財政

Highlights The backdrop for global high-yield corporates remains positive, and a rebound in global GDP and earnings will help ease leverage and interest coverage concerns. With improving global growth taking over the reins from central bank liquidity as the primary driver of high-yield returns, we have decided to reassess the sources of value using some of our key indicators for junk bonds in the US and Europe. The US and euro area appear fairly evenly matched on our valuation metrics but euro area high-yield still offers good value on an absolute basis. We are therefore increasing our recommended allocation to overweight, matching our similar stance for US high-yield. Within the euro area, stay up in quality, favoring Ba-rated credit. Retail and consumer products are attractive bounce-back sectors as Europe emerges from lockdowns later this year. Feature Chart of the WeekCentral Bank Liquidity Has Driven High Yield Outperformance The past year has been excellent for global high-yield corporate bonds. Unprecedented monetary and fiscal stimulus in response to the COVID-19 economic shock and market rout helped rapidly lower credit spreads in the final three quarters of 2020. As the vaccine rollout picked up pace and the reopening trade began to dominate earlier this year, high-yield corporates continued to perform well despite defaults hitting a post-2008 high (Chart of the Week). An improving outlook for the global economy is highly supportive for lower-rated corporate debt from a fundamental perspective, even if that same pickup in growth will put pressure on policymakers to dial back monetary accommodation. Already, growth in major central bank balance sheets – a reliable leading indicator of high yield outperformance – is slowing, with corporate spreads approaching historically tight levels. Thus, we feel it is timely to assess valuation metrics in the largest high-yield markets of the US and Europe – and the implications for regional high-yield allocations - as economic growth takes over the reins from central bank liquidity as the primary driver of spread product performance. A Cyclical Reduction In Corporate Credit Risk In its recently published Global Financial Stability Report,1 the IMF noted that the COVID-19 shock has pushed up global nonfinancial corporate leverage, measured as debt relative to GDP, to historical highs (Chart 2). Some of that rise is due to companies ramping up debt issuance over the past year in response to supportive monetary policy and favorable financial market conditions. Yet according to the IMF, about half of the rise in global corporate debt-to-GDP ratios from Q4/2019 to Q3/2020 was attributable to sharply lower output. Now, with economic growth set to stage a strong rebound this year – the IMF is forecasting global real GDP growth of 6.0% in 2021 and 4.4% in 2022 - a rising denominator should result in corporate debt-to-GDP ratios stabilizing or even falling over the next couple of years. This will help maintain a positive backdrop for corporate spread product, even if central banks like the Fed turn less dovish later this year, as we expect Corporate interest coverage, using the Refinitiv Datastream bottom-up aggregates of individual company data, paints a similar cyclical picture (Chart 3). The absolute level of coverage ratios fell sharply in 2020, accelerating pre-pandemic downtrends that had already been in place in both the US and Europe. Since Q4/2019, however, interest expense actually fell very slightly in the US, meaning that of the 1.5 point fall in the interest coverage ratio, 1.3 points can be attributed to declining corporate earnings over that period. The picture was also lopsided in the euro area, with 2.5 points of the 2.8 point decline in interest coverage over that same period attributable to falling profits. Chart 2Rising Leverage Is Not Just A Debt Story Chart 3Falling Earnings Are Responsible For The Decline In Interest Coverage Rapid improvements in economic growth momentum, fueled by reopening economies and increased fiscal stimulus (especially in the US), should lead to a cyclical rebound interest coverage ratios in both the US and Europe in 2021 and 2022. Bottom Line: The backdrop for global high yield corporates remains positive, and a rebound in global GDP and earnings will help ease leverage and interest coverage concerns. A Trans-Atlantic Comparison Of High-Yield Bond Valuations Chart 4Our Relative Overweight On US HY Has Been A Success Since March of last year, we have maintained a recommended overweight stance on US high-yield versus European equivalents (Chart 4). That was originally a relative central bank play with the Fed including US high-yield in its corporate bond buying program, in contrast to the ECB that was only buying investment grade debt. Our relative regional allocation on high-yield corporates has worked out well, with the US outperforming the euro area by 3.9 percentage points (in excess return terms versus duration-matched government debt) since the pandemic peak in credit spreads last March. Today, with high-yield spreads back near historical tight levels and the momentum of excess returns starting to peak, a forward-looking reevaluation of our US versus Europe high-yield recommendation along value grounds is in order. To conduct our reassessment of value, we look at five key areas: default-adjusted spreads; 12-month breakeven spreads; volatility-adjusted spreads; credit quality curves; and, lastly, the relative carry offered by high-yield corporates in currency-hedged and unhedged terms. Default-Adjusted Spreads As discussed earlier in the report, fiscal and monetary support have helped stave off the worst for high-yield corporates on both sides of the Atlantic, with default rates spiking far less than the amount implied by the collapse in year-over-year GDP growth (Chart 5). Forecasts for 2021 are sanguine—Moody’s expects the trailing 12-month high yield default rate to reach 4.2% in the US and 2.6% in the euro area in 2021, in line with the IMF’s sharp upward revision to growth forecasts for both regions. The outlook for default-adjusted spreads, which look at the index option-adjusted spread (OAS) net of realized default losses, is much more positive in the euro area however, given that they have a much more attractive “starting point”. The realized default-adjusted spread in the euro area was already inching into positive territory last year, as opposed to the deeply negative spread in the US (Chart 6). This alone makes it much more likely that euro area high-yield will deliver a positive return net of default losses. Chart 5The Default Picture Is Expected To Improve Chart 6Euro Area Spreads Are More Attractive On A Default-Adjusted Basis In addition, the potential range for default-adjusted spreads (combining default rates and recovery rates, see the shaded boxes in the chart) is much narrower in the euro area given the lower post-crisis volatility in default rates in that region, making outcomes in the euro area far less uncertain than in the US. Volatility-Adjusted Spreads Chart 7Falling US Spreads Have Overshot The Level Implied By Equity Volatility Another way to evaluate the attractiveness of the level of spreads, and how much further they could fall, is to compare them to standard macro volatility gauges like the US VIX and the European VSTOXX indices. Credit spreads and equity volatility are highly correlated, as both are measures of investor uncertainty that rise during risk-off episodes and vice versa. The ratio of corporate credit spreads to equity volatility, therefore, can signal if spreads appear stretched relative to the broader risk backdrop. The global rally in riskier credit has helped push down volatility-adjusted spreads for both regions, making them expensive relative to the historic mean (Chart 7). However, the divergence between volatility and high-yield spreads is much more pronounced in the US, where the volatility-adjusted spread, currently at all-time lows and 1.8 standard deviations below the mean, appears much less attractive. In contrast, while the euro area measure is still within one standard deviation of the mean and has room to fall further, as it did in 2007. 12-Month Breakeven Spreads To look at valuations in high yield corporates relative to history, we turn to our 12-month breakeven spread metrics. These measure how much spread widening is required over a one-year horizon to eliminate the yield advantage of owning corporate bonds versus a duration-matched position in government debt. We then show those breakeven spreads as a percentile ranking versus its own history, to allow comparisons over periods with differing underlying spread volatility. On this basis, there seems to be a bit more value in US high-yield spreads, with the 12-month breakeven at the 32nd percentile compared to the 18th percentile ranking for European high-yield. Both markets are not cheap on this metric, though, with the lion’s share of cyclical spread compression having already been realized (Chart 8). This additional value in the US is concentrated in the lower-quality tiers, with B-rated US HY looking most attractive (Chart 9). Chart 8US And Euro Area High-Yield Breakeven Spreads Chart 9All Credit Tier Breakeven Valuations Are In the Bottom Half Relative To History Credit Quality Curves To further inform our decision on value across credit tiers in the US and Europe, we look at credit quality curves, which measure the incremental spread pick-up earned from moving down to lower credit tiers. For example, we look at the spread differential between B-rated and Ba-rated high-yield bonds within the US or Europe. When making the comparisons, we adjust the spreads to account for duration differences between credit tier sub-indices and the overall regional high-yield index. This adjusts for slightly lower index durations as we move down in quality.2 Our colleagues at BCA Research US Bond Strategy have pointed out that the spread pickup earned from moving out of US Baa-rated bonds into Ba-rated bonds is elevated compared to typical historical levels.3 Credit quality curves in the euro area tell a similar story (Chart 10). The spread pickup from moving into Ba-rated credit is slightly higher in the euro area on a cross-country basis while there is a more attractive pickup in the US from moving further down in quality. Chart 10US & European HY Credit Quality Curves Chart 11Euro Area Caa-Rated Spreads Have Room To Fall To Pre-COVID Lows As quality curves have compressed across the board, we can also use the pre-COVID lows in these series as an anchor for how much more narrowing we could see (Chart 11). On that basis, there seems to be a bit more value left in the top two tiers of US high yield while there is more juice left in the euro area Caa-rated minus B-rated spread. The Caa-B spread differential is now quite expensive for the US, sitting -140bps below its pre-COVID low, a reflection of yield-chasing behavior by risk-seeking investors in an easy monetary policy environment. As the Fed begins to take its foot off the monetary accelerator within the next 6-12 months, as we expect, this credit tier is also most vulnerable to a repricing of default risk. Index Yield-To-Maturity Chart 12Junk Index Yields At All Time Lows The hunt for yield by fixed income investors has driven down the index yield on lower-quality credit to all-time lows in both the US and euro area (Chart 12). This dynamic has played out at a time when falling interest rate differentials between the two regions have cut down the cost of hedging US dollar (USD) exposures into euros (or, alternatively, reduced the gain from hedging euro exposures into USD). Importantly, this reduction in the gains/losses from currency hedging allows for a more honest assessment of the relative attractiveness of yields on lower-rated corporates in the US and Europe, reflecting compensation for taking credit risk rather than currency risk. With the backdrop for spread product looking positive, it is worth considering the simple carry over a twelve-month period for holding high-yield debt, in both USD-hedged and unhedged terms (Chart 13). For the overall index and the Ba-rated tier, the US dominates completely, with investors in the euro area better off holding US credit even after paying the currency hedging cost. This dynamic is flipped at the B- and Caa-rated tiers, with euro area credit appearing dominant. Chart 13US Ba-Rated Debt Is Dominant On A Carry Basis An Additional Point On High-Yield Sectors Sector composition will also be an important driver of high-yield returns going forward. In the April 2021 Global Financial Stability report, the IMF noted that global high-yield defaults in 2020 were concentrated in sectors most affected by the pandemic. On a relative basis, the US high-yield index appears more heavily weighted towards those sectors – a picture that becomes even more focused if Energy, which is the largest industry group in US high-yield, is considered as a pandemic-stricken industry (Chart 14). However, the euro area does have a slightly larger tilt towards the hard-hit Retail sector. Chart 14Oil And Gas Was Hardest-Hit In 2020 An important implication is that the sectors that suffered the most in 2020 are also the ones most poised for a snapback this year as economies reopen and growth recovers. One way to approach this from a relative valuation perspective is to look at the relative industry-level cross-country spreads between the US and Europe, compared to the change in global defaults by sector from 2019 to 2020 (Chart 15). Chart 15Sectors That Saw Rising Defaults In 2020 Are Poised For A Rebound Sectors that saw a moderate-to-high number of defaults last year, such as Retail and Consumer products, offer higher spreads in the euro area. These will also be the sectors to benefit the most from a consumption rebound as Europe exits lockdowns. On the other hand, US spreads are more attractive than European spreads for the Media and Transportation sectors that saw a big increase in defaults in 2020. Importantly, while the US Energy sector also looks more relatively attractive on that basis, much of a post-COVID recovery has already been priced in, with US high-yield energy spreads below pre-pandemic lows. Investment Conclusions Having looked at our suite of valuation metrics, euro area and US high-yield appear quite evenly matched. On a default and volatility-adjusted basis, spreads in the euro area appear to offer more value while US high-yield largely wins out on a breakeven spread and carry basis. Thus, the case for favoring US high-yield over European equivalents is no longer as compelling as it has been for much of the past twelve months. We are therefore taking profits on our long-held recommended overweight stance on US high-yield versus European high-yield. We are implementing this change by upgrading our strategic euro area high yield allocation to overweight (4 out of 5), which matches our similar overweight recommended tilt for US high-yield (see table on page 15). Within our model bond portfolio, we are “funding” that upgrade by reducing the size of our recommended overweight exposure to core European sovereign debt in Germany and France (see the model bond portfolio tables on pages 13-14). On the margin, this decision also positions us favorably with regards to the consumption driven H2/2021 recovery in euro area economies highlighted by our colleagues at BCA Research European Investment Strategy.4 Within European credit, we recommend staying up in quality, favoring the Ba-rated tier as lower quality tranches do not offer adequate compensation for the increased credit risk. Bottom Line: Rebounding global growth will help maintain a favorable backdrop for global high yield credit. The US and euro area look evenly matched on our valuation metrics, but there is still good value on offer in the euro area on an absolute basis. Increase allocations to euro area high-yield, favoring the Ba-rated credit tier and Retail and Consumer Products industries, in particular. Shakti Sharma Senior Analyst ShaktiS@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/GFSR/Issues/2021/04/06/global-financial-stability-report-april-2021 2 Please see BCA Research US Bond Strategy Report, "Ba- Rated Bonds Look Best", dated February 9, 2021, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com. 3 Note that this adjustment is made to facilitate more accurate comparisons within the credit tiers of the high-yield universe. No such adjustment is made to the Baa-rated credit spread, which is higher-quality investment grade and therefore not part of the high-yield universe. 4 Please see BCA Research European Investment Strategy Special Report, "A Temporary Decoupling", dated April 5, 2021, available at eis.bcaresearch.com. Recommendations Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

特別レポート

Highlights President Biden’s proposal to raise the capital gains tax rate from 20% to 43.4% is part of the American Families Plan, which at best has a 50% chance of passing before the 2022 midterm election. Biden will soon present the full outline of this $1 trillion bill. The legislative priority is the American Jobs Plan with infrastructure spending and corporate tax hikes. This bill has an 80% chance of passing by Christmas. If it passes by end of July, then the odds of passing the American Families Plan prior to the midterm will shoot up. But we expect it to take to November, which could render the families plan (and capital gains tax) a campaign issue for 2022. Republicans are much more likely to vote for infrastructure spending than tax hikes. Traditional infrastructure can be separated into a bipartisan bill with Republicans and passed along with a renewed highway authorization by September. This creates an alternate avenue for infrastructure. Democrats would still pass the rest of Biden’s American Jobs Plan via reconciliation, including corporate tax hikes, which will only be watered down a bit. We reiterate our recommendations in favor of the BCA Infrastructure Basket and the Biden Fiscal Advantage Equity Basket. Given the eight-year span of the US infrastructure proposals, we recommend a cyclical and structural overweight for these baskets. Feature President Joe Biden’s $2.3 trillion American Jobs Plan is shifting from the initial phase – “coordinated policy rollout” and media cheerleading – to the drawn-out process of congressional negotiation and voting. None of our core views on the bill have changed: we expect the bill to pass before the end of the year and to be similar to what Biden has proposed on both corporate tax hikes and spending. Some spending proposals can be offloaded, some tax hikes can be watered down, but the gist of the bill is known to investors. Scares over Biden’s proposed capital gains tax hike are premature as this bill must pass before Congress can turn to Biden’s second plan and individual tax hikes. In this special report with BCA’s US Equity Strategy, we update the status of the bill and then take a closer look at our BCA Infrastructure Basket. We recommend investors stick to this trade over a structural time horizon of 12 months-plus. Biden’s Bill Will Pass – Bipartisanship Is Possible But Separate Biden’s infrastructure plan will pass on a party-line vote through budget reconciliation. Republicans will reject tax increases; Democrats will muster all 50 of their caucus votes plus Vice President Kamala Harris. Procedurally, reconciliation has been cleared. The fiscal 2021 budget resolution will be revised and this will enable Democratic leaders to cram the infrastructure package into a new reconciliation bill, ostensibly to raise the debt ceiling, which is due to expire on July 31. Technical public debt default will loom in early fall to help the Democrats motivate stragglers to vote for the bill.1 Spending Compromises: The reconciliation process will keep the price tag of the bill from rising higher than the proposed $2.3 trillion, since it will mostly exclude “earmarks.” States will have to apply in a competitive bidding for funding for projects beginning sometime in 2022 rather than receive guarantees of special projects in exchange for their senator’s vote for the overall package. The headline price tag could be whittled down by about $1 trillion if a bipartisan deal is done. Biden’s proposal consists of $784 billion in traditional infrastructure, $647 billion in social welfare, $370 billion in green energy initiatives, $280 billion in tech initiatives, and $219 billion in business support (Chart 1). The Republicans might be willing to agree to most of the traditional infrastructure as well as some of the tech initiatives and business support (Chart 2). This means these measures could be removed from the bill and passed separately. This would leave the Democrats to pass the rest on their own, including corporate tax hikes, which they could do at earliest by the end of July and at latest by the end of December (Diagram 1). Or Democrats could pass the whole package alone. Chart 1American Jobs Plan Has $784Bn In Traditional Infrastructure Chart 2Republicans Support Roads And Bridges Diagram 1Timeline For Congress To Pass American Jobs Plan By End Of 2021 Tax Compromises: Much has been made of West Virginia Senator Joe Manchin’s claim that the corporate tax rate should not exceed 25%, as opposed to Biden’s preferred 28%. Manchin is not alone, however. Table 1 highlights other Senate Democrats who oppose a 28% rate. These decisive swing voters may get a reduction in the rate but we tend to doubt it will be modified much from the proposal. Corporate tax hikes are popular – including when presented as a responsible way to pay for infrastructure (Chart 3). A minimum corporate tax will play very well politically while the headline corporate rate can be toggled one or two percentage points to ensure the bill gets enough votes (Chart 4). Chart 3Independents Support Corporate Taxes For Infrastructure Chart 4Voters Favor Corporate Tax Hike And Minimum Tax Table 1Centrist Senators: Democrats Who Oppose A 28% Corporate Rate, Republicans Who Voted To Convict Trump Of Insurrection, And Others Bipartisan infrastructure spending is possible but separate. Republicans are at risk of getting steamrolled by Democrats in the coming years. Democrats have stolen back the lead on infrastructure, manufacturing, trade, and China, yet they are free of the taint of mishandling the pandemic. Most importantly they have gotten hold of the magic money tree (Modern Monetary Theory), which enables them to expand the social safety net in a historic way that could boost the fortunes of their own party and its underlying principle of Big Government for a decade or more. Thus the pressure will be high on Republicans to show that they can govern and compromise – and infrastructure is the policy on which it is least painful for the GOP to join them. Republicans could hive off traditional “roads and bridges” – as well as tech competition with China – into a separate bill that could go forward on a bipartisan basis. There is a separate opportunity to pass infrastructure spending because the federal highway funding authorization, the 2015 FAST Act, expires on September 30 (Chart 5). The need to reauthorize this law will force lawmakers to act, thus presenting an opportunity to top up funding for traditional infrastructure projects.2 But this merely highlights that infrastructure spending has multiple avenues. If partisanship prevails as usual then Democrats will drive through their bill anyway. Chart 5US Infrastructure Spending In Recent Decades The regular budget process will be gridlocked. The regular appropriations process for FY2022 will not be an avenue for increased spending. Limits on discretionary spending expire at the end of FY2021 so there are no limits on budget appropriations. But 60 votes are needed for appropriations. Republicans will be loath to assist Democrats on the normal budget while the latter achieve all their other priorities via reconciliation. The economy will not need extra spending. A continuing resolution – a stopgap measure that keeps appropriations at the same level as the previous year – is the likeliest outcome. Or a government shutdown, which might be useful for Republicans to rally their base after a demoralizing year, though it would hurt their standing among the general public. Biden’s $1 trillion American Families Plan will be presented on April 28. This bill could pass in H1 2022, if the American Jobs Plan passes by July, but it is just as likely to become the Democrats’ campaign platform for the 2022 midterms. This bill will require the House and Senate to draft a FY2022 concurrent resolution, which cannot be finalized prior to passing the FY2021 reconciliation bill for both parliamentary and budgetary reasons. The economy will be red hot and fiscal fatigue will be setting in. We stick with our subjective 50/50 odds of passage for this bill. This means that the market’s concern over the capital gains rate hike is premature. First, Democrats have been back-loading tax hikes to prioritize economic recovery – and minimize negative impacts prior to the midterm election – so there is no reason to expect the capital gains tax hike to be retroactive whenever the American Families Plan passes Congress. If Congress passes it in mid-2022 then it will most likely go into effect on January 1, 2023. Second, the capital gains rate itself will likely be watered down from Biden’s proposed 43.4% to something around 32%. The good news for investors is that Biden is proposing to keep the distinction between individual income and capital gains (thus preserving the “carried interest loophole”). The bad news is that he is also keeping the Obamacare surtax of 3.8% on capital gains for those making over $250,000 or more. The American Families Plan is not urgent for investors because it is less likely to pass than the American Jobs Plan – and Republicans could win the House in 2022. But if the latter passes by July then the odds of the former passing before the midterm will shoot up. The family plan also shows that there is an upside risk to the budget deficit outlook and inflation expectations (Chart 6). Chart 6Revised US Budget Deficit Projection Post-ARPA Investment Implications Of Biden’s Sweeping Infrastructure Package While both the CBO and IMF currently project that the fiscal impulse will turn negative in 2022 (a mid-term election year) following a modest decrease this year, government largesse has staying power (Chart 7). Chart 7Fiscal Easing… The populist shift in US politics will push government expenditures as a share of output to nose-bleed levels. Given the lack of adequate tax offsets, it will buttress government debt-to-GDP to levels last seen during WWII (Chart 8). True, debt sustainability largely depends on nominal GDP growth, but spendthrift politicians are unconcerned about paying back debt as interest rates are held low courtesy of an extremely accommodative Federal Reserve and (temporarily) well-behaved bond vigilantes. This is all welcome news for equities exposed to fiscal spending in general and for infrastructure-reliant shares in particular. Two weeks ago we matched different segments of Biden’s infrastructure proposal (Tables A1 and A2 in the Appendix) to eight ETFs and one stock that now comprise our Biden Fiscal Advantage equity basket (Chart 9).3 Today we reiterate our sanguine view on this basket – especially versus the NASDAQ 100, given the high concentration of tech stocks in these ETFs. Chart 8...And Debt Uptake Bode Well For Infrastructure Stocks Chart 9Stick With The Biden Fiscal Advantage Basket Importantly, Charts 7 & 8 highlight that a rising fiscal deficit and ballooning government debt are a boon for the BCA’s infrastructure stock basket both from a cyclical and structural perspective.4 Tack on the Fed’s 6.5% real GDP growth projections for calendar 2021 that are more or less in line with the Street’s economic expectations and even the shorter-term outlook brightens for these infrastructure-laden equities (real GDP forecast shown advanced, Chart 10). Chart 10Enticing Domestic Growth Already, the US ZEW Indicator of Economic Sentiment is soaring following up the path of the ISM manufacturing survey, corroborating that the US economy is firing on all cylinders (top panel, Chart 11). While the recent bond market selloff has gone on hiatus, it will likely prove short-lived. The US population is on track to reach herd immunity sometime this fall and by then inflation will be rearing its ugly head (bottom panel, Chart 11). As a result, the 10-year US Treasury yield should resume its ascent (middle panel, Chart 11). Chart 11Plenty Of Upside Left Historically, all these key macro indicators have been positively correlated with the relative share price ratio of BCA’s infrastructure equity basket and the current message is positive (Chart 11). Beyond the conducive domestic backdrop, likely in the back half of the year the rest of the world will also be on the cusp of getting back to normal – with China’s pace of deceleration being the sole question mark – heralding a synchronized global growth setting. Not only will the US twin deficits weigh on the greenback, but a looming commodity up-cycle is also a boon for hypersensitive commodity-exposed currencies. This dual boost coupled with the budding rebound in EMs is music to the ears of US infrastructure-reliant US conglomerates (Chart 12). Gelling everything together, our US and global capex indicators do an excellent job in encapsulating all of these moving parts. Chart 13 shows that both of our capital expenditure indicators are in V-shaped recoveries, with our global capex one probing multi-decade highs. Chart 12Alluring EM Growth Chart 13Heed The Bullish Message From Our Capex Indicators Bottom Line: The sweeping American Jobs Plan will bolster both the BCA infrastructure and BCA Biden Fiscal Advantage equity baskets. Given the multi-year span of this looming bill, we recommend a cyclical and structural overweight in both baskets.   Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Anastasios Avgeriou US Equity Strategist anastasios@bcaresearch.com   Appendix Table A1 Table A2 Footnotes 1       Paul M. Krawzak, “More questions than answers in parliamentarian’s budget opinion,” Roll Call, April 8, 2021, www.rollcall.com. 2       Jinjoo Lee, “Road Is Smoother Than Expected For Infrastructure, Biden Plan Or Not,” Wall Street Journal, March 24, 2021, wsj.com. 3      As a reminder, the ticker symbols we included in this Equity Basket are: PAVE, PHO, QCLN, TAN, WOOD, SOXX, HAIL, GRID and SU. We choose SU as there is no pure play Canadian oil sands ETF trading in USD. 4      We first created this basket in late-2018 comprising a range of industrials and materials indexes that should see a positive reaction to a spur in infrastructure demand; Table A2 in the Appendix at the end of this report updates all the constituents in our basket.  

特別レポート

ハイライト 緑の党が9月26日の連邦選挙でドイツ政府の支配権を握る可能性が高い。少なくとも新連立政権で非常に影響力を持つだろう。 ドイツはEU内で長期にわたる地政学的目標の多くを達成している。金融政策と財政政策はハト派で、環境政策はタカ派というコンセンサスがある。最大の変化は外部からもたらされるだろう。 米国とドイツの関係はより困難になっている。両国ともロシアと中国の侵略には反対するが、ドイツは米国の攻撃的行動には抵抗するだろう。 キリスト教民主同盟（CDU）が政府に留まる確率は65％であり、これにより緑の党の論争的で野心的な増税議題は制限されるだろう。左派連立の確率は35％であり、回復のために財政刺激を前倒しで実行するだろう。 経済は回復基調にあり、緑の党主導の財政緩和は回復を加速させるだろう。しかし、連立政治はドイツの人口動態の悪化、生産性の低下、大きな過剰貯蓄といった問題に対処することはおそらくできないだろう。 景気循環の観点では、ブントに対して周辺欧州債をオーバーウェイト；EUR/USD；およびドイツ株に対してイタリア株とスペイン株をオーバーウェイト。 特集 チャート 1ドイツ人は若い女性と緑の党に注目 変革の風：ドイツ、グリーン化へ 変革の風：ドイツ、グリーン化へ ドイツは緑の党が指導する主要国としては初めての国になる見込みだ。少なくとも9月26日のドイツ選挙では現政権が期待を下回り、緑の党が期待を上回る番狂わせが起きるだろう（チャート 1）。 オンラインベッティング市場は30％で、アナレーナ・ベアボックが2022年に緑の党出身として初の首相、かつ第三党から選出される初の首相になる確率を過小評価している（チャート 2）。 「ドイツ問題」――ドイツを統一しつつ隣国との平和を維持する方法の問題――は過去二世紀にわたりヨーロッパの中心にあったが、今日では実質的に解決されたように見える。平和で統一されたドイツが平和で概ね統一されたヨーロッパの中心に位置している。様々なリスクは差し迫っているが、このポジティブな背景は認識されるべきである。 チャート 2市場はベアボックの首相挑戦に気づき始めている 変革の風：ドイツ、グリーン化へ 変革の風：ドイツ、グリーン化へ ドイツ選挙で最もあり得るシナリオはいずれも、ユーロ圏の連帯を目指す政策を継続させることで現在の状況を強化するだろう。緑のシフトですら既にかなり進行しているが、緑の党主導の政府はそれをさらに加速するだろう。それでも今年の選挙は重要だ。なぜならドイツの左方へのシフトを告げ、少なくとも今後4年間の財政、エネルギー、産業、貿易政策を形作るからである。 左派の大勝は短期的には株式市場に興奮をもたらすだろう――パンデミック後の反発を加速させるポジティブな財政サプライズ――が、長期的には過去との決別を招き、政策の不確実性を高めるだろう（チャート 3）。緑の党は増税や規制の大幅な強化、および産業とエネルギー政策における大きな変更を支持している。左派の大勝がない場合、連立政治は混迷を招き、ドイツの既存政策が継続されるだろう。 チャート 3ドイツの政策不確実性の高まり ドイツの政策不確実性が高まっている ドイツの政策不確実性が高まっている ドイツ国内で何が起ころうとも、地政学的環境は一段と危険になっている。ドイツは米国のロシアや中国との大国間闘争に巻き込まれることを避けようとするが、選択の余地がないかもしれない。 ドイツの地政学 ドイツ統一の困難さは近代ヨーロッパ史の中心にある。ドイツ語を話す大きく生産的な人口を有していたため、1871年の統一は近隣諸国にとって安全保障上の脅威となり、それが世界大戦へとつながった。冷戦後の平和的なドイツ再統一は、EUが大陸の平和と繁栄を確立する可能性を生み出した。 この体制は最近の挑戦を乗り越えてきた。ドイツとEUの関係は金融危機、アラブの春と移民流入、ブレグジット、トランプ大統領の貿易関税によって脅かされた。しかし最終的にこれらの出来事は、外圧に直面してドイツとヨーロッパの結びつきが強まる現実を固めた。ドイツは軍事的役割を回避し、経済面でフランスと歩調を合わせ、ロシアとの衝突を避けることで大陸における優越性を達成した。 ドイツは長年求めてきた戦略目標の多くを達成しているため、過去10年間に米国や英国のようなナショナリストの反発に見舞われることはなかった。しかしドイツはポピュリズムや反既成勢力の感情に無縁ではない。二大政治勢力であるキリスト教民主同盟と社会民主党は最近の選挙で支持を失い、やむなく大連立を組むことになった。 ドイツの反既成感情は有権者を左に動かし、緑の党を支持する傾向を生んだ。緑の党は過去10年間で着実に支持を伸ばし、選挙のわずか5か月前に勢いをつかんだ（チャート 4）。しかしドイツの緑の党は基本的に既成政党でもある。16州のうち11州で州政府に参加しており、現在はドイツで三番目に人口が多く生産的な州であるバーデン＝ヴュルテンベルク州で首位の座にある。1998年から2005年にかけては政府に参加し、新自由主義的な構造改革や海外への軍事派遣にかかわったこともある。さらに緑の党は単独で政権をとることはできず、連立政権の中で統治する必要があり、それが彼らのより論争的な政策を調整するだろう。 チャート 4緑の党躍進、キリスト教民主同盟失速 緑の党が躍進、キリスト教民主党は失速 緑の党が躍進、キリスト教民主党は失速 今日のドイツは、三つの重要な条件を満たすことでフランスおよびEUと足並みを揃えている：完全な金融緩和（ドイツ連邦憲法裁判所による欧州中央銀行への挑戦は効果がない）、完全な財政的順応（アンゲラ・メルケル首相はCOVID-19危機下で共同債の発行と緩い赤字管理に同意し、かつ強力なグリーン・エネルギー政策を採用した）、そして完全な安全保障上の調整（ドイツの再軍備はNATOの文脈内で行われ、ヨーロッパの安全保障上の願望はフランスと足並みを揃えて実行されている）。これらの条件は、たとえ緑の党が左派連立の先頭に立って政権を掌握したとしても、2021年の選挙で変わることはないだろう。 結論：ドイツはヨーロッパを統一し統治するという大戦略的目標を事実上達成した。どのドイツ政府もこの状況に挑むことはなく、すべてのドイツ政府はこれを固めようと努めるだろう。この体制に対する最大のリスクは国内よりもむしろ国外から生じる。 ドイツ問題の再来か？ ドイツの地政学的立場はチャート 5 に要約される。これは各国や機関に対する国民の見方を示している。ドイツ人はEUや国連のようなグローバルな機関に対しては好意的であり、NATOに対してはやや低い好感度を示す。それ以外のものに対しては好意的ではない。ロシアに対しては否定的な見方をしているが、劇的ではなく、これはロシアとの衝突に関心がないことを示している――彼らは別の大規模な欧州戦争の戦場や城壁になりたくないのだ。彼らは米国と中国をさらに、かつ同等に嫌っている。2020年の選挙以降米国に対する態度が改善したとしても、純粋な不支持は示唆的である。 チャート 5ドイツは米国よりロシアを好んでいるのか？ 変革の風：ドイツ、グリーン化へ 変革の風：ドイツ、グリーン化へ 世界金融危機以降、特に2014年のロシアによるウクライナ侵攻以降、ドイツは軍備を増強してきた。この増強は米国の促しの下で、旧ソ連圏における勢力圏回復を図るロシアの軍事行動に対応するNATO同盟国と歩調を合わせて行われている（チャート 6）。ただしドイツの軍事支出はNATOのGDP比2％の目標にはまだ達していない。フランスやヨーロッパと統合され、ロシア抑止を目的としている限り、それは近隣国にとって脅威とは見なされないだろう。 チャート 6ドイツとNATOが軍事支出を増加させる 変化の風：ドイツ、グリーン化へ 変化の風：ドイツ、グリーン化へ チャート 7ロシア・ドイツ関係の亀裂がヨーロッパの基盤に与える影響を注視せよ 変革の風：ドイツ、グリーン化へ 変革の風：ドイツ、グリーン化へ ロシアの攻撃性はドイツ人とヨーロッパ人を互いに引き寄せ続けるはずだ。もしプーチンが軍事的強制ではなく外交を追求すれば状況は変わり得る。そうなればドイツを東ヨーロッパから切り離す可能性がある。 ノルドストリーム2パイプラインを完成させるというロシアとドイツの現在の強硬な姿勢からもその可能性は明らかである。これは米国や東欧の反対にもかかわらず進められている。パイプラインは選挙に間に合うよう9月までに完成する予定であり、緑の党がこれに反対していることが影響している部分も少なくない。もし米国がパイプラインの停止を主張すれば、ロシアとの間で危機が発生し、メルケルとキリスト教民主同盟は屈辱を受けるだろう。しかし米国はロシアの軍事的脅威に直面してそれを控える可能性もある（確率は五分五分である）。 ロシアが今年ウクライナ国境に10万人以上の部隊を配置したこと――そして報道によれば5月1日までに部隊を基地に戻すよう命じたとされること――はロシア・ドイツ関係の試金石に相当する。プーチンはウクライナで容易にロシアの影響力を拡大することができ、緊張は少なくともロシアの議会選挙が行われる9月までは高止まりするだろう。ドイツ人は再度の侵攻に対して制裁で応じるだろうが、米国が提案するより厳しい制裁は和らげられる可能性が高い。真に情勢を変えるのはロシアがウクライナ全土を征服する場合だろう。それはありそうもない――正にそれがドイツ、ヨーロッパ、米国を結束させ、ロシアにとって経済的損失と戦略的劣勢をもたらすからである（チャート 7）。 中国の台頭もまたドイツをヨーロッパと結びつけ続ける要因となるはずだ。ドイツ人は中国の技術的・製造面での進展、特にデジタルインフラやネットワークへの中国の関与を恐れている。緑の党は二酸化炭素排出量が多い中国製品が低炭素のドイツ製品の価格を圧迫している点を批判している。ベアボックはカーボン調整手数料を支持しているが、これは関税の婉曲表現である。しかしドイツ人は中国とのビジネス関係を維持したがっており、中国の軍事力を大いに恐れているわけではない。したがって中国問題を巡って米独が分裂するリスクがある。 もしドイツが米国の反対にもかかわらず一貫してロシアや中国に肩入れするならば、米国のみならず同胞の欧州諸国からも敵対的な注目を浴びる危険がある。最終的にはEU外の大国と関係を結ぶことでドイツの力が過剰になるのではないかと恐れられるだろう。しかしこれは今日の主要なリスクではない。米国はドイツを取り込み、トランス大西洋同盟を再活性化しようとしている。一方でドイツはロシアの軍事的脅威や中国の貿易慣行に対抗するために米国の支援を必要としている。米独関係は、米国が独裁的勢力との全面的な対立へドイツを強いるようなことがない限り改善するだろう。 結論：米国とドイツの関係は過去よりも難しくなっているが、両国はロシアの侵略と中国の技術的・貿易上の野心を抑止するという共通の利益を共有している。バイデン大統領がこれらの大国に多国間で対処しようとする試みは、ドイツのリスク回避的姿勢によって制約されている。2021年選挙のシナリオ ドイツの選挙結果については現実的なシナリオがいくつか考えられます。私たちが緑の党が政権を形成すると予想するのは、複数の基本的要因に基づいています。世論調査は現在、明確に私たちの見方に有利に転じており、残り5か月で緑の党が勢いを増しています。政党をイデオロギーのブロックに分類すると、争いはほぼ拮抗しています。我々の見立ては、その勢いが野党である緑の党に傾くというもので、その理由を以下に説明します。 一方で自由民主党（FDP）は好成績を収め、キリスト教民主同盟から票を奪うはずです。右派のAlternative für Deutschland（AfD）は大きく得票するわけではないものの、キリスト教民主同盟からいくつかの票を奪うほどには根強く存在しています。これらは保守派にとって「失われた」票であり、連立に加わる政党がないため戻らないでしょう（Chart 8）。 Chart 8Germany's Median Voters Shifts To the Left ドイツの中央値の有権者が左傾化 ドイツの中央値の有権者が左傾化 キリスト教民主同盟は、新鮮味を失い脆弱な政府のすべての兆候を示しています。彼らは16年間政権を担っており、州および連邦選挙での成績は最近悪化しており、今年も含まれます（Table 1）。有権者は「変化の時だ」という強い考えに影響されやすい状況です。メルケル首相の支持率はまだ約60％ですが急落しており、彼女の成功した功績だけでは党を救えません。党内は動揺の兆候に満ちています：後継問題、優柔不断、内紛、汚職スキャンダル。緑の党は「増税・支出拡大」の左派とみなされるでしょうが、実際に何が立法化され得るかは連立構成次第です（Table 2）。1 Table 1AChristian Democrats Fall, Greens Rise, In Recent State Elections 変化の風：ドイツ、グリーン化へ 変化の風：ドイツ、グリーン化へ Table 1BChristian Democrats Fall, Greens Rise, In Recent State Elections 変革の風：ドイツがグリーン化へ 変革の風：ドイツがグリーン化へ Table 2Policy Platforms Of The Green Party 変革の風：ドイツ、グリーン化へ 変革の風：ドイツ、グリーン化へ キリスト教民主同盟とそのバイエルンの姉妹政党であるキリスト教社会同盟が首相候補の争いでこれほど苦戦したことは不吉な前兆です。さらに、党内のエリート層は、より人気のあったマルクス・ゼーダーではなくメルケルが指名した後継者アルミン・ラシェットという安全策を選びました（Chart 9）。この分裂は今年後半に党を悩ませる可能性が高いでしょう。 Chart 9Christian Democrats And Christian Social Union Divided Ahead Of Election 変革の風：ドイツ、グリーン化へ 変革の風：ドイツ、グリーン化へ ラシェットは指名で世論調査における反発上昇（バウンス）を受けましたが、それは一時的なものになるでしょう。それ以前の世論調査で彼が大きな存在感を示したことはありません。 Chart 10Dissatisfaction Points To Government Change 変化の風：ドイツがグリーン化へ 変化の風：ドイツがグリーン化へ 彼はパンデミック対応をめぐってメルケルや連立と公然と対立してきました。そもそも彼はメルケルの第一の後継者の選択肢ではありませんでした。第一の候補はアナグレート・クランプ＝カレンバウアーであり、わずかなAfDとの協力の示唆をめぐる論争で失脚しました。メルケルの後継を埋めるには明白な問題があります。 連立内の内紛以上に重要なのは、ドイツが世界の他の国々と同様に、経済と社会に対する歴史的ショックを受けたという事実です。パンデミックと景気後退は不適切なワクチン配布によってさらに悪化しました。国民の不満は高く、現職党にとっては別のネガティブサインです（Chart 10）。 もちろん選挙はまだ5か月先です。ワクチンはやがて行き渡り、経済は再開し、消費者の景況感は改善するでしょう――以下に示すように、ドイツが選挙までに期待すべき非常にポジティブなマクロの上振れがあるからです。有権者は概して厳格なパンデミック対策を支持しており、メルケルの影響力は長く続くでしょう。キリスト教民主同盟とキリスト教社会同盟は再統一以降のほとんどの期間にわたって現代ドイツを支配してきており、世論の支持率が33％を下回ったことはありません。緑の党は世論調査ではしばしば投票所での得票よりも多くの勢いを喚起してきました。こうした点を踏まえ、以下に主観的確率を付した選挙シナリオを提示します： 緑・赤・赤連立 – 緑の党がキリスト教民主同盟抜きで政権を率いる – 35％の確率. 緑・黒連立 – 緑の党がキリスト教民主同盟とともに政権を率いる – 30％の確率. 黒・緑連立 – キリスト教民主同盟が緑の党とともに政権を率いる – 25％の確率. 大連立（現状維持） – キリスト教民主同盟が緑の党抜きで政権を率いる – 10％の確率. 私たちの主観的確率は、上記の世論調査やオンライン賭けのデータに基づきますが、緑の党の勢い、キリスト教民主同盟の内部分裂、「変化の時」要因、そして歴史的な外生的経済・社会ショックの存在を考慮して調整したものです。 選挙前に地政学的なサプライズが起こる可能性はありますが、それらはたいてい緑の党を強化する方向に働くでしょう。緑の党はロシアと中国に対して強硬な姿勢を取っているからです。 要点： 緑の党が次期ドイツ政府を主導する可能性が高いですが、少なくとも強力な影響力は持つでしょう。 選挙シナリオの政策影響 どの連立が政権を構成するかが新たな政策の枠組みを決定します。財政政策は選挙の結果に基づいて変わり、支出と税の両方が影響を受けます。緑の党は「増税・支出拡大」の左派ですが、実際に何が立法化され得るかは連立次第です。2 緑の党の考え方は、環境政策を通じて再建プロセスを「舵取り」することです。しかし左派が強固な多数を欠く場合、緑の党のより論争的で懲罰的な施策は通りません。変革的な政策は低所得層に重くのしかかるでしょう（Chart 11）。 Chart 11Ambitious Climate Policy Will Face Resistance 変化の風：ドイツがグリーン化へ 変化の風：ドイツがグリーン化へ 各首相候補の政策姿勢は、ドイツにおける高い政策的一致度を示すのに役立ちます。Table 3は、ある政策分野において候補者が「鷹派」（積極的、攻撃的）か「鳩派」（受動的、防御的）かに基づいて候補者を見ています。際立っているのは、党の違いにもかかわらず候補者間の合意です。誰も財政や金融の鷹派ではありません。貿易に関して鷹派と分類できるのはベアボックだけです。3 移民問題で鷹派とされる者はいません。ほとんど全員が気候変動対策には強硬です。またロシアや中国に対する姿勢はより懐疑的になりつつありますが、完全な強硬派というわけではありません。 Table 3Policy Consensus Among German Chancellor Candidates 変化の風：ドイツがグリーン化する 変化の風：ドイツがグリーン化する 緑の党が期待を下回ったとしても、ドイツはグリーン関連の取り組みを放棄しないでしょう。現在の大連立は、緑の党が野党にあったとしても、国民の圧力により気候対策パッケージを追求しました。ドイツ国民は他のヨーロッパ諸国よりも環境志向がかなり強いです（Chart 12）。グリーンへのシフトは世界的にも進行しています。米国も現在グリーン競争に参入しており、中国も独自の理由で取り組みを強化しています。4月22-23日のバイデンのアースデイ気候サミットに先立つ一連の発表を受けて更新された現在のグリーン目標と措置については、付録を参照してください。 Chart 12Germans Care Even More About Environment Than Other Europeans 変革の風：ドイツ、グリーン化へ 変革の風：ドイツ、グリーン化へ いかなる連立でも、COVID後の経済回復に注力するため支出を税よりも多く引き上げるでしょう。ドイツの積極的な財政転換には長い前奏があり、それは持続力があり無視すべきではありません。キリスト教民主同盟を中核とする連立は他の場合より早く財政規律を回復させようとするでしょうが、上に示したシナリオによればそれが実行できる確率はわずか5％にすぎません。EUの財政上限が2022年に凍結されている間、欧州の他国は積極的な支出を行う動機を持つでしょう。特にドイツ政府がより鳩派に傾く場合はなおさらです。 米英以上に、ドイツはワシントン・コンセンサス的な新自由主義から距離を置きつつあります。しかしドイツでは米国型の激しい分極化やポピュリズムの急増は見られていません。少なくとも現時点ではそうです。これは長期的にはリスクになり得ます。キリスト教民主同盟、AfD、および様々な内外の展開の行方次第です。 要点： ドイツには金融、財政、貿易、移民に関しては鳩派的な国民的一致があり、環境政策については強硬（プロ・グリーン）の一致があります。ロシアや中国との地政学的対立に関しては以前より強硬になりつつあります。連立政権が現実的であることを踏まえると、この合意が今年の選挙後の実際の政策を決定する可能性が高いでしょう。 与党の構成にかかわらずいくつかの点は明確です。第一に、ドイツは成長の新たな源として内需を求め、経済の再均衡とEU統合の深化を図っていること。第二に、ドイツはグリーン・エネルギー推進を加速していること。第三に、ドイツはロシアとの新たな冷戦のただ中にいることを受け入れられないこと。第四に、対中国政策はあいまいであること。ドイツのマクロ見通し より広範な財政の状況を考慮する以前から、今後12〜24か月のドイツの経済活動見通しはすでにポジティブでした。9月の選挙に関する当社のベースケースは、緑の党を中心とした連立政権を想定しており、この楽観的な見方を裏付けるものです。ただし、ドイツは依然として重大な長期的課題に直面しており、これらの構造的逆風に適切に対処するための政治的合意はこれまでのところ形成されていません。緑の党は幾つかの解決策を提示していますが、すべての提案が建設的というわけではなく、多くは議会での勢力次第となるでしょう。 短期を覗くと… ドイツ経済は世界的な景気循環の回復の恩恵を受ける見込みであり、これはBCAリサーチの現在の見通しの核心にある見方です。4 ドイツは依然として貿易と製造の強国であり、そのため世界的な製造業の回復から大きな恩恵を受けます。製造業と貿易はドイツのGDPのそれぞれ20％と88％を占めており、主要経済の中で最も高い割合です。別の見方では、OECDによれば、ドイツ製品に対する海外需要は国内付加価値のおよそ30％を占めており、これは韓国のような小規模経済よりも高い比率です（Chart 13）。さらに、自動車、機械およびその他の輸送機器、ならびに化学製品および関連製品は、ドイツの輸出の53％を占めています。これらの製品はいずれも世界的な景気循環に特に敏感であり、したがって今後2年間でドイツ経済のパフォーマンスを高めるでしょう。 欧州域内との貿易は、今後のドイツ経済にとってもう一つの後押しとなります。ユーロ圏向けおよびEU域内向けの出荷はそれぞれドイツの輸出の34％と23％、合計で57％を占めます。現在、停滞気味の欧州経済はドイツにとってハンディキャップですが、欧州には米国よりも抑圧された需要が多く、耐久財の消費はワクチン接種がさらに進展すれば急増するでしょう（Chart 14）。これは、今後12〜18か月で欧州の消費が大幅に回復すると当社が予想するため、ドイツにとって大きな追い風となります。5 Chart 13ドイツはグローバル貿易に依存している 変化の風：ドイツ、グリーン化へ 変化の風：ドイツ、グリーン化へ Chart 14欧州は米国よりも多くの潜在需要を抱えている 欧州は米国よりも先送りされた需要が大きい 欧州は米国よりも先送りされた需要が大きい Chart 15ワクチン接種の進捗 ワクチン接種の進捗 ワクチン接種の進捗 国内要因も対外要因だけでなくドイツ経済の強さを示しています。ワクチン接種のペースはドイツで急速に加速しています（Chart 15）。四半期向けに追加で5000万回分、そして今後2年間で最大18億回分のワクチン購入を行うというEUの最近の発表はさらなる改善を示唆しています。より幅広いワクチン接種の取り組みは、消費に対する基礎的な追い風を触発するでしょう。 ドイツの家計所得も大幅に改善する見込みです。クルツァルバイト制度は危機時に失業率を抑える上で重要な役割を果たし、失業率は2020年初めの5％からピークでも6.4％にとどまりました。しかし、この制度は総就業時間の7％という大幅な減少を阻止することはできませんでした。というのも定義上、600万人の従業員が所定労働時間の短縮を余儀なくされていたからです（Chart 16）。この制度の大きな利点の一つは、労働者と雇用主との連結が断絶するのを防ぐことであり、したがって活動が回復する際の摩擦的失業が少なく、家計所得に長期的な損傷が生じにくい点にあります。一方で、ドイツ政府は債務ブレーキの適用の遅延を受けて、家計と企業への支援を継続する可能性が高いでしょう。緑の党は債務ブレーキを2022年に復元するのではなく改定することを提案しており、保守派が約束する復元とは対照的です。 Chart 16クルツァルバイトが功を奏した Kurtzarbeitが窮地を救った Kurtzarbeitが窮地を救った 家計のバランスシートが強固であることは、増加する所得を消費に回す余力があることを意味します。住宅不動産価格は年率8％のペースで上昇しており、資産対可処分所得比率を過去最高水準に押し上げています。一方で、債務対資産比率と金利水準も非常に低く、既存債務の返済負担は最小限にとどまっています（Chart 17）。 このような状況では、耐久財支出が加速し、たとえドイツの家計が過去1年間で蓄積した1,200億ユーロの過剰貯蓄を多く使わなかったとしても、全体として景気循環的な支出は持ち上がります。Chart 18が示すように、米国の耐久財支出はすでにコロナ前の高水準を上回っていますが、ドイツは長期トレンド付近に留まっています。したがって、今夏に経済が再開し、所得と雇用が増加するにつれて、同時に高まる消費者信頼感が景気循環的支出の回復を可能にするでしょう。 Chart 17強固な家計のバランスシート 強固な家計のバランスシート 強固な家計のバランスシート Chart 18ドイツも米国より多くの潜在需要を抱えている ドイツも米国よりも抑えられた需要が大きい ドイツも米国よりも抑えられた需要が大きい Chart 19多くの指標からのポジティブなメッセージ 多くの指標が示すポジティブなメッセージ 多くの指標が示すポジティブなメッセージ さまざまな経済指標がすでに到来しつつあるドイツの経済ブームを示しています。製造受注は堅調で、ほとんどのセクターで経済センチメントが上昇しています。一方で、消費者の楽観主義は底を形成しつつあり、新車登録は急速に増加しています。最も好ましい点として、完成品在庫が崩壊しており、これは将来の需要を満たすために生産が増強されることを示唆しています（Chart 19）。 要点：ドイツ経済は今年後半から2022年にかけて加速する見込みです。いつものように、ドイツは力強い世界成長から健全な利益を享受しますが、ワクチン接種プログラムの拡大、雇用主と従業員の良好な関係、強固な家計のバランスシート、および耐久財に対する顕著な潜在需要も国内経済を後押しします。ベルリンでの政治的な左派へのシフトを受けて9月以降に財政政策が引き続き緩和的に推移するという当社のベースケースは、この不可避の回復をさらに加速させるだけでしょう。…そして長期的見通し 目先の見通しが明るいのに対し、ドイツ経済の長期的見通しは依然として芳しくない。新たな与党連合の政策がドイツの厳しい人口動態、悪化する生産性、大きな過剰貯蓄という問題に対処する可能性は低い。グローバルなグリーン・エネルギーとハイテクの競争の文脈で生産性の押し上げ余地はあるが、現時点では憶測の域を出ない。 ドイツが直面するもっとも明白な問題は高齢化であり、合計特殊出生率はわずか1.6にとどまる。今後30年間で、ドイツの扶養比率は80%まで急増する見込みで、高齢者扶養比率が20%増加することが主因である（チャート20）。生産年齢人口は2050年までに18%減少する見込みで、潜在GDPの成長を抑制するだろう。 ドイツの生産性成長の見通しも厳しい。ドイツの生産性成長は長期的に低下しており、1975年の5%から2019年には1%を下回った。一般に広まっている考えに反し、1999年から2007年の間、ドイツの労働生産性成長はフランスやスペインと同程度にしか過ぎなかった；2008年以降はこの二国に遅れをとっているが、イタリアは上回っている。 ドイツの生産性が振るわない重要な理由の一つは投資不足である。これは同国の緊縮的な財政運営を反映している面もある。例えば2019年、ドイツの公的投資はGDPの2.4%であり、OECD平均の3.8%や、米国の公的投資であるGDPの3.6%と比べても見劣りする。この数字はドイツの公的資本ストックの減価償却を考慮していない。ユーロ導入以降、ネット公的投資は平均でGDPの0.03%にとどまっている。最大の問題は自治体レベルにある。2012年から2019年にかけて、連邦および州レベルのネット投資は平均でGDPの0.2%だった一方で、自治体のネット投資は平均でGDPの0.2%をマイナスにした。新政権がこのドイツ経済の欠陥に対処できることが望まれる。緑の党が最も積極的ではあるが、障害に直面するだろう。 ドイツの生産性にとってより大きな問題は企業の設備投資である。企業の投資は同国で低迷してきた。ユーロ導入以降、ドイツにおける資本集約度の生産性への寄与はイタリアと同等であり、フランスやスペインよりも劣後している。その結果、ドイツの資本ストックの平均年齢は過去最高水準であり、米国やユーロ圏平均を大きく上回っている（チャート21）。 チャート20ドイツは人口動態が厳しい ドイツは人口動態が悪い ドイツは人口動態が悪い チャート21ドイツの資本ストックは老朽化している ドイツの資本ストックは老朽化している ドイツの資本ストックは老朽化している ドイツの設備投資の内訳は生産性のハンディキャップを悪化させている。ドイツ連邦銀行（ブンデスバンク）の研究によれば、情報通信技術（ICT）への資本支出が労働生産性に与えた寄与は、2008年から2012年の間で年平均0.05パーセントポイントだった。この指標において、ドイツはフランスや米国より遅れていたが、それでもイタリアは上回っていた。2013年から2017年にかけては、ICT投資の生産性への寄与は0.02パーセントポイントに落ち、依然としてフランスや米国より低いが、イタリアとは同水準であった。 ICTや知識基盤資本（KBC）への投資の絶対水準を見ると、ドイツの課題がさらに浮き彫りになる。2016年におけるICT機器、ソフトウェアとデータベース、研究開発および知的財産生産物、その他のKBC資産（組織資本や研修を含む）への総投資はGDPの8%未満を占めていた。フランス、米国、スウェーデンではそれぞれこれらの支出がGDPの11%、12%、13%を占めていた（チャート22、上段）。この投資不足はドイツのイノベーション能力を直接的に損ねる。チャート22の下段は、ICT特許の総数の80%を占める8つの主要カテゴリについて、ドイツが米国、日本、韓国、あるいは中国に著しく遅れを取っていることを示している。 チャート22ドイツはICT投資で遅れを取っている 変革の風：ドイツ、グリーン化へ 変革の風：ドイツ、グリーン化へ ICTおよびKBC投資におけるドイツのハンディキャップの主要因の一つは中小企業であり、これらは資本の投入に特に消極的であった。OECDの研究は、2010年から2019年の間に、ドイツの小企業と大企業の間のICTツールおよび活動の採用ギャップがOECD平均に比べて悪化したことを示している（チャート23）。ベンチャーキャピタル投資の不足もこれらの問題を悪化させている可能性が高い。2019年におけるドイツのベンチャーキャピタル投資はGDPの0.06%を占めるにすぎない。これはフランスや英国（それぞれ0.08%および0.1%）の水準を下回り、ましてや韓国、カナダ、イスラエル、米国（それぞれ0.16%、0.2%、0.4%、0.65%）の水準には遠く及ばない。緑の党は新たなベンチャーキャピタル・ファンドを創設すると主張しているが、この分野での実行力は疑わしい。 チャート23ドイツの中小企業におけるICT能力の遅れ 変化の風：ドイツ、グリーン化へ 変化の風：ドイツ、グリーン化へ ドイツの生産性成長はOECD諸国の他と比べて今後も平均を下回る可能性が高く、フランスや英国にも遅れを取る見込みであるため、ドイツが競争力を維持する唯一の方法はコストを抑制することである。つまり、ドイツは近年の競争力喪失をこれ以上放置することはできない（チャート24）。したがって、生産性の低成長はドイツの実質賃金を制約するだろう。 チャート24ドイツの競争力は低下している ドイツの競争力が低下している ドイツの競争力が低下している この賃金抑制は消費に悪影響を与えるだろう。今後12～24か月の一時的な押し上げを除けば、ドイツの消費は抑制されたままである可能性が高い。これは千年紀の変わり目以降の最初の15年に見られた状況と同様であり、ハルツIVの労働市場改革は実質賃金にも打撃を与えた。緑の党は福祉給付を拡充し、最低賃金を引き上げ、ハルツIVの運用を緩和することを目指している。 結論：ドイツの過剰貯蓄は構造的に幅広く残るだろう。設備投資が実質的に回復しなければ、ドイツの非金融企業は純貸し手のままである。加えて、実質賃金成長が低い世界で将来の家計の状況を不安視している家計は、所得のかなりの割合を引き続き貯蓄するだろう。その結果、千年紀の変わり目以降にドイツが蓄積した過剰貯蓄は定着する（チャート25）。言い換えれば、ドイツは大きな経常収支黒字を維持し、欧州および世界に対してデフレ的な影響を及ぼし続けるだろう。 9月の選挙に出馬する各党が提唱する政策が、設備投資低迷やICT投資低迷という問題を覆す新法につながるとは限らない。緑の党は経済の過剰規制をさらに悪化させるだろう。すべての目的を達成するような政策革命が実行されない限り（非常に高いハードルである）、ドイツにはこれまでと同様の状況、つまり緩やかに衰退する経済が続くと予想される。 チャート25貯蓄過多、投資不足 貯蓄過多、投資不足 貯蓄過多、投資不足 チャート26ドイツは再生可能エネルギーで好成績 変化の風：ドイツ、グリーン化へ 変化の風：ドイツ、グリーン化へ とはいえ、明るい点もある。ドイツは再生可能エネルギー分野でリーダーになりつつあり、この流れの拡大を活かして輸出市場を拡大することができる（チャート26）。 投資への示唆 債券市場 ドイツとユーロ圏全体の経済見通しは、欧州のフィクスト・インカム・ポートフォリオ内でドイツ・ブントをアンダーウェイトすることと整合的です。 ブントは世界で最も割高な債券市場の一つに入っており、特に今年後半に欧州で経済の良いサプライズが生じた場合、非常に脆弱になります。とりわけ9月の選挙を受けてドイツの財政政策がさらに緩和されれば脆弱性は増します（チャート27）。さらに、ドイツの財政政策が緩和されれば欧州の周辺国債が支えられ、現在ECBが積極的に買っている割安なイタリアBTPは特に恩恵を受けるでしょう。したがって、我々はBTPのオーバーウェイトを継続し、ギリシャ債とポルトガル債をそのリストに加えます。 チャート27ドイツ・ブントは割高である 変革の風：ドイツ、グリーン化へ 変革の風：ドイツ、グリーン化へ チャート28ドイツ利回りは既に欧州に関して多くの悲観を織り込んでいる ドイツ国債利回りは既に欧州に対する相当な悲観を織り込んでいる ドイツ国債利回りは既に欧州に対する相当な悲観を織り込んでいる 米国債と比較すると、ブントの見通しはより複雑です。一方で、ECBはこのサイクルの後半でFRBほど金融政策を引き締めないでしょう。さらに、欧州のインフレ率は今年および事業サイクルを通じて米国水準を下回る可能性が高いです。他方で、ブントは既に実質ターミナル・レートの代理指標とタームプレミアムの両方で国債（Treasury Notes）よりもかなり低い数値を織り込んでいます（チャート28）。 総合的に見れば、BCAリサーチのグローバル・フィクスト・インカム・ストラテジー・サービスは、ブントは今年米国債をアウトパフォームすべきだと見ています。なぜならブントはベータが低く、利回り上昇局面で価値のある特徴を持っているからです。6 我々はこの見方に関連するリスクを注意深くモニターします。なぜなら欧州の景気回復が世界的な利回り上昇の触媒になる可能性があり、その場合ドイツ・ブントは一時的にアンダーパフォームすることがあり得るからです。 構造的には、ベルリンがドイツの生産性問題に対処しない限り、ドイツ・ブントは世界の利回りにとっての錨（アンカー）であり続ける公算が大きいです。ドイツは過剰貯蓄に溢れ、これはデフレ的な錨として作用するとともに、欧州の実質金利の長期的な上昇を抑制します。過剰貯蓄は大きな経常収支黒字をもたらすため、ドイツは引き続き貯蓄を海外へ輸出し、世界の利回りを抑制する要因として作用し続けるでしょう。 ユーロ 中期的な見通しはユーロの大幅な上昇を示唆しています。 今後12カ月で欧州およびドイツの成長が良いサプライズとなるという我々の予想は、ユーロのアウトパフォーマンスと整合します。過去10年間、投資家がユーロ圏から資金を取り出し米国へ移してきたという事実は、この議論に説得力を与えます（チャート29）。 我々のドイツの財政政策に関する見解もユーロに有利に働きます。ドイツの財政赤字拡大は欧州の経済活動を助け、ユーロ圏全体のリスクプレミアムを縮小します。このプロセスはユーロにとって二重にポジティブです。第一に、周辺国のリスクプレミアム低下はユーロ圏への資金流入を呼び込みます。とりわけギリシャ、ポルトガル、イタリア、スペインの利回りは代替投資よりも価値を提供します。第二に、強い成長と低いリスクプレミアムは、ユーロ圏の唯一のリフレーターであるECBへの負担を軽減します。これにより、マージンではありますが、欧州の極めて低迷したターミナル・レート代理指標が押し上げられ、EUR/USDを支援するはずです。 欧州内部のポジティブな力に加え、堅調な世界経済活動はユーロの魅力を高めます。ドルはカウンターサイクル通貨であり、したがって世界の景気サイクルの上昇は一般にドル安と一致し、EUR/USDの魅力を増します。とはいえ、もし世界経済の押し上げが米国から生じれば、ドルは強くなる可能性があります。この現象は2021年の第1四半期に見られました。しかし、今後12カ月で世界の成長リーダーシップは米国から離れる見込みであり、これは世界成長とドルの逆相関という通常の関係が再びユーロに有利に働くことを意味します。 欧州の国際収支の動態はユーロの魅力をさらに強固にします。ドイツおよびユーロ圏の経常収支黒字は依然として大きく、特に米国で拡大する双子の赤字と比較すると際立っています。 今後12〜24カ月を超えた期間では、ドイツおよび欧州経済の構造的な活力欠如がユーロを円やスイスフランのようなセーフヘイブン通貨へと変える可能性が高いです。強い国際収支と低金利（いずれも過剰貯蓄の症状）はファンディング通貨の定義的特徴であり、改革が生産性低迷に対処しない限りユーロ圏の恒久的属性となるでしょう。ユーロ圏の対外純資産ポジションは既に上昇しており、低インフレはユーロの購買力平価見積りに構造的な上方バイアスを与えるでしょう（チャート30）。これらの展開は日本やスイスですでに見られており、時間が経てばユーロのプロサイカリティ（景気循環性）は消えていく可能性が高いです。 チャート29投資家は既に欧州資産をアンダーウェイトしている 投資家は既に欧州資産をアンダーウェイトしている 投資家は既に欧州資産をアンダーウェイトしている チャート30ユーロのフェアバリューにおける上方バイアス ユーロのフェアバリューには上方バイアスがある ユーロのフェアバリューには上方バイアスがある チャート31ドイツはユーロ圏の他国よりアウトパフォームしていない ドイツはユーロ圏の他国を上回っていない ドイツはユーロ圏の他国を上回っていない ドイツ株式 絶対的に見れば、DAXおよびドイツ株式は今後12〜24カ月で依然として大きな上振れ余地を持っています。BCAリサーチは株式に対してポジティブな姿勢を想定しており、ベータが高い市場であるドイツは恩恵を受ける可能性があります。7 さらに、ドイツ株式は世界経済活動への感応度が高いことがその魅力を際立たせます。我々は欧州株式を好み、ドイツ株も例外ではありません。8 より複雑な問題は、欧州株式ポートフォリオ内でドイツ株式をどのように位置付けるかです。2003年から2012年にかけて大幅にアウトパフォームした後、ドイツ株式はそれ以降ユーロ圏の他と同じ動きになっています（チャート31）。さらに、ドイツ株式は現在、主要なバリュエーション指標のすべてでユーロ圏の他地域に対してディスカウントで取引されています（チャート31、下段）。 ドイツ株式のユーロ圏他地域に対する見通しを左右するグローバル・マクロの力は現在、相反するメッセージを送っています。一方では、コモディティ価格が上昇したりユーロが上昇したりすると通常ドイツ株はアウトパフォームします（チャート32）。他方では、世界の利回りが上昇したり、中国の過剰準備が減少した期間の後にはドイツ株はアンダーパフォームすることもあります。今日見られるような環境がそれに該当します。 こうした世界的要因からの不明確さがあるため、ドイツの相対的パフォーマンスに関する答えは欧州の経済動態の中にあります。ドイツはユーロ圏の他地域に対して競争力を失いつつあり（チャート24 22ページ）、これはユーロが強くなった場合にドイツ株が過去10年のパフォーマンスほど恩恵を受けないことを示唆しています。さらに、ドイツ株はドイツの製造業PMIが広いユーロ圏のそれに対して上昇したときにアウトパフォームします。ドイツとユーロ圏の製造業PMIの差はほぼ史上高水準にあり、ユーロ圏の他地域が追いつくにつれてこの差は縮小する可能性が高いです。これはドイツ株のパフォーマンスに影響を与えるはずです（チャート33）。 チャート32ドイツの相対的パフォーマンスにとって混在するグローバルな背景 ドイツの相対パフォーマンスを取り巻く混在するグローバル環境 ドイツの相対パフォーマンスを取り巻く混在するグローバル環境 チャート33欧州の経済の追いつきはドイツ株にとって不利となる 欧州の経済の追い上げはドイツ・エクイティに打撃を与える 欧州の経済の追い上げはドイツ・エクイティに打撃を与える 最後に、セクター別の動態が最終的な決定要因となる可能性があります。表4はドイツとユーロ圏の他市場との間でセクター配分に限定的な差しかないことを示しており、これが過去9年間の相対的パフォーマンスの安定性を説明するのに役立ちます。 しかしながら、国別に見ればドイツと特定の欧州諸国との間で差異は大きくなります。この観点では、BCAの成長株に対するネガティブなスタンスはオランダに対してドイツをオーバーウェイトすることと相関します。さらに、我々の金融株と債券利回りに関するポジティブな見通しは、ドイツがイタリアおよびスペインの株式に対してアンダーパフォームすべきであることを示唆します。 表4欧州主要取引所におけるセクター別内訳 変革の風：ドイツがグリーン化へ 変革の風：ドイツがグリーン化へ   マット・ガートケン バイスプレジデント ジオポリティカル・ストラテジー mattg@bcaresearch.com   マチュー・サヴァリー, チーフ・ヨーロピアン・インベストメント・ストラテジスト Mathieu@bcaresearch.com 付録：世界の気候政策コミットメント 変革の風：ドイツ、グリーン化へ 変革の風：ドイツ、グリーン化へ 変化の風：ドイツ、グリーン化へ 変化の風：ドイツ、グリーン化へ 脚注 1 Matthew Karnitschnig、"German Conservatives Mired In ‘The Swamp,’" Politico、2021年3月24日、politico.eu。 2 緑の党は炭素税、デジタルサービス税、金融取引税を含む様々な税に関心を持っています。彼らはまた、鉄鋼や自動車メーカーに一定割合の炭素中立鋼材や電気自動車を販売させる工業クオータにも関心があります。Baerbock氏への優れたインタビューはIleana GrabitzとKatharina Schuler、"I don’t have to convert the SUV driver in Prenzlauer Berg," Zeit Online、2020年1月2日、zeit.deを参照してください。 3 Zeit Onlineに対する彼女のコメントを参照してください。 4 BCAリサーチ グローバル・インベストメント・ストラテジー・ストラテジー・アウトルック "Second Quarter 2021 Strategy Outlook: Inflation Cometh?"、日付2021年3月26日、gis.bcareseach.comで入手可能。 5 BCAリサーチ ヨーロピアン・インベストメント・ストラテジー・スペシャル・レポート "A Temporary Decoupling"、日付2021年4月5日、eis.bcareseach.comで入手可能。 6 BCAリサーチ グローバル・フィクスト・インカム・ストラテジー・ストラテジー・レポート "Harder, Better, Faster, Stronger"、日付2021年3月16日、gfis.bcareseach.comで入手可能。 7 BCAリサーチ グローバル・インカム・ストラテジー・ストラテジー・アウトルック "Second Quarter 2021 Strategy Outlook: Inflation Cometh?"、日付2021年3月26日、gis.bcareseach.comで入手可能。 8 BCAリサーチ ヨーロピアン・インカム・ストラテジー・ストラテジー・レポート "Time And Attraction"、日付2021年4月12日、eis.bcareseach.comで入手可能。

Highlights Chart of the WeekThe Bond Bear Mantle Being Passed To Canada? US Treasuries: The steady climb of US bond yields has left longer-maturity Treasuries in an oversold position. However, underlying growth and inflation momentum remains bond bearish and the Fed is likely to begin preparing the market later this year for a tapering of asset purchases in 2022. Maintain a medium-term defensive posture towards US Treasuries (below-benchmark duration and an underweight country allocation). Canada: The Canadian economy is gaining significant positive momentum, with an increased pace of vaccinations boosting optimism despite a third wave of COVID-19. We now see a growing risk of the Bank of Canada shifting to a less dovish policy stance sometime in the next few months, led by a tapering of its bond buying – perhaps even before the Fed does the same (Chart of the Week). Downgrade Canadian government bonds to underweight in global fixed income portfolios. US Treasuries: The Pause That Refreshes Chart 2UST Yield Uptrend Has Paused After leading the global government bond market selloff over the past several months, US Treasury yields have calmed down of late. The 10-year Treasury yield is down 14bps from the most recent peak of 1.74% reached March 31, while the 30-year Treasury yield is down 16bps from the peak of 2.45% reached on March 18. These moves have been concentrated in the real yield component, with inflation breakevens stable, as the 10yr and 30yr TIPS yields are down -15bps and -20bps, respectively, since the dates of those peaks in nominal yields (Chart 2). The drift lower in US yields has occurred in the face of an explosive surge in US economic data. Retail sales rose +9.8% in March compared to February and a staggering +27.7% on a year-over-year basis. The Fed’s regional manufacturing surveys showed very robust results for April, with the New York Empire State index hitting the highest level since October 2017 and the Philadelphia Fed headline index surging to a level last seen in 1973. This follows the very strong payrolls and ISM data for March that came out in early April. Yet the US economic data is not unanimously positive. The latest readings from the University of Michigan consumer confidence and NFIB small business optimism surveys both remained well below pre-pandemic peaks (Chart 3). Annual core CPI inflation only inched up 0.2 percentage points in March to 1.6%, a tepid move compared to the base effect driven surge that took year-over-year headline CPI inflation from 1.7% in February to 2.6%. Chart 3Some Mixed Messages From Recent US Data Chart 4Fewer Positive US Data Surprises The overall flow of US economic data has been disappointing versus elevated expectations, as evidenced by the almost uninterrupted decline in the Citigroup US data surprise index since peaking in July of 2020 (Chart 4). This indicator reliably correlated to the momentum of US Treasury yields prior to the COVID-19 outbreak and now, given the bullish growth combination of vaccine optimism and fiscal stimulus, the bond market’s focus is returning to how US data evolves versus expectations - and what that means for the Fed’s future moves on monetary policy. The most senior leadership at the Fed continues to send a consistent message on policy, with no rate hikes expected before 2024 and no hints at when the tapering of quantitative easing (QE) could begin. Yet some Fed officials have started to be a bit more vocal about their comfort level with the current accommodative policy stance and the associated risks to financial stability and inflation. Last week, Dallas Fed President Robert Kaplan noted that he would like to see the Fed begin to withdraw its support for the economy “at the earliest opportunity”. St. Louis Fed President James Bullard was even more specific, noting that once the share of vaccinated Americans reaches “herd immunity” levels of 75-80%, it will be time for the Fed to debate tapering QE. At the moment, however, there is no need for the Fed to move preemptively. Our Fed Monitor - comprised of economic, inflation and financial market data that would signal pressure for the Fed to ease or tighten policy – is at a neutral level (Chart 5). Our 12-month Fed discounter, which measures the change in interest rates over the next year that is priced into the US overnight index swap (OIS) curve, is at 7bps, consistent with a stand-pat Fed. The latest read this month from the New York Fed’s Survey of Primary Dealers (and Survey of Market Participants) showed no change in the median longer-run expectation for the fed funds rate of 2.25% that has prevailed over the past year (middle panel) – despite a sharp recovery in US growth expectations. Chart 5UST Valuations A Bit Stretched The market pricing of the Fed’s next move is still relatively benign, with liftoff not expected until February 2023. This suggests that a pause in the trend of rising Treasury yields was essentially the market getting a bit ahead of itself in pricing in higher longer-term yields. This can be seen by looking at various valuation measures. For example, the 5-year/5-year forward Treasury yield now sits at 2.4%, which is at the high end of the range of longer-run fed funds rate expectations from the Primary Dealer survey. Also, various measures of the term premium on 10-year Treasury yields have returned to the above-zero levels last seen during the Fed’s 2016-2018 rate hiking cycle – even with the Fed not signaling any need to tighten policy in response to rising inflation expectations. Despite these signs of stretched near-term UST valuation, there is still no sign of major global bond investors being comfortable with increasing exposure to Treasuries. For example, despite yields on 10-year Treasuries (hedged into euros and yen) looking historically attractive compared to the near-zero yields on JGBs and sub-zero yields on German Bunds, the US Treasury’s capital flow data shows that foreign investors remain net sellers of Treasuries (Chart 6). It is possible that those foreign buyers need more evidence of a sustained decrease in US bond volatility before moving money into US Treasuries, where duration losses from higher US yields could wipe out the yield pickup from moving into US bonds. While valuations are a bit stretched for Treasuries, technicals appear very oversold. Both the deviation of the 10-year Treasury yield from its 200-day moving average, and the 6-month rate of change of the Bloomberg Barclays US Treasury total return index, are at levels seen only four previous times since 2010 (Chart 7). The JP Morgan client duration positioning surveys and the Market Vane Treasury sentiment index are also approaching post-2010 bearish extremes. It should be noted that both of those measures reached even more bearish extremes during the latter half of the Fed’s 2026-2018 tightening cycle, so there is potential for Treasury sentiment to become even more bearish once the Fed starts to tighten monetary policy – a scenario looking increasingly likely over the next 6-12 months. Chart 6No Foreign Bid For USTs (Yet) Chart 7USTs Are Technically Oversold We continue to expect a robust US economy and rising inflation to force the Fed to begin preparing the market in the latter half of 2021 for QE tapering in 2022, with the first rate hike of the next tightening cycle coming in late 2022. As that outcome appears largely consistent with current market pricing, amid oversold technicals, it is likely that Treasury yields will continue to move sideways over at least the next few weeks. Yet there is little to suggest that yields have peaked and are about to enter a new downtrend, given the accelerating pace of US vaccinations that is boosting optimism on an eventual end to the US leg of the pandemic. Stay defensive on US Treasury exposure, as the cyclical rise in yields is not over yet. Bottom Line: The steady climb of US bond yields has left longer-maturity Treasuries in an oversold position. However, underlying growth and inflation momentum remain bond bearish and the Fed is likely to begin preparing the market later this year for tapering of asset purchases in 2022. Maintain a medium-term defensive posture towards US Treasuries (below-benchmark duration and an underweight country allocation). Canada: Downgrade To Underweight In a Special Report published back in February along with our colleagues at BCA Foreign Exchange Strategy, we outlined the case for placing Canadian government debt on “downgrade watch” in global fixed income portfolios.1 We expected Canadian bond yields to continue rising along with the rise in global bond yields and, hence, we maintained our below-benchmark recommended duration exposure within Canada. Chart 8Canada: A High Beta Bond Market Once Again However, we concluded that it was too soon to shift to a full-blown underweight stance on Canadian government bonds with COVID-19 cases still raging through the country, the vaccination program off to a very slow start, and the Bank of Canada (BoC)’s QE program preventing Canadian bonds from returning to their usual “high-beta” status within developed economy bond markets. It now appears that we were too cautious on that front. Canadian government bonds have been one of the worst performing markets year-to-date within the Bloomberg Barclays Global Government bond index, delivering a local currency return of –4.1% - worse than the -3.5% return earned on US Treasuries so far in 2021.2 It is clear that the Canadian government bonds are once again a market more sensitive to global interest rate moves (Chart 8). In that February Special Report, we laid out three factors that could prompt the BoC to move to a less dovish, and more bond bearish, monetary policy stance faster than we expected. Much of that list has already started to come to fruition. 1) Good News On The Vaccine Rollout Sadly, Canada is suffering a third wave of COVID-19 cases that has resulted in the nation’s most populous province, Ontario, implementing the harshest lockdown yet seen during the pandemic. Yet the pace of vaccinations has also been rising with the share of Canadians receiving at least one jab is now 21% (Chart 9) - higher than that of the overall European Union (EU). Canada is now administering more daily vaccinations than both the UK and EU. The quickening pace of vaccinations is already providing a major lift to Canadian economic confidence. The Bloomberg Nanos consumer confidence index is at an all-time high (Chart 10), while the BoC’s Business Outlook Survey for the spring of 2021 was incredibly solid. Two-thirds of firms in that survey expect sales to exceed pre-pandemic levels, even with the latest upturn in COVID-19 cases. Chart 9Canadian Vaccine Rollout Improving Chart 10Booming Optimism The BoC’s Q1/2021 Consumer Survey showed similar levels of optimism. 74% of Canadians surveyed aged 25-54 are planning to engage in levels of social and economic activities equal to, or greater than, those seen prior to the pandemic once the majority is vaccinated (Chart 11). A net majority (18%) of those surveyed plan to spend more on the types of “high-touch” service spending unavailable during the pandemic, like travel, movies and dining in restaurants, once a majority is vaccinated (Chart 12). Chart 11Canadians Are Ready To Have Fun Once Again All of the Canadian survey data is sending a clear message: a faster vaccine rollout will leader to much faster spending by consumers and businesses. 2) Signs Of Financial Stability Risks Highly-indebted Canadians' love affair with real estate has always concerned the BoC. While a combination of cutting policy interest rates to zero and ramping up QE helped stabilize Canadian financial markets during the 2020 pandemic shock, it has also set off a new surge of housing speculation. According to the Bloomberg Nanos consumer survey, 67% of Canadians now expect house prices to appreciate. The demand for homes has given a lift to the Canadian economy through a surge in new housing starts (residential investment is 8% of Canadian real GDP), while pushing national house price inflation back above 10% (Chart 13). Chart 12A Surge In "High-Touch" Spending Awaits Canadian Herd Immunity As already indebted Canadian households pile on more debt to partake in another national home-buying party, the BoC must now concern itself with the potential financial stability risks from a too-rapid rise in housing values. Chart 13Yet Another Canadian Housing Boom In a recent speech, BoC Deputy Governor Toni Gravelle noted that the BoC had to introduce QE in 2020 to help fight COVID-related dysfunction across a variety of Canadian financial markets, including government bonds where liquidity dried up.3 Gravelle also noted that the BoC would begin to dial back QE once it was clear that financial markets no longer needed the support from QE. With Canadian equities booming and Canadian corporate bond spreads near the lowest levels of the past decade (Chart 14), it seems clear that the BoC can begin dialing back its government bond purchase program if it is no longer necessary and likely fueling another housing bubble. 3) Additional Large Fiscal Stimulus The governing Canadian Liberal government of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau delivered a massive amount of fiscal stimulus to the pandemic-stricken Canadian economy in 2020. In the 2021/22 federal budget announced yesterday, another huge burst of spending was introduced, equal to C$101bn or 4.2% of Canadian GDP over the next three years. The spending was described as another COVID relief package, but included many long-term programs like national child care, raising the minimum wage and boosting green investments. According to the projections from the latest IMF World Fiscal Monitor, the “fiscal thrust” for Canada – the change in the cyclically-adjusted primary budget balance as a share of GDP - was projected to turn from a stimulus of +9% in 2020 to a drag of -2% in 2021 (Chart 15). The spending announced in the latest budget will effectively eliminate that drag for the next three years. This will provide a major lift to an economy already likely to see booming post-pandemic growth. Chart 14BoC QE No Longer Necessary Chart 15No Fiscal Drag Now Expected In 2021 Chart 16Canadian Real Yields Are Too Low Given the combination of expanding vaccinations, surging confidence, a renewed housing boom and soaring financial markets, it will be difficult for the BoC to maintain its current policy settings for much longer. This is a central bank that engaged in QE reluctantly last year and numerous BoC officials have stated – even in the worst days of the global pandemic - that they would begin to remove accommodation once it was no longer needed. Interest rate markets have already moved to price in a full-blown BoC tightening cycle. The Canadian OIS curve now discounts “liftoff” (a full 25bp rate hike) in October 2022, with 163bps of rate hikes priced in to the end of 2024 (Chart 16). The projected path of rates is below the BoC’s inflation forecasts to 2023. Thus, the implied Canadian real policy rate is expected to remain negative over the next two years – even though the BoC estimates that the neutral policy rate range is 1.75% to 2.75%, or -0.25% to +0.75% in real terms after subtracting the midpoint of the BoC’s 1-3% inflation target band. In other words, Canadian interest rate markets are vulnerable to any BoC shift in a less dovish direction, as seems increasingly likely sometime in the next few months. Our BoC Monitor is rapidly moving out of the “easier policy required” zone (Chart 17), and the rapid improvement in the Canadian employment situation suggests the BoC will be under more pressure to begin signaling a path towards withdrawing policy accommodation. This will start with an announced tapering of QE purchases, perhaps even ahead of any signals from the Fed that it is doing the same (Chart 18). This justifies a more cautious stance on Canadian fixed income exposure. Chart 17Downgrade Canadian Government Bonds To Underweight Chart 18Could The BoC Start Tapering Before The Fed? While a BoC tapering announcement before the Fed would likely put upward pressure on the Canadian dollar versus the US dollar, that would be something the BoC could live with if the economy was rapidly gaining strength – especially as our currency strategists believe the “loonie” to be undervalued. Thus, we are formally downgrading our strategic recommended allocation to Canadian government bonds to underweight (2 out of 5, see table on page 16). We are also maintaining our recommended below-benchmark duration exposure within dedicated Canadian bond portfolios. We are also cutting the allocation to Canada to underweight in our model bond portfolio and placing the proceeds in both, the US and core Europe (see pages 14-15). Bottom Line: The Canadian economy is gaining significant positive momentum, with an increased pace of vaccinations boosting optimism despite a third wave of COVID-19. We now see a growing risk that the Bank of Canada shifts to a less dovish policy stance sometime in the next few months, led by a tapering of its bond buying. Downgrade Canadian government bonds to underweight in global fixed income portfolios.   Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see BCA Research Foreign Exchange Strategy/Global Fixed Income Strategy Special Report, "Will The Canadian Recovery Lead Or Lag The Global Cycle?", dated February 12, 2021, available at fes.bcaresearch.com and gfis.bcaresearch.com. 2 That Canadian return is virtually the same after hedging into US dollars, hence that local currency return can be compared to the US dollar denominated Treasury market return. 3https://www.bankofcanada.ca/2021/03/market-stress-relief-role-bank-canadas-balance-sheet Recommendations The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

ハイライト もし完全に実施されれば、バイデン大統領の メイド・イン・アメリカ税制プラン はS&P 500の利益を約8%押し下げることになります。私たちはいくつかの提案された税制措置が弱められると予想しており、実際の影響は利益が5%減少する程度になると見ています。 強い経済成長と緩和的な金融政策からの継続的な支援を考えれば、投資家は短期的な増税の影響をやすやすと受け流す可能性が高いです。 しかし長期を見渡すと、米国の税率が引き上げられ続け、最終的に株価に悪影響を及ぼす水準に達するだろうと考える理由が四つあります。第一に、実効の米国法人税率は依然として非常に低いこと。第二に、トランプ政権の減税が投資支出を押し上げなかったことにより、最終的に減税を完全に元に戻しやすくなっていること。第三に、債券利回りの上昇は借入の増加よりも増税で歳出を賄う方が得策にしてしまうこと。第四に、そして最も重要なのは、企業と富裕層への増税に有利に働く政治的な風向きが変わりつつあることです。 民主党はしばらくの間、経済問題で左傾化してきました。一方で保守的な共和党員は、いまや自分たちを嫌うように見える“ウォーク（woke）”な企業群に対する減税をなぜ支持すべきか自問し始めています。 米国の企業部門は自らの利益を擁護してくれる政党を失うリスクに直面しています。したがって、短期的な株式の見通しは依然として明るいものの、長期的見通しは次第に暗くなっています。 バイデンの税制プラン 3月31日、バイデン大統領は アメリカン・ジョブズ・プラン を発表しました。本プランは公共インフラ等に対し、8年間にわたって合計2.25兆ドルの新たな連邦支出を提案しています。メイド・イン・アメリカ税制プラン に概説されているように、バイデン政権はこの新たな支出パッケージの財源として今後15年間で2兆ドルの税収を確保しようとしています。 税制プランの最も重要な三つの条項は次の通りです： 米国内の法人税率を21%から28%に引き上げること。これにより税率はトランプ減税前の水準（35%）の中間点に戻ることになります。法人利益の世界的配分やその他の要因を考慮すると、こうした増税はS&P 500の利益を約4%押し下げることになります。 米企業の海外利益に対する最低税率の引き上げ。バイデン政権はGlobal Intangible Low-Taxed Income（GILTI）の最低税率を10.5%から21%へ倍増することを提案しています。また、Foreign-Derived Intangible Income控除（FDII）を廃止する計画です。これら二つの措置はS&P 500の利益をさらに約3.5%押し下げることになります。 「ブック・インカム」（すなわち企業が株主に報告する利益）に対する15%の最低税。年間利益が20億ドルを超える法人に適用されます。財務省はこの税の対象となる企業は45社になると見積もっています。これはS&P 500の利益をさらに0.5%押し下げます。 これらを合わせると、S&P 500の利益は約8%減少します。実際には、影響は5%前後に近いと考えています。バイデン案にはクリーン・エネルギーや研究開発（R&D）などを対象とした各種税額控除が含まれており、これが一部の増税を相殺するはずです。また最終的な法人税率は28%に達しない可能性が高いです。重要なスイング票であるウェストバージニア州の上院議員ジョー・マンチンは既に25%で抑えることを好むと述べています。 何が既に織り込まれているか？ チャート 1 増税で最も打撃を受ける可能性のある企業群は好調に推移している 増税で最も損失を被る可能性のある企業は好調に推移している 増税で最も損失を被る可能性のある企業は好調に推移している 私たちのデータの読み取りでは、増税の影響はアナリストの利益予想や市場の期待のいずれにもほとんど織り込まれていないようです。 チャート 1 はゴールドマンの「Formerly High Tax（以前は高税）」と「Formerly Low Tax（以前は低税）」の株式バスケットのパフォーマンスを示しています。以前高税だった企業はトランプの減税で最も恩恵を受け、減税が巻き戻された場合には最も損をすることが想定されます。それにもかかわらず、これらはジョージア州の決選投票で上院が民主党に渡って以来、低税の同業者をアウトパフォームしています。 同様に、利益見通しも増税の見込みに反応していません。これは驚くべきことではありません。チャート 2 は、アナリストが利益見積りを調整したのはドナルド・トランプ大統領がTax Cuts and Jobs Actに署名して法制化した2017年12月22日を過ぎてからであったことを示しています。当時と同様に、アナリストは最終的な税制パッケージの詳細を待ってから推計を変えるように見えます。 チャート 2 アナリストは増税の可能性を反映して利益見積りを調整していない アナリストは、税金の増加の可能性を織り込んで利益予想を修正していない アナリストは、税金の増加の可能性を織り込んで利益予想を修正していない 当面は景気循環のダイナミクスが税制より重要 投資コミュニティが増税を織り込んでいないことは株式への逆風ではありますが、控えめな逆風と表現するのが適切でしょう。IBESの推計は依然として2022年のS&P 500企業の利益成長を15%と示しています。来年に企業利益の上昇を阻むには非現実的に大きな税負担が必要になります。 国際通貨基金（IMF）が数週間前に発表した最新の経済見通しは、2022年の米実質GDPが3.5%成長すると予想しており、これはファンドが1月に想定していた水準より1ポイント高い数字です（表 1）。株式リターンと経済成長には強い相関があるため、株式の強気相場は増税があっても生き残る可能性が高いです（チャート 3）。 表 1 成長は依然として堅調 ウォーク資本への課税 ウォーク資本への課税 チャート 3 経済成長が強いときに株は通常債券をアウトパフォームする 景気が強いとき、エクイティは通常、ボンドを上回る 景気が強いとき、エクイティは通常、ボンドを上回る   もちろん、いくつかの銘柄は増税によって打撃を受ける可能性があります。テクノロジーセクターは特に脆弱で、現在S&P 500の中でも最も低い実効税率の一つを享受しているためです（チャート 4）。テック企業は特許のような無形資産からの所得をオフショアの税制回避地に振り向けることにも非常に長けており、まもなく強化されるであろう内国歳入庁（IRS）の標的になる可能性があります。1 現在、私たちはグロース株よりバリュー株を支持しています。増税がテックのような成長セクターに不均衡にマイナスの影響を与える可能性があるという事実は、この見解を強化します。 チャート 4 テックは増税に脆弱である ウォーク・キャピタルへの課税 ウォーク・キャピタルへの課税   増税：長期トレンドの始まりか？ 増税が株価に与える短期的影響についてはそれほど心配していませんが、より長期的な結果については懸念しています。以下で論じるように、バイデンは今後の支出イニシアティブ（例えば今後提示される アメリカン・ファミリーズ・プラン）を賄うために所得税やキャピタルゲイン税を引き上げる可能性が高いだけでなく、法人税を引き上げ続けようという圧力は彼の政権を超えて持続するでしょう。その理由は四つあります： 理由 #1：実効の米国法人税率はいまだ非常に低い チャート 5 法人税収は低い 法人税収は低い 法人税収は低い 2018年4月、Tax Cuts and Jobs Act が施行されて4か月後、議会予算局（CBO）は2019年に米国企業が支払う法人税を2760億ドルと予測しました。しかし最終的に企業が支払ったのは2300億ドルに過ぎませんでした。2 米国の法人所得税収は2018–19年にGDP比でわずか1%にとどまり、2013–17年の半分でした（チャート 5）。ロナルド・レーガンの2期目には、米国企業は約30%の実効税率に直面していました。今日ではそれが15%未満です（チャート 6）。GDP比で見ると、米国政府が徴収する法人税収はほとんどの他のOECD諸国より低くなっています（チャート 7）。   チャート 6 経済全体の実効法人税率は30年以上にわたり縮小してきた 経済全体の実効法人税率は30年以上にわたり縮小し続けている 経済全体の実効法人税率は30年以上にわたり縮小し続けている チャート 7 米国の法人課税は高くない ウォーク資本への課税 ウォーク資本への課税 チャート 8 トランプ氏はIRSに狙われる不運に見舞われた ウォーク資本への課税 ウォーク資本への課税 さらに、米国政府は時に支払われるべき金を集めようとすらしません。資産200億ドル超の法人に対する監査は2011年以降で50%減少しています。年収100万ドル超の個人に対する監査は80%減少しています（チャート 8）。今週上院で証言したチャック・レッティグ内国歳入庁長官は、税の脱漏が政府に年間1兆ドルの損失をもたらしていると推定しました。 理由 #2：トランプの減税が投資支出を押し上げられなかったことが、最終的に減税を完全に逆転しやすくする もしトランプの減税が投資支出を押し上げていたなら、これらが財政赤字に与えるマイナスの影響を見過ごしやすくなったでしょう。しかし証拠は、法人税率の引き下げが資本支出を促進する効果はほとんどなかったことを示しています。 チャート 9 は、Tax Cuts and Jobs Act 可決後の2年間で資本支出がGDP比でほとんど増加していないことを示しています。国際通貨基金によれば、減税のうちわずか5分の1だけが資本投資や研究開発支出の資金に使われました。3 同様に、Hanlon、Hoopes、Slemrodの研究では、S&P 500企業のカンファレンスコールで減税を受けて資本支出を増やす計画について言及した企業は4分の1未満であったと報告されています。4 チャート 9 トランプの減税は投資をほとんど押し上げなかった トランプの減税は投資を促す効果がほとんどなかった トランプの減税は投資を促す効果がほとんどなかった チャート 10 設備投資と知的財産は長持ちしない 事業用設備と知的財産は長持ちしない 事業用設備と知的財産は長持ちしない   なぜ企業投資はあまり上昇しなかったのでしょうか。一つの答えは、利益への課税は資本投資への課税とは同じではないということです。付録1が説明するように、利息費用が税控除の対象である場合、低い法人税は借入を通じて賄われる資本支出に大きな影響を与えない可能性があります。 住宅のような長寿命資産とは異なり、企業の資本ストックの多くは比較的寿命が短い（チャート 10）。事業用機器やソフトウェアの需要は、資本コストよりも総需要の見通しに依存します。 最後に、私たちが 「不平等が量的緩和をもたらした、逆ではない」 と題した報告書で説明したように、今日の企業利益の大部分は何らかの形の独占的な力に帰せられます。標準的な経済理論は、独占的な超過利潤に課税しても生産や投資が減るとは限らないことを示唆しています。 理由 #3：債券利回りの上昇は、借入増加より増税で歳出を賄うことをより合理的にする 金利が依然として極めて低い水準にある間は、増税で政府支出を賄う必要性は差し迫っていません。これは特に、長期的に経済成長（したがって税収）を押し上げると合理的に期待されるインフラ支出に当てはまります。 チャート 11 現状のままだと米国の利払いは急増する 米国の利払いは現状のままでは急増する 米国の利払いは現状のままでは急増する しかし金利が上昇すれば、政府は利払い費の急増に直面するよりも増税を選ぶ方が有利と考えるでしょう。米国を含む多くの経済で公的債務水準は非常に高いため、金利上昇は社会保障プログラムから債券保有者への資金移転を引き起こします。これは有権者に人気がありません。 議会予算局は、歳出削減などの措置が講じられない場合、今後数十年で連邦政府の利払いが急速に膨らむと見積もっています（チャート 11）。次に論じるように、これらの措置は支出削減よりも増税の形を取る可能性が高いでしょう。   理由 #4：企業や富裕層への増税に有利な政治的風向きが強まっている 民主党はしばらくの間左へ移動しています。2001年には「政府が我が国の問題を解決するためにもっと役割を果たすべきだ」と答えた民主党支持者は50%でした。今日ではその割合は83%です（チャート 12）。 チャート 12 民主党支持者はより大きな政府を望んでいる ウォーク資本への課税 ウォーク資本への課税 チャート 13 社会保障・医療関係の大型歳出は今後も増え続ける 社会保障と医療の高額支出は今後も増え続ける 社会保障と医療の高額支出は今後も増え続ける 共和党は小さな政府を好む傾向を示し続けていますが、これは長続きしないかもしれません。メディケアと社会保障は連邦の非利子支出の40%以上を消費しています。両プログラム（特にメディケア）への支出は今後急速に増加する見込みです（チャート 13）。高齢者の政治的志向が共和党寄りである程度あるなら、これは高齢者向け給付を維持するために共和党が増税を支持する傾向を強める可能性があります。 企業や富裕層が社会的にリベラルな政策を支持する傾向が強まっていることは、保守的な共和党員が、なぜ自分たちを嫌うように見える人々や企業への減税を支持し続けるべきかを自問する原因になっています。昨年11月、ジョー・バイデンは米国で最も裕福な郡で20ポイントの差をつけて勝利しましたが、トランプの支持は最も貧しい郡で上昇しました（チャート 14）。この傾向を反映して、「コーポレート・アメリカにほとんど信頼を置いていない」と答えた共和党員の割合は2018年2月の19%から2021年3月には30%に上昇しました（チャート 15）。   チャート 14 民主党は富裕層層で着実に支持を拡大している ウォーク・キャピタルへの課税 ウォーク・キャピタルへの課税 チャート 15 共和党支持者は企業CEOに対してより懐疑的に ウォーク資本への課税 ウォーク資本への課税 共和党支持者の中で、法人税を引き上げることを支持する人の割合は引き下げを支持する人の2倍以上になっています（チャート 16）。全国的には、73%のアメリカ人が企業の影響力に不満を抱いており、これは2001年から25ポイントの上昇です（チャート 17）。 チャート 16 より多くのアメリカ人が富裕層に課税することを望んでいる ウォーク資本への課税 ウォーク資本への課税 チャート 17 大企業に対する態度の悪化 ウォーク資本への課税 ウォーク資本への課税 世論の変化を踏まえれば、バイデンの税制案に対する共和党の反応がいかに「元気がない」ものだったかはさほど驚くべきことではありません。党の指導者たちはプランを形式的に非難した後、迅速に「ウォーク」企業を攻撃する立場に転じました。 ジョージア州の新しい選挙法に対する企業の反応について述べる中で、上院共和党院内総務ミッチ・マコーネルは「我々は権力と富を持つ人々による国民を誤導し脅すための組織的なキャンペーンを目撃している」 と述べました。さらに彼は続けて、「選挙法から環境問題、過激な社会政策、第二改正に至るまで、民間セクターの一部はウォークな並行政府のように振る舞うことに手を出し続けている。企業が憲法秩序の外から我が国を極左の群衆に乗っ取られる手段となれば、重大な結果を招くことになるだろう」と述べました。 私たちが予想するようにこの傾向が続けば、米国の企業部門は自らの利益を守る政党を失うでしょう。したがって短期的な株式の見通しは依然として明るいものの、長期的な見通しはますます暗くなっています。   Peter Berezin チーフ・グローバル・ストラテジスト pberezin@bcaresearch.com   付録1：法人利益への増税が投資を減らすのはどんなときか？ ある企業が機械を1,000ドルで購入するかどうかを検討しているとします。企業は外部の貸出・借入の利回り、すなわち外部金利 r を8%と直面していると仮定します。 付随する表は、機械が生み出す内部収益率（その機械が生成する投資収益）によって企業の利益がどのように変わるかを示しています。 まず、企業が機械の購入を新たな負債の発行で賄う場合を考えます。ここでは内部収益率が10%で機械が永久に使える（すなわち減価償却しない）と仮定します。この場合、機械は年間100ドルの営業収入を生みます。80ドルの利息費用を差し引いた後、企業の税引前利益は20ドルになります（例A）。 企業の所得税率が20%で利息が完全に税控除されるとすると、企業は20*0.2＝4ドルの税金を支払い、税後利益は16ドルになります（例B）。 税金が企業の税後利益を減らしたことに注意してください。とはいえ、それは機械を購入するインセンティブを消滅させるものではありません。20ドルが16ドルになっても、16ドルはゼロより良いのです。 したがって、この単純な例では、資本設備の購入が借入で賄われ、利息支払が完全に税控除される場合、利益課税の導入は投資するか否かの最終判断に影響を与えません。 利息が税控除されない場合は状況が変わります。この場合、企業が機械を買うか否かで無差別になるためには内部収益率が r/(1-t) まで上昇する必要があります。上の例では、内部収益率は8%/(1-0.2)=10%に上がらなければなりません。このとき企業は100ドルの営業利益を得て、その利益に20ドルの税を支払い、80ドルの利息を支払った後にトントンになります（例C）。 利息支払が税控除されない場合、株式による資金調達で新しい資本設備に投資するか否かの計算は、借入の場合と似ています。株式による資金調達を考える最良の方法は、企業が機械を購入した後にその機械の市場価格がいくらになるかを考えることです。税がなく内部収益率が10%であれば、市場価格は100/0.08＝1,250ドルになります（例D）。企業は1,000ドルで買えるので購入するのが合理的です。 もし機械のオーナーがその機械が生み出す所得の流れに対して20%の利益税を支払わなければならないなら、市場価値は80/0.08＝1,000ドルになります（例E）。この時点で企業は機械を購入するかどうかに無差別になります。 機械が永久に持たないという仮定を放棄した場合はどうでしょうか。主な違いは、機械を購入するかどうかの決定が資本コストの変化に対して鈍感になることです。例えば、機械が1年しか持たないとすると、その1年で得られる収益が著しく高くなければ企業にとって購入する価値が出ません（例F）。これにより、機械購入の決定は金利よりも景気循環、特に総需要の見通しにより依存するようになります。   付録 表 1 ウォーク・キャピタルへの課税 ウォーク・キャピタルへの課税 脚注 1 Jed Graham, “バイデンの税制案：Amazon、Google、Facebook、Apple、Microsoftへの影響,” インベスターズ・ビジネス・デイリー (2021年4月8日). 2 “議会予算局の2019会計年度ベースライン見積りの正確性,” 議会予算局（Congressional Budget Office） (2019年12月). 3 Emanuel Kopp, Daniel Leigh, Susanna Mursula, and Suchanan Tambunlertchai, “2017年のTax Cuts and Jobs Act以降の米国投資,” 国際通貨基金（IMF）ワーキングペーパー (2019年5月31日). 4 Michelle Hanlon, Jeffrey L. Hoopes, and Joel Slemrod, “Tax Reform Made Me Do It!” NBER ワーキングペーパー 25283 (2018年11月). グローバル・インベストメント・ストラテジー ビュー・マトリックス ウォーク資本への課税 ウォーク資本への課税 特別トレードの推奨 ウォーク資本への課税 ウォーク資本への課税 現在のマクロクアント・モデル・スコア ウォーク資本への課税 ウォーク資本への課税

ハイライト 継続中かつ予想される財政・金融刺激策とCOVID-19対策の進展を受けた世界成長の強まりは、主要データ提供者による今年の石油需要前提を押し上げています。 当社は本月の需給バランスで2021年の世界需要見積りを64万b/d引き上げて98.25mm b/dとし、OPEC 2.0が脆弱な回復を乱さないようにブレント価格を$60/bbl付近に保つための必要な調整を行うと想定しています。 当社の2022年および2023年のブレント予測はそれぞれ$65/bbl、$75/bblで維持します。 コモディティ市場は、米国、ロシア、中国およびそれらの関係国・同盟国を巻き込む武力衝突の高まる確率を無視しています。ロシアはウクライナ国境に軍を集結させ、米国に干渉するなと警告しました。中国はフィリピン沖に戦艦を集結させ、台湾の防空識別圏への侵入を続けており、米軍を緊張させています。意図的あるいは偶発的な交戦が発生すれば石油価格は急騰します。 価格は上下双方にリスクがあふれています。武力衝突のリスクに加え、ワクチン配布の加速は回復を前倒しし、当社予測を超える価格上昇をもたらす可能性があります。一方で、ブラジル、インド、欧州での死亡者数および入院者数の上昇が示すように、COVID-19によるロックダウン再発の下振れリスクは依然として存在します（今週のチャート）。 特集 石油需要推計—当社の推計も含め—は、主要経済におけるCOVID-19の抑制に向けた測定可能な進展と、特に米国発の潤沢な財政・金融刺激策を受けて回復しています。1 IMFのGDP上方修正を受け、本月の需給バランスで当社は2021年の世界需要見積りを64万b/d引き上げて98.25mm b/dとしました。当社のモデリングでは、脆弱な回復を損なわないようにブレント価格を$60/bbl付近に保つために、サウジアラビア王国（KSA）とロシアが主導する生産者連合であるOPEC 2.0が必要な調整を行うと想定しています。 通常とは異なり、石油需要回復の初期段階は先進国市場（DM）がけん引すると見ています。先進国の代理としてOECDの石油消費を用いています（チャート2）。その後、来年以降は新興市場（EM）経済が再び成長を主導し、2023年にかけて続きます。 今週のチャート COVID-19の死者数・入院者数が世界的回復を脅かす 原油価格の上振れリスクが高まっている 原油価格の上振れリスクが高まっている チャート2 先進国（DM）の需要が今年急増 DMの需要が今年急増 DMの需要が今年急増 OPEC 2.0の余剰生産能力の吸収 当社はサウジアラビア王国（KSA）とロシアが主導する生産者連合であるOPEC 2.0を市場で支配的な生産者としてモデリングし続けています。今年予想する成長はOPEC 2.0の余剰生産能力のかなりの部分を吸収する見込みであり、その大半—約8mm b/dのうち約6mm b/d—がKSAにあります（チャート3）。 主要生産国の余剰生産能力は、米国のシェール生産者がリグと人員を動員して新規生産を集積ラインや主要パイプラインに導入するよりも速く、回復する需要に対応することを可能にします。 当社は米国のシェール生産者を市場価格を受け入れるコホート（価格受容群）としてモデル化しており、市場が許す限り生産すると想定しています。2020年に9.22mm b/dまで落ち込んだ米国生産は、今年9.56mm b/d、2022年に10.65mm b/d、2023年に11.18mm b/dまで回復すると見ています（チャート4）。米国内コンチネンタル産（Lower 48）の生産成長はシェールが主導し、各年とも米国総生産の約80%を占める見込みです。 チャート3 コアOPEC 2.0の余剰生産能力がまず需要増に反応する OPEC 2.0のコア予備生産能力は需要の増加に最初に反応する OPEC 2.0のコア予備生産能力は需要の増加に最初に反応する チャート4 シェールは価格受容群における限界供給源 シェールは価格受容群における限界バレルである シェールは価格受容群における限界バレルである 供給面でのOPEC 2.0の支配的地位は、余剰生産能力が枯渇するまでは非連合生産者に経済的地代を奪われることを許さず、非連合生産者にとっては抑制要因となります。その後、価格受容群は資本を呼び込む能力が限られているため、内部留保から多くの探査・生産（E+P）活動を賄う可能性が高いと考えられます。株主は配当の維持・成長、あるいは株式買戻しによる資本還元を要求し続けるでしょう。これが収益性のある企業に生産成長を限定する要因になります。 当社はOPEC 2.0連合の生産規律が供給を需要のわずか下にとどめ、在庫が減少し続けるようにするだろうと見ています。これはCOVID-19パンデミックで需要が破壊されたにもかかわらず実際に起きたことです（チャート5）。これらのモデリング前提から、当社は供給と需要が2023年にかけて均衡へ向かって動き続けると予想しています（表1）。 チャート5 2021年の需給バランス 2021年の需給バランス 2021年の需給バランス 表1 BCA 世界原油 需給バランス（MMb/d、ベースケース） 原油価格の上方リスクが高まっている 原油価格の上方リスクが高まっている 当社はこの需給均衡化が恒常的な物理的不足を誘発し、在庫は2023年にかけて減少し続けると予想しています（チャート6）。在庫が取り崩されるにつれて、OPEC 2.0の支配的な生産者地位はブレントおよびWTIのフォワードカーブをバックワーデーションに保つことを可能にします（チャート7）。2 当社は2022年および2023年のブレント予測をそれぞれ$65/bbl、$75/bblで維持しています（チャート8）。 チャート6 OPEC 2.0の政策は供給を需要の下に置き続ける... OPEC 2.0政策は供給を需要より下回る水準に保ち続けている… OPEC 2.0政策は供給を需要より下回る水準に保ち続けている… チャート7 OECD在庫は2023年までに減少 OECD Inventories Fall to 2023 OECD Inventories Fall to 2023 チャート8 世界経済回復に伴いブレント予測は上昇 世界経済の回復に伴い、ブレントは上昇が予想される 世界経済の回復に伴い、ブレントは上昇が予想される 価格の両方向リスクが充満 当社見解には上振れおよび下振れのリスクが数多くあります。 上振れの例として、英国と米国のワクチン配布の立ち上げ方が示唆に富みます。 両国とも当初はつまづきました。特に米国は1月時点でも戦略が整っていないように見えました。米国が調達と配布を本格化させると接種率は急上昇し、現在では米国内で「通常の」独立記念日（Fourth of July）を迎える見通しにあるようです。英国は今週再開を開始しました。両国は2021年第3四半期に集団免疫を達成すると予想されています。3 調達と配布を誤ったEUは、英国と米国の教訓から利益を得て2021年第4四半期に集団免疫を達成するとマッキンゼーの調査は示しています。このスケジュールの前倒しは、より強い成長と当社予測を上回る石油価格につながるでしょう。 次の大きな課題は、パンデミックが加速し変異株の発生・拡散に理想的な環境を提供している新興経済地域（特にそのような地域）にワクチンを供給することです。ブラジル、インド、欧州での死亡者数・入院者数の上昇が示すように、大規模なCOVID-19によるロックダウンの再発リスクは依然として残ります。 戦の狼煙（Cry Havoc） 当社が見るもう一つの大きな上振れリスクは、米国、ロシア、中国およびそれらの関係国・同盟国を巻き込む武力衝突です。 現時点でコモディティ市場はこれらのリスクを無視しています。戦争のレベルには達していないにせよ、機動的な交戦―航空機が撃墜されたり南シナ海で艦船が交戦するような事態―の確率は日々高まっています。 これは驚くべきことではなく、当社の同僚であるBCAリサーチの地政学ストラテジー（Geopolitical Strategy）が最近指摘した通りです。4 実際、マット・ガートケン（Matt Gertken）が率いる当該サービスは、バイデン政権が就任直後からロシアと中国によってこの種の試練にさらされるだろうと警告していました。 ロシアはウクライナ国境に軍を集結させ、米国に干渉するなと警告しています。中国はフィリピン沿岸に軍艦を集結させ、台湾の防空識別圏への侵入を続けており、米軍を緊張させています。米露、米中間の政治対話はますます激しくなっており、近い将来に和らぐ兆しは見えません。意図的であれ偶発的であれ交戦が発生すれば戦争の遁走を許し、石油価格は一時的に急騰する可能性があります。 最後に、当社が想定するようにイランが核合意（すなわち共同包括的行動計画：JCPOA）を西側諸国と再締結できれば、イランは「正式な」石油輸出国としての復帰を余儀なくされ、OPEC 2.0はこれを受け入れざるを得なくなります。JCPOAは2018年に当時のトランプ大統領によって破棄されました。 これは困難を伴う可能性があります。当社は2014–16年の石油価格崩壊が、サウジが市場シェア戦争を仕掛けて価格を暴落させ、2010年末から2014年半ばにかけて続いた1バレル当たり$100超の価格をイランに許さないための行動だったと考えています。OPEC 2.0、特にKSAは米国–イラン交渉に公には関与していません。しかし2014年に開始された壊滅的な市場シェア戦争の後、KSAおよびOPEC 2.0はJCPOA後にイランの市場復帰を受け入れたことを想起する価値があります。   ロバート・P・ライアン チーフ コモディティ＆エネルギー・ストラテジスト rryan@bcaresearch.com アシュウィン・シャイアム リサーチアソシエイト コモディティ＆エネルギー戦略 ashwin.shyam@bcaresearch.com   コモディティ概況 エネルギー： 強気 ブレントとWTI価格は、EIAの週間石油在庫報告が2021年4月9週終わりで米国の原油・製品在庫が910万バレル減少したことを示した後に急騰しました。これは商業用原油と蒸留油在庫の大幅な取り崩し（それぞれ590万バレル、210万バレル）が主導しました。これらの取り崩しは過去一週間に主要データ機関（EIA、IEA、OPEC）による世界需要の概ね強気な上方修正を背景としています。これらの評価は、精製製品需要、すなわち「product supplied」が4月9週終わりで日量110万b/d跳ね上がったというEIAデータに裏付けられています。ジョンソン＆ジョンソンの接種問題という挫折があったにもかかわらずワクチン配布が勢いを増しており、在庫の取り崩しと需要改善が上昇の触媒となったようです。米ドルの弱含みや米国の実質金利低下も追い風になりました。 ベースメタル： 強気 今週初めニッケル価格は下落しました。中国の国営新華社通信が中国の李克強首相が上昇するコモディティ価格の中で原材料市場の規制強化の必要性を強調したと報じ、企業の業績に圧力がかかっているとのことでした（チャート9）。この発言は中国のトップ経済顧問である劉鶴が先週コモディティ価格の追跡を当局に求めた後に出たものです。ニッケル価格はこの報を受けて今週初めにトン当たり約$500下落し、ロンドン金属取引所の取引で火曜日終値時点で$16,114.5/MTで取引されていました。他のベースメタルはこのニュースの影響を受けませんでした。 貴金属： 強気 今週初めに発表された3月の米国インフレデータを受けて米ドルと10年物米国債利回りは低下しました。米国の消費者物価は約9年ぶりの大幅上昇を記録しました。インフレヘッジ需要と米ドル・債利回りの低下が金の購入における機会費用を下げたことが金価格を押し上げました（チャート10）。この不確実性と米国の財政刺激策によるインフレ圧力の高まりが金需要を増加させます。スポットのCOMEX金は火曜日終値で$1,746.20/ozで取引されていました。 穀物・ソフトコモディティ： 中立 USDAの報告によると、米国のトウモロコシ期末在庫は13.5億ブッシェルで、市場予想の13.9億ブッシェルや先月の省の1.50億ブッシェル推定を下回っています（agriculture.comの集計）。世界のトウモロコシ在庫は2.839億トンで、市場予想の2.845億トンおよび省の推定2.876億トンを下回りました。 チャート9 ベースメタルは強気に動く ベースメタルは強気になっている ベースメタルは強気になっている チャート10 金価格の上昇 金価格が上昇へ 金価格が上昇へ   脚注 1     当社が2021年4月8日に発表したUS-Russia Pipeline Standoff Could Push LNG Prices Higherをご覧ください。簡単に言えば、IMFは今年および来年の成長率見通しをそれぞれ6%と4.4%に引き上げ、2021年1月の更新時点と比べてほぼ1ポイントの上方修正を行いました。 2     バックワーデーションのフォワードカーブ—先物の期近価格が期先価格を上回る状態—は需給タイトさを示す市場のシグナルです。精製業者が将来よりも今の原油の入手を高く評価していることを意味します。これはちょうど投資家が明日引き渡される1ドル札に対して1ドルを支払うことを好み、1年後に引き渡される同じ1ドル札には今日98セントしか払わないかもしれないのと同じダイナミクスです。 3    マッキンゼー・アンド・カンパニーが2021年3月26日に発表したWhen will the COVID-19 pandemic end?をご参照ください。 4    BCAの地政学ストラテジーが2021年4月2日に発表した先見的な分析The Arsenal Of Democracyをご覧ください。同レポートは、バイデン政権は中国/台湾、ロシア、イラン、さらには北朝鮮に関する初期のストレス・テストに直面していると指摘しています。ゲーム理論は金融市場が台湾海峡での危機の60%の確率を無視できない理由を説明するのに役立ちます。全面戦争の確率は依然低いものの、台湾は世界で最も重要な地政学的リスクであり続けます。   投資見解とテーマ 推奨事項 戦略的推奨 タクティカルトレード コモディティ価格とプレイ参考表 2021年にクローズしたトレード クローズしたトレードの概要 より高いインフレが到来 より高いインフレが到来

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

Highlights Private-sector savings exploded during the pandemic, swelling the already large global savings glut. Reluctant to sit on excess cash, households shifted some of their funds into the stock market. With corporate buybacks outpacing new share issuance, stock prices had nowhere to go but up. Falling bond yields further supercharged equity valuations. Despite the run-up in stocks, the global equity risk premium – measured as the forward equity earnings yield minus the real bond yield – still stands at about 6%, similar to where it was in late-2009. Using a simple example, we show why investors should hold more stock than the standard 60/40 rule suggests when bond yields are still this low. While bond yields will rise further over the coming years, it is likely to be a slow process. Investors should remain bullish on stocks over a 12-month horizon, favouring non-US equities over their US peers. Did A Surfeit Of Savings Lead To A Shortage Of Assets? Real interest rates have fallen dramatically since the early 1980s (Chart 1). Economic theory posits that lower real rates discourage savings while encouraging spending. Yet, as Chart 2 shows, with the exception of the late-1990s and the mid-2000s – two periods when spending was buoyed first by the dotcom bubble and then by the housing bubble – the US private sector has run a large financial surplus; that is to say, it has consistently spent less than it earned. Private-sector financial balances in most other economies have followed a similar trend. Chart 1Real Bond Yields Have Been Trending Lower Since The 1980s Chart 2The Private Sector Has Been Mostly Running Surpluses Ben Bernanke famously cited chronic private-sector financial surpluses as evidence of a “global savings glut.” The concept of a savings glut is closely related to the concept of demand-side secular stagnation, an idea popularized by Larry Summers prior to his heel-turn towards stimulus skeptic. When the private sector is unable to find enough worthy investment projects to make use of all available savings, the economy will struggle to attain full employment, even in the presence of very low interest rates. The concept of a savings glut is also related to another, less well known, concept: a safe asset shortage. If the private sector earns more than it spends, it must, by definition, accumulate assets. In principle, governments can satiate the demand for safe assets by issuing more bonds. In practice, governments have often been reluctant to run persistently large budget deficits for fear that this could undermine their credibility. Faced with a shortage of safe assets, the private sector has stepped in to fill the void, often with disastrous consequences. Most notably, in the lead-up to the Global Financial Crisis, banks sliced and diced portfolios of risky mortgages with the goal of creating safe assets that could be sold into the market. Most financial crashes occur when investors conclude that the assets they once thought were safe are not so safe after all. This was precisely what happened to mortgage-backed securities during the 2008 mortgage meltdown. The exact same pattern repeated itself two years later when investors finally came around to the seemingly obvious conclusion that Greek government bonds were not as safe as say, German bunds. The Safe Asset Shortage In A Post-Pandemic World This brings us to the present day. After falling from 7% of GDP in 2009 to 3% of GDP in the lead-up to the pandemic, the global private-sector financial balance surged to 11% of GDP in 2020. The IMF expects the global private-sector balance to average 9% of GDP in 2021 before trending lower over the coming years. Arithmetically, the private-sector financial balance must equal the sum of the fiscal deficit and the current account balance.1 By running large budget deficits during the pandemic, governments endowed the private sector with income they otherwise would not have had. This income consisted of transfers (stimulus checks, expanded unemployment benefits, business subsidies, etc.) as well as income generated from direct government spending on goods and services. As of the end of March, we estimate that US households had accumulated about $2.2 trillion (10.5% of GDP) in savings over and above what they would have had in the absence of the pandemic. About 40% of those “excess savings” stemmed from fiscal policy with the remainder reflecting decreased consumption (Chart 3). Chart 3Lower Spending And Higher Income Have Led To Mounting Savings Chart 4Government Largesse Boosted Savings And Fattened Bank Deposits As the private sector’s financial balance increased, so did its asset holdings. Unlike in normal fiscal expansions where governments fund budget deficits by selling debt to the public, this time around, governments largely sold the debt to central banks. The money that governments received from central banks in return was then pumped into the economy, leading to a surge in bank deposits (Chart 4).   The Nature Of Stock Market “Flows” What happened to the money after it reached people’s bank accounts? A popular narrative is that some of it flowed into the stock market. While this description is technically true, it is somewhat misleading in that it conveys the false impression that there was a net inflow of money into stocks. The reality is more nuanced. When I buy some stock, I gain some shares but lose some cash. Conversely, whoever sold me the stock gains some cash and loses some shares. In aggregate, there is no change in either the number of shares or the amount of cash that investors hold. What does change is the value of the shares in relation to the cash that investors hold. My purchase must lift the share price by enough to persuade someone else to part with their shares. If the seller does not want to hold the additional cash, he or she may try to place an order to purchase a different stock that appears more attractively priced. This game of hot potato will only end when the value of the stock market rises by enough that all investors are happy with how much stock they own in relation to how much cash they hold. Rethinking The 60/40 Split The standard investment mantra is that investors should hold 60% of their portfolios in stock and the rest in cash, bonds, and other financial assets. The discussion above casts doubt on this simple rule of thumb. Suppose that Melanie holds $600 in stock and $400 in cash, and that cash earns a real interest rate of 2%. Let us also assume that Melanie requires a 4% equity risk premium. Hence, the equity earnings yield must be 6% (i.e., her $600 in stock must correspond to $36 in earnings).2 Now let us suppose that the central bank cuts the policy rate, so that the real interest rate falls to zero. In order to maintain a 4% equity risk premium, the earnings yield must decline to 4%, which implies that the value of the stock must rise to $900 ($36/0.04=$900). Thus, we have gone from a position where Melanie holds 60% of her portfolio in stock to one where she holds about 69% ($900/$1300) in stock. In other words, even though the equity risk premium did not change at all, the desired ratio of stock-to-cash rose from $600/$400=1.5 to $900/$400=2.25. Let us continue the thought experiment and imagine a scenario where the government sends Melanie and everyone else a stimulus check of $100. Now she has $500 in cash and $900 in stock. If she wants to maintain a stock-to-cash ratio of 2.25, she would need to use some of her cash to buy stock. However, since everyone else is also looking to purchase stock with their stimulus checks, before Melanie has a chance to enter a buy order, she finds that the stock in her portfolio has appreciated to $1125. Since $1125/$500 is equal to 2.25, Melanie cancels her buy order, content with the knowledge that she holds as much stock as she wants. Notice that in this simple example, neither interest rate cuts nor stimulus checks did anything to boost corporate profits. All that happened is that stock prices rose, causing the equity earnings yield to first fall from 6% to 4% after the central bank cut rates, and then fall again from 4% to 3.2% ($36/$1125) after the stimulus checks were sent out. If all of this sounds a bit familiar, it should. The sequence of events described above is precisely what has happened over the past 12 months. And not just to stock prices. As interest rates fell and cash balances swelled, other risky assets such as cryptocurrencies went to the proverbial moon. Is The Party Over? Given that fiscal stimulus has peaked and interest rates cannot be cut any further in the major economies, are stocks set to fall? Not necessarily! The amount of stock that investors choose to hold in relation to their cash balances is a function of animal spirits. While US consumer confidence rebounded in March to the highest level in a year, it still remains well below pre-pandemic levels (Chart 5). The percentage of households in The Conference Board’s survey who expect stock prices to rise over the next 12 months is still around its long-term average (Chart 6). Chart 5Stocks Could Rise Further As Confidence Recovers Chart 6The Percentage Of Households Who Expect Stock Prices To Rise Over The Next 12 Months Is Still Around Its Long-Term Average Fortunately, the US is on target to provide a vaccine shot to everyone who wants one by the end of April.3 As the economy continues to reopen, confidence will rise further. Rising confidence, in turn, may prompt investors to increase their equity holdings. Our US equity strategists expect share buybacks to exceed share issuance over the next 12 months. Thus, the value of equity portfolios will only be able to rise if share prices go up. Outside the US and the UK and a few other smaller economies, the vaccination campaign has gotten off to a rocky start. However, the pace of inoculations is set to accelerate rapidly in the second quarter, which should pave the way to faster global growth. Global equities usually outperform bonds when growth is on the upswing (Chart 7). Chart 7Stocks Usually Outperform Bonds When Economic Growth Is Strong While equity allocations have risen, they are below the level reached in 2000 (Chart 8). Back then, the global equity earnings yield was on par with the real bond yield. Today, the earnings yield is about six percentage points above the bond yield, a similar gap to what prevailed in late-2009 (Chart 9). Chart 8Stock Allocations Have Rebounded, But Remain Below Their 2000 Peak Chart 9The Equity Risk Premium Is At Levels Similar To Late-2009 Granted, today’s high equity risk premium largely reflects the exceptionally low level of bond yields. If bond yields were to move up, the equity risk premium would shrink. While we do think that bond yields will rise by more than expected in the long run, the path to higher yields is likely to be a slow one. Rate expectations 2-to-3 years out tend to move closely in line with the 10-year yield (Chart 10). Already, there is a large gap between market expectations and the Fed dots. Whereas the market expects the Fed to start lifting rates late next year, the median Fed “dot” continues to signal no rate hike at least until 2024 (Chart 11). It is unlikely that market expectations will shift towards an even more aggressive path of rate tightening unless the Fed’s dovish rhetoric turns hawkish. As we discussed in our recently published Second Quarter Strategy Outlook, we do not expect this to happen anytime soon. Thus, with monetary policy still very loose, stocks can continue to grind higher. Chart 10Bond Yields Are Unlikely To Rise Much Unless The Market Lifts Its Estimate Of Where The Fed Funds Rate Will Be 2-To-3 Years Out   Chart 11A Wide Gap Has Opened Up Between Market Expectations And The Fed Dots Regionally, we favour stock markets outside the US. Not only will overseas markets benefit from a rotation in growth from the US to the rest of the world in the second half of this year, but US corporate tax rates are almost certain to rise. We will be exploring the tax issue over the coming weeks.   Peter Berezin Chief Global Strategist pberezin@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Just as the private-sector financial balance is the difference between what the private sector earns and spends, the fiscal balance is the difference between what the government earns and spends. If the fiscal balance is negative, the government runs a deficit. If the fiscal balance is positive, the government runs a surplus. Thus, added together, the private-sector financial balance and the fiscal balance simply equals the difference between what the country as a whole earns and spends which, by definition, is equal to the current account balance. One can also see this point by rewriting the equation Y=C+I+G+X-M as (Y-T)-(C+I)=(G-T)+(X-M) where T is tax revenue, Y-T is private-sector earnings, C+I is what the private sector spends on consumption and capital goods, G-T is the fiscal deficit, and X-M is the current account balance, broadly defined to include not only the trade balance but also net income from abroad. 2 The relative attractiveness of stocks can also be inferred by subtracting the real bond yield from the earnings yield on stocks in order to get an implied equity risk premium (ERP). It is necessary to subtract the real bond yield, rather than the nominal bond yield, from the earnings yield because the earnings yield provides an estimate of the real total expected return to shareholders. For further discussion on this, please see Appendix A of the Global Investment Strategy Special Report, “TINA To The Rescue?” dated August 23, 2019. 3 Mia Sato, “The US is about to reach a surprise milestone: too many vaccines, not enough takers,” MIT Technology Review, March 22, 2021. Global Investment Strategy View Matrix Special Trade Recommendations Current MacroQuant Model Scores

Highlights Continued upgrades to global economic growth – most recently by the IMF this week –will support higher natgas prices.  In our estimation, gas for delivery at Henry Hub, LA, in the coming withdrawal season (November – March) is undervalued at current levels at ~ $2.90/MMBtu. Inventory demand will remain strong during the current April-October injection season, following the blast of colder-than-normal weather in 1Q21 that pulled inventories lower in the US, Europe and Northeast Asia. The odds the US will succeed in halting completion of the final leg of the Russian Nord Stream 2 natural gas pipeline into Germany are higher than the consensus expectation.  Our odds the pipeline will not be completed this year stand at 50%, which translates into higher upside risk for natural gas prices.  We are getting long 1Q22 calls on CME/NYMEX Henry Hub-delivered natgas futures struck at $3.50/MMBtu vs. short 1Q22 $3.75/MMBtu calls at tonight's close.  The probability of Nord Stream 2 cancellation is underpriced, which means European TTF and Asian JKM prices will have to move higher to attract LNG cargoes next winter from the US, if the pipeline is cancelled (Chart of the Week). Feature As major forecasting agencies continue to upgrade global growth prospects, expectations for industrial-commodity demand – energy, bulks, and base metals – also are moving higher. This week, the IMF raised its growth expectations for this year and next to 6% and 4.4%, respectively, nearly a full percentage-point increase versus its January forecast update for 2021.1 This upgrade follows a similar move by the OECD last month.2 In the US, the EIA is expecting industrial demand for natural gas to rise 1.35 Bcf/d this year to 23.9 Bcf/d; versus 2019 levels, industrial demand will be 0.84 Bcf/d higher in 2021. For 2022, industrial demand is expected to be 24.2 Bcf/d. US industrial demand likely will recover faster than the EU's, given the expectation of a stronger recovery on the back of massive fiscal and monetary stimulus. Overall natgas demand in the US likely will move lower this year, given higher natgas prices expected this year and next will incentivize electricity generators to switch to coal at the margin, according to the EIA. Total demand is expected to be 82.9 Bcf/d in the US this year vs. 83.3 Bcf/d last year, owing to lower generator demand. Pipeline-quality gas output in the US – known as dry gas, since its liquids have been removed for other uses – is expected to average 91.4 Bcf/d this year, essentially unchanged. Lower consumption by the generators and flat production will allow US gas inventories to return to their five-year average levels of 3.7 Tcf by the end of October, in the EIA's estimation (Chart 2). Chart of the WeekUS-Russia Geopolitical Risk Underpriced Chart 2US Natgas Inventories Return To Five-Year Average US Liquified Natural Gas (LNG) exports are likely to expand, as Asian and European demand grows (Chart 3). Prior to the boost in US LNG demand from colder weather, exports set monthly records of 9.4 Bcf/d and 9.8 Bcf/d in November and December of last year, respectively, with Asia accounting for the largest share of exports (Chart 4). This also marked the first time LNG exports exceeded US pipeline exports to Mexico and Canada. The EIA is forecasting US LNG exports will be 8.5 bcf/d and 9.2 Bcf/d this year and next, versus pipeline exports of 8.8 Bcf/d and 8.9 Bcf/d in 2021 and 2022, respectively. Chart 3US LNG Exports Continue Growing Chart 4US LNG Exports Set Records In November And December 2020 US LNG exports – and export potential given the size of the resource base at just over 500 Tcf – now are of a sufficient magnitude to be a formidable force in global markets, particularly in Europe. This puts it in direct conflict with Russia, which has targeted Europe as a key market for its pipeline natural gas exports. US-Russia Standoff Looming Over Nord Stream 2 Given the size and distribution of global oil and gas production and consumption, it comes as no surprise national interests can, at times, become as important to pricing these commodities as supply-demand fundamentals. This is particularly true in oil, and increasingly is becoming the case in natural gas. That the same dramatis personae – the US and Russia – should feature in geopolitical contests in oil and gas markets also should not come as a surprise. In an attempt to circumvent transporting its natural gas through Ukraine, Russia is building a 1,230 km underwater pipeline from Narva Bay in the Kingisepp district of the Leningrad region of Russia to Lubmin, near Greifswald, in Germany (Map 1). The Biden administration, like the Trump administration and US Congress, is officially attempting to halt the final leg of the pipeline from being built, although Biden has not yet put America’s full weight into stopping it. Biden claims it will be up to the Europeans to decide what to do. At the same time, any major Russian or Russian-backed military operation in Ukraine could trigger an American action to halt the pipeline in retaliation. Map 1Nord Stream 2 Route In our estimation, there is a 50% chance that the Nord Stream 2 natural gas pipeline will not be completed this year or go into operation as planned given substantial geopolitical risks. The $11 billion pipeline would connect Russia directly to Germany with a capacity of about 55 billion cubic meters, which, combined with the existing Nord Stream One pipeline, would equal 110 BCM in offshore capacity, or 55% of Russia's natural gas exports to Europe in 2019. The pipeline’s construction is 94% complete, with the Russian ship Akademik Cherskiy entering Danish waters in late March to begin laying pipes to finish the final 138-kilometer stretch, according to Reuters. The pipeline could be finished in early August at the pace of 1 kilometer per day.3 The Russian and German governments are speeding up the project to finish it before US-Russia tensions, or the German elections in September, interrupt the construction process again. It is not too late for the US to try to halt the pipeline through sanctions. But for the Americans to succeed, the Biden administration would have to make an aggressive effort. Notably the Biden administration took office with a desire to sharpen US policy toward Russia.4 While Biden seeks Russian engagement on arms reduction treaties and the Iranian nuclear negotiations, he mainly aims to counter Russia, expand sanctions, provide weapons to Ukraine, and promote democracy in Russia’s sphere of influence. The result will almost inevitably be a new US-Russia confrontation, which is already taking shape over Russia’s buildup of troops on the border with Ukraine, where US and Russian meddling could cause civil war to reignite (Map 2). Map 2Russia’s Military Tensions With The West Escalate In Wake Of Biden’s Election And Ukraine’s Renewed Bid To Join NATO Tensions in Ukraine are directly tied to US military cooperation with Ukraine and any possibility that Ukraine will join the NATO military alliance, a red line for Putin. Nord Stream 2 is Russia’s way of bypassing Ukraine but a new US-Russia conflict, especially a Russian attack on Ukraine, would halt the pipeline. The pipeline’s completion would improve Russo-German strategic relations, undercut US liquefied natural gas exports to Germany and the EU, and reduce the US’s and eastern Europe’s leverage over Russia (and Germany). Biden says his administration is planning to impose new sanctions on firms that oversee, construct, or insure the pipeline, and such sanctions are required under American law.5 Yet Biden also wants a strong alliance with Germany, which favors the pipeline and does not want to escalate the conflict with Russia. The American laws against Nord Stream have big loopholes and give the president discretion regarding the use of sanctions, which means Biden would have to make a deliberate decision to override Germany and impose maximum sanctions if he truly wanted to halt construction.6 This would most likely occur if Russia committed a major new act of aggression in Ukraine or against other European democracies. The German policy, under the current ruling coalition led by Chancellor Angela Merkel’s Christian Democratic Union, is to finish the pipeline despite Russia’s conflicts with the West and political repression at home. Russia provides more than a third of Germany’s natural gas imports and this pipeline would bypass eastern Europe’s pipeline network and thus secure Germany’s (and Austria’s and the EU’s) natural gas supply whenever Russia cuts off the flow to Ukraine (through which roughly 40% of Russian natural gas still must pass to reach Europe). Germany's Election And Natgas Politics Germany wants to use natural gas as a bridge while it phases out nuclear energy and coal. Natural gas has grown 2.2 percentage points as a share of Germany’s total energy mix since the Fukushima disaster of 2011, and renewable energy has grown 7.7ppt, while coal has fallen 7.3ppt and nuclear has fallen 2.5ppt (Chart 5). The German federal election on September 26 complicates matters because Merkel and the Christian Democrats are likely to underperform their opinion polls and could even fall from power. They do not want to suffer a major foreign policy humiliation at the hands of the Americans or a strategic crisis with Russia right before the election. They will insist that Biden leave the pipeline alone and will offer other forms of cooperation against Russia in compensation. Therefore, the current German government could push through the pipeline and complete the project even in the face of US objections. But this outcome is not guaranteed. The German Greens are likely to gain influence in the Bundestag after the elections and could even lead the German government for the first time – and they are opposed to a new fossil fuel pipeline that increases Russia’s influence. Chart 5Germany Sees Nord Stream 2 Gas As Bridge To Low-Carbon Economy Hence there is a fair chance that the pipeline does not become operational: either Americans halt it out of strategic interest, or the German Greens halt it out of environmental and strategic interest, or both. True, there is a roughly equal chance that Merkel’s policy status quo survives in Germany, which would result in an operational pipeline. The best case for Germany might be that the current government completes the pipeline physically but the next government has optionality on whether to make it operational. But 50/50 odds of cancellation is a much higher risk than the consensus holds. The Russian policy is to finish Nord Stream 2 while also making an aggressive military stance against the West’s and NATO’s influence in Ukraine. This would expand Russian commodity and energy exports and undercut Ukraine’s natgas transit income. It would also increase Russian leverage over Germany – and it would divide Germany from the eastern Europeans and Americans. A preemptive American intervention would elicit Russian retaliation. The Russians could respond in the strategic sphere or the economic sphere. Economically they could react by cutting off natural gas to Europe, but that would undermine their diplomatic goals, so they would more likely respond by increasing production of natural gas or crude oil to steal American market share. In any scenario Russian retaliation would likely cause global price volatility in one or more energy markets, in addition to whatever volatility is induced by the cancellation of Nord Stream 2 itself. US-Russia tensions are likely to escalate but only Ukraine and Nord Stream 2, or the separate Iranian negotiations, have a direct impact on global energy supply. If Germany goes forward with the pipeline, then Russia would need to be countered by other means. The Americans, not the Germans, would provide these “other means,” such as military support to ensure the integrity of Ukraine and other nations’ borders. The Russians may gain a victory for their energy export strategy but they will never compromise on Ukraine and they will still need to focus on the broader global shift to renewable energy, which threatens their economic model and hence ultimately their regime stability. So, the risk of a market-moving US-Russia conflict can be delayed but probably not prevented (Chart 6). Chart 6US-Russia Conflit Likely Bottom Line: The Nord Stream 2 pipeline is not guaranteed to be completed this year as planned. The US is more likely to force a halt to the Nord Stream 2 pipeline than the consensus holds, especially if Russia attacks Ukraine. If the US fails to do so, then the German election will become the next signpost for whether the pipeline will become operational. If the Americans halt the pipeline, then US-Russian conflict either already erupted or will occur sooner rather than later and will likely impact global oil or natural gas prices. Investment Implications Our subjective assessment of 50% odds the US will succeed in halting completion of the final leg of Nord Stream 2 are higher than the consensus expectation. This translates directly into higher upside risk for natural gas prices in the US and Europe later this year and next. Given our view, we are getting long 1Q22 calls on CME/NYMEX Henry Hub-delivered natgas futures struck at $3.50/MMBtu vs. short 1Q22 $3.75/MMBtu calls at tonight's close. The probability of Nord Stream 2 cancellation is underpriced, which means the odds of higher prices in the LNG market are underpriced (Chart 7). The immediate implication of our view is European TTF prices will have to move higher to attract LNG cargoes next winter from the US, if the Nord Stream 2 pipeline's final leg is cancelled. This also would tighten the Asian markets, causing the JKM to move higher as well (Chart 8). Any indication of colder-than-normal weather in the US, Europe or Asian markets would mean a sharper move higher. Chart 7Natgas Tails Are Too Narrow For Next Winter Chart 8Nord Stream 2 Cancellation Would Boost JKM Prices   Robert P. Ryan Chief Commodity & Energy Strategist rryan@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Commodities Round-Up Energy: Bullish The US and Iran began indirect talks earlier this week in Vienna aimed at restoring the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), otherwise known as the "Iran nuclear deal." All of the other parties of the deal – Britain, China, France, Germany and Russia – are in favor of restoring the deal. BCA Research believes this is most likely to occur prior to the inauguration of a new president who is expected to be a hardliner willing to escalate Iran’s demands. US President Biden can unilaterally ease sanctions and bring the US into compliance with the deal, and Iran could then reciprocate. If a deal is not reached by August it could take years to resolve US-Iran tensions. China could offer to cooperate on sanctions and help to broker negotiations following the signing of its 25-year trade deal with Iran last week. Russia likely would demand the US not pressure its allies to cancel the Nord Stream 2 deal, in return for its assistance in brokering a deal. Base Metals: Bullish Iron ore prices continue to be supported by record steel prices in China, trading at more than $173/MT earlier this week. Even though steel production reportedly is falling in the top steel-producer in China, Tangshan, as a result of anti-pollution measures, for iron ore remains stout. As we have previously noted, we use steel prices as a leading indicator for copper prices. We remain long Dec21 copper and will be looking for a sell-off to get long Sep21 copper vs. short Sep21 copper if the market trades below $4/lb on the CME/COMEX futures market (Chart 9). Precious Metals: Bullish Gold held support ~ $1,680/oz at the end of March, following an earlier test in the month. We remain long the yellow metal, despite coming close to being stopped out last week (Chart 10). The earlier sell-off appeared to be caused by a need to raise liquidity to us. We continue to expect the Fed to hold firm to its stated intent to wait for actual inflation to become manifest before raising rates, and, therefore, continue to expect real rates to weaken. This will be supportive of gold and commodities generally (Chart 10). Ags/Softs: Neutral Corn continues to be well supported above $5.50/bu, following last week's USDA report showing farmers intend to increase acreage planted to just over 91mm acres, which is less than 1% above last year's level. Chart 9 Chart 10       Footnotes 1     Please see the Fund's April 2021 forecast Managing Divergent Recoveries. 2     We noted last week these higher growth expectations generally are bullish for industrial commodities – energy, metals, and bulks.  Please see Fundamentals Support Oil, Bulks, And Metals, which we published 1 April 2021.  It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 3    For the rate of construction see Margarita Assenova, “Clouds Darkening Over Nord Stream Two Pipeline,” Eurasia Daily Monitor 18: 17 (February 1, 2021), Jamestown Foundation, jamestown.org. For the current status, see Robin Emmott, “At NATO, Blinken warns Germany over Nord Stream 2 pipeline,” Reuters, March 23, 2021, reuters.com. 4    The Democratic Party blames Russia for what it sees as a campaign to undermine the democratic West and recreate the Soviet sphere of influence. See for example the 2008 invasion of Georgia, the failure of the Obama administration’s 2009-11 diplomatic “reset,” the Edward Snowden affair, the seizure of Crimea and civil war in Ukraine, the survival of Syria’s dictator, and Russian interference in US elections in 2016 and 2020. 5    The Countering Russian Influence in Europe and Eurasia Act of 2017, and the Protecting Europe’s Energy Security Act of 2019/2020, contain provisions requiring sanctions on firms that have contributed in any way a minimum of $1 million to the project, or provide pipe-laying services or insurance. There are exceptions for services provided by the governments of the EU member states, Norway, Switzerland, or the UK. The president has discretion over the implementation of sanctions as usual. 6    The German state of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern is creating a shell foundation to enable the completion of the pipeline. It can shield companies from American sanctions aimed at private companies, not sovereigns.    Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Summary of Closed Trades

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