ポリシー

Highlights Global Duration: Markets are correctly interpreting the $1.9 trillion US fiscal stimulus package as a factor justifying higher global growth expectations and bond yields. Maintain a below-benchmark stance on overall global duration. Yield Betas & Country Allocation: Within government bond portfolios, overweighting the “lower-beta” countries that have bond yields less sensitive to changes in US yields (Germany, France, Japan) versus the higher-beta markets (Canada, Australia, UK) remains the appropriate strategy during the current bond bear market. Underweights should remain concentrated in the US, though, as it is highly unlikely that any central bank will begin to tighten policy before the Fed. UK Follow-Up: The conclusions from our UK Special Report published last week do not change after adjusting for the difference in the inflation indices used to calculate UK inflation-linked bond yields compared to those of other countries. UK real interest rates are the lowest in the developed economies, while inflation breakevens are the highest. NOTE: There will be no Global Fixed Income Strategy report published next week. Instead, BCA Chief Global Fixed Income Strategist Rob Robis will do a webcast discussing his latest thoughts on global bond markets. Yields Rising Around The World Chart of the WeekPolicy Mix Is Bond-Bearish The path of least resistance for global bond yields remains biased upward. Optimism on future economic growth remains ebullient with consumer and business confidence indices surging in much of the developed world. The epicenter of the global bond bear market remains the US, where pandemic related economic restrictions are being unwound with 21.4% of the US population now having received at least one dose of a vaccine. Fiscal policy in the US is also supporting the positive vibes on future growth after the $1.9 trillion stimulus package was signed into law by President Biden last week. The 10-year US Treasury yield climbed back to the 2021 high of 1.63% on the back of that announcement. The US stimulus package changes the trajectory of the 2021 US fiscal impulse from a $0.8 trillion contraction to a $0.3 trillion expansion, according to estimates from the US Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (Chart of the Week). This, combined with ongoing quantitative easing from global central banks eager to keep bond yields as low as possible until inflation expectations sustainably return to policymaker targets, is providing a bond-bearish lift to both inflation expectations and real yields – most notably in the US. Central bankers can try to fight back against the speed of the increase in bond yields by maintaining their commitment to current policy settings, as the European Central Bank (ECB) and Bank of Canada (BoC) did last week. The Fed, Bank of England (BoE) and Bank of Japan (BoJ) will all get the chance to do the same this at this week’s policy meetings. The likely message from all will be one of staying the course and not reflexively responding to higher bond yields, which have not triggered a broad-based selloff in global risk assets that would pre-emptively tighten financial conditions. The S&P 500 index hit an all-time high last week, while equity markets in Europe and Japan have returned to pre-pandemic levels (Chart 2). Global corporate credit spreads have remained calm, consistent with a positive growth backdrop that diminishes the potential for credit downgrades and defaults. The US dollar has gotten a lift from improving US growth expectations and relatively higher US Treasury yields, which has had some negative spillover effect into emerging market equities and currencies. The dollar rebound has been relatively modest to date, however, with the DXY index up only 3% from the early 2021 lows. A major reason why global equity and credit markets have absorbed higher bond yields so well is because the sheer scope of the new US fiscal stimulus will have a major impact on growth momentum both in the US and outside the US. This comes on top of the boost to optimism from the speed of the US and UK vaccine rollouts. In an update to its December 2020 economic outlook published last week, the OECD estimated that the $1.9 trillion US stimulus will boost US real GDP growth by 3.8 percentage points versus its original forecast over the next year (Chart 3). Other countries will also benefit from the implied surge in US demand spilling over from that stimulus package, with the OECD projecting a 1.1 percentage point increase to world real GDP growth. Chart 2Risk Assets Ignoring Rising Global Bond Yields Chart 3Big Growth Spillovers From US Fiscal Stimulus Countries that have the greater exposure to US demand, like Canada and Mexico, are expected to benefit a bit more than the rest of the world, but the expected boost to growth is consistent (around one half of a percentage point) from China to Europe to Japan to major emerging market countries like Brazil. That US-fueled pickup in global economic activity will help absorb some of the spare capacity that opened up during the COVID-19 pandemic. In Chart 4 and Chart 5, we show the estimates taken from the December 2020 OECD Economic Outlook for the output gaps in the US, euro area, UK, Japan, Canada and Australia for 2021 and 2022. We adjust those projections by the OECD’s estimate of the impact of the US fiscal stimulus in 2021, as well as by the additional upward revisions to the OECD growth projections in 2021 and 2022 that were published last week. Chart 4The $1.9 Trillion Stimulus Will Close The US Output Gap … Chart 5… And Help Narrow Output Gaps Elsewhere Chart 6Maintain Below-Benchmark Duration The conclusion is that the US output gap will be eliminated in 2022, while output gaps will still be negative, but diminished, in the other countries after factoring in the impact of the latest US fiscal package. This suggests that the maximum upward pressure on global bond yields should still be centered in the US, where inflation pressures will be more evident and the Fed will likely begin signaling a shift to a less dovish stance sooner than other central banks (although not likely until much later in 2021). Our Global Duration Indicator continues to flag pressure for higher bond yields ahead for the major developed economies (Chart 6). The improving growth momentum means that rising real yields should increasingly become the more important driver of higher nominal bond yields. Persistent central bank dovishness in the face of that growth surge, however, means that it is still too soon to position for narrowing global inflation expectations or any bearish flattening of government bond yield curves - even in the US. Bottom Line: Markets are correctly interpreting the $1.9 trillion US fiscal stimulus package as a factor justifying higher global growth expectations and bond yields. Maintain a below-benchmark stance on overall global duration. Using Yield Betas For Bond Country Allocation, One More Time Over the past two months, we have published Special Reports that delved into the outlook for bond yields and currencies in Australia, Canada and the UK. We selected those three countries as they represented the most likely downgrade candidates within our recommended government bond country allocation given their status as “higher beta” bond markets that are more correlated to US Treasury yields. We estimate US Treasury yield betas from a rolling regression (over a three-year window) of changes in 10-year non-US government bond yields to changes in 10-year US Treasury yields (Chart 7). This allows us to assess which markets are more or less sensitive to the ups and downs of US bond yields. We have used this framework to help guide our country allocation strategy during the pandemic and, for the most part, it has been successful. Chart 7Government Bond Yield Sensitivities To USTs Are Shifting Fast So far in 2021, the markets with higher US Treasury yield betas (Canada, Australia and New Zealand) have underperformed the lower beta markets (Germany, France and Japan). We show that in the top panel of Chart 8, which plots the yield betas at the start of the year versus the year-to-date relative return of each country’s government bond market to that of the overall Bloomberg Barclays Global Treasury index. The returns are adjusted to reflect any differences in the durations of each country versus that of the overall index, and are shown in USD-hedged terms to allow for a common currency comparison. The bottom panel of Chart 8 shows the same relationship for the all of 2020. This is a mirror image of what has occurred so far in 2021, with the countries with higher yield betas outperforming the lower beta markets. The obvious difference between the two years is the direction of Treasury yields, which fell in 2020 and have been rising this year. So far in 2020, the differences between the returns of the higher beta markets have been quite similar. New Zealand has had the biggest negative performance (-2.8% versus the global benchmark), but this has only been moderately worse than Australia (-2.6%) and Canada (-2.4%). These are all just slightly worse than the return of US Treasuries relative to the Global Treasury index (-2.3%). Our estimated yield betas have changed rapidly over the past few months. For example, the rolling three-year yield beta of Australia has shot up from 0.61 at the beginning of the year to 0.78, while Canada has seen a similar move (0.81 to 0.88). This reflects the rapid repricing of interest rate expectations in both countries as current growth momentum and growth expectations improve. While not a perfect relationship, yield betas do show some correlation to our Central Bank Monitors – designed to measure the pressure on central banks to tighten of ease monetary policy (Chart 9). The latest increases in the yield betas of Australia, New Zealand and Canada have occurred alongside a rising trend in our Central Bank Monitors for each nation. The implication is that the relative underperformance of government bonds in those countries is related to the cyclical pressure for the RBA, RBNZ and BoC to tighten monetary policy. Chart 8An Intuitive Link Between Yield Betas & Bond Market Performance Chart 9Cyclical Pressures & Yield Betas Are Linked At the same time, the yield betas of government bonds in Germany and the UK have remained low despite the cyclical upturn in our ECB and BoE Monitors. The lingering impact of COVID-19 lockdowns on economic growth and inflation in the euro area and UK is likely weighing on bond yields in both regions. This limits any challenge to the dovish forward guidance of the ECB and BoE, in contrast to the repricing of interest rate expectations seen in other countries. The market-implied path of policy interest rates extracted from OIS forward curves does show a much more aggressive expected path of policy rates in the higher beta markets versus the lower beta markets (Chart 10). Chart 10More Rate Hikes Expected In The Higher Yield Beta Countries​​​​​​​ The “liftoff” date for each central bank shown, representing when the first full interest rate hike is priced into the OIS forwards, is shown in Table 1. We rank the countries in the table by the amount of time until the discounted liftoff date, from shortest to longest. The first rate hike is expected in New Zealand in June 2022, with the BoC expected to lift rates in Canada two months later. The market is not pricing a full rate hike by the Fed until January 2023, while liftoff in the UK and Australia are expected during the summer of 2023. Table 1The "Pecking Order" Of Global Liftoff We treat the countries with perpetually low interest rates, the euro area and Japan, differently in Table 1, as both the ECB and BoJ would most likely move slowly if and when they ever decided to raise rates again. Thus, we define liftoff as only a 10bp increase in policy interest rates for those two regions, while for all the other central banks we assume the size of the first rate hike will be 25bps. On that reduced basis, the market is priced for “liftoff” by the ECB and BoJ in September 2023 and February 2025, respectively. In terms of that “order of liftoff” shown in Table 1, we generally agree with current market pricing except for New Zealand and Canada. We fully expect the Fed to be the first central bank to begin signaling the path towards monetary policy normalization, largely due to the impact of the fiscal stimulus, starting with a move to begin tapering the Fed’s asset purchases at the start of 2022. The Fed will also be the first to begin rate hikes after tapering. We do not anticipate the BoC or Reserve Bank of New Zealand (RBNZ) to make any hawkish moves (reduced asset purchases or rate hikes) before the Fed does the same, as this would put unwanted appreciation pressures on the New Zealand and Canadian dollars. We expect the BoC and RBNZ to move soon after the Fed begins to shift, followed by the BoE and RBA a bit later after that in line with the current liftoff ordering. The pace of rate hikes after liftoff also appears to be a bit too aggressively priced in the countries with higher yield betas. The cumulative amount of interest rate increases to the end of 2024 currently priced in OIS curves is larger in Canada (175bps) and Australia (156bps) than the US (139bps) and New Zealand (140bps). The relative differences are not huge, however, but we think the odds favor the Fed delivering the greater amount of rate hikes over the next three years. More generally, when looking at what is more important for each central bank in determining the timing of liftoff, we can boil it down to a couple of the most important measures for the higher beta countries (Chart 11): US: The Fed will continue to focus on both inflation expectations and broad measures of labor market utilization before signaling any policy shift. On that basis, there is still some way to go before TIPS breakevens return to the 2.3-2.5% level we believe to be consistent with the Fed sustainably hitting its 2% inflation goal on the PCE deflator. Also, there is still a lot of ground to cover before the US labor market fully returns to pre-pandemic health, as the employment/population ratio is four percentage points below the pre-COVID peak. New Zealand: The RBNZ is now under a lot more pressure to tighten policy after the New Zealand government changed the central bank’s remit to include stabilizing house prices, which have soured to unaffordable levels that have exacerbated income inequality. With house prices now rising at a 19% annual rate, the highest since 2004, the RBNZ will be under pressure to hike sooner, although any associated rise in the New Zealand dollar will likely be of equal concern. Canada: The BoC has been very candid that its current policy mix of aggressive asset purchases and 0% policy rates will be altered if the Canadian economy improves. We believe that the current trends of booming house price inflation, recovering business investment prospects and a rapidly recovering labor market will all make the BoC more willing to signal tighter monetary policy fairly soon after the Fed does the same. Australia: The RBA is likely to continue surprising bond markets with its dovishness in the face of a rapidly recovering economy, given underwhelming inflation. In a recent speech, RBA Governor Philip Lowe noted that Australian inflation will not return to the RBA’s 2-3% target band without wage growth rising from the current 1.4% pace up to 3%. The RBA does not expect the labor market to tighten enough to generate that kind of wage growth until at least 2024, suggesting no eagerness to begin normalizing monetary policy. Among the lower-beta markets, the most important things that will dictate future policy moves are the following (Chart 12): Chart 11What To Watch In The Higher Yield Beta Countries Chart 12What To Watch In The Lower Yield Beta Countries UK: The BoE’s current focus is on how fast the UK economy recovers from the pandemic shock, with inflation expectations remaining elevated (see the next section of this report). The degree of strength in business investment and consumer spending will thus dictate the timing of any BoE shift to a less accommodative policy stance. Euro Area: The latest set of ECB projections call for inflation to only reach 1.4% by 2023. As long as inflation (both realized and expected) stays well below the 2% ECB target, the central bank will focus more on supporting easy financial conditions (lower corporate bond yields, tighter Italy-Germany yield spreads and resisting euro currency strength). Japan: Inflation continues to underwhelm in Japan, and the BoJ is a long way from contemplating any tightening measures. Summing it all up, we still see value in using yield betas to dictate our recommended fixed income country allocations. Although these should be complemented with assessments of the relative likelihood of central banks moving before others to further refine country allocations. Bottom Line: Within government bond portfolios, overweighting the “lower-beta” countries that have bond yields less sensitive to changes in US yields (Germany, France, Japan) versus the higher-beta markets (Canada, Australia, UK) remains the appropriate strategy during the current bond bear market. Underweights should remain concentrated in the US, though, as it is highly unlikely that any central bank will begin to tighten policy before the Fed. A Brief Follow-Up To Our UK Special Report In our Special Report on the UK published last week, we noted that the UK had the lowest real bond yields and highest inflation expectations among the developed market countries with inflation-linked bonds.1 Some astute clients pointed out that we neglected to discuss how the UK inflation-linked bonds are priced off the UK Retail Price Index (RPI) which typically runs with a faster inflation rate than the UK Consumer Price Index (CPI). This creates a downward bias to UK real yields in comparison to other countries that use domestic CPI indices in inflation-linked bond pricing. We did not ignore the RPI-CPI differential in our report, we just did not think it to be relevant to the conclusions of our report. The UK still has the lowest real rates and highest inflation expectations even after adjusting both by the RPI-CPI gap (Chart 13). Furthermore, survey-based measures of UK inflation expectations are broadly in line with the RPI-based inflation breakevens, confirming the message from the RPI-based real yields and inflation expectations. Chart 13UK Real Yields Are Too Low, Using RPI Or CPI Looking ahead, the RPI-CPI gap is likely to stay in a much narrower range compared to its longer run history. Chart 14A Less Active BoE Has Narrowed The RPI-CPI Gap For example, between 2000 and 2007, the RPI-CPI gap averaged a full percentage point but with very large fluctuations (Chart 14). This is because mortgage interest costs are included in the RPI but are not part of the CPI. Thus, RPI inflation tends to be more volatile when the BoE is more active in adjusting interest rates. After the 2008 financial crisis, the BoE has kept policy rates at very low levels with very few changes. The RPI-CPI gap has narrowed as a result, averaging only one-half of a percentage point between 2009 to today. Thus, our conclusion on UK bond yields remains the same – Gilt yields are too low and are likely to rise further over the next 6-12 months.   Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1 Please see BCA Research Global Fixed Income Strategy/Foreign Exchange Strategy Special Report, "Why Are UK Interest Rates Still So Low?",dated March 10, 2021, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com and fes.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 With the vaccination campaign in full gear and plenty of fiscal support in the pipeline, investors have swung from worrying that the US economy will grow too slowly to worrying that it will grow too fast. Thanks to the latest stimulus bill, US households will have $2 trillion in excess savings at their disposal by April. This money will seep into the economy as lockdown measures end. There is still scope for US interest rate expectations to rise beyond 2023. However, the Fed is unlikely to raise rates in the next two years even if the economy does begin to overheat. This should keep rate expectations at the short end of the curve well anchored near zero, allowing the curve to further steepen. Investors should continue to overweight equities on a 12-month horizon. Historically, stocks have been able to shrug off rising bond yields, provided borrowing costs did not rise so high as to tip the economy into recession. A faster start to the vaccination campaign in the US and accommodative fiscal policy should support the dollar over the next few months. Nevertheless, the greenback will still decline modestly over a 12-month horizon. Too Hot For Comfort? With the vaccination campaign in full gear and plenty of fiscal support in the pipeline, investors have swung from worrying that the US economy will grow too slowly to worrying that it will grow too fast. Chart 1 illustrates these concerns in a nutshell. Point A on the aggregate demand schedule corresponds to a situation where the economy is operating below capacity and interest rates are stuck at zero. An outward shift in the demand curve from AD1 to AD2 would eliminate the output gap without necessitating higher interest rates (Point B). Such an outcome would be good news for equity investors because it would lead to more output and increased corporate profits without any tightening in monetary policy. Chart 1Where Will Fiscal And Monetary Policy Take Us? If the demand curve were to shift further out to AD3, however, the Fed might be forced to take away the punch bowl. The result would be higher interest rates rather than higher output (Point C). This would be bad news for equity investors. Two Questions Analyzing the current debate about where bond yields are going through the lens of this simple chart, two questions arise: How likely is the US economy to run out of excess capacity over the next few quarters? How would the Fed respond to evidence that the US economy is overheating? On the first question, the honest answer is that no one knows. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the output gap stood at 3% of GDP in the fourth quarter of 2020. The true number is probably closer to 5% of GDP since the CBO implausibly assumes that GDP was 1% above potential prior to the pandemic. As of February, payroll employment was down 5.3% from its pre-pandemic level, suggesting that there is still a fair amount of slack in the economy. Employment had fallen even more among low-income workers, women, and certain ethnic minority groups – an important consideration given the Fed’s heightened focus on “inclusive growth” (Chart 2). Chart 2Some Have Suffered More Job Losses Than Others Slack Will Shrink Chart 3Lower Spending And Higher Income Led To Mounting Excess Savings US households were sitting on around $1.7 trillion in excess savings as of the end of January. Households generated about two-thirds of those excess savings by cutting back on spending during the pandemic, with the remaining one-third stemming from increased transfer payments (Chart 3). We estimate that the stimulus bill that President Biden signed into law earlier today will boost household savings by an additional $300 billion, bringing the stock of excess savings to $2 trillion by April. As lockdown measures ease, it is reasonable to assume that households will spend a portion of this cash cushion. Unlike President Trump’s Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, Biden’s American Rescue Plan Act will raise the incomes of the poor much more than the rich (Chart 4). Since the poor tend to spend a greater share of each dollar of disposable income than the rich, aggregate demand could rise meaningfully. Chart 4Biden’s Package Will Boost The Income Of The Poor Meanwhile, the supply side of the economy could face a temporary setback. Under the legislation, about 40% of jobless workers will receive more income from extended unemployment benefits than they did from working. While these additional benefits will expire in early September, they could temporarily curtail labor supply at a time when firms are trying to step up the pace of hiring. Putting it all together, there is a high probability that the US economy will heat up this summer, stoking fears of higher inflation. Door C, D, Or E? For investors, how the Fed reacts to any potential overheating will be critical. If the market prices in an earlier liftoff date for the fed funds rate, the economy will move towards Point C. However, there is another possibility: Rather than fretting about an overheated economy, the Fed could welcome it, stressing its commitment to maintain very easy monetary policy. In that case, the economy would find itself closer to Point D. In fact, Point D could turn out to be a waystation to Point E. An overheated economy could lift inflation. In the absence of any rate hikes, real interest rates would fall. Lower real rates would further stoke spending, causing the aggregate demand curve to shift to AD4. What point will the US end up reaching? As we discuss below, our guess is “eventually Point C,” but with a temporary detour towards Points D/E. The Long-Term Case For C Chart 5Real Yields Have Recovered But Are Still Low The 5-year/5-year forward US TIPS yield currently stands at 0.18%. This is well above the trough of -0.84% reached last August, but still below the average of 0.7% that prevailed in 2017-19 (Chart 5). One can make a case that real bond yields will eventually rise above where they were before the pandemic. Even though the US budget deficit will decline next year due to the expiration of most stimulus measures, fiscal policy will remain looser than it was for most of the post-GFC period. Notably, BCA’s geopolitical strategists expect Congress to pass a $4 trillion 10-year infrastructure bill by this fall, only half of which will be financed through tax hikes. They also anticipate increased spending on health care and other social programs. Chronically easier fiscal policy will lift the neutral rate of interest. Recall that the neutral rate – also known as the “equilibrium rate” –  is simply the interest rate that equalizes aggregate demand with aggregate supply. To the extent that looser fiscal policy raises aggregate demand, a higher interest rate will be necessary to bring aggregate demand back down so that it matches aggregate supply. Temporary Detour Towards D/E That journey to higher real bond yields is likely to be prolonged, however. As noted above, the Fed has no desire to validate market expectations of tighter monetary policy anytime soon. Chart 6 shows that yields rarely rise significantly when the Fed is on hold. Chart 6Treasurys Tend To Underperform When The Fed Delivers Hawkish Surprises Currently, investors expect the Fed to start hiking rates in November 2022, with a second rate hike delivered in May 2023, and a third in November 2023 (Chart 7). This is considerably more hawkish than the Fed’s own forecast from December, which called for no rate hikes until at least 2024. Chart 7The Market Expects Liftoff In Late 2022 While the Fed is likely to bring forward its dots during this month’s FOMC meeting, our US bond strategists still expect the revised dots to signal a later liftoff than what the market is pricing in. On balance, we expect the 10-year Treasury yield to finish the year at about 1.7% – broadly in line with market expectations – but to rise more than expected over a longer-term horizon of 2-to-5 years. Is Inflation A Short-Term Or Long-Term Risk? A sizeable gap has opened up between US 5-year and 10-year inflation breakevens (Chart 8). Investors believe that inflation will accelerate over the next few years but then settle down to a lower level by the middle of the decade.  We think the opposite is more likely to transpire. Economies can often operate above potential for a while before inflation expectations become unmoored. For example, in the 1960s, the unemployment rate spent over two years below NAIRU before inflation finally burst onto the scene. However, as the sixties also revealed, when inflation does rise, it can rise quickly. Core CPI inflation doubled within the span of nine months in 1966. Inflation continued rising all the way to 6% in 1969 (Chart 9). Chart 8Breakeven Curve Inversion Chart 9Inflation Started Accelerating Quickly Only When Unemployment Reached Very Low Levels In The 1960s   As we discussed in February, there are numerous similarities between the present environment and the mid-1960s. This suggests that inflation could surprise significantly to the upside in the middle of the decade, even if it is slow to get off the ground over the next few years. Remain Overweight Stocks Over A 12-Month Horizon Stocks usually rise when growth is strong and monetary policy is accommodative (Chart 10). While bond yields in the US and most other economies will trend higher, they will remain below their equilibrium level for at least the next two years. Chart 10Stocks Do Well When The Economy Does Well In fact, fiscal largesse may have boosted the US neutral rate of interest by more than bond yields have risen, implying that monetary policy has become more, not less, stimulative over the past few months. Historically, stocks have been able to shrug off rising bond yields, provided borrowing costs did not rise so high as to tip the economy into recession (Chart 11 and Table 1). Chart 11What Happens To Equities When Treasury Yields Rise?   Table 1As Long As Bond Yields Don't Rise Into Restrictive Territory, Stocks Will Recover Mixed Picture For The US Dollar The OECD estimates that GDP in the rest of the world will receive a modest lift from US fiscal stimulus (Chart 12). Nevertheless, the US economy will be the primary beneficiary. This has important implications for the direction of the dollar. Chart 12The Benefits Of US Fiscal Stimulus Will Spill Over To Other Countries The dollar is normally a countercyclical currency, meaning that it tends to move in the opposite direction of the global business cycle. One key reason for this is that the US economy, with its relatively small manufacturing base and large service sector, is less cyclical than most other economies. Thus, when global growth rises, the US often lags behind. The pattern has been different this year, however. Chart 13 shows that growth expectations have risen more in the US than abroad. This is partly because US fiscal policy has been more stimulative than elsewhere. In addition, the US has been faster out of the gate in vaccinating its population (Chart 14). Chart 13US Growth Outperformance Could Be A Near-Term Tailwind For The Dollar US growth outperformance should support the greenback over the next few months. Nevertheless, we are not ready to abandon our bearish 12-month dollar view. For one thing, growth revisions should shift back in favor of other developed economies later this year as they catch up to the US in their vaccination campaigns. The prospect of negative fiscal thrust in 2022 due to the expiration of various stimulus measures will also weigh on the US growth outlook. Lastly, the Fed’s reticence to signal a tighter monetary stance will prevent US 2-year real yields – which are already quite low compared to other developed markets – from rising very much (Chart 15). We have found that shorter-dated yields help explain currency movements better than longer-dated yields. Chart 14US Is Among The Vaccination Leaders   Chart 15Real Rate Differentials Are A Headwind For The Dollar A modestly softer dollar should, in turn, support cyclical equity sectors and value stocks over the next 12 months.   Peter Berezin Chief Global Strategist pberezin@bcaresearch.com Global Investment Strategy View Matrix Special Trade Recommendations Current MacroQuant Model Scores

Highlights The Biden administration’s early actions suggest it will be hawkish on China as expected – and the giant Microsoft hack merely confirms the difficulty of reducing strategic tensions. US-China talks are set to resume and piecemeal engagement is possible. However, most of the areas of engagement touted in the media are overrated. Competition will prevail over cooperation. Cybersecurity stocks have corrected, creating an entry point for investors seeking exposure to a secular theme of Great Power conflict in the cyber realm and beyond. Global defense stocks are even more attractive than cyberstocks as a “back to work” trade in the geopolitical context. Continue to build up safe-haven hedges as geopolitical risk remains structurally elevated and underrated by financial markets. Feature The Biden administration passed its first major law, the $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan, on March 10. This gargantuan infusion of fiscal stimulus accounts for about 2% of global GDP and 9% of US GDP, a tailwind for risky assets when taken with a receding pandemic and normalizing global economy. The US dollar has perked up so far this year on the back of this extraordinary pump-priming and the rapid rollout of COVID-19 vaccines, which have lifted relative growth expectations with the rest of the world. Hence the dollar is rising for fundamentally positive reasons that will benefit global growth rather than choke it off. Our Foreign Exchange Strategist Chester Ntonifor argues that the dollar has 2-3% of additional upside before relapsing under the weight of rising global growth, inflation expectations, commodity prices, and relative equity flows into international markets. We agree with the dollar bear market thesis. But there are two geopolitical risks that investors must monitor: Cyclically, China’s combined monetary and fiscal stimulus is peaking, growth will decelerate, and the central government runs a non-negligible risk of overtightening policy. However, China’s National People’s Congress so far confirms our view that Beijing will not overtighten. Structurally, the US-China cold war is continuing apace under President Biden, as expected. The two sides are engaging in normal diplomacy as appropriate to a new US administration but the Microsoft Exchange hack (see below) underscores the trend of confrontation over cooperation. Chart 1Long JPY / Short KRW As Geopolitical Risk Is Underrated The second point reinforces the first since persistent US pressure on China will discourage it from excessive deleveraging at home. In a world where China is struggling to cap excessive leverage, the US is pursuing “extreme competition” with China (Biden’s words), and yet the US rule of law is intact, global investors will not abandon the US dollar in a general panic and loss of confidence. They will, however, continue to diversify away from the dollar on a cyclical basis given that global growth will accelerate while US policy will remain extremely accommodative. Reinforcing the point, geopolitical frictions are rising even outside the US-China conflict. A temporary drop in risk occurred in the New Year as a result of the rollout of vaccines, the defeat of President Trump, and the resolution of Brexit. But going forward, geopolitical risk will reaccelerate, with various implications that we highlight in this report. While we would not call an early end to the dollar bounce, we will keep in place our tactical long JPY-USD and long CHF-USD hedges. These currencies offer a good hedge in the context of a dollar bear market and structurally high geopolitical risk. If the dollar weakens anew on good news for global growth then the yen and franc will benefit on a relative basis as they are cheap, whereas if geopolitical risk explodes they will benefit as safe havens. We also recommend going long the Japanese yen relative to the South Korean won given the disparity in valuations highlighted by our Emerging Markets team, and the fact that geopolitical tensions center on the US and China (Chart 1). “Our Most Serious Competitor, China” Why are we so sure that geopolitical risk will remain structurally elevated and deliver negative surprises to ebullient equity markets? Our Geopolitical Power Index shows that China’s rise and Russia’s resurgence are disruptive to the US-led global order (Chart 2). If anything this process has accelerated over the COVID-19 crisis. China and Russia have authoritarian control over their societies and are implementing mercantilist and autarkic economic policies. They are carving out spheres of influence in their regions and using asymmetric warfare against the US and its allies. They have also created a de facto alliance in their shared interest in undermining the unity of the West. The US is meanwhile attempting to build an alliance of democracies against them, heightening their insecurities about America’s power and unpredictability (Chart 3). Chart 2Great Power Struggle Continues Massive fiscal and monetary stimulus is positive for economic growth and corporate earnings but it reduces the barriers to geopolitical conflict. Nations can pursue foreign and trade policies in their self-interest with less concern about the blowback from rivals if they are fueled up with artificially stimulated domestic demand. Chart 3Biden: ‘Our Most Serious Competitor, China’ Total trade between the US and China, at 3.2% and 4.7% of GDP respectively in 2018, was not enough to prevent trade war from erupting. Today the cost of trade frictions is even lower. The US has passed 25.4% of GDP in fiscal stimulus so far since January 1, 2020. China’s total fiscal-and-credit impulse has risen by 8.4% of GDP over the same time period. The Biden administration is co-opting Trump’s hawkish foreign and trade policy toward China, judging by its initial statements and actions (Appendix Table 1). Specifically, Biden has issued an executive order on securing domestic supply chains that demonstrates his commitment to the Trumpian goal of diversifying away from China and on-shoring production, or at least offshoring to allied nations. The Democratic Party is also unveiling bipartisan legislation in Congress that attempts to reduce reliance on China.1 These executive decrees are partly spurred on by the global shortage of semiconductors. China, the US, and the US’s allies are all attempting to build alternative semiconductor supply chains that bypass Taiwan, a critical bottleneck in the production of the most advanced computer chips. The Taiwanese say they will coordinate with “like-minded economies” to alleviate shortages, by which they mean fellow democracies. But this exposes Taiwan to greater geopolitical risk insofar as it excludes mainland China from supplies, either due to rationing or American export controls. The surge in semiconductor sales and share prices of semi companies (especially materials and equipment makers) will continue as countries will need a constant supply of ever more advanced chips to feed into the new innovation and technology race, the renewable energy race, and the buildout of 5G networks and beyond (Chart 4). It takes huge investments of time and capital to build alternative fabrication plants and supply lines yet governments are only beginning to put their muscle into it via stimulus packages and industrial policy. Chart 4Semiconductor Supply Shortage Supply shocks have geopolitical consequences. The oil shocks of the 1970s and early 1990s motivated the US to escalate its interventions and involvement in the Middle East. They also motivated the US to invest in stockpiles of critical goods and alternative sources of production so as to reduce dependency (Chart 5). Although semiconductors are not fungible like commodities, and the US has tremendous advantages in semiconductor design and production, nevertheless the bottleneck in Taiwan will take years to alleviate. Hence the US will become more active in supply security at home and more active in alliance-building in Asia Pacific to deter China from taking Taiwan by force or denying regional access to the US and its allies. China faces the same bottleneck, which threatens its technological advance, economic productivity, and ultimately its political stability and international defense. Chart 5ASupply Shortages Motivate Strategic Investments Chart 5BSupply Shortages Motivate Strategic Investments Semiconductor and semi equipment stock prices have gone vertical as highlighted above but one way to envision the surge in global growth and capex for chip makers is to compare these stocks relative to the shares of Big Tech companies in the communication service sector, i.e. those involved in social networking and entertainment, such as Twitter, Facebook, and Netflix. On a relative basis the semi stocks can outperform these interactive media firms which face a combination of negative shocks from rising interest rates, regulation, economic normalization, and ideologically fueled competition (Chart 6). Chart 6Long Chips Versus Big Tech What about the potential for the US and China to enhance cooperation in areas of shared interest? Generally the opportunity for re-engagement is overrated. The Biden administration says there will be engagement where possible. The first high-level talks will occur in Alaska on March 18-19 between Secretary of State Antony Blinken, National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan, Central Foreign Affairs Commissioner Yang Jiechi, and Foreign Minister Wang Yi. Presidents Biden and Xi Jinping may hold a bilateral summit sometime soon and the old strategic and economic dialogue may resume, enabling cabinet-level officials to explore a range of areas for cooperation independently of high-stakes strategic negotiations. However, a close look at the policy areas targeted for engagement reveals important limitations: Health: There is little room for concrete cooperation on the COVID-19 pandemic given that the pandemic is already receding, the Chinese have not satisfied American demands for data transparency, Chinese officials have fanned theories that the virus originated in the US, and the US is taking measures to move pharmaceutical and health equipment supply chains out of China. Trade: Trade is an area of potential cooperation given that the two countries will continue trading while their economies rebound. The Phase One trade deal remains in place. However, China only made structural concessions on agriculture in this deal so any additional structural changes will have to be the subject of extensive negotiations. Secretary of Treasury Janet Yellen says the US will use the “full array of tools” to ensure compliance and will punish China for abuses of the global trade system. Cybersecurity: On cybersecurity, China greeted the Biden administration by hacking the Microsoft Exchange email system, an even larger event than Russia’s SolarWinds hack last year. Both hacks highlight how cyberspace is a major arena of modern Great Power struggle, making it unlikely that there will be effective cooperation. The hack suggests Beijing remains more concerned about accessing technology while it can than reducing tensions. The Americans will make demands of China at the Alaska meetings. Environment: As for the environment, the US is a net oil exporter while China imports 73% of its oil, 42% of its natural gas and 7.8% of its coal consumption, with 40% and 10% of its oil and gas coming from the Middle East. The US wants to be at the cutting edge of renewable energy technology but it has nowhere near the impetus of China (or Europe), which are diversifying away from fossil fuels for the sake of national security. Moreover China will want its own companies, not American, to meet its renewable needs. This is true even if there is success in reducing barriers for green trade, since the whole point of diversifying from Middle Eastern oil supplies is strategic self-sufficiency. The Americans would have to accept less energy self-sufficiency and greater renewable dependence on China. Nuclear Proliferation: Cooperation can occur here as the Biden administration will seek to return to a deal with the Iranians restraining their nuclear ambitions while maintaining a diplomatic limiting North Korea’s nuclear weapons stockpile and ballistic missile development. China and Russia will accept the US rejoining the 2015 Iranian nuclear deal but they will require significant concessions if they are to join the US in forcing anything more substantial on the Iranians. China may enforce sanctions on North Korea but then it will expect concessions on trade and technology that the Biden administration will not want to give merely for the sake of North Korea. Bottom Line: The Biden administration’s China strategy is taking shape and it is hawkish as expected. It is not ultra-hawkish, however, as the key characteristic is that it is a defensive posture in the wake of the perceived failures of Trump’s strategy of “attack, attack, attack.” This means largely maintaining the leverage that Trump built for the US while shifting the focus to actions that the US can take to improve its domestic production, supply chain resilience, and coordination with allied producers. Punitive measures are an option, however, and if relations deteriorate over time, as expected, they will be increasingly relied on. Buy The Dip In Cybersecurity Stocks A linchpin of the above analysis is the Microsoft Exchange hack, which some have called the largest hack in US history, since it confirms the view that the Biden administration will not be able to de-escalate strategic tensions with China much. China has been particularly frantic to acquire technology through hacking and cyber-espionage over the past decade as it attempts to achieve a Great Leap Forward in productivity in light of slowing potential growth that threatens single-party rule over the long run. The breakdown in ties between Presidents Barack Obama and Xi Jinping occurred not only because of Xi’s perceived violation of a personal pledge not to militarize the South China Sea but also because of the failure of a cybersecurity cooperation deal between the two. When the Trump administration arrived on the scene it sought to increase pressure on China and cybersecurity was immediately identified as an area where pushback was long overdue. Cyber conflict is highly likely to persist, not only with Russia but also with China. Cyber operations are a way for states to engage in Great Power struggle while still managing the level of tensions and avoiding a military conflict in the real world. The cyber realm is a realm of anarchy in which states are insecure about their capabilities and are constantly testing opponents’ defenses and their own offensive capabilities. They can also act to undermine each other with plausible deniability in the cyber realm, since multiple state and quasi-state actors and a vast criminal underworld make it difficult to identify culprits with confidence. Revisionist states like China, North Korea, Russia, and Iran have an advantage in asymmetric warfare, including cyber, since it enables them to undermine the US and West without putting their weaker conventional forces in jeopardy. Cybersecurity stocks have corrected but the general up-trend is well established and fully justified (Chart 7). It is not clear, however, that investors should favor cybersecurity stocks over the general NASDAQ index (Chart 8). The trend has been sideways in recent years and is trying to form a bottom. Cybersecurity stocks are volatile, as can be seen compared to tech stocks as a whole, and in both cases the general trend is for rising volatility as the macro backdrop shifts in favor of higher interest rates and inflation expectations (Chart 9). Chart 7Cyber Security Stocks Corrected Chart 8Major Hacks Failed To Boost Cyber Vs NASDAQ Chart 9Volatility Of Cyber & Tech Stocks Rising Great Power struggle will not remain limited to the cyber realm. There is a fundamental problem of military insecurity plaguing the world’s major powers. Furthermore the global economic upturn and new energy and industrial innovation race will drive up commodity prices, which will in turn reactivate territorial and maritime disputes. Turf battles will re-escalate in the South and East China Seas, the Persian Gulf and Indian Ocean basin, the Mediterranean, and even the Baltic Sea and Arctic. One way to play this shift is as a geopolitical “back to work” trade – long defense stocks relative to cybersecurity stocks (Chart 10). The global defense sector saw a run-up in demand, capital expenditures, and profits late in the last business cycle. That all came crashing down with the pandemic, which supercharged cybersecurity as a necessary corollary to the swarm of online activity as households hunkered down to avoid the virus and obey government social restrictions. Cybersecurity stocks have higher EV/EBITDA ratios and lower profit margins and return on equity compared to defense stocks or the broad market. Chart 10Long Defense / Short Cyber Security: 'Back To Work' For Geopolitics The trade does not mean cybersecurity stocks will fall in absolute terms – we maintain our bullish case for cybersecurity stocks – but merely that defense stocks will make relative gains as economic normalization continues in the context of Great Power struggle. Bottom Line: Structurally elevated geopolitical risks will continue to drive demand for cybersecurity in absolute terms. However, we would favor global defense stocks on a relative basis. The US Is Not As War-Weary As People Think America is consumed with domestic divisions and distractions. Since 2008 Washington has repeatedly demonstrated an unwillingness to confront foreign rivals over small territorial conquests. This risk aversion has created power vacuums, inviting ambitious regional powers like China, Russia, Iran, and Turkey to act assertively in their immediate neighborhoods. However, the US is not embracing isolationism. Public opinion polling shows Americans are still committed to an active role in global affairs (Chart 11). The 2020 election confirms that verdict. Nor are Americans demanding big cuts in defense spending. Only 31% of Americans think defense spending is “too much” and only 12% think the national defense is stronger than it needs to be (Chart 12). Chart 11No Isolationism Here True, the Democratic Party is much more inclined to cut defense spending than the Republicans. About 43% of Democrats demand cuts, while 32% are complacent about the current level of spending (compared to 8% and 44% for Republicans). But it is primarily the progressive wing of the party that seeks outright cuts and the progressives are not the ones who took power. Chart 12Americans Against ‘Forever Wars’ But Not Truly Dovish Biden and his cabinet represent the Washington establishment, including the military-industrial complex. Even if Vice President Kamala Harris should become president she would, if anything, need to prove her hawkish credentials. Defense spending cuts might be projected nominally in Biden’s presidential budgets but they will not muster majorities in the two narrowly divided chambers of Congress. Biden has co-opted Trump’s (and Obama’s) message of strategic withdrawal and military drawdown. He is targeting a date of withdrawal from Afghanistan on May 1, notwithstanding the leverage that a military presence there could yield in its priority negotiations with Iran. Yet he is not jeopardizing the American troop presence in Germany and South Korea, much more geopolitically consequential spheres of action in a long competition with Russia and China. While it is true (and widely known) that Americans have turned against “forever wars,” this really means Middle Eastern quagmires like Iraq and Afghanistan and does not mean that the American public or political establishment have truly become anti-war “doves.” The US public recognizes the need to counter China and Russia and Congress will continue appropriating funds for defense as well as for industrial policy. The Biden administration will increase awareness about the risks of a lack of deterrence and alliance-building. This is especially apparent given the military buildup in China. The annual legislative session has revealed an important increase in military focus in Beijing in the context of the US rivalry. Previously, in the thirteenth five-year plan and the nineteenth National Party Congress, the People’s Liberation Army aimed to achieve “informatization and mechanization” reforms by 2020 and total modernization by 2035. However, at the fifth plenum of the central committee in October, the central government introduced a new military goal for the PLA’s 100th anniversary in 2027 – a “military centennial goal” to match with the 2021 centennial of the Communist Party and the 2049 centennial goal of the founding of the People’s Republic. While details about this new military centenary are lacking, the obvious implication is that the Communist Party and PLA are continuing to shift the focus to “fighting and winning wars,” particularly in the context of the need to deter the United States. The official defense budget is supposed to grow 6.8% in 2021, only slightly higher than the 6.6% goal in 2020, but observers have long known that China’s military budget could be as much as twice as high as official statistics indicate. The point is that defense spending is going up, as one would expect, in the context of persistent US-China tensions. Bottom Line: Just as US-China cooperation will be hindered by mutual efforts to reduce supply chain dependency and support domestic demand, so too it will be hindered by mutual efforts to increase defense readiness and capability in the event of military conflict. The beneficiary of continued high levels of US defense spending and Chinese spending increases – in the context of a more general global arms buildup – will be global arms makers. Investment Takeaways Geopolitical risk remains structurally elevated despite the temporary drop in tensions in late 2020 and early 2021. The China-backed Microsoft Exchange hack reinforces the Biden administration’s initial foreign policy comments and actions suggesting that US policy will remain hawkish on China. While Biden will adopt a more defensive rather than offensive strategy relative to Trump, there is no chance that he will return to the status quo ante. The Obama administration itself grew more hawkish on China in 2015-16 in the face of cyber threats and strategic tensions in the South China Sea. Cybersecurity stocks will continue to benefit from secular demand in an era of Great Power competition where nations use cyberattacks as a form of asymmetric warfare and a means of minimizing the risks of conflict. The recent correction in cybersecurity stocks creates a good entry point. We closed our earlier trade in January for a gain of 31% but have remained thematically bullish and recommend going long in absolute terms. We would favor defense over cybersecurity stocks as a geopolitical version of the “back to work” trade in which conventional economic activity revives, including geopolitical competition for territory, resources, and strategic security. Defense stocks are undervalued and relative share prices are unlikely to fall to 2010-era lows given the structural increase in geopolitical risk (Chart 13). Chart 13Global Defense Stocks Oversold Chart 14Global Defense Stocks Profitable, Less Indebted Defense stocks have seen profit margins hold up and are not too heavily burdened by debt relative to the broad market (Chart 14). Defense stocks have a higher return on equity than the average for non-financial corporations and cash flow will improve as a new capex cycle begins in which nations seek to improve their security and gain access to territory and resources (Chart 15). Chart 15Defense Stocks: High RoE, Capex Will Revive Chart 16Discount On Global Defense Stocks Valuation metrics show that global defense stocks are trading at a discount (Chart 16).     Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com   Appendix Table 1 Appendix Table 1Biden Administration's First 100 Days: Key Statements And Actions On China Footnotes 1 See Federal Register, "America’s Supply Chains", Mar. 1, 2021, federalregister.gov and Richard Cowan and Alexandra Alper, "Top U.S. Senate Democrat directs lawmakers to craft bill to counter China", Feb. 23, 2021, reuters.com.

Please note that we will be presenting a webcast on Thursday March 11 at 10:00 AM EST for the Americas and EMEA regions and on March 12 at 9:00 HKT/12:00 AEDT for APAC clients. We will be discussing macro themes and investment strategies. Highlights EMs (ex-China, Korea and Taiwan) are better positioned to handle higher US bond yields today than they were in 2013. Yet better does not mean they will be unscathed. The combination of rising US bond yields and a firming US currency will suffocate EM risk assets in the near-term. A neutral allocation is warranted in EM stocks and credit markets within global equity and credit portfolios, respectively. Feature Ever since the US elections concluded in January with a Blue Sweep, we have been warning that rising US bond yields could trigger a setback in global markets in general, and in EM markets in particular. EM equities, currencies and fixed-income markets have recently experienced a correction (Chart 1). The question now is: Is the market rout over? Or is there more to come? We are inclined to believe that the correction is not over. Rising US Treasury yields have been the culprit of the shakeout in global growth stocks, EM equities, as well as EM currencies. Therefore, taking a stance on US bond yields and on the US dollar is critical for assessing the outlook for EM financial markets. Odds are that the selloff in US long-term bonds and the rebound in the US dollar are not yet over because: Positioning and sentiment on US long-dated Treasuries is neutral, as illustrated in Chart 2. Chart 1Rising US Real Yields Have Caused A Shakeout In EM Chart 2Investor Sentiment And Positioning In US Treasurys Are Neutral   Typically, US bond yields do not reverse their ascent until investor sentiment becomes downbeat and bond portfolios are of materially short duration. These conditions for a top in bond yields are not yet present. US government bond yields would have been much higher if it were not for the Federal Reserve and US commercial banks’ massive bond-buying spree. The Fed has bought $2.8 trillion and US commercial banks have purchased about $300 billion of Treasurys in the past 12 months (Chart 3). One of the main motives for commercial banks to buy US Treasurys has been the SLR relief initiative which commenced on April 1, 2020.1 This SLR relief is due to terminate on March 31, 2021. Unless it is extended, commercial banks will drastically curtail their net government bond purchases. This will exert upward pressure on Treasury yields. Regarding the greenback, investor sentiment remains quite bearish (Chart 4). From a contrarian perspective, this heralds further strength in the US dollar. Chart 3Surging Purchases Of US Treasurys By The Fed And Commercial Banks Chart 4Investors Are Still Bearish On The US Dollar   From a cyclical perspective, US growth will be stronger relative to its potential, and vis-à-vis other DMs, EMs and China. Growth differentials moving in favor of the US foreshadows near-term strengthening of the dollar. Structurally, the bearish case for the US currency hinges on both the Federal Reserve falling behind the inflation curve and ballooning US twin deficits. In our view, this will ultimately be the case. Hence, the long-term outlook for the US dollar remains troublesome. That said, twin deficits alone are insufficient to produce a continuous currency depreciation. The twin deficits must also be accompanied with low/falling real interest rates – in order to generate sufficient conditions for currency depreciation. As long as US real rates continue rising, the dollar’s rebound will be extended. The USD/EUR exchange rate has been correlated with the 10-year real yield differential and this relationship will persist (Chart 5).  Bottom Line: US government bonds will continue selling off. Rising bond yields (including rising real yields) will support the dollar in the near-term. The combination of rising US bond yields and a firming US currency will cause global macro volatility to rise (Chart 6). This will suffocate EM risk assets and EM currencies. Chart 5US Real Yields (TIPS) Will Continue Driving The US Dollar Chart 6Aggregate Financial Market Volatility: Higher Lows   Impact On EM: 2013 Versus Now Are we entering another Taper Tantrum episode as in the spring of 2013 when many EMs were devastated? There are both similarities and differences between the current period of rising US bond yields and the 2013 episode. Similarities: Today, as in early 2013, investor sentiment on EM is very bullish and investors are long EM (Chart 7). Chart 7Investor Sentiment On EM Stocks Was At A Record High In January In early 2013, as is the case today, EM local currency bond yields were very low and EM credit spreads were too tight. When US Treasury yields spiked in the spring of 2013, EM assets tanked. Many commentators blamed it on the Fed. We disagree with that interpretation. Remarkably, the rise in US TIPS yields in 2013 had little impact on equity indices such as the S&P 500 and Nasdaq, or on US corporate spreads (Chart 8). The correction in the US equity market lasted about a week. Yet, EM equities, fixed income markets and currencies experienced a prolonged slump, and in many cases, a bear market. There is no basis to believe that the Fed’s policy and US bond yields are more important to EM than they are to US credit and equity markets. The core rationale for the EM bear market in 2013 was poor domestic fundamentals. The Fed’s tapering was the trigger, not the cause. Differences: The key difference between the current episode and the 2013 Taper Tantrum is EM macro fundamentals. Specifically: EM economies (ex-China, Korea and Taiwan) entered 2013 with booming bank loans and strong domestic demand as well as high inflation (Chart 9). Chart 8US Markets Were Not Hit By The Taper Tantrum In 2013 Chart 9EM (ex-China, Korea And Taiwan): 2013 Vs Now Chart 10EM (ex-China, Korea And Taiwan): 2013 Vs Now Presently, EM bank credit is subdued, domestic demand is dismal, and inflation is tame. Besides, EMs (ex-China, Korea and Taiwan) had a very large trade deficits in 2013 and were financing them via foreign borrowing, which was roaring prior to 2013 (Chart 10). Presently, their trade balances are in surplus and foreign indebtedness has not increased in recent years. Bottom Line: In 2013, EM economies (ex-China, Korea and Taiwan) were overheating and were addicted to foreign funding. These were the reasons why EM currencies and fixed income markets teetered when US bond yields spiked in 2013. Presently, the majority of EM economies (ex-China, Korea and Taiwan) have different types of malaises: domestic bank loan origination is too timid, consumer spending and capital expenditures are moribund, inflation is low and fiscal policy is tight. Consequently, EMs (ex-China, Korea and Taiwan) are better positioned to handle higher US bond yields today than they were back in 2013. Yet better does not mean they will be unscathed. Investment Strategy Equities: The key variable to watch to assess the vulnerability of both US and EM equity markets is their respective corporate bond yields. Historically, rising corporate bond yields (shown inverted in both panels of Chart 11) heralds lower share prices. Chart 11Rising Corporate Bond Yields Are Bad For Share Prices Given that both EM and US corporate credit spreads are too tight, they are unlikely to narrow further to offset rising US Treasury yields. Instead, EM and US corporate bond yields are likely to rise with US Treasury yields. This will trigger more weakness in share prices. Besides, rising EM local currency government bond yields also point towards more downside in EM equities (yields are shown inverted on the chart) (Chart 12). Chart 12Rising EM Local Currency Bond Yields Heralds Weaker Equity Prices Concerning equity style, global growth stocks have peaked versus global value stocks. In the EM equity space, we have less conviction on growth versus value. As to regional allocation in a global equity portfolio, we continue recommending a neutral allocation to EM, underweighting US and overweighting Europe and Japan. Commodities: Investors’ net long positions in commodities are very elevated (Chart 13). As US bond yields rise and the US dollar continues rebounding, there will be a de-risking in the commodities space resulting in a pullback in commodities prices. Currencies: We continue shorting a basket of EM currencies – including BRL, CLP, ZAR, TRY and KRW versus the euro, CHF and JPY. Several EM currencies have failed to break above their technical resistance levels, suggesting that a pullback could be non-trivial (Chart 14). Chart 13Investors Are Record Long Commodities Chart 14Asian Currencies Hit Technical Resistances   In central Europe, we are closing the long CZK/short USD trade with a 3.8% gain. Continue holding the long CZK/short PLN and HUF position. Local fixed income markets: EM local bond yields have risen in response to rising US treasury real yields and the setback in EM currencies. This might persist in the near-term, but we continue to recommend receiving 10-year swap rates in selected countries where inflation risks are low and monetary and fiscal policies are tight. These countries include Mexico, Colombia, Russia, China, India and Malaysia. A further rise in their swap rates would represent an overshoot and hence, should not be chased. EM currencies are more vulnerable to a selloff than local rates are. We continue to wait for a better entry point in currencies to recommend buying cash domestic bonds instead of receiving swap rates. EM Credit: A neutral allocation to EM sovereign and corporate bonds is warranted in a global credit portfolio. Our sovereign credit overweights are Mexico, Russia, Malaysia, Peru, Colombia, the Philippines and Indonesia, while our sovereign credit underweights are Brazil, South Africa and Turkey. Arthur Budaghyan Chief Emerging Markets Strategist arthurb@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1 The Supplementary Leverage Ratio (SLR) is equivalent to Basel III Tier-1 leverage ratio and varies from 3-5% for US banks. Under the relief program last April, the Fed allowed US banks to exclude holdings of US Treasury Bonds and cash kept in reserves at the Fed from their assets when calculating this ratio. The SLR relief is planned to end March 31, 2021. Equities Recommendations Currencies, Credit And Fixed-Income Recommendations

Highlights The US has largely passed a “stress test” of its political system. Rule of law is intact. The US dollar and treasuries may fall further due to cyclical and macro developments but not due to a structural loss of confidence in US governance. The judicial system will become the key check on the Biden administration as it shifts from short-term economic relief to its longer-term agenda, especially on executive orders. The court becomes even more important as a check if the Democrats muster the votes to remove the filibuster. This is possible but not imminent. Packing the court is much harder. Major court cases only sometimes have a major impact on the stock market but key sectors can be given certainty through court verdicts after being disrupted by policy. The US dollar is bouncing on the basis of economic recovery and political stability which poses a near-term risk to cyclical sectors. Feature US government bonds continued to sell off over the past week as the economic recovery gained steam and investors rotated into cyclical equities and commodities. The US Senate passed the $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan – a massive and likely excessive infusion of fiscal relief – sending it to the House where it will be ratified shortly and passed over to President Joe Biden for signing. Across America shops and restaurants are opening up as immunization to COVID-19 advances and hospitalizations collapse. Meanwhile the Supreme Court announced its first set of rulings under the Biden administration: it dismissed former President Trump’s last challenge to the 2020 election and ruled on other issues such as free speech. The country has tentatively passed a political “stress test.” The rule of law remains intact. On the surface these two trends stand in opposition. US treasuries have been attractive to a savings-rich world not just because of the size of the US economy but also because of the country’s 245-year tradition of good governance – the balance of freedom and stability in its government and financial markets. The share of foreign holdings of US treasuries is declining but the reason is that the Federal Reserve is increasing its share (Chart 1). Foreigners are not liquidating their holdings just yet, although it is a risk given the US’s combination of extremely easy monetary and fiscal policy and populist politics. Chart 1Foreign Holdings Of US Treasuries In this report we focus on governance in the wake of the Trump administration and COVID-19 pandemic. Is US governance eroding? If so, how will it impact the markets? How will the courts interact with the Biden administration? Should investors care about the rule of law? With a new business cycle beginning, any assurance of a basic level of US governance allows risk appetite to recover and enables investors to pursue higher-yielding cyclical assets with less inhibition. But it also suggests that US assets will remain safe havens. How Rule Of Law Matters To Investors Rule of law and the independence of the judiciary are critical aspects of good governance that make a market attractive to foreign investors and secure for domestic investors. Nowhere is this clearer than in the breakdown of global reserve currencies. The United States and its developed market allies hold pride of place (Chart 2). Nevertheless the US has lost some of its reserve status to other currencies over two decades of partisanship and repeated crises, from 9/11 through Trump’s trade war. Chart 2Rule Of Law: Bedrock For Reserve Currencies Government bond yields exhibit some degree of correlation, inversely, with rule of law: better governance implies lower yields and vice versa. As the global savings glut grew over the past few decades, investors sought to preserve capital in securities perceived to be the safest. This is apparent whether judging by a simple comparison of developed and emerging market bond yields or by the World Bank’s Worldwide Governance Indicators.1 The relationship between governance and bond yields is strongest with emerging markets but it loosely holds among developed markets like the US, as shown in Chart 3. Chart 3Bond Yields Lower Where Laws Rule It is the level of governance rather than any change matters, since bond yields have fallen for all developed markets regardless of changes in governance over the past decade. However, governments that take negative steps that harm governance attract fewer foreign purchases of their debt than those that improve governance (Chart 4). This is true of developed and emerging economies. The implication is that demand for US treasuries would have been even greater over the past decade if the US political system had remained stable like Canada’s. Chart 4Improved Rule Of Law Attracts Bond Investors Differences in developed economy governance only slightly (if at all) correlate with portfolio or direct investment flows (Charts 5 and 6). This is not surprising as governance does not translate into short-term corporate earnings growth and foreign countries invest directly in developed markets to access technology and consumer markets. By contrast, in emerging markets, better governance goes along with stronger equity demand and foreign direct investment. Chart 5Rule Of Law A Boon For Equity Flows? Chart 6Eroding Rule Of Law Discourages Direct Investment Still the global phenomenon suggests that an erosion of rule of law can shake up one’s faith in a government’s ability or willingness to make debt payments and its operating environment for private companies. Domestically focused investors have to be concerned about rule of law since its collapse would undermine political stability as well as property rights, the surety of contracts, and the redress of grievances. US Rule Of Law Post-Trump And Post-COVID The US has the world’s longest continuously running constitution and one of the highest standards of living. Other countries with similarly high standards of living have similar constitutions or even adopted theirs from the United States. At the same time US governance has deteriorated in recent years, raising the question of whether bond investors or private entrepreneurs face greater governance risk. The drop in rule of law is apparent in the World Bank’s index (Chart 7A). The turmoil of the 2020 election cycle proves beyond doubt that the US suffers from some serious governance problems. At the same time the independence of the US judiciary is rising in the ranks (Chart 7B). Looking ahead, this trend will likely continue as the judicial system managed to get through the disruptive Trump presidency and the 2020 pandemic and election with minimal damage to its independence. Chart 7AUS Rule Of Law Erosion Will Pause Chart 7BUS Judicial Independence Has Improved This is a remarkable feat as the underlying problem in the US system – political polarization – threatens to entangle the judiciary as much as any other institution. Today, with polarization subsiding yet still at a historically high level, the court’s integrity and credibility are critical to the overall maintenance of the rule of law (Chart 8). Chart 8US Polarization Set To Fall Chart 9Trust In Supreme Court Fairly SteadyPolarization creates gridlock in Congress, which forces other branches of government to fill the vacuum and deliver solutions, thus becoming more controversial. This process has ensnared the high court from time to time as well as the central bank and other institutions.2 Over the past ten years the courts have struggled to minimize the damage from polarization. Confidence in the high court has fallen, but not catastrophically, and most voters feel about the same as ever toward the court (Chart 9). Meanwhile disapproval of Congress is stuck around 80%. The Trump era featured a range of claims about the rule of law in America that can now be assessed with some distance. The Democratic Party was not able to remove President Trump through extra-electoral means, while President Trump was not able to ride roughshod over the courts via executive order. Several of Trump’s initiatives were upheld, such as his immigration ban, while others were shot down, such as his attempt to deport the so-called “Dreamers” or add a question about citizenship on the US census. The 2020 election irregularities were not enough to sway the outcome of the electoral vote while the insurrection at the Capitol stood no chance of overthrowing the system. Supreme Court Justice John Roberts refrained from presiding over Trump’s second impeachment – differentiating it from the impeachment of a sitting president – without intervening to tell the Senate whether it could impeach a previous president. Going forward, however, the courts will act as a check on the Biden administration and therefore new controversies will arise. One of the Trump administration’s lasting legacies was to appoint three justices to the high court, creating a six-to-three conservative ideological leaning on the court. Since the Democrats won control of both the White House and Congress, the Supreme Court becomes a critical check on the administration and will thus attract opposition (Chart 10). Speculation about a conservative ideological takeover of the court has proved overrated, based on the court’s neutrality amid the election. Antagonism will inevitably increase going forward as Biden moves away from COVID relief and economic welfare to his larger legislative agenda. Yet the second reconciliation bill, which features infrastructure and green energy investments, would have to include major surprises to create anything as controversial as the dispute over the individual mandate, which imposed a tax on citizens who did not purchase health insurance.3 In other words, a major clash over legislation is more likely only when the Senate Democratic majority removes the filibuster, the rule that effectively requires 60 votes in the Senate to pass regular legislation. This can happen but it does not appear imminent. Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia opposes removing it, keeping the Democrats at least one vote shy of repealing it, though he has recently shown some flexibility by suggesting that the Senate return to the good old days when senators had to deliver a filibuster in person (and therefore the procedural hurdle was more burdensome to maintain). Chart 10Balance Of Power In The Three Branches Thus the main arena of friction between the Biden administration and the judiciary will boil down to executive action, as with the Trump administration. Not all of this friction will be partisan but certainly ideological leanings will matter in the most important cases. While the number of Trump’s judicial appointments is often exaggerated – President Obama appointed more (Chart 11) – it is still the case that conservatives possess an improved ideological advantage due to the past few decades of appointments (Chart 12). So far Biden has faced pushback on his 100-day deportation moratorium. Chart 11Trump's Judicial Impact Overstated Chart 12Federal Courts A Bulwark For Conservatives Table 1 highlights the most investment-relevant Supreme Court cases coming due in the current session. The court will determine, among other things, whether Facebook can be treated similar to a telephone company in some respects; whether the federal government or states oversee cases brought against oil and natural and gas companies over climate change; and to what extent tech company acquisitions include patents and copyrights. The use of executive authority to reallocate funds that Congress has appropriated for different reasons, and state exemptions for Medicaid requirements, are also on the docket. Table 1Major Cases Pending At Supreme Court In addition we would identify several policy areas that are likely to become relevant to investors due to contemporary political and geopolitical concerns combined with historical precedent: National Security: The Trump administration relied heavily on the Supreme Court’s historic deference to presidents on issues involving national security and foreign policy. This tendency will likely continue, giving President Biden a freer hand in cases where he claims a national security justification, particularly in dealing with export controls vis-à-vis China. The hack into Microsoft’s Exchange email system, allegedly committed by Chinese state-backed hackers, highlights our Geopolitical Strategy view that the Biden administration will not reduce the US-China power struggle. Industrial Policy: The Supreme Court famously rebuked President Harry Truman for trying to seize control of private steel production during the Korean war (Youngstown Sheet & Tube Company v. Sawyer, 1952). Similar cases could emerge in an era in which the president is attempting to assert US government control over critical supply chains in health, tech, and defense. Immigration: The Supreme Court rebuked the Trump administration on the question of the “Dreamers,” undocumented immigrants brought to the US as children, whom the Obama administration refused to deport under an initiative called Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA). The court said the Trump administration failed to provide adequate procedural justification for revoking the DACA program. Now the Biden administration’s executive orders loosening immigration and border controls face challenges from lower courts that could ascend the ladder. Also, following from the logic of Trump’s defeat on this issue, it is possible that the Supreme Court could overturn some of Biden’s revocations of Trump’s orders if not adequately justified. Environment: The Biden administration has pledged to phase out the fossil fuel industry over time, yet legislative majorities will be lacking and much of the activity occurs on private land free from direct federal control. The result is that Biden administration will revive regulatory expansions from the Obama era to attempt to raise the cost of carbon emissions. These actions will likely provoke court rulings. Labor: One of the Clinton presidency’s biggest legal controversies, outside the impeachment, centered on executive orders aimed at stopping businesses from hiring replacements for workers who went on strike. The Biden administration explicitly aims to have a muscular policy on labor regulation and to promote union interests and these could run afoul of the courts. Big Tech and free speech: The court has just ruled with an eight-to-one majority in favor of a free speech case on campus. The only reason Chief Justice Roberts dissented was because the case was moot. Future cases may not be moot in an era in which first amendment quarrels are heating up as Big Business, Big Tech, and mainstream media ramp up censorship of disfavored speech. The Supreme Court is likely to enforce first amendment protections robustly which could result in breaking open the digital arena for alternative platforms and services with looser standards. Bottom Line: With Democratic control over the White House and Congress, the judicial branch will become a critical source of limitations on the Biden administration’s policies. While controversial cases could possibly arise from any ambitious proposals in Biden’s second reconciliation bill, the main source of friction will center on executive orders. This is the case at least until the filibuster is removed, which is possible down the road but not imminent. Could Democrats Pack The Court? Finally there is an ongoing concern over the risk of “court packing,” i.e. partisan enlargement of the Supreme Court, under the Biden administration. During the 2020 campaign several leading Democratic Party figures suggested the party could increase the size of the high court so as to reduce the six-to-three conservative leaning. The threat was partly intended to motivate the progressive voting base and deter the Republicans from going forward with the confirmation of Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett ahead of the election. However, the possibility of court packing remains as long as polarization is extreme and the ruling party has at least 51 votes needed to repeal the filibuster in the Senate. President Biden said he was “not a fan” of court packing but one of his first acts in office was to appoint a commission of experts to study the idea of Supreme Court reform. This can be interpreted as a way of sidelining the question or as a preliminary to packing the court should it become possible later. Packing the court is politically explosive so while Democrats could remove the filibuster if and when they get the votes, they are less likely to succeed at packing the vote due to public opinion (though it cannot be ruled out over the long run). The bar to altering the filibuster is much lower than that to changing the composition of the court. History suggests that it would be a market-relevant episode if court packing were attempted. Franklin Delano Roosevelt attempted to pack the court after it ruled elements of the New Deal unconstitutional, notably a wage hike mandated by the National Industrial Recovery Act (Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States, 1935). Roosevelt narrowly fell short of expanding the court after the Senate majority leader, a key ally, passed away unexpectedly. The S&P rallied when higher wages were struck down but there are many reasons for these developments – industrial production was rallying at the time, and when industrial production recovered later, and court packing was ruled out, the market remained low. At minimum one cannot say the case was inconsequential to the market (Chart 13). Chart 13FDR Tried To Stack The Courts In a more recent example of a Supreme Court ruling having a substantial market impact, the court ruled with a narrow five-to-four vote to uphold the legality of most of the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare, the signature legislative effort of Obama’s presidency (National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, 2012). The market reaction at that time was positive, even in the health care sector, as the result removed uncertainty. Only later, in 2015, when the major provisions of the law took effect, did the sector start to feel the negative effects (Chart 14). It is reasonable to expect that any showdown over a major piece of legislation and the courts would have a similar impact today: the market would struggle with uncertainty but rally on the verdict. Chart 14Supreme Court Ruling On Obamacare Had Market Impact Otherwise the Supreme Court’s ideological balance will likely be in place for a while. Justice Stephen Breyer, appointed by President Clinton, is 82 years old while Justice Clarence Thomas, appointed by President Bush, is 72 years old. The other justices are all younger than 66, meaning that conservatives would retain a five-to-four advantage even if Biden had the chance to replace both Breyer and Thomas. Bottom Line: As things stand, court packing is out of reach, more so than removing the filibuster, and therefore the current Supreme Court balance will remain an effective check on the Biden administration. Investment Takeaways The judicial system will become the major check on the Biden administration if its second reconciliation bill contains surprisingly ambitious and controversial provisions or if the Democrats ever get the votes to remove the filibuster. Otherwise the court is primarily a check on Biden’s executive orders. Climate policy is a likely area of friction given that the Biden administration will attempt to pioneer new areas of federal involvement in raising the cost of private industry when it comes to carbon emissions. At the same time the court could insist that the digital arena is a common forum where different voices must be heard, which could open the way to competitors to the tech giants. While the energy sector faces policy risks, it is favored by cyclical economic factors and will also benefit from checks and balances. Whereas the tech sector is not cyclically favored and could face some pushback from courts regarding competition (Chart 15). US rule of law is mostly intact. The selloff in the dollar and treasuries is driven by cyclical factors, not a structural loss of confidence in the rule of law or the American legal and political system. The Trump saga did not in itself trigger a collapse of the US dollar or government bonds – what did that was the Federal Reserve’s shift back to ultra-easy policy and the blowout fiscal spending stemming from the COVID-19 crisis. The US dollar is bouncing on the strong outlook for the economy as well as political stabilization. Chart 16 highlights that this is a near-term risk to cyclical sectors. Assuming the dollar resumes its cyclical weakening path it will power the next leg of outperformance for these sectors. Chart 15Courts Could Impact Energy, Tech Chart 16Dollar Bounce A Near-Term Risk To Cyclical Outperformance   Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com     Appendix Table A1Political Risk Matrix Table A2Political Capital Index Table A3APolitical Capital: White House And Congress Table A3BPolitical Capital: Household And Business Sentiment Table A3CPolitical Capital: The Economy And Markets Table A4Biden’s Cabinet Position Appointments   Footnotes 1     The World Bank uses expert judgment and opinion polls to evaluate rule of law, defined as quality of contract enforcement, property rights, and functioning of the law and justice systems. Biases stem from the policy elite and non-governmental organizations of the western world. For instance, Hong Kong’s high rankings have all too predictably been undercut by Communist China’s power grab there.              2     Polarization escalated after Roe v. Wade and similar rulings that legalized abortion (1973), the Bush v. Gore ruling that decided the 2000 election, the NFIB v. Sebelius ruling that approved the Affordable Care Act (2012), and the Obergefell v. Hodges ruling that legalized gay marriage (2015).   3    The individual mandate is not expected to get shot down by the court this year, though it is conceivable. Even so, Biden’s second reconciliation bill would give the Democrats the chance to respond to any court ruling on health care reform. Biden’s health initiatives of automatic enrollment and government-provided insurance will be challenged but do not seem as controversial as the individual mandate in principle.       

特別レポート

Highlights UK Interest Rates: A series of rolling shocks dating back to the 2008 financial crisis has prevented the Bank of England (BoE) from normalizing crisis-era levels of interest rates, even during years when inflation was overshooting the BoE 2% target. Brexit and COVID-19 were the last of those two shocks, but the growth- and inflation-dampening effects of both are fading fast. Implications for Gilts & GBP: The BoE’s dovish rhetoric, including hints that negative policy rates are still a viable option, looks increasingly inappropriate. The surge in real UK bond yields seen over the past month is just the beginning of a medium-term process of interest rate normalization. Maintain below-benchmark duration on Gilts, while downgrading UK allocations within dedicated global fixed income portfolios to neutral. The pound has upside in this environment, especially if depressed UK productivity starts to recover. Feature Chart 1UK Real Yields: Deeply Negative The UK has become one of the more peculiar corners of the global fixed income universe. The outright level of longer-term Gilt yields is in the middle of the pack among the major advanced economies. The story is much different, however, when breaking those nominal UK yields into the real and inflation expectations components. The deeply negative real yields on UK inflation-linked Gilts are the lowest among the majors, even in a world where sub-0% real yields are prevalent in most countries (Chart 1). The flipside of that deeply negative real yield is a high level of inflation expectations. The breakeven inflation rate derived from the difference between the nominal and real 10-year Gilt yields is 3.3%, the highest in the developed “linkers” universe. Inflation expectations in UK consumer surveys are at similar levels, well above the 2% inflation target of the Bank of England (BoE), suggesting little confidence in the central bank’s ability or willingness to hit its own inflation goals. In this Special Report, jointly published by BCA Research Global Fixed Income Strategy and Foreign Exchange Strategy, we investigate why UK real interest rates have remained so persistently negative and assess the possibility of a shift in the low interest rate regime in a post-Brexit, post-pandemic UK – a move that could be quite bearish for UK fixed income markets and bullish for the British pound. Can The BoE Ignore Cyclical Upward Pressure On UK Bond Yields? The UK has suffered from a series of shocks, starting with the 2008 crisis, that have limited the ability of the BoE to attempt to tighten monetary policy. The 2011/12 European debt crisis hurt the UK’s most important trading partners, while the 2016 Brexit vote began a multi-year process of uncertainty over the future of those trading relationships. The COVID-19 pandemic is the latest shock, triggering a recession of historic proportions. The UK economy contracted by -10% in 2020, the largest decline since “The Great Frost” downturn of 1709. UK bond yields collapsed in response as the BoE cut rates to near-0% and reinforced that easy stance with aggressive quantitative easing and promises to keep rates unchanged over at the next few years. Today, UK financial markets are waking up to a world beyond the current COVID-19 lockdowns. The UK is running one of the world’s most successful vaccination rollouts, with 23 million jabs, or 35 per 100 people, already having been administered. UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson recently unveiled a bold plan to fully reopen the UK economy from the current severe lockdowns by mid-year. The UK government’s latest budget called for additional spending measures over the next year, including maintaining the work furlough scheme that has supported household incomes during the pandemic. As a result, UK growth expectations have exploded higher. According to the Bloomberg consensus economics survey, UK nominal GDP growth is expected to surge to 8.4% over calendar year 2021, an annual pace not seen since 1990 (Chart 2). Nominal Gilt yields have begun to reprice higher to reflect those surging growth expectations, with the 5-year/5-year forward Gilt yield climbing 67bps so far in 2021. Real Gilt yields are also moving higher with the 10-year inflation-linked Gilt climbing 38bps year to date, providing additional interest rate support that has fueled a surge in the pound versus the dollar (bottom panel). Our own BoE Monitor - containing growth, inflation and financial variables that typically lead to pressure on the central bank to adjust monetary policy – is signaling a reduced need for additional policy easing (Chart 3). The momentum of changes in longer-maturity UK Gilts and the trade-weighted UK currency index are usually correlated to the ebbs and flows of the BoE Monitor. The latest surge higher in yields and the currency suggests that the markets are anticipating the type of recovery that will put pressure on the BoE to tighten. Chart 2A Growth-Driven Repricing Of Gilts & GBP Chart 3Gilts & GBP Sniffing Out A Less Dovish BoE? It may take a while to see the BoE turn more hawkish, however. The BoE has become one of least active central banks in the world over the past decade. After the BoE cut its official policy interest rate, the Bank Rate, by 500bps during the 2008 financial crisis and 2009 recession, rates were kept in a range between 0.25% and 0.75% for ten consecutive years. The BoE cut rates aggressively in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, lowering the Bank Rate in March 2020 from 0.75% to 0.1%, where it still stands. The BoE has used quantitative easing (QE) and forward guidance to try and limit movements in bond yields whenever cyclical surges in inflation could have justified tighter monetary policy. That has led to an extended period of a negative BoE Bank Rate, something not seen since the inflationary 1970s (Chart 4). Back then, the BoE was lagging the surge in UK inflation, but still hiking nominal interest rates. Today, the central bank is keeping nominal rates near 0% with much lower levels of inflation. Chart 4Over A Decade Of Negative Real UK Interest Rates Short-term interest rate markets are still pricing in a very slow response from the BoE to the current growth optimism. Only 36bps of rate hikes over the next two years are discounted in the UK overnight index swap (OIS) curve. This go-slow response is in line with the BoE’s guidance on future rate hikes which, similar to the language used by other central banks like the Fed, calls for no pre-emptive rate hikes before inflation has sustainably returned to the BoE target. That combination would be consistent with current forward market pricing on both short-term interest rates and inflation. Chart 5BoE Keeping Real Rates Well Below R* In Chart 5, we show the real BoE Bank Rate, constructed by subtracting UK core CPI inflation from the Bank Rate. We also show a forward real rate calculated using the forward UK OIS and CPI swap curves. The market-implied path of the real Bank Rate shows very little change over the next decade, with the real Bank Rate expected to average around -2.5%. This is far below the estimates of a neutral UK real rate (or “r-star”) of just under 2%, as calculated by the New York Fed or recent academic studies. The neutral UK real rate has likely dipped because of the pandemic. The UK Office For Budget Responsibility (OBR) estimates that there has been a long-term “scarring” of the UK economy from COVID-19 through supply-side factors like weaker investment spending, lower productivity growth and diminished labor force participation – equal to three percentage points of the level of potential GDP.1 The BoE estimates a smaller “scarring” of 1.75 percentage points of potential output, but coming with a 6.5% reduction in the size of the UK capital stock. While these are significant reductions in the supply-side of the UK economy, they are not enough to account for the 4.5 percentage point difference between pre-pandemic estimates of the UK r-star and the market-implied path of the real BoE Bank Rate over the next decade. The implication is that the markets are not expecting the BoE to deviate from its strategy of doing very little with interest rates, even as growth recovers from the pandemic shock. That can be seen in the recent upturn in UK inflation expectations that is evident in both market-implied and survey-based measures. Chart 6UK Inflation Expectations Reflect BoE Policy, Not Actual Inflation The 5-year/5-year forward UK CPI swap rate now sits at 3.6%, not far off the 3.3% level of 5-10 year consumer inflation expectations from the latest YouGov/Citigroup survey (Chart 6). The fact that inflation expectations can remain so elevated at a time when headline CPI inflation is struggling to avoid deflation is striking. This indicates a belief that the BoE will do very little in the future to stop a booming UK economy that is expected to put sustained downward pressure on the UK unemployment rate over the next few years (bottom panel). This is from a relatively low starting point of the unemployment rate given the massive government support programs that have limited the amount of pandemic-related layoffs over the past year. The BoE should have reasons to be more concerned about a resurgence of UK inflation. In its latest Monetary Policy Report, the BoE published estimates showing that the entire collapse in UK inflation in 2020 was attributable to weaker demand for goods and services – especially the latter (Chart 7). This suggests that UK inflation could rebound by a similar amount as the UK economy reopens from pandemic lockdowns. According to the UK OBR, 21% of UK household spending is on items described as “social consumption”, like restaurants and hotels (Chart 8). This is a much larger proportion than seen in other major developed economies (excluding Spain) and explains why consumer spending plunged so much more dramatically in the UK during 2020 than in other countries. Chart 7Only A Temporary Drag On UK Inflation From COVID-19 Chart 8UK Households More Focused On “Social Consumption” If the UK pandemic-related restrictions are eased as planned over the next few months, the potential for a sharp snapback in UK consumer spending is significant. The BoE estimates that UK households now have £125bn of “excess” savings thanks to government income support and reduced spending on discretionary items like dining out and vacations. This is the fuel to support a rapid recovery in consumption over the next 6-12 months, especially as personal income growth will get a boost as furloughed workers begin returning to work (Chart 9). Chart 9UK Economy On The Mend Chart 10Big Boost To UK Growth From Housing & Government Spending A similar argument can be made for investment spending – the BoE estimates that UK businesses have amassed £100bn pounds of excess cash, and the latest reading on the BoE’s Agents' Survey of UK firms shows a slight increase after months of decline (bottom panel). With a Brexit deal with the EU finally reached at the start of 2021, UK businesses can also look to increase investment spending that had been delayed because of the years of Brexit uncertainty. The UK economy is already getting a boost from a recovery in the housing market fueled by low interest rates, high household savings and improving consumer confidence. Mortgage approvals have soared to the highest level since 2007, while house prices are now expanding at a 6.4% annual rate (Chart 10). Add it all up, and the economic momentum in the UK is positive and likely to accelerate further in the coming months as a greater share of the population becomes vaccinated. The BoE’s dovish policy stance is likely to appear increasingly inappropriate relative to accelerating UK growth and inflation trends over the next several months. Thus, on a cyclical basis, UK bond yields, both nominal and real, have more upside potential even after the recent increase. Bottom Line: A series of rolling shocks dating back to the 2008 financial crisis has prevented the Bank of England (BoE) from normalizing crisis-era levels of interest rates, even during years when inflation was overshooting the BoE 2% target. Brexit and COVID-19 were the last of those two shocks, but the growth- and inflation-dampening effects of both are fading fast. Structural Forces Keeping UK Interest Rates Low Are Fading Looking beyond the cyclical drivers, the structural factors that have held down UK interest rates in recent years are also starting to fade. The supply side of the UK economy has suffered because of Brexit uncertainty. The OECD’s estimate of potential UK GDP growth fell from 1.75% in 2015 to 1.0% in 2020 (Chart 11). This was mostly due to declining productivity growth – a consequence of years of very weak business investment. The 5-year annualized growth rate of real UK investment spending fell to -3% in 2020, a contraction only matched during the past 30 years after the 1992 ERM crisis and 2008 financial crisis. That plunge in investment coincided with almost no growth in UK labor productivity over that same 5-year window. Chart 11The Road To Faster Potential UK Growth Starts With Investment Slowing population growth also weighed on UK potential growth, slowing to the lowest level in 15 years in 2019 as immigration from EU countries to the UK fell sharply. COVID-19 also hurt immigration flows into the UK last year. The UK Office for National Statistics estimated that the non-UK born population in the UK fell by 2.7% between June 2019 and June 2020. Diminished potential GDP growth is a factor that would structurally reduce the equilibrium real UK interest rate. We are likely past the worst for that downward pressure on potential growth and real rates. Population growth should also stabilize as the UK borders open up again and pandemic travel restrictions are loosened. Measured productivity is already starting to see a cyclical recovery, while investment spending is likely to improve as cash-rich UK companies began to ramp up capital spending plans deferred by Brexit and COVID-19. While the process leading from faster investment spending into speedier productivity growth is typically slow, the key point is that the worst of downtrend is likely over. This is an important development that has implications for UK fixed income markets. When looking at an international comparison of real central bank policy rates within the developed economies, the UK has fallen into the grouping of countries with persistently negative policy rates, namely Japan, the euro area, Switzerland, Sweden and Norway (Chart 12). We have dubbed that group the “Secular Stagnation 5”, after the term made famous by former US Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers describing a state where the “natural” real rate of interest (r-star) that equates savings with investment is structurally negative. Chart 12Does The UK Belong In The 'Secular Stagnation 5'? Does the UK belong in the “Secular Stagnation 5”? As a way to assess this, we made some comparisons of selected UK data with the same data for those five countries. When looking at potential GDP growth and population growth, the UK sits right in the middle of the range of those growth rates for the five countries (Chart 13). UK productivity growth has underperformed the others recently but, prior to the 2016 Brexit shock, UK productivity was also in the middle of the Secular Stagnation 5 range. Chart 13Brexit Became A Major Hit To UK Potential Growth Chart 14UK Economy Less Focused On Investment & Exports On other measures, the UK is nothing like those other countries. The UK’s economy is far less geared towards exports and investment (Chart 14) and is more tilted towards consumer spending. That can be seen most clearly when looking at the data on savings/investment balances. The UK continuously runs a current account deficit, as opposed to the persistent surpluses seen in the Secular Stagnation 5 (Chart 15). Put another way, the UK is not a “surplus” country that saves more than it invests on a structural basis, a condition that typically depresses real interest rates. Chart 15The UK Is Not A Surplus Country Chart 16Gilts Will Not Become A Low-Beta Market Based on these cross-country comparisons, it is unusual for the UK to have such persistently low real interest rates. This has implications for UK bond yields. Over the past few years, Gilts have been transitioning from a status as a “high yield beta” market – whose yield movements are more correlated to swings in the overall level of global bond yields. The lower beta markets are in countries like Germany, France and Japan – all members of the Secular Stagnation club (Chart 16). The UK does not appear to warrant a permanent membership in that low-yielding group, based on structural factors. That is evident when looking at how Gilt yields are rising even with the BoE absorbing an increasing share of the stock of outstanding Gilts (bottom panel). We conclude that the transition of the UK to a low-beta market is related to the Brexit uncertainty post 2016 and the pandemic shock that has hit the consumer-focused UK economy exceptionally hard – both factors that are set to fade over the next year. Bottom Line: The BoE’s dovish rhetoric, including hints that negative policy rates are still a viable option, looks increasingly inappropriate. The surge in real UK bond yields seen over the past month is just the beginning of a medium-term process of interest rate normalization. Investment Conclusions Chart 17Downgrade Gilts To Underweight Our assessment of the cyclical and structural drivers of UK interest rates leads us to the following conclusions on UK fixed income and currency strategy: Duration: Maintain a below-benchmark exposure to UK interest rate movements. Gilt yields will rise by more than is discounted in the forwards over the next 6-12 months (Chart 17), coming more through rising real yields as the UK economy continues its post-Brexit, post-pandemic recovery. Country Allocation: Downgrade strategic allocations to UK Gilts to neutral from overweight in dedicated fixed income portfolios. Our long-standing view that Brexit uncertainty would lead to the outperformance of Gilts versus other developed bond markets is no longer valid. It is still too soon to move to a full underweight stance on Gilts – a better opportunity will develop by mid-year once it is more evident that the current success on UK vaccinations leads to a faster reopening of the UK economy. Yield Curve: Maintain positioning for a bearish steepening of the UK Gilt yield curve. While there is limited scope for more steepening through an even larger increase in inflation breakevens from current elevated levels, the long end of the Gilt curve can move higher by more than the front end as the market re-rates Gilts to a higher-beta status with a higher future trajectory for UK interest rates. Corporate Credit: Downgrade UK investment grade corporate bond exposure to neutral from overweight in dedicated fixed income portfolios. UK corporate spreads have returned to the 2017 lows and, while an improving growth dynamic is not overly bearish for credit, there is no longer a compelling valuation-based case for staying overweight UK investment grade corporates. This move brings our recommended UK allocation in line with our neutral stance on US and euro area investment grade corporates. Chart 18GBP/USD Appears Cheap On A PPP Basis Chart 19Low Productivity Is Weighing On The Pound Currency: A growth-driven path towards interest rate normalization should be positive for the British pound, which remains undervalued versus the US dollar on a purchasing power parity basis (Chart 18).2 A move to 1.45 on GBP/USD is possible within the next six months. A broader move towards pound strength will require an improvement in business investment, as the trade-weighted pound looks fairly valued on our productivity-based model (Chart 19). We do maintain our view that EUR/GBP can approach 0.80 by year-end based on a relatively stronger cyclical improvement in UK growth versus the euro area.   Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 For further details on the OBR estimates of UK growth, inflation and fiscal policy, please see the March 2021 OBR Economic & Financial Outlook, which can be found here: https://obr.uk/ 2 Please see BCA Research Foreign Exchange Strategy Report, "Thoughts On The British Pound", dated December 18, 2020, available at fes.bcaresearch.com.

Highlights China’s economic recovery is in a later stage than the US. A rebound in US Treasury yields is unlikely to trigger upward pressure on government bond yields in China. Imported inflation through mounting commodity and oil prices should be transitory and does not pose enough risk for Chinese authorities to further tighten policies. Historically, Chinese stocks have little correlation with changes in US Treasury yields; Chinese equity prices are primarily driven by the country’s domestic credit growth and economic conditions. We maintain our tactical (0 to 3 months) neutral position on Chinese stocks, in both absolute and relative terms. However, the near-term pullbacks are taking some air out of Chinese equities' frothy valuations,  providing room for a cyclical upswing. Chinese offshore stocks, which are highly concentrated in the tech sector, are facing multiple challenges. We are closing our long investable consumer discretionary/short investable consumer staples trade and we recommend long A-shares/short MSCI China Index. Feature Chinese stocks extended their February losses into the first week of March. Market participants fear that escalating real government bond yields in the US and elsewhere will have a sustained negative impact on Chinese risk assets, reinforced by ongoing policy normalization in China. Global equity prices have been buffeted by crosscurrents. An acceleration in the deployment of vaccines and increased economic reopenings provide a positive backdrop to the recovery of corporate profits. At the same time, optimism about global growth and broadening fiscal stimulus in the US has prompted investors to expect higher policy rates sooner. The US 10-year Treasury yield is up by 68bps so far this year, depressing US equity valuations and sending ripple effects across global bourses. In this report, we examine how rising US and global bond yields would affect China’s domestic monetary policy and risk-asset prices.  Will Climbing US Treasury Yields Push Up Chinese Rates? Chart 1Chinese Gov Bond Yields Have Led The US Counterpart Since 2015 Increasing bond yields in the US will not necessarily lead to higher bond yields in China. Chart 1 shows that the direction of China’s 10-year government bond yield has a tight correlation with its US counterpart. It is not surprising because business cycles in these giant economies have become more synchronized. Interestingly, China’s 10-year Treasury bond yield has led the US one since 2015. This may be due to China’s growing importance in the world economy. China’s credit and domestic demand growth leads the prices of many industrial metals and in turn, business cycles in many economies. China’s rising long-duration government bond yields reflect expectations of an improving domestic economy, and these expectations often spill over to the rest of the world, including the US. Although the recent sharp rebound in the US Treasury yield is mainly driven by domestic factors, the rebound is unlikely to spill over to their Chinese peers, because the countries are in different stages of their business and policy cycles. America is still at its early stage of economic recovery and fresh stimulus measures are still being rolled out, whereas China has already normalized its policy rates back to pre-pandemic levels and its credit growth peaked in Q4 last year. Chinese fixed-income markets will soon start pricing in moderating growth momentum in the second half of this year, suppressing the long-end of China’s Treasury yield curve (Chart 2). Importantly, none of the optimism that has lifted US Treasury yields - a vaccine-led global growth recovery and a massive US fiscal stimulus – would warrant a better outlook for China. Reopening worldwide economies will likely unleash pent-up demand for services, such as travel and catering, rather than merchandise trade. Chart 3 shows that since the pandemic US spending on goods, which benefited Chinese exports, has soared relative to spending on services. The trend will probably reverse when the US and world economy fully opens, limiting the upside for China’s exports and its contribution to growth this year. Chart 2China And The US Are In Different Stages Of Their Economic Recoveries Chart 3US Consumers Have Been Spending Much More On Goods Than Services During The Pandemic Bottom Line: China’s waning growth momentum will insulate Chinese bond yields from higher US Treasury yields.   Do Rising Inflation Expectations In The US Pose Risks Of Policy Tightening In China? Chart 4Imported Inflation Shouldnt Constrain The PBoC While China’s monetary policymaking is not entirely insulated from exogenous shocks, it is primarily driven by domestic economic conditions and inflation dynamics. We are not complacent about the risk of a meaningful uptick in global inflation, but we do not consider imported inflation a major policy constraint for the PBoC this year (Chart 4). Furthermore, at last week’s National People’s Congress (NPC), China set the inflation target in 2021 at 3%, which is a high bar to breach. Mounting commodity prices, particularly crude oil prices, may put upward pressures on China’s producer prices, but their impact on China’s overall inflation will be limited for the following reasons: China accounts for a large portion of the world’s commodity demand. Given that the country’s credit impulse has already peaked, domestic demand in capital-intensive sectors (such as construction and infrastructure spending) will slow this year. Reinforced policy restrictions on the property sector will also restrain the upside price potential in industrial raw materials such as steel and cement (Chart 5). For producers, the main and sustained risk for imported inflation will be concentrated in crude oil. The PPI may spike in Q2 and Q3 this year due to advancing oil prices and the extremely low base factor from the same period last year. The PBoC will likely view a spike in the PPI as transitory. Moreover, the recent improvement in producer pricing power appears to be narrow. The output price for consumer goods, which accounts for 25% of the PPI price basket, remains subdued (Chart 6). Chart 5Chinas Demand For Raw Materials Will Slow Chart 6Output Price For Consumer Goods Remains In Contraction Importantly, when oil prices plummeted in the first half of 2020, China’s crude oil inventories showed the fastest upturn on record (Chart 7). It suggests that China’s inventory restocking from last year may help to partially offset the impact from elevated oil prices this year. For consumers, oil prices account for a much smaller percentage of China’s CPI basket than in the US (Chart 8). Food prices, particularly pork, drive China’s headline CPI and can be idiosyncratic. We expect food price increases to be well contained this year due to improved supplies and the high base effect from last year.  Chart 7Massive Buildup in Chinas Crude Oil Inventory In 2020 Chart 8Oil Prices Account For A Small Portion In China's Consumer Spending Importantly, China’s inflation expectations have not recovered to their pre-pandemic levels and consumer confidence on future income growth also remains below its end-2019 figure (Chart 9). If this trend holds, then it will be difficult for producers to pass through escalating input costs to end users. Although China’s economy has strengthened, it is far from overheating (Chart 10). Without a sustained above-trend growth rebound, it is difficult to expect genuine inflationary pressures. The pandemic has distorted the balance of global supply and demand, propping up demand and price tags attached to it. In China’s case, however, production capacity and capital expenditures rebounded faster than demand and consumer spending, constraining the upsides in inflation (Chart 11).   Chart 9Consumer Inflation Expectations Have Not Fully Recovered Chart 10Chinese Economy Is Not Yet Overheating China’s CPI is at its lowest point since 2009, making China’s real yields much greater than in the US. Rising real US government bond yields could be mildly positive for China because they help to narrow the Sino-US interest rate differential and temper the pace of the RMB’s appreciation (Chart 12). A breather in the RMB’s gains would be a welcome reflationary force for Chinese exporters and we doubt that Chinese policymakers will spoil it with a rush to hike domestic rates. Chart 11And Production Has Recovered Faster Than Demand Chart 12Narrowing Real Rate Differentials Helps To Tamper The RMB Appreciation Bottom Line: It is premature to worry about an inflation overshoot in China. The current environment is characterized as easing deflation rather than rising inflation. Our base case remains that inflationary pressures will stay at bay this year. Are Higher US Treasury Yields Headwinds For Chinese Stocks? Historically, Chinese stocks have exhibited a loose cyclical correlation with US government bond yields, particularly in the onshore market (Chart 13). Equity prices in China are more closely correlated with domestic long-duration government bond yields, but the relationship is inconsistent (Chart 14). Chart 13Chinese Stocks Have Little Correlation With US Treasury Yields Chart 14Correlations Between Chinese Stocks And Domestic Gov Bond Yields Are Inconsistent Chinese stocks are much more sensitive to changes in the quantity of domestic money supply than the price of money. A sharp rebound in China’s 10-year government bond yield in the second half of last year did not stop Chinese stocks from rallying. The insensitivity of Chinese stocks to changes in the price of money is particularly prevalent during the early stage of an economic recovery. As we pointed out in a previous report, since 2015 the PBoC has shifted its policy to target interest rates instead of the quantity of money supply. Thus, credit growth, which propels China’s business cycle and corporate profits, can still trend higher even as bond yields pick up. This explains why domestic credit growth, rather than China’s real government bond yields, has been the primary driver of the forward P/E of Chinese stocks (Chart 15A and 15B). This contrasts with the S&P, in which the forward P/E ratio moves in lockstep with the inverted real yield in US Treasuries (Chart 16). Chart 15ACredit Growth Has Been Driving Up Chinese Stock Valuations Chart 15BCredit Growth Has Been Driving Up Chinese Stock Valuations Credit growth in China peaked in Q4 last year and the intensity of the economic recovery has started to moderate. Hence, regardless of the changes in bond yields, Chinese stocks will need to rely on profit growth in order to sustain an upward trend (Chart 17). Chart 16Falling Real Rates Were Propping Up US Equity Valuations Chart 17Earnings Growth Needs To Accelerate To Support Chinese Stock Performance The good news is that recent gyrations in the US equity market, coupled with concerns about further tightening in China’s domestic economic policy have triggered shakeouts in China’s equity markets. The pullback in stock prices has helped to shed some excesses in frothy Chinese valuations and has opened a door for more upsides in Chinese stock on a cyclical basis. Bottom Line: Rising Treasury yields in the US or China will not have a direct negative impact on Chinese equities. Last year’s massive credit expansion has lifted both earnings and multiples in Chinese stocks and an acceleration in earnings growth is now needed to support stock performance. Investment Implications The key message from last week’s NPC meetings suggests that policy tightening will be gradual this year. While the 6% growth target was lower than expected, it represents a floor rather than a suggested range and it will likely be exceeded. Bond yields and policy rates are already at their pre-pandemic levels, indicating that there is not much room for further monetary policy tightening this year. The announced objectives for the fiscal deficit and local government bond quotas are only modestly smaller than last year. The economic and policy-support targets support our view that policymakers will be cautious and not overdo tightening. We will elaborate on our takeaways from this year’s NPC in next week’s report. Chart 18Chinese Cyclicals Can Still Benefit From An Improving Global Economic Backdrop Meanwhile, there is still some room for Chinese cyclical stocks to run higher relative to defensives, given the current Goldilocks backdrop of global economic recovery and accommodative monetary policy (Chart 18). We maintain a tactical (0 to 3 months) neutral position on Chinese stocks, in both absolute and relative terms. The market correction has not fully run its course. However, the near-term pullbacks are taking some air out of Chinese equities' frothy valuations, providing room for a cyclical upswing. We are closing our long investable consumer discretionary/short investable consumer staples trade. Instead, we recommend the following trade: long A-share stocks/short MSCI China Index. Investable consumer discretionary sector stocks, which are concentrated in China’s technology giants, face a confluence of challenges ranging from the ripple effects of falling stock prices in the US tech sector and tightened antitrust regulations in China (Chart 19). In contrast, the A-share index is heavily weighted in value stocks while the MSCI China investable index has a large proportion of expensive new economy stocks (Chart 20). The trade is in line with our view that the investment backdrop has shifted in favor of global value versus growth stocks due to a strong US expansion, rising US bond yields and a weaker US dollar. Chart 19Chinese Investable Tech Sector Is Facing Strong Headwinds Chart 20Overweight A Shares Versus Chinese Investable Stocks   Jing Sima China Strategist jings@bcaresearch.com Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations

Highlights Duration: Only 2 of the 5 items on our Checklist For Increasing Portfolio Duration have been checked. We will heed this message and stick with below-benchmark portfolio duration for the time being. We will have an opportunity to re-assess the items on our Checklist after the March FOMC meeting when the Fed’s interest rate forecasts will be updated. The Fed & Financial Conditions: The recent dip in the stock market is not the result of investors pricing-in worse economic outcomes. Rather, it is a sector rotation driven by extreme economic optimism. It is certainly not a concern for the Fed. The Fed & The Labor Market: We need to see monthly nonfarm payroll growth coming in consistently above 419 thousand before we can be confident that the Fed will hike rates by the end of 2022. Feature Chart 1Bearish Trend Intact The bond bear market rages on. The Bloomberg Barclays Treasury Index returned -1.8% in February, its worst monthly performance since 2016. The sell-off then continued through the first week of March, culminating with the 10-year Treasury yield touching 1.56% as of Friday’s close (Chart 1). The 5-year/5-year forward Treasury yield ended the week at 2.41%, near the top-end of primary dealer estimates of the long-run neutral fed funds rate (Chart 1, bottom panel). We don’t want to catch a falling knife, but eventually, yields will look attractive enough for us to increase our recommended portfolio duration. To help us make that decision, we unveiled a Checklist For Increasing Portfolio Duration in our February Webcast (Table 1).1 Table 1Checklist For Increasing Portfolio Duration This week, we check-in with our Checklist, concluding that it is still too early to increase portfolio duration. Checking-In With Our Duration Checklist Chart 2Cyclical & Valuation Indicators The first item on our Checklist is the 5-year/5-year forward Treasury yield reaching levels consistent with survey estimates of the long-run neutral fed funds rate. As noted above, this condition has been met. Second, we would like to see survey-derived measures of the 10-year term premium reach extended levels. Specifically, we’d like to see them approach their 2018 peaks (Chart 2). Currently, our two measures are sending diverging signals. The term premium derived from the New York Fed’s Survey of Market Participants is 60 bps, only 15 bps off its 2018 peak. However, the term premium derived from the New York Fed’s Survey of Primary Dealers is only 22 bps, 53 bps off its 2018 peak. For now, our assessment is that this condition has not been met. It’s important to note that the surveys used to construct our two term premium measures and to obtain our fair value range for the 5-year/5-year forward Treasury yield have not been updated since January, and that they will be revised ahead of this month’s FOMC meeting. If primary dealers and market participants revise up their fed funds rate expectations, then our valuation measures will give the 10-year yield more room to rise. Third, we continue to track high-frequency cyclical economic indicators like the CRB/Gold ratio (Chart 2, panel 3) and the relative performance of cyclical versus defensive equity sectors (see section titled “The Fed’s Approach To Financial Conditions” below). These measures have yet to show any signs of deterioration, consistent with an environment where bond yields should be rising. Fourth, if current trends continue, we are concerned that US yields may rise too far compared to yields in the rest of the world. This could entice foreign inflows into the US bond market, sending yields back down. Historically, bullish sentiment toward the US dollar is a good indicator of when US yields have risen too far. At present, dollar sentiment remains extremely bearish (Chart 2, bottom panel). This suggests that we are not yet close to the point when foreign purchases will push US yields lower. Finally, we consider the market’s fed funds rate expectations relative to the Fed’s most recent forecast, as inferred from its quarterly “dot plot”. Currently, the market is priced for Fed liftoff to occur in January 2023, with a second rate hike delivered in May 2023 and a third in October 2023 (Chart 3). This is considerably more hawkish than the Fed’s median forecast from December, which called for no rate hikes until at least 2024! Chart 3Market Expects Liftoff In January 2023 We think it’s conceivable that economic conditions could warrant Fed liftoff in late-2022 (see section titled “Tracking Payrolls And The Countdown To Fed Liftoff” below), but the Fed will probably be more cautious about how quickly it brings its expected liftoff date forward. FOMC participants will have an opportunity to push back against the market when they update their funds rate forecasts at this month’s meeting. The Fed will likely bring forward its anticipated liftoff date, but probably not all the way to January 2023. This could halt the uptrend in bond yields, at least for a while. Bottom Line: Only 2 of the 5 items on our Checklist For Increasing Portfolio Duration have been checked. We will heed this message and stick with below-benchmark portfolio duration for the time being. We will have an opportunity to re-assess the items on our Checklist after the March FOMC meeting when the Fed’s interest rate forecasts will be updated. Other surveys used in the construction of our term premium estimates and 5-year/5-year yield targets will also be updated around this time. The Fed’s Approach To Financial Conditions Chart 4Financial Conditions Are Easy Remarks from Fed Chair Jay Powell were a catalyst for higher bond yields last week. Apparently, there had been some expectation in the market that Powell would use his platform to express concern about the recent increase in long-maturity bond yields. In fact, many expected him to foreshadow changes to the Fed’s balance sheet policy, either extending the maturity of its ongoing asset purchases or initiating an Operation Twist, where the Fed sells short-dated securities and buys long-dated ones.2 Powell didn’t announce any of these things. In fact, he didn’t even express concern about the recent rise in long-dated yields despite being given several opportunities to do so. To understand why, we need to understand how the Fed thinks about financial conditions. The Fed only cares about conditions in financial markets to the extent that they are expected to influence the real economy. This means that the Fed takes a broad view of financial conditions, including bond yields, credit spreads and equity prices. From this perspective, financial markets do not currently pose a risk to the economy (Chart 4). Yes, long-dated bond yields have risen, but short-dated yields remain low. Credit spreads also remain very tight and equity prices have only dipped modestly from high levels. The Chicago Fed’s broad index of financial conditions shows that they are extremely accommodative (Chart 4), and thus support continued economic recovery. This financial market back-drop is not one that will cause the Fed to take additional actions to ease policy. Even the recent drop in the stock market appears to be more a reflection of economic optimism than a cause for concern. Looking at the performance of different equity sectors, we find that the sectors that stand to benefit from the end of the pandemic and economic re-opening are surging. Meanwhile, the sectors that are performing poorly are simply giving back some of the huge gains that were realized when the pandemic was raging last year. For example, cyclical sectors (Industrials, Energy and Materials) are soaring while defensive sectors (Healthcare, Communications, Consumer Staples and Utilities) have hooked down (Chart 5A). The ratio between the two remains tightly correlated with the 10-year Treasury yield. Similarly, Bank stocks have exploded higher since bond yields troughed last fall while the Technology sector has had difficulty making further gains (Chart 5B). Last year, the Tech sector benefited from low bond yields and surging demand. This year, Banks stand to profit from higher yields and an improving labor market. Finally, our US Equity Strategy team put together a basket of “COVID-19 Winners” designed to profit from the pandemic and a basket of “Back To Work” stocks designed to benefit from economic re-opening. Not surprisingly, the former is dragging the S&P 500 lower while the latter is on a tear (Chart 5C). Chart 5ASector Rotation: Cyclicals Vs. Defensives Chart 5BSector Rotation: Banks Vs. Tech Chart 5CSector Rotation: COVID Winners Vs. Re-Open Winners The bottom line is that the recent dip in the stock market is not the result of investors pricing-in worse economic outcomes. Rather, it is a sector rotation driven by extreme economic optimism. It is certainly not a concern for the Fed. Other Reasons For The Fed To Change Its Balance Sheet Policy In addition to concerns about a drop in the stock market, several other reasons have been given for why the Fed might consider either increasing its asset purchases or shifting them toward the long end of the curve. 1) Treasury Market Liquidity Chart 6Treasury Market Liquidity First, there is an ongoing tension in the Treasury market between imposing stricter capital regulations on dealer banks and ensuring that they have enough balance sheet capacity to maintain Treasury market liquidity during periods of stress.3 This delicate equilibrium broke down last March when Treasury market liquidity evaporated at a time when both equities and bonds were crashing. The Fed was forced to step into the Treasury market to sustain market functioning. Last week’s Treasury sell-off had a whiff of illiquidity about it as well. One liquidity index that measures the average curve fitting error across all government bond yields increased slightly, but not nearly as much as it did last March (Chart 6). Treasury bid/ask spreads also widened a touch, but unlike last March, Treasury ETFs continued to trade close to their net asset values. A significant deterioration in Treasury liquidity would prompt a quick response from the Fed. That is, the Fed would quickly ramp up purchases to restore market functioning. However, last week’s blip was not nearly severe enough to raise alarm bells. Other periods of Treasury market stress that have prompted the Fed to step in have occurred during periods of extreme economic deterioration and market panic, such as in March 2020 and 2008. With economic growth accelerating rapidly, we place low odds on a major Treasury market liquidity event occurring this year. 2) Expiry Of The SLR Exemption Chart 7Reserve Supply Is Massive A second possible reason for the Fed to change its balance sheet policy is the upcoming expiry of the exemption to the Supplementary Leverage Ratio (SLR). The SLR is a regulation that requires large banks to hold common equity capital totaling at least 5% of assets. Assets are not risk-weighted for the purposes of the SLR. A problem arose with the SLR last March when the Fed bought massive amounts of bonds, flooding the banking system with reserves (Chart 7). The problem is that banks are forced to hold those reserves, and this makes it more difficult for them to meet their SLR requirement. To alleviate the problem, the Fed announced that reserves and Treasury securities would be exempted from the SLR calculation. Today, the issue is that this exemption is scheduled to expire at the end of March and the Fed has yet to announce whether it will be extended or allowed to lapse. Table 2US Bank Supplementary Leverage Ratios If the exemption lapses, then banks may try to unload Treasury securities to remain compliant with the SLR. In theory, this could lead to upward pressure on Treasury yields that the Fed could mitigate by ramping up its asset purchases. However, it’s unclear how much of an impact a lapsing of the SLR exemption would actually have on the Treasury market. Even adjusting for a lapsing of the exemption, all major US banks remain compliant with the 5% SLR (Table 2). Also, banks could always decide to increase their SLRs by reducing share buybacks rather than by shedding Treasuries.   In any event, an increase in Fed asset purchases to lean against rising Treasury yields driven by bank selling would be counterproductive. It would only flood the banking system with more reserves, making the SLR even more difficult to meet. Our view is that a fair compromise would be for the Fed to continue the SLR exemption for bank reserves, but to allow the Treasury security exemption to lapse. But even if the SLR exemption is allowed to lapse completely, we doubt that it will lead to enough market turmoil to prompt a change in the Fed’s balance sheet strategy. 3) Supply/Demand Imbalance In Money Markets Finally, some have noted that the large and growing supply of bank reserves could lead to problems in money markets. Specifically, with the Treasury Department now in the process of paying down its cash account (Chart 7, bottom panel), there is a lot of cash flooding into money markets and coming up against limited T-bill supply. In theory, the Fed could try to mitigate this problem by engaging in an Operation Twist – selling some T-bills and buying some coupon bonds. But we doubt this will occur. The Fed already has tools in place to maintain control over short rates in such circumstances. For example, the same situation arose in 2013 when an over-supply of bank reserves pushed short rates down toward the bottom of the Fed’s target range (Chart 8A). The Fed’s response was to create the Overnight Reverse Repo Facility (ON RRP). This facility allows counterparties to park excess cash at the Fed in exchange for a security off the Fed’s balance sheet. This proved to be an effective floor on repo rates and the fed funds rate, and we expect it will be again (Chart 8B). Chart 8AFed Created ON RRP In 2013... Chart 8B... It Remains A Firm Floor On Rates T-bill yields remained below the ON RRP rate for some time in 2014 and 2015, and the same thing could happen again this year. But this will not be a major concern for the Fed as long as it maintains control over the fed funds rate and the overnight repo rate. Eventually, the Treasury Department can deal with the lack of bill supply by increasing the amount of T-bill issuance. Bottom Line: Treasury market liquidity remains an ongoing concern for the Fed, and the possible expiry of the SLR exemption and lack of T-bill supply present additional near-term technical challenges. We think it’s unlikely that any of these things will prompt the Fed to deviate from its current pace and composition of asset purchases in 2021. Tracking Payrolls And The Countdown To Fed Liftoff Chart 9The Fed's Maximum Employment Targets Employment growth surprised to the upside in February as 379 thousand jobs were added to nonfarm payrolls. This sent bond yields higher, but we caution that even stronger employment growth will be required to keep bond yields rising going forward. The Fed needs to see a return to “maximum employment” before it will lift rates off the zero bound. This means not only that the unemployment rate will have to fall to a range of 3.5% to 4.5%, but also that the labor force participation rate must make a full recovery to pre-pandemic levels (Chart 9). We calculate that average monthly employment growth of 419 thousand will be required to achieve this goal by the end of 2022 (Table 3). In other words, to justify the market’s January 2023 expected liftoff date, we will need to see average monthly payroll growth of at least 419 thousand going forward.   Table 3Average Monthly Nonfarm Payroll Growth Required For The Unemployment Rate To Reach 4.5% By The Given Date This number seems high, but it may be attainable. With vaccine distribution kicking into high gear, many service sectors of the economy will soon be able to re-open. This already started to happen last month when the Leisure & Hospitality sector added 355 thousand jobs. Even after last month’s gains, Leisure & Hospitality still accounts for 36% of the net job loss since last February (Table 4). This means that there is scope for extremely large employment gains this year if the coronavirus can be contained. Table 4Employment By Industry Bottom Line: We need to see monthly nonfarm payroll growth coming in consistently above 419 thousand before we can be confident that the Fed will hike rates by the end of 2022. Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 https://www.bcaresearch.com/webcasts/detail/387 2 https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-03-01/treasury-curve-dysfunction-ignites-talk-of-federal-reserve-twist?sref=Ij5V3tFi 3 For more details please see US Investment Strategy / US Bond Strategy Special Report, “Alphabet Soup, Part 2: Shocked And Awed”, dated July 28, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification

特別レポート

Highlights The Senate will pass the $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan largely as it stands. Markets will now turn to Biden’s second major reconciliation bill for FY2022 – the one with tax hikes. Democrats will go forward with tax hikes on corporations and the wealthy. But they will spend more than they tax for fear of squandering their term in power. Tax hikes threaten sectors like tech that already face headwinds from rising bond yields. The health sector is also at risk. Stick with cyclicals and value plays.  Feature Markets have seesawed as volatility spikes in the face of rapidly rising bond yields. Value stocks such as financials stand to benefit relative to growth stocks as the market comes to grips with the first hint of normal inflation expectations since 2019 (Chart 1). Underlying the trend is a sea change in US fiscal policy. Chart 1Value Stocks To Reignite On Rising Bond Yields The House of Representatives passed the $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan so it will now go to the Senate for revision, back to the House for approval, and then to President Biden’s desk by around March 14. Investors will now turn to Biden’s second major legislative act prior to the 2022 midterm election cycle: the fiscal year 2022 budget reconciliation process. Before we outline the time frame and tax hikes that that process will entail, we should take a moment to review the current bill. Senate Will Pass American Rescue Plan Largely As Is The House version of the $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan contains $1,400 household rebates, direct checks via the Internal Revenue Service, for people who make less than $75,000 per year (double those numbers for married couples). Unemployment benefits are supposed to rise from $300 to $400 per week for 73 weeks instead of 50 weeks, with an expiration on August 29 instead of March 14. Those with children or other dependents will receive additional payments. The bill also includes $75 billion for fighting COVID-19, $350 billion for state and local governments, $170 billion for schools and universities, $225 billion for small business, $38 billion for the airline industry and various other tax benefits for families and workers.1 Those who have been let go from their jobs can more easily retain their previous health insurance. Chart 2 provides a visual comparison of the American Rescue Plan with the $900 billion in fiscal relief passed at the end of 2020 prior to House passage and Senate revision. Already the Senate version excludes a hike to the minimum wage, from $7.25 to $15 per hour, as the Senate parliamentarian ruled that does not qualify under the “Byrd rule” because it does not directly impact spending or taxation.2 Vice President Kamala Harris, who is also president of the Senate, could reverse this decision but otherwise the minimum wage will have to be considered in a separate bill later. Chart 2American Rescue Plan The Senate could pare back other aspects of the bill – such as state and local aid, given that local government revenues are in much better shape than expected. Chart 2 highlights that the state and local aid component is much larger this time around. Still, the purpose of Senate negotiations is to secure the votes of moderate Democrats, as winning over 10 Republicans is no longer feasible, and moderate senators are not going to sink the first legislative proposal of a president of their own party. The Senate is virtually guaranteed to pass the bill, likely by March 14 when current unemployment benefits expire. The bill’s economic impact will be to speed the vaccination process and provide another infusion of cash into households and various public institutions. Families are just starting to receive the last round of benefits passed in December and they had not exhausted the 14% year-on-year increase in real income that they saw as a result of last year’s CARES Act when the Coronavirus Response and Relief Act sent incomes soaring yet again (Chart 3). Economic growth will be supercharged as economic activity normalizes, consumer confidence recovers, and the service sector revives. Chart 3Washington Lavishes Households With Dole Biden’s Second Bill Will Pass This Fall The second budget reconciliation procedure, for fiscal year 2022, will begin in mid-April. The formal deadline to adopt a budget resolution is April 15 but the average delay would put the resolution in June.3 The maximum delay would see the resolution passed in October but that is unlikely in today’s context (Diagram 1). After the resolution passes, the House and Senate must reconcile their budgets, pass the same bill, and send it to the president for his signature.  Diagram 1Timeline Of Biden Administration’s Second Budget Reconciliation, FY2022 The average time between Congress adopting a budget resolution and the president signing a reconciliation bill into law is 150 days, putting completion on September 15, 2021. This period could easily extend to November. In the worst-case, judging by history, Democrats could fail to conclude the process until October 2022 – but that is highly unlikely. A delay till December of this year would be a fumble, but a more realistic fumble, say if moderate Democrats must be won over due to controversial provisions. The second reconciliation bill is supposed to consist of investments over a ten-year period rather than emergency relief for the lingering pandemic and economic recovery. Biden’s proposed $2-$3 trillion green infrastructure program is the highlight but we also expect Democrats to prioritize their health care plan, which is estimated to cost $1.7-$1.9 trillion. Hence $4 trillion is a reasonable expectation for new spending but in this case the headline spending figure will be at least partially defrayed by tax hikes, unlike the first reconciliation bill (Charts 4A & 4B). If Biden raises taxes by half as much as he intends, the full price tag would be $2 trillion. Chart 4ABiden Will Spend, Then Tax Chart 4BBiden Will Spend, Then Tax The precise contours of this bill will remain unknown until Biden presents an outline in April and the House of Representatives drafts a resolution. We test six different scenarios involving different assumptions about Biden’s tax-and-spend proposals, highlighted in Table 1. Generally, we assume that Democrats will much more readily compromise tax hikes rather than spending, given that they want to err on the side of firing up the economic recovery. They are just as capable as Republicans were in 2017 of manipulating the numbers when it comes to the reconciliation requirement that the budget deficit not increase beyond a ten-year time period. Table 1Scenarios For Biden’s Second Reconciliation Bill The results are broken down in terms of revenue, expenditure, and net interest costs in Chart 5. The baseline is Biden’s campaign proposal. Scenario 1 assumes that Biden gets all of the spending he wants but is forced to compromise on tax hikes. Scenario 2 is more realistic as it assumes that Biden gets half of what he wants on both spending and taxes. Scenarios 3-6 examine what would happen if Biden were forced to strike out either his green infrastructure plan or his health and social security plan, depending on different revenue assumptions. In Scenarios 5 and 6 we grant Biden only half of his proposed taxes on corporations and wealthy folks, leaving other tax proposals to the side – otherwise the result would be a net tightening of fiscal conditions, which is neither intended nor politically possible. Chart 5Scenarios For Biden’s Second Reconciliation Bill The impact on the budget deficit in each scenario is shown in Chart 6. The greatest economic stimulus would occur under Scenario 1, which would soon become a problem for investors as it would hasten inflation and rising interest rates. Chart 6Deficit Scenarios For Biden’s Second Reconciliation Bill Scenario 2 is the most realistic policy scenario while being the least inflationary. By contrast, Scenario 4 is realistic but hardly less inflationary than the baseline case. In each of these scenarios it is important to bear in mind that the new government programs would be administered over a ten-year period and therefore the increase to the budget deficit would be more gradual than is the case of the American Rescue Plan, which clearly aims to be disbursed in the first few years. In the case of the Obama administration’s American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (2009) the peak in spending occurred in 2013, four years after the bill was passed (analogous to 2025 today) (Chart 7). Infrastructure and green energy projects are also expected to increase productivity and hence potential growth. Chart 7Infrastructure Spending Could Peak Four Years After Bill’s Passage, As In 2009-13 The Byrd rule will become even more important with Biden’s second reconciliation bill because the bill will contain a mishmash of Biden’s campaign proposals. Democrats will try to pass as much of their agenda via fast track as possible so as to meet promises ahead of the 2022 midterm election. An advantage of health care spending is that it is unlikely to be struck down by the Senate parliamentarian given that the Obama administration relied on reconciliation to pass a critical second installment to the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare). Biden’s health care plan is more popular than climate change policy, with both the general public and moderate Democrats, and it is guaranteed to pass reconciliation. Infrastructure spending faces greater challenges under reconciliation but they are not insurmountable. Infrastructure is normally handled via the traditional budget process or the Highway Trust Fund and some measures are likely to run afoul of the Byrd rule. Still, workarounds can be found.4  Hence the infrastructure plan is likely to be compromised but not prohibited due to technicalities. Even if infrastructure fails to make it into reconciliation, Biden can use the deadline to top up the exhausted Highway Trust Fund or to reauthorize the Surface Transportation Act as alternative pathways. It is not impossible to get Republican cooperation on infrastructure though the green agenda will meet resistance. The reconciliation process is nominally forbidden from increasing the budget deficit beyond ten years. Short-term spending is exempt, as is the case with the American Rescue Plan and its crisis-response measures, but the purpose of the second reconciliation bill is to invest in long-term, productivity-enhancing programs. A new government health insurance option and/or a green infrastructure buildout will take many years to implement and could increase deficits beyond the ten-year window. But Democrats, like Republicans, will be able to use accounting chicanery and gimmicks to make the budget outlook serve their purposes in passing the legislation. As long as they keep moderate members of the party on their side.   Yes, Taxes Will Go Up … But That May Not Be All Bad For Markets Why should Democrats raise taxes at all? Why not focus on stimulus without taking on the political risk of higher taxes? After all, Republicans passed tax cuts via reconciliation without offsetting them by spending cuts. Was it not the higher taxes in Obamacare that greatly fueled resistance from Republicans and their victory in the House of Representatives in 2010? First, on the level of intentions, the Democrats clearly seek to increase taxes on corporations, high-income earners, and capital gains: Both Biden and Harris said they would raise taxes on the campaign trail and in the presidential debates despite the risk to their election prospects. Biden committed only to prevent tax hikes on those making less than $400,000 per year. Harris’s weakest moment in her debate with Mike Pence was her insistence that she would raise taxes but she stuck to her guns. Both factions of the Democratic Party want to raise taxes. Traditional Democrats view tax hikes as a way of paying for a larger government role in addressing social and economic imbalances. Populists view tax hikes as a way of redistributing from the ultra-rich. While budget deficits are not a general concern, combating inequality is a theme shared across the party. Second, on the level of capability, Democrats can get at least some of the tax increases that they want: The US is not overtaxed on the whole. True, Biden’s full tax agenda would push the US back up to the top of the OECD countries in terms of the corporate tax if an “integrated” view of both firm-level taxes and taxes on dividends and capital gains (Chart 8). But this point suggests that Biden will moderate his tax plan rather than abandon it altogether. Popular opinion did not favor Trump for cutting corporate taxes. Chart 8Biden’s Corporate Tax Proposal Would Make US An Outlier Again The macroeconomic impact of raising taxes is manageable in the context of the extraordinary fiscal stimulus that the US is passing. There is no clear relationship between tax rates and economic growth but it is natural for the Democrats to fear that they could squander their term in power by excessive fiscal tightening. Yet the negative economic impact of raising the corporate rate is only 0.8% of GDP over the long run, and half of that if the corporate rate is raised only halfway to what Biden intends (25% instead of 28%) (Table 2), according to the conservative-leaning Tax Policy Foundation. Table 2Economic Impact Of Corporate Tax Not Dramatic President Biden has the political capital early in his term to revise the Trump tax cuts according to Democratic prerogatives. His popularity will not hold up for long (Chart 9). And he only just has enough legislative power. While household sentiment is weak and economic conditions are moderate, both are set to improve as the pandemic fades and fiscal stimulus takes effect (Table 3). While tax hikes will embolden Republican opposition and the Democrats will have lost their chance to affect the tax code if Republicans win in 2022. At the moment, Republicans are divided and unpopular, so Democrats have a window of opportunity (Chart 10). Chart 9Thesis, Antithesis, Synthesis? Chart 10Independents Up, Republicans Down Table 3Political Capital Index While Democrats could chuck all the Senate rules out the window in order to pass their spending plans without any offsets, this would anger moderates who tend to uphold Senate rules and norms. The party cannot afford to lose a single vote from their caucus in the Senate. Yet moderate Democrats are not against tax increases in principle. What they would oppose is either excessive tax hikes or a fiscal spending bonanza without any revenue offsets at all.5  It is entirely feasible to back-load tax increases so that they take effect in the latter half of the ten-year budget window, especially after the 2024 election. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen is advising precisely this course of action and has herself argued that corporate tax hikes will go through.6 There may be some risk that Democrats go full left-wing populist and abandon any semblance of fiscal responsibility so as to supercharge the economy. So far they have agreed to maintain the Senate filibuster and scrap the minimum wage hike but this acceptance of Senate norms may not last as pressure builds. The second reconciliation bill is the last chance to fast-track major initiatives before the midterm. Vice President Harris could overrule the Senate parliamentarian across the board. This scenario is unlikely. The White House and Congress will find a balance that raises some revenue but errs on the fiscally accommodative side, as our scenarios above highlight. Investment Takeaways The market’s concern is that the Democrats will “overdo” the fiscal response and we fully share this concern. The American Rescue Plan alone will plug the output gap by almost three times more than the amount required. The coming tax hikes will not offset the wave of new spending that is coming down the pike. Democrats will partially reverse Trump’s tax cuts in the context of additional pump-priming that constitutes a net increase to the budget deficit. The net effect is inflationary.   If Congress were to pass another $2 trillion bill without any substantial revenue offsets then the market would face an even bigger inflationary jolt and an even earlier return to rate hikes by the Fed. But this scenario is unlikely. So the inflationary risk is clear but investors need not panic in the short run.  Our infrastructure trade is back on track as the reflation trade rumbles onward (Chart 11). The Democrats will get at least one more major bill passed and it will likely include at least half of Biden’s agenda, including around $2 trillion on green infrastructure. We will discuss the renewable energy portion at length in a forthcoming report. The health care sector faces headwinds from both Biden’s health policies and corporate tax hikes. The sectors that stand to benefit the most from a higher corporate tax rate are those that benefited least from Trump’s Tax Cut and Jobs Act – namely energy, industrials, materials, and financials, in that order (Chart 12A). These are also the cyclical plays that we favor in today’s accommodative policy environment. Chart 11Infrastructure Trade Back On Track   Chart 12ACyclicals Outperforming Health Care Chart 12BCyclicals To Outperform Tech? The same cyclical sectors are also trying to make headway against the tech sector, which stands to suffer from higher interest rates as well as higher taxes, including a minimum tax on book earnings, if that part of Biden’s agenda makes it through the negotiations this fall (Chart 12B).   Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com   Appendix Table A1APolitical Capital: White House And Congress Table A1BPolitical Capital: Household And Business Sentiment Table A1CPolitical Capital: The Economy And Markets Table A2Political Risk Matrix Table A3Biden’s Cabinet Position Appointments Footnotes 1See Jeff Drew, “House passes $1.9 trillion stimulus bill with a variety of small business relief,” and Alistair M. Nevius, “Tax provisions in the American Rescue Plan Act,” February 27, 2021, Journal of Accountancy, journalofaccountancy.com.     2See “The Budget Reconciliation Process: The Senate’s ‘Byrd Rule,’” Congressional Research Service, December 1, 2020, fas.org.            3The current delay centers on whether the Senate will confirm Biden’s appointee for director of the Office of Management and Budget, Neera Tanden, who lost support from key moderate Democrat Joe Manchin. If she does not receive a compensatory Republican vote then Biden will have to appoint someone else and the Senate will have to confirm. Thus the budget resolution could easily be delayed into May or June.       4For the difficulties, see Peter Cohn, “Democrats plan a spending blowout, but hurdles remain,” Roll Call, January 11, 2021, rollcall.com. For workarounds, see Zach Moller and Gabe Horwitz, “Reconciliation: How It Works and How to Use It to Help American Workers Recover,” Third Way, February 1, 2021, thirdway.org. 5See Alexander Bolton, “Democrats hesitant to raise taxes amid pandemic,” The Hill, February 25, 2021, thehill.com. 6See Saleha Mohsin and Christopher Condon, “Yellen Favors Higher Company Tax, Signals Capital Gains Worth a Look”, Bloomberg, February 22, 2021, Bloomberg.com