Economic Growth

Highlights This week, we present the second edition of the BCA Research Global Fixed Income Strategy (GFIS) Global Credit Conditions Chartbook—a review of central bank surveys of bank lending standards and loan demand. Feature The data on lending standards during the last quarter of 2020 are decidedly mixed. Credit standards for business loans continued to tighten in most countries (Chart 1). On the positive side, the pace of that tightening slowed, or is expected to slow, going into 2021. Importantly, the survey data for consumer loan demand in many countries paints a more optimistic picture for household spending than consumer confidence indices. In sum, the lending surveys indicate that the panoply of global fiscal and monetary stimulus measures introduced over the past year to help offset the financial shock of the pandemic have passed through, to some degree, into easier credit standards. This should help sustain the current trends of rising global bond yields and narrowing corporate credit spreads. Chart 1Mixed Data On Lending Standards An Overview Of Global Credit Condition Surveys Chart 2Credit Standards And Spreads Are Correlated After every quarter, major central banks compile surveys to assess prevailing credit conditions. The purpose is to obtain from banks an assessment of how their lending standards and demand for loans, for both firms and consumers, changed over the previous quarter. Most surveys also ask questions about the key factors driving these changes and expectations for the next quarter.1 For fixed income investors, these surveys are valuable for a few reasons. Firstly, data on consumer lending is a window into consumer health while business loan demand sheds light on the investment picture. These help derive a view on the path of future economic growth and interest rates and thus, the appropriate duration stance of a bond portfolio. Also, credit standards can tell us about the pass-through from fiscal and monetary policy measures to realized financial conditions (i.e. corporate borrowing rates). Most importantly, credit standards exhibit a direct correlation with corporate bond spreads (Chart 2). As they have access to detailed, non-public information on a large number of borrowers, loan officers are uniquely positioned to evaluate corporate health. When banks are tightening standards, they see an issue with the credit quality of either current or future loans, which impacts borrowing costs in the corporate bond market. Tightening standards indicate a worsening borrowing backdrop and weaker growth, which then pushes up corporate spreads. Vice versa, easing standards imply a favorable backdrop and plentiful liquidity—both bullish signs for spread product. US In the US, the net percent of domestic respondents to the Fed’s Senior Loan Officer survey that tightened standards for commercial and industrial (C&I) loans (measured as an average of small, middle-market, and large firms) fell significantly in Q4/2020 (Chart 3). The key issue, both for lenders that tightened and eased standards, was the economic outlook, with those that eased taking a more sanguine view and vice-versa. Chart 3US Credit Conditions Chart 4Corporate Borrowing Costs Are Driving Easy Financial Conditions The ad-hoc questions, asked in every instalment of the survey, discussed the outlook for 2021. On this front, US lenders expect easier lending standards over the course of the year, driven by an increase in risk tolerance and expected improvement in the credit quality of their loan portfolios. There was a marked improvement in demand for C&I loans in Q4/2020 although, on net, a small number of lenders still reported weaker demand over Q4/2020. Those that reported stronger loan demand cited financing for mergers and acquisitions as the biggest driver. Meanwhile, lenders reporting weaker demand primarily cited decreased fixed asset investment. However, the reasons for weaker demand were not all bad—many cited a reduced need for precautionary cash and liquidity. Over 2021, the outlook is quite bullish, with demand expected to hit all-time highs in net balance terms. The picture on the consumer side was buoyant in Q4 and that trend is expected to continue in 2021. A net +7% of banks increased credit limits on credit cards, while a moderately smaller share charged a narrower spread over cost of funds. However, in a trend we will continue to note for other regions in this report, there is a seeming divergence between consumer lending behavior and the sentiment numbers. This indicates a pent-up ability to spend that will likely be realized in full as pandemic restrictions begin to lift. After the economic outlook, increased competition from other banks and non-bank lenders was another leading factor behind easing standards. This is in line with our view that plummeting corporate borrowing costs are the primary driver of easy financial conditions in the US (Chart 4). We have shown that credit standards lead the US high-yield default rate by a one-year period; easier credit standards will further improve the default outlook, creating a virtuous cycle for as long as the Fed maintains monetary support. Euro Area In the euro area, lending standards continued to tighten at a faster pace in Q4/2020 even though that number had been expected to fall (Chart 5). The key reason was a worsening in risk perceptions due to continued uncertainty about the recovery. Persistently low risk tolerance also contributed to the tightening of standards. The tightening was somewhat worse for small and medium-sized enterprises than for large enterprises, and was also more pronounced in longer-term loans. This pessimistic outlook on credit standards is in line with an elevated high-yield default rate that has not shown signs of rolling over as it has in the US. Going into Q1/2021, standards are expected to continue tightening, albeit at a slightly slower rate. Chart 5Euro Area Credit Conditions Chart 6Credit Standards For Major Euro Area Economies Business credit demand was grim as well, weakening at a faster pace in Q4. This was driven by falling demand for fixed investments. Chart 7ECB Support Will Bring Down The Italy-Germany Spread Inventory and working capital financing needs, which spiked dramatically in Q2/2020 due to acute liquidity needs, continued to contribute positively to loan demand - albeit to a much lesser extent than previous quarters as firms had already built up significant liquidity buffers. The decline in credit demand was also significantly larger for longer-term financing. Taken together with fixed investment demand, which has been in significant and persistent decline since Q1/2020, this is an extremely troubling trend for the euro area economy, confirming the ECB’s fears that the capital stock destruction wreaked by Covid-19 has permanently lowered potential long-term growth. After staging a tentative recovery in Q3/2020, consumer credit demand once again weakened in Q4/2020, attributable to declining consumer confidence and spending on durable goods as renewed pandemic lockdowns swept through Europe. However, low interest rates did contribute slightly to lifting credit demand on the margin. The divergence between consumer credit and confidence is not as dramatic in the euro area as in other regions. With demand expected to pick up in Q1, any narrowing in this gap is largely dependent on whether the EU can recover from what is already being called a botched vaccine rollout. Looking individually at the four major euro area economies, standards continued to tighten at a slow pace in Germany while remaining flat in Italy (Chart 6). Standards tightened more slowly in Spain due to an improvement in risk perceptions but tightened at a faster pace in France for the very same reason. Elevated risk perceptions in France could reflect concern about high debt levels among French firms. Going forward, firms expect the pace of tightening to slow in France and Spain, while picking up in Germany. Meanwhile, standards are expected to tighten outright in Italy in Q1/2021. Bank lending, however, continues to grow at the strongest pace since the 2008 financial crisis, reflecting the extent of the extraordinary pandemic-related measures (Chart 7). The ECB’s cheap bank funding through LTROs is helping support loan growth in the more fragile economies of Italy and Spain. In the face of this, investors should fade concern about an expected tightening in credit conditions in Italy that could drive up the risk premia on Italian government bonds. UK Chart 8UK Credit Conditions In the UK, overall corporate credit standards remained mostly unchanged, with corporate credit availability deteriorating very slightly (Chart 8). The increased reticence to lend to small businesses is justified by small business default rates, which saw the worst developments since Q2/2020. The demand side, meanwhile, has been volatile. The massive demand spike in Q2/2020 to meet liquidity needs was followed by a commensurate decline in the following quarter. The picture now appears to be stabilizing, with demand recovering to a stable level and expected to grow moderately in Q1/2021. Household credit demand strengthened, while credit standards for secured and unsecured loans to consumers eased in last quarter of 2020. While the recovery in consumer confidence has been muted, expect the divergence between credit demand and sentiment to fade as the UK moves towards lifting restrictions and households look to satisfy pent-up demand. The two predominant narratives of Q4/2020 in the UK were positive developments on the vaccine and the Brexit deal, both contributing to a massive reduction in uncertainty. This is reflected in the survey data, with lenders reporting that the economic outlook and improving risk appetites will contribute to easier credit standards in Q1/2021. The UK is currently leading developed market peers in terms of cumulative vaccinations per capita. In addition, Prime Minister Johnson will be unveiling next week a roadmap out of lockdown, another positive sign for the heavily services-weighted economy. Japan Chart 9Japan Credit Conditions After decades of perma-QE and ultra-low rates, the Japanese credit market behaves in a contrary way to most other markets. In Q2/2020 at the height of the pandemic, while other lenders were tightening standards, Japanese lenders were actually easing standards (Chart 9). Since then, there has been a significant drop in the number of firms reporting easier standards. More importantly, none of the firms in the Q4/2020 survey reported tightening, meaning that borrowing conditions have not changed significantly since the massive liquidity injection in response to the pandemic. So, it appears that demand is the primary driver of the Japanese credit market. On balance, firms reported weaker demand for loans in Q4, citing decreased fixed investment, an increase in internally generated funds, and availability of funding from other sources. As we discussed in our last Credit Conditions chartbook,2 business lending demand in Japan is typically countercyclical, meaning that firms usually seek funds for precautionary or restructuring reasons. Going into Q1, survey respondents expect an increase in loan demand, which is in line with the recent deterioration in business sentiment. On the consumer side, loan demand rebounded strongly in Q4. Leading factors were an increase in housing investment and consumption. As in the UK, there has been a divergence between consumer credit demand and sentiment which will likely resolve as the recent resurgence in Covid-19 cases is brought under control. Canada & New Zealand In Canada, business lending standards eased slightly in Q4/2020, coinciding with a rebound in business confidence (Chart 10). As in other developed markets, the recovery was driven by vaccine optimism and hopes of reopening in 2021. The more important story for the Bank of Canada (BoC), however, is the overheating housing market. As we discussed last week in a Special Report published jointly with our colleagues at BCA Research Foreign Exchange Strategy,3 ultra-low rates have helped fuel another upturn in the Canadian housing market, with housing the most affordable it has been in five years, according to the BoC’s indicator. The strength in the housing market was supported by easing standards on mortgage lending, indicating that monetary and regulatory measures to bolster the market have seen quick and efficient pass-through. Although we expect the BoC to remain relatively dovish, a frothy housing market, and the resulting financial stability issues, are a key risk to that view. In New Zealand, fewer lenders reported a tightening in business loan standards, while standards for residential mortgages continued to tighten at an unchanged pace from the previous survey (Chart 11). Decreased risk tolerance and worsening risk perceptions were the key factors behind reduced credit availability; these were partly offset by changes in regulation and a falling cost of funds. Standards are expected to ease, and business loan demand is expected to pick up remarkably, by the end of Q1/2021. Chart 10Canada Credit Conditions Chart 11New Zealand Credit Conditions On the consumer side, while standards for residential mortgages continued to tighten at an unchanged pace during the survey period, they are expected to ease going forward. As in Canada, house prices are at the forefront of the monetary policy discussion in New Zealand, which means that the expected easing in standards might actually pose a problem for the Reserve Bank of New Zealand. Meanwhile, although consumer loan demand did weaken over the survey period, it is expected to stage a recovery this quarter. This view is bolstered by a strong recovery in consumer confidence, which is working its way up to pre-pandemic levels.   Shakti Sharma Research Associate ShaktiS@bcaresearch.com Appendix: Where To Find The Bank Lending Surveys A number of central banks publish regular surveys of bank lending conditions in their domestic economies. The surveys, and the details on how they are conducted, can be found on the websites of the central banks: US Federal Reserve: https://www.federalreserve.gov/data/sloos.htm European Central Bank: https://www.ecb.europa.eu/stats/ecb_surveys/bank_lending_survey/html/index.en.html Bank of England: https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/credit-conditions-survey/2020/2020-q4 Bank of Japan: https://www.boj.or.jp/en/statistics/dl/loan/loos/index.htm/ Bank of Canada: https://www.bankofcanada.ca/publications/slos/ Reserve Bank of New Zealand: https://www.rbnz.govt.nz/statistics/c60-credit-conditions-survey   Footnotes 1 The weblinks to each individual survey for the US, euro area, UK, Japan, Canada and New Zealand can be found in the Appendix on page 12. 2 Please see BCA Research Global Fixed Income Strategy Report, "Introducing The GFIS Global Credit Conditions Chartbook", dated September 8, 2020, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Research Foreign Exchange Strategy Special Report, "Will The Canadian Recovery Lead Or Lag The Global Cycle?", dated February 12, 2021, available at fes.bcaresearch.com. Recommendations The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

Highlights The amount of fiscal stimulus in the pipeline is more than enough to close the US output gap. Inflation is likely to surprise on the upside this year. The Fed will brush off any evidence of economic overheating during the coming months, stressing the “transitory” nature of the problem. Still, long-term bond yields, over which the Fed has less control, will rise. As long as bond yields move higher in conjunction with improving growth expectations, stocks will remain in an uptrend. The bull market in equities will only end when the Fed starts to sound more hawkish. That is not in the cards for the next 12 months at least. Stimulus Smackdown During the past month, a debate has erupted over how much additional fiscal stimulus the US economy needs. The side arguing that the sea of red ink has gotten too deep includes an unlikely cast of characters like Larry Summers, who has famously contended that sustained large budget deficits are necessary to stave off secular stagnation. It also includes Olivier Blanchard, who previously served as the IMF’s chief economist and pushed the multilateral lender to abandon its historic adherence to fiscal austerity. Chart 1Generous Government Transfers Boosted Household Savings Rather than citing debt sustainability concerns, these newfound stimulus skeptics worry that large-scale fiscal easing at the present juncture risks overheating the economy. They point out that President Biden’s proposed $1.9 trillion package, coming on the heels of the $900 billion stimulus bill Congress passed in late December, would inject another 13% of GDP into the economy, on the back of the lagged boost from the first stimulus package. We estimate that US households had accumulated $1.5 trillion in excess savings (7% of GDP) as of the end of 2020, thanks to the fiscal transfers they received under the CARES Act (Chart 1). US real GDP in the fourth quarter of 2020 was 2.5% below its level in the fourth quarter of 2019. Assuming trend growth of 2%, this implies that the output gap – the difference between what the economy is capable of producing and what it actually is producing – has widened by about 4.5% of GDP since the onset of the pandemic.   The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) believes the US economy was operating 1% above potential in Q4 of 2019, suggesting that the output gap is around 3.5% of GDP. As it has in the past, the CBO is probably understating the amount of slack in the economy. Our guess is that the US was close to full employment in the months leading up to the pandemic, which implies that the output gap is currently somewhere between 4% and 5% of GDP. While fairly large in absolute terms, it is still smaller than the amount of stimulus currently in the pipeline. Gentle Jay Not So Worried About Overheating Stimulus advocates argue that households will continue to use stimulus checks to fortify their balance sheets, rather than rush out to spend the windfall. They also note that unemployment payments will come down if the labor market recovers more quickly than projected. And even if the economy does temporarily overheat, “so what” they say. The Fed has been trying to engineer an inflation overshoot for years. Now is its chance. Jay Powell seems to sympathize with this thesis. Speaking at a virtual conference organized by The Economic Club of New York this week, Powell repeated his call for fiscal easing and told attendees that the Fed is unlikely to “even think about withdrawing policy support” anytime soon. His words echo remarks made at the press conference following January’s FOMC meeting, where he said “I’m much more worried about falling short of a complete recovery and losing people’s careers,” before adding: “Frankly, we welcome slightly higher inflation.” Most other FOMC members have struck a similar tone. Earlier this year, Fed Governor Lael Brainard noted that “The damage from COVID-19 is concentrated among already challenged groups. Federal Reserve staff analysis indicates that unemployment is likely above 20 percent for workers in the bottom wage quartile, while it has fallen below 5 percent for the top wage quartile.” How Big Is The Fiscal Multiplier From Stimulus Checks? Chart 2Service Inflation Fell During The Pandemic, While Goods Inflation Rose One of the reasons that households saved much of last year’s stimulus checks was because there was not much to spend them on. Officially measured service inflation was well contained last year, but many services were simply not available for purchase. In contrast, goods prices, which usually fall over time, rose (Chart 2). As the economy opens up, total spending will recover. Rising household spending will have a multiplier effect. The simplest version of the Keynesian multiplier for fiscal transfer payments is equal to MPC/(1-MPC), where MPC is the marginal propensity to consume. Assuming that households initially spend 50 cents of every dollar they receive, the multiplier would be 0.5/(1-0.5)=1. In other words, every dollar of direct stimulus payments will eventually generate one additional dollar of aggregate demand. One could argue that this multiplier estimate overstates the impact on demand because it ignores the fact that households will regard stimulus checks as one-time payments rather than a continuous flow of income. One could also point out that taxes and imports will cut into the multiplier effect on domestic spending. There is truth to all these arguments, but they are not as compelling as they seem. According to a recent US Census study, only 37% of Americans reported no difficulty in paying for usual household expenses during the pandemic. A mere 16% of workers with incomes below $35,000 reported no difficulty, compared with more than two-thirds of workers with incomes above $100,000 (Chart 3). In the euphemistic parlance of economics, most US households are “liquidity constrained,” meaning that they are likely to spend a large chunk of any income they receive, even if it is a one-off grant.1 Chart 3The Pandemic Has Put A Spotlight On The Liquidity Constraints Of US Households As for taxes, while the income from subsequent spending will be taxed, the stimulus checks that households receive will remain untaxed. Granted, some of the demand generated by stimulus checks will leak abroad in the form of higher imports. However, keep in mind that the US is a fairly closed economy – imports account for only 15% of GDP. Moreover, the full impact on imports depends on what happens to the value of the dollar. If the Fed keeps rates unchanged but inflation rises, the accompanying decline in short-term real rates could weaken the dollar, curbing imports and boosting exports in the process. This could lead to a higher multiplier rather than a lower one. Lastly, higher consumption is likely to boost corporate capex, as companies scramble to raise capacity in anticipation of strong demand (Chart 4). Economists call this the “accelerator effect.” Investment spending is 2.5-times as volatile as consumption. Hence, even modest increases in consumption can trigger large increases in investment. Chart 4Stronger Consumption Tends To Boost Capex Unemployment Benefits: Adding To Aggregate Demand But Subtracting From Supply? As Chart 5 shows, stimulus payments to households account for 17% of the December stimulus bill and 26% of Biden’s proposed package for a combined total of around $650 billion (3% of GDP, or around two-thirds of the current output gap). The balance consists of expanded unemployment benefits, health and education funding, support for small businesses, and aid to state and local governments. Chart 5Stimulus Package Breakdowns Unemployment benefits are likely to be spent fairly quickly since, in most cases, they replace lost income that had previously been used to finance consumption. More generous unemployment benefits could temporarily reduce aggregate supply. Higher federal unemployment benefits would more than offset the lost income of close to half of jobless workers, potentially creating a disincentive to seek employment. Inflation Expectations Will Continue To Rise Aggregate demand is likely to outstrip the economy’s supply-side potential over the coming months. Hence, inflation will probably surprise on the upside this year, although not by enough to force the Fed to abandon its easy money stance. Inflation expectations have recovered since the depths of the pandemic. However, the 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven rate is still below the level that BCA’s bond strategists believe the Fed regards as consistent with its long-term inflation objective, and even farther below the level that would cause the Fed to panic (Chart 6). This suggests that the Fed will brush off any evidence of overheating during the coming months, stressing the “transitory” nature of the problem. Still, rising inflation expectations will push up long-dated bond yields. At present, the 5-year/5-year forward Treasury yield stands at 1.89%. This is below the median estimate of the long-run equilibrium fed funds rate from the New York Fed’s Survey of Primary Dealers (Chart 7). With policy rates on hold, higher long-term bond yields will translate into steeper yield curves. We expect the 10-year Treasury yield to rise to 1.5% by the end of the year from the current level of 1.16%, with risks to yields tilted to the upside. Chart 6Inflation Expectations Have Recovered But Are Still Below Levels That Would Cause Concern For The Fed Chart 7Forward Treasury Yields Are Below Primary Dealers' Projections   Can Stocks Stand The Heat? To what extent will higher bond yields hurt stocks? To get a sense of the answer, it is useful to consider a dividend discount model. The simplest model, the Gordon Growth Model, says that the price of a stock, P, should equal the dividend that it pays, D, divided by the difference between the long-term discount rate, r, and the expected dividend growth rate, g:   We can write the discount rate as the combination of the long-term risk-free rate and the equity risk premium such that r = rf + ERP and then solve for the dividend yield:     Note that the value of the stock market becomes increasingly sensitive to changes in the risk-free rate when the dividend yield is low to begin with. For example, if the dividend yield is 2%, a 10-basis-point rise in the long-term risk-free rate will push down stock prices by 5%. In contrast, if the dividend yield is 1%, a 10-basis-point rise in the long-term risk-free rate will push down stock prices by 10%. Today, dividend and earnings yields for most global equity sectors are quite low, although not as low as they were in 2000 (Chart 8). Watch The Correlation Between  r  And  g The fact that dividend and earnings yields are below their long-term average does make stocks vulnerable to a rise in bond yields. This is especially the case for relatively expensive equity sectors such as tech and consumer discretionary. Nevertheless, there is an important mitigating factor at work: Increases in the risk-free rate have generally been accompanied by stronger growth expectations. Chart 9 shows that S&P 500 forward earnings estimates have moved in lockstep with the 10-year Treasury yield, a proxy for the long-term risk-free rate. Chart 8Global Dividend And Earnings Yields Are Quite Low, Although Not As Low As In 2000 Chart 9Earnings Estimates Move In Lockstep With Bond Yields   This suggests that the main danger to equity investors is not higher bond yields per se, but a rise in bond yields in excess of upward revisions to growth expectations, or worse, against a backdrop of faltering growth. Such a predicament could eventually manifest itself. However, it is only likely to happen when the Fed turns hawkish. This is not in the cards for the next 12 months at least.   Peter Berezin Chief Global Strategist pberezin@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1  The difficulty that many households have had in making ends meet predates the pandemic. For example, in May 2019, the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau found that about 40% of US consumers claimed that they had difficulty paying bills and expenses. Among those with annual household incomes of $20,000 or less, difficulties were experienced by 6 out of 10 people. Moreover, about half of consumers reported that they would be able to cover expenses for no more than two months if they lost their main source of income by relying on all available sources of funds, including borrowing, savings, selling assets, or even seeking help from family and friends. Global Investment Strategy View Matrix Special Trade Recommendations Current MacroQuant Model Scores

Dear client, On behalf of the China Investment Strategy team, I would like to wish you a very happy, healthy, and prosperous Chinese New Year of the Ox (Bull)! Gong Xi Fa Chai, Jing Sima, China Strategist   Highlights A projected 8% increase in China’s real GDP for 2021 will not be an acceleration from the V-shaped economic recovery from the second half of last year. Excluding an exceptionally strong year-over-year economic expansion in Q1, the average growth in the rest of this year will be slower than in 2H20, which implies China’s economic growth momentum has already passed its peak. On a quarter-over-quarter basis, an expected 18% annual growth in Q1 would mean that China’s economic growth momentum has moderated from Q4 last year. Chinese policymakers are not in a hurry to press the stimulus accelerator again, with good reason. Commodity and risk-asset prices will be the most vulnerable to a weakened demand growth.   Feature China’s real GDP is expected to grow by more than 8% this year, which would be a significant improvement over last year’s 2.3%.1 However, it is misleading to compare this year’s growth with that of 2020 as a whole. The first three months of this year will undergo an exceptionally high year-on-year growth (YoY) rate due to the deep contraction experienced in Q1 last year. An 8% annual growth for 2021 would imply that the rate of economic expansion in the rest of this year will be slower than the sharp recovery in 2H20.  From a policy perspective, an 8% real GDP growth in 2021 implies an average rate of 5% over the 2020-2021 period, within the long-term growth range targeted in China’s 14th Five-Year Plan - this removes policymakers’ incentives to further stimulate the economy. The annual National People's Congress (NPC) in early March should provide clues about the government's growth priorities and policy directions. If policymakers set 2021’s real GDP growth target at around 8%, our interpretation is that Chinese leaders are not looking to accelerate growth beyond where it ended in 2020. Major equity indexes are already richly valued. A moderating growth momentum from China will weigh on commodity and risk asset prices, both in China and globally.  We reiterate our view that downside risks are high in the near term; the market could take the easing demand growth from China as a reason for a long overdue correction. A Perspective On Growth In 2021 Investors should put this year’s GDP growth projections into perspective given last year’s distortions in China’s economic conditions and data. On a YoY basis, data in the first quarter this year will be artificially boosted due to the deep contraction in Q1 last year. The market consensus is that Q1 2021 will register an 18% YoY rate of real GDP expansion. If we assume the economy can expand by 8% this year over 2020, then the YoY GDP growth rates in the rest of this year will average less than 6%. This would be below the 6.5% YoY rate in the fourth quarter of 2020 – meaning that on a YoY basis, China’s growth momentum has peaked (Chart 1). Importantly, sequential growth, such as month-over-month (MoM) and quarter-over-quarter (QoQ), drives the financial markets. On a QoQ basis, Q1 business activities are typically weaker due to the Chinese New Year. However, when we compare the rate of QoQ slowdown in Q1 this year with previous years, an 18% YoY increase would mean China’s output in the first three months of 2021 would be one of the worst in the past 20 years (Chart 2).  Chart 1Q1 GDP Growth Will Be Artificially Boosted, On A YoY Basis Chart 2…But Will Be On The Weaker Side, On A QoQ Basis The moderating growth momentum in Q1 this year was already reflected in high-frequency data in January. Most major components in last week’s PMI surveys in both the manufacturing and service sectors had larger setbacks than in January of previous years. Prices in major commodities as well as the Baltic Dry Index softened (Chart 3). Cyclical sector stocks in China’s onshore market, which is highly sensitive to domestic economic policies, have halted their outperformance relative to defensive stocks (Chart 4).  Chart 3Chinese Economic Growth May Be Showing Signs Of Moderation Chart 4Outperformance In Onshore Cyclical Stocks Is Rolling Over Furthermore, it is useful to look past the growth outliers in the previous four quarters to gain insight into the status of China’s business cycle. On a two-year smoothed term, an 8% annual output growth in 2021 would represent a continuation of China’s downward economic growth trend (Chart 5). Chart 5This Years Rebound In Headline GDP Growth Does Not Alter Chinas Structural Downtrend Bottom Line:  It is misleading to consider an 8% YoY real GDP growth rate in 2021 as an acceleration in China’s economic recovery. On a quarterly basis, Q1 will undergo a moderation in growth momentum. The economy in the rest of the year will remain on a downward growth trend. No Rush To Stimulate Anew If Q1 growth turns out to be weaker than the market anticipates, then will Beijing continue to dial back stimulus? Or, will it become concerned about the underlying fragility in the economy and provide more support? So far, all signs point to a continuation of a stimulus pullback. Chart 6Tighter Monetary Conditions are Starting To Bite the Economy The resurgence of domestic COVID-19 cases contributed significantly to January’s shaky demand. However, tighter monetary conditions in 2H20 are likely another reason for the growth moderation (Chart 6). Here are some factors that may have prompted Chinese authorities to stay on track to scale back stimulus: Policymakers appear to consider the massive fiscal stimulus last year overdone. In contrast with the previous two years, local governments are not issuing special-purpose bonds (SPBs) before the NPC sets its quota in early March. China’s broader fiscal budgetary deficit widened to 11% of GDP in 2020 from 6% in 2019. Local governments issued nearly 70% more SPBs in 2020 than in the previous year (Chart 7). SPBs are mostly used for investing in infrastructure projects and last year’s fiscal support along with substantial credit expansion helped to speed up infrastructure investment. However, towards the end of last year local governments reportedly experienced a shortage in profitable investment projects and thus, parked more than 400 billion yuan of proceeds from last year’s SPB issuance at the central bank (Chart 8). This will likely convince the central government to reduce the SPB quota by a large margin this year. Chart 7Fiscal Stimulus Last Year May Be Overdone Chart 8Local Governments Reportedly Ran Out Of Profitable Infrastructure Projects To Invest Last Year In addition, government revenues in 2020 were surprisingly strong and spending was well below budgeted annual expenditures, resulting in 2.5 trillion yuan in idle funds (Chart 9). Based on China’s fiscal budget laws, any unspent funds from the previous year will be carried over to the next year. In other words, the 2.5 trillion yuan will contribute to fiscal deficit reduction this year and are not extra savings that can be distributed.  In addition, asset price bubbles are a perennial concern. Land sales and housing demand for top-tier cities roared back last year due to cheap loans and a relaxed policy environment (Chart 10). In our opinion, Chinese leaders allowed the real estate market to temporarily heat up last year to avoid a deep economic recession. As the economy recovered to its pre-pandemic level by late 2020, policymakers have sharply reduced their tolerance for the booming housing market and substantially tightened restrictions in the real estate sector. Chart 9Unspent Fiscal Stimulus Checks Do Not Lead To Higher Government Spending Next Year Chart 10Housing Market Heats Up Again The domestic labor market has been surprisingly resilient, removing the leadership’s political constraints and incentives to further stimulate the economy.  Labor market conditions and household income are improving. The gap between household disposable income and spending growth has narrowed, the unemployment rate is back to its pre-pandemic level and consumer confidence has rebounded (Chart 11). More importantly, China’s labor market in urban areas is tightening again, with migrant workers receiving higher pay than prior to the pandemic (Chart 12).  Chart 11Labor Market Is On The Mend Chart 12China’s Urban Labor Market Is Tightening Again Bottom Line: Growth rates will moderate, but policymakers will wait for more evidence of a pronounced slowdown in economic conditions before they ease policies. Concerns about financial risks and excesses in the property market entail authorities to allow stimulus of 2020 to relapse. It will take a much deeper slowdown in the business cycle before easing is re-introduced. Investment Implications Our baseline view indicates that credit growth will decelerate by two to three percentage points in 2021 from 2020, and the local government SPB quota will drop by 10%. The projected pullbacks on stimulus are small and more measured than the last policy tightening cycle in 2017/18. Nevertheless, a smaller stimulus and tighter policy environment will consequently lead to moderating growth momentum in China’s domestic economy and demand, particularly in the second half of this year.   Chart 13How Far Can Chinas Inventory Restocking Cycle Go Without More Policy Tailwinds Commodity prices may be at high risk of easing demand. The strong rebound in China’s commodity imports in 2H20 was not only due to a recovery in domestic consumption, but also inventory restocking from an extremely low level. Chart 13 shows that the change in China’s industrial inventories relative to exports has risen substantially from a two-year contraction. Going forward, the pace of inventory accumulation will slow following a weaker policy tailwind and growth momentum, which will weigh on the demand for and prices of key industrial raw materials. Corporate profits should continue to recover, albeit at a slower rate than in 2H20. At the same time, risks are tilted to the downside, and policy initiatives should be closely monitored going forward. As such, we maintain a cautious view on Chinese stocks.    Jing Sima China Strategist jings@bcaresearch.com   Footnote: 1     IMF World Economic Outlook and World Bank Global Outlook, January 2021   Footnotes Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations

Highlights For the month of February, our trading model recommends shorting the US dollar versus the euro and Swiss franc. While we agree a barbell strategy makes sense, we would rather hold the yen and the Scandinavian currencies. In the near term, we recommend trades at the crosses, given the potential for the dollar rally to run further. An opportunity has opened up to short the AUD/MXN cross. We are tightening the stop on our short EUR/GBP position to protect profits. We believe EUR/CHF still has upside. While the US has been labelling Switzerland  a currency manipulator, the real culprit is Europe. Precious metals remain a buy. We are placing a limit sell on the gold/silver ratio at 70, after our initial target of 65 was touched. Platinum should also outperform in 2021. Remain long AUD/NZD, as the key drivers (relative terms of trade and cheap valuation) remain intact. Feature Currency markets are at a crossroads. On the one hand, news on the vaccine front continues to progress, raising the specter that we might return to normalcy sometime in the second half of this year. On the other hand, the current lockdowns are slowing down economic activity across the developed world, which is bullish for the dollar. With the DXY index up 1.4% this year, it appears near-term economic weakness is dominating the currency market narrative. Our long-term trade basket is centered on a dollar-bearish theme, but we have been shifting much focus in the near term to non-US dollar opportunities. Central to this has been our conviction that the dollar is due for a countertrend bounce, in an order of magnitude of 2%-4%.1 It appears we are already halfway there (Chart I-1). For the month of January, our trade recommendations outperformed the model allocation. Notable trades were being short gold versus silver and being short EUR/GBP. Silver in particular was a big winner in January (Chart I-2). Most emerging market currencies saw weakness, especially the Korean won, Russian ruble, and Brazilian real Chart I-1The Dollar Has Been Strong In 2021 Chart I-2Our FX Portfolio Did Well In January For the month of February, our trading model recommends shorting the US dollar, mostly versus the euro and Swiss franc (Chart I-3 and Chart I-4). The model gets its signal from three variables: Relative interest rates (both levels and rates of change), valuation, and sentiment.2 While some of these variables have moved in favor the dollar, the magnitude of these moves has not been sufficient to trigger a model shift. We agree a barbell strategy makes sense. That said, we would rather hold the yen (as the safe haven, compared to the CHF) and the Scandinavian currencies (compared to the EUR). These are our two strategic positions, and we made the case for yen long positions last week. Chart I-3Our FX Model Remains ##br##Short USD... Chart I-4...Especially Versus The Euro And Swiss Franc Circling back to our trades at the crosses, we maintain that they should continue to perform well in February and beyond. We revisit the rationale behind these trades, as well as introduce a new idea: Short the AUD/MXN cross. Go Short AUD/MXN A tactical opportunity has opened up to go short the AUD/MXN cross. Central to this thesis are three catalysts: relative economic activity, valuation, and sentiment. The Australian PMI has rebounded quite strongly relative to that in Mexico, driven by the performance of the Chinese economy, versus that of the US economy. Australia exports mostly to China, while Mexico is heavily tied to the US economy. With the Chinese credit impulse rolling over, the US economy has been outperforming of late. If past is prologue, this will herald a lower AUD/MXN exchange rate (Chart I-5). Correspondingly, oil prices are outperforming metals prices. China is the biggest consumer of metals, while the US is the biggest consumer of oil. A higher oil-to-metal ratio is negative for AUD/MXN. Terms of trade between Australia and Mexico have been an important driver of the exchange rate (Chart I-5). China had a massive restocking of metals last year, much more than oil and natural gas. This implies that the destocking phase (should it occur) will be most acute among metal inventories (Chart I-6), suggesting oil imports into China could fare better than metals. On a real effective exchange rate basis, the Aussie is expensive relative to the Mexican peso. Historically, this has heralded a lower exchange rate (Chart I-7). Chart I-5AUD/MXN And Terms Of Trade   Chart I-6Chinese Destocking: From Crude Oil To Metals? Chart I-7AUD/MXN Is ##br##Expensive Back in 2020, when everyone was short the Aussie and long the MXN, being a contrarian paid off handsomely. Now, speculators are roughly neutral both crosses. Should the trends we are highlighting carry on into the next few months, this will be a powerful catalyst for speculators to jump on the bandwagon. We recommend opening a short AUD/MXN trade today, with a stop loss at 16.50 and an initial target of 13. Stay Short EUR/GBP Chart I-8An Asymmetry In Pricing Our short EUR/GBP position is performing well, amidst a more hawkish Bank of England this week. Technically, there remains room for much downside on the cross. Real interest rates in the UK are rising relative to those in the euro area. The Brexit discount has not been fully priced out of the EUR/GBP cross, whereas broad US dollar weakness has eroded the discount in cable (Chart I-8). From a technical perspective, speculators are still very long the EUR/GBP, even though our intermediate-term indicator is nearing bombed-out levels (Chart I-9). Chart I-9EUR/GBP Still Has Downside Finally, short EUR/GBP tends to benefit from an outperformance of oil prices. We will be revisiting the fair value of the pound in upcoming reports given the fundamental shifts that are happening in the post-EU relationship. For now, we are tightening stops on our short EUR/GBP position to 0.89, in order to protect profits. Remain Long NOK And SEK Chart I-10NOK Follows Oil Prices The Scandinavian currencies are  extremely cheap and an attractive bet for 2021. As such, we believe the recent relapse in their performance provides an opportunity for fresh long positions. For the NOK, a rising oil price is bullish, both against the EUR and USD (Chart I-10). Meanwhile, superior handling of the pandemic has buoyed domestic economic data in Norway. Both retail sales and domestic inflation have been perking up, pushing the Norges Bank to dial forward expectations of a rate lift-off. Sweden is also holding up relatively well this year. Part of the reason for this is that over the years, the drop in the Swedish krona, both against the US dollar and euro, has made Sweden very competitive. With our models showing the Swedish krona as undervalued by 13% versus the USD, there is much room for currency appreciation before financial conditions tighten significantly. The bottom line is that both Norway and Sweden are well positioned  to benefit from a global economic recovery, with much undervalued currencies that will bolster their basic balances. We expect both the SEK and NOK to remain the best performers versus the USD in the coming year.  Stay Long EUR/CHF While the US has been labelling Switzerland  a currency manipulator, the real culprit is the euro area. To be clear, the SNB has been actively intervening in the currency markets. However, when one looks at relative monetary policy, the expansion in the ECB’s balance sheet far outpaces that of the SNB (Chart I-11). With the correlation between balance sheet policy and the exchange rate shifting, it may embolden Switzerland to intervene even more strongly in currency markets. Historically, the Swiss franc was buffeted by the global environment (improving global trade) and rising productivity in Switzerland. As a result, the SNB had no alternative but to try to recycle those excess savings abroad by lifting its FX reserves, or see even stronger appreciation of its currency. With global trade much more muted, intervention in the FX market could be a more potent headwind for the franc. Chart I-11The SNB Is More Hawkish Than The ECB Chart I-12EUR/CHF And The Global Cycle In the near-term, the risk to this trade is that safe-haven flows  reaccelerate, as investors re-price risk. However, this will be a short-term hiccup. EUR/CHF is a procyclical cross and will benefit from improvement in the Eurozone economy relative to the rest of the world (Chart I-12). Meanwhile, by many measures, the Swiss franc remains expensive versus the euro. Stay Long AUD/NZD Chart I-13RBA QE Will Hurt AUD/NZD The rally in the kiwi has provided an exploitable opportunity to lean against it. We remain long the AUD/NZD cross, despite the RBA stepping up the pace of QE at its latest meeting. The rationale is as follows: The balance sheet of the RBA was already lagging that of the RBNZ, so the latest move is simply  catch up (Chart I-13). It has no doubt been negative for the cross, as Australia-New Zealand rates have compressed. However, when the program expires, the AUD will be subject to external forces once again.  The Australian bourse is heavy in cyclical stocks, notably banks and commodity plays, while the New Zealand stock market is the most defensive in the G10. Should value outperform growth, this will favor the AUD/NZD cross. The kiwi has benefited from rising terms of trade, as agricultural prices have catapulted higher. Should a correction ensue, as we expect, this will favor NZD short positions. Our conviction on long AUD/NZD has clearly been hit with the RBA’s latest move. As such, we are tightening stops to 1.05 for risk management purposes. Stay Long Precious Metals, Especially Silver And Platinum We are placing a limit sell on the gold/silver ratio at 70, after our initial 65 target was hit. The rationale for the trade remains intact: In a world of ample liquidity and a falling US dollar, gold and precious metals are bound to benefit. However, silver has underperformed the rise in gold. The long-term mean for the gold/silver ratio is 50, providing ample alpha for this trade (Chart I-14). Chart I-14The Case For Short Gold Versus Silver Silver is heavily used in the electronics and renewable energy industries, which are capturing the new manufacturing landscape. Silver faced resistance near $30/oz. However, this will be a temporary hiccup. The next important level for silver will be the 2012 highs near $35/oz. After this, silver could take out its 2011 highs that were close to $50/oz, just as gold did.   Chester Ntonifor Foreign Exchange Strategist chestern@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see our Foreign Exchange Strategy report, "Sizing A Potential Dollar Bounce," dated January 15, 2021. 2 Please see our Foreign Exchange Strategy report, "Introducing An FX Trading Model," dated April 24, 2020. Trades & Forecasts Forecast Summary Core Portfolio Tactical Trades Limit Orders Closed Trades

Highlights US-China tensions are escalating over the Taiwan Strait as Beijing tests the new Biden administration, yet financial markets are flying high and unprepared for a resumption of structurally elevated geopolitical risk. US restrictions on Chinese tech and arms sales, US internal political divisions, Taiwanese independence activists, China’s power grab in Hong Kong, and aggressive foreign policy from Xi Jinping create what could become a perfect storm. The rattling of sabers can escalate further as a “fourth Taiwan Strait crisis” has been a long time coming – though “gun to head” we do not think China’s civilian leadership is ready to initiate a war over Taiwan. Biden’s shift to a more defensive US strategy on tech offers Beijing the far less risky alternative of continuing its current (very successful) long game. We are closing most of our risk-on, cyclical trades and shifting to a neutral position until we can get a better read on how far the crisis will escalate. Maintain hedges and safe-haven trades: gold, yen, health stocks, an Indian overweight in EM, and defense stocks relative to others. Feature President Joe Biden faces his first crisis as the US and China rattle sabers over the Taiwan Strait. The crisis does not come at a surprise to watchers of geopolitics but it could produce further negative surprises for financial markets that are just starting to take note of it. This premier geopolitical risk combined with vaccine rollout problems, weak economic data releases, and signs of froth sent global equities down 2% over the past five days. The US 10-year Treasury yield fell to 1%, the USD-CNY rose by 0.03%, gold fell by 0.6%, and copper fell by 2%. As things stand today, we are prepared to buy on the dip but we are closing most of our long bets and positioning for a big dip now that our premier geopolitical risk in the Taiwan Strait shows signs of materializing. A series of Chinese air force drills have cut across the far southwestern corner of Taiwan’s Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ) over the past week, giving alarm to the Taiwanese military (Map 1). Beijing is sending a clear warning to the Biden administration that Taiwan is its “red line” – namely Taiwanese independence but also Beijing’s access to Taiwanese-made semiconductors. There is not yet a clear signal that China is about to attack or invade Taiwan but an attack is possible. Investors should not underrate the significance of a show of force over Taiwan at this juncture. Map 1Flight Paths Of People’s Liberation Army Aircraft, January 24, 2021 Chart 1Global Trade Troubles We are also taking this opportunity to book a 37% gain on our long US energy trade. Global politics are fundamentally anarchic in the context of the US’s relative geopolitical decline, and internal divisions and distractions, and the simultaneous economic shocks that have knocked global trade off course (Chart 1), jeopardizing the newfound success and stability of the ambitious emerging market challengers to the United States. Geopolitical Risk Is Back (Already) Chart 2US And China Lead Global Growth Recovery The US and China have snapped back more rapidly than other economies from the COVID-19 pandemic despite their entirely different experiences (Chart 2). The virus erupted in China but its draconian lockdowns halted the outbreak while it unleashed a wave of monetary and fiscal stimulus to reboot the economy. The US showed itself unwilling and unable to maintain strict lockdowns, leaving its economy freer to operate, and yet also unleashed a wave of stimulus. The US stimulus is the biggest in the world yet China’s is underrated in Chart 3 due to its reliance on quasi-fiscal credit expansion, which amounted to 8.5% of GDP. That goes on top of the 5.6% of GDP fiscal expansion shown here. For most of the past year financial markets have priced the positive side of this stimulus – the fact that it prevented larger layoffs, bankruptcies, and defaults and launched a new economic cycle. Going forward they will face the negative side, which includes financial instability and foreign policy assertiveness. Countries that are domestically unstable yet fueled by government spending can take risks that they would not otherwise take if their economy depended on private or foreign sentiment. The checks and balances that prevent conflict during normal times have been reduced. Chart 3US Leads Stimulus Blowout This Time, Though China Stimulus Larger Than Appears Global economic policy uncertainty has fallen from recent peaks around the world but it remains elevated in the US, China, and Russia, which are engaged in a great power struggle that will continue in the coming years (Chart 4). This struggle has escalated with each new crisis point, from 2001 to 2008 to 2015 to 2020, and shows no sign of abating in 2021. Chart 4APolicy Uncertainty Still Rising Here ... Chart 4B... And Can Easily Revive Here   Chart 5Terrorism Falling In World Ex-US (For Now) Europe, the UK, Australia, and various emerging markets will suffer spillover effects from this geopolitical struggle as well as from their own domestic turmoil in the wake of the global recession. Immigration and terrorism have dropped off in recent years but will revive in the Middle East and elsewhere when the aftershocks of the global crisis lead to new state failures, weakened governments, and militant extremism (Chart 5). In many countries, domestic political risks appear contained today but the reality is that social unrest and political opposition will mount over time if unemployment is not dealt with and inflation starts to climb. These two factors combine form the “Misery Index,” a useful indicator of socio-political discontent. India, Russia, Brazil, Turkey, South Africa, Mexico, and Indonesia are just a few of the major emerging markets that face high or rising misery indexes and hence persistent forces for political change (Chart 6). Chart 6AMore Social And Political Unrest To Come Chart 6BMore Social And Political Unrest To Come So far there have not been many changes in government – the US is the major exception. But change will accelerate from here. It is not hard to see that weakening popular support for national leaders and their ruling coalitions will result in more snap elections, election upsets, and surprise events in the coming months and years (Chart 7). Chart 7Changing Of The Guard Under Way In Global Politics Chart 8Italian Elections Heighten Sovereign Spread For example, Italian voters likely face an early election even though Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte saw some of the best opinion polling of any first-world leader since COVID emerged. Last year we identified Italy as a leading candidate for an early snap election and we still maintain that an election is the likeliest outcome of the crumbling ruling coalition. The pandemic has created havoc in the country and now the ruling parties want to take advantage of the situation to strengthen their hand in distributing the $254 billion in European recovery funds destined for Italy. A new electoral law was passed in the fall, enabling an election to go forward, and the leading parties all hope to have control of parliament when the next presidential election occurs in early 2022, since the president is a key player in government and cabinet formation. Political risk is therefore set to increase and boost the risk premium in Italian bonds, producing a counter-trend spread widening for the coming 12 months or so (Chart 8). Anti-establishment right-wing parties, which taken together lead in public opinion, threaten to blow out the Italian budget. It is not a foregone conclusion that they will prevail – and these parties have moderated their rhetoric on the euro and monetary union – but it is an understated risk at present and has some staying power, even if moderate by the standards of geopolitical risks in other regions. Russia also faces rising political and geopolitical risk in the aftermath of the pandemic, which has had an outsized effect on a population that is disproportionately old and unhealthy (Chart 9). Moscow is now witnessing the most serious outpouring of government opposition since 2011 despite the fact that its cyclical economic conditions are not the worst among the emerging markets. The economic recovery is likely to be stunted by the new US administration’s efforts to extend and expand sanctions and any geopolitical conflicts that ensue. We remain negative on Russian equities as we have for the past two years and look at other emerging market oil plays as offering the same value without the geopolitical risk (Chart 10). Chart 9Russian Social Unrest Aggravated By Pandemic Chart 10Russian Equities Face Persistent Geopolitical Risk Investors do not need to care about social unrest in itself but do need to pay attention when it leads to a change in government or the overall policy setting. This is what we will monitor for the countries highlighted in these charts as being especially at risk. Italy and Spain are the most likely to see government change in the developed world, though we should note that however stable Germany’s ruling Christian Democrats appear as Chancellor Angela Merkel steps down, there could still be an upset this fall (Chart 11). France’s Emmanuel Macron is still positioned for re-election next year but his legislative control is clearly in jeopardy – and it is at least worth noting that the right-wing anti-establishment leader Marine Le Pen has started to move up in the polls for the first time since 2017, even though she has a very low chance of actually taking power (Chart 12). Chart 11German Election Not A Foregone Conclusion Chart 12Signs Of Life For Marine Le Pen? Chart 13UK Now Turns To Keeping Scotland Even the UK, which has found the “middle way” solution to the Brexit imbroglio, in true British form, faces a significant increase in political risk beginning with local elections in May. If these produce a resounding victory for the Scottish National Party then it will interpret the vote as a mandate to pursue a second independence referendum, which will be a narrow affair even if Prime Minister Boris Johnson is tentatively favored to head it off (Chart 13). Bottom Line: Financial markets have been preoccupied with the pandemic and global stimulus. But now political and geopolitical risks are underrated once again. They are starting to rear their heads, not only in the US-China-Russia power struggle but also in the domestic politics of countries that face high policy uncertainty and high or rising misery indexes. Biden And Xi Bound To Collide It is too soon to identify the “Biden Doctrine” in American foreign policy, as the new president has not yet taken significant action, but the all-too-predictable showdown in the Taiwan Strait could provide the occasion. Since the fall of 2019 we have warned that US-China great power competition would intensify despite any “phase one” trade deal. President Trump undertook a flurry of significant punitive measures on China during his lame duck months in office and now Beijing is pressuring the Biden administration to reverse these measures or at least call a halt to them. The fundamental premise of Biden’s campaign against President Trump was that he would restore America’s active role in international affairs against the supposed isolationism of Trump. Of course, the fact that the Democrats gained full control of Congress means that Biden will not be restricted to foreign policy over his four-year term but will be consumed with trying to cut deals on Capitol Hill to pass his domestic agenda. Nevertheless Biden’s foreign policy schedule is already packed as he is rattling sabers with China, issuing warnings to Russian President Vladimir Putin, and cutting off arms sales to Saudi Arabia and the UAE to signal that he intends to reformulate the Iranian nuclear deal. Americans broadly favor an active role in the world, which is clear from opinion polling in the wake of Trump’s challenge to the status quo – they are weary of wars in the Middle East but are not showing appetite for a broader withdrawal from global affairs (Chart 14). Similarly polling on global trade shows that Trump, if anything, roused the public’s support for trade despite French or Japanese levels of skepticism about it. Chart 14Americans Still Favor Global Engagement The implication is that the US budget deficit will remain larger for longer and that the US trade deficit will balloon amidst a surge in domestic demand. Trump’s attempt to shrink trade deficits without shrinking the budget deficit (or overall demand) proved economically impossible. Chart 15Biden And The US Role In The World The Biden administration is opting for expanding the twin deficits albeit at a much greater risk to the dollar’s value. Markets have already discounted this shift to the point that the dollar is experiencing a bounce from having reached oversold levels. The bounce will continue but it is against the grain, the fall will resume later, as indicated by these policies. Another implication is that defense spending will not fall much due to the geopolitical pressures facing the Biden administration. Non-defense spending will go up but defense spending will remain at least flat as a share of overall output (Chart 15). With this policy setting in the US, policy developments in China made it inevitable that US-China strategic tensions would resume where Trump left off despite Biden’s campaign platform of de-emphasizing the China threat. In the long run, Biden’s push for renewed engagement with China runs up against the fact that Beijing’s overarching political and economic strategy is focused on import substitution and technological acquisition, as outlined in the fourteenth five-year plan. China’s share of global exports has grown even larger despite the pandemic and yet China is weaning itself off of global imports in pursuit of strategic self-sufficiency. The US will be left with less global export share, less market access in China, and ongoing dependency on trade surplus nations to buy its debt (Chart 16). Unless, that is, the Biden administration engages in very robust diplomacy and is willing to take geopolitical risks not unlike those that Trump took. Chart 16China's Role In The World Motivates Opposition Chart 17China Plays Are Getting Stretched One of the clear takeaways from the above is that industrial metals and China plays, like the Australian dollar and Swedish equities, are facing a pullback. Though Chinese policymakers will ultimately accommodate the economy, the combination of a domestic policy tug-of-war and a renewal of US-China tensions will take the air out of these recent outperformers (Chart 17). Bottom Line: The Biden administration faces a resumption in strategic tensions with China. First, the immediate crisis over the Taiwan Strait can escalate from here (see below). Second, the US-China economic conflict is set to escalate over the long run with the US pursuing an unsustainable policy of maximum reflation while China turns away from the liberal “reform and opening” agenda that enabled positive US-China ties since 1979. This combination points to a large increase in the US trade dependency on China even as China grows more independent of the US and technologically capable. This result ensures that tensions will persist over the long run. Is The Fourth Taiwan Strait Crisis Already Here? Biden may be forced into significant foreign policy action right away in the Taiwan Strait, where General Secretary Xi Jinping has put his fledgling administration to the test. Over the past week Beijing has sent a large squadron of nuclear-capable bombers and fighter jets to cut across the far southwest corner of Taiwan’s Air Defense Identification Zone (Map 2). This activity is a continuation of an upgraded tempo of military drills around the island, including a flight across the median line last year, and follows an alleged army build-up across from the island last year.1 The US for its part has upgraded its freedom of navigation operations over the past several years, including in the Taiwan Strait (though not yet putting an aircraft carrier group into the strait as in the 1990s). Map 2Flight Paths Of People’s Liberation Army Aircraft, January 25-28, 2021 In response to China’s sorties on January 23, the US State Department urged the People’s Republic to stop “attempts to intimidate its neighbors, including Taiwan,” called for mainland dialogue with Taiwan’s “elected representatives” (albeit not naming anyone), declared that the US would deepen ties with Taiwan, and pledged a “rock-solid” commitment to the island. Not coincidentally the USS Roosevelt aircraft carrier arrived in the South China Sea on the same day as China’s largest sortie, January 24. Meanwhile a Chinese government spokesman said the military drills should be seen as a “solemn warning” to the Biden administration that China will reunify the island by force if necessary. China is not only concerned about Taiwanese secession and US-Taiwan defense relations, as always, but is specifically concerned that the Biden administration will persist with the technological “blockade” that the Trump administration imposed on Huawei, Semiconductor Manufacturing International Corporation (SMIC), their suppliers, and a range of other Chinese state-owned enterprises and tech firms. Neither the US nor Chinese statements have yet made a definitive break with the longstanding policy framework on Taiwan that first enabled US-China détente and engagement. The US State Department reiterated its commitment to the diplomatic documents that frame the relationship with the People’s Republic and the Republic of China, namely the Three Communiques, the Taiwan Relations Act, and the Six Assurances. It did not make explicit mention of the One China Policy although the US version of that policy is incorporated in the first of the three communiques (the 1972 Shanghai Communique). However, China may not be appeased by this statement. Xi Jinping has gradually shifted the language in major Communist Party policy statements over the past several years to indicate a greater willingness to use force against Taiwan, even suggesting that he envisions the reunification of China by 2035.2 The Trump administration’s offensives have accelerated this security dilemma. In addition to export controls on high tech, Trump signed several significant bills on Taiwan into law over the course of his term that aim to upgrade the relationship. These include the Taiwan Assurance Act of 2020 at the end of last year, which calls for deeper US-Taiwan relations, greater Taiwanese involvement in international institutions, larger US arms sales to support Taiwan’s defense strategy, and more diplomatic exchanges.3 Separately, the US and Taiwan also signed a science-and-technology cooperation agreement on December 15 and the Biden administration is interested in negotiating a free trade agreement.4 A few additional points: The struggle over access to Taiwan’s state-of-the-art semiconductor production continues to escalate. The Trump administration concluded its tenure by cutting off American exports of chips, parts, designs, and knowhow to Chinese telecom giant Huawei, thus putting Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC) into the position of having to halt sales of certain goods to the mainland. TSMC accounts for one-fifth of global semiconductor capacity and produces the smallest, fastest, and most efficient chips. China’s SMIC has been hamstrung by these controls as well as Huawei and other Chinese tech champions. This issue remains unresolved and is the primary immediate driver of conflict between the US and China since both economies would suffer if semiconductor supplies were severed. The US’s capability of imposing a tech blockade on China threatens its long-term productivity and hence potentially regime survival, while China’s capability of attacking Taiwan threatens the critical supply lines of the US and its northeast Asian allies, including essential computer chips for US military needs (the main reason the US has tried to strong-arm TSMC into building a fabrication plant in Arizona).5 US arms sales en route to Taiwan. While there are rumors that the Biden administration will delay these sales, the Taiwanese government claims they have been assured that the transfers will go forward. This arms package does not include the most provocative weapons systems, such as F-35 fighter jets, but it does contain advanced weapons systems and weapons that can be seen as offensive rather than defensive. These include truck-mounted rocket launchers, precision strike missiles, 66 F-16 fighter jets, Harpoon anti-ship missiles, subsea mines, and advanced drones. So it is possible that Beijing will put its foot down to prevent the transfer, just as it tried to halt the less-sensitive transfer of THAAD missiles to South Korea during the last US presidential transition. If this should be the case then it will cause a major escalation in tensions until the US either halts the arms transfer or completes it – and completing the transfer, if China issues an ultimatum, will lead to conflict. Growth of “secessionist forces” in Taiwan. Chinese media have specifically cited a political “alliance” that formed on January 24 and aims to revise the island’s democratic constitution. The Taiwanese public no longer sees itself primarily as Chinese but as Taiwanese and is increasingly opposed to eventual reunification. What is the end-game? First, as stated, the current escalation in tensions can go much further in the coming weeks and months. We are not prepared to sound the “all clear” as a confrontation has been building for years and could conceivably amount to Cuban Missile Crisis proportions, which would likely trigger a bear market. Second, we do not yet see China staging a full-scale attack or invasion on Taiwan. China’s goal is to continue expanding its economy and technology, its economic heft in Asia and the world, and thus its global influence and military power. It cannot achieve this goal if it is utterly severed from Taiwan, but it also cannot achieve this goal if it precipitates a war with not only Taiwan but also the US, Japan, other US allies, and a devastation of the very semiconductor foundries upon which Taiwan’s critical importance stands. Playing the long game of growing its economy and taking incremental steps of imposing its political supremacy has paid off so far, including in Hong Kong and the South China Sea. Both Russia’s and China’s gradual slices of regional power have demonstrated that the US does not have the appetite, focus, and resolve to fight small wars at present – whereas Washington is untested on its commitment to major wars such as an invasion of Taiwan would precipitate. At very least China needs to determine whether the Biden administration intends to impose a technological blockade, as the Trump administration looked to do. Biden has so far outlined a “defensive game” of securing US networks, preventing US trade in dual-use technologies that strengthen China’s military, on-shoring semiconductor production, and accelerating US research and development. This leaves open the possibility of issuing waivers for trade in US-made or US-designed items that do not have military purposes, albeit with the US retaining the possibility of removing the waivers if China does not reciprocate. This strategy amounts to what Biden’s “Asia Tsar,” Kurt Campbell, has called “stable competition.” Therefore the earliest indications from the Biden administration suggest that it will seek a lowering of temperature while defending the US’s red lines – and this should prevent a full-scale Taiwan war in the short run, though it does not prevent a major diplomatic crisis at any time. If Biden does in fact pursue this more accommodative approach, and seeks to reengage China, then that Beijing has a much lower-cost strategy that is immediately available, as opposed to an all-or-nothing gambit to stage the largest amphibious assault since D-Day, which is by no means assured to succeed and could in the worst case provoke a nuclear war. This strategy includes negotiating waivers on US tech restrictions, accelerating its high-tech import substitution strategy, and continuing to poach the talent from Taiwan and steal the technology needed to circumvent US restrictions. As long as Washington does not make a dash for a total blockade, Beijing should be expected to pursue this alternate strategy. Investment Takeaways The market is not priced for a serious escalation in US-China-Taiwan tensions. If there is a 17% chance of a 30%-40% drawdown in equities on jitters over a major war, then equities should suffer a full 7%+ correction to discount the possibility. While the prospects of full-scale war are much lower, at say 5%, these odds could escalate rapidly if the two sides fail to mitigate a diplomatic or military crisis through red telephone communications. Chart 18China/Taiwan Policy Uncertainty Will Converge To Upside While Chinese policy uncertainty remains elevated, it still has plenty of room to rise. It has diverged unsustainably from Taiwanese uncertainty, which only recently showed signs of ticking up in response to manifest strategic dangers. This gap will converge to the upside as US-China tensions persist and the global news media gradually turns its spotlight away from Donald Trump, alerting financial markets to the persistence of the world’s single most important geopolitical risk right under their nose (Chart 18). Inverting our market-based Geopolitical Risk Indicators, so that falling risk is shown as a rising green line, it becomes apparent that Chinese equities and Taiwanese equities have gone vertical, have only started to correct, and are highly exposed to exogenous events stemming from their fundamentally unstable political relationship. Hong Kong stocks, by contrast, have performed in line with the market’s perception of their political risk, so that there is less discrepancy between market sentiment and reality – even though they will also sell off in the event that this week’s events escalate into a larger confrontation (Chart 19). Chart 19Geopolitical Risks Lurking In Asian Equities Chart 20Stay Long Korea / Short Taiwan Due To Geopolitical Risk South Korean stocks were also overstretched and due for correction. We have long advocated a pair trade favoring Korean over Taiwanese stocks to capture the relative geopolitical risk as well as more favorable valuations in Korea (Chart 20). The ingredients for a fourth Taiwan Strait crisis are all present. This week’s showdown could escalate further. Global and East Asian equities are overbought and vulnerable to a larger correction, especially Taiwanese stocks. US equities are also sky-high and vulnerable to a larger correction, although they would be favored relative to the rest of the world in the event of a full-fledged crisis. Chart 21Geopolitical Flare-Up Would Upset This Trend We maintain our various geopolitical longs and hedges, including gold, Japanese yen, an Indian overweight within EM, and health stocks. We remain long global defense stocks as well. Because our base case is that the current crisis will not result in war, but rather high diplomatic tensions, we are inclined to buy on the dips. But we expect a big dip even in the event of a merely diplomatic crisis that involves no jets shot down or ships sunk. Therefore for now we are closing long municipal bonds versus Treasuries, long international stocks versus American, long GBP-EUR, long Trans-Pacific Partnership countries, and long value versus growth stocks. These trades should be reinitiated once we have clarity on the magnitude of the US-China crisis, given the extremely accommodative economic and policy backdrop, which will, if anything, become more accommodative if geopolitical risks materialize yet fall short of total war. Oil and copper would suffer relative to gold in the meantime (Chart 21). Our remaining strategic portfolio still favors stocks that would ultimately benefit from instability in Greater China, such as European industrials relative to global, Indian equities relative to Chinese, and South Korean equities relative to Taiwanese. While the spike in tensions reinforces our conclusion in last week’s report that long-dated Chinese government bonds should rally on Taiwan risk, this recommendation was made in the context of discussing domestic Chinese markets and is primarily intended for mainland investors or those with a mandate to invest in Chinese assets. Foreign investors could conceivably be exposed to sanctions or capital controls in the event of a major crisis – as we have long flagged is also a risk with foreign holders of Russian ruble-denominated bonds. We have made a note in our trade table accordingly.   Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1 Brad Lendon, "Almost 40 Chinese warplanes breach Taiwan Strait median line; Taiwan President calls it a 'threat of force,'" CNN, September 21, 2020, cnn.com. 2 Richard C. Bush, "8 key things to notice from Xi Jinping’s New Year speech on Taiwan," Brookings Institute, January 7, 2019, brookings.com. 3 Trump also signed the Taiwan Travel Act on March 16, 2018 and the Taiwan Allies International Protection and Enhancement Initiative Act on March 26, 2019. For the Taiwan Assurance Act, see Kelvin Chen, "Trump Signs Taiwan Assurance Act Into Law," Taiwan News, December 28, 2020, taiwannews.com. 4 Jason Pan, "Alliance formed to draft Taiwanese constitution," Taipei Times, January 24, 2021, taipeitimes.com; Emerson Lim and Matt Yu, "Taiwan, U.S. sign agreement on scientific cooperation," Focus Taiwan, December 18, 2020, focustaiwan.tw; Ryan Hass, "A case for optimism on US-Taiwan relations," Brookings Institute, November 30, 2020, brookings.com. 5 Thomas J. Shattuck, "Stuck in the Middle: Taiwan’s Semiconductor Industry, the U.S.-China Tech Fight, and Cross-Strait Stability," Foreign Policy Research Institute, Orbis (65:1) 2021, pp. 101-17, www.fpri.org. Section II: GeoRisk Indicators China Russia UK Germany France Italy Canada Spain Taiwan Korea Turkey Brazil Section III: Geopolitical Calendar

Highlights Increased fiscal assistance in the US and other advanced economies will support economic activity until the practice of social distancing durably ends later this year. The US is not yet vaccinating at a pace that is consistent with herd immunity, but that pace is likely to quicken over the coming weeks. A September herd immunity milestone should allow for a significant increase in public “contacts” over the summer and for a substantial closure of the output gap in the second half of the year. The spending of accumulated household savings in the US would rapidly push the output gap into positive territory if those savings were fully deployed upon reopening. But expectations of eventual tax increases and some permanent reduction in services spending suggests that some of those savings will not be spent, and that major economic overheating this year is not likely. The market has largely priced in the most likely economic outcome over the coming year, suggesting that investors should not expect outsized returns in 2021. But our base case view still favors equities relative to bonds, and implies mid-to-high single-digit returns from stocks in absolute terms. An aggressively hawkish deviation in monetary policy later this year is unlikely, barring a sharp and sustained rise in inflation back to target levels. Still, a closure of the output gap this year will push long-dated bond yields higher, suggesting that fixed-income investors should be short duration. Investors should favor global over US and value over growth stocks over the coming year. The US dollar will continue to trend lower, albeit at a slower pace. Feature Chart I-1The Near-Term Outlook For Economic Growth Is Poor The outlook for growth in the US and other developed economies remains poor over the very near term. The combination of another major wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, at least partially driven by more transmissable variants of the virus, as well as the lagged effects of diminished US fiscal support in the second half of last year have led to a slowdown in economic activity that is likely to linger for the coming several weeks (Chart I-1). Outside of the US, the pressure on the medical system has led to the re-imposition of heavy control measures that mechanically weigh on consumer spending. Within the US, some restrictions have been re-imposed, but spending has also slowed due to the exhaustion of the stimulative benefits of last year’s CARES act for a sizeable portion of recipients. There are early signs suggesting that the second wave is cresting in advanced economies: hospitalizations appear to have peaked in the US and a few major European economies, and the number of new cases is either trending lower or has plateaued (Chart I-2). However, even if this is the beginning of the end of the latest wave, the gains in the war against COVID-19 have clearly been won through changes in policy and human behavior, not through inoculation. Chart I-2Infections Are Slowing Because Of Policy And Behavior (Not Vaccinations) For example, in the US, some market commentators have highlighted the fact that hotbed midwestern states such as North and South Dakota have administered more doses of the vaccine and that the Midwest is experiencing the largest decline in new cases in the country, inferring a causal relationship. This ignores the fact that new confirmed cases peaked in the Midwest almost a month before the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine was approved by the CDC. This suggests that a decline in cases there, which led the overall US trend, much more likely occurred in response to an exponential rise in hospitalizations in October and early November. We cannot identify a specific policy change in Midwestern states that catalyzed a peak in cases, but we hypothesize that residents of these states took it upon themselves to reduce their contacts as the threat of medical system collapse and health care rationing increased sharply. A cresting second wave is certainly positive from a health perspective, and should reduce the pressure on the medical system. But the fact that additional restrictions and/or growth-negative consumer behavior were required yet again to “flatten the curve” underscores that many of these measures will likely remain in place for the coming few weeks to durably end the wave, and thus will weigh on Q1 growth. They will also likely remain the only viable response to combat future outbreaks until vaccination reaches levels that are sufficient to reduce the impact of the pandemic on economic activity. More Fiscal Support On The Way In Europe and Canada, the fiscal response to the second wave has generally been to extend wage subsidy and income support programs. In the US, after having let unemployment benefit payments lapse in the second half of 2020, the US congress passed a US$900 billion aid bill in late December that provides US$300 per week in supplemental unemployment benefit payments and US$600 in direct checks to most Americans. Chart I-3 highlights that these payments have already begun to reach US households. In addition, following the Democratic Senate wins in Georgia earlier this month, President Biden announced a $1.9 trillion emergency relief package that topped up individual direct payments to US$2,000, assistance to small businesses, aid to state & local governments, and funding for pandemic-related expenses such as testing and the rollout of vaccines. While the size and contents of Biden’s proposal may get scaled down, our geopolitical strategists expect most of the plan to gain approval in Congress early this year. That implies that the federal deficit is on track to fall somewhere between the “Democratic Status Quo” and “Democratic High” scenarios shown in Chart I-4, meaning that the deficit will peak at between 22% and 25% of GDP in fiscal year 2021. Chart I-3Unemployment Benefit Payments Are Rising Again Chart I-4A Very Significant Amount Of Stimulus Is Still To Come   This is a very significant amount of stimulus, and will provide a substantial reflationary bridge to help counter the negative impact on Q1 growth from the pandemic. But in the aggregate, some portion of the fiscal stimulus is unlikely to be spent by households until there is no longer a need for social distancing and the economy fully reopens. How long it takes to arrive at that moment depends enormously on the US’ progress at vaccinating its population. Vaccines, Herd Immunity, And Reopening For now, the news on the vaccine front is mixed. Israel, which has vaccinated over 40% of its population with at least one dose (Chart I-5), has demonstrated that it is technically possible to deploy the vaccine at an extremely rapid pace. But it is not clear that Israel’s experience is applicable to other countries, given aggressive efforts by the Israeli government to obtain early access to vaccine doses (which cannot, by definition, be achieved by everyone). While Chart I-5 shows that the US currently ranks highly among other countries at administering vaccines, Chart I-6 highlights that the pace must quicken for herd immunity to be reached later this year. The chart shows the number of actual US doses administered per 100 people, alongside the range that would need to be followed for 50-80% of the US population to be fully immunized by the end of September. Note that more than 100 doses per 100 people will be required in order to vaccinate most of the US population, given that two vaccine doses will need to be administered per person. Chart I-5Israel Is Winning The Vaccine Race Because Of Preferential Access Chart I-6Although It Likely Will, The Pace Of US Vaccinations Must Quicken   The “X” on the chart highlights the Biden administration’s previous goal of 100 million doses administered in the first 100 days following inauguration, which was too timid of an objective to be on any of the herd immunity paths shown in the chart. The administration’s new goal of 1.5 million injections administered per day starting by the middle of February is more promising and suggests that the US will be within the herd immunity range by late April. Chart I-6 is somewhat daunting, in that it highlights the risk that the US may not actually achieve herd immunity this year, and that investors are overestimating the odds of true economic reopening. However, that would be an overly pessimistic assessment, for three reasons: Due to the scaling up of vaccine production, the pace of vaccine dose deliveries will likely soon grow at an exponential rather than linear rate. This implies that the “underperformance” of actual vaccine doses administered versus the herd immunity paths shown in Chart I-6 is temporary. Private industry is likely to help the government meet its new vaccination goals. Amazon has recently offered the federal government assistance at distributing vaccine doses, and CVS, the retail pharmacy chain, has recently suggested that its stores could provide 1 million injections per day. These estimates do not include the likely establishment of large-scale, federally-funded vaccination sites. Despite what health professionals may advise, wide-ranging re-opening of economic activity and the end of social distancing policies will likely occur before herd immunity is technically reached. From the perspective of a health care professional, case minimization should be the objective of policy as it stands to minimize the number of deaths linked to the pandemic. But given the tremendous economic, emotional, and mental health toll inflicted by social distancing, from the perspective of politicians and many members of the public, the objective of policy should instead be to ensure that the medical system remains functional and that rationing of critical care is not required. The fact that vaccines are being administered to those most likely to become hospitalized suggests that the peak impact on the health care system will occur before herd immunity is achieved, which should allow for an increase in public “contacts” over the summer. What Happens When The Economy Re-Opens? In the US and in most advanced countries, the gap in spending is focused entirely on the services side of the economy. Table I-1 presents a simple estimate of the US spending gap for real personal consumption expenditures, broken down by type. The table highlights that goods spending is currently above not just pre-pandemic levels, but also above what would have been expected if the pandemic had not occurred. The only exceptions to this are nondurable goods categories that have been highly impacted by working-from-home policies, such as clothing and footwear and gasoline and other energy goods. The household services consumption gap, on the other hand, was deeply negative in Q3, concentrated within transportation, recreation, and food/accommodation services. Table I-1The Spending Gap Is Almost Entirely On The Services Side My colleagues Peter Berezin and Doug Peta have recently estimated that US households are sitting on roughly $1.4-1.5 trillion in excess savings as a combined result of the CARES act and the massive services spending gap noted above (Chart I-7). That amounts to approximately 7% of GDP, which significantly exceeds an estimated output gap of roughly 3% at the end of Q4 (Chart I-8). Chart I-7A Massive Horde Of Excess Savings Has Been Accumulated Chart I-8Excess Savings Of 7% Of GDP Dwarf A -3% Output Gap At first blush, this suggests that the deployment of those savings, which seems likely once the pandemic is over and the need for social distancing measures are no longer required, could rapidly push the output gap into positive territory. But that calculation assumes that all excess savings will be spent, which will probably not occur given that some holders of those savings will expect future tax increases. An enormous budget deficit combined with Democratic control of government means that individual and corporate tax increases are highly likely over the coming 12-24 months, suggesting that higher-income individuals will expect some of those excess savings to ultimately be taxed away. In addition, even once social distancing is no longer required, it seems likely that some small portion of the spending on services that has been “missing” over the past year will never return. While it seems reasonable to expect that the gap in spending on hospitality and travel will close quickly and even potentially exceed pre-pandemic levels once the health situation allows, it also seems reasonable to expect that some service areas, particularly retail, will experience a permanent loss in demand owing to durable shifts in consumer behavior that occurred during the pandemic (greater familiarity and use of online shopping, a permanent reduction of some magnitude in commuting, etc). Chart I-9So Far, There Is Little Evidence Of Major Permanent Labor Market Damage It remains unclear how much of a permanent decline will occur, and it is very difficult to forecast because of its dependency on the pace at which vaccination occurs. The faster that economic circumstances return to normal, the less permanent changes are likely to occur. For now, evidence from the labor market remains encouraging, in that permanent job loss has not surged beyond that experienced during a typical income-statement recession (Chart I-9). But the bottom line is that some of the mountain of savings that has been accumulated over the past year has occurred due to a reduction in spending on certain services that may not return once the pandemic is over, meaning that those funds may be permanently saved. This suggests that meaningful output gap closure, rather than major overheating of the economy, is the more likely scenario later this year. Is Re-Opening Priced In? Charts I-10 and I-11 highlight market expectations for growth and earnings over the next 12 months. The charts highlight that expectations are already in line with a meaningful closure of the output gap later this year: consensus growth expectations suggest that real GDP will only be about half a percentage point below potential output by the end of 2021, and bottom-up analysts expect that S&P 500 earnings per share will be approximately 3% higher in 12 months’ time than they were at the onset of the pandemic. Chart I-10Meaningful Output Gap Closure Is Likely This Year Chart I-11Analysts Already Expect A Complete Earnings Recovery   Does the fact that market expectations already reflect what is likely to occur over the coming year mean that stock prices have nowhere to go? At a minimum it suggests that strong, double-digit returns are unlikely, especially given that equities are more technically stretched to the upside than they have been at any point over the past decade and that investor sentiment is very bullish (Chart I-12). However, even if earnings grow exactly in line with analyst expectations over the coming year, it is not correct to say that stocks offer no return potential. Chart I-13 illustrates this point by showing the historical relationship between earnings surprises and the price performance of the S&P 500. Chart I-12US Equities Are Extremely Overbought Chart I-13Positive Stock Returns Almost Always Accompany In-Line Earnings Performance   The first point to note from the chart is that positive earnings surprises are quite rare, in that actual earnings tend to underperform expectations of earnings 12 months prior. As such, earnings performance over the coming 12 months that is exactly in line with expectations would be a better fundamental result than what investors can typically expect. The second point to note is that it is rare for stocks to fall when earnings meet or exceed prior expectations, unless faced with a significant growth shock. Earnings met or exceeded expectations in 1995, from 2004-2007, from 2010-2011, and in 2018, and in all four cases, stocks delivered either high single-digit or low double-digit price returns. Negative year-over-year returns occurred only briefly in two of these episodes and were tied to major changes to the economic outlook: the euro area sovereign debt crisis in 2011-2012, and the onset of the Sino-US trade war in 2018. Conclusions And Investment Recommendations Chart I-14Investors Should Favor Global Ex-US and Value Stocks This Year For investors focused on the coming 6-12 months, the key conclusions of our analysis are as follows: The outlook for economic growth is negative over the very near term, but additional fiscal support will likely provide enough of a reflationary bridge to avoid a serious contraction in activity. The achievement of herd immunity and the end of social distancing must occur this year for consensus 2021 expectations for economic growth and earnings to be realized. The US is not yet vaccinating at a pace that is consistent with herd immunity later this year, but credible projections from the new administration suggest that the pace will meaningfully quicken by the end of February. Some US households have accumulated significant savings over the past year, which would rapidly push the output gap into positive territory were they to all be deployed following full economic reopening. The expectation of eventual tax increases and a permanent reduction in some services spending means that not all of these savings will be spent, suggesting that the output gap will close meaningfully this year – but not overshoot into positive territory. Consensus market expectations already reflect what is likely to occur over the coming year, but the realization of these expectations still implies mid-to-high single-digit returns from equities. Chart I-15The Dollar Is A Counter-Cyclical Currency, And Will Continue To Trend Lower Given these conclusions, we recommend the following investment stance over the coming 6-12 months: Stock prices are likely to rise in absolute terms despite already elevated multiples, and investors should remain overweight equities relative to government bonds. A meaningful closure of the output gap is consistent with the Fed’s economic projections, suggesting that an aggressively hawkish deviation in monetary policy later this year is unlikely, barring a sharp and sustained rise in inflation back to target levels. Still, a closure of the output gap this year will push long-dated bond yields higher, suggesting that fixed-income investors should be short duration. The “reopening trade” favors global over US stocks, and value over growth stocks. Chart I-14 highlights that global ex-US stocks are now in a clear uptrend versus their US peers, whereas value stocks have yet to decisively break out. We expect the latter will occur over the coming 6-12 months. The US dollar is a reliably counter-cyclical currency, and has behaved exactly as a counter-cyclical currency should have over the past year (Chart I-15). We thus expect a further, albeit less sharp, decline in the dollar over the coming year. Jonathan LaBerge, CFA Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst January 28, 2021 Next Report: February 25, 2021 II. Surging US Money Growth: Should Investors Be Concerned? Generally-speaking, an increase in bank deposits occurs due to either Fed asset purchases, bank asset purchases, or bank loan creation. Deposits have grown massively over the past year because the Treasury has issued an enormous amount of bonds, and these bonds have been purchased both by the Fed and US banks. Relative to the 2008-2009 period, the comparatively better health of US bank balance sheets last year has been an even more important factor than Fed asset purchases in accounting for the difference in money growth between the two periods. Money growth used to be a good predictor of economic activity, but today it makes more sense to focus on interest rates rather than monetary aggregates as a leading economic indicator. Over the past 20 years, only the collapse in velocity that occurred after 2008 is meaningful for investors, and it appears to reflect already “known” information: the persistent household deleveraging that occurred following the global financial crisis, and the effect of Fed asset purchases on the stock of money at several points over the past decade. Our base case view is that a portion of the significant amount of household savings that have accumulated will not be spent, and that the US output gap will close but not move deeply into positive territory this year. But the enormous growth in money over the past year reflects unprecedented fiscal and monetary support, which could eventually change investor expectations about long-term interest rates (even absent rapid overheating). Rising long-term rate expectations could threaten the equity bull market, given the impact the secular stagnation narrative has had in keeping long-term rate expectations low and the extent to which easy money has boosted equity valuation multiples over the past year. Broad money growth has exploded higher over the past year, to a pace that has not been seen since WWII (Chart II-1). This growth in the money supply has vastly exceeded what investors witnessed during and immediately following the global financial crisis of 2008-2009, raising concerns among many investors of the potential cyclical and structural consequences. Chart II-1A Nearly Unprecedented Surge In Money Growth In this report we revisit the deposit creation process, and explain the specific factors that have led to surging money growth over the past year. We also review the usefulness of money growth as an economic indicator, and provide some perspective on the 20-year decline in money velocity. We conclude by noting that the surge in money growth is potentially concerning for investors for two reasons. First, if US households ignore likely future tax increases and decide to fully spend the vast amount of savings that have accumulated over the past year, then the US economy is likely to overheat rather quickly. The second, more likely, threat to investors is if the sharp increase in the money supply ends up changing market expectations about the neutral rate of interest. It remains too early to conclude whether investors will significantly revise up their long-term rate expectations, in large part because the scale of permanent damage in the wake of the pandemic is still unknown. But investors should remain vigilant, given the impact the secular stagnation narrative has had on keeping long-term rate expectations low and the extent to which easy money has boosted equity valuation multiples over the past year. Reviewing The Money And Bank Deposit Creation Process In order to fully understand the spectacular growth of the money supply over the past year and its potential implications for the economy and financial markets, it is important to revisit how money is created in a modern economy. My colleague Ryan Swift, BCA’s US Bond Strategist, reviewed this question in detail in a June 2020 Strategy Report and we summarize the report’s key points below.1 In the US, most of the stock of broad money aggregates is composed of bank deposits. Following the global financial crisis, the textbook view of how banks act purely as intermediaries, taking in deposits from the public and lending them out, was revealed to be a mostly inaccurate description of the financial system in the aggregate. Rather, while individual banks often compete for deposits as a source of funding, bank deposits in the aggregate are typically created by making loans. Central banks can also create money, by purchasing financial assets and crediting the banking system with reserve assets (central bank money). Table II-1 highlights the link between the Fed’s balance sheet and that of US banks in the aggregate, and highlights how changes in deposits – a liability of the banking system – must be offset by increases in bank assets or decreases in other bank liabilities. Table II-1The Link Between The Fed’s Balance Sheet And The Aggregate US Banking System The typical mechanics of three money-creating operations are described below, alongside the corresponding change in balance sheet items: Fed Asset Purchases: When the Federal Reserve purchases financial assets in the secondary market, it increases securities held (Fed asset) and typically increases reserves (Fed liability). In the increase in reserves (banking system asset) matches the increase in deposits (banking system liability), as the previous holders of the assets purchased by the Fed deposit the proceeds of the sale. Bank Asset Purchases: When banks purchase government securities from non-bank holders they credit the sellers with bank deposits.2 This increases bank holdings of securities or other assets (banking system asset) and increases deposits (banking system liability). Bank Loan Creation: When banks create a loan, they increase their holdings of loans & leases (banking system asset) and deposit the loan amount into the borrowers’ account (banking system liability). At the individual bank level, if Bank A creates a loan and the borrower withdraws the funds to pay someone with an account at Bank B, there will be an asset-liability mismatch relating to that loan transaction between those two banks if no other actions are taken. The result will be that Bank A experiences an increase in equity capital and Bank B experiences a decline. But for the banking system as a whole, the increase in bank assets exactly matched the increase in bank liabilities, and Bank A created the deposits that ended up as a liability of Bank B. The issuance or retirement of long-term bank debt and equity instruments can also create or destroy deposits but, for the purpose of understanding the difference in money growth during the pandemic compared with the 2008-2009 experience, it is sufficient to focus on the three money-creating operations described above. Explaining The Recent Surge In Money Growth The prevalent view among many financial market participants is that the money supply has surged in the US due to the fiscal stimulus provided by the CARES act. But an increase in the government’s budget deficit does not in and of itself create money, because the Treasury issues bonds to finance the difference between revenue and expenditures. If those bonds are purchased entirely by the nonfinancial sector, then an increase in deposits of stimulus recipients is offset by a decrease in deposits of those who purchased the bonds. A more precise answer is that deposits have grown massively over the past year because the Treasury has issued an enormous amount of bonds and these bonds have been purchased both by the Fed and US banks. Charts II-2A and II-2B highlight this by showing the change in the main items on the aggregate banking system balance sheet since the end of 2019. The charts show that the increase in deposits on the liability side of bank balance sheets have been matched by large increases in reserves and other cash (caused by the Fed’s asset purchases) and banks’ securities holdings (caused by bank asset purchases). Chart II-2AOver The Past Year, Fed And Bank Asset Purchases… Chart II-2B…Account For Most Of The Surge In Deposits   But this does not explain why money growth has been so much larger over the past year than it was in 2008-2009, when total Federal Reserve assets increased from $920 billion to $2.2 trillion. Chart II-1 on page 15 highlighted that growth in M2 has risen to a whopping 25% year-over-year growth rate, a full 15 percentage points above the strongest rate that prevailed following the global financial crisis. Charts II-3A and II-3B explain the discrepancy, by showing the change in the main items on the aggregate banking system balance sheet as a percent of the money supply during each of the two periods, as well as the difference. The charts show that while changes in bank reserves and cash assets – caused by Fed asset purchases – were significantly larger in 2020 than they were on average from 2008 to 2009, changes in loans & leases and securities in bank credit, as well as other assets were also quite significant and account for two-thirds of the difference when added together. Chart II-3ARelative To 2008/2009, The Health Of The Banking System… Chart II-3B…Helped Facilitate More Money Creation Last Year   Thus, while it is true that the Fed’s accommodation of extraordinary fiscal easing has helped create a sizeable amount of money over the past year, relative to the 2008-2009 period the comparatively better health of US bank balance sheets has been an even more important factor – in the sense that balance sheet restrictions did not prevent US banks from facilitating the creation of money as appears to have been the case in the aftermath of the global financial crisis. Money And Growth We noted above that fiscal easing does not create money in and of itself unless the bonds issued to finance an increase in the deficit are purchased either by banks or the Fed. Yet most investors would not disagree that significant increases in budget deficits boost short-term economic growth, particularly during recessions. This implies that the link between money and economic growth may not be particularly strong over a cyclical time horizon, which is in fact what the data shows – at least over the past 30 years. Charts II-4A and II-4B illustrate the historical relationship between real GDP and real M2 growth, pre- and post-1990. The chart makes it clear that the relationship between real money and GDP growth used to be strong, with real money growth somewhat leading economic activity. This relationship completely broke down after the 1980s, and is now mostly coincident and negative. There are three reasons behind the breakdown: 1. The money supply used to be the Federal Reserve’s monetary policy target, meaning that money growth directly reflected monetary policy shifts. Today, the Fed targets interest rates, and the portion of money created through loans simply mirrors the change in interest rates as loan demand rises (falls) and interest rates fall (rise). Specifically, Chart II-4A shows that the ability of money growth to lead economic activity seems to have ended in the late 1980s, when the Fed stopped providing targets for monetary aggregates. Chart II-4AMoney Growth Used To Predict Economic Activity… Chart II-4B…But Ceased To Do So Once The Fed Stopped Targeting The Money Supply Chart II-5US Banks Provide Meaningfully Less Private Sector Credit Than In The Past 2. The share of total US credit provided by US banks has fallen significantly over time – especially during the early 1990s – as corporate bond issuance, securitized loans, and mortgages backed by agency bonds issued to the private sector rose as a proportion of total credit (Chart II-5). 3. Since 2000, a Chart II-4B shows that a clearly negative correlation has emerged between money growth and economic activity during recessions. In 2008-2009 and again last year, money growth reflected emergency Fed asset purchases in the face of a sharp decline in economic activity. In 2000, the Fed did not expand its balance sheet, but the economy diverged from money growth due to the lingering impact of management excesses, governance failures, and elevated debt in the corporate sector in the 1990s. The conclusion for investors is straightforward: while money growth used to be a good predictor of economic activity, today it makes more sense to use interest rates than monetary aggregates as a leading indicator for growth. Money Velocity And Its Implications When discussing the impact of money on the economy, one point often raised by investors is the fact that money velocity has declined significantly over the past two decades. This observation is frequently followed by the question of whether the absence of this decline would have caused real growth, inflation, or both to have been higher over the past 20 years than they otherwise were. It is difficult to prove or refute the point, as monetary velocity is not a well-understood concept – investors do not have a good, reliable theory upon which to predict changes in velocity or understand their economic significance. Velocity is calculated from the equation of exchange as a ratio of nominal GDP to some measure of the money supply (typically a broad measure such as M2) and theoretically represents the turnover rate of money. But long-term changes in velocity do not seem to correlate well with measures of growth or inflation. Short-term changes in velocity correlate extremely well with inflation, but this simply reflects the fact that velocity tends to be driven by the numerator (nominal GDP) over short periods of time (see Box II-1). BOX II-1 Money Velocity Over The Short-Term Some investors have pointed to the relationship shown in Chart II-B1 to argue that M2 money velocity is a significant cyclical predictor of inflation. But Chart II-B2 illustrates that nearly two-thirds of annual changes in velocity since 1990 have been accounted for by changes in the numerator – nominal GDP – rather than the denominator. This underscores that the apparent explanatory power of short-term changes in money velocity at predicting inflation is simply capturing the normal relationship between real growth and inflation, as well as the naturally positive correlation between the implicit GDP price deflator and core consumer prices. Chart Box II-1Velocity Seemingly Predicts Inflation Over The Short-Term… Chart Box II-2…Because Short-Term Changes In Velocity Are Driven By Nominal Output   The bigger question is why velocity has declined so significantly over the past 20 years, and what this means for investors. Chart II-6Large Declines In Velocity Are Linked To Prolonged Periods Of Deleveraging Panel 1 of Chart II-6 shows a long-dated history of M2 velocity, and highlights that the average or “normal” level of M2 velocity has historically been just under 1.8. Over the past century, there have been just four major deviations from this level: A major decline that began at the start of the Great Depression and prevailed until the Second World War (WWII) Significant volatility during and in the years immediately following WWII A sharp rise in velocity during the 1990s to a record level A downtrend beginning in the late 1990s that remains intact today Abstracting from the war period in which the economy was heavily distorted by government intervention, Chart II-6 also highlights that persistent declines in velocity appear to be explainable by major deleveraging events. The second panel of the chart shows a measure of the duration of private sector deleveraging, and highlights that the two periods of low velocity have been strongly (negatively) correlated with the prevalence of deleveraging. This explanation is simple but intuitive: excessive leveraging eventually causes households and firms to redirect a larger portion of their income to servicing or paying down debt, which weighs on real growth and, by extension, prices. While it is true that the recent 20-year downtrend in velocity began in the late 1990s and thus well before household deleveraging began in 2008, this seems to mostly reflect the reversal of an anomalous rise in velocity in the late 1990s. We largely view the decline in velocity from the late 1990s to 2008 as a “reversion to the mean.” It remains an option question why velocity rose so sharply in the 1990s. Some evidence seems to point to financial innovation and technological change: Chart II-7 highlights that the number of automated bank teller and point-of-sale payment terminals rose massively in the 1990s, alongside a significant acceleration in real cash in circulation. This is theoretically consistent with an increased “turnover” rate of money. But Chart II-8 highlights that a substantial portion of the rise in velocity during this period was attributable to denominator effects (persistently weak money growth), rather than numerator effects. Chart II-7Some Evidence Of Increased Money Turnover In The 1990s Chart II-8The Rise In Velocity In The 1990s Was Driven By Slow Money Growth   Regardless of the cause, velocity was clearly anomalous on the upside in the 1990s, suggesting that it is not the downtrend in velocity over the past 20 years that is significant to investors. Rather, it is the collapse in velocity that has occurred since 2008 that is meaningful, and from the perspective of investors it appears to reflect already “known” information: the persistent household deleveraging that occurred following the global financial crisis, and the effect of Fed asset purchases on the stock of money at several points over the past decade. In the future, any meaningful increases in velocity are only likely to occur due to a significant reduction in the size of the Fed’s balance sheet, which is two to three years away at the earliest. The Fed could decide to taper its asset purchases sometime later this year or in early 2022, but tapering would merely slow the pace at which the Fed’s assets are increasing (and would thus not cause velocity to rise via a meaningful slowdown in money growth). Money And Future Inflation The final question to address is the issue of whether the enormous rise in money growth over the past year is likely to lead to higher, potentially much higher, inflation over the coming 6-12 months. This has been the main question from investors who have been unnerved by the surge in money growth and the collapse in the US government budget balance. Any link between money and inflation has to come through spending, so the question of whether a surge in money will lead to higher inflation is akin to asking whether the massive amount of savings that have been accumulated over the past year are likely to be spent, and over what period. We discussed this question in Section 1 of this month’s report, and noted that expectations of future tax increases and a permanent decline in some services spending will likely prevent all of these savings from being deployed once the practice of social distancing durably ends later this year. This implies that a substantial closure of the output gap is likely to occur in the second half of the year, but that major economic overheating will be avoided. Moreover, even if the output gap does rise into positive territory over the coming 6-12 months, this does not necessarily suggest that inflation will rise quickly back above the Fed’s target. In last month’s Special Report, we highlighted two important points about inflation that are often overlooked by investors. First, inflation’s long-term trend is determined by inflation expectations. Second, if inflation expectations are largely formed based on the experience of past inflation, then inflation is ultimately determined by three dimensions of the output gap: whether it is rising or falling, whether it is above or below zero, and how long it has been above or below zero. While market-based expectations of long-term inflation have risen well above the Fed’s target, both our adaptive expectations model for inflation as well as a simple five-year moving average are between 30-60 basis points below the 2% mark (Chart II-9). This may suggest that a persistent period of output above potential may be required in order to raise inflation relative to expectations and to raise expectations themselves above the Fed’s target unless the Fed’s efforts at “jawboning” them higher prove to be highly successful. Measured as a year-over-year growth rate of core prices, inflation is set to spike higher in April and May in the order of 50-60 basis points simply due to base effects (Chart II-10). However, inflation will only sustainably rise to an above-target rate over the coming 6-12 months if demand is even stronger than implied by consensus expectations, which is not our base case view. Chart II-9Adaptive Inflation Expectations Measures Are Still Well Below The Fed's Target Chart II-10The Fed Will Look Through Base Effects On Consumer Prices   Investment Conclusions Investors can draw two conclusions from our analysis above. First, there is reason to be concerned about the enormous rise in the money supply if we are wrong in our assessment that some portion of the savings accumulated over the past year will not ultimately be spent. If US households ignore likely future tax increases and decide to fully spend their savings windfall, then the US economy is likely to overheat rather quickly. The second, more likely, threat to investors is if the sharp increase in the money supply, reflecting monetized fiscal stimulus and a meaningfully healthier financial system compared with the global financial crisis, ends up changing market expectations about the neutral rate of interest. Chart II-11The Pandemic Response May Raise Long-Term Rate Expectations Chart II-11 that while 5-year/5-year forward Treasury yields are not much lower than they were pre-pandemic, that is an artificially low bar. Long-dated bond yields fell over 100 basis points in 2018 and 2019, in response to a global growth slowdown precipitated by the Trump administration’s trade war. While President Biden will pursue some protectionist policies, they are likely to be meaningfully less damaging to global growth than under President Trump and are extremely unlikely to act as the primary driver of macroeconomic activity over the course of Biden’s term (as they were during the period that long-dated bond yields fell). As such, if the pandemic ends this year with seemingly minimal lasting damage to the US economy, long-dated bond yields could re-approach their late 2018 levels or higher towards the end of the year. This would cause a meaningful rise in 10-year Treasury yields, even with the Fed on hold until the middle of 2022 or later. A significant rise in bond yields would be quite unwelcome to stock investors given how stretched equity multiples have become. Table II-2 presents a set of year-end scenarios to gauge the potential impact of an eventual rise in 10-year yields. We assume that forward earnings grow at 5% this year, and we allow the spread between the 12-month forward earnings yield and the 10-year yield (a proxy for the equity risk premium) to return to its 2003-2007 average as part of an assumed “normalization” trade. Table II-2Current Multiples Are Justified Only If The 10-Year Treasury Yield Does Not Rise Above 2.5% The table suggests that a 10-year Treasury yield of 2.5% will be the most that the interest rates could rise before the fair value of the S&P 500 falls below current levels. That roughly equates to a return to the late-2018 levels that prevailed for 5-year/5-year forward Treasury yields, given that the short-end of the curve will remain pinned close to the zero lower bound for some time. For now, it remains too early to conclude whether investors will significantly revise their long-term rate expectations, in large part because the scale of permanent damage in the wake of the pandemic is still unknown. But investors should remain vigilant and attentive to the fact that interest rates may pose a threat to financial markets later this year even in a scenario where the US economy is not immediately overheating, given the impact the secular stagnation narrative has had in keeping long-term rate expectations low and the extent to which easy money has boosted equity valuation multiples over the past year. 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 a near-term pullback in stock prices remains a significant risk. Our monetary indicator is in a clear downtrend, reflecting a reduced intensity of monetary support, but it remains above the boom/bust line. The upshot is that while the marginal stimulus provided by monetary policy is falling, the level of stimulus from easy monetary conditions remains significant. Forward equity earnings already price in a complete earnings recovery, but for now there is no sign of waning forward earnings momentum. Net revisions and positive earnings surprises remain solidly positive. Within a global equity portfolio, the US underperformance that we noted last month continues, led by strong gains in emerging markets (including China). Euro area stocks have significantly underperformed EM over the course of the pandemic, are likely to emerge as the new regional leader within a global ex-US portfolio at some point later this year. The US 10-Year Treasury yield has broken convincingly above its 200-day moving average. Long-dated yields are technically stretched to the upside, but our valuation index highlights that bonds are still extremely expensive and that yields have room to move higher over the cyclical investment horizon. The technical and valuation profile is similar for the US dollar. The USD is technically oversold, but it remains expensive according to our models. We noted in Section 1 of this month’s report that the dollar has traded almost exactly in line with what one would expect from a counter-cyclical currency, suggesting that USD will continue to trend lower, at a more moderate pace, over the coming year. Raw industrials prices have recovered not just back to pre-pandemic levels, but also back to 2018 levels (i.e., before the Sino/US trade war). This underscores that many commodity prices are extended, and are likely due for a breather. US and global LEIs remain in a solid uptrend. A peak in our global LEI (GLEI) diffusion index suggests that the pace of advance in the GLEI will moderate, but the diffusion index has not yet fallen to a level that would herald a meaningful decline in the LEI. The waning US payroll momentum that we flagged in last month’s Section 3 culminated in a slowdown in economic activity that is likely to linger for the coming several weeks. However, the very significant amount of stimulus that is still set to arrive will provide a substantial reflationary bridge to help counter the negative impact on Q1 growth from the pandemic. EQUITIES: Chart III-1US Equity Indicators Chart III-2Willingness To Pay For Risk Chart III-3US Equity Sentiment Indicators   Chart III-4Revealed Preference Indicator 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 USBS Strategy Report "The Case Against The Money Supply," dated June 30, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see “Money creation in the modern economy,” Bank of England, Q1 2014 Quarterly Bulletin.

Generally-speaking, an increase in bank deposits occurs due to either Fed asset purchases, bank asset purchases, or bank loan creation. Deposits have grown massively over the past year because the Treasury has issued an enormous amount of bonds, and these bonds have been purchased both by the Fed and US banks. Relative to the 2008-2009 period, the comparatively better health of US bank balance sheets last year has been an even more important factor than Fed asset purchases in accounting for the difference in money growth between the two periods. Money growth used to be a good predictor of economic activity, but today it makes more sense to focus on interest rates rather than monetary aggregates as a leading economic indicator. Over the past 20 years, only the collapse in velocity that occurred after 2008 is meaningful for investors, and it appears to reflect already “known” information: the persistent household deleveraging that occurred following the global financial crisis, and the effect of Fed asset purchases on the stock of money at several points over the past decade. Our base case view is that a portion of the significant amount of household savings that have accumulated will not be spent, and that the US output gap will close but not move deeply into positive territory this year. But the enormous growth in money over the past year reflects unprecedented fiscal and monetary support, which could eventually change investor expectations about long-term interest rates (even absent rapid overheating). Rising long-term rate expectations could threaten the equity bull market, given the impact the secular stagnation narrative has had in keeping long-term rate expectations low and the extent to which easy money has boosted equity valuation multiples over the past year. Broad money growth has exploded higher over the past year, to a pace that has not been seen since WWII (Chart II-1). This growth in the money supply has vastly exceeded what investors witnessed during and immediately following the global financial crisis of 2008-2009, raising concerns among many investors of the potential cyclical and structural consequences. Chart II-1A Nearly Unprecedented Surge In Money Growth In this report we revisit the deposit creation process, and explain the specific factors that have led to surging money growth over the past year. We also review the usefulness of money growth as an economic indicator, and provide some perspective on the 20-year decline in money velocity. We conclude by noting that the surge in money growth is potentially concerning for investors for two reasons. First, if US households ignore likely future tax increases and decide to fully spend the vast amount of savings that have accumulated over the past year, then the US economy is likely to overheat rather quickly. The second, more likely, threat to investors is if the sharp increase in the money supply ends up changing market expectations about the neutral rate of interest. It remains too early to conclude whether investors will significantly revise up their long-term rate expectations, in large part because the scale of permanent damage in the wake of the pandemic is still unknown. But investors should remain vigilant, given the impact the secular stagnation narrative has had on keeping long-term rate expectations low and the extent to which easy money has boosted equity valuation multiples over the past year. Reviewing The Money And Bank Deposit Creation Process In order to fully understand the spectacular growth of the money supply over the past year and its potential implications for the economy and financial markets, it is important to revisit how money is created in a modern economy. My colleague Ryan Swift, BCA’s US Bond Strategist, reviewed this question in detail in a June 2020 Strategy Report and we summarize the report’s key points below.1 In the US, most of the stock of broad money aggregates is composed of bank deposits. Following the global financial crisis, the textbook view of how banks act purely as intermediaries, taking in deposits from the public and lending them out, was revealed to be a mostly inaccurate description of the financial system in the aggregate. Rather, while individual banks often compete for deposits as a source of funding, bank deposits in the aggregate are typically created by making loans. Central banks can also create money, by purchasing financial assets and crediting the banking system with reserve assets (central bank money). Table II-1 highlights the link between the Fed’s balance sheet and that of US banks in the aggregate, and highlights how changes in deposits – a liability of the banking system – must be offset by increases in bank assets or decreases in other bank liabilities. Table II-1The Link Between The Fed’s Balance Sheet And The Aggregate US Banking System The typical mechanics of three money-creating operations are described below, alongside the corresponding change in balance sheet items: Fed Asset Purchases: When the Federal Reserve purchases financial assets in the secondary market, it increases securities held (Fed asset) and typically increases reserves (Fed liability). In the increase in reserves (banking system asset) matches the increase in deposits (banking system liability), as the previous holders of the assets purchased by the Fed deposit the proceeds of the sale. Bank Asset Purchases: When banks purchase government securities from non-bank holders they credit the sellers with bank deposits.2 This increases bank holdings of securities or other assets (banking system asset) and increases deposits (banking system liability). Bank Loan Creation: When banks create a loan, they increase their holdings of loans & leases (banking system asset) and deposit the loan amount into the borrowers’ account (banking system liability). At the individual bank level, if Bank A creates a loan and the borrower withdraws the funds to pay someone with an account at Bank B, there will be an asset-liability mismatch relating to that loan transaction between those two banks if no other actions are taken. The result will be that Bank A experiences an increase in equity capital and Bank B experiences a decline. But for the banking system as a whole, the increase in bank assets exactly matched the increase in bank liabilities, and Bank A created the deposits that ended up as a liability of Bank B. The issuance or retirement of long-term bank debt and equity instruments can also create or destroy deposits but, for the purpose of understanding the difference in money growth during the pandemic compared with the 2008-2009 experience, it is sufficient to focus on the three money-creating operations described above. Explaining The Recent Surge In Money Growth The prevalent view among many financial market participants is that the money supply has surged in the US due to the fiscal stimulus provided by the CARES act. But an increase in the government’s budget deficit does not in and of itself create money, because the Treasury issues bonds to finance the difference between revenue and expenditures. If those bonds are purchased entirely by the nonfinancial sector, then an increase in deposits of stimulus recipients is offset by a decrease in deposits of those who purchased the bonds. A more precise answer is that deposits have grown massively over the past year because the Treasury has issued an enormous amount of bonds and these bonds have been purchased both by the Fed and US banks. Charts II-2A and II-2B highlight this by showing the change in the main items on the aggregate banking system balance sheet since the end of 2019. The charts show that the increase in deposits on the liability side of bank balance sheets have been matched by large increases in reserves and other cash (caused by the Fed’s asset purchases) and banks’ securities holdings (caused by bank asset purchases). Chart II-2AOver The Past Year, Fed And Bank Asset Purchases… Chart II-2B…Account For Most Of The Surge In Deposits   But this does not explain why money growth has been so much larger over the past year than it was in 2008-2009, when total Federal Reserve assets increased from $920 billion to $2.2 trillion. Chart II-1 on page 15 highlighted that growth in M2 has risen to a whopping 25% year-over-year growth rate, a full 15 percentage points above the strongest rate that prevailed following the global financial crisis. Charts II-3A and II-3B explain the discrepancy, by showing the change in the main items on the aggregate banking system balance sheet as a percent of the money supply during each of the two periods, as well as the difference. The charts show that while changes in bank reserves and cash assets – caused by Fed asset purchases – were significantly larger in 2020 than they were on average from 2008 to 2009, changes in loans & leases and securities in bank credit, as well as other assets were also quite significant and account for two-thirds of the difference when added together. Chart II-3ARelative To 2008/2009, The Health Of The Banking System… Chart II-3B…Helped Facilitate More Money Creation Last Year   Thus, while it is true that the Fed’s accommodation of extraordinary fiscal easing has helped create a sizeable amount of money over the past year, relative to the 2008-2009 period the comparatively better health of US bank balance sheets has been an even more important factor – in the sense that balance sheet restrictions did not prevent US banks from facilitating the creation of money as appears to have been the case in the aftermath of the global financial crisis. Money And Growth We noted above that fiscal easing does not create money in and of itself unless the bonds issued to finance an increase in the deficit are purchased either by banks or the Fed. Yet most investors would not disagree that significant increases in budget deficits boost short-term economic growth, particularly during recessions. This implies that the link between money and economic growth may not be particularly strong over a cyclical time horizon, which is in fact what the data shows – at least over the past 30 years. Charts II-4A and II-4B illustrate the historical relationship between real GDP and real M2 growth, pre- and post-1990. The chart makes it clear that the relationship between real money and GDP growth used to be strong, with real money growth somewhat leading economic activity. This relationship completely broke down after the 1980s, and is now mostly coincident and negative. There are three reasons behind the breakdown: 1. The money supply used to be the Federal Reserve’s monetary policy target, meaning that money growth directly reflected monetary policy shifts. Today, the Fed targets interest rates, and the portion of money created through loans simply mirrors the change in interest rates as loan demand rises (falls) and interest rates fall (rise). Specifically, Chart II-4A shows that the ability of money growth to lead economic activity seems to have ended in the late 1980s, when the Fed stopped providing targets for monetary aggregates. Chart II-4AMoney Growth Used To Predict Economic Activity… Chart II-4B…But Ceased To Do So Once The Fed Stopped Targeting The Money Supply Chart II-5US Banks Provide Meaningfully Less Private Sector Credit Than In The Past 2. The share of total US credit provided by US banks has fallen significantly over time – especially during the early 1990s – as corporate bond issuance, securitized loans, and mortgages backed by agency bonds issued to the private sector rose as a proportion of total credit (Chart II-5). 3. Since 2000, a Chart II-4B shows that a clearly negative correlation has emerged between money growth and economic activity during recessions. In 2008-2009 and again last year, money growth reflected emergency Fed asset purchases in the face of a sharp decline in economic activity. In 2000, the Fed did not expand its balance sheet, but the economy diverged from money growth due to the lingering impact of management excesses, governance failures, and elevated debt in the corporate sector in the 1990s. The conclusion for investors is straightforward: while money growth used to be a good predictor of economic activity, today it makes more sense to use interest rates than monetary aggregates as a leading indicator for growth. Money Velocity And Its Implications When discussing the impact of money on the economy, one point often raised by investors is the fact that money velocity has declined significantly over the past two decades. This observation is frequently followed by the question of whether the absence of this decline would have caused real growth, inflation, or both to have been higher over the past 20 years than they otherwise were. It is difficult to prove or refute the point, as monetary velocity is not a well-understood concept – investors do not have a good, reliable theory upon which to predict changes in velocity or understand their economic significance. Velocity is calculated from the equation of exchange as a ratio of nominal GDP to some measure of the money supply (typically a broad measure such as M2) and theoretically represents the turnover rate of money. But long-term changes in velocity do not seem to correlate well with measures of growth or inflation. Short-term changes in velocity correlate extremely well with inflation, but this simply reflects the fact that velocity tends to be driven by the numerator (nominal GDP) over short periods of time (see Box II-1). BOX II-1 Money Velocity Over The Short-Term Some investors have pointed to the relationship shown in Chart II-B1 to argue that M2 money velocity is a significant cyclical predictor of inflation. But Chart II-B2 illustrates that nearly two-thirds of annual changes in velocity since 1990 have been accounted for by changes in the numerator – nominal GDP – rather than the denominator. This underscores that the apparent explanatory power of short-term changes in money velocity at predicting inflation is simply capturing the normal relationship between real growth and inflation, as well as the naturally positive correlation between the implicit GDP price deflator and core consumer prices. Chart Box II-1Velocity Seemingly Predicts Inflation Over The Short-Term… Chart Box II-2…Because Short-Term Changes In Velocity Are Driven By Nominal Output   The bigger question is why velocity has declined so significantly over the past 20 years, and what this means for investors. Chart II-6Large Declines In Velocity Are Linked To Prolonged Periods Of Deleveraging Panel 1 of Chart II-6 shows a long-dated history of M2 velocity, and highlights that the average or “normal” level of M2 velocity has historically been just under 1.8. Over the past century, there have been just four major deviations from this level: A major decline that began at the start of the Great Depression and prevailed until the Second World War (WWII) Significant volatility during and in the years immediately following WWII A sharp rise in velocity during the 1990s to a record level A downtrend beginning in the late 1990s that remains intact today Abstracting from the war period in which the economy was heavily distorted by government intervention, Chart II-6 also highlights that persistent declines in velocity appear to be explainable by major deleveraging events. The second panel of the chart shows a measure of the duration of private sector deleveraging, and highlights that the two periods of low velocity have been strongly (negatively) correlated with the prevalence of deleveraging. This explanation is simple but intuitive: excessive leveraging eventually causes households and firms to redirect a larger portion of their income to servicing or paying down debt, which weighs on real growth and, by extension, prices. While it is true that the recent 20-year downtrend in velocity began in the late 1990s and thus well before household deleveraging began in 2008, this seems to mostly reflect the reversal of an anomalous rise in velocity in the late 1990s. We largely view the decline in velocity from the late 1990s to 2008 as a “reversion to the mean.” It remains an option question why velocity rose so sharply in the 1990s. Some evidence seems to point to financial innovation and technological change: Chart II-7 highlights that the number of automated bank teller and point-of-sale payment terminals rose massively in the 1990s, alongside a significant acceleration in real cash in circulation. This is theoretically consistent with an increased “turnover” rate of money. But Chart II-8 highlights that a substantial portion of the rise in velocity during this period was attributable to denominator effects (persistently weak money growth), rather than numerator effects. Chart II-7Some Evidence Of Increased Money Turnover In The 1990s Chart II-8The Rise In Velocity In The 1990s Was Driven By Slow Money Growth   Regardless of the cause, velocity was clearly anomalous on the upside in the 1990s, suggesting that it is not the downtrend in velocity over the past 20 years that is significant to investors. Rather, it is the collapse in velocity that has occurred since 2008 that is meaningful, and from the perspective of investors it appears to reflect already “known” information: the persistent household deleveraging that occurred following the global financial crisis, and the effect of Fed asset purchases on the stock of money at several points over the past decade. In the future, any meaningful increases in velocity are only likely to occur due to a significant reduction in the size of the Fed’s balance sheet, which is two to three years away at the earliest. The Fed could decide to taper its asset purchases sometime later this year or in early 2022, but tapering would merely slow the pace at which the Fed’s assets are increasing (and would thus not cause velocity to rise via a meaningful slowdown in money growth). Money And Future Inflation The final question to address is the issue of whether the enormous rise in money growth over the past year is likely to lead to higher, potentially much higher, inflation over the coming 6-12 months. This has been the main question from investors who have been unnerved by the surge in money growth and the collapse in the US government budget balance. Any link between money and inflation has to come through spending, so the question of whether a surge in money will lead to higher inflation is akin to asking whether the massive amount of savings that have been accumulated over the past year are likely to be spent, and over what period. We discussed this question in Section 1 of this month’s report, and noted that expectations of future tax increases and a permanent decline in some services spending will likely prevent all of these savings from being deployed once the practice of social distancing durably ends later this year. This implies that a substantial closure of the output gap is likely to occur in the second half of the year, but that major economic overheating will be avoided. Moreover, even if the output gap does rise into positive territory over the coming 6-12 months, this does not necessarily suggest that inflation will rise quickly back above the Fed’s target. In last month’s Special Report, we highlighted two important points about inflation that are often overlooked by investors. First, inflation’s long-term trend is determined by inflation expectations. Second, if inflation expectations are largely formed based on the experience of past inflation, then inflation is ultimately determined by three dimensions of the output gap: whether it is rising or falling, whether it is above or below zero, and how long it has been above or below zero. While market-based expectations of long-term inflation have risen well above the Fed’s target, both our adaptive expectations model for inflation as well as a simple five-year moving average are between 30-60 basis points below the 2% mark (Chart II-9). This may suggest that a persistent period of output above potential may be required in order to raise inflation relative to expectations and to raise expectations themselves above the Fed’s target unless the Fed’s efforts at “jawboning” them higher prove to be highly successful. Measured as a year-over-year growth rate of core prices, inflation is set to spike higher in April and May in the order of 50-60 basis points simply due to base effects (Chart II-10). However, inflation will only sustainably rise to an above-target rate over the coming 6-12 months if demand is even stronger than implied by consensus expectations, which is not our base case view. Chart II-9Adaptive Inflation Expectations Measures Are Still Well Below The Fed's Target Chart II-10The Fed Will Look Through Base Effects On Consumer Prices   Investment Conclusions Investors can draw two conclusions from our analysis above. First, there is reason to be concerned about the enormous rise in the money supply if we are wrong in our assessment that some portion of the savings accumulated over the past year will not ultimately be spent. If US households ignore likely future tax increases and decide to fully spend their savings windfall, then the US economy is likely to overheat rather quickly. The second, more likely, threat to investors is if the sharp increase in the money supply, reflecting monetized fiscal stimulus and a meaningfully healthier financial system compared with the global financial crisis, ends up changing market expectations about the neutral rate of interest. Chart II-11The Pandemic Response May Raise Long-Term Rate Expectations Chart II-11 that while 5-year/5-year forward Treasury yields are not much lower than they were pre-pandemic, that is an artificially low bar. Long-dated bond yields fell over 100 basis points in 2018 and 2019, in response to a global growth slowdown precipitated by the Trump administration’s trade war. While President Biden will pursue some protectionist policies, they are likely to be meaningfully less damaging to global growth than under President Trump and are extremely unlikely to act as the primary driver of macroeconomic activity over the course of Biden’s term (as they were during the period that long-dated bond yields fell). As such, if the pandemic ends this year with seemingly minimal lasting damage to the US economy, long-dated bond yields could re-approach their late 2018 levels or higher towards the end of the year. This would cause a meaningful rise in 10-year Treasury yields, even with the Fed on hold until the middle of 2022 or later. A significant rise in bond yields would be quite unwelcome to stock investors given how stretched equity multiples have become. Table II-2 presents a set of year-end scenarios to gauge the potential impact of an eventual rise in 10-year yields. We assume that forward earnings grow at 5% this year, and we allow the spread between the 12-month forward earnings yield and the 10-year yield (a proxy for the equity risk premium) to return to its 2003-2007 average as part of an assumed “normalization” trade. Table II-2Current Multiples Are Justified Only If The 10-Year Treasury Yield Does Not Rise Above 2.5% The table suggests that a 10-year Treasury yield of 2.5% will be the most that the interest rates could rise before the fair value of the S&P 500 falls below current levels. That roughly equates to a return to the late-2018 levels that prevailed for 5-year/5-year forward Treasury yields, given that the short-end of the curve will remain pinned close to the zero lower bound for some time. For now, it remains too early to conclude whether investors will significantly revise their long-term rate expectations, in large part because the scale of permanent damage in the wake of the pandemic is still unknown. But investors should remain vigilant and attentive to the fact that interest rates may pose a threat to financial markets later this year even in a scenario where the US economy is not immediately overheating, given the impact the secular stagnation narrative has had in keeping long-term rate expectations low and the extent to which easy money has boosted equity valuation multiples over the past year. Jonathan LaBerge, CFA Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst Footnotes 1 Please see USBS Strategy Report "The Case Against The Money Supply," dated June 30, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see “Money creation in the modern economy,” Bank of England, Q1 2014 Quarterly Bulletin.

Highlights A positive backdrop still supports a cyclical bull market in Chinese stocks, but the upside in prices could be quickly exhausted. Investors may be overlooking emerging negative signs in China’s onshore equity market.  The breadth of the A-share price rally has sharply declined since the beginning of this year; historically, a rapid narrowing in breadth has been a reliable indicator for pullbacks in the onshore market. Recent stock price rallies in some high-flying sectors of the onshore market are due to earnings multiples rather than earnings growth. Overstretched stock prices relative to earnings risk a snapback. We remain cautious on short-term prospects for China’s onshore equity markets.  Feature Market commentators remain sharply divided about whether Chinese stocks will continue on their cyclical bull run or are in a speculative frenzy ready to capitulate. Stock prices picked up further in the first three weeks of 2021, extending their rallies in 2020. The positives that support a bull market, such as China’s economic recovery and improving profit growth, are at odds with the negatives. The downside is that the intensity of post-pandemic stimulus in China has likely peaked and monetary conditions have tightened. In addition, China’s stock markets may be showing signs of fatigue. While aggregate indexes have recorded new highs, the breadth of the rally—the percentage of stocks for which prices are rising versus falling—has been rapidly deteriorating. In the past, a sharp narrowing in breadth led to corrections and major setbacks in Chinese stock prices. Timing the eventual correction in stock prices will be tricky in an environment where plentiful cash on the sidelines from stimulus invites risk-taking. For now, there is little near-term benefit for investors to chase the rally in Chinese stocks. While we are not yet negative on Chinese stocks on a cyclical basis, the risks for a near-term price correction are significant. Investors looking to allocate more cash to Chinese stocks should wait until a correction occurs. Positive Backdrop On a cyclical basis, there are still some aspects that could push Chinese stocks even higher. The question is the speed of the rally. The more earnings multiples expand in the near term, the more earnings will have to do the heavy lifting in the rest of the year to pull Chinese stocks higher. The following factors have provided tailwinds to Chinese stocks, but may have already been discounted by investors: Chart 1Chinas Economic Recovery Continues China’s economic recovery continues. China was the only major world economy to record growth in 2020. The massive stimulus rolled out last year should continue to work its way through the economy and support the ongoing uptrend in the business cycle (Chart 1). China’s relative success containing domestic COVID-19 outbreaks also provides confidence for the country’s consumers, businesses and investors. Chinese consumers have saved money—a lot of it. Although the household sector has been a laggard in China’s aggregate economy, much of the consumption weakness has been due to a slower recovery in service activities, such as tourism and catering (Chart 2). More importantly, Chinese households have accumulated substantial savings in the past two years. Unlike investors in the US, Chinese households have limited investment choices. Historically, sharp increases in household savings growth led to property booms (Chart 3, top panel). Given that Chinese authorities have become more vigilant in preventing further price inflation in the property market, Chinese households have been increasingly investing in the domestic equity market (Chart 3, middle and bottom panels). Reportedly, there has been a sharp jump in demand for investment products from households; mutual funds in China have raised money at a record pace, bringing in over 2 trillion yuan ($308 billion) in 2020, which is more than the total amount for the previous four years. The equity investment penetration remains low in China compared with developed nations such as the US.1 Thus, there is still room for Chinese households to deploy their savings into domestic stock markets. Chart 2Consumption Has Been A Laggard In Chinas Economic Recovery Chart 3But Chinese Households Have Saved A Lot Of Dry Powder   Global growth and the liquidity backdrop remain positive. The combination of extremely easy monetary policy worldwide and a new round of fiscal support in the US will provide a supportive backdrop for both global economic growth and liquidity conditions. Foreign investment has flocked into China’s financial markets since last year and has picked up speed since the New Year (Chart 4). On a monthly basis, portfolio inflows account for less than 1% of the onshore equity market trading volume, but in recent years foreign portfolio inflows have increasingly influenced China’s onshore equity market sentiment and prices (Chart 5). Chart 4Foreign Investors Are Piling Into The Chinese Equity Market Chart 5And Have Become A More Influential Player In The Chinese Onshore Market Geopolitical risks are abating somewhat. We do not expect that the Biden administration will be quick to unwind Trump’s existing trade policies on China. However, in the near term, the two nations will likely embark on a less confrontational track than in the past two and a half years. Slightly eased Sino-US tensions will provide global investors with more confidence for buying Chinese risk assets. Lastly, localized COVID-19 outbreaks have flared up in several Chinese cities, prompting local authorities to take aggressive measures, including community lockdowns and stepping up travel restrictions. A deterioration in the situation could delay the recovery of household consumption; however, any negative impact on China’s aggregate economy will more than likely be offset by market expectations that policymakers will delay monetary policy normalization. Domestic liquidity conditions could improve, possibly providing a short-term boost to the rally in Chinese stocks. Bottom Line: Much of the positive news may already be priced into Chinese stocks. Non-Negligible Downside Risks There is a consensus that Chinese authorities will dial back their stimulus efforts this year and continue to tighten regulations in sectors such as real estate. Investors may disagree on the pace and magnitude of policy tightening, but the policy direction has been explicit from recent government announcements. However, the market may have ignored the following factors and their implications on stock performance: Deteriorating equity market breadth. In the past three weeks, the rally in Chinese stocks has been supported by a handful of blue-chip companies. The CSI 300 Index, which aggregates the largest 300 companies listed on both the Shanghai and Shenzhen stock exchanges (i.e. the A-share market) outperformed the broader A-share market by a large margin (Chart 6). Crucially, stock market breadth has declined rapidly (Chart 7). In short, the majority of Chinese stocks have relapsed. Chart 6Large Cap Stocks Outperform The Rest By A Sizable Margin Chart 7The Breadth Of Onshore Stock Price Rally Has Narrowed Sharply   Chart 8Narrowing Market Breadth Has Historically Led To Price Pullbacks Previously, Chinese stocks experienced either price corrections or a major setback as the breadth of the rally narrowed (Chart 8). However, the relationship has broken down since October last year; the number of stocks with ascending prices has fallen, while the aggregate A-share prices have risen. In other words, breadth has narrowed and the rally in the benchmark has been due to a handful of large-cap stocks.   Top performers do not have enough weight to support the broad market. An overconcentration of returns in itself may not necessarily lead to an imminent price pullback in the aggregate equity index. The five tech titans in the S&P 500 index have been dominating returns since 2015, whereas the rest of the 495 stocks in the index barely made any gains. Yet the overconcentration in just a few stocks has not stopped the S&P 500 from reaching new highs in the past five years. Unlike the tech titans which represent more than 20% of the S&P index, the overconcentration in the Chinese onshore market has been more on the sector leaders rather than on a particular sector. China’s own tech giants such as Alibaba, Tencent, and Meituan, represent 35% of China’s offshore market, but most of the sector leaders in China’s onshore market account for only two to three percent of the total equity market cap (Table 1). Given their relatively small weight in the Shanghai and Shenzhen composite indexes, it is difficult for these stocks to lift the entire A-share market if prices in all the other stocks decline sharply.  The CSI 300 Index, which aggregates some of China’s largest blue-chip companies and industry leaders, including Kweichow Moutai, Midea Group, and Ping An Insurance, is not insulated from gyrations in the aggregate A-share market. Historically, when investors crowded into those top performers, the weight from underperforming companies in the broader onshore market would create a domino effect and drag down the CSI 300 Index. In other words, the magnitude of returns on the CSI 300 Index can deviate from the broader onshore market, but not the direction of returns.  Table 1Top 10 Constituents And Their Weights In The CSI 300, Shanghai Composite, And Shenzhen Composite Indexes Chinese “groupthinkers” are pushing the overconcentration. With the explosive growth in mutual fund sales, Chinese institutional investors and asset managers have started to play important roles in the bull market. Unlike their Western counterparts, Chinese fund managers’ performances are ranked on a quarterly or even monthly basis by asset owners, including retail investors. As such, they face intense and constant pressure to outperform the benchmarks and their peers, and have great incentive to chase rallies in well-known companies. In a late-state bull market when uncertainties emerge and assets with higher returns are sparse, fund managers tend to group up in chasing fewer “sector winners,” driving up their share prices. Chart 9Forward Earnings Growth Has Stalled Earnings outlook fails to keep up with multiple expansions. Despite the massive stimulus last year and improving industrial profits, forward earnings growth in both the onshore and offshore equity markets rolled over by the end of last year (Chart 9). Earnings from some of China’s high-flying sectors have been mediocre (Chart 10). Even though the ROEs in the food & beverage, healthcare and aerospace sectors remain above the domestic industry benchmarks, the sharp upticks in their share prices are largely due to an expansion of forward earnings multiples rather than earnings growth (Chart 11). The stretched valuation measures suggest that investors have priced in significant earnings growth, which may be more than these industries can deliver in 2021. Chart 10Other Than Healthcare, High-Flying Sectors Have Seen Mediocre Earnings Chart 11Too Much Growth Priced In Cyclical stocks may be sniffing out a peak in the market. The performance in cyclical stocks relative to defensives in both the onshore and offshore equity markets has started to falter, after outperforming throughout 2020 (Chart 12). Historically, the strength in cyclical stocks relative to defensives corresponds with improving economic activity (and vice versa). Therefore, the recent rollover in the outperformance of cyclical stocks versus defensives indicates that China’s economic recovery and the equity rally could soon peak.   An IPO mania. New IPOs in China reached a record high last year, jumping by more than 100% from 2019. IPOs on the Shanghai, Shenzhen and Hong Kong stock exchanges together were more than half of all global IPOs in 2020. The previous rounds of explosive IPOs in China occurred in 2007, 2010/11, and 2014/15, most followed by stock market riots (Chart 13). Chart 12Cyclical Stocks May Be Sniffing Out A Peak In The Market Chart 13IPO Manias In The Past Have Led To Market Riots Bottom Line: Investors may be neglecting some risks and pitfalls in the Chinese equity markets, which could lead to near-term price corrections. Investment Conclusions We still hold a constructive view on Chinese stocks in the next 6 to 12 months. Yet the equity market rally has been on overdrive for the past several weeks. The higher Chinese stock prices climb in the near term, the more it will eat into upside potentials and thus push down expected returns. The divergence between forward earnings and PE expansions in Chinese stocks is reminiscent of the massive stock market boom-bust cycle in 2014/15 (Chart 14A and 14B). This is in stark contrast with the picture at the beginning of the last policy tightening cycle, which started in late 2016 (Chart 15A and 15B). Valuation is a poor timing indicator and investor sentiment is hard to pin down. Nevertheless, the wide divergence between the earnings outlook and multiples indicates that Chinese stock prices are overstretched and at risk of price setbacks. Chart 14AA Picture Looking Too Familiar Chart 14BA Picture Looking Too Familiar Chart 15AAnd A Sharp Contrast From The Last Policy Tightening Cycle Chart 15BAnd A Sharp Contrast From The Last Policy Tightening Cycle We remain cautious on the short-term prospects for the broad equity market. Investors looking to allocate more cash to Chinese stocks should wait until a price correction occurs. Jing Sima China Strategist jings@bcaresearch.com     Footnotes 1Only 20.4% of Chinese households’ total net worth is in financial assets versus the US, where the share is 42.5%. PBoC, “2019 Chinese Urban Households Assets And Liabilities Survey.” Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations

Highlights Fed: We will use the monthly US employment data to track progress toward the first Fed rate hike. At present, our base case outlook calls liftoff in late-2022 or the first half of 2023. Investors should maintain below-benchmark portfolio duration. Corporate Bonds: The macro environment is supportive for spread product returns, but there are better opportunities than in investment grade corporate bonds. We prefer high-yield over investment grade within the US corporate space, particularly the Ba credit tier. Munis: Muni value has deteriorated markedly, but the sector still looks attractive compared to investment grade corporate bonds. EM Sovereigns: We recommend owning investment grade USD-denominated EM Sovereign bonds instead of investment grade US corporates. Within high-yield, US corporates still offer a better opportunity than EM Sovereigns. Using Employment Data To Time Fed Liftoff The current debate raging in fixed income circles revolves around whether large-scale fiscal stimulus will cause inflation to flare this year, possibly leading to a much earlier fed funds liftoff date than is currently priced into the yield curve (Chart 1). Chart 1Fed Liftoff Priced For July 2023 Last week’s report discussed our outlook for inflation in 2021.1 In short, our base case calls for 12-month PCE inflation to peak above the Fed’s 2% target in April but to then fall back below 2% by the end of the year. However, there is a compelling case to be made that inflation could rise more quickly. Table 1A Checklist For Liftoff Last week, our Global Investment Strategy service pointed out that the combined effect of December’s fiscal stimulus deal and President Biden’s newly proposed American Rescue Plan would inject an average of $300 billion per month into the economy through the end of September.2 The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the monthly output gap – the difference between what the economy is capable of producing and what it is actually producing – is currently $80 billion. In that environment, it’s not hard to see how excess demand could lead to price increases in certain sectors. Chart 2How Far From "Maximum Employment"? Of course, for bond investors what matters is not just the path of inflation but how the Fed responds. If rising inflation prompts the Fed to lift rates before July 2023 – the liftoff date currently priced into the market – then bonds will sell off. If liftoff occurs later, then yields will fall. This makes timing the liftoff date critical, and fortunately, the Fed has given us three explicit criteria that must be met before liftoff will occur (Table 1). This week’s report focuses, not on inflation, but on the condition related to “maximum employment.” Our sense is that if the Fed does not think the economy is at “maximum employment” it will ignore modest overshoots of its 2% inflation target on the view that the large amount of labor market slack will eventually cause inflationary pressures to wane. We define “maximum employment” as an unemployment rate of 4.5%, consistent with the upper-bound of the Fed’s most recent range of NAIRU estimates (Chart 2). Using that assumption, and an assumption for the path of the labor force participation rate (Chart 2, bottom panel), we can calculate the average monthly payroll gains that must occur for the unemployment rate to hit the 4.5% target by specific future dates. Our results are shown in Table 2. We use four different scenarios for the labor force participation rate. The lowest estimate assumes that the participation rate remains at its current level. The highest estimate assumes that it re-converges to its pre-COVID level at the same time as the unemployment rate hits 4.5%. The two middle estimates assume smaller increases of 1% and 0.5%, respectively. Table 2Average Monthly Nonfarm Payroll Growth Required For The Unemployment Rate To Reach 4.5% Over The Given Horizon We expect the participation rate to rise as the economy recovers and people are drawn back into the labor force, but some workers have likely been permanently displaced by the pandemic and a full convergence back to pre-COVID levels may not occur until well after the unemployment rate reaches 4.5%, if at all. With that in mind, the “Convergence To Pre-COVID” scenario probably overstates the monthly payroll gains necessary to hit full employment and the “Stays At 61.5%” scenario almost certainly understates them. If we focus on the two middle scenarios, we see that average monthly payroll gains of between 472k and 572k are required for the unemployment rate to hit 4.5% by the end of this year. This range falls to 346k - 413k if we push the liftoff date out until mid-2022 and to 283k – 334k if we move out until the end of 2022. At first blush, these numbers look unattainable. Between 2010 and 2019, average monthly payroll growth averaged a mere +97k. But, given the downturn that just occurred, employment growth will likely be much stronger going forward. Our research into past economic cycles has found that the two main determinants of average monthly employment growth during the first year following a recession are: The drawdown in employment that occurred during the recession (a larger drawdown correlates with greater payroll growth in the first 12 months of recovery) Real GDP growth during the first 12 months of recovery Chart 3 shows the correlation between the peak-to-trough decline in nonfarm payrolls during the past eight US recessions and the average monthly payroll gains seen during the first 12 months of economic recovery. The correlation is quite linear except for the 2008 recession where the peak-to-trough decline in payrolls was 8.7 million but the bounce-back was incredibly weak. Chart 4 explains why the 2008 recession looks like such an outlier in Chart 3. Real GDP growth during the first 12 months of recovery coming out of the 2008 recession was very low, only 2.6%. Chart 3Large Payroll Drawdowns Tend To Be Followed By Strong Gains… Chart 4…And Occur Alongside Strong Economic Recovery Thinking about the current recovery from the COVID recession. Nonfarm payrolls fell by about 22 million from peak to trough in 2020. This is literally off the charts (looking at Chart 3), about 2.5 times the job loss seen in 2008. Then, the Fed’s most recent median estimate for real GDP growth in 2021 is a robust 4.2%, and this estimate was made before Democrats took control of the Senate and proposed a massive new stimulus bill. Considering both the large drawdown in employment and the outlook for rapid GDP growth in 2021, average monthly payroll gains should be quite strong this year. A return to a 4.5% unemployment rate by the end of 2021 is probably a long shot, but we can easily envision average monthly payroll gains on the order of 300k to 400k per month, enough to prompt Fed tightening by late-2022 or the first half of 2023. Whatever transpires, we will monitor monthly payroll growth in the coming months and use this analysis to continuously reassess our liftoff expectations. For the time being, investors should keep portfolio duration low. Alternatives To Investment Grade Corporates Another conclusion that falls out of the above analysis is that the runway for spread product outperformance remains long. With Fed tightening unlikely until late-2022 or the first half of 2023, monetary conditions will remain accommodative for some time. This will drive a continued search for yield, supporting the outperformance of spread product relative to Treasuries. But despite the supportive macro environment, bond investors face a problem that the most popular US spread sector – investment grade corporate bonds – looks very expensive. The average option-adjusted spread for the Bloomberg Barclays investment grade corporate index is only 2 bps above its pre-COVID low, and the spread on Baa-rated bonds is exactly equal to its pre-COVID low. Aa- and A-rated bonds appear somewhat cheaper (Chart 5). The valuation picture is even bleaker after adjusting the index to ensure a constant average credit rating and average duration over time. The 12-month breakeven spread for the credit rating-adjusted corporate index has only been tighter 3% of the time since 1995 (Chart 6). Chart 5IG Spreads Are Tight... Chart 6...Especially After Adjusting For Risk The remainder of this report discusses potential alternatives to investment grade corporate bonds. Specifically, we’re looking for spread products that will benefit from the same macro environment as investment grade corporates, but where investors can pick up some additional risk-adjusted value. Candidate #1: Junk Bonds Chart 7Ba-Rated Corporates Are Cheap One obvious thing investors might consider is a move down the quality spectrum into high-yield bonds. This move comes with greater credit risk, but we believe the incremental spread pick-up provides more than fair additional compensation. The Bloomberg Barclays High-Yield index’s average option-adjusted spread is still 33 bps above its pre-COVID low, and the spread pick-up in the Ba credit tier relative to the Baa credit tier looks particularly compelling (Chart 7). The supportive macro environment makes us less worried about taking additional credit risk in a portfolio, and we recommend that investors pick up the additional spread offered in the high-yield space. The elevated incremental spread pick-up in Ba bonds makes that credit tier look like the best risk-adjusted opportunity. Candidate #2: Tax-Exempt Municipal Bonds Municipal bond spreads have tightened dramatically during the past couple of months and Aaa-rated Munis no longer look cheap compared to Treasuries (Chart 8). That said, if we match the duration and credit rating between the Bloomberg Barclays Municipal bond indexes and the US Credit index, we find that both General Obligation (GO) and Revenue Munis appear attractive compared to US investment grade Credit. Both GO and Revenue Munis offer a before-tax spread pick-up relative to US Credit for maturities above 12 years (Chart 9), the same goes for Revenue bonds with 8-12 year maturities. Revenue bonds in the 6-8 year maturity bucket offer an after-tax yield pick-up versus Credit for investors with an effective tax rate of 10% or higher. GO bonds in the 8-12 year and 6-8 year maturity buckets offer breakeven effective tax rates of 14% and 26%, respectively. Chart 8Muni / Treasury Yield Ratios Chart 9Munis Still Attractive Versus Corporates All in all, municipal bond value has deteriorated markedly in recent months and we therefore downgrade our recommended allocation slightly from “maximum overweight” (5 out of 5) to “overweight” (4 out of 5). Investors should still prefer tax-exempt municipal bonds relative to investment grade corporate bonds with the same credit rating and duration. Candidate #3: USD-Denominated Emerging Market Sovereigns For all of last year we advised investors to favor investment grade corporate bonds over USD-denominated EM Sovereigns of equivalent credit rating and duration. This positioning worked out well. Since the March 23rd peak in credit spreads, the A3/Baa1-rated EM Sovereign index has only outperformed the duration-matched A-rated US Credit index by 159 bps while it has underperformed the Baa-rated US Credit index by 571 bps (Chart 10). In the high-yield space, the B1/B2-rated EM Sovereign index has significantly underperformed both the Ba and B-rated US junk bond indexes. Chart 10EM Sovereigns Underperformed US Corporates In 2020 But now, after nine months of poor relative performance, value is starting to look more compelling in the EM Sovereign space. Chart 11 shows that EM Sovereigns offer a yield pick-up versus duration-matched US corporate bonds for all credit tiers except Ba. At the country level, the yield advantage in the A and Aa credit tiers is attributable to opportunities in Qatar, UAE and Saudi Arabia (Chart 12). In the Baa credit tier, investors should look for opportunities in Mexico, Russia and Colombia, while avoiding the Philippines. Chart 11USD-Denominated EM Sovereign Spreads Versus Credit Rating And Duration-Matched US Credit: By Credit Rating Chart 12USD-Denominated EM Sovereign Spreads Versus Credit Rating And Duration-Matched US Credit: By Country All in all, investors should shift some allocation away from investment grade corporates and into USD-denominated EM Sovereigns with equivalent duration and credit rating, focusing on the countries that offer a yield pick-up. Turning to high-yield, we would rather own junk-rated US corporate bonds than junk-rated EM Sovereigns. US corporates offer a yield pick-up over EM Sovereigns in the Ba credit tier, and the sky-high spreads offered by B and Caa-rated EMs are due to overly risky opportunities in Turkey and Argentina. We don’t see these countries benefiting from the supportive US macro environment in the same way as US corporate credit, and therefore recommend overweighting US corporate junk bonds over EM Sovereign junk bonds. Bottom Line: Investors should continue to overweight spread product versus Treasuries in US fixed income portfolios but should look for opportunities outside of investment grade corporate bonds. We recommend owning municipal bonds and USD-denominated EM Sovereign bonds in place of investment grade US corporate bonds with the same credit rating and duration. We also recommend taking additional credit risk in US junk bonds, particularly in the Ba credit tier. Investors should prefer US junk bonds over junk-rated EM Sovereigns.   Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1  Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Trust The Fed’s Forward Guidance”, dated January 19, 2021, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2  Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “Stagflation In A Few Months?”, dated January 22, 2021, available at gis.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification

Highlights Global Yields: The fall in global bond yields over the past two weeks represents a corrective pullback from an overly rapid rise in inflation expectations, especially in the US. The underlying reflationary themes that drove yields higher, however, remain intact, even with uncertainty over COVID-19 vaccine distribution and mixed messages on future central bank policy moves. Duration Strategy: We maintain our broad core recommendations on global government bonds: stay below-benchmark on overall duration exposure, overweighting non-US markets versus US Treasuries, while favoring inflation-linked debt over nominal bonds. Australia vs. US: Following from the conclusions of our Special Report on Australia published last week, we are initiating a new cross-country spread trade in our Tactical Overlay portfolio: long 10-year Australian government bond futures versus short 10-year US Treasury futures. Feature Chart of the WeekCentral Banks Will Stay Very Dovish The benchmark 10-year US Treasury yield fell to 1.04% yesterday as this report went to press, after reaching a high of 1.18% on January 12th. 10-year government bond yields have also fallen over the same period, but by lesser amounts ranging between 5-10bps, in Germany, France, the UK and Australia. We view these moves as a consolidation before the next upleg in global yields, and not the start of a new bullish cyclical phase for government bond markets. Our Central Bank Monitors for the major developed economies are all showing diminished pressure for easier monetary policies, but are not yet signaling a need for tightening to slow overheating economies (Chart of the Week). Realized inflation and breakevens from inflation-linked bond markets remain below levels consistent with central bank policy targets, even in the US after the big run-up in TIPS breakevens. Reflationary, pro-growth monetary (and fiscal) policies are still necessary. Policymakers can talk all they want about optimism on future global growth with COVID-19 vaccines now being rolled out in more countries, but it is far too soon to expect any shift away from a maximum dovish monetary policy stance that is bearish for bonds and bullish for risk assets. We continue to recommend a below-benchmark overall stance on global cyclical duration exposure, with a country allocation focused most intensely on underweighting US Treasuries. The Global Backdrop Remains Bond Bearish Optimism over a potential boom in global economic growth in the second half of 2021 - fueled by the rollout of COVID-19 vaccines, massive pandemic income support programs and other increased government spending measures, and ongoing easy monetary policies – has become an increasingly consensus view among investors. As evidence of this, the latest edition of the widely-followed Bank of America Fund Managers’ Survey highlighted that the biggest tail risks for financial markets all relate to that bullish narrative: a disappointing vaccine rollout, a “Tantrum” in bond markets, a bursting of the US equity bubble and rising inflation expectations.1 We can understand why investors would be most worried about the success of the COVID-19 vaccine distribution which has started with mixed results. According to the Oxford University COVID-19 database, the UK has now delivered 10.38 vaccinations per 100 people, while the US has given out 6.6 shots per 100 people (Chart 2). By comparison, the pace of the vaccine rollout has been far slower in Germany, France, Italy and China. Note that this data shows total vaccine shots administered and does not represent a count of the total number of inoculated citizens, as a full dose requires two shots. Chart 2Vaccine Rollout So Far: Operation Impulse Power Success on the vaccine front is what is needed for investors to envision an eventual end to the pandemic … or at least an end to the growth-damaging lockdowns related to the pandemic. So a slower-than-expected rollout does justify somewhat lower bond yields, all else equal. However, the news on the spread of the virus itself has turned more encouraging during this “dark winter” of COVID-19. The latest data on new cases of the virus shows that the severe surge in the US and UK appears to have peaked (Chart 3). In the euro area, the overall number of new cases is at best stabilizing with more divergence between countries: cases are continuing to explode higher in Italy and Spain but slowing in large economies like Germany and the Netherlands (and stabilizing in France). The growth in new virus-related hospitalizations, however, has clearly slowed across those major economies, including in places with surging new case numbers like Italy. Chart 3Lockdowns Will Not Last Forever Chart 4European Lockdowns Taking A Bite Out Of Growth A reduction in the strain on hospital bed capacity gives hope that the current severe economic restrictions seen in Europe and parts of the US can soon begin to be lifted. This can help sustain the cyclical upturn in global economic growth, especially in countries where lockdowns have been most onerous like the UK, which saw a sharp plunge in the preliminary Markit PMI data for January (Chart 4). So on the COVID-19 front, we interpret the overall backdrop as more positive for global growth expectations, and hence more supportive of higher global bond yields. Chart 5Reflationary Expectations Remain Well Entrenched Expectations are still tilted towards rising yields, judging by the ZEW survey of global financial market professionals (Chart 5). The survey shows that the bias continues to lean towards expectations of both higher long-term interest rates and inflation, but without any expected increase in short-term interest rates. This fits with the overall yield curve steepening theme that has driven global bond markets since last summer, which has been consistent with the dovish messaging from central banks. The Fed, ECB and other major central banks continue to project a very slow recovery of labor markets from the COVID-19 shock, with no return to pre-pandemic levels until at least 2024 (Chart 6). This is forcing central banks to maintain as dovish a policy mix as possible, including projecting stable policy rates over the next several years supported by ongoing quantitative easing (QE). These policies have helped support the rise in global inflation expectations and helped fuel the “Everything Rally” that has stretched the valuations of risk assets worldwide. So it is also not surprising that worries about a bond “Tantrum”, rising inflation expectations and a bursting of equity bubbles would also top the tail risks highlighted in that Bank of America investor survey. All are connected to the next moves of the major global central banks. Chart 6Central Banks Must Stay Easy For A Long Time On that front, we are not worried about any premature shift to a less dovish stance, given the lingering uncertainties over COVID-19 and with actual inflation – and inflation expectations - remaining below central bank targets. Several officials from the world’s most important central bank, the US Federal Reserve, have made comments in recent weeks discussing the outlook for US monetary policy. A few FOMC members raised the possibility of a potential discussion of slower bond purchases by year-end, if the US economy grows faster than expected and the vaccine rollout goes smoothly. Although the majority of FOMC members, including Fed Chair Jerome Powell and Vice-Chairman Richard Clarida, noted that any such discussion was premature and would not take place until 2022 at the earliest. In our view, the Fed will not begin to signal any shift to a less dovish policy stance before US inflation and inflation expectations have all sustainably returned to levels consistent with the Fed’s 2% target (Chart 7). That means seeing TIPS breakevens rise to the 2.3-2.5% range that has prevailed during previous periods when headline PCE inflation as at or above 2%. Chart 7US Inflation Still Justifies Maximum Fed Dovishness Chart 8The Fed Is Not Yet Worried About Overly Easy Financial Conditions Such a shift by the Fed could happen by year-end, but only if there was also concern within the FOMC that financial conditions in the US had become overly stimulative and risked future instability of overvalued asset prices (Chart 8). At the present time, however, the Fed will continue to focus on policy reflation and worry about any negative spillover effects on financial markets at a later date. Financial conditions are also a potential issue for other central banks, but from a different perspective – currencies. Financial conditions in more export-focused economies like the euro area and Australia are more heavily influenced by the impact on competitiveness from currency values (Chart 9). Chart 9Currencies Dictate Financial Conditions Outside The US Chart 10Projected Relative QE Favors UST Underperformance The combination of the Fed’s lingering dovish policy bias and the improving global growth backdrop should keep the US dollar under cyclical downward pressure. The weaker greenback means that non-US central banks must try to maintain an even more dovish bias than the Fed to limit the upward pressure on their own currencies. A desire to fight unwanted currency appreciation via a more rapid pace of QE relative to the Fed – at a time when US Treasury yields are likely to remain under upward pressure from rising inflation expectations – should support a narrowing of non-US vs US bond spreads over the next 6-12 months (Chart 10). Bottom Line: The underlying reflationary themes that drove global bond yields higher over the past several months remain intact, even with uncertainty over COVID-19 vaccine distribution and mixed messages on future central bank policy moves. Stay below-benchmark on overall global duration exposure, overweighting non-US government bond markets versus US Treasuries, while also favoring global inflation-linked debt over nominal bonds. A New Cross-Country Spread Trade: Long Australian Government Bonds Vs. US Treasuries In last week’s Special Report on Australia, which we co-authored jointly with BCA Research Foreign Exchange Strategy, we concluded that a neutral exposure to Australian government debt within global bond portfolios was still warranted.2 Uncertainty over the Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) reaction function and the future path of Australia’s yield beta, which measures the sensitivity of Australian yields to global yields and remains elevated, justified a neutral stance. We do, however, have a higher conviction view that Australian government debt will outperform US Treasuries – especially given our expectation that US yields have more cyclical upside – given that the yield beta of the former to the latter has declined (Chart 11). Chart 11Australian Government Bonds Are "Defensive" When US Yields Are Rising This week, we translate that view into a new tactical trade—going long 10-year Australian government bonds versus shorting 10-year US Treasuries. This trade will be implemented through bond futures (details of the trade can be seen in our trade table on page 15). In addition to the yield beta argument, the Australia-US 10-year spread looks attractive on a fair value basis. Chart 12 presents our new Australia-US 10-year spread valuation model, based on fundamental factors such as relative policy interest rates, inflation and unemployment. The model also accounts for the impact from the massive bond buying by the Fed and Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA); we include as an independent variable the relative central bank balance sheets as a share of respective nominal GDP. Although the Australia-US spread has converged somewhat towards fair value since the blow out in March 2020, it is still at attractive levels at 13bps or 0.8 standard deviations above fair value. The model-implied fair value of the Australia-US spread could also fall further, thereby creating a lower anchor point for spreads to gravitate towards. While the policy rate differential will likely remain unchanged until 2023, other factors will move to drag down the spread fair value (Chart 13). The gap in relative headline inflation should, much to the RBA’s chagrin, move further into negative territory given the relatively weaker domestic and foreign price pressures in Australia. On the QE front, the RBA also has much more room to expand its balance sheet relative to developed market peers, and will feel pressured to do so if the Australian dollar continues to rally. Finally, the RBA expects a much slower recovery in Australian unemployment than the Fed does for the US. This should further push down fair value if the central bank forecasts play out as expected. Chart 12The Australia-US 10-Year Spread Is Undervalued Technical considerations also seem to be in favor of our trade (Chart 14). While the deviation of the Australia-US 10-year spread from its 200-day moving average, and its 26-week change, are both slightly negative, the 2008 period is instructive. Chart 13Relative Fundamentals Point Towards A Lower Australia-US Spread Chart 14Technicals Favor Further Reduction In The Australia-US Spread For both measures, after blowing up to around the +75-150bps zone, they likewise fell by a commensurate amount, attributable to a strong “base effect”. A similar dynamic should play out now after the dramatic 2020 spike in spread momentum. Meanwhile, duration positioning in the US, while it is short on net, is still far from levels where it has troughed. Lastly and most importantly, forward curves are pricing in an Australia-US spread close to zero, which provides us a golden opportunity to “beat the forwards” as the spread tightens without incurring negative carry. As a reference, we are initiating this trade with the cash 10-year Australia-US bond spread at 4bps, with a target range of -30bps to -80bps over the usual 0-6 month horizon that we maintain for our Tactical Overlay positions. Bottom Line: We seek to capitalize on our view that Australian yields will be slower to rise relative to US yields by introducing a new spread trade: buy Australian government bond 10-year futures and sell US 10-year Treasury futures. Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com Shakti Sharma Research Associate ShaktiS@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1https://www.bloombergquint.com/markets/record-number-of-fund-managers-overweight-on-emerging-markets-says-bofa-survey 2 Please see BCA Research Global Fixed Income Strategy Special Report, "Australia: Regime Change For Bond Yields & The Currency?", dated January 20, 2021, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com.   Recommendations The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns