geopolitical risk indicators for China and Taiwan are rising, signaling that equities are not yet out of the woods (Chart 17). Over the long run China is capable of staging a surprise attack and defeating Taiwan. We have argued that the odds are small this year but that some crisis is imminent – and that the risk of war will rise in the coming years. This is especially true if China cannot engineer a recession to get the Kuomintang back into power in 2024. However, from a fundamentally geopolitical point of view, any attack is bound to be a surprise and hence investors should be prepared. The three main conditions for a conflict over Taiwan are: (1) Chinese domestic instability (2) an American transfer of game-changing offensive weapon systems to Taiwan (3) a formal Taiwanese movement toward independence. The likeliest of these, by far, is Chinese instability.   Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1 See Dina Smeltz and Craig Kafura, "For First Time, Half Of Americans Favor Defending Taiwan If China Invades," Chicago Council on Global Affairs, August 26, 2021, thechicagocouncil.org. 2 See Lu Hui, "Xi says ‘China must be, will be reunified’ as key anniversary marked," Xinhua, January 2, 2019, Xinhuanet.com. For a less alarmist reading of Xi’s recent speeches, see David Sacks, "What Xi Jinping’s Major Speech Means For Taiwan," Council on Foreign Relations, July 6, 2021, cfr.org. 3 See Ian Easton, "Will America Defend Taiwan? Here’s What History Says," Strategika, Hoover Institution, June 30, 2021, hoover.org. 4 See Tsai Ing-wen, "Taiwan and the Fight for Democracy," Foreign Affairs, November/December 2021, foreignaffairs.com. 5 See Gordon Lubold, "U.S. Troops Have Been Deployed In Taiwan For At Least A Year," Wall Street Journal, October 7, 2021, wsj.com. 6 Office of the US Trade Representative, "Fact Sheet: The Biden-Harris Administration’s New Approach To The U.S.-China Trade Relationship," October 4, 2021, ustr.gov.

Highlights Gold prices will continue to be challenged by conflicting information flows regarding US monetary policy; higher inflationary impulses from commodity prices and supply-chain bottlenecks; global economic policy uncertainty, and risks to EM economic growth (Chart of the Week). Concern over the likely tapering of the Fed's asset-purchase program this year, rate hikes next year and fiscal-policy uncertainty will support rising interest-rate risk premia and a stronger USD. These will remain headwinds for gold. Going into the Northern Hemisphere's winter, risk premia in fossil-fuel prices are at or close to their zeniths, as is the Bloomberg commodity index. This will keep short-term inflation elevated. Heightened geopolitical tensions – particularly between Western democracies and China – will keep the USD well bid by risk-averse investors. The commodity-induced element of PCEPI inflation will be transitory. Uncertainty over US monetary policy and rising geopolitical tensions, however, will remain part and parcel of gold fundamentals indefinitely. The trailing stop on our long 1Q22 natural gas call spread – long $5.00/MMBtu call vs. short $5.50/MMBtu call – was elected, leaving us with a 20% gain. We will not be re-setting the spread at tonight's close, due to the difficulty in taking a price view in markets with extremely high weather-related uncertainty. Feature The quality of information informing the analysis of gold markets is highly uncertain at present. US monetary policy uncertainty and the future of Fed chairman Jerome Powell keep expectations twitchy when it comes issues like the tapering of the Fed's asset-purchase program. Our colleagues at BCA's US Bond Strategy expect the Fed will announce a taper in asset purchases by November 2021 which will end in June 2022.1 But the tapering really is not, in our estimation, as big a deal as inflation and inflation expectations, which will drive the Fed's rate-hiking timetable. Chart of the WeekUncertainty Weighs On Gold The first Fed rate hike expected by our bond desk likely will come at the end of next year. Our colleagues expect the Fed will want to check off three criteria before increasing interest rates (Table 1). The inflation targets – actual and expected – already have been checked off, leaving the labor market's recovery as the only outstanding issue on our internal checklist. By December 2022, once the maximum employment criterion has been met, the Fed will commence with rate hike.2 Subsequent rate hikes will depend on inflation expectations. Table 1A Checklist For Liftoff Uncertain Inflation Expectations The higher inflation that checks off our bond desk's list resulted from COVID-19-impacted services and tight auto markets (Chart 2). We also find evidence commodities feed into inflation expectations and realized inflation, both of which are key variables for the Fed (Chart 3). Transitory effects – chiefly supply-chain bottlenecks and a global scramble for coal, gas and oil – have lifted realized inflation in 2H21, and have taken the Bloomberg commodity index to record levels (Chart 4). Nonetheless, given the fundamental backdrop for the key industrial commodities – chiefly oil, gas, coal and base metals – the inflationary impulse from commodity markets could persist indefinitely into the future, in our estimation. In order to incentivize the investment in base metals needed to literally build out the renewable energy infrastructure, the grids that support it and the electric vehicles that will supplant internal-combustion-engine technology, higher energy and metals prices will be required for years.3 This will be occurring as the production of traditional energy sources – i.e., fossil fuels – winds down due to lower investment over the next 10-20 years. This also will result in higher and more volatile oil and gas prices. Chart 2Inflation Meets Fed Targets Chart 3Commodities Feed Into Inflation Expectations All of these real-economy factors will feed into higher inflation over time, which will present the Fed with difficult choices regarding monetary policy and interest rates. Chart 4Record Commodity Index Levels USD Strength Suppresses Inflation And Gold Prices  It is worthwhile noting the current USD strength is suppressing inflation. However, it is not suppressing commodity prices entirely, as Chart 4 shows. The transitory weather-related price increases in energy commodities will pass, either when winter ends or if a less severe winter hits the Northern Hemisphere. We continue to expect a lower dollar, as the Fed's accommodative monetary policy remains in place. Even after the Fed tapers its asset-purchase program, policy will remain loose. The large fiscal packages that most likely will be approved by the US Congress will swell the US debt and budget deficits, which likely will weaken the USD over time. On a purchasing-power-parity basis (PPP) we also expect a weaker dollar (Chart 5). We also are expecting the availability of more efficacious vaccines in EM economies to boost economic activity, which will strengthen incomes and local currencies vis-à-vis the USD. Chart 5Weaker USD Expected On A PPP Basis The risk to this USD view – which would support gold prices – remains the heightened geopolitical tensions between Western democracies and China, which will keep political uncertainty elevated and will keep the USD well bid by risk-averse investors. Persistent USD strength would restrain inflation, and weaken the case for owning gold. Investment Implications We remain bullish gold over the medium- and long-term, expecting higher inflation and inflation expectations to lift demand for this safe haven. However, persistent commodity-induced inflation could force the Fed to tighten monetary policy more than is currently expected to get out ahead of higher inflation and inflation expectations. This could lead to stagflation, wherein inflation runs high but growth stalls as interest rates move higher. Persistent geopolitical risk also will keep risk-averse investors well bid for the USD. Commodities Round-Up Energy: Bullish First-line US natural gas prices were down ~ 9% as we went to press, following reports Russia would make more gas available to European buyers. This report apparently was later contradicted by a Gazprom official, who said Russian inventories still were being filled ahead of winter.4 WTI crude oil prices came close to hitting a seven-year high early in the trading day Wednesday, then promptly retreated (Chart 6). The news flow is indicative of the extreme sensitivity of gas and oil buyers going into the coming winter. Base Metals: Bullish Earlier this week, the Peruvian government struck an deal with MMG Ltd, owner of the Las Bambas mine, and the local community around the site, which reportedly will involve hiring local residents to provide services to the mine, including helping transport minerals and maintaining key transit roads. The community had been protesting to seek more of the income from the mine, and created blockades en route to the site, which threatened ~ 2% of global copper supply. Peru's newly elected president, TK Castillo, rose to power on the promise to redistribute mining wealth to Peruvian citizens. This was his first negotiation with a mining company since his election in July. MMG’s major shareholder is China Minmetals Corp. The Leftist president will need to balance the interests of local stakeholders on the one hand, while ensuring the world’s second largest copper producing nation is still attractive to international miners. Precious Metals: Bullish In 2021, the World Platinum Investment Council expects the platinum to swing to a physical surplus of 190k oz, which reverses an earlier forecast for a deficit made in the Council's 1Q21 report (Chart 7). Demand is forecast to increase year-over-year, spurred by increases in automotive, industrial and jewelry demand. On the supply side, growth in South Africa's mined output growth will keep markets in a surplus for 2021. According to SFA Oxford, gross palladium demand and refined supply for 2021 are expected to be at 10.03mm oz, and 6.77mm, respectively. Palladium balances (ex-ETFs) are projected to remain in a physical deficit of 495k ounces for 2021. Chart 6 Chart 7   Robert P. Ryan Chief Commodity & Energy Strategist rryan@bcaresearch.com Ashwin Shyam Research Associate Commodity & Energy Strategy ashwin.shyam@bcaresearch.com     Footnotes 1     Please see Damage Assessment, published by BCA Research's US Bond Strategy on September 28, 2021. 2     Please see 2022 Will Be All About Inflation, published by BCA Research's US Bond Strategy on September 14, 2021, which notes the concept of maximum employment is not a well-defined term. 3    Please see La Niña And The Energy Transition, which we published last week. 4    Please see Energy price surge sends shivers through markets as Europe looks to Russia published by reuters.com on September 6, 2021.   Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations

Highlights Equity valuations are extremely stretched versus bonds, so there is little wiggle room for bonds to sell off before pulling down large tracts of the stock market. We estimate that bond yields can rise by no more than 30 bps, before the Fed is forced to talk them back down again. Starting from an earnings yield that is extreme versus its history, we should prudently assume that the prospective long-term real return from equities will be far below the current earnings yield of 4.6 percent, and closer to zero, even if not actually negative. In capitalist economies, gluts may or may not lead to shortages; but shortages always lead to gluts. In other words, the current inflation is sowing the seeds of its own destruction. Hence, we reiterate our structural recommendation to overweight US T-bonds versus US TIPS. Fractal analysis: Cotton, and Polish equities. Feature Chart of the WeekTech Stocks Have Been Tracking The 30-Year T-Bond Price One-For-One Equity valuations are extremely stretched versus bonds. The upshot is that there is little wiggle room for bonds to sell off before pulling down large tracts of the stock market. This is not just an abstract hypothesis – it is an empirical fact, as recent market action is making painfully clear. Since February, the global tech sector has tracked the 30-year T-bond price almost one-for-one. The near perfect fit proves that the tech (and broader growth stock) rally has been entirely premised on the bond market rally. Hence, on the three occasions that bonds have sold off sharply – including in the last couple of weeks – tech stocks have sold off sharply too (Chart of the Week). Put simply, the performance of the tech sector is being driven by the change in its valuation, and the change in its valuation is being driven by the change in the bond yield (Chart I-2). Chart I-2Tech Stock Valuations Are Being Driven By The Bond Yield Of course, stock prices are also premised on earnings. So, given enough time, rising earnings can make valuations less stretched, adding more wiggle room for bonds to sell off. The trouble is that a change in earnings happens much more gradually than can a change in valuation – a 10 percent rise in earnings can take a year, whereas a 10 percent fall in valuation can happen in a week. Bond Yields Remain The Dominant Driver Of The Stock Market For the next few months at least, the movement in bond yields will remain the dominant driver of the most stretched parts of the stock market and, by extension, the overall market itself. This is especially true for the growth-heavy S&P 500 which, since March, has been tracking the 30-year T-bond price one-for-one (Chart I-3). Chart I-3The S&P 500 Has Also Been Tracking The 30-Year T-Bond Price One-For-One The key question for investors is, what is the upper limit to bond yields before stock market damage causes the Federal Reserve to talk them down again? To answer this question, our working assumption is that a 15 percent drawdown in growth stocks would damage the growth-heavy S&P 500 enough – and thereby worsen ‘financial conditions’ enough – for the Fed to change its tone. Based on this year’s very tight relationship between tech stocks and the 30-year T-bond yield, a 15 percent drawdown would occur if the 30-year T-bond yield increased to 2.4 percent from 2.1 percent today (Chart I-4). Chart I-4The Fed's 'Pain Point' Is Only 30 Basis Points Away This confirms our view that the resistance level to long-duration bond yields is around 30 bps above current levels, equivalent to around 1.8 percent on the 10-year T-bond yield. More About The ‘Negative Equity Risk Premium’ Our recent report The Equity Risk Premium Turns Negative For The First Time Since 2002 caused quite a stir. So, let’s elaborate and clarify the arguments we made about the equity risk premium (ERP) – the estimated excess return that stocks will deliver over bonds over a long investment horizon, such as 10 years. Many investors estimate the ERP by taking the stock market’s earnings yield – currently 4.6 percent in the US1 – and subtracting the real 10-year bond yield – currently -0.9 percent on US Treasury Inflation Protected Securities (TIPS). At first glance, this presents a very generous ERP of 5.5 percent. So, equities are attractively valued versus bonds, right? Wrong. The glaring error is that the earnings yield estimates the stock market’s prospective return only if the earnings yield starts and ends at the same level. If it does not, then the prospective return could be very different to the earnings yield. For example, imagine that the stock market was trading at a bubble price-to-earnings multiple of 100, meaning an earnings yield of 1 percent. Clearly, from such a bubble valuation, nobody would expect the market to return 1 percent. Instead, as the bubble burst, and valuations normalised, the prospective return would be deeply negative. It follows that when, as now, the earnings yield is extreme versus its history, we must build in some prudent normalisation to estimate the prospective return. The question is, how? One approach is to use history to inform us of the likely normalisation. Chart I-5 does this using the ‘best-fit’ relationship between the earnings yield at each point through 1990-2011 and subsequent 10-year real return from each starting point. Using the best-fit for this specific episode, the current earnings yield of 4.6 percent implies a prospective 10-year real return not of 4.6 percent, but of -1.1 percent. Chart I-5Based On History, The Current Earnings Yield Implies A Prospective 10-Year Real Return Much Less Than 4.6 Percent Yet this best-fit approach meets a common reproach – that the best-fit for this specific episode is massively distorted by the dot com bubble peak and the global financial crisis (GFC) trough occurring (by coincidence) almost 10 years apart. We can counter this reproach in two ways. First, the best-fit relationship is much better than the raw earnings yield even for undistorted 10-year periods such as 1995-2005 or 2011-2021. Better still, we can change the prospective return from 10 years to 7 years and thereby remove the dot com bubble peak to GFC trough distortion. Chart I-6 shows that this 7-year best-fit relationship also works much better than the raw earnings yield. Chart I-6Based On History, The Current Earnings Yield Implies A Prospective 7-Year Real Return Much Less Than 4.6 Percent Admittedly, the best-fit comes from just one episode in history, and there is no certainty that the 10-year and 7-year relationships that applied during that one episode should apply through 2021-31 and 2021-28 respectively. Nevertheless, starting from an earnings yield that is extreme versus its history, as is the case now, we should prudently assume that the prospective long-term real return from equities will be far below 4.6 percent, and closer to zero, even if not actually negative. Will The ‘Real’ Real Yield Please Stand Up Measuring the ERP also requires an estimate of the prospective real return on bonds. This part should be easy because the yield on the US 10-year TIPS – currently -0.9 percent – is the guaranteed 10-year real return of buying and holding that investment. It is derived by taking the yield on the 10-year T-bond – currently 1.5 percent – and subtracting the market’s expected rate of inflation over the next 10 years – currently 2.4 percent. But the equivalent real return on the much larger conventional bond market could be quite different. In this case, it will be the 10-year T-bond yield minus the actual rate of inflation over the next 10 years. To the extent that the actual rate of inflation turns out less than the expected rate of 2.4 percent, the real return on the T-bond will turn out higher than that on the TIPS. In fact, this has consistently turned out to be the case. The market has consistently overestimated the inflation rate over the subsequent 10 years, meaning that the real return on T-bonds has been around 1 percent higher than that on TIPS (Chart I-7). Chart I-7Will The 'Real' Real Yield Please Stand Up Yet given the current surge in inflation, and no end in sight for supply chain disruptions and bottlenecks, is it plausible that the next ten years’ rate of inflation will be lower than 2.4 percent? The answer is yes. Because, as my colleague Peter Berezin points out: in capitalist economies, gluts may or may not lead to shortages; but shortages always lead to gluts. And gluts always cause prices to collapse. In other words, the current inflation is sowing the seeds of its own destruction. Hence, we reiterate our structural recommendation to overweight US T-bonds versus US TIPS. The Cotton Is Stretched, And So Are Polish Equities Talking of shortages, cotton now adds to the list of commodities in which supply bottlenecks have raised prices to extremes. Cotton prices have reached a 10-year high due to weather conditions in the US (the world’s biggest cotton producer) combined with shipping disruptions. However, with cotton now exhibiting extreme fragility on its combined 130/260-day fractal structure, there is a high likelihood of a price reversal in the coming months when the shortage turns into a glut (Chart I-8). Chart I-8The Cotton Is Stretched Meanwhile, the bank-heavy Polish equity market has surged on the back of the spectacular outperformance of its banks sector. This strong uptrend has now reached the point of fragility on its 130-day fractal structure that has indicated several previous reversals (Chart I-9). Chart I-9Poland's Outperformance Is Stretched Accordingly, this week’s recommended trade is to underweight the Warsaw General Index versus the Eurostoxx 600, setting a profit target and symmetrical stop-loss at 6 percent.   Dhaval Joshi Chief Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1 Based on the 12-month forward earnings yield. Fractal Trading System Fractal Trades 6-Month Recommendations Structural And Thematic Recommendations Closed Fractal Trades     Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields ##br##- Euro Area Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields ##br##- Europe Ex Euro Area   Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields ##br##- Asia Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields ##br##- Other Developed   Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-5Indicators To Watch ##br##- Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch ##br##- Interest Rate Expectations   Chart II-6Indicators To Watch ##br##- Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch ##br##- Interest Rate Expectations      

Highlights Q3/2021 Performance Breakdown: Our recommended model bond portfolio outperformed the custom benchmark index by +8bps during the third quarter of the year. Winners & Losers: The government bond side of the portfolio outperformed by +4bps, led by the timely downgrade of UK Gilts to underweight in early August. Spread product allocations outperformed by +4bps, coming entirely from the overweights to high-yield in the US and Europe. Portfolio Positioning For The Next Six Months: We are maintaining an overall below-benchmark portfolio duration exposure, concentrated in the US and UK. We expect global growth will rebound from the Delta variant and supply chain disruptions will keep inflation elevated for longer, both of which will push global bond yields higher as central banks – led by Fed – turn less dovish. We are maintaining a moderate overweight to global spread product versus government debt, concentrated on an overweight to US high-yield where valuations still look the least stretched compared to corporate debt in other countries. Feature Global bond markets have had a lot of sources of uncertainty to digest over the past few months. Renewed COVID fears due to the spread of the Delta variant, slowing global growth momentum, supply chain disruptions leading to surging realized inflation, the ongoing US fiscal policy debate in D.C., concerns over Chinese corporate debt and the increasingly hawkish monetary policy signals sent by global central banks, most notably the Fed. The net result of these narratives has been some major swings in government bond market performance during the third quarter of 2021. The benchmark 10-year government bond yield in the US started the quarter at 1.48%, fell to an intraday low of 1.12% on August 4, then soared higher to end the quarter back at 1.50%. Even bigger moves were seen in other countries, with the 10-year UK Gilt yield doubling from its Q3 low of 0.48% on August 4 while the 10-year German bund yield is now 30bps above its low for the quarter. Despite this yield volatility, however, spreads for riskier credit market assets like US high-yield have remained generally well behaved. With that in mind, we present our quarterly review of the BCA Research Global Fixed Income Strategy (GFIS) model bond portfolio during Q3/2021. We also present our recommended positioning for the portfolio for the next six months (Table 1), as well as portfolio return expectations for our base case and alternative investment scenarios. We anticipate that bond investor uncertainty will switch from concerns about global growth to worries that stubbornly elevated inflation will elicit bond-bearish monetary policy responses from central banks. Table 1GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Recommended Positioning For The Next Six Months As a reminder to existing readers (and to new clients), the model portfolio is a part of our service that complements the usual macro analysis of global fixed income markets. The portfolio is how we communicate our opinion on the relative attractiveness between government bond and spread product sectors. We do this by applying actual percentage weightings to each of our recommendations within a fully invested hypothetical bond portfolio. Q3/2021 Model Bond Portfolio Performance: Positive Returns In An Uncertain Environment Chart 1Q3/2021 Performance: Riding The Duration Roller Coaster The total return for the GFIS model portfolio (hedged into US dollars) in the third quarter was +0.21%, slightly outperforming the custom benchmark index by +8bps (Chart 1).1 In terms of the specific breakdown between the government bond and spread product allocations in our model portfolio, the former generated +4bps of outperformance versus our custom benchmark index while the latter also outperformed by +4bps. Those small positive excess returns should be considered a victory, given the huge yield swings within the quarter, particularly for government bonds. We maintained a significant underweight position to US Treasuries in the portfolio during Q3, given our view that markets were underestimating the risks that the US economy would weather the summer Delta storm. As Treasury yields declined steadily during July and August, so did the relative performance of our model bond portfolio. The government bond portion of the portfolio was underperforming the benchmark by as much as -30bps before global bond yields bottomed out in early August. In the end, there was only a slight underperformance (-2bps) from the US Treasury portion of the portfolio during the quarter (Table 2). Table 2GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q3/2021 Overall Return Attribution Our biggest government bond overweights have been concentrated in the euro area. There, the sum of active returns during Q3 from our government bond allocations was +3bps, although that came entirely from above-benchmark allocations to inflation-linked bonds in Germany, France and Italy. We did make one major shift in our government bond allocations during the quarter, and it was both timely and successful. We downgraded our recommended UK Gilt exposure to underweight on August 11.2 We observed that the Bank of England (BoE) was starting to prepare the markets for less accommodative monetary policy, with the UK economy holding up well as its Delta variant surge was losing momentum. The BoE rhetoric has proven to be even more hawkish than we anticipated, hinting at a possible rate hike before the end of 2021, leading Gilts to be the worst performing government bond market in our model portfolio universe during the quarter. The result: our UK underweight contributed +4bps to the portfolio performance during the quarter. Turning to the credit side of the portfolio, the most successful positions were our overweight tilts on high-yield in the US (+3bps) and euro area (+1bps). All other exposures contributed little to returns, an unsurprising development given our neutral allocations to investment grade corporates in the US, UK and euro area, as well as for USD-denominated EM corporates. The bar charts showing the total and relative returns for each individual government bond market and spread product sector are presented in Charts 2 & 3. Chart 2GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q3/2021 Government Bond Performance Attribution Chart 3GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q3/2021 Spread Product Performance Attribution By Sector Biggest Outperformers: Overweight UK Gilts with a maturity greater than 10-years (+4bps) Overweight Italian inflation-linked bonds (+2bps) Overweight US high-yield: Ba-rated (+2bps) and B-rated (+1bps) Biggest Underperformers: Underweight US Treasuries with a maturity greater than 10-years (-2bps) Overweight Japanese Government Bonds in longer maturity buckets: 7-10 years (-1bps) and greater than 10-years (-1bps) Overweight UK inflation-linked bonds (-1bps) Chart 4 presents the ranked benchmark index returns of the individual countries and spread product sectors in the GFIS model bond portfolio for Q3/2021. Returns are hedged into US dollars (we do not take active currency risk in this portfolio) and adjusted to reflect duration differences between each country/sector and the overall custom benchmark index for the model portfolio. We have also color coded the bars in each chart to reflect our recommended investment stance for each market during Q3 (red for underweight, dark green for overweight, gray for neutral). Chart 4Ranking The Winners & Losers From The GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Universe In Q3/2021 Ideally, we would look to see more green bars on the left side of the chart where market returns are highest, and more red bars on the right side of the chart were returns are lowest. As can be seen in the chart, the bars look very close to that ideal for Q3/2021. Among the markets that represent our overweights, the most notably positive returns came from all euro area government bonds (a combined +136bps) and euro area corporates (a combined +20bps from investment grade and high-yield). Returns within our recommended underweight positions were even more notable: UK Gilts (-302bps), New Zealand government bonds (-103bps), EM USD-denominated sovereigns (-85bps), and Canadian government bonds (-45bps). Bottom Line: Our model bond portfolio slightly outperformed its benchmark index in the third quarter of the year by +8bps – a moderately positive result coming equally from underweight positions in government bonds and overweight allocations to spread product. Future Drivers Of Portfolio Returns Chart 5Negative Real Yields: The Biggest Mispricing In Global Bond Markets Looking ahead, the performance of the model bond portfolio will continue to be driven primarily by our below-benchmark overall duration tilt – focused on our underweight stance on US Treasuries – and our overweight stance on high-yield corporates. Our most favored cyclical indicators for global bond yields are still, in aggregate, signaling more upside potential over at least the next six months, although the nature of the signal is changing (Chart 5). While our Global Duration Indicator, comprised of leading economic indicators and measures of future economic sentiment, has peaked, the overall level of 10-year bond yields within the major developed markets remains well below levels implied by the Indicator (top panel). That is most clearly evident when looking at the large gap between deeply negative real bond yields and the still-elevated level of the global manufacturing PMI, which typically leads real yields by around six months (second panel). We continue to view this gap between real yields and growth as the biggest mispricing in global bond markets – one that will eventually be rectified by the incremental reduction in monetary accommodation that is signaled by our Global Central Bank Monitor (bottom panel). The combined message from our Central Bank Monitor, Duration Indicator and the manufacturing PMI is that global bond yields are still too low, suggesting a below-benchmark overall portfolio duration stance remains appropriate. With regards to country allocation within the government bond side of our model portfolio, we continue to overweight countries where central banks are less likely to begin normalizing pandemic-era monetary policy quickly (Germany, France, Italy, Spain, Japan, Australia), while underweighting countries where normalization is expected to begin within the next 6-12 months (the US, UK and Canada). We have the highest conviction on the US and UK underweights, with a curve-flattening bias for both markets relative to the rest of the major developed markets (Chart 6). The bond-friendly (and risk asset-friendly) impact of global quantitative easing programs is fading, on the margin, with the annual growth rate of central bank balance sheets having already slowed sharply (Chart 7). The pace of tapering, and any subsequent rate hikes, will differ by country and support our government bond country allocations in the model portfolio. Chart 6Expect More Relative Curve Flattening In The US & UK Chart 7The 'Great Global Taper' Has Begun   Chart 8Less Scope For Wider Global Inflation Breakevens We expect the Fed to taper its pace of bond purchases over the first half of 2022, setting up a first Fed rate hike late next year. The Bank of Canada and the BoE will be the other developed market central banks that will both end QE and lift rates before the Fed does the same. On the other hand, the ECB, Bank of Japan and the Reserve Bank of Australia will maintain a more relatively dovish stance in 2022, with very modest tapering (at worst) and no rate hikes. Turning to inflation-linked bonds, we are maintaining an overall neutral allocation given the competing forces of rising global inflation and rich valuations. Our Comprehensive Breakeven Indicators combine three measures to determine the upside potential for 10-year inflation breakevens: the distance from fair value based on our models, the spread between headline inflation and central bank target inflation, and the gap between market-based and survey-based measures of inflation expectations. Those indicators suggest that the most attractive markets to position for further upside potential for breakevens are Italy, France, Canada and Japan (Chart 8). On the back of this, we are maintaining our overweight allocations to inflation-linked bonds in the euro area and Japan in our model portfolio, while staying neutral on US TIPS. Chart 9Fading Support For Credit Markets From Global QE In 2022 Moving our attention to the credit side of our model portfolio, a moderate overweight stance on overall global corporates (focused on high-yield) versus governments remains appropriate. However, the slowing trend in developed market central bank balance sheets is flashing a warning sign for the future performance of global spread product. The annual growth rate of the combined balance sheets of the Fed, ECB, Bank of Japan and Bank of England has been an excellent leading indicator (by about twelve months) of the annual excess returns of both global investment grade and high-yield corporates during the “QE Era” since the 2008 financial crisis (Chart 9). That growth rate peaked back in February of this year, suggesting a peak of global corporate bond outperformance around February 2022, particularly for high-yield versus government bonds and investment grade (top two panels). At the same time, our preferred measure of the attractiveness of credit spreads - the historical percentile ranking of 12-month breakeven spreads – shows that lower-rated high-yield credit tiers in the US and euro area offer spreads that are relatively high versus their own history compared to other credit sectors in our model bond portfolio universe (Chart 10). Using this metric, investment grade corporate spreads look much more fully valued, particularly in the US. Chart 10Lower-Rated High-Yield & EM Sovereigns Offer Relatively Attractive Spreads Given sharply reduced default risks in the US and Europe, with strong nominal growth supporting corporate revenues alongside low borrowing rates, the fundamental backdrop for riskier high-yield corporates is still positive. Thus, we are maintaining our overweights to high-yield bonds in both the US and euro area, while sticking with only a neutral stance on investment grade corporates in the US, euro area and the UK. We do anticipate starting to reduce that exposure in the model portfolio sometime in early months of 2022, however, based on the ominous leading signal from the growth of central bank balance sheets – and what that means about the future path for global monetary policy and risk asset performance. Within the euro area, we are maintaining overweights to Italian and Spanish government bonds given the likelihood that the monetary policy backdrop will remain supportive (Chart 11). We expect the ECB to be one of the most accommodative central banks within our model portfolio universe in 2022. At worst, the ECB could deliver a modest reduction of total asset purchases, but with no rate hikes. Chart 11A Relatively Dovish ECB Will Be Positive For European Credit Chart 12EM Headwinds: A Firmer USD, China Tightening & Global QE Tapering Finally, we are sticking with a cautious stance on emerging market (EM) spread product in our model bond portfolio. Slowing Chinese economic growth, a firming US dollar, rate hikes across EM in response to high inflation, and the coming turn in the Fed policy cycle are all headwinds to the relative performance of EM USD-denominated corporates and sovereigns (Chart 12). We are sticking with our overall modestly underweight stance on EM USD-denominated credit. However, rebounding global growth and some potential policy stimulus in China could prompt us to consider an upgrade in the coming months.   Summing it all up, our overall allocations and risks in our model portfolio leading into Q4/2021 look like this: An overall below-benchmark stance on global duration, equal to -0.75 years versus the custom index (Chart 13). A moderate overweight stance on global spread product versus government debt, equal to five percentage points of the portfolio (Chart 14). This overweight comes almost entirely from allocations to US and euro area high-yield corporates. The tracking error of the portfolio, or its expected volatility versus that of the benchmark index, is relatively low at 55bps (Chart 15). This fits with our desire to maintain only a moderate level of absolute portfolio risk, while focusing exposures more on relative tilts between countries and credit sectors. Chart 13Overall Portfolio Duration: Stay Below Benchmark Chart 14Overall Portfolio Allocation: Small Spread Product Overweight The yield of the portfolio is now slightly higher than that of the benchmark, with a small “positive carry” of 16bps (Chart 16).   Chart 15Overall Portfolio Risk: Moderate Chart 16Overall Portfolio Yield: Small Positive Carry Vs. Benchmark Scenario Analysis & Return Forecasts We now turn to scenario analysis to determine the return expectations for the portfolio for the next six months. On the credit side of the portfolio, we use risk-factor-based regression models to forecast future yield changes for global spread product sectors as a function of four major factors - the VIX, oil prices, the US dollar and the fed funds rate (Table 2A). For the government bond side of the portfolio, we avoid using regression models and instead use a yield-beta driven framework, taking forecasts for changes in US Treasury yields and translating those in changes in non-US bond yields by applying a historical yield beta (Table 2B). For our scenario analysis over the next six months, we use a base case scenario plus two alternate “tail risk” scenarios. Table 2AFactor Regressions Used To Estimate Spread Product Yield Changes Table 2BEstimated Government Bond Yield Betas To US Treasuries We see global growth momentum, the stickiness of supply-driven inflation pressures and the Fed monetary policy outlook as the three most important factors for fixed income markets over the next six months, thus our scenarios are defined along those lines. Base case Global growth rebounds from the dip seen during July and August as fears over the spread of the Delta variant subside. Unemployment rates across the developed economies continue to decline on the back of ongoing demand/supply imbalances in labor markets. China is a relative growth laggard, but this will trigger fresh macro stimulus measures (credit, monetary, perhaps fiscal) from policymakers concerned about missing growth targets. Global supply chain disruptions will remain stubbornly persistent, keeping upward pressure on realized inflation rates in most countries even as commodity price momentum cools a bit on a rate of change basis. Most developed market central banks will move to dial back pandemic monetary policy stimulus to varying degrees, most notably the Fed and the Bank of England. The Fed will begin tapering its asset purchases around the turn of the year, to be completed during Q4/2021 thus setting the stage for a Fed rate hike in December. In this scenario, we expect the US Treasury curve to see some initial mild bear-steepening alongside moderately wider longer-term TIPS breakevens, before entering a more typical cyclical bear-flattening as the Fed begins tapering and rate hike expectations get pulled forward. The net result over the next six months: the entire US Treasury curve shifts higher in roughly parallel fashion, with the 10-year reaching 1.70% by next March. The VIX drifts a bit lower from the current 21 to 18, the US dollar is flattish (faster global growth offsets more USD-favorable real yield differentials versus other developed markets), the Brent oil price goes up +5% on the back of stronger global demand, and the fed funds target rate is unchanged at 0-0.25%. Upside growth & inflation surprise Global growth accelerates amid sharply diminished COVID risks and rallying stock and credit markets that loosen financial conditions. Consumer & business confidence recover smartly, as do hiring and capex. Global inflation rates accelerate from current elevated levels, but less from supply squeezes and more from fundamental pressures and faster wage growth. China loosens macro policies, but developed market central banks shift in an even more hawkish direction. The Fed signals a rapid 2022 taper and a funds rate liftoff well before year-end. In this scenario, real bond yields drift higher globally, but inflation breakevens stay elevated with the earlier surge in realized inflation proving not to be “transitory”. The US Treasury curve shifts much higher than in our base case, led by the 5-year maturity with bear-flattening beyond that point. The 10-year US Treasury yield climbs to 1.90% by the end of Q1/2022. The VIX moves higher to 25, the US dollar falls -3% (faster global growth offsetting a relatively modest increase in US/non-US real yield differentials), the Brent oil price goes up +10% and the fed funds target range is unchanged at 0-0.25%. Downside growth & inflation surprise Global growth loses additional momentum as consumer and business confidence stay muted. Supply/demand mismatches in labor markets remain unresolved, leading to a slower pace of employment growth. China does not signal adequate stimulus to offset its slowdown, while a weakened Biden administration implements a much smaller-than-expected US fiscal stimulus. Supply chain disruptions persist, keeping inflation elevated even as growth slows (stagflation). Developed market central banks, stuck between slowing growth and elevated inflation, are unable to ease in response to slower growth. The Fed chooses a slower drawn-out taper with liftoff delayed to 2023. Diminished economic optimism leads to a pullback in global equity values, lower government bond yields and wider global credit spreads. The US Treasury curve bull flattens as longer-maturity yields fall, with the 10-year yield moving back down to 1.25% alongside lower inflation breakevens. The VIX rises to 30, the safe-haven US dollar rises +5%, the Brent oil price falls -10% and the fed funds target range stays at 0-0.25%. The inputs into the scenario analysis are shown in Chart 17 (for the USD, VIX, oil and the fed funds rate), while the US Treasury yield scenarios are in Chart 18. The excess return scenarios for the model bond portfolio, using the above inputs in our simple quantitative return forecast framework, are shown in Table 3A (the scenarios for the changes in US Treasury yields are shown in Table 3B). Chart 17Risk Factor Assumptions For The Scenario Analysis Chart 18US Treasury Yield Assumptions For The Scenario Analysis     Table 3AGFIS Model Bond Portfolio Scenario Analysis For The Next Six Months Table 3BUS Treasury Yield Assumptions For The 6-Month Forward Scenario Analysis The model bond portfolio is expected to deliver a positive excess return over the next six months of +60bps in the base case scenario and +57bps in the optimistic growth scenario, but is projected to underperform by -26bps in the pessimistic growth scenario. Bottom Line: We are maintaining an overall below-benchmark portfolio duration exposure, concentrated in the US and UK. We expect global growth will rebound from the Delta variant and supply chain disruptions will keep inflation elevated for longer, both of which will push global bond yields higher as central banks – led by Fed – turn less dovish. We are maintaining a moderate overweight to global spread product versus government debt, concentrated on an overweight to US high-yield where valuations still look the least stretched compared to corporate debt in other countries.   Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com Ray Park, CFA Research Analyst ray@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 The GFIS model bond portfolio custom benchmark index is the Bloomberg Barclays Global Aggregate Index, but with allocations to global high-yield corporate debt replacing very high-quality spread product (i.e. AA-rated). We believe this to be more indicative of the typical internal benchmark used by global multi-sector fixed income managers. 2 Please see BCA Research Global Fixed Income Strategy/ European Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "The UK Leads The Way", dated August 11, 2021, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Global Fixed Income - Strategic Recommendations* Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

  Highlights Chart 1Bond Yields Still Track The "Re-Opening" Trade Bond yields rose notably in September, with the bulk of the move coming in the days after the Fed teased an upcoming tapering of its asset purchases and revealed slightly hawkish revisions to its interest rate projections. Interestingly, some of the details of the bond market move don’t mesh nicely with the mildly hawkish policy surprise that the Fed delivered. For example, the Treasury curve steepened on the month and long-maturity TIPS breakeven inflation rates rose. Our sense is that September’s market moves were less driven by the Fed and more by a revival of the reflation (or re-opening) trade from earlier this year. The daily new US COVID case count ticked down and, while overall S&P 500 returns were negative on the month, a basket of equities designed to profit from the end of the pandemic soundly beat a basket of “COVID winners” (Chart 1). With the delta COVID wave receding, we remain confident that economic growth will be sufficiently strong for the Fed to launch a new rate hike cycle in December 2022. The Treasury curve will bear-flatten as that outcome gets priced in.   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 26 basis points in September, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +193 bps. The combination of above-trend economic growth and accommodative monetary policy supports continued positive excess returns for spread product versus Treasuries. At 99 bps, the 3-year/10-year Treasury slope remains steep. This is a strong signal that monetary conditions are accommodative. But despite the positive macro back-drop, investment grade valuations are extremely tight (Chart 2). A recent report presented the results of a scenario analysis for investment grade corporate bond returns during the next 12 months.1 We concluded that investment grade corporate bond total returns will be close to zero or negative during the next 12 months and that excess returns versus duration-matched Treasuries are capped at 85 bps. With that in mind, we advise investors to seek out higher returns in junk bonds, municipal bonds and USD-denominated Emerging Market sovereign and corporate bonds. We also recommend favoring long-maturity corporate bonds and those corporate sectors with elevated Duration-Times-Spread.2 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 53 basis points in September, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to 558 bps. A recent report looked at the default expectations that are currently priced into the junk index and considered whether they are likely to be met.3 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 12-month trailing speculative grade default rate that is based on gross corporate leverage (pre-tax profits over total debt) and C&I lending standards, we estimate that the 12-month default rate will fall to between 2.3% and 2.8%, below what the market currently discounts. Notably, the corporate default rate is tracking at an annualized rate of roughly 1.7% through the first eight months of the year, well below the estimate generated by our macro model. Another recent report considered different plausible scenarios for junk bond returns during the next 12 months.4 We concluded that junk bond total returns will fall into a range of -0.29% to +1.80% during the next 12 months and that excess returns versus duration-matched Treasuries will be between +0.94% and +1.84%. MBS: Underweight Chart 4MBS Market Overview Mortgage-Backed Securities outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 24 basis points in September, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to -43 bps. The nominal spread between conventional 30-year MBS and equivalent-duration Treasuries tightened 19 bps in September. The spread is wide compared to recent history, but it remains tight compared to the recent pace of mortgage refinancings (Chart 4). The conventional 30-year MBS option-adjusted spread (OAS) tightened 6 bps in September to reach 31 bps (panel 3). This is above the 22 bps offered by Aaa-rated consumer ABS but below the 52 bps offered by Aa-rated corporate bonds and the 33 bps offered by Agency CMBS. In a recent report we looked at MBS performance and valuation across the coupon stack.5 We noted that the higher convexity of high-coupon MBS makes them likely to outperform lower-coupon MBS in a rising yield environment. Higher coupon MBS also have greater OAS than lower coupons. This makes the high-coupon MBS more likely to outperform in a flat bond yield environment as well. Given our view that bond yields will be higher in 6-12 months, we recommend favoring high coupons (4%, 4.5%) over low coupons (2%, 2.5%, 3%) within an overall underweight allocation to Agency MBS. Government-Related: Neutral Chart 5Government-Related Market Overview The Government-Related index underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 15 basis points in September, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to +69 bps (Chart 5). Sovereign debt underperformed duration-equivalent Treasuries by 95 bps in September, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to -87 bps. Foreign Agencies outperformed the Treasury benchmark by 5 bps on the month, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +49 bps. Local Authority bonds outperformed by 24 bps in September, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +406 bps. Domestic Agency bonds underperformed by 7 bps, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to +24 bps. Supranationals underperformed by 4 bps, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to +27 bps. Last week’s report looked at performance and valuation trends for Emerging Market sovereign and corporate bonds relative to US corporates.6 The recent underperformance of EM bonds versus US corporates has led to attractive relative valuations in the sector. We see investment grade EM sovereign and corporate bonds both outperforming investment grade US corporates during the next 12 months. The outperformance will be the result of better starting valuations and an acceleration of EM growth in 2022. The bonds of Colombia, Russia, Mexico, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, UAE and Qatar look particularly attractive within the USD-denominated EM sovereign space. Municipal Bonds: Overweight Chart 6Municipal Market Overview Municipal bonds outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 29 basis points in September, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +292 bps (before adjusting for the tax advantage). The economic and policy back-drop remains favorable for municipal bond performance. Trailing 4-quarter net state & local government savings were already positive through the end of Q1 2021 and they received another significant boost in Q2 as funds from the American Rescue Plan were doled out (Chart 6). With state & local government balance sheets in such good shape, we are comfortable moving down in quality within municipal bonds. A move down in quality is especially compelling because of tight Aaa muni valuations relative to Treasuries (top panel). Valuation is more compelling in the lower investment grade credit tiers, especially at the long-end of the curve.7 Both General Obligation (GO) and Revenue munis in the 12-17 year maturity bucket offer a before-tax yield pick-up versus corporate bonds with the same credit rating and duration (panel 2). Finally, high-yield muni spreads are reasonably attractive relative to high-yield corporates, offering a breakeven tax rate of 25% (panel 4). But despite the attractive spread, we recommend only a neutral allocation to high-yield munis versus high-yield corporates as the deep negative convexity of high-yield munis makes them susceptible to extension risk if bond yields rise. Treasury Curve: Buy 2/10 Barbell Versus 5-Year Bullet Chart 7Treasury Yield Curve Overview The Treasury curve bear-steepened in September, with yields moving sharply higher – especially in the 5-10 year maturity space. The 2-year/10-year Treasury slope steepened 14 bps to end the month at 124 bps. The 5-year/30-year slope flattened 5 bps to end the month at 110 bps. We expect bond yields to be higher in 6-12 months, but we also anticipate that the next significant move higher in bond yields will coincide with curve flattening, not steepening. At 2.08%, the 5-year/5-year forward Treasury yield is already within our target fair value range of 2% - 2.25%. In a recent report, we demonstrated that yield curve steepening only occurs when either the Fed is cutting rates or the 5-year/5-year forward yield rises.8 This means that the 2/10 Treasury curve is more likely to flatten than steepen during the next 6-12 months, even as bond yields move higher. Similarly, we observe that the overnight index swap (OIS) curve is priced for the fed funds rate to be 0.30% in one year’s time and 1.62% in five years (Chart 7). The latter rate has 131 bps of upside if it converges all the way back to its 2018 high, but this pales in comparison to the 256 bps of upside in the 12-month forward rate. The yield curve will flatten as the 12-month forward OIS rate converges with the 5-year forward rate (panel 3). Investors should position in yield curve flatteners on a 6-12 month horizon. Specifically, we recommend shorting the 5-year bullet versus a duration-matched 2/10 barbell. TIPS: Neutral Chart 8TIPS Market Overview TIPS outperformed the duration-equivalent nominal Treasury index by 47 basis points in September, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +627 bps. The 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate rose 3 bps on the month, while the 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rate rose 5 bps. At 2.41%, the 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate is near the middle 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 only just below target (panel 3). With long-dated inflation expectations close to the Fed’s target levels, we see limited upside on a 6-12 month horizon. We also see the cost of short-maturity inflation protection falling during the next few months as realized inflation moderates from its extremely high level. This will lead to a steepening of the inflation curve (bottom panel). We recommend that investors position for a steeper 2/10 inflation curve, or alternatively for a flatter 2/10 real Treasury curve. We noted in last week’s report that the combination of nominal curve flattening and inflation curve steepening will lead to a large flattening of the 2/10 real curve during the next 6-12 months.9The 2-year TIPS yield, in particular, has a lot of upside.                         ABS: Overweight Chart 9ABS Market Overview Asset-Backed Securities outperformed the duration-equivalent nominal Treasury index by 3 basis points in September, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +43 bps. Aaa-rated ABS outperformed by 2 bps on the month, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +32 bps. Non-Aaa ABS outperformed by 7 bps, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +99 bps. The stimulus from last year’s CARES Act led to a significant increase in household savings when individual checks were mailed in April 2020. That excess savings has still not been spent and the most recent round of stimulus checks has only added to the stockpile (Chart 9). The extraordinarily large stock of household savings means that the collateral quality of consumer ABS is also extraordinarily high. Indeed, many households have been using their windfalls to pay down consumer 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 2 basis points in September, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +195 bps. Aaa Non-Agency CMBS outperformed Treasuries by 4 bps in September, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +96 bps. Non-Aaa Non-Agency CMBS underperformed Treasuries by 4 bps on the month, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to +525 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. Agency CMBS: Overweight Agency CMBS outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 3 basis points in September, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +94 bps. The average index option-adjusted spread tightened 1 bp on the month. It currently sits at 33 bps (bottom panel). Though Agency CMBS spreads have recovered to well below pre-COVID levels, they still look attractive compared to other similarly risky spread products. Stay overweight.   Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com 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 September 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 September 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 -17 bps in the 5 over 2/10 cell means that we would expect the 5-year to outperform the 2/10 if the 2/10 flattens by less than 17 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 September 30th, 2021) Footnotes 1  Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Expected Returns In Corporate Bonds”, dated September 21, 2021. 2  Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The Collapsing Credit Risk Premium”, dated July 20, 2021. 3  Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The Post-FOMC Credit Environment”, dated June 29, 2021. 4  Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Expected Returns In Corporate Bonds”, dated September 21, 2021. 5  Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “A New Conundrum”, dated April 20, 2021. 6  Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Damage Assessment”, dated September 28, 2021. 7  Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The Collapsing Credit Risk Premium”, dated July 20, 2021. 8  Please see US Bond Strategy / Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, “A Bump On The Road To Recovery”, dated July 27, 2021. 9  Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Damage Assessment”, dated September 28, 2021.