Developed Countries

Executive Summary Inflation Surprise Reinforces Gridlock And Fiscal Drag A US recession is increasingly likely as the Fed will have to hike rates more aggressively in the short run to contain inflation. Recession would exacerbate US policy uncertainty during a period of peak polarization in the 2022-24 election cycle. The Fed’s struggle with inflation will become entangled in extreme US politics. The Fed will come under immense pressure to pause rate hikes earlier than warranted in 2023. The Fed could get blamed for both over-tightening and politicization. Investors should fade the risk of another Democratic sweep in the midterm elections. Republicans are still highly likely to gain control of the House, resulting in gridlock and a freeze to fiscal policy.   If Democrats lose the House, their odds of retaining the White House will decline. A recession would greatly reduce their odds. In this context the US faces another tumultuous political cycle, as Republicans will stage a comeback. However, reform of the Electoral Count Act could reduce the risk of a catastrophic breakdown in the electoral system. Recommendation (Tactical) INITIATION DATE Return Long DXY (Dollar Index) Feb 23, 2022 12.6% Bottom Line: Stay long US dollar for now but prepare to downgrade to neutral. Feature BCA Research hosted our annual conference at the Plaza Hotel in New York last week. Clients heard a range of views on various topics, including US politics and policy. In this report we touch on some of the insights from the conference while providing our own views on what to expect going forward. A Politicized Federal Reserve? The real Fed funds rate stands at -2.2% today despite the Federal Reserve’s decision to hike rates by 225 basis points this year. The last time the real Fed funds rate was this low was in 1975, under the chairmanship of Arthur Burns – i.e. the epitome of a politicized Fed (Chart 1). Chart 1A Politicized Federal Reserve? Is the Fed already politicized or will it become politicized in the coming years? What would that mean for monetary policy, the economy, and financial markets? The Fed waded into political territory when it began pursuing unorthodox policies in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis and again during the Covid-19 pandemic. Ideally monetary policy sets interest rates across the economy and applies equally to all economic actors. But once the Fed began quantitative easing (bond buying) and coordinating its actions with the fiscal authorities (which had bailed out major banks), it entered the game of income and wealth redistribution. Not least because asset price inflation favors asset owners over others. Now that the Fed and other central banks have pioneered these unorthodox policies, they will continue to use them in the face of future economic and political turmoil. They will also innovate new tools to deal with each crisis. As the pandemic response highlighted, the Fed will continue down the path of redistribution, which will continue to provoke political backlash from legislators and the public. At the same time, the Fed’s policy parameters today have been reined in and disciplined by the post-pandemic inflation overshoot. For example, there is not so much excited talk today about implementing Modern Monetary Theory – debt monetization – as there was in the heady days of 2019. Instead the Fed today is focused almost exclusively on fulfilling its price stability mandate, at least until inflation gets down into the 2%-3% range. The market appears over-eager for interest rate cuts in 2023 when the Fed is expecting to continue hiking rates throughout 2023 (Chart 2). The surprise in core and headline inflation in August reinforces this point. If the Fed cannot bring inflation below 3%, what will it do? Could it accept reality and modify the inflation target to 3%? A higher inflation target has long been discussed – it would enable the Fed to stimulate more effectively in the next recession. But Chairman Jerome Powell and his monetary policy strategy review rejected the idea of raising the long-term inflation target from 2% to 3% or above – and that rejection is likely to be sustained at least until the next review in 2024. Even then a higher inflation target seems unlikely as it would be very hard to achieve politically in the wake of the inflation overshoot. Chart 2Will Fed Cut Rates Next Year? Of course, a lot can happen by 2024 and new deflationary shocks could conceivably force a change to the inflation target. What is clear to us is that the Fed still has a dovish bias that took a long time to develop and has not yet been entirely overturned by the inflation overshoot (Chart 3).  Chart 3Dovish Consensus Built Up Over Time And Remains In Place For Now Meanwhile the Fed’s single-minded focus on restoring price stability will bring an entirely different set of political problems – and accusations of politicization. For example, the Fed wants tighter financial conditions – since that will help to cool the economy and bring down inflation – but cannot well speak openly about deliberately driving down stock market prices and home values. The Fed also believes that a recession with unemployment ranging from 4%-5% would not be the end of the world but it cannot well speak openly about deliberately increasing unemployment. Especially because unemployment rarely stays so low in recessions. The Fed acknowledges that it will need to pause hiking interest rates at some point, hopefully before it tightens monetary conditions so much as to trigger a recession, but it does not want to call it a “pause” since financial markets will take that as a hard stop. It could cause a premature loosening of financial conditions and be blamed for a lack of vigilance when inflation revives. Will the Fed ultimately be prevented from tightening monetary policy enough because of the pressure that higher interest rates will put on the government’s fiscal sustainability? It is entirely possible. Sustaining social programs is more popular than paying bond holders. Since the Fed pays market interest rates on reserve balances, it will stop making a profit if it hikes rates to 3.25% or above (which is slated to happen this month). Very soon the Fed will be turning a loss on its holdings, rather than remitting profits to the Department of Treasury, and it will be amply criticized for spending taxpayer money. In that case there will be plenty of ammunition from critics on all sides. When it comes to the Fed’s specific predicament in 2022-24, Chairman Powell does not want to be the next Arthur Burns, i.e. he does not want to go down in history as the chairman who made a historic mistake by not forcing inflation back into an acceptable and containable range of say 2%-3.5%. Neither he nor the Fed can afford to lose control of price stability, which would damage the US economy and the Fed’s credibility. The implication is that Powell will need to hike rates until price stability is obtained. Yet even a conservative estimate would suggest that hiking rates until inflation falls beneath 3% will require the unemployment rate to rise by more than the estimated 0.5-1.0 percentage points, likely considerably more than this, which historically implies a recession in 2023-24. Recession odds have already risen sharply as priced by the bond market, according to Jonathan LaBerge at our Bank Credit Analyst flagship service (Chart 4). Of course, recession odds have an important implication for the 2022-24 political cycle, implying that the Fed’s handling of the economy will become entangled once again in America’s extreme political polarization. Chart 4Recession Odds Rising Our past research has shown that the Fed does not pay close attention to midterm elections. The Fed is more likely to hike rates than cut rates during a midterm election year – and more likely to hike rates during a president’s first midterm election as opposed to his second. Whereas the Fed is about equally likely to cut rates as to hike them during a presidential election year. Most importantly, the Fed is more likely to hike rates during a non-election year than otherwise (Table 1). Table 1The Fed Doesn’t Care About Midterms … But Prefers To Hike In Off-Years While the Fed had no choice but to hike in 2022, supporting these data, a critical decision will emerge in 2023, when the Fed is still expected to hike but the risk of recession grows. Recessions sharply reduce the odds of the incumbent political party staying in the White House (Table 2). Moreover a recession could bring back President Trump or a Trumpist Republican candidate bent on revenge against the political establishment. The result is that the FOMC will be under immense political pressure not to overtighten monetary policy in 2023-24. In normal times, a Fed chair appointed by a Republican president could conceivably have the license to hike rates aggressively to whip inflation, knowing that if a recession occurs and a Republican comes to power, he would be likely to be reappointed. But Powell can have no such assurance from the erratic President Trump, who is still favored for the Republican nomination as things stand. Even aside from Trump, Powell and the FOMC will fear that a populist Republican Party would seek to audit the Fed or curtail its powers. Table 2Biden’s Odds Fall If Recession Occurs In sum, the Washington political establishment believes it is under attack from right-wing insurrectionists and will put immense pressure on the FOMC to avoid triggering a recession in 2023-24. This could produce an inflationary surprise. Bottom Line: A recession is likely to occur as the Fed continues hiking rates to bring inflation below 3%. This increases political uncertainty for the 2022-24 cycle. But a politicized Fed may compromise when inflation is closer to 4% for fear of a populist win in 2024. That would likely prove to be a historic monetary policy mistake, enabling long-term inflation expectations to rise substantially.   Midterm Elections: Fade The “Blue Sweep” Risk  While the Fed ignores midterm elections, investors are increasingly uncertain over fiscal policy and the outcome of the midterms. Will Congress become gridlocked, as we expect, or will Democrats retain control of Congress and continue the federal spending splurge that has played a large role in the inflation overshoot? Clearly the midterm races have tightened since President Biden changed his tone and started prioritizing the fight against inflation back in June. As inflation has abated, online betting markets have discounted Republican odds of victory, particularly in the Senate where they are now 36% (Chart 5). We anticipated that Biden’s approval ratings would stabilize on the passage of legislation and that the election would tighten in the final months, particularly on the back of women voters turning out to support Democrats in the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision to reduce abortion access. However, we also argued that gridlock would still be the most likely result based on the high odds that the House would flip to Republican control regardless of Roe. This is a consensus view that should be challenged and reassessed as November approaches. Chart 5Bookies Still Expect Gridlock In Midterms Senate elections are held statewide and are therefore more susceptible to a shift in suburban and women voters. State-level polls leave much to be desired but the overall picture is that the races are closer than they were earlier this year – and closer than the Republicans would want them to be (Charts 6A & 6B). Persistent high inflation should be the clincher in favor of Republicans but the Senate is simply too close to call at this stage. Chart 6ANeck-And-Neck Races In Senate Chart 6BNeck-And-Neck Races In Senate Yet the Senate is overrated in this election because if Democrats lose either chamber, gridlock will be the result. Gridlock is what matters most for fiscal policy and hence for investors. The gridlock view rests on the House of Representatives. While the president’s party almost always loses seats in the midterm election, losing seats is not the same as losing control. In fact, over the past 120 years, a party that controls the House and/or Senate is more likely than not to retain control in a midterm election (Chart 7). But in the post-WWII era, the president’s party is slightly more likely to lose control of the House. And in almost all midterms, the president’s party loses seats in the House.  Chart 7Presidents Do Not Always Lose Control, But Dems Have Small Cushion In 2022 The key point about 2022 is that the Democrats only have a six-seat buffer in the House. In other words, losing seats is very likely to be equivalent to losing control this year. To save the House, Biden’s Democrats would have to perform as well as John F. Kennedy’s Democrats in 1962, when they only lost four House seats. Our House model predicts they will lose 21 seats (Appendix). While Democrats could beat this prediction, they would be hard pressed to lose fewer than six seats on a net basis: inflation is high and sticky, real wages and incomes have fallen, consumer confidence has fallen, the president’s approval rating is low, and approval of Congress is low. If a president’s party loses control of the House, its odds of keeping the White House in 2024 also fall (Chart 8). This is another reason for investors to expect that fiscal policy will freeze, policy uncertainty will remain high, and the Fed will be under political pressure not to hike rates aggressively in 2023-24. Chart 8Biden’s 2024 Odds Fall If He Loses The House Bottom Line: Fade the “Blue Sweep” risk in 2022. The midterm election is tightening but Republicans are still likely to win the House. Fiscal policy will remain a drag on growth and the 2024 election will become even more uncertain, putting political pressure on the Fed to avoid overtightening. Limited Big Government Another Democratic sweep would greatly reinforce the new US policy trajectory of Big Government: a trajectory that points away from the Washington Consensus and Reagan revolution toward a future of higher taxes, larger budget deficits, higher tariffs, and more extensive regulation (Chart 9).1  But Democrats will be forced to share power. This is why we call the new policy paradigm “Limited Big Government.” It is still a shift in the direction of a larger government role in the economy and society, but it is taking place within the context of the US constitutional system of checks and balances and two-party politics. We do not expect the latter two factors to disappear. Looking at the Obama, Trump, and Biden administrations together we can see that the turn toward Big Government is also compromised by vested interests: Democrats failed to increase corporate taxes, though they did put a floor under the effective tax rate by imposing a new 15% minimum tax on corporate book income. The budget deficit is normalizing after the gargantuan pandemic stimulus. But Democratic legislation will not reduce the deficit substantially over time, contrary to Biden administration propaganda. But Republicans are fiscally profligate themselves, which is clear from Trump’s term in office as well as previous periods of single-party GOP rule. Republicans joined Democrats in passing the infrastructure bill and the Chips and Science Act, which revives US industrial policy in an era of great power competition. Biden has now accepted Trump’s tariff hikes on China. While Republican leadership may push deregulation in future, they may also believe that government regulation will be required to fight back against “woke” or socially left-wing corporations. Chart 9Buenos Aires Consensus equal Spending, Taxes, Tariffs, Regulations Thus the US’s new policy paradigm is bipartisan in nature. Of course, if Republicans take the House they will turn fiscally conservative for tactical reasons. That will put a halt to the spending splurge of 2020-22. But it will not signal a new fiscally austere paradigm since full Republican control in 2025 would be highly likely to lead to another fiscal blowout. This is even more likely to be the case now that Republicans have adopted a populist and pro-working class approach. Bottom Line: The US shift away from limited government toward Big Government is entrenched even if it suffers a setback due to gridlock from 2022-24. Given that partisan checks will prevent the US from moving too radically in any direction, we dub this paradigm “Limited Big Government.” It is marginally inflationary due to the rise in taxes, spending, regulations, and tariffs. US Electoral System: A Possible Positive Surprise Our expectation that the Fed will be politicized and that populist policies will persist stems from the underlying inequality and political polarization in the United States. Yet these same factors serve to increase overall political instability and threaten to cause a fundamental breakdown in political order. Will US institutions be able to handle the strain in the coming election cycle? There can be no doubt that polarization is reaching dangerous extremes. The US has suffered two out of five contested elections in the past 22 years. The last two Republican presidential victories have occurred without gaining the popular vote. The Biden administration’s low approval creates the risk of another tight election in 2024, implying controversy over the vote count and procedure (see Appendix). Another tight election could lead to a single state’s controversy determining the outcome of the entire election. Or it could lead to an electoral college tie in which Congress would decide the election result and could decide against the popular verdict.    It is not hard to think of scenarios where contested elections and social unrest get out of hand. For example, one important consequence of the January 6 rebellion is that future governments will suppress protests with force if they attempt to interfere with the electoral process or the workings of the legislature. But imagine if a Republican administration comes to power through a contested election in Congress and then suppresses the resulting protests against it? Or imagine if Democrats retain power and push their “domestic war on terrorism” far enough to provoke a low-level militant insurgency from disaffected nationalists? It is easy to think of scenarios on either side that could lead to a much greater breakdown in public order than what occurred in 2020.   It is unlikely that an institutional fix will occur in time for the 2024 election. However, there is one exception on the congressional agenda: a possible revision of the Electoral Count Act of 1887. This law was designed to prevent a failure of the electoral system in the wake of the “Stolen Election” of 1876. Its main achievement was to have the governor of each state certify the electoral votes of that state before sending them to Washington. However, the law also leaves open the door for state legislatures, secretaries of state, and governors to influence their state’s electoral votes. Democrats have written a revised version of the law that would close some of the loopholes and ambiguities. So far 10 Senate Republicans have co-sponsored the bill, making it very likely they will vote for it (Table 3). If these Republicans do not change their minds in the critical hour, and if all Democrats can be brought to vote for the measure, then a 60-vote, filibuster-proof majority will exist to pass the law. Table 3Republican Senators Who Support Revising The Electoral Count Act The original Electoral Count Act took ten years to pass, so there is no reason to be overly optimistic. But if 60 votes can be found in the Senate, then the electoral system will be fortified ahead of the 2024 election and structural US political risks will be at least somewhat reduced. Bottom Line: The US faces serious social and political instability in the coming years and remains at “peak polarization.” But a bipartisan law could help solidify the electoral system prior to 2024, which would reduce some of the risk of election controversies spiraling out of control. Investment Takeaways Headline consumer price inflation for August came in at 8.3% year-on-year versus an expected 8.1%, while core inflation accelerated from 5.9% to 6.3%. Financial markets took it on the chin, with the S&P500 falling by 4.3%, due to the disappointed expectation that inflation had already peaked. This disappointment is the second of its kind this year: investors have been over-eager to call the peak in inflation. Market volatility is likely to continue through the fall as investors now expect that the Fed will hike interest rates by another 75-100 basis points in September and continue hiking until inflation falls more convincingly. Twice-bitten investors will be hesitant to endorse a third rally until they are certain that inflation is coming down – but by then a recession may already be upon them. A significant increase in unemployment is likely necessary to cool inflation, which implies recession. Higher inflation will drive real wages further into the red, which is negative for the Biden administration’s midterm campaign. Otherwise the economy looked to be improving just in time for the vote. Manufacturing and non-manufacturing employment is perking up, labor force participation is reaching pre-Covid levels, and consumer confidence ticked up in the latest data, albeit still much lower than in 2021 (Chart 10). Now the tightening of financial conditions will cool the economy and sentiment in the advance of the election, reinforcing the opposition party and the expected gridlock. Inflation may indeed be peaking but not in time for the election.  Throughout this year we bet on the US dollar index. This trade is getting very toppy and net speculative positions have rolled over (Chart 11). The dollar is overvalued but its momentum remains strong given extreme macroeconomic and geopolitical uncertainty. We have put this trade on watch for a downgrade to neutral but we expect the momentum to be sustained at least through the US election and Chinese party congress this fall. Chart 10Small Bounce In Economy Will Not Save Democrats Chart 11Dollar Is Overvalued But Has Momentum     Matt Gertken Senior Vice President Chief US Political Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com       Footnotes 1     This trajectory is the opposite of the Washington Consensus. As such, Marko Papic, the founder of BCA’s Geopolitical Strategy, has dubbed it the “Buenos Aires Consensus,” as it resembles Argentine economic policy more so than the Thatcher/Reagan policy mix.   Strategic View Open Tactical Positions (0-6 Months) Open Cyclical Recommendations (6-18 Months)   Table A2Political Risk Matrix Table A3US Political Capital Index Chart A1Presidential Election Model Chart A2Senate Election Model  Table A4House Election Model Table A5APolitical Capital: White House And Congress Table A5BPolitical Capital: Household And Business Sentiment Table A5CPolitical Capital: The Economy And Markets 

Executive Summary This report looks back at seven recent Fed tightening cycles and summarizes evidence concerning how the US Treasury curve behaves relative to the length and magnitude of the tightening cycle. We document a few consistent relationships. For example, the 10-year Treasury yield tends to peak 1-2 months before the last rate hike of the tightening cycle. We also notice that the Treasury slope is usually inverted by the time it troughs and that the 5-year/30-year slope tends to trough before the 2-year/5-year slope. Given our view that the peak fed funds rate may not occur until the second half of 2023, we expect another leg higher in bond yields before we reach the cyclical peak. We also anticipate further flattening of the 5-year/30-year Treasury curve.   Timing Fed Tightening Cycles Bottom Line: Investors should keep portfolio duration close to benchmark for the time being and should position in 5-year/30-year curve flatteners by selling the 10-year bullet versus a duration-matched 5/30 barbell. While we maintain neutral portfolio duration for now, our bias is to be short duration on a medium-to-long run horizon and we may re-evaluate our recommended duration positioning after this month’s important CPI release and September FOMC meeting. Feature BCA’s Annual Investment Conference was held last week, and we heard a wide variety of views about the outlook for US bonds. Unsurprisingly, the main difference between those with bond-bullish and bond-bearish views was that the bullish panelists anticipated a much quicker end to the Fed’s tightening cycle prompted by a US recession starting late this year or early next year. This week’s report takes a more formal look at the historical linkages between Fed tightening cycles and trends in US Treasury yields. Our goal is to provide some firm evidence that investors can use to translate their views about the length and magnitude of the Fed tightening cycle into concrete positions across the US Treasury curve. Specifically, we look at seven Fed tightening cycles – the five most recent cycles and the two periods of tightening that occurred during the inflationary surge of the early-1980s. The 1977-80 Cycle Chart 1The 1977-80 Cycle The Fed raised the funds rate by 11.75% between August 1977 and March 1980 in response to sky-high inflation. Then, despite core CPI inflation still running at 12%, it cut rates by 5.5% in 1980 in response to an unemployment rate that had climbed above 6%. This proved to be only a brief reprieve from monetary tightening. With inflation still a problem, the Fed pivoted back to rate hikes later in 1980 even as the unemployment rate continued its ascent. Turning to markets, we see that the Treasury index lost 22% versus a position in cash during the 1977-80 tightening cycle and that index returns troughed in March 1980, around the same time as the last rate hike. The 10-year Treasury yield peaked one month before the last rate hike at 12.72%, 378 bps below the peak fed funds rate that would be attained one month later (Chart 1). As for the shape of the yield curve, the 2-year/10-year Treasury slope troughed at -201 bps one month before the last rate hike of the cycle (panel 4). The 2-year/5-year Treasury slope troughed at -132 bps in the same month as the peak in the funds rate and the 5-year/30-year slope troughed at -123 bps, one month before the last hike (bottom panel). The 1980-81 Cycle After a brief period of cuts in mid-1980, having still not conquered inflation the Fed changed course and lifted the funds rate to a new high in 1981. It did this even with the unemployment rate above 7%. One interesting aspect of this tightening cycle is that the bond market continued to sell off even after the Fed delivered its last rate increase. While the period of Fed tightening spanned from October 1980 until May 1981, excess Treasury index returns versus cash continued to fall until September 1981, losing 20% in the process (Chart 2). The 10-year Treasury yield also peaked four months after the last rate hike at 15.84%, 316 bps below the peak funds rate that was attained four months earlier. Chart 2The 1980-81 Cycle Looking at the Treasury curve, the 2-year/10-year slope troughed at -132 bps three months after the last rate hike (panel 4). The 2-year/5-year and 5-year/30-year slopes also troughed three months after the last rate hike, at -62 bps and -133 bps, respectively (bottom panel). The 1988-89 Cycle The Fed lifted rates from 6.5% in March 1988 to 9.8% in May 1989. Peak-to-trough, the Treasury index lost 7.7% versus cash during this period but returns did trough two months before the last rate hike. The 10-year Treasury yield peaked three months before the last rate hike at 9.32%, 48 bps below the peak fed funds rate (Chart 3). Chart 3The 1988-89 Cycle On the Treasury curve, the 2-year/10-year slope troughed two months before the last rate hike at -43 bps (panel 4). The 2-year/5-year and 5-year/30-year slopes also troughed two months before the last rate hike, at -20 bps and -42 bps, respectively (bottom panel). The 1994-95 Cycle The Fed doubled the funds rate from 3% in February 1994 to 6% in February 1995. Peak-to-trough, the Treasury index lost 9.4% versus cash during this period but returns did trough three months before the last rate hike. The 10-year Treasury yield peaked three months before the last rate hike at 7.91%, 191 bps above the peak fed funds rate (Chart 4). Chart 4The 1994-95 Cycle On the Treasury curve, the 2-year/10-year slope troughed two months before the last rate hike at +15 bps (panel 4). The 2-year/5-year and 5-year/30-year slopes also troughed two months before the last rate hike, at +14 bps and +6 bps, respectively (bottom panel). In contrast to earlier cycles, it’s notable that the yield curve never inverted during the 1994-95 tightening cycle and that the 10-year Treasury yield peaked at a level significantly above the fed funds rate. The most likely reason for this is that the Fed’s pivot from rate hikes to cuts in early 1995 occurred abruptly and came as a surprise to market participants. A quick look at the economic data makes it easy to see why. The core PCE and core CPI inflation rates were elevated at the time, at 2.3% and 3.0% respectively, and the unemployment rate was significantly down from a year earlier. The 1999-2000 Cycle The Fed lifted rates from 4.75% in June 1999 to 6.5% in May 2000. Peak-to-trough, the Treasury index lost 8.2% versus cash during this period but returns did trough four months before the last rate hike. The 10-year Treasury yield also peaked four months before the last rate hike at 6.68%, 18 bps above the peak fed funds rate (Chart 5). Chart 5The 1999-2000 Cycle On the Treasury curve, the 2-year/10-year slope troughed two months before the last rate hike at -47 bps (panel 4). The 5-year/30-year slope troughed one month before the last rate hike at -59 bps but the 2-year/5-year slope didn’t trough until three months after the last rate hike at -15 bps (bottom panel). The 2004-06 Cycle The Fed lifted rates in steady increments of 25 bps per meeting from 1% in June 2004 to 5.25% in June 2006. Peak-to-trough, the Treasury index lost 5.3% versus cash during this period and returns troughed around the same time as the funds rate reached its peak. The peak in the 10-year Treasury yield also occurred at the same time as the peak in the funds rate, though the peak 10-year was 10 bps below the peak funds rate (Chart 6). Chart 6The 2004-06 Cycle On the Treasury curve, the 2-year/10-year slope troughed five months after the last rate hike of the cycle at -16 bps (panel 4). The 2-year/5-year slope also troughed five months after the last rate hike at -20 bps, while the 5-year/30-year slope troughed much earlier, four months before the last rate hike at -10 bps (bottom panel). The 2015-18 Cycle Finally, in the most recent tightening cycle before the current one, the Fed lifted rates off the zero-lower-bound in December 2015, went on hold for 12 months and then delivered a string of rate hikes bringing the funds rate up to 2.5% by December 2018. Peak-to-trough, the Treasury index lost 6.7% versus cash during this period and returns troughed two months before the peak in the fed funds rate. The peak in the 10-year Treasury yield also occurred two months before the last rate hike at 3.15%, 65 bps above the peak funds rate (Chart 7). Chart 7The 2015-18 Cycle On the Treasury curve, the 2-year/10-year slope troughed eight months after the last rate hike of the cycle at 0 bps (panel 4). The 2-year/5-year slope also troughed eight months after the last rate hike at -17 bps, while the 5-year/30-year slope troughed much earlier, five months before the last rate hike at +23 bps (bottom panel). Summarizing The Evidence Tables 1 and 2 summarize the data from the seven tightening cycles that we examined. Four main points jump out. Table 1Timing Fed Tightening Cycles Table 2Fed Tightening Cycles: Peak And Trough Levels First, both the level of the 10-year Treasury yield and the Bloomberg Barclays Treasury Excess Return Index tend to hit inflection points around the time of the last rate hike of the cycle. On average, the 10-year Treasury yield peaks 1.3 months before the last rate hike of the cycle, and it has always hit its peak within a window spanning four months before the last hike and four months after. The timing of the trough in index excess returns versus cash looks similar. Second, the 2-year/10-year Treasury slope also tends to trough near the end of the Fed tightening cycle, but the timing of this inflection point varies a lot more than the timing of the peak in yields. In fact, during the last two cycles the 2-year/10-year slope didn’t trough until well after the last rate hike. Third, the 5-year/30-year Treasury slope always troughs at the same time or earlier than the 2-year/5-year Treasury slope. This is consistent with our intuition that the long end of the yield curve will respond more quickly to changes in the economic outlook than the front end of the curve, which remains more tied to the current policy rate. Fourth, there isn’t much consistency in where the 10-year Treasury yield peaks relative to the peak fed funds rate. On average, the 10-year yield tops out 120 bps below the peak fed funds rate, but there is a wide range of outcomes. The 10-year yield peaked 378 bps below the peak fed funds rate in the 1977-80 tightening cycle and it peaked 65 bps above the peak fed funds rate in the 2015-18 cycle. The same holds true for the slope of the Treasury curve. The trough in the slope exhibits a wide range of outcomes, though it is fair to say that we typically expect the slope to be negative when it bottoms. The 2-year/10-year Treasury slope only failed to invert in two tightening cycles (1994-95 and 2015-18) and in both of those cases the Fed was not expected to deliver a large number of rate cuts. In fact, it could have easily been argued that rate cuts were unnecessary based on the inflation and employment data at the time. Investment Implications In applying the lessons from this analysis to the current environment, the first conclusion we reach is that we should only look to extend portfolio duration to above-benchmark when we think that the last rate hike of the cycle will occur in 1-2 months. Currently, the market is priced for the fed funds rate to peak in June 2023 and we expect that peak could occur even later (Chart 8). For this reason, we anticipate another significant leg higher in Treasury yields before the cyclical peak is reached. Chart 8Rate Expectations Our historical analysis of past tightening cycles also supports our recommended short 10-year bullet, long 5-year/30-year barbell positioning along the Treasury curve.1 Given that the 5-year/30-year Treasury slope has always troughed within a window spanning five months before the last rate hike and three months after, it makes sense to position for another leg down. This is a particularly attractive trade on the 5-year/30-year portion of the curve because that slope remains in positive territory.   Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 For more details on this trade please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The Great Soft Landing Debate”, dated August 9, 2022. Recommended Portfolio Specification Other Recommendations Treasury Index Returns Spread Product Returns