Economic Growth

Highlights Germany’s election on September 26 is more of an opportunity than a risk for global investors. Coalition formation will prolong uncertainty but the key takeaway is that early or aggressive fiscal tightening is off the table for Germany … and hence the EU. Germany’s left wing is surprising to the upside as predicted, but it is the Social Democrats rather than the Greens who have momentum in the polls. This is a market-positive development. A coalition of only left-wing parties is entirely possible, but there is a 65% chance that the Christian Democrats (or Free Democrats) will take part in the next coalition to get a majority government. This would constrain business unfriendly outcomes. The German economy is likely to slow for the remainder of 2021, but the outlook for 2022 remains bright as the current headwinds facing the country will dissipate, especially if the risk of an aggressive fiscal drag is low. The underperformance of German equities relative to their Eurozone counterparts is long in the tooth. A combination of valuation, earnings momentum and technical factors suggests that German stocks will beat their peers next year. German equities will also outperform Bunds, which offer particularly unattractive prospective returns. Feature Germany’s federal election will be held on September 26. Our forecast that the left wing will surprise to the upside remains on track, albeit with the Social Democrats rather than the Greens surging to the forefront of opinion polls (Chart 1). However, the precise composition of the next government is very much in the air. Chart 1German Election: Social Democrats Take The Lead Our quantitative German election model – which we introduce in this special report – predicts that the ruling Christian Democratic Union will outperform their current 21% standing in opinion polls, winning as much as 33% of the popular vote. Subjectively, this seems like an overestimation, but it goes to show that outgoing Chancellor Angela Merkel’s popularity, a historically strong voting base, and the economic recovery will help the party pare its losses this year. This finding, combined with the strong momentum for the Social Democrats, suggests that the election outcome will not be decisive. Germany will end up with either a grand coalition that includes Merkel’s Christian Democrats or a left-wing coalition that lacks a majority in parliament.1 Investors should note that none of the election outcomes are hugely disruptive to domestic or foreign policy. The status quo is unexciting but not market-negative, while a surprise left-wing victory would mean more reflation in the short run but a roll back of some pro-business policies in the long run. More broadly Germany has established a national consensus that rests on European integration, looser fiscal policy, renewable energy, and qualified engagement with autocratic powers like Russia and China. The chief takeaway is that fiscal policy will not be tightened too soon – and could be loosened substantially. Germany’s Fiscal Question Outgoing Chancellor Angela Merkel is stepping down after ruling Germany since 2005. The Christian Democratic Union, and its Bavarian sister party the Christian Social Union, together form the “Union” that is hard to beat in German elections, having occupied the chancellor’s office for 57 out of 72 years. However, both the Christian Democrats and the Social Democrats, their main rivals, have been shedding popular vote share since 1990, as other parties like the Greens, Free Democrats, the Left, and Alternative for Germany have gained traction (Table 1). Table 1Germany: Traditional Parties Lose Vote Share Over Time The Great Recession and European sovereign debt crisis ushered in a new geopolitical and macroeconomic context that Merkel reluctantly helped Germany and the EU navigate. Germany’s clashes with the European periphery ultimately resulted in deeper EU integration, in accordance with Germany’s grand strategy and Merkel’s own strategy. But just as the euro crisis receded, a series of shocks elsewhere threatened to upend Germany’s position as one of the biggest economic winners of the post-Cold War world. The sluggish aftermath of the financial crisis, the Russian invasion of Crimea, the Syrian refugee crisis, the Brexit referendum, and President Trump’s election in the US sparked a retreat from globalization, a direct threat to an export-oriented manufacturing economy like Germany. In the 2017 election the Union lost 13.4 percentage points compared to the 2013 election. Minor parties have gradually gained ground since then. However, through a coalition with the Social Democrats, Merkel and her party managed to retain control of the government. This grand coalition eased the country’s fiscal belt in response to the trade war and global slowdown in 2019, signaling Germany’s own shift away from fiscal austerity. Then COVID-19 struck, prompting a much larger fiscal expansion to tide over the economy amid social lockdowns. Germany was not the largest EU member in terms of fiscal stimulus but nor was it the smallest (Chart 2). It joined with France to negotiate a mutual debt plan to rescue the broader EU economy and deepen integration. Chart 2Germany’s Fiscal Stimulus Ranks In The Middle Of Major Countries Germany’s pro-EU perspective has been reinforced by Brexit and is not on the ballot in 2021. Immigration and terrorism have temporarily subsided as voter concerns. The focus of the 2021 election is how to get through the pandemic and rebuild the German economy for the future. For investors the chief question is whether conservatives will have enough sway in the next government to try to semi-normalize policy and consolidate budgets in the coming years, or whether a left-wing coalition will take charge, expanding on Germany’s proactive fiscal turn. The latter has consequences for broader EU fiscal normalization as well since Germany is traditionally the prime enforcer of deficit limits. The latest opinion polls point to more proactive fiscal policy. The country’s left-leaning ideological bloc has taken the lead (Chart 3A) and the Social Democratic leader Olaf Scholz has sprung into first place among the chancellor candidates (Chart 3B). Chart 3AGermany: Voting Intentions Favor Left-Leaning Parties Chart 3BSocial Democrats Likely To Take Chancellery Scholz has served as finance minister and is the face of the country’s recent fiscal stimulus efforts. Public opinion is clearly rewarding him for this stance as well as his party, which was previously in the doldrums.2 The Social Democrats and Greens are calling for more fiscal expansion as well as wage hikes and tax hikes (wealth redistribution) in pursuit of social equality and a greener economy (Table 2). If the Christian Democrats retain a significant role in the future coalition, these initiatives will be blunted – not to say halted entirely. But if the left parties put together a ruling coalition without the Christian Democrats, then they will be able to launch more ambitious tax-and-spend policies. Opinion polls show that voters still slightly favor coalitions that include the Christian Democrats, although momentum has shifted sharply in favor of a left-wing coalition (Chart 4). Table 2German Party Platforms Chart 4Voters Evenly Split On Whether Next Coalition Should Include CDU This shift is what we forecast in previous reports but now the question is whether the left-wing parties can actually win enough seats to put together a majority coalition. That is a tall order. Our quantitative election model suggests that the Christian Democrats, having suffered a long overdue downgrade in expectations, will not utterly collapse when the final vote is tallied. While we do not expect them to retain the chancellorship, momentum will have to shift even further in the opposition’s favor over the next two weeks to produce a majority coalition that excludes the Union. Our Quantitative German Election Model Our model is based off the work of Norpoth and Geschwend, who created a simple linear model to predict the vote share that incumbent governing parties or coalitions will obtain in impending elections.3 Their model utilizes three explanatory variables and has a sample size of 18 previous elections, covering elections from 1953 to 2017. Our model updates their original work to make estimates for the 2021 election. Unlike our US Political Strategy Presidential Model, which makes use of both political and economic explanatory variables in real time, our German election model makes predictions based solely on historical political variables, all of which display a high degree of correlation with popular vote share. We will look at economic factors that may affect the election later in this report. The Three Explanatory Variables 1. Chancellor Approval Rating: This variable captures the short-term support rate of the incumbent chancellor. A positive relationship exists between chancellor approval and vote share: higher approval equates to higher vote share for the incumbent party. Merkel’s approval stands at 64% today which is a boon for the otherwise beleaguered Christian Democrats (Chart 5). Chart 5Merkel's Coattails A Boon But Not Enough To Save Her Party 2. Long-term partisanship: This variable shows the long-term support rate of voters for specific parties or coalitions in past elections. It is measured as the average vote share of the incumbent party over the past three elections. A positive relationship with vote share exists here too: higher historical partisanship equates to a higher share of votes in forthcoming elections, and vice versa. This variable clearly gives a boost to the Christian Democrats – although it could overrate them based on past performance, as occurred in 2017 when they underperformed the model’s prediction.4 3. “Time For Change”: This is a categorical variable measured by how many terms the parties or coalition have held office leading into an election. This variable has a negative relationship with vote share outcomes. The longer an incumbent party or coalition holds office, the less vote share they will receive. Effectively, our model punishes parties that hold office for long periods of time. In this case that would be the long-ruling Christian Democrats. Model Estimation And Results Our model is estimated by the following simple equation: Popular Vote Share = constant + ßChancellor Approval Rating + ßLong-Term Partisanship + ßTime For Change Estimating the above model for the 2021 election predicts that the Union will win 32.7% of the vote share (Table 3). If this prediction came true, it would suggest that the ruling party performed almost exactly the same as in 2017. In other words, the party’s strong voter base combined with Merkel’s long coattails are expected to shore up the party. This flies in opinion polling, however, so we think the model is overestimating the Christian Democrats. Table 3Our German Election Quant Model Says CDU Will Not Collapse Note that even if the Union performs this well, it still will not win enough seats to govern on its own. Potential Union-led coalitions are shown in Table 3, excluding the Social Democrats (see below). For a majority government, a coalition with the Free Democrats and the Greens would need to be formed. This coalition would equate to 53% of the vote share. Otherwise, to obtain a majority, the Union would have to team up with the Social Democrats, which is today’s status quo. We can use the same methodology to predict the vote share for the Social Democrats. We use the support rate of Social Democratic chancellor-candidate Olaf Scholz and calculate the long-term partisanship variable using past Social Democratic vote shares. In this case our model predicts that the Social Democrats will win 22.1% of the vote. If this result were to come true, it would not be enough for the party to govern own its own. Potential Social Democratic-led coalitions are shown in Table 4. The best coalition would be with the Greens and either the Left or the Free Democrats. But in this case the Social Democrats cannot form a government with a vote share above 50%, unless it pairs up with the Christian Democrats. Table 4Our German Election Quant Model Says SPD Has Not Yet Won It All In other words, either the left-wing parties must build on their current momentum and outperform their historical record in the final election tally, or they will need to form a coalition with the Christian Democrats. This kind of left-wing surge is precisely what we have predicted. But the model helps put into perspective how difficult it will be for the left-leaning parties to get a majority. Scholz is single-handedly trying to overcome the long downtrend of the Social Democrats. His party is rising at the expense of the Greens, and the Left, which puts a lid on the total left-wing coalition size. If these three parties all beat the model and slightly surpass their top vote share in recent memory (SPD at 26%, Greens at 11%, and the Left at 12%), they still only have 49% of the vote. While our model is reliant on historical political data, it is a robust predictor for past election results (Chart 6). The average vote share error between the predicted and realized outcomes over from 1953 to 2013 is 1.7 percentage points. The problem with relying on the model is that the Christian Democrats have broken down from their long-term trend in opinion polls. And while Merkel’s approval is strong, she is no longer on the ballot and her hand-picked successor, Armin Laschet, is floundering in the polls (see Chart 3B above). Chart 6Our German Election Quant Model Has Solid Track Record, But Merkel’s High Approval Rating Caused Overestimate In 2017 And May Do So In 2021 In short, the model is probably overrating the Union but it is also calling attention to the extreme difficulty of the left-wing parties forming a majority coalition. Scholz may have to form a coalition with the Free Democrats or pursue another grand coalition. And if the Social Democrats fail to get the largest vote share, German President Frank-Walter Steinmeier may ask Armin Laschet to try to form a government first. Still, Scholz is the most likely chancellor when all is said and done. Election Model Takeaway Our German election model predicts that the Union will receive 32.9% of the popular vote, while the Social Democrats will receive 22.1%. At the same time, the left-leaning parties, specifically the Social Democrats, clearly have the momentum. Therefore the model may be overrating the incumbent party. But it still calls attention to a high level of uncertainty, the likelihood of a messy election outcome, and a tricky period of coalition formation. The Social Democrats will have to pull off a major surprise, outperforming both history and our model, to lead a majority government without the Christian Democrats.5 We still think this is possible. But we will stick with our earlier subjective probabilities: 65% odds that the Christian Democrats take part in the next coalition, 35% odds that they do not. Bottom Line: The chancellorship will go to the Social Democrats but the coalition will constrain the business unfriendly aspects of their agenda. This is positive for Germany’s corporate earnings outlook. Macro Outlook: A Temporary Economic Dip Our election model does not account for the economic backdrop and hence ignores the “pocketbook voter.” Germany is recovering from the pandemic, which is marginally supportive for an otherwise faltering ruling party. However, the economic data is only good enough to suggest that the Union will not utterly collapse. A rise in unemployment, inflation, and the combination of the two (the “Misery Index”) is a tell-tale sign that the incumbent party will suffer a substantial defeat (Chart 7). However the German economy’s loss of momentum is temporary. Growth will re-accelerate in early 2022. The timing is politically inconvenient for the ruling party but positive news for investors. German economic confidence is deteriorating. The Ifo Business Climate survey has rolled over, lowered by a meaningful decline in the Expectations Survey. Additionally, consumer confidence is turning south, despite already being low (Chart 8). Chart 7Spike In German Misery Index A Tell-Tale Sign Of Poor Election For Incumbent Party Chart 8Deteriorating German Confidence A combination of factors weighs on German confidence: First, global supply chain bottlenecks are hurting growth. The automotive industry, which is paralyzed by a global chip shortage, accounts for about 20% of industrial production, and its output is once again declining after a sharp but short-lived rebound last year (Chart 9). Similarly, inventories of finished goods are collapsing, which is hurting growth today (Chart 9, second panel). Second, the Delta variant of COVID-19 is causing a spike in infections. The rise in cases prevents containment measures from easing as much as expected, while it also hurts the willingness of households to go out and spend their funds (Chart 9, third panel). Third, German real wages are weak. Negotiated wages are only growing at a 1.7% annual rate, and wages and salaries are expanding at 2.1% annually. Meanwhile, German headline CPI runs at 3.9%. The declining purchasing power of German households accentuates their current malaise. Three crucial forces counterbalance these negatives: First, German house prices are growing at a 9.4% annual rate, which is creating a potent, positive wealth effect (Chart 10). Chart 9Germany's Headwinds Chart 10A Strong Wealth Effect Second, German household credit remains robust. According to the Bundesbank, the strength in household credit mostly reflects the strong demand for mortgages. Historically, a healthy housing sector is an excellent leading indicator of economic vigor. Third, the Chinese credit impulse is too depressed for Beijing’s political security. The recent decline in the credit impulse to -2.4% of GDP reflects a policy decision in the fall of 2020 to trim down the credit expansion. As a result, Chinese economic growth is slowing. For example, both the Caixin Manufacturing and Services PMIs stand below 50, at post-pandemic lows of 49.2 and 46.7, respectively. In July authorities became uncomfortable and cut the Reserve Requirement Ratio as well as interbank rates to free liquidity and stabilize the economy. A boom is not forthcoming, but the drag on global activity will ebb by next year. Including the headwinds and tailwinds to the economy, German activity will slow down for the remainder of the year before improving anew in 2022. Our election case outlined above – that the conservatives will lose the chancellorship and either be excluded from power or greatly diminished in the Bundestag – means that fiscal policy will not be tightened abruptly and will not create a material risk to this outlook. Chart 11Vaccines Work Many of the headwinds will dissipate. The Delta-wave of COVID-19 will diminish. Already, Germany’s R0 is tentatively peaking, which normally precedes a drop in daily new cases. Moreover, Germany’s vaccination campaign is progressing, which limits the impact of the current wave on hospitalization and intensive care-unit usage (Chart 11). Inflation will peak in Germany, which will salvage real wages. As European Investment Strategy wrote last Monday,6 European inflation remains concentrated in sectors linked to commodity prices or directly affected by bottlenecks. Instead, trimmed-mean CPI is muted (Chart 12), which implies that underlying inflationary pressures are small, especially as wage gains are still well contained. Moreover, the one-off impact of the end of the German VAT rebate will also pass. Finally, a stabilization and eventual revival of the Chinese credit impulse will put a floor under German exports, industrial production, and capex (Chart 13). For now, the previous decline in the Chinese credit impulse is consistent with slower German output growth for the remainder of 2021. However, next year, the German industrial sector will start to feel the effect of the current efforts to improve Chinese liquidity conditions. Chart 12Narrow European Inflation Bottom Line: The German economy is set to deteriorate for the remainder of 2021. However, as the current wave of COVID-19 infections ebbs, real wages recover, and China’s credit impulse stabilizes, Germany’s economic activity will re-accelerate in 2022, especially if the upcoming election does not generate a meaningful fiscal shock. We do not think it will. Chart 13China: From Headwinds To Tailwind? Market Implications: German Stocks To Shine German equities are set to outperform their European counterparts and will significantly beat Bunds over the coming 18 months. During the past 5 months, the German MSCI index has underperformed the rest of the Eurozone by 6.2%. The poor performance of German equities is worse than meets the eye. If we adjust for sectoral differences by building equal sector-weight indexes, Germany has underperformed the Euro Area by 22% since early 2017 (Chart 14). Chart 14Not Delivering The Goods This underperformance is long in the tooth and should reverse because of four important dynamics. First, German equities are cheap relative to the European benchmark. As Chart 15 highlights, the relative performance of German stock prices has lagged that of profits. This underperformance is also true once we account for the different sectoral composition of the German market. As a result, Germany is cheap on a forward price-to-earnings, price-to-sales, and price-to-book basis versus the Euro Area. Additionally, analysts embed significantly lower long-term and one-year expected growth rates of earnings in Germany than in the rest of the Eurozone, which depresses the German PEG ratios. Second, German operating metrics do not justify the valuation discount of German equities. The return on equity of German stocks stands at 11.39%, which is similar to that of the Euro Area. Profit margins are also comparable, at 5.91% and 5.74%, respectively. However, German firms utilize their capital more efficiently, and their asset turnover stands at 0.3 times compared to 0.2 times for the Eurozone average. Meanwhile, German non-financial firms are less indebted than their Eurozone competitors, which implies that Germany’s return on assets is greater than that of Europe at large (Chart 16). Chart 15Lagging Prices, Not Earnings Chart 16Why The Discount? Third, the drivers of earnings support a German outperformance. Over the past thirty years, commodity prices led the performance of German stocks relative to that of the rest of the Eurozone (Chart 17). While the near-term outlook for natural resource prices is muddy, BCA’s commodity strategists expect Brent prices to average more than $80/bbl in 2023 and industrial metals to outperform energy over the coming years.7 Additionally, German Services PMI are bottoming compared to that of the Eurozone. Over the past decade, this process preceded periods of outperformance by German stocks (Chart 18). Similarly, the collapse in the Chinese credit impulse relative to the robust domestic economic activity in Europe is well reflected in the underperformance of German shares. The Eurozone’s Service PMI is near all-time highs and unlikely to improve further; however, the Chinese credit impulse should recover in the coming quarters. This phenomenon will help German stocks (Chart 19). Chart 17Commodity Bulls Pull Germany Chart 18German Vs European Activity Matters Chart 19German Vs Chinese Activity Matters The German MSCI index is also oversold. The 52-week rate of change of its performance compared to the rest of the Eurozone plunged to its lowest reading since the introduction of the euro in 1999 (Chart 20). Meanwhile, the 13-week rate of change remains low but has begun to improve (not shown). This combination usually heralds a forthcoming rebound in German relative performance. In relation to equities, German Bunds remain an unappealing investment. Based on historical experience, the current yield of -0.36% offered by German 10-year bonds condemns investors to negative returns over the next five years (Chart 21). Chart 20Oversold! Chart 21Bounded Bunds' Returns Even if realized inflation ebbs in Germany and Europe, inflation expectations remain low and an eventual return to full employment will force CPI swaps higher, especially if the ECB maintains easy monetary conditions and invites further risk-taking in the Eurozone. The global economic cycle will also move from a friend to a foe for Bunds. As Chart 22 illustrates, the recent deceleration in global export growth was consistent with the fresh uptick in the returns of German paper. However, if Chinese credit flows stabilize by year-end and reaccelerate in 2022 while supply-chain bottlenecks dissipate, global export growth will improve. This should hurt Bund prices, especially as the long-term terminal rate proxy embedded in the German curve remains too low. As a result, not only should Bunds underperform German equities, but the German yield curve will also steepen further relative to that of the US, where the Fed will lift the short-end of the curve faster than the ECB. Chart 22Economic Momentum And Bunds Prices Bottom Line: The underperformance of German equities relative to those of the rest of the Eurozone is well advanced, which makes German stocks a bargain. The current deceleration in global and German growth will not extend beyond 2021, which suggests that German stocks prices should converge toward their earnings outperformance next year. Our political forecast suggests that the odds of an early or aggressive fiscal retrenchment are very low. Additionally, German equities will outperform Bunds, which offer particularly poor prospective returns.   Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Mathieu Savary Senior Vice President Mathieu@bcaresearch.com Guy Russell Research Analyst GuyR@bcaresearch.com Jingnan Liu Research Associate JingnanL@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Note that minority governments are rare and have a bad reputation in Germany, partly as a result of the series of weak governments leading up to the 1932 election and Nazi rule. 2 In addition, while the center-left parties can work with the far-left in the Bundestag, the center-right parties cannot work with the far-right Alternative for Germany. Indeed the slightest imputation of a willingness to work with Alternative for Germany cost Merkel’s first pick for successor, Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer, her job. 3 See: Norpoth, Helmut & Gschwend, Thomas (2010) The chancellor model: Forecasting German elections, International Journal of Forecasting. 26. 42-53. 4 Our model performs well in back-testing but 2017 was an outlier. It correctly predicted the Union to win the highest share of the popular vote but overestimated that vote by seven percentage points. Our only short-term variable, the chancellor’s approval rate, caused a deviation from long-term voting trends. Our other two variables capture medium and long-term effects, which clearly favored the Union. The implication is that Merkel’s high approval rating today could give a misleading impression about the Christian Democrats’ prospects. 5 If they are forced to rely on the Free Democrats instead, that will also constrain the most anti-business elements of their agenda. 6 Please see BCA Research European Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "The ECB Taper Dilemma", dated September 6, 2021, available at eis.bcareseach.com. 7 Please see BCA Research Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report, "Permian Output Approaches Pre-Covid Peak", dated August 19, 2021, available at ces.bcareseach.com.

Feature Chart 1Chinese Offshore Stocks Tumbled Amid Regulatory Crackdowns Relative to the global equity index, onshore and offshore Chinese stocks have fallen by 18% and 32%, respectively, since their peaks in mid-February (Chart 1). The panic sell-off in the offshore market, which saw greater losses due to its high concentration in internet stocks, appears to be overdone and may technically rebound in the near term. However, any short-term bounce in Chinese stocks from oversold levels will likely be short-lived (Chart 2). The crackdown on new economy companies reflects socio-political and economic shifts in China, which raises the odds that the restrictions will continue with further actions focused on social welfare and healthcare. August’s official PMIs and economic data indicate a broad-based softening in China’s domestic demand and production. However, compared with 2018/19 when the US-China trade war exacerbated the deterioration in an already slowing economy, the economy now remains well supported by strong exports. Moreover, the magnitude of the slowdown has not exceeded policymakers’ pain thresholds (Chart 3). Chart 2Tactical Bounce Was Short-Lived In Previous Downturns Chart 3China's Economic Recovery Losing Steam, But From An Elevated Level In 2018/19, stimulus was measured and the authorities did not meaningfully relax limits on bank lending standards and shadow banking. Furthermore, China recently reiterated its cross-cycle macro policy setting, which means that policymakers will not use significant stimulus to achieve high and short-term economic growth. Given financial stability measures that aim to contain risks associated with the housing market and hidden local government debt, any monetary and fiscal easing will likely help to stabilize credit growth instead of substantially boosting it this year. For the time being, China’s financial assets continue to face downside risks stemming from a confluence of a weakening business cycle and ongoing regulatory tightening. Thus, we recommend investors maintain an underweight allocation to Chinese equities within a global equity portfolio. Qingyun Xu, CFA Associate Editor qingyunx@bcaresearch.com     A Shining Moment For Chinese Small And Medium Caps Small and medium-cap (SMID-cap) stocks have outperformed large-caps since February and the recent regulatory restrictions have intensified the situation. The CSI500 index, which comprises 500 SMID-cap companies, has outperformed the large-cap CSI300 by 34% since mid-February (Chart 4, top panel). Uncertainties surrounding the pandemic and corporate earnings growth have fueled extreme dislocations between large-cap and SMID-cap stocks last year. Large-cap stocks were the main contributors to China’s stock rallies in the second half of last year, while the valuation premia in small cap stocks was compressed to near decade lows (Chart 4, bottom panel). Chart 4A Low Valuation Premia And More Policy Support May Further Lift Prices Of SMID-Caps Chart 5SMID-Caps Tend To Outperform Large-Caps In Late Business Cycle Historically, SMID-caps tend to outperform large-caps in the late cycle of an economic recovery (Chart 5). The spate of regulatory changes aimed at monopolistic behaviors in various sectors has curbed investors’ appetite for the industry leaders. In addition, the government’s increasing efforts to support small and medium corporates (SMEs) will help to shore up confidence in those companies. Therefore, small and medium caps will likely continue to outperform large-cap stocks this year.   Fiscal Support: How Much Room In 2H? The July Politburo meeting pledged more fiscal support for the economy later in 2021 and into 2022. We expect local government bond (LGB) issuance to accelerate: a 4.47 trillion RMB new local government bond issuance quota was approved for 2021, including 820 billion in general bonds and 3.65 trillion in special purpose bonds (SPBs). By end-August, 2.37 trillion new local government bonds had been issued, which was only 53% of the entire year’s goal. However, there are some constraints that will likely reduce the reflationary effects on the economy. First, the quota for LGB issuance approved by the National People’s Congress is 16% lower than last year, but the amount of LGBs maturing this year is 30% higher. Therefore, even though this year’s gross LGB issuance has kept pace with that of last year, more than half of the LGBs issued from January to August was used for debt repayment (Chart 6).  The move by local governments to use a large portion of their bond issuance quota to pay off existing debt resembles the situation in 2018 when a financial de-risking campaign encouraged local governments to reduce the stockpile of their leverage. As noted in last week’s report, infrastructure investment and the economy did not rebound in 2H2018, even though LGB issuance picked up (Chart 7). Chart 6More Than Half Of LGBs Issued This Year Has Been Used For Debt Repayment Chart 7Improvement In Infrastructure Investment Was Short-Lived In 2019 Even if we assume that local governments will use all of their remaining bond quota by year end, the gross monthly average in local government bond issuance will be around 580 billion, only slightly higher than in 2H 2020. Secondly, infrastructure investment is discouraged by stringent regulations to approve projects (including project assessment and debt repayment ability) and the accountability of local officials for project failures. Approvals for infrastructure projects remain at the lowest level since March last year (Chart 8). Finally, SPBs made up only about 15% of overall infrastructure spending in the past three years, while the majority came from public-private partnerships (PPP) financing, revenues from government-managed funds, government budgets and bank loans. Falling proceeds from land transfers have dragged down government-managed funds (Chart 9). In addition, government expenditures show no signs of a material increase (Chart 9, bottom panel). Chart 8Infrastructure Investment Will Remain Subdued Chart 9Government Expenditures Remain Muted As discussed in previous reports, local government bonds issuance only accounts for 12% of total social financing. As such, without a sizeable acceleration in bank loans, enhanced LGB issuance would not be enough to prompt a substantial increase in infrastructure investment growth. Our argument is underscored by the structural downshift in infrastructure investment since 2017 (Chart 7, top panel). Therefore, additional local government bond issuance this year will help to stabilize but not boost credit growth. August PMIs Confirm Slowing Economic Activity China's official PMIs eased further in August. The non-manufacturing index fell to contractionary territory of 47.5, below the expectation of a more muted 1.3-point decline to 52.0. Similarly, the manufacturing PMI eased by 0.3 points to 50.1, which is a hair above the 50 boom-bust line. Together, weakness in both sectors pushed down the composite index to 48.9 (Chart 10). Stringent restrictions designed to halt rising rates in COVID-19 infections explain much of the deterioration in China’s service-sector activity. The sector will likely rebound in September with the easing in infection levels (Chart 11). Chart 10PMIs Show Slowing Economic Activity Chart 11Lingering COVID Effects Curb Service-Sector Recovery In 2H21   Meanwhile, the construction PMI surprisedly rebounded sharply in August (Chart 10, bottom panel). However, investors should be cautious not to read too much into the idiosyncratic month-on-month moves suggested by the construction PMI. Instead, construction activity has moderated significantly and is set to slow further, hinting at plunged excavator sales and real estate investment in construction (Chart 12). Chart 12Construction Activity Is Unlikely To Pick Up Meaningfully This Year It is clear that China’s economy is losing momentum, but greater economic weakness will be needed for policymakers to stimulate meaningfully. Export Sector Remains A Bright Spot China’s exports remain robust. Export growth picked up in August from July on a year-over-year basis. Although the improvement in August reflects a base effect, exports in level reached a new high (Chart 13). Both skyrocketed exports container freight index and strong Korean exports suggest that global demand for Chinese manufacturing goods remains resilient (Chart 14). Even though manufacturing PMIs from developed markets have rolled over, they remain elevated and should continue to support China’s exports (Chart 15). Chart 13Chinese August Exports In Level Reached A New High Chart 14Exports Will Remain Robust In The Rest Of The Year... In contrast to resilient exports, China’s official PMI export new orders subindex has declined for five consecutive months. Even though falling PMI new export orders subindex heralds a slowing in exports growth, a reading of below the 50 boom-bust threshold in the former does not suggest a contraction in the growth rate of the latter. Furthermore, the month-over-month nature of PMI new export orders subindex tends to overstate the volatility in exports. The divergence between the PMI new export orders subindex and real export growth also occurred in 2018/19 during the height of the US-China trade war when export orders were volatile (Chart 16). Chart 15...And Will Continue To Benefit From Strong Global Demand Chart 16A Divergence Between PMI New Export Orders And Export Growth Regulatory Tightening In Real Estate Sector Stringent regulations in housing since the beginning of the year have started to cool the sector (Chart 17). However, home prices inflation in tier-one cities is still elevated (Chart 18). Thus, we expect the controls on housing and among property developers will remain in place for the next 6 to 12 months. Chart 17Housing Sector Is Cooling... Chart 18...But Housing Prices In First-Tier Cities Keep Rising At A Faster Rate Industrial Profits: Rising Prices, Falling Production China’s industrial profit growth remained solid in July despite the waning low base effect. Manufacturing producer prices continued to rise, offsetting weaker production growth (Chart 19). In addition, a low interest-rate environment helped to lift profits in the manufacturing sector by reducing debt servicing costs. While we expect weakening domestic demand and peaking producer prices to weigh on corporate profits in the rest of this year, profit growth is rolling over from a lofty height and will not likely drop sharply in the coming months (Chart 20). In addition, producer prices will likely remain at a historically high level in the next six months given robust global demand for raw materials and persistent global supply shortages. Chart 19Rising Prices And Low Interest Rates Helped To Offset Falling Industrial Production Chart 20Peaking Producer Prices Will Weigh On Corporate Profits Meanwhile, there is a large gap between the prices for producer goods and consumer goods, suggesting that manufacturers in mid-to-downstream industries have not been able to fully pass on rising input costs to domestic consumers (Chart 21). Profit growth continues to be disproportionally stronger in the upstream industrial producers than in the downstream industries, while the profit margin in the manufacturing sector remains much more muted (Chart 22).  Chart 21Inflation Passthrough From Manufacturers To Domestic Consumers Remains Limited Chart 22Profit Growth In Upstream Industries Still Outpaces Manufacturing Sector Table 1 Table 2 Footnotes   Market/Sector Recommendations Cyclical Investment Stance

Highlights A decline in the marginal propensity to spend out of both income and wealth over the past few decades generated a flood of excess savings. Facing a chronic shortfall of aggregate demand, central banks had no choice but to cut interest rates. This inflated asset prices. Looking out, the marginal propensity to spend should rise as household deleveraging pressures abate, retiring baby boomers shift from being savers to dissavers, and labor’s share of income increases. While rising bond yields will be a headwind to equities, continued above-trend global growth, upward earnings revisions, forthcoming Chinese fiscal stimulus, and a cresting in the number of new Delta variant cases all justify overweighting stocks on a 12-month horizon.  A more cautious stance towards equities will be appropriate in two years’ time once stagflationary forces begin to assert themselves. The Keynesian Cross The “Keynesian Cross” is one of the first diagrams that students encounter in introductory macroeconomic courses (Chart 1). It simply plots Aggregate Expenditure (AE) versus output (Y). Chart 1The Keynesian Cross Aggregate expenditure consists of personal consumption, capital investment, government expenditure, and net exports:   (1)                                                                  If spending exceeds output, inventories will decline, causing firms to raise production. In contrast, if output exceeds spending, inventories will increase, prompting companies to cut production. Hence, the economy gravitates towards a level of output where inventories are stable; that is, where AE is equal to Y. Importantly, this level of production may or may not correspond to full employment. Introducing Asset Prices The Keynesian Cross model does not explicitly include asset prices. However, this can be easily rectified by postulating that spending depends on both income and wealth. For example, let us express consumption as:   (2)                                                                  In this equation, α is the marginal propensity to consume out of wealth (i.e., how much consumption rises for every dollar increase in wealth, W) while β is the marginal propensity to consume out of income, Y.1  An increase in asset prices will boost wealth, leading to more consumption. A Simple But Illuminating Identity Consider the case where inventories are stable. Substituting equation (2) into equation (1) and then dividing by Y yields:   (3)                                                      The equation above is an identity. It does not say that a change in one term must lead to a change in another term in any causal sense of the word. All it says is that the terms on the right-hand side of the equation must add up to one. Suppose, for example, that α or β were to decline. If that were to happen, consumption would fall, leading to lower output. In order to restore output to its original level, either wealth would need to rise or some combination of investment, government spending, and net exports would need to increase. Upward Pressure On Savings There are at least three reasons to think that α and β have declined since the early 1980s: Chart 2US Household Debt Burdens Have Eased Significantly Over The Past Decade Deleveraging: The need for households in economies such as the US to repair their balance sheets in the aftermath of the Global Financial Crisis put upward pressure on desired savings, leading to a decrease in β. The inability to use the equity in one’s home to finance consumption also lowered α. To this day, outstanding home equity line of credit (HELOC) balances in the US are a shadow of their former selves (Chart 2).  Demographics: Savings vary over the life cycle. In general, savings are highest between the ages of 35 and 60 (Chart 3). The percentage of households in developed economies in their peak savings years began to increase in the late 1970s. While the trend has reversed in recent years, the ratio of workers-to-consumers in most countries (the so-called “support ratio”) remains elevated (Chart 4). Inequality: Higher income households save a greater share of their incomes than lower income households. As Atif Mian, Ludwig Straub, and Amir Sufi documented at last week’s Jackson Hole symposium, the rise in income inequality since 1980 has pushed up desired savings, thus lowering β in the process (Chart 5). Likewise, there is evidence that wealthier households tend to spend less of every additional dollar of wealth than poorer households.2 To the extent that wealth inequality has also increased since 1980, α has declined.   Chart 3ASavings Peak Around Middle Age (I) Chart 3BSavings Peak Around Middle Age (II)   Chart 4AIncreased Desired Savings Corresponded To A Rise In Support Ratios (I) Chart 4BIncreased Desired Savings Corresponded To A Rise In Support Ratios (II)       Chart 5Income Inequality Has Skewed The Composition Of Savings   The Need For Policy Support The decline in α and β over the past few decades could have been offset by an increase in investment or net exports. Unfortunately, at least in the US, that never happened (Chart 6). The US trade deficit in goods and services stood at 3.9% of GDP in Q2 of 2021, the highest in 12 years. The non-petroleum trade deficit is at a record high. Investment spending also remains below the levels reached in the pre-GFC period. The shortfall in aggregate demand put pressure on policymakers to spur the economy. The results were somewhat mixed. Looking at the US, government spending on goods and services rose substantially during the Great Recession. However, spending then proceeded to fall to multi-decade lows as a share of GDP by 2019 (Chart 7). Transfer payments were also broadly stable as a share of GDP in the decade leading up to the pandemic. The Trump tax cuts reduced government revenue by around 1.7% of GDP. However, as we have noted in the past, the impact of the tax cuts on aggregate demand was fairly small. Chart 6US Private Sector Investment Remains Below Its Pre-GFC Peak While The Non-Petroleum Trade Deficit Is At A Record High Chart 7Fiscal Policy Has Been More Reactive Than Proactive In The US After surging during the pandemic, both direct government expenditure and transfer payments have come off their highs. Tax rates are also likely to rise for upper income earners and corporations. Nevertheless, with Congress set to pass a $550 billion infrastructure bill and a $3.5 trillion budget reconciliation bill, US fiscal policy will remain more stimulative over the next few years than it was in the pre-pandemic period. The same is likely to be true outside the US (Chart 8). Chart 8Fiscal Policy: Tighter But Not Tight Central Banks To The Rescue This brings us to monetary policy. In the post-GFC period, lower interest rates helped keep capital investment from falling more than it would have otherwise. In addition, lower rates discouraged savings, thus supporting consumption. And, with other central banks also cutting rates, the decision by the Fed to maintain low rates prevented the dollar from strengthening excessively. Beyond the direct benefits to the economy, lower rates increased the prices of long-duration assets such as equities and homes. This raised W in the equations above. The resulting “wealth effect” stoked consumer spending, while also encouraging new investment (particularly in real estate). Excess Savings Should Diminish Looking out, there are a few reasons to think that α and β will begin trending higher, leading to more spending and less need for ultra-accommodative monetary policies: Chart 9Wealth Accumulation Through The Ages Deleveraging pressures have abated. In the US, the ratio of household debt-to-disposable income has returned to pre-housing bubble levels. Debt-servicing costs are at a multi-decade low. Baby boomers are leaving the labor force. They hold over half of US household wealth, considerably more than younger generations (Chart 9). As baby boomers transition from being net savers to net dissavers, national savings will fall.   Chart 10A Tight Labor Market Eventually Bolsters Wages Governments are working to mitigate income inequality. Not only are redistributionist policies increasingly in vogue, but policymakers are trying to run economies hot. Historically, a tight labor market has curbed income inequality, while driving up workers’ share of overall income (Chart 10). Upside For Bond Yields, Both Near And Far Bond yields in the major economies likely hit a generational low last summer. Yields should rise over the coming years, first as slack diminishes, and later as structural forces reduce the amount of excess savings sloshing around the global economy. In the near term, a cresting of the Delta variant wave will prop up Treasury yields. While the number of new cases in the US continues to rise, the second derivative has turned for the better. A heat map shows that the weekly growth in new cases has slowed substantially in most US states (Chart 11). Chart 11The Delta Variant Wave Is Fading In The US Globally, the Delta variant wave is abating (Chart 12). The transmission rate has clearly peaked within the G7 (Chart 13). The number of cases has begun to fall in recent hot spots such as Indonesia and Thailand. And, after rising above 100, the 7-day average of new cases in China has fallen back to 30. Chart 12The Delta Wave Is Cresting Chart 13The Covid Transmission Rate Is Falling Again The tapering of bond purchases by the major central banks should also lift yields. Canada began tapering this past April. BCA’s fixed-income experts expect the Fed to start paring back purchases by the end of this year, with the ECB and BoE following suit in early 2022. We do not expect bond markets to become unhinged. Central banks would strongly push back against an excessive rise in yields. Nevertheless, a move in the US 10-year Treasury yield to 1.8% by early next year seems reasonable. Stocks Can Withstand Rising Bond Yields… For Now Chart 14Equity Valuations and Real Bond Yields Have Tended To Move In Tandem Equity valuations have broadly tracked real bond yields over the past few years (Chart 14). While higher yields will weigh on equity prices, there are a number of remaining tailwinds for stocks: Growth will remain above trend in the foreseeable future: Bloomberg consensus estimates foresee the global economy growing at an above-trend pace well into next year (Table 1). We agree with this assessment, and in fact, see upside risks to consensus growth forecasts. In particular, Chinese growth is likely to accelerate later this year as credit growth rebounds and fiscal spending increases. Local governments used less than 40% of their annual debt issuance quotas as of the end of July. Typically by that time of the year, they have used 70% of their quotas. Table 1Global Growth Will Remain Above Trend Well Into Next Year Forward earnings estimates will continue to drift higher: Analysts are usually too optimistic. As a result, they normally have to cut estimates over the course of the calendar year. This year has been different (Chart 15). In early July, analysts expected S&P 500 companies to generate about $45 in EPS in Q2. In the end, they generated about $53. Earnings are projected to decline in absolute terms in Q3 and remain below Q2 levels until the second quarter of next year, when they are anticipated to grow by a meagre 3.5% year-over-year (Table 2). As earnings estimates move up, stock prices will rise, even if P/E multiples move sideways. Chart 15Unusually, Analysts Have Been Revising Earnings Estimates Higher This Year Table 2US Earnings Estimates Have Upside Rising inflation expectations will lift nominal bond yields more than real yields: Investors expect inflation to come down rapidly over the coming months (Chart 16). The 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rate is below the Fed’s comfort zone of 2.3%-to-2.5% (Chart 17).3 We think that US inflation will fall fast enough over the next few quarters to allow the Federal Reserve to maintain a fairly accommodative monetary stance, but not as fast as markets are discounting. Chart 16Investors Expect Inflation To Fall Rapidly From Current Levels The global equity risk premium remains elevated: We measure the equity risk premium (ERP) by subtracting the real 10-year bond yield from the forward earnings yield.4 Based on this measure, the global ERP stands at 634 bps (Chart 18). At the peak of the stock market boom in 2000, the global ERP was barely positive. Even in the US, where valuations are more stretched than abroad, the ERP stands at 574 bps. Remarkably, this is almost exactly where the ERP was in May 2008. An increase in the US 10-year Treasury yield to 1.8% by early next year – representing roughly a 50 basis-point increase from current levels in nominal terms and even less in real terms – would still leave US stocks attractively priced relative to bonds. Chart 17Below The Fed's Comfort Zone In summary, investors should remain overweight global equities on a 12-month horizon. A more cautious stance towards stocks will be appropriate in two years’ time once stagflationary forces begin to assert themselves. Peter Berezin Chief Global Strategist pberezin@bcaresearch.com Chart 18The Global Equity Risk Premium Remains Elevated     Footnotes 1 Note that Gross Domestic Product should theoretically equal Gross Domestic Income. Thus, Y can denote either income or output. 2 For example, in a sample of five euro area economies, the European Central Bank found that the marginal propensity to consume out of wealth is higher for households at the lower end of the wealth distribution. 3 The Federal Reserve targets an average inflation rate of 2% for the personal consumption expenditures (PCE) index. The TIPS breakeven is based on the CPI index. Due to compositional differences between the two indices, CPI inflation has historically averaged 30-to-50 basis points higher than PCE inflation. This is why the Fed effectively targets a CPI inflation rate of about 2.3%-to-2.5%. 4 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. Global Investment Strategy View Matrix Special Trade Recommendations Current MacroQuant Model Scores

Highlights Regulatory changes affecting Chinese platform companies are structural – rather than transitory – in nature. These companies might become quasi-SOEs and could be used by the government to achieve its national and geopolitical objectives. China’s regulatory clampdown will produce structurally lower corporate profitability and, thereby, reduce equity valuations for Chinese TMT companies. Chinese policymakers have begun easing monetary and fiscal policies. Money and credit growth will likely bottom in December or so. However, as in H2 2018 and H1 2019, policy will be eased only gradually. During this period EM ex-TMT stocks and industrial metal prices performed poorly. Mainstream EM (countries outside North Asia) will continue suffering from weak growth and rising political volatility, warranting a higher risk premium. The risk-reward tradeoff for EM financial markets is poor. Feature Over the past several days, I have held calls and roundtables with clients located in the EMEA region. In this report, we will share our answers to the most common client questions. Many clients were asking if the selloff in Chinese platform companies is nearing its end or whether much more weakness is to be expected. It is not surprising that with the Hang Seng Tech index down 35% from its February highs, there is great temptation to engage in bottom fishing. So, we start with questions relating to this topic. Chart 1Is This Time Different For Chinese TMT Stocks? Question: In 2018, the regulatory clampdown on Tencent and other video game companies lasted several months and created a major pullback in their share prices (Chart 1). However, authorities ultimately removed restrictions and these stocks rallied to new highs. Do you expect the same dynamics to emerge this time around? And if not, why? We are witnessing a structural regime shift in the Chinese government’s approach toward platform companies. These changes are much more profound and long lasting than those in 2018. They herald structurally lower corporate profitability and equity multiples for Chinese TMT companies. For these stocks, a bounce from oversold levels is possible over the near term and it could be sharp. However, the rebound will be short-lived, i.e., a cyclical or secular rally is unlikely. Investors – who have not sold – should use this rebound to pare back exposure to Chinese TMT stocks. Chart 2Chinese SOEs: Lackluster Share Price Performance Going forward, these platform companies will be managed in a similar fashion to Chinese state-owned enterprises (SOEs): with the interest of the entire nation in mind, and shareholder interests will take a back seat. China’s SOEs trade at very low multiples and their share prices have been treading water since 2009 (Chart 2). The secular bull market in Chinese TMT share prices is over and more de-rating is likely for the following reasons: Chinese platform/new economy companies possess unique big data that are important to the country’s development. Protecting big data becomes a priority in an era of US-China geopolitical confrontation and amid the elevated risk of cyber attacks. As a result, it is essential for the Chinese government to control companies that possesses big data. Limiting foreign shareholders’ access and decision making in regard to big data is also imperative. We do not believe that Chinese authorities will ever allow these new economy companies to operate as freely as they have in the past. Given platform company importance to both the domestic economy and geopolitical confrontation with the US, we will not be surprised if the government eventually establishes effective control over these platform companies – probably via its affiliated entities. Many of these platform companies are natural monopolies or oligopolies and their profitability should be regulated by authorities according to free market economic textbooks. We discussed this point in the recent report titled Chinese TMT Stocks: A Bad Dream Or A New Reality? Please click on the link to open the report. Going forward, return on equity will be lower than in the past for these stocks, heralding lower valuation multiples. Stocks of many Chinese platform companies trade in the US and are largely owned by US/international (non-Chinese) investors. Neither US nor Chinese authorities want to see shares of Chinese TMT companies trade in the US, albeit for completely different reasons. Chinese authorities want these companies to release little information to their foreign shareholders, especially regarding big data. In turn, the US securities regulator is keen for US investors not to be exposed to the risks of owning Chinese stocks for two main reasons: (1) these companies do not disclose full information and (2) China’s government meddles with the management of these enterprises. Given that authorities from both countries do not support the trading of Chinese stocks in the US, odds are high that the trading of Chinese TMT companies will move from the US to Hong Kong. Moreover, US authorities may recommend US funds avoid owing Chinese stocks. In short, increased government control over Chinese TMT companies and rising geopolitical tensions between the US and the Middle Kingdom may prompt many foreign investors to reduce their exposure to these stocks. This will have negative ramifications on their share prices. Chart 3Little Volatility Spillover From Offshore Into China's Onshore Markets Question: Don’t you think Chinese authorities may reverse their regulatory clampdown given that Chinese share prices have already dropped a great deal and further weakness could hurt investor and business sentiment? Chinese authorities will not reverse regulatory tightening on platform companies. If investor and business confidence on the mainland is hurt materially, regulators will reduce the intensity of their reforms but will not reverse them. Importantly, the carnage has so far been limited to Chinese offshore financial markets (Chart 3). Neither the onshore equity indexes, nor onshore corporate bonds have sold off much (Chart 3). The majority of platform companies are listed offshore and plunging share prices hurt foreign shareholders more than domestic retail and institutional investors. There is little reason for Chinese policymakers to worry about losses among foreign investors so long as the carnage does not spread to onshore markets. Question: Why would Chinese authorities damage their largest and most successful companies in the new economy sectors? Are they not critical amidst the US-China confrontation? Chinese policymakers understand the importance of platform companies to the country’s domestic growth outlook as well as its geopolitical ambitions. This explains why Chinese authorities seek to establish effective control over decision making in these companies. We elaborated on the strategic importance of big data above. Also, the largest platform companies, such as Alibaba, Tencent and Meituan, have in recent years been acquiring stakes in numerous businesses in Southeast Asia. Beijing might be thinking of using these platform companies to raise its geopolitical influence over other Asian nations and beyond. Many Asian nations will play a prominent role in the US-China confrontation. Whether they side with China or the US will affect the balance of geopolitical power in the region. In this context, having control over soft infrastructure (payment and data systems, among others) in these Asian economies will give Beijing a chance to influence their geopolitical choices, thereby giving China an advantage over the US. Therefore, the Chinese central government might be aiming to establish an effective control over these companies’ strategic decisions. In such a case, shareholder interests will take a back seat in these companies. Question: What about common prosperity initiatives and policies that the Chinese leadership has unveiled in recent weeks? Why now? President Xi will be elected for his third term in the fall of 2022. This constitutes a major political precedent in the Middle Kingdom’s modern history. President Xi wants to secure his support from the bulk of the population. Common prosperity policies entail income and wealth distribution from high-income to middle- and low-income households. Chart 4 and Chart 5 illustrate that there has so far been no equalization of income and wealth distribution. Chart 4China: Income Disparity Has Not Been Narrowing Chart 5Wealth Concentration Remains High In China   It is imperative for President Xi to achieve a meaningful change in income and wealth distribution in the next 12 months before his third term. President Xi’s power stems not from the top 10% of the population but from the remaining (and less wealthy) 90%. Hence, there will be little easing in the push toward common prosperity. If anything, the pace of these initiatives could escalate going forward. As a part of the common prosperity initiatives, companies with excess profitability will be compelled to perform a national duty in the form of financing social programs or providing donations. Large platform companies have already begun making large donations. This trend will intensify in the months ahead. In brief, profits will be distributed away from shareholders of these companies in favor of the general well-being of society. The positive is that low- and middle-income consumer spending in China will be supported by income transfer from companies and wealthy individuals. As a result, investors should favor the companies that sell to low- and middle-income households. Chart 6Chinese Growth Stocks Are Not Yet Cheap Going forward, the model of SOEs in China or Russia will be applicable to Chinese platform companies. SOEs in China, Russia and other EM countries often perform national duties at the expense of shareholders. Not surprisingly, their stocks have been trading at much lower multiples than private companies. Presently, Chinese TMT/growth stocks trade at a trailing P/E ratio of 33.5 (Chart 6). We do not expect platform companies’ P/E ratio to drop to the level of SOEs. However, a trailing P/E ratio of 33.5 for China’s TMT companies is still high given: the uncertainty around future business models; a lack of clarity around (still evolving) new regulation; government involvement in their management; the prioritization of national and geopolitical objectives over shareholder interest. Chart 7Mind These Gaps Question: Isn’t the slowdown in China’s business cycle already well known and priced in related financial markets? Yes, it is well known but we do not think it has been priced in China-exposed plays. There are several market relationships and indicators that lead us to believe so. Both panels in Chart 7 illustrate that industrial metals prices have diverged from the Chinese manufacturing PMI and onshore government bond yields. The latter two variables project the Chinese business cycle. Such a decoupling is unsustainable given that China accounts for 55% of global industrial metal consumption. We continue to expect meaningful downside in industrial metals prices which would hurt EM countries exporting commodities. China’s credit and fiscal spending impulse leads its business cycle by nine months and suggests that economic data will be weakening until Q2 2022 (Chart 8). Finally, net EPS revisions for EM-listed companies remain elevated (Chart 9). Chart 8China's Business Cycle Will Continue Decelerating Well Into Q1 2022 Chart 9EM EPS Growth Expectations Have Not Yet Been Downgraded   That said, one sentiment indicator that has dropped significantly and is now near its level during previous EM equity lows is the Sentix European investor sentiment index on EM equities (Chart 10). Chart 10European Investor Sentiment On EM Stocks Is Back To Its Previous Lows Net-net, the risk-reward tradeoff for EM equities and credit markets is not yet attractive. Chinese TMT stocks are vulnerable for reasons discussed above while EM financial markets exposed to China’s old economy are at risk due to decelerating Chinese economic growth. Question: When will authorities in China ease policy? What does it imply for Chinese and EM financial markets? Shouldn’t investors buy China/EM assets now in anticipation of macro policy easing in China? Yes, China has already started easing credit and fiscal policy and will ease more in the coming months. Chart 11 reveals that banks’ excess reserves at the PBOC have turned up and they lead the credit impulse by six months. In turn, the Chinese credit impulse in turn leads EM share price cycles by nine months (Chart 12). Chart 11China's Credit Impulse Will Bottom In Late 2021 Chart 12EM Equities Are Not Yet Out Of The Woods   All in all, even though Chinese policymakers have begun easing credit and fiscal policy, financial markets leveraged to the mainland’s old economy could still suffer as growth continues to disappoint in the months to come. Chart 13Chinese Easing In H2 2018 And H1 2019 Did Not Help Much EM Stocks And Metal Prices Importantly, policy easing will be implemented gradually, as in H2 2018 and H1 2019. During this period EM ex-TMT stocks and industrial metal prices performed poorly despite policy easing in China (Chart 13). Question: Given improvements in vaccine availability worldwide, will EM countries close their vaccination gap with developed countries in the coming months? If yes, wouldn’t it allow their economies to catch up, and their financial markets to outperform their DM peers? EM vaccination rates will rise as vaccines become available to developing countries. However, mainstream EM vaccination rates will still remain below those of advanced economies. This gap is due to higher levels of mistrust toward governments in developing countries than in advanced ones. Therefore, the pandemic will continue capping economic activity in mainstream EM. Importantly, the lack of fiscal stimulus, monetary policy tightening and weak banking systems in mainstream EM (i.e., excluding China, Korea and Taiwan) herald weak income and domestic demand growth in these economies. Years of poor income growth and lasting pandemic damage have caused political volatility to flare-up in some countries such as Colombia, Peru, Brazil, South Africa and Malaysia. This trend will likely continue foreshowing a higher risk premium in EM financial markets. Question: What is your inflation outlook for mainstream EM (excluding North Asia)? Will inflation continue to surprise to the upside and will their central banks hike rates enough so that their currencies do not depreciate? We discussed the inflation dynamics and the outlook for local rates for EM in the August 12 report. While commodity price inflation will subside, renewed currency deprecation is the key risk to the inflation outlook in mainstream EM. EM currencies will depreciate because China’s continued slowdown is bearish for EM currencies but bullish for the greenback. The basis is that the US sells little to China while EM are exposed to the Chinese business cycle. Also, domestic demand in mainstream EM will disappoint. That, along with rising political volatility, is negative for their currencies. Finally, high local rates in mainstream EM have often coincided with currency depreciation rather than appreciation. Question: What is the biggest risk in your view? The biggest risk to our view has been and remains TINA (There Is No Alternative). We have strong conviction on fundamentals but very little conviction on fund flows. Given that DM equity and credit markets are expensive and their government bond yields are very depressed, portfolio capital can go into EM financial markets that offer lower valuation than their DM counterparts even though they are not cheap in absolute terms. Our methodology is that fundamentals drive flows in the medium- to-long term. However, with the global financial system flush with liquidity, the importance of fundamentals has declined in recent years. Therefore, we are cognizant that EM markets might not sell off a lot and could bottom at a higher level than warranted by fundamentals. Still, we expect more downside in the coming months because fundamentals are much worse than most investors realize. Chart 14EM Credit Will Continue Underperforming Their US Peers Question: What is your recommended strategy across EM equities, currencies, and fixed-income markets? Global equity portfolios should continue underweighting EM, a recommendation from March 25, 2021. Within the EM equity universe, our overweights are Korea, India, China (preferring onshore to offshore equities), Mexico and Chile. Our underweights are Brazil, Colombia, Peru, South Africa, Turkey, the Philippines and Indonesia.  The risk-reward tradeoff for EM currencies remains poor. We continue shorting a basket of BRL, CLP, COP, PEN, ZAR, TRY, PHP, THB and KRW versus the US dollar. Within local markets we overweight Mexico, Russia, Korea, Malaysia, India, China and Chile. Regarding sovereign and corporate credit, we have downgraded EM credit versus US credit on March 25 and this strategy remains intact (Chart 14). The lists of our overweights, underweights and the ones warranting neutral allocation in EM equity, domestic bonds and credit portfolios are presented below and can always be found on the EMS website. Arthur Budaghyan Chief Emerging Markets Strategist arthurb@bcaresearch.com   Equities Recommendations Currencies, Credit And Fixed-Income Recommendations

Highlights Our willingness to spend money depends on which ‘mental account’ it occupies. Once windfall income enters our ‘savings mental account’, we will not spend it. Hence, the pandemic’s windfall income receipts will have no sustained impact on spending, or on inflation. This means that US monetary tightening will be later and shallower than the market is pricing. As we learn to live with the pandemic, the massive displacement in spending patterns is normalising. This means that the abnormally high spending on durable goods has a long way to fall. Hence, today we are recommending a new 6-month position: underweight consumer discretionary plays. One easy way of expressing this is to underweight XLY (US consumer discretionary) versus XLP (US consumer staples). Fractal analysis: The US dollar, and base metals versus precious metals. Feature Chart of the WeekNo Tsunami Of Spending Despite Excess Income Many people claimed that the war chest of savings that global households accumulated during the pandemic would unleash a tsunami of spending. Well, it didn’t. For example, US consumer spending remains precisely on its pre-pandemic trend (Chart I-1 and Chart I-2). This, despite stimulus checks and other so-called ‘transfer payments’ which boosted aggregate household incomes by trillions of dollars. Indeed, paste over 2020, and you would be forgiven for thinking that there was no pandemic! Chart I-2No Tsunami Of Spending Despite Excess Income Of course, households that lost their livelihoods during the pandemic, and thus became ‘liquidity constrained’, did spend the lifeline stimulus payments that they received. Yet in aggregate, households did not spend the excess income received during the pandemic. Moreover, the phenomenon is global – the savings rate in the UK has surged near identically to that in the US (Chart I-3). Chart I-3The Savings Rate Has Surged Everywhere The excess income built up during the pandemic did not unleash a tsunami of spending. Neither will it unleash a tsunami of future spending. We can say this with high conviction because we have seen the same movie many times before. Previous tranches of stimulus and transfer payments that boosted incomes in 2004, 2008, and 2012 (though admittedly by less than in 2020) had no lasting impact on spending. Whether We Spend Or Save Money Depends On Which ‘Mental Account’ It Occupies Why do windfall income receipts not trigger a tsunami in spending? (Chart I-4) Chart I-4Stimulus Checks Had No Meaningful Impact On Spending One putative answer comes from Milton Friedman’s Permanent Income Hypothesis. Contrary to the Keynesian belief that absolute income drives spending, Friedman postulated that income comprises a permanent (expected) component and a transitory (unexpected) component. And only the permanent income component drives spending. In the permanent income hypothesis, spending is the result of estimated permanent income rather than a transitory current component. Therefore, for households that are not liquidity constrained, a windfall receipt – like a stimulus payment – will not boost spending if it does not boost estimated permanent income. Nevertheless, this theory does require households to estimate their future permanent incomes, and it is debatable if households can do this. Stimulus and transfer payments that boosted incomes in 2004, 2008, 2012, and 2020 had no lasting impact on spending. We believe that a more real-world answer to how we deal with windfalls comes not from Economics but from the field of Psychology, and the theory known as Mental Accounting Bias. Mental accounting bias states that we segment our money into different accounts, which are sometimes physical, sometimes only mental, and that our willingness to spend money depends on which mental account it occupies. This contrasts with standard economic theory which assumes that money is perfectly fungible, so that a dollar in a current (checking) account is no different to a dollar in a savings account. In practice, money is not fungible, because we attach different emotions to our different mental accounts. A dollar in our current account we will gladly spend, but a dollar in our savings or investment accounts we will not spend. Hence, the moment we move the dollar from our current account into our savings or investment account, our willingness to spend it collapses. This explains why consumption trends have no connection with windfall income receipts once those income receipts end up in our savings mental account. Pulling all of this together, the war chest of savings accumulated during the pandemic is unlikely to change the overall trend in spending. More likely, it will be used to reduce household debt, and thereby constrain the broad money supply. In effect, part of the recent increase in public debt will just end up decreasing private debt, as happened in Japan during the 1990s (Chart I-5). Chart I-5In Japan, Public Debt Ended Up Paying Down Private Debt With no permanent boost to spending, the pandemic’s windfall income receipts will have no sustained impact on inflation. As Spending Patterns Normalise, Consumer Discretionary Plays Are Vulnerable While consumer spending remains precisely on its pre-pandemic trend, the sub-components of this spending do not. Specifically, spending on durable goods stands way above its pre-pandemic trend, while spending on services languishes below trend (Chart I-6). Chart I-6The Pandemic Distorted Spending Patterns This makes perfect sense. Pandemic restrictions on socialising, interacting, and movement meant that leisure, hospitality, in-person shopping, and travel services were unavailable. Therefore, consumers just shifted their firepower to items that could be enjoyed within the pandemic’s confines; namely, durable goods. But now that shift is reversing. In turn, these massive and unprecedented shifts in spending patterns explain the recent evolution of inflation. As booming demand for durable goods created supply bottlenecks, durables prices skyrocketed (Chart I-7). Chart I-7The Pandemic Distorted Prices Remarkably though, the 10 percent spike in US durable good price through 2020-21 was the first increase in an otherwise persistently deflationary trend through this millennium (Chart I-8). As such, it was a huge aberration and as Jay Powell pointed out last week in Jackson Hole: Chart I-8The Increase In Durables Prices Was A Huge Aberration “It seems unlikely that durables inflation will continue to contribute importantly over time to overall inflation.” Meanwhile, with services simply unavailable, their prices did not fall, given that the price of something that cannot be bought is a meaningless concept. Moreover, unlike for an unbought durable good, which adds to tomorrow’s supply, an unbought service such as a theatre ticket – whose consumption is time-sensitive – does not add to tomorrow’s supply. Hence, when unavailable services suddenly became available, the initial euphoric demand for limited supply caused these service prices also to surge. But excluding such short-lived euphoria in airfares, car hire, and lodging way from home, services prices remain well-contained. This reinforces our conclusion from the first section. The pandemic’s windfall income receipts will have no sustained impact on inflation. As Jay Powell went on to say: “We have much ground to cover to reach maximum employment, and time will tell whether we have reached 2 percent inflation on a sustainable basis.” All of which means that US monetary tightening will be later and shallower than the market is pricing. Another important investment conclusion is that as we learn to live with the pandemic, the massive displacement in spending patterns is normalising. This means that the abnormally high spending on durable goods has a long way to fall. The abnormally high spending on durables has a long way to fall. Given the very tight connection between spending on durables and the relative performance of the goods dominated consumer discretionary plays in the stock market, this will weigh on consumer discretionary sectors (Chart I-9). Chart I-9As Spending Patterns Normalise, Consumer Discretionary Plays Are Vulnerable Hence, today we are recommending a new 6-month position: underweight consumer discretionary plays. One easy way of expressing this is to underweight XLY (US consumer discretionary) versus XLP (US consumer staples) (Chart I-10). Chart I-10Underweight XLY Versus XLP Fractal Analysis Update Fractal analysis suggests that the dollar’s rally since late-Spring could meet near-term resistance, given the incipient fragility on its 65-day fractal structure (Chart I-11). Chart I-11The Dollar's Rally Could Meet Near-Term Resistance A bigger vulnerability is for the strong and sustained rally in base metals versus precious metals, which is now extremely fragile on its 260-day fractal structure (Chart I-12). We are already successfully playing this through short tin versus platinum, but are adding a new expression: short aluminium versus gold. The profit target and symmetrical stop-loss are set at 13.5 percent. Chart I-12The Massive Rally In Base Metals Versus Precious Metals Is Vulnerable   Dhaval Joshi Chief Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com Fractal Trading System Fractal Trades 6-Month Recommendations Structural Recommendations Closed Fractal Trades Closed Trades Asset Performance Equity Market Performance   Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields ##br##- Euro Area Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields ##br##- Europe Ex Euro Area Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields ##br##- Asia Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields ##br##- Other Developed   Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-5Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations  

Highlights China’s credit tightening may have surpassed maximum strength. Monetary policy will remain accommodative and fiscal policy will become more supportive in the rest of the year. However, overall regulatory oversight is still restrictive, limiting the scope of reflationary effects on the economy. There were signs that the “cross-cyclical” approach – a new catchphrase from the July Politburo meeting - emerged even before the start of the pandemic. The current policy backdrop resembles the situation in 2H2018. China’s new “common prosperity” plan, which sets up guidance for long-term policy direction, will likely have cyclical implications. Chinese investable stocks are in oversold territory and will probably rebound in the near term. In the next 6 to 12 months, however, we remain cautious given the lack of a catalyst to revive investor sentiment. Feature Chart 1Chinese Stocks Are Oversold In Absolute Terms China’s economic momentum has slowed, while regulatory crackdowns show no signs of dissipating. Meanwhile, Chinese investable stocks in absolute terms have slumped into technically oversold territory (Chart 1). Global investors are looking at fiscal and monetary policy easing for clues to what may be next. A shift in policy direction from restrictive to reflationary will help to shore up market sentiment and the outlook for the economy. Fiscal policy implementation in 1H21 was tighter than budgeted, leaving room for more support in 2H21. The PBoC’s unexpected reserve requirement ratio (RRR) cut in early July may have been a signal that policy tightening has ended. In short, China’s financial tightening has most likely passed its peak strength. Chart 2Valuations Are Almost Back To 2018 Lows We have no doubt that China will announce some compensatory measures in the coming months in response to rising downward pressures on the domestic economy. However, we continue to hold the view that the bar for a fresh round of material stimulus is higher today than it was in the past. The policy focus pivoting from a countercyclical to cross-cyclical adjustment, the rising emphasis on common prosperity, and the ongoing regulatory clampdowns in an array of industries, all limit the extent to which authorities can deploy the expected magnitude in infrastructure spending and bank lending. Therefore, we continue to recommend investors remain underweight Chinese stocks versus their global peers – a stance we have maintained since earlier this year – despite cheapened relative valuations in Chinese equities (Chart 2).  Shifting To A Cross-Cycle Approach China’s policy shift to a cross-cyclical stance has gained more market attention since the late-July Politburo meeting. However, there were signs that the cross-cyclical approach emerged even before the start of the pandemic. Chart 3Size Of Stimulus Was Already Getting Smaller During the height of the 2018/19 US-China trade war, policymakers responded to the economic shocks from imposed import tariffs with much more measured stimulus than in previous cycles (Chart 3). President Xi repetitively used the “Long March” analogy during the trade war, warning Chinese citizens to prepare for protracted hardship stemming from conflict with the US.1 The metaphor had important market implications because the attitude was fundamental to how the government handled the cyclical slowdown in 2018/19. Despite aggressive RRR and policy rate cuts in the second half of 2018, authorities maintained tight restrictions on bank lending and local government spending. Consequentially, aggregate credit growth continued to slide through end-2018 (Chart 4). Furthermore, authorities became uneasy about the sharp rise in the rate of credit expansion in Q1 2019. Following a public spat between the Premier Li Keqiang and the central bank, bank lending slowed sharply in the rest of the year. As a result, the improvement in infrastructure investment growth was small and short-lived. Despite an acceleration in local government bond issuance in 2H18 and Q1 2019, infrastructure investment growth remained on a structural downward trend throughout most of 2018 and 2019 (Chart 5). Chart 4China: A Deja Vu Of 2018-2019? Chart 5Improvement In Infrastructure Investment Was Short-Lived In 2019 Chart 6Financial De-Risking Mode Is Still On The current policy backdrop resembles the situation in 2H2018: while the central bank has kept interest rates at historically low levels and preemptively cut the RRR rate in July, lending standards remain tight and shadow bank credit continues to shrink (Chart 6).  In the past Chinese authorities stimulated substantially following exogenous shocks, but did not stimulate much when business cycle was slowing in an orderly manner.  A resurgence of domestic COVID cases and the severe flood in central China in July and August represent exogenous shocks and occured when the economy was losing steam. Hence, there are higher odds authorities will provide some support in response to these exogenous shocks. However, the recurring battle against COVID and lingering tensions with the US have likely prompted Chinese top leadership to extend their cross-cycle strategy. Officials may feel that a modest easing in both monetary and fiscal policies will be sufficient to offset the current economic weakness without overstimulating the economy.   Bottom Line: A cross-cycle policy approach means not only responding early to small shocks with piecemeal stimulus to stabilize growth but also limiting the scope of stimulus and preparing for “protracted battles”. The response from Chinese leaders during the trade war with the US in 2018/19 may be a roadmap for policy direction in the next 12 months.  Cyclical Implications From “Common Prosperity”  President Xi Jinping laid out a plan for “common prosperity”, a guideline for the country’s national policy in the coming decades, at the August 18th Central Committee for Financial and Economic Affairs.  Most of the plan’s objectives have 2035 deadlines and will be achieved gradually in multiple phases.2 However, in the next 12 months and leading to the 20th National Party Congress in the fall of 2022, we expect the authorities to accelerate some reform agendas that are consistent with the 14th Five-Year Plan (2021-2025). A key area that may gain momentum is increasing labor income and household consumption share in national output. Both labor compensation and household consumption as a share of GDP improved from 2011 to 2016, but the progress stalled in recent years and further deteriorated last year in the wake of the pandemic (Chart 7). Policy decision makers can reverse the falling share by either boosting income/consumption or lowering the share of capital formation in the national output, or a combination of both. Regulatory tightening in the property market has reduced investment growth in the sector, which accounts for 66% of the country’s total fixed-asset formation (Chart 8). We expect policy restrictions to continue curbing real estate investment in the rest of the year and into 2022, further shrinking the share of capital formation in the aggregate output.3 Chart 7China's Economic Rebalancing Progress Has Stalled In The Past Five Years Chart 8Policymakers Are Moving Away From The 'Old Economy' Pillars Chart 9Recovery In Household Income And Consumption Has Significantly Lagged Other Sectors Recovery in household income and consumption has significantly lagged other sectors in China’s recent economic rebound (Chart 9). In addition to short-term, pandemic-related factors, household consumption has been sluggish due to China’s long-standing imbalanced income distribution.  Given that China will be under more pressure to deliver economic progress in 2022, boosting wage growth and consumption will help to facilitate both the nation’s cross-cyclical economic strategy and President Xi’s longer-term reform plan for income and wealth redistribution. If successfully implemented, a rebalancing of labor income and consumption as a share of the national aggregate will have long-term economic benefits. However, for investors with a cyclical time frame, the transition will likely have the following implications on the market: Policymakers will keep a large fiscal budget deficit and increase spending in public services and social welfare, but there will be more pressure on the central government to keep local government debt in check. The increased fiscal burden also means that while the government will provide subsidies for households and key new-economy industries, policy at margin may move away from boosting investment in traditional infrastructure and construction (Chart 10). Chart 10Traditional Infrastructure Investment Will Remain Subdued Empirical research shows that lower-income households have a higher marginal propensity to consume.4 Last year China refrained from meaningful stimulus to incentivize consumption. In contrast, the statement from the August 18th meeting indicated the focus is on securing living standards and wages among lower-income households. Common prosperity related policies may boost consumption of staples and some durable goods but will likely discourage splurging in high-end luxury goods and services. Large corporations and high-net-worth individuals will be expected to share social responsibility and the cost of reducing income inequality, either through higher and stricter tax burdens, raising minimum wages for employees, and/or donations. Bottom Line: The “common prosperity” theme will mostly entail long-term policy initiatives, but it may also have some cyclical market repercussions. Investment Recommendations Chart 11Tactical Bounce Gave Way To Cyclical Downturn In Previous Cycles We do not rule out the possibility of a tactical (within the next three months) / technical rebound in Chinese stocks. Our August 4th report discussed how prices managed to rebound strongly within 90 days of the policy-triggered market riots in both 2015 and 2018. However, the rallies quickly faded and stocks fell to new lows (Chart 11). Prices bottomed when policy decisively turned reflationary. For now, the risks to Chinese equities are largely to the downside. Although there are some remedial measures to ease monetary and fiscal policies, officials have not sent a clear signal to ease on the regulatory front. Conversely, there are two scenarios that could prompt us to upgrade Chinese stocks to either neutral or overweight in both absolute and relative terms. Chart 12No Clear Signal Chinese Policymakers Will Ease On The Regulatory Front The first scenario is that the economy does not slow further and a modest policy easing is sufficient to stabilize the economic outlook. This may happen if strong global economic growth and demand continue to support China’s export and manufacturing sectors, while domestic household consumption improves. In this case, the downside risks on the overall economy would abate, but the gradual underlying downtrend in China's old economy would be intact. We would need an additional reflationary tailwind, such as a boost from fiscal spending or a reversal of industry policy tightening, to upgrade Chinese stocks to overweight. We have argued in the past that housing appears to be the best candidate; the catalyst is missing at the moment (Chart 12). In the second scenario, Chinese policymakers may determine that the downside risks to growth are unacceptably large given existing slowdowns in the industrial and service sectors, and decide to temporarily reverse course on structural reforms. We will watch for indications of a shift in attitude. For now, we think that China’s leadership has a higher pain threshold than in the past, suggesting that this outcome is not yet probable.   Jing Sima China Strategist jings@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1"Xi Jinping calls for ‘new Long March’ in dramatic sign that China is preparing for protracted trade war", South China Morning Post. 2"Xi stresses promoting common prosperity amid high-quality development, forestalling major financial risks", Xinhua, English.news.cn 3We use fixed-asset investment (FAI) as a proxy for gross fixed capital formation (GFCF) because the National Bureau of Statistics of China does not publish the GFCF breakdown by sectors. GFCF comprises FAI, less the purchase of existing fixed assets, land and some minor items. Historically, the two series have closely tracked each other. 4"The Stimulative Effect of Redistribution", Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco Market/Sector Recommendations Cyclical Investment Stance

Highlights Commodity markets will face growing supply challenges over the next decade as the US and China prepare for war, if only to deter war. Chinese President Xi Jinping's push for greater self-reliance at home and supply chain security abroad is reinforced by the West’s focus on the same interests. The erosion of a single rules-based global trade system increases the odds of economic and even military conflict. The competition for security is precipitating a reforging of global supply chains and a persistent willingness to use punitive measures, which can escalate into boycotts, embargoes, and even blockades (i.e. not only Huawei). The risk of military engagements will rise, particularly along global chokepoints and sea lanes needed to transport vital commodities. Import dependency and supply chain risk are powerful drivers of decarbonization efforts, especially in China. On net, geopolitical trends will keep the balance of commodity-price risks tilted to the upside. Commodity and Energy Strategy remains long commodity index exposure on a strategic basis via the S&P GSCI and the COMT ETF.  Note: Even in the short term, a higher geopolitical risk premium is warranted in oil prices due to US-Iran conflict. Feature The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) under President Xi Jinping has embarked on a drive toward autarky, or economic self-sufficiency, that has enormous implications, especially for global commodities. Beijing believes it can maintain central control, harness technology, enhance its manufacturing prowess, and grow at a reasonable rate, all while bulking up its national security. The challenge is to maintain social stability and supply security through the transition. China lives in desperate fear of the chaos that reigned throughout most of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, which also enabled foreign domination (Chart 1). The problem for the rest of the world is that Chinese nationalism and assertive foreign policy are integral aspects of the new national strategy. They are needed to divert the public from social ills and deter foreign powers that might threaten China’s economy and supply security. Chart 1China Fears Any Risk Of Another ‘Century Of Humiliation’ The chief obstacle for China is the United States, which remains the world leader even though its share of global power and wealth is declining over time. The US is formally adopting a policy of confrontation rather than engagement with China. For example, the Biden administration is co-opting much of the Trump administration's agenda. Infrastructure, industrial policy, trade protectionism, and the “pivot to Asia” are now signature policies of Biden as well as Trump (Table 1).1 Table 1US Strategic Competition Act Highlights Return Of Industrial Policy, Confrontation With China Many of these policies are explicitly related to the strategic aim of countering China’s rise, which is seen as vitiating the American economy and global leadership. Biden’s Trump-esque policies are a powerful indication of where the US median voter stands and hence of long-term significance (Chart 2). Thus competition between the US and China for global economic, military, and political leadership is entering a new phase. China’s drive for self-reliance threatens the US-led global trade system, while the US’s still-preeminent geopolitical power threatens China’s vital lines of supply. Chart 2US Public’s Fears Are China-Centric Re-Ordering Global Trade The US’s and China’s demonstrable willingness to use tariffs, non-tariff trade barriers, export controls, and sanctions cannot be expected to abate given that they are locked in great power competition (Chart 3). More than likely, the US and China will independently pursue trade relations with their respective allies and partners, which will replace the mostly ineffective World Trade Organization (WTO) framework. The WTO is the successor to the rules-based and market-oriented system known as the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), which was formed following World War II. The GATT’s founders shared a strong desire to avoid a repeat of the global economic instability brought on by World War I, the Great Crash of 1929, and the retreat into autarky and isolationism that led to WWII. Chart 3US and China Imposing Trade Restrictions This inter-war period saw domestically focused monetary policies and punishing tariffs that spawned ruinous bouts of inflation and deflation. Minimizing tariffs, leveling the playing field in trading markets, and reducing subsidization of state corporate champions were among the GATT's early successes. The WTO, like the GATT before it, has no authority to command a state to change its economy or the way it chooses to organize itself. At its inception the GATT's modus vivendi was directed at establishing a rules-based system free of excessive government intrusion and regulation. If governments agreed to reduce their domestic favoritism, they could all improve their economic efficiency while avoiding a relapse into autarky and the military tensions that go with it.2 The prime mover in the GATT's founding and early evolution – the USA – firmly believed that exclusive trading blocs had created the groundwork for economic collapse and war. These trading blocs had been created by European powers with their respective colonies. During the inter-war years the revival of protectionism killed global trade and exacerbated the Great Depression. After WWII, Washington was willing to use its power as the global hegemon to prevent a similar outcome. Policymakers believed that European and global economic integration would encourage inter-dependency and discourage protectionism and war. The fall of the Soviet Union reinforced this neoliberal Washington Consensus. Countries like India and China adopted market-oriented policies. The WTO was formed along with a range of global trade deals. Ultimately the US and the West cleared the way for China to join the trading bloc, hoping that the transition from communism to capitalism would eventually be coupled with social and even political liberalization. The world took a very different turn as the United States descended into a morass of domestic political divisions and foreign military adventures. China seized the advantage to expand its economy free of interference from the US or West. The West failed to insist that liberal economic reforms keep pace.3 Moreover, when China joined the WTO in 2001, the organization was in a state of "regulatory stalemate," which made it incapable of dealing with the direct challenges presented by China.4 Today President Xi has consolidated control over the Communist Party and directs its key economic, political, and military policymaking bodies. He has deepened party control down to the management level of SOEs – hiring and firing management. SOEs have benefited from Xi’s rule (Chart 4). But now the West is also reasserting the role of the state in the economy and trade, which means that punitive measures can be brought to bear on China’s SOEs. Chart 4State-Owned Enterprises Benefit From Xi Administration What Comes After The WTO? The CCP has shown no interest in coming around to the WTO's founding beliefs of government non-interference in the private sector. For example, it is doubling down on subsidization and party control of SOEs, which compete against firms in other WTO member states. Nor has the party shown any inclination to accept a trade system based on the GATT/WTO founding members' Western understanding of the rule of law. These states represent market-based economies with long histories of case law for settling disputes. Specifically, China’s fourteenth five-year plan and recent policies re-emphasize the need to upgrade the manufacturing sector rather than rebalancing the economy toward household consumption. The latter would reduce imbalances with trade deficit countries like the US but China is wary of the negative social consequences of too rapidly de-industrializing its economy. It wants to retain its strategic and economic advantage in global manufacturing and it fears the social and political consequences of fully adopting consumer culture (Chart 5). Chart 5China’s Economic Plans Re-Emphasize Manufacturing, Not Consumption The US, EU, and Japan have proposed reform measures for the WTO aimed at addressing “severe excess capacity in key sectors exacerbated by government financed and supported capacity expansion, unfair competitive conditions caused by large market-distorting subsidies and state owned enterprises, forced technology transfer, and local content requirements and preferences.”5 But these measures are unlikely to succeed. China disagrees with the West’s characterization. In 2018-19, during the trade war with the US, Beijing contended that WTO members must “respect members’ development models.” China formally opposes “special and discriminatory disciplines against state-owned enterprises in the name of WTO reform.”6 In bilateral negotiations with the US this year, China’s first demand is that the US not to oppose its development model of “socialism with Chinese characteristics” (Table 2). Table 2China’s Three Diplomatic Demands Of The United States (2021) Yet it is hard for the US not to oppose this model because it involves Beijing using the state’s control of the economy to strengthen national security strategy, namely by the fusion of civil and military technology. Going forward, the Biden administration will violate the number one demand that Chinese diplomats have made: it will attempt to galvanize the democracies to put pressure on China’s development model. China’s demand itself reflects its violation of the US primary demand that China stop using the state to enhance its economy at the expense of competitors. If a breakdown in global trading rules is replaced by the US and China forming separate trading blocs with their allies and partners, the odds of repeating the mistakes of the inter-bellum years of 1918-39 will significantly increase. Tariff wars, subsidizing national champions, heavy taxation of foreign interests, non-tariff barriers to trade, domestic-focused monetary policies, and currency wars would become more likely. China’s Strategic Vulnerability The CCP has delivered remarkable prosperity and wealth to the average Chinese citizen in the 43 years since it undertook market reforms, and especially since its accession to the WTO in 2001 (Chart 6). China has transformed from an economic backwater into a $15.4 trillion (2020) economy and near-peer competitor to the US militarily and economically.7 This growth has propelled China to the top of commodity-importing and -consuming states globally for base metals and oil. We follow these markets closely, because they are critical to sustaining economic growth, regardless of how states are organized. Production of and access to these commodities, along with natural gas, will be critical over the next decade, as the world decarbonizes its energy sources, and as the US and China address their own growth and social agendas while vying for global hegemony. Decarbonization is part of the strategic race since all major powers now want to increase economic self-sufficiency and technological prowess. Chart 6CCPs Remarkable Success In Growing Chinas Economy Over recent decades China has become the largest importer of base metals ores (Chart 7) and the world's top refiner of many of these metals. In addition, it is the top consumer of refined metal (Chart 8). Chart 7China Is World’s Top Ore Importer Chart 8China Is Worlds Top Refined Metal Consumer By contrast, the US is not listed among ore importers or metals consumers in the Observatory of Economic Complexity (OEC) databases we used to map these commodities. This reflects not only domestic supplies but also the lack of investment and upgrades to the US's critical infrastructure over 2000-19.8 Going forward, the US is trying to invest in “nation building” at home. An enormous change has taken shape in strategic liabilities. In the oil market, the US went from being the world's largest importer of oil in 2000, accounting for more than 24% of imports globally, to being the largest oil and gas producer by 2019, even though it still accounted for more than 12% of the world's imports (Chart 9). In 2000, China accounted for ~ 3.5% of the world's oil imports and by 2019 it was responsible for nearly 21%. China is far behind per capita US energy consumption, given its large population, but it is gradually closing the gap (Chart 10). Overall energy consumption in China is much higher than in the US (Chart 11). Chart 9US Oil Imports Collapse As Shale Production Grows Chart 10Energy Use Per Capita In China Far From US Levels... Chart 11China Is World’s Largest Primary Energy Consumer China's impressive GDP growth in the twenty-first century is primarily responsible for China's stunning growth in imports and consumption of oil (Chart 12) and copper (Chart 13), which we track closely as a proxy for the entire base-metals complex. Chart 12Global Oil Demand Forecast Remains Steady Chinas GDP Drives Oil Consumption, Imports Chart 13Global Oil Demand Forecast Remains Steady Chinas GDP Drives Refined Copper Consumption And Ore Imports China’s importance in these markets points to an underlying strategic weakness, which is its dependency on imports. This in turn points to the greatest danger of the breakdown in US-China relations and the global trade system. The Road To War? China is extremely anxious about maintaining supply security in light of these heavy import needs. Its pursuit of economic self-sufficiency, including decarbonization, is driven by its fear of the US’s ability to cut off its key supply lines. China’s first goal in modernizing its military in recent years was to develop a naval force capable of defending the country from foreign attack, particularly in its immediate maritime surroundings. Historically China suffered from invaders across the sea who took advantage of its weak naval power to force open its economy and exploit it. Today China is thought to have achieved this security objective. It is believed to have a high level of capability within the “first island chain” that surrounds the coast, from the Korean peninsula to the Spratly Islands, including southwest Japan and Taiwan (Map 1).9 China’s militarization of the South China Sea, suppression of Hong Kong, and intimidation of Taiwan shows its intention to dominate Greater China, which would put it in a better strategic position relative to other countries. Map 1China’s Navy Likely Achieved Superiority Within The First Island Chain China’s capability can be illustrated by comparing its naval strength to that of the United States, the most powerful navy in the world. While the US is superior, China would be able to combine all three of its fleets within the first island China, while the US navy would be dispersed across the world and divided among a range of interests to defend (Table 3). China would also be able to bring its land-based air force and missile firepower to bear within the first island chain, as opposed to further abroad.10 Table 3China’s Naval Growth Enables Primacy Within First Island Chain In this sense China is militarily capable of conquering Taiwan or other nearby islands. President Xi Jinping had in fact ordered China’s armed forces be capable of doing so by 2020.11 Taiwan continues to be the most significant source of insecurity for the regime. True, a military victory would likely be a pyrrhic victory, as Taiwan’s wealth and tech industry would be destroyed, but China probably has the raw military capability to defeat Taiwan and its allies within this defined space. However, this military capability needs to be weighed against economic capability. If China seized military control of Taiwan, or Okinawa or other neighboring territories, the US, Japan, and their allies would respond by cutting off China’s access to critical supplies. Most obviously oil and natural gas. China’s decarbonization has been impressive but the reliance on foreign oil is still a fatal strategic vulnerability over the next few years (Chart 14). China is rapidly pursuing a Eurasian strategy to diversify away from the Middle East in particular. But it still imports about half its oil from this volatile region (Chart 15). The US navy is capable of interdicting China’s critical oil flows, a major inhibition on China’s military ambitions within the first island chain. Chart 14Chinas Energy Diversification Still Leaves Vulnerabilities Of course, if the US and its allies ever blockaded China, or if China feared they would, Beijing could be driven to mount a desperate attack to prevent them from doing so, since its economic, military, and political survival would be on the line. Chart 15China Still Dependent On Middle East Energy Supplies The obvious historical analogy is the US-Japan conflict in WWII. Invasions that lead to blockades will lead to larger invasions, as the US and Japan learned.12 However, the lesson from WWII for China is that it should not engage the US navy until its own naval power has progressed much further. In the event of a conflict, the US would be imposing a blockade at a distance from China’s naval and missile forces. When it comes to the far seas, China’s naval capabilities are extremely limited. Military analysts highlight that China lacks a substantial naval presence in the Indian Ocean. China relies on commercial ports, where it has partial equity ownership, for ship supply and maintenance (Table 4). This is no substitute for naval basing, because dedicated military facilities are lacking and host countries may not wish to be drawn into a conflict. Table 4China’s Network Of Part-Owned Ports Across The World: Useful But Not A Substitute For Military Bases Further, Beijing lacks the sea-based air power necessary to defend its fleets should they stray too far. And it lacks the anti-submarine warfare capabilities necessary to defend its ships.13 These capabilities are constantly improving but at the moment they are insufficient to overthrow US naval control of the critical chokepoints like the Strait of Hormuz or Strait of Malacca. While China’s naval power is comparable to the US’s Asia Pacific fleet (the seventh fleet headquartered in Japan), it is much smaller than the US’s global fleet and at a much greater disadvantage when operating far from home. China’s navy is based at home and focused on its near seas, whereas US fleet is designed to operate in the far seas, especially the Persian Gulf, which is precisely the strategic area in question (Chart 16).14 China is gradually expanding its navy and operations around the world, so over time it may gain the ability to prevent the US from cutting off its critical supplies in the Persian Gulf. But not immediately. The implication is that China will have to avoid direct military conflict with the United States until its military and naval buildup has progressed a lot further. Chart 16China’s Navy At Huge Disadvantage In Distant Seas Meanwhile Beijing will continue diversifying its energy sources, decarbonizing, and forging supply chains across Eurasia via the Belt and Road Initiative. What could go wrong? We would highlight a few risks that could cause China to risk war even despite its vulnerability to blockade: Chart 17China’s Surplus Of Males Undergirds Rise In Nationalism Domestic demographic pressure. China is slated to experience a dramatic bulge in the male-to-female ratio over the coming decade (Chart 17).15 A surfeit of young men could lead to an overshoot of nationalism and revanchism. This trend is much more important than the symbolic political anniversaries of 2027, 2035, and 2049, which analysts use to predict when China’s military might launch a major campaign. Domestic economic pressure. China’s turn to nationalism reflects slowing income growth and associated social instability. An economic crisis in China would be worrisome for regional stability for many reasons, but such pressures can lead nations into foreign military adventures. Domestic political pressure. China has shifted from “consensus rule” to “personal rule” under Xi Jinping. This could lead to faulty decision-making or party divisions that affect national policy. A leadership that carefully weighs each strategic risk could decay into a leadership that lacks good information and perspective. The result could be hubris and belligerence abroad. Foreign aggression. Attempts by the US or other powers to arm China’s neighbors or sabotage China’s economy could lead to aggressive reaction. The US’s attempt to build a technological blockade shows that future embargoes and blockades are not impossible. These could prompt a war rather than deter it, as noted above. Foreign weakness. China’s capabilities are improving over time while the US and its allies lack coordination and resolution. An opportunity could arise that China’s strategists believe they cannot afford to miss. Afghanistan is not one of these opportunities, but a US-Iran war or another major conflict with Russia could be. The breakdown in global trade is concerning because without an economic buffer, states may resort to arms to resolve disputes. History shows that military threats intended to discourage aggressive behavior can create dilemmas that incentivize aggression. The behavior of the US and China suggests that they are preparing for war, even if we are generous and assume that they are doing so only to deter war. Both countries are nuclear powers so they face mutually assured destruction in a total war scenario. But they will seek to improve their security within that context, which can lead to naval skirmishes, proxy wars, and even limited wars with associated risks of going nuclear. Investment Takeaways The pursuit of the national interest today involves using fiscal means to create more self-sufficient domestic economies and reduce international supply risks. Both China and the West are engaged in major projects to this end, including high-tech industrialization, domestic manufacturing, and decarbonization. These trends are generally bullish for commodities, even though they include trends like military modernization and naval expansion that could well be a prelude to war. War itself leads to commodity shortages and commodity price inflation, but of course it is disastrous for the people and economies involved. Fortunately, strategic deterrence continues to operate for the time being. The underlying geopolitical trend will put commodity markets under continual pressure. A final urgent update on oil and the Middle East: The US attempt to conduct a strategic “pivot” to Asia Pacific faces a critical juncture. Not because of Afghanistan but because of Iran. The Biden administration will have trouble unilaterally lowering sanctions on Iran after the humiliating Afghanistan pullout. The new administrations in both Iran and Israel are likely to establish red lines and credible threats. A higher geopolitical risk premium is thus warranted immediately in global oil markets. Beyond short-term shows of force, everything depends on whether the US and Iran can find a temporary deal to avoid the path to a larger war. But for now short-term geopolitical risks are commodity-bullish as well as long-term risks.   Robert P. Ryan Chief Commodity & Energy Strategist rryan@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1     There are also significant differences between Biden and Trump in other areas such as redistribution, immigration, and social policy. 2     See Ravenhill, John (2020), Regional Trade Agreements, Chapter 6 in Global Political Economy, which he edited for Oxford University Press, particularly pp. 156-9. 3    “As time went by, the United States realized that Communism not only did not retreat, but also further advanced in China, with the state-owned economy growing stronger and the rule of the Party further entrenched in the process." See Henry Gao, “WTO Reform and China Defining or Defiling the Multilateral Trading System?” Harvard International Law Journal 62 (2021), p. 28, harvardilj.org.  4    See Mavroidis, Petros C. and Andre Sapir (2021), China and the WTO, Why Multilateralism Still Matters (Princeton University Press) for discussion.  See also Confronting the Challenge of Chinese State Capitalism published by the Center for Strategic & International Studies 22 January 2021. 5    Gao (2021), p. 19. 6    Gao (2021), p. 24. 7     Please see China's GDP tops 100 trln yuan in 2020 published by Xinhuanet 18 January 2021. 8    We excluded 2020 because of the COVID-19 pandemic's effects on supply and demand for these ores, metals and crude oil. 9    See Captain James Fanell, “China’s Global Navy Strategy and Expanding Force Structure: Pathway To Hegemony,” Testimony to the US House of Representatives, May 17, 2018, docs.house.gov. 10   Fanell (2018), p. 13. 11    He has obliquely implied that his vision for national rejuvenation by 2035 would include reunification with Taiwan. Others suggest that the country’s second centenary of 2049 is the likely deadline, or the 100th anniversary of the People’s Liberation Army. 12    The US was a major supplier of oil to Japan, and in 1941 it froze Japan's assets in the US and shut down all oil exports, in response to Japan's military incursion into China in the Second Sino-Japanese War of 1937-45.  Please see Anderson, Irvine H. Jr. (1975), "The 1941 De Facto Embargo on Oil to Japan: A Bureaucratic Reflex," Pacific Historical Review, 44:2, pp. 201-231.  13   See Jeffrey Becker, “Securing China’s Lifelines Across the Indian Ocean,” China Maritime Report No. 11 (Dec 2020), China Maritime Studies Institute, digital-commons.usnwc.edu. 14   See Rear Admiral Michael McDevitt, “Becoming a Great ‘Maritime Power’: A Chinese Dream,” Center for Naval Analyses (June 2016), cna.org. 15   For discussion see Major Tiffany Werner, “China’s Demographic Disaster: Risk And Opportunity,” 2020, Defense Technical Information Center, discover.dtic.mil.  

When defining maximum employment, many investors focus on the state of the labor market that prevailed as of February 2020. However, the US labor market was beyond maximum employment levels at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, suggesting that the Fed is likely to raise interest rates before the unemployment rate falls back to 3.5%. This assumes that the Fed deems the ongoing recovery in the labor market to be “broad-based and inclusive,” given revisions to the FOMC’s Statement on Longer-Run Goals and Monetary Policy Strategy last August. The extraordinary nature of the COVID-19 pandemic has indeed had an outsized impact on some demographic segments of the labor market, but most of these effects already have or are likely to be reversed as the overall unemployment rate continues to fall. A permanent decline in the participation rate, relative to pre-pandemic levels, is likely given ongoing demographic trends. Even if the recent behavioral impact of retirements is overdone, the demographic impact of retirement on the participation rate suggests that the Federal Reserve may hit its maximum employment objective by next summer, barring a long-lasting impact on US economic activity from the Delta variant of COVID-19. In a 2H 2022 rate hike scenario, the fair value of the 10-year Treasury yield will be 2.2%-2.3% next year, which the market is not priced for. This underscores that investors should maintain a short duration position within a fixed-income portfolio, and that equity investors should favor value over growth stocks on a 12-month time horizon. The cyclical outlook for monetary policy in the US rests heavily, if not exclusively, on the length of time needed to return to maximum employment. In this report, we argue that a complete return to the state of the labor market as of February 2020 is probably not required for the Fed’s maximum employment objective to be met, because the jobs market was likely beyond maximum employment at that time. In addition, we highlight that the broad-based and inclusive nature of the Fed's maximum employment objective is objective will not delay the first Fed rate hike beyond what the trajectory of the unemployment rate would suggest, as the odds of a persistent negative impact on demographic segments of the labor market no longer seem meaningful. In fact, the one partial exception that we can identify – retirement – argues for an earlier return to maximum employment. We conclude by noting that a first Fed rate hike is possible by the middle of next year, barring a long-lasting impact on US economic activity from the Delta variant of COVID-19 or if the Fed’s inflation liftoff criteria are no longer met. Normalized levels of inflation expectations, as well as reasonable estimates of a closed output gap over the coming year, suggest that inflation itself will remain liftoff-consistent barring a significant shock to growth or a major disinflationary/deflationary supply-side event. A 2022 rate hike is not currently reflected in market pricing, underscoring that investors should remain short duration within a fixed-income portfolio. Equity investors should expect a meaningful rise in stock market volatility as long-maturity yields rise over the coming year, and should favor value over growth stocks once fears of the likely impact of the Delta variant on near-term economic growth abate. Defining “Maximum Employment” Chart II-1Last Cycle, Rates Began To Rise Before Maximum Employment Was Reached Last September, the Fed’s official shift to an average inflation targeting regime represented a significant break from how the Fed conducted monetary policy in the past. The shift replaced what was previously a “symmetric” 2% inflation target with the goal of achieving inflation that averages 2% over time, meaning that monetary policy is no longer strictly forward-looking. According to the Fed's previous framework, monetary policy should start to tighten before the economy reaches its full employment level, in anticipation that further declines in the unemployment rate will likely lead to accelerating inflation. For example, during the last economic cycle, the Fed began to raise interest rates in December 2015, when the unemployment rate stood at 5% (Chart II-1). But the Fed's new regime implies that the onset of tightening should begin later, the criteria for which was explicitly laid out in the September 2020 FOMC statement: “The Committee decided to keep the target range for the federal funds rate at 0 to 1/4 percent and expects it will be appropriate to maintain this target range until labor market conditions have reached levels consistent with the Committee's assessments of maximum employment and inflation has risen to 2 percent and is on track to moderately exceed 2 percent for some time.” In addition, while the Fed’s statutory mandate from Congress has always included the pursuit of maximum employment as an objective of monetary policy, revisions to the FOMC’s Statement on Longer-Run Goals and Monetary Policy Strategy last August explicitly noted that the maximum level of employment is a “broad-based and inclusive goal.” This has left many investors questioning when the Fed’s maximum employment criterion will be reached, with some market participants believing that a complete return to the state of the labor market that prevailed as of February 2020 will be required before the Fed lifts interest rates. But there are three arguments suggesting that the US labor market was beyond maximum employment levels at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic: 1. Chart II-2 highlights that the February 2020 unemployment rate ranked at the 5th percentile of its post-WWII history, and was at its lowest level since the late-1960s. While it is true that the unemployment rate would have been higher for most of the last economic expansion based on December 2007 age-adjusted participation rates, Chart II-3 highlights that this effect had waned by the end of 2019. This underscores that the pre-pandemic unemployment rate likely reflected very low labor market slack. Chart II-2The US Labor Market Was Likely Beyond Maximum Employment Levels Prior To The Pandemic 2. The February 2020 unemployment rate stood at 3.5%, which is at the very low end of the Fed’s NAIRU estimates, and meaningfully below the CBO’S long- and short-term NAIRU projections (Chart II-4). Given that NAIRU estimates signify the level of unemployment that is consistent with a steady inflation rate, this implies that 3.5% is likely below the “maximum employment” unemployment rate. Chart II-3The Part Rate Had Mostly Normalized Just Prior To COVID-19 Chart II-4A 3.5% Unemployment Rate Is Likely Below NAIRU Chart II-5Wage Growth Accelerated In Response To A Sub-4% Unemployment Rate 3. The pre-pandemic trend in wage growth also supports the notion that the labor market was past maximum employment levels at that time. Chart II-5 highlights that average hourly earnings and the Atlanta Fed’s median wage growth tracker were both accelerating in 2018/2019, and Chart II-6 highlights that real average hourly earnings growth of production and nonsupervisory employees was close to its 90th percentile historically at the end of 2019. This underscores that the Fed is likely to raise interest rates before the unemployment rate falls back to 3.5%, assuming that the ongoing recovery in the labor market is deemed by the Fed to be “broad-based and inclusive.”   Chart II-6Real Average Hourly Earnings Growth Was At Its 90th Percentile Historically Prior To COVID-19 Breadth, Inclusivity, And Participation Chart II-7The "She-cession" Is Over The extraordinary nature of the COVID-19 pandemic has indeed had an outsized impact on some demographic segments of the labor market, but most of these effects have already reversed or are likely to as the overall unemployment rate continues to fall. And as we highlight below, the one partial exception that we can identify – retirement – in fact argues for an earlier return to maximum employment. We focus our demographic segment analysis on four main categories: 1. employment by gender; 2. race; 3. wage level and education; and 4. the impact on labor force participation from retirement. Gender Chart II-7 highlights the impact of the pandemic on the US labor market by gender. In 2020, the impact of the pandemic fell disproportionately on women. The unemployment rate rose close to 13 percentage points for women from February to April of last year, versus a 10 percentage point rise for men. In addition, the recovery in the participation rate last year was less robust for women, who disproportionately cited family responsibilities as the basis for not participating in the labor force. However, Chart II-7 also highlights that the disproportionate labor market impact of the pandemic on women is now over, with the female unemployment rate closer to its pre-pandemic level than for men, with a similar recovery in the participation rate. The difference in wage growth, relative to February 2020 levels, is also now smaller for women than for men. Thus, barring the development of a new divergence over the coming year, there is no longer any basis for the Federal Reserve to distinguish between men and women in the labor market recovery. Chart II-8Black Unemployment And Labor Force Participation Has Mostly Normalized Race Chart II-8 highlights the impact of the pandemic on the US labor market by race. In this case, it is clear that a disproportionately negative effect on Black employment persisted for longer than it did for women. But it is also clear that the Black unemployment rate is now roughly the same magnitude above its February 2020 level as is the case for the overall unemployment rate. In June, the Black labor force participation rate had actually recovered more than the overall participation rate, although it did decline meaningfully in July. The Black labor force participation rate has shown itself to be highly volatile since the onset of the pandemic, and we doubt that the July reading marks a decoupling from the overall participation rate. It is also true that median non-white wage growth has decelerated significantly more than median white wage growth during the pandemic, but this has occurred from a very elevated starting point. Median non-white wage growth was growing a full percentage point above median white wage growth just prior to the pandemic, compared with a half a percentage point below today. This deceleration has likely occurred as a lagged impact from the larger rise in Black unemployment noted above, which has now dissipated – suggesting that nonwhite wage growth is not likely to meaningfully lag over the coming year. Two additional points highlight that Black unemployment, labor force participation, and wages are likely to be highly correlated with overall labor market trends over the coming year. First, Chart II-9 highlights that in 2019 Black workers were underrepresented in management / professional and natural resources / construction / maintenance occupations, and overrepresented in service and production / transportation / material moving occupations. Given that services spending remains below its pre-pandemic trend, it is likely that the Black unemployment rate will continue to decline as the gap in leisure and hospitality and other services employment closes further relative to pre-pandemic levels. Chart II-9Black Unemployment Will Fall As Services Spending Recovers Second, Table II-1 highlights that Black survey respondents to the Census Bureau’s Household Pulse Survey located in New York and California are reporting lower and only modestly higher levels, respectively, of lost employment income than is the case for Black workers in the US overall. Given that services employment in these two states, particularly New York, are the most likely to be negatively impacted by persistent “work-from-home” effects, Table II-1 suggests that Black services employment is not likely to lag gains in overall services employment. Wage Level And Education Chart II-10 highighlights wage growth for those with a high school diploma or less, for low-skilled workers, and for those in the lowest average wage quartile, and Charts II-11A & II-11B highlight the impact of the pandemic on the unemployment and participation rates by education. Table II-1No Evidence Of A Negative “Work-From- Home” Effect On Black Unemployment Chart II-10Wage Growth By Education And Skill Level Is Largely Unchanged Chart II-11AThe Least Educated Workers Still Need To See More Job Gains… Chart II-11B…But This Will Occur As Services Spending Improves     On the wage front, Chart II-10 makes it clear that there are no major negative differences between those with limited education, limited skills, or limited pay and the overall trend in wage growth relative to pre-pandemic levels. Reflecting a shortage of workers in some services industries, wages for 1st quartile wage earners and low-skilled workers are accelerating, and are poised to reach their highest level since 2008. On the employment and participation front, Charts II-11A & B show that the job market recovery has been less pronounced for high school graduates and those with less than a high school diploma. But, we believe – with high conviction – that this reflects the industry composition of the existing employment gap, which skews heavily towards service and leisure & hospitality. These jobs tend to require less formal education and training, and to offer less pay. Given this, and similar to the case for Black employment, low education employment growth is unlikely to meaningfully diverge from the trend in overall services employment over the coming year. The Impact of Retirement On Labor Force Participation Chart II-12Most Of The Pandemic Decline In Labor Force Participation Has Occurred Due To Retirement Chart II-12 presents a breakdown of the change in overall labor force participation from Q4 2019 to Q2 2021 by nonparticipation category. The chart is based off the Atlanta Fed’s Labor Force Participation Dynamics dataset, and employs some Bank Credit Analyst estimates to seasonally adjust the impact of some categories in the first half of this year and to align it with the actual change in the published monthly seasonally-adjusted participation rate. The chart underscores that, while family responsibilities and those who are not in the labor force but who want a job (the shadow labor force) have been important contributors to the decline in labor force participation since the onset of the pandemic, retirement has been the single most important factor driving the participation rate lower. This sharp drop in labor force participation from retirement likely reflects the decision of some older workers to bring forward their retirement date by a year or two, although a recent study from the Kansas City Fed suggests that the non-demographic component of the recent surge in retirements has mainly been driven by a decline in the number of retirees rejoining the labor force.1 But demographic effects are important, and Chart II-13 highlights that the participation rate has fallen at a rate of roughly 30 basis points per year on average since 2008, reflecting the aging of the population. Chart II-13 is consistent with the age-adjusted participation rate that we showed in Chart II-3 above, and underscores that, even though the recent decline in the participation rate due to retirement is overdone, a permanent decline relative to pre-pandemic levels is likely the result of ongoing demographic trends. In our view, the Federal Reserve is unlikely to regard a demographically-driven decline in the overall participation rate as evidence that the labor market recovery has fallen short of the Fed’s maximum employment objective. It is possible that a return of the working age participation rate to its pre-pandemic level will be viewed as a condition for maximum employment, but Chart II-14 highlights that progress on this front is already more advanced. Chart II-13A Full Recovery To The Pre-Pandemic Labor Force Participation Rate Is Unlikely Chart II-14The Working Age Participation Rate Has Recovered More Than The Overall Part Rate   A lower overall participation rate results in a faster decline in the unemployment rate for any given level of employment growth. Given that there are minimal-to-no remaining labor market divergences along other demographic dimensions of the labor market that aren’t simply correlated with the overall unemployment rate, the implication of a permanently lower participation rate is that the Federal Reserve is likely to hit its maximum employment objective earlier than market participants, and the Fed itself, are currently expecting. Timing The Return To Maximum Employment, And The First Fed Rate Hike Table II-2 presents the average monthly nonfarm payroll growth that will be required to reach a 3.8% unemployment rate, a level that Fed Vice Chair Richard Clarida recently affirmed would in his view likely constitute maximum employment.2 The values shown in the table assume the trend participation rate shown in Chart II-13 above, as well as a recent average of monthly population growth. Table II-2The Return To Maximum Employment May Be Faster Than You Think The table highlights that the unemployment rate is likely to fall to 3.8% following the creation of roughly 4.3 million additional jobs. If the monthly change in nonfarm payrolls continues to grow at its average over the past 3 months, this threshold will be met in January 2022 – essentially a full year before the Fed and market participants expect interest rates to begin to rise. Based instead on a simple linear trend of nonfarm payrolls since late last year, the unemployment rate is likely to fall to 3.8% by sometime next summer. As we highlighted above, the Fed has been explicit that its conditions for raising the funds rate are the following: Labor market conditions have reached levels consistent with the Committee's assessments of maximum employment Inflation has risen to 2 percent Inflation is on track to moderately exceed 2 percent for some time. Currently, the second and third conditions for liftoff are present, suggesting that a first rate hike is possible by the middle of next year, barring a long-lasting impact on US economic activity from the Delta variant of COVID-19. We agree that inflation will slow significantly from its current pace over the coming year as pandemic-induced supply-side factors wane, which some investors have noted may put the Fed’s inflation criteria back into play. But we doubt that the Fed will narrowly focus on the year-over-year growth rate in the core PCE deflator – which will be strongly influenced by base effects next year from this year’s comparatively elevated price level – when judging its second and third liftoff criteria. Instead, the Fed is likely to focus on the prevailing “run rate” of inflation that excludes prices experiencing any disinflationary effects of supply-chain normalization. Chart II-15 illustrates one important reason that the Fed’s inflation criteria will remain “checked” over the coming year. The chart shows that the pandemic, especially last year’s fiscal response to it, has “normalized” important measures of inflation expectations (based on an interval of 2004 to today). We noted in a report earlier this year that inflation is determined by both the degree of economic slack and inflation expectations, a framework that the Fed and many economists refer to as the “modern-day Phillips Curve.”3 Chart II-15The Fed’s Inflation Liftoff Criteria Are Likely To Stay “Checked” Many investors feel that the Phillips Curve has failed to predict weak inflation over the past decade, but we noted in our report that this perception is due to a singular focus on the economic slack component of the modern-day version of the curve – to the exclusion of inflation expectations – and a failure to consider the lasting impact of sustained periods of a negative output gap on those expectations. Chart II-16A Closed Output Gap Will Support Liftoff-Consistent Inflation Chart II-16 highlights that both market and Fed economic projections imply a positive output gap within the next 12 months, suggesting that inflation itself will remain liftoff-consistent barring a significant shock to growth or a major disinflationary/deflationary supply-side event. Declines in the prices of goods that have surged as a result of the disruption of global supply chains could potentially lower inflation expectations over the coming year, but our sense is that this is only likely in a scenario in which the prices of these goods fall below their pre-pandemic levels (which we do not currently expect). Investment Implications      There are three key investment implications of a potentially faster return to maximum employment than is currently anticipated by investors and the Fed. First, Chart II-17 highlights that the market is not priced for a first Fed rate hike by next summer, and Table II-3 highlights that a sizeable majority of respondents to the New York Fed’s Survey of Primary Dealers do not expect a single rate hike in 2022. Chart II-18 highlights that the fair value of the 10-year Treasury yield a year from today is 2.2%-2.3% in a 2H 2022 rate hike scenario, underscoring that a short duration stance is warranted within a fixed-income portfolio over the coming year – barring a long-lasting impact on economic activity from the Delta variant of COVID-19. Chart II-17The Market Is Not Fully Priced For A Quick Return To Maximum Employment Table II-3Market Participant Surveys Show No Hike Expectations Next Year Chart II-18Investors Should Maintain A Short-Duration Fixed-Income Stance Second, while a 2.2%-2.3% 10-year Treasury yield would not necessarily be negative for stock prices on a sustained basis, Chart II-19 shows that it would bring the equity risk premium (ERP) within its 2002-2007 range. The level of the 10-year yield that is consistent with that range has fallen relative to pre-pandemic levels and is now clearly below the trend rate of economic growth, due to a significant run-up in equity market multiples. This underscores that stocks are the most dependent on T.I.N.A., “There Is No Alternative,” than at any other point since the global financial crisis. It is unclear what ERP investors will require to contend with the myriad risks to the longer-term economic outlook, many of which are political or geopolitical in nature and which did not exist in the early 2000s. Chart II-19Now, Stocks Are Increasingly Dependent On Low Bond Yields Consequently, there are meaningful odds that equities will experience a “digestion phase” at some point over the coming year as long-maturity bond yields rise – potentially trading flat-to-down in absolute terms for several weeks or months. It is also possible that stocks will experience a more malicious sell-off, if it turns out that equity investors require a structurally higher risk premium than what prevailed prior to the global financial crisis. This is not our base case view. We continue to recommend an overweight stance toward equities in a multi-asset portfolio. But it is a risk that warrants monitoring over the coming year. Finally, rising bond yields clearly favor value over growth stocks on a 12-month time horizon. In the US, the sizeable recent bounce in growth stocks has occurred alongside a renewed decline in the 10-year Treasury yield, which itself has been driven by renewed fears about the economic impact of the Delta variant. Thus, growth stocks may remain well bid relative to value in the very near term. But on a 12-month time horizon, value stocks are likely to outperform their growth peers, as long duration tech sector valuation comes under pressure and financial sector earnings benefit from higher interest rates. Jonathan LaBerge, CFA Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst Footnotes 1 What Has Driven the Recent Increase in Retirements? by Jun Nie and Shu-Kuei X. Yang, Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City Economic Bulletin, August 11, 2021. 2 Outlooks, Outcomes, and Prospects for U.S. Monetary Policy, by Fed Vice Chair Richard H. Clarida, At the Peterson Institute for International Economics, Washington, D.C. (via webcast), August 4, 2021 3 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst Special Report "The Modern-Day Phillips Curve, Future Inflation, And What To Do About It," dated 18 December, 2020, available at bca.bcaresearch.com

Highlights The decline in the US and UK July services PMIs underscores that pandemic control measures are not the only manner by which COVID-19 impacts the services sector of the economy. A slowdown in Q3 growth in advanced economies from the Delta surge is now all but inevitable. The fact that highly-vaccinated advanced economies have experienced a sharp rise in new cases due to the Delta variant underscores that true herd immunity, as envisioned for most of the pandemic, will likely prove elusive. Consequently, investors need to shift their framework from the idea of herd immunity to that of “NAHRI”: the non-accelerating hospitalization rate of immunity. The vaccination rate is the most obvious indicator of progress towards NAHRI, but immunity from previous infections is also an important contributor. Reasonable estimates of unreported COVID-19 infections suggest that investors have good reason to believe that the US and most other major advanced economies will be above NAHRI, or at least very close to it, at some point in Q4. On a 6-12 month time horizon, economic growth in advanced economies, as well as the trend in financial markets, is not likely to be driven by the Delta variant of COVID-19. Extremely easy monetary policy, pent up savings, and robust revenue growth will support economic growth and the trend in stock prices – despite the fact that analyst earnings expectations are clearly too high. The recent underperformance of China-sensitive assets has been driven by a regulatory crackdown by Chinese authorities on new economy companies, which reflects new socio-political and economic shifts. Chinese stocks are now oversold and could bounce in the near-term, but we would still recommend favoring developed market equities within a global ex-US equity allocation until Chinese policy turns reflationary. Investors should continue to favor stocks versus bonds in a multi-asset portfolio over the coming year, with the proviso that the impact from the Delta variant is likely to cause a near-term growth disappointment. High single-digit earnings growth, coupled with some pressure on multiples, continues to point to mid-single-digit returns from US equities. Within a global equity allocation, we would recommend that investors favor global ex-US stocks, whose outperformance is not dependent on that of EM. Value versus growth, and small caps versus large, will likely benefit from an uptrend in long-maturity bond yields. We recommend that investors favor short USD positions, in response to a likely downtrend in the dollar over the coming year. Feature Chart I-1Meaningful Vaccination Progress Continues Everywhere Except Africa Over the past month, the Delta variant-driven phase of the pandemic has continued to worsen in several advanced economies, arrayed against a continual improvement in the immunity of the world’s population. Chart I-1 highlights that, outside of Africa, the share of the population that is fully vaccinated against COVID-19 is rising at a robust pace of roughly 10 percentage points per month. But in advanced economies with elevated rates of vaccination compared to the rest of the world, new confirmed cases of COVID-19 accelerated in August, driven in most cases by the Delta variant. Chart I-2 highlights that in the UK, the epicenter of the Delta surge, new cases have begun to rise again after having peaked in late July. UK hospitalizations remain low relative to what has occurred since the onset of the pandemic (panel 2 of Chart I-2), but the US has experienced a more significant rise due to its comparatively low vaccination rate. In addition, reflecting a disparity in vaccination rates within the US that we have highlighted, has a strong political dimension.1 Chart I-3 illustrates that ICU capacity utilization (relative to peak staffed ICU beds) has risen sharply in red states, back above its all-time high. ICU usage in blue states is also rising, but it remains 10 percentage points below its prior peak. Chart I-2UK Hospitalizations Remain Stable, Despite Elevated Case Counts Chart I-3Lowly Vaccinated US States Are Suffering The Most From Delta   When discussing the pandemic and its economic impact in past Bank Credit Analyst reports, we have emphasized the importance of hospitalizations as the core driver of policymaker decisions about pandemic control measures. In turn, we have focused on control measures as an important driver of economic activity because these measures clearly impede households’ ability to consume many services. Chart I-4Surging Cases Impact Services Activity, Even Without Pandemic Control Measures But Chart I-4 underscores that control measures are not the only manner by which the pandemic impacts the services sector of the economy. The chart highlights that the Markit services PMI has fallen sharply in July and August in both the US and UK economies, two countries that have few or no pandemic control measures still in place. This is strong evidence that fear and general risk aversion among some consumers is affecting services spending. Given that hospitalizations have remained relatively well controlled in the UK, this also suggests that the impact on consumer sentiment is emerging mostly from new case counts rather than from published hospitalization rates. Chart I-5 highlights that the University of Michigan's Index of Consumer Sentiment fell sharply in August to essentially a 10-year low, providing further evidence that a slowdown in Q3 growth in advanced economies from the Delta surge is now all but inevitable. Chart I-6 highlights that this has not yet been reflected in consensus expectations for growth, suggesting that near-term growth disappointments are likely. Chart I-5A Q3 Growth Slowdown Is Now All But Inevitable... Chart I-6...Which Is Not Currently Reflected In Consensus Expectations For Growth   Shifting Focus From Herd Immunity To NAHRI The fact that highly vaccinated advanced economies have experienced a sharp rise in new cases due to Delta underscores that true herd immunity, as envisioned for most of the pandemic, will likely prove elusive. This point was underscored earlier this month in public comments by the head of the Oxford Vaccine Group,2 who noted that even relatively small rates of transmission from “breakthrough cases” of vaccinated individuals means that anyone who is unvaccinated will likely be exposed to COVID-19 at some point over the coming months or years. From an economic standpoint, this may not be problematic if the spread of the disease among the unvaccinated is slow, as it would allow hospitals time to process COVID patients without risking an overrun of the system (and thus would likely not necessitate a response from policymakers). But the lack of an achievable herd immunity is clearly a risk if community transmission of the Delta variant is high among unvaccinated individuals, even in a scenario where overall vaccination rates are elevated. Consequently, investors need to shift their framework from the idea of herd immunity to that of “NAHRI”: the non-accelerating hospitalization rate of immunity. This concept is borrowed from the idea of NAIRU (the non-accelerating inflation rate of unemployment), and signifies the point at which sufficient immunity has been reached in a country – either through vaccination or past infection – that results in a stable pace of COVID-19 hospitalizations in the absence of any pandemic control measures or precautionary behavior on the part of consumers. Once NAHRI is reached with no control measures and a pre-pandemic rate of interpersonal contact, the pandemic will be effectively over. Chart I-7The US Vaccination Rate Has Picked Up Modestly One clear difficulty with this perspective is that NAHRI is unknown, making it challenging to determine how close a given economy is to a stable pace of COVID-related hospitalization. The experience of the UK over the past month, with an elevated case count yet stable hospitalizations, may suggest that they are close or approaching a stable-hospitalization immunity rate, although investors will still need to watch the UK closely over the coming weeks to confirm if this is the case. The vaccination rate is the most obvious indicator of progress toward NAHRI, and on this front the US has further to go. Chart I-7 highlights that while the pace of first doses administered in the US has risen over the past two months in response to the Delta wave, it will still take until the end of October or early November for the US to reach levels that have been attained by other advanced economies. The introduction of widespread vaccination mandates, as well as the incentive effects of vaccination passports, might raise this rate over the coming weeks. This is even more likely given the FDA's full approval of the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine this week. But; immunity from previous infections will also contribute to reaching NAHRI, which raises the question of how many unreported COVID-19 infections have occurred since the onset of the pandemic. This is especially important given recent evidence that a previous COVID-19 infection among those who are unvaccinated appears to provide as much protection against the Delta variant as double-dose vaccination does for those without a previous infection (Chart I-8). Chart I-8A Previous COVID-19 Infection Appears To Offer Strong Protection Against The Delta Variant In the US, the Center for Disease Control estimates that from February 2020 to May 2021 only 1 in 4.2 COVID-19 infections were reported, suggesting that there were approximately 120 million total infections during that period. That would be quite positive for the economic outlook if accurate, as it would imply that the true immunity rate in the US is probably much closer to NAHRI than the vaccination rate would imply. However, it is also possible that the Center's estimate is too high, which is what some surveys of Americans seem to suggest. In mid-to-late February, a Pew Research survey reported that 25% of US adults had either tested positive for COVID-19, tested positive for antibodies against the SARS-COV-2 virus, or were confident that they already contracted the virus. This compares with 8.5% of the US population with a confirmed case of COVID-19 at that time, suggesting that the true ratio of reported cases to total infections is closer to 1:3. Chart I-9 highlights what the true US immunity rate might look like compared with the published vaccination rate based on different estimates of unreported infections. The chart highlights that a 1:3 ratio of reported cases to total infections implies an additional 10 percentage points of immunity, which would bring US first-dose vaccination rates in line with those of other DM countries. When combined with a slow but still ongoing rise in first doses administered, as well as emergency use eligibility of children under 12 years old targeted by the end of September, investors have good reason to believe that the US and most other major advanced economies will be above NAHRI, or at least very close to it, at some point in Q4. Chart I-9The True US Immunity Rate May Be A Lot Higher Than The Vaccination Rate Would Suggest A Permanent Shift In Consumer Behavior? The inability to reach true herd immunity, combined with the recent slowdown in services activity in response to a surge in cases from the Delta variant, raises the issue of whether altered consumer behavior will persist beyond the next few months. Chart I-10A Positive Sign That The Delta Wave May Be Abating In our view, the answer is: probably not. First, Chart I-10 makes the simple point that the transmission rate is already falling in advanced economies, suggesting that fears of a complete explosion in new cases beyond previous highs are unfounded. Second, the behavior of consumers over the past two months has been reasonable, but is unlikely to continue once nations begin to approach NAHRI. The Delta variant is still relatively new, and its higher transmissibility, as well as its seemingly higher hospitalization rate for those who are unvaccinated, has understandably given some consumers pause over the past few months (even those who are vaccinated). This is likely especially true among adults with young children in their household, given that they are not currently able to receive a vaccine and given a significant rise in pediatric cases that has occurred in some countries. But the reality is that the world will have to live with the existence of COVID-19 permanently, which consumers, investors, and policymakers will all soon come to accept and normalize. It will become endemic, and receiving annual booster shots against the disease may become a permanent ritual for people around the world. In advanced economies, once most or all individuals who wish to be vaccinated have had the chance to receive their shot, it seems unlikely that periodic waves of rising cases among the unvaccinated will be seen as a threat to individual health, especially if the increase in hospitalizations is limited and the viability of the health care system is not under threat. Beyond Delta: The Economy And Financial Markets In A Year’s Time On a 6-12 month time horizon, economic growth in advanced economies, as well as the trend in financial markets, is not likely to be driven by the Delta variant of COVID-19. Instead, the cyclical investment outlook will continue to depend on the factors that we have discussed in several previous reports: Extremely Easy Monetary Policy: Chart I-11 illustrates the 10-year US Treasury yield relative to trend nominal GDP growth. The chart highlights that long-maturity US government bond yields have not been this low relative to trend growth since the late-1970s, which will continue to support domestic demand even if growth moderates over the coming year. Excess Savings: A waning growth impulse from fiscal policy will likely weigh on real goods spending, which is roughly 10 percent higher than its pre-pandemic trend (Chart I-12). But services spending, which accounts for about 70% of overall consumer spending, is still 5% below its pre-COVID trend and will be supported by the deployment of a significant amount of excess savings that have accumulated over the course of the pandemic. Some of these excess savings have probably been deployed to pay down debt, but a sizeable portion likely remains to support services spending. Chart I-13 highlights that the gap in spending is fairly broad-based across different services categories, underscoring that a recovery in services spending is not overly-dependent on the return of a particular type of consumer spending behavior. Chart I-11US Monetary Policy Is Extraordinarily Easy Chart I-12Pent-Up Savings Will Support Services Spending   Robust Revenue Growth: The equity market is likely to be supported by strong revenue growth over the coming year, even if it modestly disappoints current expectations. Chart I-14 presents bottom-up analysts’ expectations for S&P 500 sales per share growth over the coming year, alongside a proxy for nominal growth expectations (12-month forward expectations for real GDP growth plus 2 percentage points). The chart highlights that, while expectations for sales growth are modestly above what our proxy would suggest, nominal growth expectations are the strongest they have been in over a decade. Chart I-13Missing Services Spending Is Broad- Based Across Spending Categories Chart I-14S&P 500 Revenue Growth Is Likely To Be Strong Over The Coming Year...   On the latter point, while revenue growth will likely support the equity market, expectations for earnings are now clearly too high. Chart I-15 highlights that bottom-up analysts are calling for 18% earnings growth over the coming year – after what has already been a very impressive earnings recovery – and for profit margins to expand by a full percentage point from what is already a new high. Chart I-16 presents a long-term perspective on corporate profit margins, highlighting how stretched they have become even relative to the uptrend of the past three decades. Chart I-15...Even Though Earnings Expectations Are Clearly Too High Chart I-16US Profit Margins Are Very Elevated, Even Given The Past Three Decade's Uptrend     Chart I-17 highlights that earnings expectations usually disappoint, given the perennial optimism of bottom-up analyst expectations. The chart shows that they historically disappoint on the order of 5 percentage points, but that a 10 percentage point miss would not be so uncommon. Thus, EPS growth that is in line with the revenue growth proxy shown in Chart I-14 will not likely weigh on investor sentiment. China And EM Stocks As a final point about the macro and cyclical investment outlook, Chart I-18 highlights that our Market-Based China Growth Indicator has fallen below the boom/bust line for the first time since the middle of last year. We highlighted in last month’s report that China would not likely provide the global economy with a growth impulse until Chinese policy turns reflationary, and financial assets that are sensitive to Chinese economic growth are now flashing a warning sign. We therefore continue to believe that a normalization in services spending in advanced economies remains the likely impulse for global growth over the coming year. Chart I-17A 10% Earnings Miss Over The Coming Year Would Not Be Unprecedented Chart I-18Chinese Growth Proxies Are Performing Poorly   However, at least a part of the recent underperformance of China-sensitive assets has been driven by the spectacular underperformance of broadly-defined tech stocks in China since late-May (Chart I-19). The selloff in Chinese tech stocks has been triggered by a regulatory crackdown by Chinese authorities on new economy companies, which reflects new socio-political and economic shifts in China – which are thus not likely to be transitory. Still, Chinese stocks are now oversold even in absolute terms (Chart I-20), raising the question of whether EM stocks overall are due for a bounce. Chart I-19Some Of The Recent EM Underperformance Reflects The Chinese Regulatory Crackdown Chart I-20Chinese Stocks Are Oversold In Absolute Terms     In the short term, the answer is yes, but over a 6-12 month time horizon we would still recommend favoring developed market equities within a global ex-US equity allocation. First, while policy from China may eventually act as a catalyst for EM equities, BCA’s China strategists do not believe that Chinese policymakers have yet reached the “pain point” that would signal regulatory and monetary policy easing. Second, China and EM more generally is comparatively tech heavy, and thus will face headwinds on a relative basis if value outperforms growth over the coming year (as we expect). Chart I-21EM Stocks Do Not Offer A Compelling Value Catalyst Versus DM Ex-US Third, Chart I-21 highlights that EM stocks offer no compelling value proposition relative to DM ex-US equities. EM stocks are modestly cheap on a 12-month forward P/E basis (trading at a 13% discount), but this has been true historically – with the exception of a brief period from mid-2007 to mid-2008. Relative to the past decade, EM valuation is at roughly average levels versus global ex-US stocks, suggesting that Chinese policy and sector performance trends are likely to be the key drivers for EM performance relative to non-US equities. Investment Conclusions Chart I-22Favor DM Ex-US Vs. US, And Value Vs. Growth, Over The Coming Year In Section 2 of this month’s report, we explain why the Fed’s maximum employment criterion is likely to be reached earlier than investors and the Fed itself expects. This suggests that equity multiples may come under pressure over the coming year as long-maturity government bond yields rise. However, we noted above that earnings are likely to grow at a high single-digit pace, and that this is likely to support the uptrend in US stock prices as developed economies approach or surpass the non-accelerating hospitalization rate of immunity from COVID-19 and the world continues to move toward to a post-pandemic state. In combination with our expectation of rising government bond yields, investors should thus continue to favor stocks versus bonds in a multi-asset portfolio over the coming year, with the proviso that the impact from Delta is likely to cause a near-term growth disappointment. On a 12-month time horizon, high single-digit earnings growth coupled with some pressure on multiples continues to point to mid-single-digit returns from US equities. Within a global equity allocation, we would recommend that investors favor global ex-US stocks. The outperformance of the latter is not dependent on the outperformance of emerging markets, as Chart I-22 highlights that DM ex-US equities now trade at close to a 30% discount relative to their US counterparts – an extreme reading that partially reflects the extraordinary discount of global value versus growth stocks (panel 2). The trend in value versus growth is strongly correlated with the trend in financials versus broadly-defined technology stocks, and rising long-maturity bond yields favor the earnings of the former and weigh on the multiples of latter. Chart I-23 highlights that global small cap stocks may also outperform over the coming year, given their fairly strong correlation with long-maturity bond yields since the start of the pandemic. Finally, as we have noted in previous reports, the US dollar is a reliably counter-cyclical currency over 12-month periods. The recent bounce in the US dollar in the face of rising stock prices has deviated from this relationship, but only modestly so (Chart I-24). A similar deviation occurred in Q1 of this year, and was resolved with the dollar, not stock prices, moving lower. Consequently, we recommend that investors favor short USD positions, in response to a likely downtrend in the dollar over the coming year. Chart I-23Small Cap Stocks Will Likely Outperform If Long-Maturity Bond Yields Rise Chart I-24A Pro-Risk Investment Stance Argues For A Dollar Downtrend   Jonathan LaBerge, CFA Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst August 26, 2021 Next Report: September 30, 2021 II. The Return To Maximum Employment: It May Be Faster Than You Think When defining maximum employment, many investors focus on the state of the labor market that prevailed as of February 2020. However, the US labor market was beyond maximum employment levels at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, suggesting that the Fed is likely to raise interest rates before the unemployment rate falls back to 3.5%. This assumes that the Fed deems the ongoing recovery in the labor market to be “broad-based and inclusive,” given revisions to the FOMC’s Statement on Longer-Run Goals and Monetary Policy Strategy last August. The extraordinary nature of the COVID-19 pandemic has indeed had an outsized impact on some demographic segments of the labor market, but most of these effects already have or are likely to be reversed as the overall unemployment rate continues to fall. A permanent decline in the participation rate, relative to pre-pandemic levels, is likely given ongoing demographic trends. Even if the recent behavioral impact of retirements is overdone, the demographic impact of retirement on the participation rate suggests that the Federal Reserve may hit its maximum employment objective by next summer, barring a long-lasting impact on US economic activity from the Delta variant of COVID-19. In a 2H 2022 rate hike scenario, the fair value of the 10-year Treasury yield will be 2.2%-2.3% next year, which the market is not priced for. This underscores that investors should maintain a short duration position within a fixed-income portfolio, and that equity investors should favor value over growth stocks on a 12-month time horizon. The cyclical outlook for monetary policy in the US rests heavily, if not exclusively, on the length of time needed to return to maximum employment. In this report, we argue that a complete return to the state of the labor market as of February 2020 is probably not required for the Fed’s maximum employment objective to be met, because the jobs market was likely beyond maximum employment at that time. In addition, we highlight that the broad-based and inclusive nature of the Fed's maximum employment objective is objective will not delay the first Fed rate hike beyond what the trajectory of the unemployment rate would suggest, as the odds of a persistent negative impact on demographic segments of the labor market no longer seem meaningful. In fact, the one partial exception that we can identify – retirement – argues for an earlier return to maximum employment. We conclude by noting that a first Fed rate hike is possible by the middle of next year, barring a long-lasting impact on US economic activity from the Delta variant of COVID-19 or if the Fed’s inflation liftoff criteria are no longer met. Normalized levels of inflation expectations, as well as reasonable estimates of a closed output gap over the coming year, suggest that inflation itself will remain liftoff-consistent barring a significant shock to growth or a major disinflationary/deflationary supply-side event. A 2022 rate hike is not currently reflected in market pricing, underscoring that investors should remain short duration within a fixed-income portfolio. Equity investors should expect a meaningful rise in stock market volatility as long-maturity yields rise over the coming year, and should favor value over growth stocks once fears of the likely impact of the Delta variant on near-term economic growth abate. Defining “Maximum Employment” Chart II-1Last Cycle, Rates Began To Rise Before Maximum Employment Was Reached Last September, the Fed’s official shift to an average inflation targeting regime represented a significant break from how the Fed conducted monetary policy in the past. The shift replaced what was previously a “symmetric” 2% inflation target with the goal of achieving inflation that averages 2% over time, meaning that monetary policy is no longer strictly forward-looking. According to the Fed's previous framework, monetary policy should start to tighten before the economy reaches its full employment level, in anticipation that further declines in the unemployment rate will likely lead to accelerating inflation. For example, during the last economic cycle, the Fed began to raise interest rates in December 2015, when the unemployment rate stood at 5% (Chart II-1). But the Fed's new regime implies that the onset of tightening should begin later, the criteria for which was explicitly laid out in the September 2020 FOMC statement: “The Committee decided to keep the target range for the federal funds rate at 0 to 1/4 percent and expects it will be appropriate to maintain this target range until labor market conditions have reached levels consistent with the Committee's assessments of maximum employment and inflation has risen to 2 percent and is on track to moderately exceed 2 percent for some time.” In addition, while the Fed’s statutory mandate from Congress has always included the pursuit of maximum employment as an objective of monetary policy, revisions to the FOMC’s Statement on Longer-Run Goals and Monetary Policy Strategy last August explicitly noted that the maximum level of employment is a “broad-based and inclusive goal.” This has left many investors questioning when the Fed’s maximum employment criterion will be reached, with some market participants believing that a complete return to the state of the labor market that prevailed as of February 2020 will be required before the Fed lifts interest rates. But there are three arguments suggesting that the US labor market was beyond maximum employment levels at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic: 1. Chart II-2 highlights that the February 2020 unemployment rate ranked at the 5th percentile of its post-WWII history, and was at its lowest level since the late-1960s. While it is true that the unemployment rate would have been higher for most of the last economic expansion based on December 2007 age-adjusted participation rates, Chart II-3 highlights that this effect had waned by the end of 2019. This underscores that the pre-pandemic unemployment rate likely reflected very low labor market slack. Chart II-2The US Labor Market Was Likely Beyond Maximum Employment Levels Prior To The Pandemic 2. The February 2020 unemployment rate stood at 3.5%, which is at the very low end of the Fed’s NAIRU estimates, and meaningfully below the CBO’S long- and short-term NAIRU projections (Chart II-4). Given that NAIRU estimates signify the level of unemployment that is consistent with a steady inflation rate, this implies that 3.5% is likely below the “maximum employment” unemployment rate. Chart II-3The Part Rate Had Mostly Normalized Just Prior To COVID-19 Chart II-4A 3.5% Unemployment Rate Is Likely Below NAIRU Chart II-5Wage Growth Accelerated In Response To A Sub-4% Unemployment Rate 3. The pre-pandemic trend in wage growth also supports the notion that the labor market was past maximum employment levels at that time. Chart II-5 highlights that average hourly earnings and the Atlanta Fed’s median wage growth tracker were both accelerating in 2018/2019, and Chart II-6 highlights that real average hourly earnings growth of production and nonsupervisory employees was close to its 90th percentile historically at the end of 2019. This underscores that the Fed is likely to raise interest rates before the unemployment rate falls back to 3.5%, assuming that the ongoing recovery in the labor market is deemed by the Fed to be “broad-based and inclusive.”   Chart II-6Real Average Hourly Earnings Growth Was At Its 90th Percentile Historically Prior To COVID-19 Breadth, Inclusivity, And Participation Chart II-7The "She-cession" Is Over The extraordinary nature of the COVID-19 pandemic has indeed had an outsized impact on some demographic segments of the labor market, but most of these effects have already reversed or are likely to as the overall unemployment rate continues to fall. And as we highlight below, the one partial exception that we can identify – retirement – in fact argues for an earlier return to maximum employment. We focus our demographic segment analysis on four main categories: 1. employment by gender; 2. race; 3. wage level and education; and 4. the impact on labor force participation from retirement. Gender Chart II-7 highlights the impact of the pandemic on the US labor market by gender. In 2020, the impact of the pandemic fell disproportionately on women. The unemployment rate rose close to 13 percentage points for women from February to April of last year, versus a 10 percentage point rise for men. In addition, the recovery in the participation rate last year was less robust for women, who disproportionately cited family responsibilities as the basis for not participating in the labor force. However, Chart II-7 also highlights that the disproportionate labor market impact of the pandemic on women is now over, with the female unemployment rate closer to its pre-pandemic level than for men, with a similar recovery in the participation rate. The difference in wage growth, relative to February 2020 levels, is also now smaller for women than for men. Thus, barring the development of a new divergence over the coming year, there is no longer any basis for the Federal Reserve to distinguish between men and women in the labor market recovery. Chart II-8Black Unemployment And Labor Force Participation Has Mostly Normalized Race Chart II-8 highlights the impact of the pandemic on the US labor market by race. In this case, it is clear that a disproportionately negative effect on Black employment persisted for longer than it did for women. But it is also clear that the Black unemployment rate is now roughly the same magnitude above its February 2020 level as is the case for the overall unemployment rate. In June, the Black labor force participation rate had actually recovered more than the overall participation rate, although it did decline meaningfully in July. The Black labor force participation rate has shown itself to be highly volatile since the onset of the pandemic, and we doubt that the July reading marks a decoupling from the overall participation rate. It is also true that median non-white wage growth has decelerated significantly more than median white wage growth during the pandemic, but this has occurred from a very elevated starting point. Median non-white wage growth was growing a full percentage point above median white wage growth just prior to the pandemic, compared with a half a percentage point below today. This deceleration has likely occurred as a lagged impact from the larger rise in Black unemployment noted above, which has now dissipated – suggesting that nonwhite wage growth is not likely to meaningfully lag over the coming year. Two additional points highlight that Black unemployment, labor force participation, and wages are likely to be highly correlated with overall labor market trends over the coming year. First, Chart II-9 highlights that in 2019 Black workers were underrepresented in management / professional and natural resources / construction / maintenance occupations, and overrepresented in service and production / transportation / material moving occupations. Given that services spending remains below its pre-pandemic trend, it is likely that the Black unemployment rate will continue to decline as the gap in leisure and hospitality and other services employment closes further relative to pre-pandemic levels. Chart II-9Black Unemployment Will Fall As Services Spending Recovers Second, Table II-1 highlights that Black survey respondents to the Census Bureau’s Household Pulse Survey located in New York and California are reporting lower and only modestly higher levels, respectively, of lost employment income than is the case for Black workers in the US overall. Given that services employment in these two states, particularly New York, are the most likely to be negatively impacted by persistent “work-from-home” effects, Table II-1 suggests that Black services employment is not likely to lag gains in overall services employment. Wage Level And Education Chart II-10 highlights wage growth for those with a high school diploma or less, for low-skilled workers, and for those in the lowest average wage quartile, and Charts II-11A & II-11B highlight the impact of the pandemic on the unemployment and participation rates by education. Table II-1No Evidence Of A Negative “Work-From- Home” Effect On Black Unemployment Chart II-10Wage Growth By Education And Skill Level Is Largely Unchanged Chart II-11AThe Least Educated Workers Still Need To See More Job Gains… Chart II-11B…But This Will Occur As Services Spending Improves     On the wage front, Chart II-10 makes it clear that there are no major negative differences between those with limited education, limited skills, or limited pay and the overall trend in wage growth relative to pre-pandemic levels. Reflecting a shortage of workers in some services industries, wages for 1st quartile wage earners and low-skilled workers are accelerating, and are poised to reach their highest level since 2008. On the employment and participation front, Charts II-11A & B show that the job market recovery has been less pronounced for high school graduates and those with less than a high school diploma. But, we believe – with high conviction – that this reflects the industry composition of the existing employment gap, which skews heavily towards service and leisure & hospitality. These jobs tend to require less formal education and training, and to offer less pay. Given this, and similar to the case for Black employment, low education employment growth is unlikely to meaningfully diverge from the trend in overall services employment over the coming year. The Impact Of Retirement On Labor Force Participation Chart II-12Most Of The Pandemic Decline In Labor Force Participation Has Occurred Due To Retirement Chart II-12 presents a breakdown of the change in overall labor force participation from Q4 2019 to Q2 2021 by nonparticipation category. The chart is based off the Atlanta Fed’s Labor Force Participation Dynamics dataset, and employs some Bank Credit Analyst estimates to seasonally adjust the impact of some categories in the first half of this year and to align it with the actual change in the published monthly seasonally-adjusted participation rate. The chart underscores that, while family responsibilities and those who are not in the labor force but who want a job (the shadow labor force) have been important contributors to the decline in labor force participation since the onset of the pandemic, retirement has been the single most important factor driving the participation rate lower. This sharp drop in labor force participation from retirement likely reflects the decision of some older workers to bring forward their retirement date by a year or two, although a recent study from the Kansas City Fed suggests that the non-demographic component of the recent surge in retirements has mainly been driven by a decline in the number of retirees rejoining the labor force.3 But demographic effects are important, and Chart II-13 highlights that the participation rate has fallen at a rate of roughly 30 basis points per year on average since 2008, reflecting the aging of the population. Chart II-13 is consistent with the age-adjusted participation rate that we showed in Chart II-3 above, and underscores that, even though the recent decline in the participation rate due to retirement is overdone, a permanent decline relative to pre-pandemic levels is likely the result of ongoing demographic trends. In our view, the Federal Reserve is unlikely to regard a demographically-driven decline in the overall participation rate as evidence that the labor market recovery has fallen short of the Fed’s maximum employment objective. It is possible that a return of the working age participation rate to its pre-pandemic level will be viewed as a condition for maximum employment, but Chart II-14 highlights that progress on this front is already more advanced. Chart II-13A Full Recovery To The Pre-Pandemic Labor Force Participation Rate Is Unlikely Chart II-14The Working Age Participation Rate Has Recovered More Than The Overall Part Rate   A lower overall participation rate results in a faster decline in the unemployment rate for any given level of employment growth. Given that there are minimal-to-no remaining labor market divergences along other demographic dimensions of the labor market that aren’t simply correlated with the overall unemployment rate, the implication of a permanently lower participation rate is that the Federal Reserve is likely to hit its maximum employment objective earlier than market participants, and the Fed itself, are currently expecting. Timing The Return To Maximum Employment, And The First Fed Rate Hike Table II-2 presents the average monthly nonfarm payroll growth that will be required to reach a 3.8% unemployment rate, a level that Fed Vice Chair Richard Clarida recently affirmed would in his view likely constitute maximum employment.4 The values shown in the table assume the trend participation rate shown in Chart II-13 above, as well as a recent average of monthly population growth. Table II-2The Return To Maximum Employment May Be Faster Than You Think The table highlights that the unemployment rate is likely to fall to 3.8% following the creation of roughly 4.3 million additional jobs. If the monthly change in nonfarm payrolls continues to grow at its average over the past 3 months, this threshold will be met in January 2022 – essentially a full year before the Fed and market participants expect interest rates to begin to rise. Based instead on a simple linear trend of nonfarm payrolls since late last year, the unemployment rate is likely to fall to 3.8% by sometime next summer. As we highlighted above, the Fed has been explicit that its conditions for raising the funds rate are the following: Labor market conditions have reached levels consistent with the Committee's assessments of maximum employment Inflation has risen to 2 percent Inflation is on track to moderately exceed 2 percent for some time. Currently, the second and third conditions for liftoff are present, suggesting that a first rate hike is possible by the middle of next year, barring a long-lasting impact on US economic activity from the Delta variant of COVID-19. We agree that inflation will slow significantly from its current pace over the coming year as pandemic-induced supply-side factors wane, which some investors have noted may put the Fed’s inflation criteria back into play. But we doubt that the Fed will narrowly focus on the year-over-year growth rate in the core PCE deflator – which will be strongly influenced by base effects next year from this year’s comparatively elevated price level – when judging its second and third liftoff criteria. Instead, the Fed is likely to focus on the prevailing “run rate” of inflation that excludes prices experiencing any disinflationary effects of supply-chain normalization. Chart II-15 illustrates one important reason that the Fed’s inflation criteria will remain “checked” over the coming year. The chart shows that the pandemic, especially last year’s fiscal response to it, has “normalized” important measures of inflation expectations (based on an interval of 2004 to today). We noted in a report earlier this year that inflation is determined by both the degree of economic slack and inflation expectations, a framework that the Fed and many economists refer to as the “modern-day Phillips Curve.”5 Chart II-15The Fed’s Inflation Liftoff Criteria Are Likely To Stay “Checked” Many investors feel that the Phillips Curve has failed to predict weak inflation over the past decade, but we noted in our report that this perception is due to a singular focus on the economic slack component of the modern-day version of the curve – to the exclusion of inflation expectations – and a failure to consider the lasting impact of sustained periods of a negative output gap on those expectations. Chart II-16A Closed Output Gap Will Support Liftoff-Consistent Inflation Chart II-16 highlights that both market and Fed economic projections imply a positive output gap within the next 12 months, suggesting that inflation itself will remain liftoff-consistent barring a significant shock to growth or a major disinflationary/deflationary supply-side event. Declines in the prices of goods that have surged as a result of the disruption of global supply chains could potentially lower inflation expectations over the coming year, but our sense is that this is only likely in a scenario in which the prices of these goods fall below their pre-pandemic levels (which we do not currently expect). Investment Implications      There are three key investment implications of a potentially faster return to maximum employment than is currently anticipated by investors and the Fed. First, Chart II-17 highlights that the market is not priced for a first Fed rate hike by next summer, and Table II-3 highlights that a sizeable majority of respondents to the New York Fed’s Survey of Primary Dealers do not expect a single rate hike in 2022. Chart II-18 highlights that the fair value of the 10-year Treasury yield a year from today is 2.2%-2.3% in a 2H 2022 rate hike scenario, underscoring that a short duration stance is warranted within a fixed-income portfolio over the coming year – barring a long-lasting impact on economic activity from the Delta variant of COVID-19. Chart II-17The Market Is Not Fully Priced For A Quick Return To Maximum Employment Table II-3Market Participant Surveys Show No Hike Expectations Next Year Chart II-18Investors Should Maintain A Short-Duration Fixed-Income Stance Second, while a 2.2%-2.3% 10-year Treasury yield would not necessarily be negative for stock prices on a sustained basis, Chart II-19 shows that it would bring the equity risk premium (ERP) within its 2002-2007 range. The level of the 10-year yield that is consistent with that range has fallen relative to pre-pandemic levels and is now clearly below the trend rate of economic growth, due to a significant run-up in equity market multiples. This underscores that stocks are the most dependent on T.I.N.A., “There Is No Alternative,” than at any other point since the global financial crisis. It is unclear what ERP investors will require to contend with the myriad risks to the longer-term economic outlook, many of which are political or geopolitical in nature and which did not exist in the early 2000s. Chart II-19Now, Stocks Are Increasingly Dependent On Low Bond Yields Consequently, there are meaningful odds that equities will experience a “digestion phase” at some point over the coming year as long-maturity bond yields rise – potentially trading flat-to-down in absolute terms for several weeks or months. It is also possible that stocks will experience a more malicious sell-off, if it turns out that equity investors require a structurally higher risk premium than what prevailed prior to the global financial crisis. This is not our base case view. We continue to recommend an overweight stance toward equities in a multi-asset portfolio. But it is a risk that warrants monitoring over the coming year. Finally, rising bond yields clearly favor value over growth stocks on a 12-month time horizon. In the US, the sizeable recent bounce in growth stocks has occurred alongside a renewed decline in the 10-year Treasury yield, which itself has been driven by renewed fears about the economic impact of the Delta variant. Thus, growth stocks may remain well bid relative to value in the very near term. But on a 12-month time horizon, value stocks are likely to outperform their growth peers, as long duration tech sector valuation comes under pressure and financial sector earnings benefit from higher interest rates. Jonathan LaBerge, CFA Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst III. Indicators And Reference Charts BCA’s equity indicators highlight that the “easy” money from expectations of an eventual end to the pandemic have already been made. Our technical, valuation, and sentiment indicators are very extended, highlighting that investors should expect positive but modest returns from stocks over the coming 6-12 months. Our monetary indicator has retreated below the boom/bust line, although this mostly reflects the use of producer prices to deflate money growth. In nominal terms, the supply of money continues to grow. Still, the retreat in the indicator over the past year highlights that the monetary policy stance is likely to shift in a tighter direction over the coming year. Forward equity earnings are pricing in a substantial further rise in earnings per share, and there is no meaningful sign of waning forward earnings momentum. Bottom-up analyst earnings expectations are now almost certainly too high, but stocks are likely to be supported by robust revenue growth over the coming year. Within a global equity portfolio, global ex-US equities have underperformed alongside cyclical sectors, banks, and value stocks more generally. On a 12-month time horizon, we would recommend that investors position for the underperformance of financial assets that are negatively correlated with long-maturity government bond yields. But investors more focused on the near term, we would note the potential for further underperformance of cyclical sectors, value stocks, international equities, and most global ex-US currencies versus the US dollar. The US 10-Year Treasury yield has fallen sharply since mid-March, but may be in the process of bottoming. This decline was initially caused by waning growth momentum, but has since morphed into concern about the impact of the delta variant of SARS-COV-2 and the implications for US monetary policy. 10-year Treasury yields are well below the fair value implied by a late-2022 rate hike scenario, underscoring that the recent decline in long-maturity yields is overdone. The extreme rise in some commodity prices over the past several months has eased. Lumber prices have almost fully normalized, whereas the 3-month rate of change in industrial metals prices is now close to zero. An eventual slowdown in US goods spending, coupled with eventual supply-chain normalization and the absence of a significant reflationary impulse from Chinese policy, will likely weigh on commodity prices at some point over the coming 6-12 months. US and global LEIs remain very elevated, but are starting to roll over. Our global LEI diffusion index has declined very significantly, but this likely reflects the outsized impact of a few emerging market countries (whose vaccination progress is still lagging). Still-strong leading and coincident indicators underscore that the global demand for goods is robust, and that output is below pre-pandemic levels in most economies because of very weak services spending. The latter will recover significantly at some point over the coming year, as social distancing and other pandemic control measures disappear. EQUITIES: Chart III-1US Equity Indicators Chart III-2Willingness To Pay For Risk Chart III-3US Equity Sentiment Indicators   Chart III-4US Stock Market Breadth Chart III-5US Stock Market Valuation Chart III-6US Earnings Chart III-7Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Chart III-8Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance   FIXED INCOME: Chart III-9US Treasurys And Valuations Chart III-10Yield Curve Slopes Chart III-11Selected US Bond Yields Chart III-1210-Year Treasury Yield ComponentsChart III-13US Corporate Bonds And Health Monitor Chart III-14Global Bonds: Developed Markets Chart III-15Global Bonds: Emerging Markets   CURRENCIES: Chart III-16US Dollar And PPP Chart III-17US Dollar And Indicator Chart III-18US Dollar Fundamentals Chart III-19Japanese Yen Technicals Chart III-20Euro Technicals Chart III-21Euro/Yen Technicals Chart III-22Euro/Pound Technicals   COMMODITIES: Chart III-23Broad Commodity Indicators Chart III-24Commodity Prices Chart III-25Commodity Prices Chart III-26Commodity Sentiment Chart III-27Speculative Positioning   ECONOMY: Chart III-28US And Global Macro Backdrop Chart III-29US Macro Snapshot Chart III-30US Growth Outlook Chart III-31US Cyclical Spending Chart III-32US Labor Market Chart III-33US Consumption Chart III-34US Housing Chart III-35US Debt And Deleveraging   Chart III-36US Financial Conditions Chart III-37Global Economic Snapshot: Europe Chart III-38Global Economic Snapshot: China   Jonathan LaBerge, CFA Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst Footnotes 1 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst "July 2021," dated June 24, 2021, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 2 “Herd immunity a ‘mythical’ goal that will never be reached, says Oxford vaccine head”, The Telegraph, August 10, 2021. 3 What Has Driven the Recent Increase in Retirements? by Jun Nie and Shu-Kuei X. Yang, Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City Economic Bulletin, August 11, 2021. 4 Outlooks, Outcomes, and Prospects for U.S. Monetary Policy, by Fed Vice Chair Richard H. Clarida, At the Peterson Institute for International Economics, Washington, D.C. (via webcast), August 4, 2021 5 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst Special Report "The Modern-Day Phillips Curve, Future Inflation, And What To Do About It," dated 18 December, 2020, available at bca.bcaresearch.com

Highlights The post-pandemic investment phase is just a continuation of the post-credit boom investment phase. This is because the pandemic has just accelerated the pre-existing shifts to a more remote way of working, shopping and interacting as well as the de-carbonisation of the economy. Combined with no new credit boom, these ongoing trends will structurally weigh on the profits of old economy sectors, consumer prices, and bond yields. At the same time, these trends are a continuing structural tailwind for the profits in those sectors that facilitate the shift to a more digital and cleaner world. Our high-conviction recommendation is to stay structurally overweight growth sectors versus old economy sectors… …and to stay structurally overweight the US stock market versus the non-US stock market. Fractal analysis: PLN/USD, Hungary versus Emerging Markets, and sugar versus soybeans. Feature Chart of the WeekUS And Non-US Profits Go Their Starkly Separate Ways Many people use the US stock market as a proxy for the world stock market. Intuitively, this makes sense, because the US stock market is the largest in the world, and the S&P 500 and Dow Jones Industrials are well-known indexes that we can monitor in real time. In contrast, world equity indexes such as the MSCI All Country World are less familiar and do not move in real time. Yet to use the US stock market as a proxy for the world stock market is a mistake. Although the US comprises makes up half of the world stock market capitalisation, the other half is so different – the non-US yan to the US yin – that the US cannot represent the world. As we will now illustrate. US Profits Have Doubled While Non-US Profits Have Shrunk Over the past ten years, US and non-US stock market profits have gone their starkly separate ways. While US profits have nearly doubled, non-US profits languish 10 percent below where they were in 2011! (Chart of the Week) While US profits have nearly doubled, non-US profits languish 10 percent below where they were in 2011. Of course, in any comparison of this sort, a key issue is the starting point. In this first part of our analysis, we are defining the starting point as the point at which profits had recouped all their global financial crisis losses. For both US and non-US profits this point was in March 2011 (Chart I-2 and Chart I-3). Chart I-2Comparing Profit Growth Since The Full Recovery From The Financial Crisis Chart I-3Comparing Valuation Expansion Since The Full Recovery From The Financial Crisis Because the issue of the starting point of the analysis is contentious, we will look at a much earlier starting point later in the report. But first, here are the decompositions of the US and non-US stock market moves from March 2011. US stock market profits are up 93 percent, while the multiple paid for those profits (valuation) is up 75 percent. Compounding to a total price gain of 235 percent (Chart I-4). Chart I-4US Profits Up 93 Percent, Valuation Up 75 Percent Non-US stock market profits are down -9 percent, while the multiple paid for those profits is up 38 percent. Compounding to a total price gain of a measly 25 percent (Chart I-5). Chart I-5Non-US Profits Down -9 Percent, Valuation Up 38 Percent The aggregate world stock market profits are up 24 percent, while the multiple paid for those profits is up 57 percent. Compounding to a total price gain of 94 percent (Chart I-6). Chart I-6World Profits Up 24 Percent, Valuation Up 57 Percent The Post-Credit Boom Phase Favours The US Over The Non-US Stock Market In the post-credit boom phase, several important features of stock market performance are worth highlighting. In absolute terms, valuation expansion has lifted US stocks by twice as much as non-US stocks, 75 percent versus 38 percent. Yet even the 75 percent expansion in the US stock market valuation has played second fiddle to the 93 percent expansion in US stock market profits. Absent valuation expansion, non-US stocks would stand lower today than in 2011. But for non-US stocks, whose structural profit growth has been non-existent, valuation expansion has been the only instrument for structural gains. Indeed, absent valuation expansion, non-US stocks would stand lower today than in 2011. And absent valuation expansion at a world level, the world stock market would lose three quarters of its ten-year gain. What can explain the startling performance differential between US and non-US stocks on both profit and valuation expansions? As we have argued before, most of the difference does not come from the underlying (US versus non-US) economies, but instead comes from the company and sector compositions of the stock markets. The US stock market is heavily over-weighted to global growth companies and sectors – such as technology and healthcare (Chart I-7) – which, by definition, have experienced structural growth in their profits. In contrast, the non-US stock market is heavily over-weighted to global old economy companies and sectors – such as financials, energy, and resources (Chart I-8) – whose profits have stagnated, or entered structural downtrends (Chart I-9). Chart I-7The US Stock Market Is Heavily Over-Weighted To Growth Sectors Chart I-8The Non-US Stock Market Is Heavily Over-Weighted To Old Economy Sectors   Chart I-9Old Economy Sector Profits Have Gone Nowhere At the same time, when bond yields decline, companies whose profits are growing (and time-weighted into the distant future) see a greater increase in their net present values. Hence, companies in the global growth sectors have experienced a larger valuation expansion than those in the old economy sectors. In this way, the US stock market has outperformed the non-US stock market on both profit growth and valuation expansion. The key question is, will these post-credit boom trends continue? The answer depends on whether the post-pandemic world marks a new phase for investment, or whether it is just a continuation of the post-credit boom phase. The Post-Pandemic Phase Is A Continuation Of The Post-Credit Boom Phase Let’s now address the issue of the starting point of our analysis by panning out to 1990. This bigger picture from 1990 shows three distinct phases for investors (Chart I-10 and Chart I-11). Chart I-10Since 1990, There Have Been Three Distinct Investment Phases Chart I-11The Post-Pandemic Investment Phase Is A Continuation Of The Post-Credit Boom Phase The first phase was the 1990s build-up to the dot com boom. This phase clearly favoured growth sectors, and thereby the US stock market versus the non-US stock market. The second phase was the early 2000s credit boom. This phase clearly favoured sectors that facilitated the credit boom or benefited from its spending – notably, the old economy sectors of financials, energy, and resources. Thereby it favoured the non-US stock market versus the US stock market. The third and most recent phase is the post-credit boom phase. This phase has flipped the leadership back to growth sectors as the absence of structural credit growth has stifled financials as well as the capital-intensive old economy sectors that had previously benefited from the credit boom. Additionally, the structural disinflation that has comes from weak credit growth has dragged down bond yields and – as already discussed – given a much bigger boost to growth sector valuations. Since 1990, there have been three distinct phases for investors: the dot com boom; the credit boom; and the post-credit boom. Now we come to the key question. Did 2020 mark the end of the post-credit boom phase and the start of a new ‘post-pandemic’ phase? On the evidence so far, the answer is an emphatic no. Crucially, there is no new credit boom. A still highly indebted private sector is neither willing nor able to borrow. And although public sector debt surged during the pandemic, governments are now keen to temper or rein in deficits. In any case, Japan teaches us that government borrowing – which is bond rather than bank financed – does nothing for the banks or the broader financial sector. An equally important question is, has the pandemic reversed the societal and economic trends of the post-credit boom phase? The answer is no. Quite the contrary, the pandemic has accelerated the pre-existing shifts to a more remote way of working, shopping and interacting as well as the de-carbonisation of the economy. Combined with no new credit boom, these ongoing trends are structurally disinflationary for the profits of old economy sectors as well as for consumer prices. Thereby, they will continue to weigh on bond yields. At the same time, the trends are a continuing structural tailwind for the profits in those sectors that facilitate and enable the shift to a more digital and cleaner world. While we are open to the evolving evidence, the post-pandemic investment phase seems an extension of the post-credit boom phase. This means that structurally, there is no reason to flip out of growth sectors back to old economy sectors. It also means that structurally, there is no reason to switch from US to non-US stocks. Fractal Analysis Update This week’s fractal analysis highlights three potential countertrend moves based on fragile fractal structures. First, the recent rally in the US dollar could meet near-term resistance given its weakening 65-day fractal structure. A good way of playing this would be long PLN/USD (Chart I-12). Chart I-12PLN/USD Could Rebound Second, the strong outperformance of Hungary versus Emerging Markets – largely driven by one stock, OTP Bank – has become a crowded trade based on its 130-day fractal structure. This would suggest underweighting Hungary versus the Emerging Markets index (Chart I-13). Chart I-13Underweight Hungary Versus EM Finally, the sugar price has skyrocketed as extreme weather has disrupted output in the world’s top producer, Brazil. Given that supply bottlenecks ultimately ease, a recommended trade would be to short sugar versus soybeans, using ICE versus CBOT futures contracts (Chart I-14). Set the profit target and symmetrical stop-loss at 8 percent. Chart I-14Short Sugar Versus Soybeans Dhaval Joshi Chief Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com Fractal Trading System Fractal Trades 6-Month Recommendations Structural Recommendations Closed Fractal Trades Closed Trades Asset Performance Equity Market Performance   Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields ##br##- Euro Area Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields ##br##- Europe Ex Euro Area Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields ##br##- Asia Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields ##br##- Other Developed   Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations