Economy

Highlights The dollar has entered a structural bear market but is at risk of a countertrend bounce.  The catalyst for such a bounce will be the underperformance of G10 economies, specifically the euro area relative to the US. The immediate trigger is a renewed surge in infections in the euro area. Eventually, in a post-COVID-19 world, the structural growth rate of the euro area should improve relative to the US. The Federal Reserve’s resolve to allow for an inflation overshoot will amplify the global supply of dollars. This will lead to a self-reinforcing spiral of better global growth, and a weaker dollar. Emerging market currencies have underperformed the drop in the dollar but will play catch up. We continue to recommend a three-pronged strategy for playing dollar shorts: Hold Scandinavian currencies, precious metals (especially silver and platinum), and the Japanese yen as insurance. We were stopped out of our tactical short GBP position. Stand aside for now. Our FX model remains dollar bearish and is recommending shorting the DXY for the month of September. Feature August is seasonally a strong month for the dollar (and other safe-haven currencies, for that matter), but this year bucked that trend. Despite the DXY index punching below key support levels since the March highs and becoming very oversold, the downtrend continued in August unabated. Technically, it suggests that the forces against the US dollar are quite powerful. Our trade basket has benefitted tremendously from the drop in the dollar this year, and we continue to advocate short dollar positions over a 12-month horizon. That said, we had tried playing a tactical bounce in the DXY via a short GBP position last month and got stopped out. September remains a seasonally weak month for the pound, but the dollar also tends to be weak against most other procyclical currencies (Chart I-1). As such, our bias is that while the dollar is due for a countertrend bounce, it might not be a playable one. Technical indicators also suggest that the dollar is likely to consolidate losses in the weeks ahead.  Technical indicators also suggest that the dollar is likely to consolidate losses in the weeks ahead. Our intermediate-term indicator is oversold, and speculators are quite short the cross (Chart I-2). However, any bounce should be used as an opportunity to establish fresh short positions, as the DXY is likely to punch below 90 by year end. Chart I-1September Is A Good Month For Dollar Shorts Chart I-2Rising Number Of ##br##Dollar Bears What Are The Catalysts For A Countertrend Bounce? While the dollar has entered a structural bear market, two catalysts are lining up which could trigger a countertrend bounce: The Eurozone, which was well into its reopening phase, has been hit hard by a second wave of COVID-19. Meanwhile, new infections in the US have started to flatten out (Chart I-3). As a result, economic momentum, which was higher outside the US, has rolled over. Improving relative economic performance between the US and other G10 countries could be a key catalyst behind dollar strength (Chart I-4). It is true that the number of new deaths in both France and Spain remain low compared to the surge in the number of new cases. But, while it might ease draconian government lockdowns, citizens are likely to have concerns and may pay heed to the potential of being infected (and dying). This could slow economic activity. Chart I-3US Cases Are ##br##Flattening Chart I-4Economic Momentum Rolling Over Outside The US The US stock market is overstretched and is at risk of a more significant correction in the near term, which could introduce some volatility in global bourses and buffet the dollar. The fall in the DXY has been a mirror image of the rise in the S&P 500 (Chart I-5). Renewed geopolitical tensions between China and the US as well as the upcoming US presidential election are sources of risk, and a catalyst to hedge short positions. Historically, the dollar has tended to rise with both increasing equity and geopolitical risk premia. This is the benefit of being a reserve currency. Chart I-5The Dollar & S&P 500 In a nutshell, the US economy had been relatively weak compared to the rest of the world. Tentative August data is showing that this trend may now be reversing. While one cannot use one data point to extrapolate a trend, it is worth monitoring. What Does The Federal Reserve Shift Mean For The Dollar? Beyond a countertrend rally, the balance of forces are still stacked against the US dollar. The Fed’s pivot to target average inflation will only accentuate these forces. In a special report this week, our fixed income strategists outlined the major takeaways from the Fed’s policy shift.1 In a nutshell, the Fed will now allow for an inflation overshoot on a going-forward basis. Part of the reason the US dollar outperformed from 2011 on was because economic growth was relatively better, which allowed interest rates to be higher. With economic growth in the US held hostage by the pandemic, the Fed has been forced to drop rates to zero, effectively wiping out the nominal US interest rate advantage (Chart I-6). The fall in the DXY has been a mirror image of the rise in the S&P 500. Going forward, we know two things. First, the Fed (or any other central bank for that matter) will not raise rates anytime soon. But more importantly, the Fed has telegraphed that they will allow for an inflation overshoot. This means that real rates in the US are bound to become even more negative. It is impressive that countries like Switzerland and Japan, with negative policy rates, have much higher real rates than the US today (Chart I-7). This does not bode well for the dollar. Chart I-6Interest Rates In The US Have Collapsed Chart I-7Real Yields Could Be Lowest In The US Has The Euro Rallied Too Fast? The rise in the euro has certainly stirred discussion among policymakers and investors, with some commentators pointing to some measures of the trade-weighted currency being near record highs. While the euro certainly has scope to correct towards the 1.15-1.16 level, this should be used to accumulate long positions. In our view, there is little indication that currency strength is becoming a headwind for the economy. Indeed: The euro area continues to sport a very healthy trade and current account surplus, a sign that the euro remains very competitive among its trading partners (Chart I-8). This is remarkable in a world of slowing global trade. Correspondingly, the euro still remains 12% undervalued against our fair value purchasing power parity (PPP) models (Chart I-9) Chart I-8Is This An Expensive Currency? Chart I-9The Euro Is Cheap Much ink is being spilled over the fact that headline inflation in the euro area fell below zero for the first time since 2016. Quickly forgotten is that a fall in inflation actually increases the fair value of the currency in a PPP framework. It also makes European goods more competitive. In the long term, that could be the difference between whether foreigners buy Cadillacs or BMWs. The structural appreciation in the trade-weighted Swiss franc is a case in point. As intra-European trade represents a large share of cross-border transactions, currency considerations become more of a moot point. In 2019, most member states had a share of intra-EU exports of between 50% and 75% (Chart I-10). Chart I-10Europe Exports A Lot To Europe Going forward, an agreement on the mutualization of European debt means we can begin to expect more synchronized business cycles as fiscal stabilizers kick in.2  The reality is much more complicated, of course, but the biggest roadblock to mutualized debt (which is that it could never happen) has been toppled. This will allow the neutral rate of interest in the euro area to head higher (Chart I-11). The reason is that both fiscal and monetary policy can now be synchronized across member states: Chart I-11Can Euro Area Growth Accelerate? The European Central Bank and European Commission have successfully lowered the cost of capital in the euro area, probably well below the return on capital. With Italian and Spanish bond yields now collapsing towards those in the core, liquidity is flowing to where it is most needed, significantly curtailing euro break-up risk. Social distancing might remain in place for a while, meaning services will suffer more than manufacturing. More importantly, a huge proportion of the service sectors in the euro area is tied to tourism (Chart I-12), while it remains domestic in places like the US. So, as the tourism season wanes and we get into the winter months where social distancing is all the more important, the underlying trend growth in manufacturing could be higher. A more drawn-out services recovery raises the prospect that countries geared more towards manufacturing such as Europe, Japan and China, could experience better growth (Chart I-13). Chart I-12Tourism Is Important For Europe Chart I-13Higher Service Share In The US This will occur at a time when European equities, especially those in the periphery, are very cheap. Part of the reason is that most Eurozone bourses are heavy in cyclical stocks that are well into a 10-year relative bear market.3 A re-rating of cyclical stocks, especially banks and energy, relative to defensives could be the catalyst that carries the next leg of the euro rally. This could push the EUR/USD towards 1.25. Does Abe’s Resignation Change The Yen’s Outlook? Chart I-14More Jobs, More Savings Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s health has pushed him to resign from office. The front runner from the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP), Yoshihide Suga, is likely to be his successor. Suga-san has publicly said he would like to continue with “Abenomics” and even enhance it. As such, the status-quo is more likely than a draconian policy change, as argued by our geopolitical colleagues.4 That said, there is a narrative floating around that he could be more of a fiscal hawk. Our belief is that economic forces are usually more powerful than political ones over the long term. And the economic force holding Japan hostage right now is the real threat of a deflationary spiral, which will send the yen higher and lead into a negative self-reinforcing feedback loop. Japanese companies certainly do not appreciate an excessively stronger yen, due to negative translation effects on profits. And neither does the Japanese government, since it is deflationary, and high government debt levels cannot be inflated away. With Japan having one of the highest real rates in the G10 right now, Suga-san’s more moderate fiscal stance might be overcome by a powerful deflationary wave in Japan. It is remarkable that while Japan had been able to keep a lid on the pandemic, it did see a short resurgence of new cases. That has since subsided, but it remains a clear reminder to the public that going out to spend money is risky business. As a result, the worker’s saving ratio continues to surge as unemployment rises and consumer confidence drops (Chart I-14). This is a trend any politician will find very difficult to ignore. As Suga-san stumbles to establish his stance, the yen could rise. Emerging market (EM) currencies such as the BRL, ZAR, INR, or even until recently the CNY, have lagged behind the drop in the DXY index. As we outlined in our weekly report in June, we remain yen bulls.5 This view rests on three pillars. First, Japan has one of the highest real rates in the G10, meaning outflows from Japanese fixed income investors will fall. Second, the yen is very cheap relative to the US dollar. And finally, during dollar bear markets, the yen more often than not outperforms the USD. This suggests holding a long yen position is a “heads I win, tails I do not lose much” proposition. EM Currencies Have Underperformed, Why? A lot of skepticism on the dollar rally has centered on the fact that emerging market (EM) currencies such as the BRL, ZAR, INR, or even until recently the CNY, have lagged behind the drop in the DXY index (Chart I-15). While this has been a historically rare event, so has the pandemic. As a result, we have witnessed a few economic shifts: Chart I-15EM Currencies Are Lagging Since 2014-2015, central banks have been aggressively trying to diversify out of dollar reserves. Unfortunately for most currencies, their alternative has been other safe-haven assets such as gold and the yen. IMF reserve data show that both the yen and gold have borne the brunt of dollar diversification. This trend has been supercharged in 2020, with the addition of the euro (Chart I-16). To put this in perspective, Russia now over 24% of its FX reserves in gold versus under 3% in 2008. Russia has very little dollar reserves. China has risen from less than half a percentage point of gold reserves in 2008 to over 3%. Imagine if China were to shift half of its gargantuan Treasury holdings into alternative assets? The perfect “robust” portfolio in simple terms has been a 60/40 one: 60% in equities, 40% in bonds. This has delivered low volatility and exceptional returns. But with government fixed income rates near zero, managers are now looking for alternatives. Gold and precious metals look like a perfect candidate in a world where central banks want to asymmetrically generate inflation (Chart I-17). Chart I-16Diversification Out Of Dollars Into Gold Chart I-17Would You Bet On US Bonds Or Gold At Zero Rates?     The pandemic raged in a lot of EM countries while it was falling in DM. This has weakened EM fundamentals relative to their developed-market peers. The EM Markit PMI index has been falling sharply relative to that in the US, a sea-change from what we saw earlier this year (Chart I-18). As a result, many EM central banks have aggressively cut rates, narrowing interest rate differentials with the US. In their latest report, our emerging market colleagues contend that EM fundamentals remain poor, but could improve Chart I-18EM Relative Growth Relapsing EM currencies have a lot going for them. First, some are extremely cheap by historical standards. This should greatly help ease financial conditions. Second, our technical indicator shows that the dollar decline is becoming a lot more broad-based at the margin (Chart I-19). The percentage of countries with rising exchange rates versus the dollar has surged. Within EM, we continue to favor precious metal producers (in line with our BCA Research bullish precious metals view) and oil producers, versus a basket of oil consumers. Chart I-19Dollar Drawdown More Widespread The Message From Our Trading Model Our FX trading model remains bearish on the US dollar for the month of September. It has upgraded Australia and Norway, while downgrading New Zealand (Chart I-20). The white paper for the model can be found here. Chart I-20AModel Recommendations For September Chart I-20BModel Recommendations For September Our bias, however, is that the dollar is due for a tactical bounce. We tried to implement this via a short GBP position but were thrown offside. So far, the UK PMI continues to outperform both that of the US and the euro area, suggesting the UK economy has been relatively more resilient to the pandemic. As such, we prefer to tighten stops on our profitable trades as a way to manage risk.   Chester Ntonifor Foreign Exchange Strategist chestern@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see US Bond Strategy and Global Fixed Income Strategy Special Report, "A New Dawn For US Monetary Policy", dated September 1, 2020. 2 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report, "EUR/USD And The Neutral Rate Of Interest", dated June 14, 2019. 3 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Special Report, "Currencies And The Value-Vs Growth Debate", dated July 10, 2020. 4 Please see Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Abenomics Will Smell As Sweet By Any Other Name", dated September 4, 2020. 5 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report, "An Update On The Yen", dated June 12, 2020. Currencies U.S. Dollar Chart II-1USD Technicals 1 Chart II-2USD Technicals 2 Recent data in the US has been solid: The Markit manufacturing PMI rose from 50.9 to 53.1 in August. The ISM manufacturing PMI also climbed from 54.2 to 56, expanding for a fourth straight month. Notably, the ISM new orders index soared from 61.5 to 67.6. The goods trade deficit widened to $79.32 billion from $70.99 billion in July. Initial jobless claims decreased to 881K for the week ending August 28th. The DXY index recovered by 1% this week, supported by promising PMI releases. In the long run however, our bias is that the USD might be on the verge of a long bear market. Diminished advantage of interest rate differentials, higher twin deficits and negative sentiment all point to a lower dollar going forward. Report Links: A Simple Framework For Currencies - July 17, 2020 DXY: False Breakdown Or Cyclical Bear Market? - June 5, 2020 Cycles And The US Dollar - May 15, 2020 The Euro Chart II-3EUR Technicals 1 Chart II-4EUR Technicals 2 Recent data in the euro area have been negative: The Markit manufacturing PMI remained flat at 51.7 in August while the services PMI fell from 54 to 50.5. Headline consumer price inflation fell from 0.4% to -0.2% year-on-year in August. Headline inflation sank from 1.2% to 0.4%. Moreover, producer prices decreased by 3.3% year-on-year in July. The unemployment rate ticked up from 7.7% to 7.9% in July. The euro fell by 1.2% against the US dollar this week. The negative inflation rate raises questions about ECB’s baseline inflation scenario and inflation forecasts, putting more pressure on the ECB to adopt a more dovish stance ahead of the monetary policy meeting next week.  Report Links: On The DXY Breakout, Euro, And Swiss Franc - February 21, 2020 Updating Our Balance Of Payments Monitor - November 29, 2019 On Money Velocity, EUR/USD And Silver - October 11, 2019 Japanese Yen Chart II-5JPY Technicals 1 Chart II-6JPY Technicals 2 Recent data in Japan have been mostly negative: The manufacturing PMI increased from 45.2 to 47.2 in August, while the services PMI slipped to 45 from 45.4. Retail trade fell by 2.8% year-on-year in July, following a 1.3% decline the previous month. Moreover, industrial production plunged by 16.1% year-on-year in July after an 18.2% decrease in June.  Construction orders fell by 22.9% year-on-year in July. Housing starts also plunged by 11.4%. The jobs-to-applicants ratio fell from 1.11 to 1.08 in July. The unemployment rate increased from 2.8% to 2.9%. The Japanese yen remained flat against the US dollar this week. We continue to favor the Japanese yen as fears grow for a second wave of COVID-19. Moreover, Japan now sports the second highest real interest rates in the G10 universe. Report Links: The Near-Term Bull Case For The Dollar - February 28, 2020 Building A Protector Currency Portfolio - February 7, 2020 Currency Market Signals From Gold, Equities And Flows - January 31, 2020 British Pound Chart II-7GBP Technicals 1 Chart II-8GBP Technicals 2 Recent data in the UK have been positive: The manufacturing PMI rose to a 30-month high of 55.2 in August from 53.3 in July. The services PMI also increased to 58.8 from 56.5 the previous month. Mortgage approvals increased by 66.3K in July, up from 39.9K in June. Housing prices grew by 3.7% year-on-year in August. The British pound appreciated by 0.9% against the US dollar this week. While the latest PMI release showed fast expansion in the manufacturing sector for the month of August, the employment outlook remained unfavorable. Moreover, COVID-19 and Brexit uncertainties remain headwinds for the British pound. Report Links: Updating Our Balance Of Payments Monitor - November 29, 2019 A Few Trade Ideas - Sept. 27, 2019 United Kingdom: Cyclical Slowdown Or Structural Malaise? - Sept. 20, 2019 Australian Dollar Chart II-9AUD Technicals 1 Chart II-10AUD Technicals 2 Recent data in Australia have been mostly negative: GDP slumped by 7% quarter-on-quarter in Q2, the worst figure on record, confirming the nation’s first recession in almost 30 years. The commonwealth manufacturing PMI increased from 48.8 to 49.4 in August. Exports tumbled by 4% month-on-month while imports surged by 7% monthly in July. The trade surplus shrank by A$3.6 billion to A$4.6 billion. Building permits increased by 6.3% year-on-year in July, following a 15.8% contraction the previous month. AUD/USD fell by 1.6% this week. The RBA left its interest rate unchanged at 0.25% on Tuesday. However, it has increased the size of the term funding facility and extended the banks’ access to low-cost funding through the end of June 2021. Report Links: On AUD And CNY - January 17, 2020 Updating Our Balance Of Payments Monitor - November 29, 2019 A Contrarian View On The Australian Dollar - May 24, 2019 New Zealand Dollar Chart II-11NZD Technicals 1 Chart II-12NZD Technicals 2 Recent data in New Zealand has been mixed: The ANZ business confidence index increased marginally from -42.4 to -41.8 in August, while the activity outlook index slipped from -17 to -17.5. Building permits fell by 4.5% month-on-month in July. The goods terms of trade index rose by 2.5% quarter-on-quarter in Q2. The New Zealand dollar depreciated by 0.7% against the US dollar this week. In the Wellington speech this Wednesday, RBNZ Governor Adrian Orr said that “We strongly believe that the best contribution we can make to our monetary and financial stability mandates is ensuring we head off unnecessarily low inflation or deflation, and high and persistent unemployment”, suggesting a more dovish stance in the coming monetary policy reviews. Report Links: Currencies And The Value-Versus-Growth Debate - July 10, 2020 Updating Our Balance Of Payments Monitor - November 29, 2019 Place A Limit Sell On DXY At 100 - November 15, 2019 Canadian Dollar Chart II-13CAD Technicals 1 Chart II-14CAD Technicals 2 Recent data in Canada has been mostly negative: Annualized GDP slumped by 38.7% quarter-on-quarter in Q2.  The manufacturing PMI rose to 55.1 in August from 52.9 the previous month. Building permits fell by 3% month-on-month in July. Exports rose to C$45.4 billion from C$40.9 billion in July. Imports also increased to C$47.9 billion from C$42.5 billion. The trade deficit widened by C$0.9 billion to C$2.5 billion. The Canadian dollar depreciated by 0.6% against the US dollar this week. The contraction in Q2 GDP is more than twice as bad as the lowest point reached during the GFC. On the positive side, the June monthly GDP increase of 6.5%, compared with the previous month, is showing signs of recovery with the easing of COVID-19 restrictions at the end of Q2. Report Links: Currencies And The Value-Versus-Growth Debate - July 10, 2020 More On Competitive Devaluations, The CAD And The SEK - May 1, 2020 A New Paradigm For Petrocurrencies - April 10, 2020 Swiss Franc Chart II-15CHF Technicals 1 Chart II-16CHF Technicals 2 Recent data in Switzerland have been mixed: The KOF leading indicator surged from 86 to 110.2 in August. Real retail sales increased by 4.1% year-on-year in July. The manufacturing PMI increased from 49.2 to 51.8 in August. Headline consumer prices remained in deflation territory at -0.9% year-on-year in August. The Swiss franc remained flat against the US dollar this week. The SNB Governing Board Member Andrea Maechler said on Tuesday that negative interest rates are “extremely important” for Switzerland. Being deeply in deflation for seven consecutive months, Switzerland now sports the highest real rate in G10.   Report Links: On The DXY Breakout, Euro, And Swiss Franc - February 21, 2020 Currency Market Signals From Gold, Equities And Flows - January 31, 2020 Portfolio Tweaks Before The Chinese New Year - January 24, 2020 Norwegian Krone Chart II-17NOK Technicals 1 Chart II-18NOK Technicals 2 Recent data in Norway have been negative: The current account surplus narrowed to NOK 20.5 billion in Q2 from NOK 27 billion in the same quarter last year, the smallest surplus since the fourth quarter of 2017. The Norwegian krone depreciated by 2.2% against the US dollar this week, making it the worst-performing G10 currency. That said, we remain positive on the Norwegian krone. Our FX model indicator for the NOK increased from 1 to 2 for the month of September, signaling a strong buy for the currency and pushing the sentiment component up from neutral to long. Report Links: A New Paradigm For Petrocurrencies - April 10, 2020 Building A Protector Currency Portfolio - February 7, 2020 On Oil, Growth And The Dollar -  January 10, 2020 Swedish Krona Chart II-19SEK Technicals 1 Chart II-20SEK Technicals 2 Recent data in Sweden have been mixed: GDP fell by 7.7% year-on-year in Q2, or 8.3% quarter-on-quarter, the steepest contraction on record. The manufacturing PMI increased from 51.4 to 53.4 in August, the fourth consecutive month of manufacturing expansion. The new orders index surged from 52.2 to 56. The Swedish krona fell by 1.1% against the US dollar this week. As one of the most pro-cyclical currencies, the Swedish krona will benefit the most from the global business cycle recovery. Moreover, the SEK is still trading at a tremendous discount against its fair value, as compared to the US dollar. We continue to overweight the Nordic basket to both USD and EUR but are tightening the stop loss this week amidst potential market volatilities. Report Links: Updating Our Balance Of Payments Monitor - November 29, 2019 Where To Next For The US Dollar? - June 7, 2019 Balance Of Payments Across The G10 - February 15, 2019 Trades & Forecasts Forecast Summary Core Portfolio Tactical Trades Limit Orders Closed Trades

Highlights Abenomics was working – prior to trade war and COVID-19 – and it will remain Japan’s economic policy setting, albeit in a new guise. This is true even if a dark horse candidate wins the Liberal Democratic Party’s leadership race. Japan’s strategic alliance with the United States is based on a shared interest to balance China’s rise and will not change regardless of the 2020 and 2021 elections. Abe failed to make peace with Russia, but Russo-Japanese relations remain the bellwether of a revolution in Russian policy toward China. We are far from that now. Stay long JPY-USD. The yen’s safe haven properties will buoy it during the coming three-to-six months of extreme political risk. The dollar is set to fall in the medium term due to US debt monetization, twin deficits, and global growth recovery. Feature Japanese equities have rallied despite trailing their American and global counterparts (Chart 1). Yet the good news for markets is now coinciding with the emergence of political uncertainty, as Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, now the longest-serving in Japan’s history, announced he will step down due to illness. Abe’s departure marks the end of a chapter in the country’s modern history and raises questions about the future of “Abenomics,” the eponymous economic policy consisting of ultra-dovish monetary policy, accommodative fiscal policy, and neoliberal structural reforms aimed at lifting productivity and growth. Chart 1Japan's Rally Trails Global Counterparts Chart 2… As Longest-Serving Prime Minister Steps Down Japanese leaders rarely last as long as Abe so the market will likely have to familiarize itself with more churn in top-level government policies going forward (Chart 2). But will the churn change the secular direction? No. Abenomics: A Concise Post-Mortem Chart 3Population And Workforce Decline The driver of Abenomics was not Abe, or his central bank Governor Haruhiko Kuroda, or even the long-dominant Liberal Democratic Party. It was geopolitics – an accumulation of social, political, economic, and strategic pressures demanding that the ruling elite shake up decades-long policies in pursuit of the national interest. Everyone knows that Japan’s population is aging and shrinking, but the key to understanding the Abe era is the recognition that the 2008 global financial crisis coincided almost exactly with the peak in Japan’s total population. This came 18 years after the working age population’s peak in the very year of Japan’s own financial crisis (Chart 3). The first crisis triggered Japan’s slide into price deflation; the second crisis threatened the permanent entrenchment of deflation along with a series of existential threats to the wellbeing of the nation. The driver of Abenomics was geopolitics, not Abe. First came global recession in 2008. Next the institutional ruling party – Liberal Democrats – fell from power for the first substantial period of time in modern memory in 2009. Then China fully emerged as a great power, brandishing its new foreign policy assertiveness and igniting a maritime-territorial clash and minor trade war from 2010 (Chart 4). Japan’s decline reached its nadir with a literal nuclear meltdown, following the devastating Tohoku earthquake and tsunami in 2011. The country’s strategic import dependency combined its ongoing financial instability, as shuttered nuclear plants required a surge in high-priced energy imports that wiped away Japan’s all-important current account surplus (Chart 5). Chart 4Geopolitical Status Anxiety Chart 5Nuclear Meltdown And Resource Anxiety The Liberal Democrats returned to power in a sweeping election victory after this ill-fated experiment with opposition rule. Party leader Shinzo Abe was relatively popular and willing to oversee a drastic overhaul of stale policies. Abenomics was never going to solve all of Japan’s deep structural challenges – population decline, massive debt, overregulation, lifetime employment. But its critics failed to recognize that the country had hit rock-bottom and policymakers had no choice but to stimulate, reform, and open up the economy. Otherwise they would go straight back into the political wilderness at the next election.1 Abenomics was about as successful as an overhyped political policy program can be: The economic boom drew in workers from all parts of society, particularly women, whose participation rate soared (Chart 6). Abe flung open the doors to immigration in a traditionally xenophobic country, attracting Chinese, Vietnamese, and Filipinos to live and work in Japan (Chart 7). Chart 6Abe Got People To Work Chart 7Abe Broke The Taboo On Immigration Kuroda at the Bank of Japan flew into action with aggressive asset purchases, triggering a sharp devaluation of the yen (Chart 8). Nominal GDP growth and core CPI trends both improved, critical to easing debt burdens, lowering real rates, stimulating economic activity, and shaking off the deflationary mindset (Chart 9). Chart 8Abe Kicked The BoJ Into Action Chart 9Abe Combatted Deflation Stagnant wages finally started to grow, with an extremely tight labor market (Chart 10). This was all the more remarkable due to the simultaneous surge in foreign workers. Corporate investment stabilized and turned upward, finally overcoming the long decline since 1990 (Chart 11). Chart 10Wage Growth Improved (Until Trade War, Pandemic) Chart 11Abe Revived Corporate Investment Abe also opened the door to foreign trade, taking on powerful vested interests, including his own party’s base, to join the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) along with the United States in a bid to create an advanced new trade framework that sidestepped China. Chart 12Abe Opened The Doors, A Bonus With Or Without Trade War When US President Donald Trump pulled out of the bloc in accordance with his protectionist campaign promises, Abe led the charge in preserving it. Japan stands to benefit from opening up these markets whether the US-China trade war continues or not (Chart 12). This was generally effective leadership, but none of it happened by sheer force of personality. It happened because Japan glimpsed the specter of national failure in 2011 under the combined weight of internal malaise and external domination. Economic revival was as much about shoring up Japan’s national security as it was about improving Japanese lives and livelihoods. Abenomics was the economic component of a broader national revival. The goal was to become a “normal” nation, capable of self-defense and independent policy, and a pro-active world power at that. China’s rise and a distracted US will pressure Japan to maintain Abe’s policies. The drivers of Japan’s political earthquake in 2011 are not spent. COVID-19 dashed many of Abe’s gains in the fight against deflation. China’s rise is a greater challenge than ever before. The US is even more divided and distracted. The next prime minister would not be able to change course even if he wanted to do so. Suganomics, Kishidanomics … Ishibanomics? Chart 13Still No Alternative To Institutional Ruling Party The Liberal Democrats and their longtime coalition partners, New Komeito, have not only lost about 5% of popular support since their triumphant comeback in 2012, standing at 40% support today – and with some improvement since 2017. More importantly, their nearest rivals all poll under 5% of the popular vote (Chart 13). There is no political competition as yet. The ruling party will choose a new leader with little fanfare. Abe’s Chief Cabinet Secretary and chosen successor Yoshihide Suga is the frontrunner as we go to press. Political uncertainty, such as it is in Japan, will emerge ahead of the September 2021 election. Abe’s retirement and the aftermath of the global recession create an opening for disgruntled factions and opposition parties to challenge the ruling party. It will not succeed but it will portend a less predictable period in the absence of a unifying figure like Abe. In fact, Abe’s influence peaked in July 2019 when he lost a single-party super-majority in the House of Councillors, the upper house of parliament (Chart 14). The 2021 election now raises the prospect of additional erosion of support. Chart 14US-Japan Alliance Versus China Will Persist Opposition is particularly likely if Suga attempts to achieve Abe’s major unfinished task: the revision of Article Nine of the constitution to countenance Japan’s de facto armed forces and right to self-defense. At very least Suga will mark the return of the “revolving door,” in which weak prime ministers come and go in rapid succession. The top candidates for the leadership race lack differentiation: the leading contenders are dovish on monetary and fiscal policy, hawkish on national security and foreign policy, just like Shinzo Abe (Table 1). The exception is former Defense Minister Shigeru Ishiba, but a close examination of his statements and actions suggests that he does not pose a real risk to the policy status quo (Box 1 at bottom). Should Ishiba rise to power, now or later, we would be buyers of any risk premium in financial markets on his account. Table 1The Return Of The Revolving Door The prime minister over the 2021-22 period will have the occasion to appoint up to four members of the Bank of Japan’s Policy Board (Table 2). Theoretically, the appointment of neutral or less dovish candidates could lead to a 5-4 majority on the board by 2023. But this is very unlikely. Table 2Dovish BoJ Is Here To Stay First, it would require all vacant seats to be filled with members who hold hawkish views, which would mark a sharp departure from the current thinking both within the BoJ and the LDP. Second, Kuroda is still governor and could hold that post until 2028. Third, Japan’s economic demands will still require easy monetary policy, as the population will still be shrinking and the country’s vast debt pile will remain a burden. Fiscal austerity is impossible. There is no reason to expect Abe’s successors to be fiscal hawks either. Abe proved to be more of a hawk than expected, by going forward with statutory increases to the consumption tax rate. These are now complete, at 10%, with no future tax hikes scheduled. If Abe managed to create small positive surprises in fiscal thrust throughout his term despite this effort at fiscal consolidation, then his successor should be able to do so in the wake of COVID-19 without any consolidation as yet on the books (Chart 15). Chart 15Despite Mistakes, Fiscal Thrust Surprised To Upside Chart 16Fiscal Austerity Impossible Fiscal austerity is impossible as nearly 60% of the budget is dedicated to social spending for the graying and shrinking society as well as interest payments on the national debt – leaders will continue to avail themselves of the ancient imperial practice of tokusei, or debt forgiveness, rather than draconian spending cuts or tax increases that would drag down the economy and hence increase the debt even faster (Chart 16). Of course, the major failure of Abenomics will still dog Abe’s successors over the long run: the inability to lift Japanese productivity. Despite Abe’s attempts to shake up the labor market, spark corporate investment, reform corporate governance, and open up the economy to foreign trade, productivity has still declined, underperforming both the EU and the UK (Chart 17). Japan will continue to depend heavily on foreign demand, especially Chinese demand. In the short term this is positive, since China’s deleveraging campaign and the COVID-19 shock are giving way to another major bout of Chinese fiscal and credit stimulus. China will be forced to keep stimulating to cope with its secular slowdown and manufacturing dislocation. Japan is still a cyclical economy and stands to benefit (Chart 18). Chart 17No Quick Fix For Poor Productivity Chart 18Chinese Stimulus Will Be Steady In the long run, however, Japan’s future darkens considerably when its own demographic decline and deflationary tendencies are coupled with China’s inheritance of these same trends. The Communist Party is doubling down on import substitution and foreign policy assertiveness, ensuring that trade and strategic conflict with the US will escalate over time. Japan will remain allied with the United States, out of its own strategic interest, but will pay the price in periodic headwinds to growth. Its ability to relocate manufacturing to Japan is limited in all but the most sophisticated of industries. It will have to embrace ever more unorthodox monetary and fiscal policy while investing heavily in new technologies and emerging markets ex-China in search of growth. Geopolitically speaking, Shinzo Abe helped the United States formulate its new strategic plan of promoting a “free and open Indo-Pacific” and the spirit of this policy will outlive Abe and President Trump. The US’s “pivot to Asia” began under the Democratic Party, which will rejoin the Trans-Pacific Partnership, with a few tweaks, if it returns to power. The US and Japan are both interested in forming a grand coalition of nations surrounding China to contain its ambitions, whether military, political, or technological. China would be naïve not to see the quadrilateral security dialogue between these countries and India and Australia as the blueprint of a naval alliance designed to contain it. The Taiwan Strait, the South and East China Seas, Vietnam, the Philippines, and the Korean Peninsula will become the sites of “proxy battles” as the US and Japan strive to contain China. Japan will retain its safe haven status – in both the geopolitical and financial sense – while other countries will see a higher geopolitical risk premium. Japanese and Korean trade tensions will persist, unless the US takes a leadership role in strengthening the trilateral relationship. Russia has chosen to throw in its lot with China, which will not change anytime soon. But if Abe’s successor is able to get peace negotiations back on track, in pursuit of another of Abe’s major unfinished initiatives, then this would serve as an important bellwether of Russia’s own fear of China’s growing power. Investment Takeaways Chart 19Japanese Stocks Look Attractive... Japanese equities are exceedingly cheap and hence attractive over the long run, given that a new global business cycle is beginning and governments around the world are committed to providing as much support as they are able. At a dividend yield of less than 2.5%, the real return on Japanese stocks over the next ten years could be 20% (Chart 19). However, over the next three-to-six months, the world faces extreme uncertainty over the US election and rapidly deteriorating US-China relations. The Japanese economy is slowing and monetary policy, at the zero lower bound, will play a marginal role. The yen is set to appreciate as a safe-haven in this environment (Chart 20), and until there is a total divergence of the inverse correlation of the yen and Japanese equities, the latter will struggle to outperform those of other developed markets on a sustained basis. Chart 20... But Yen Rally Will Continue Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Box 1: Ishiba Is Not A Real Risk To The Policy Status Quo Shigeru Ishiba, while not favored to succeed Abe in the short run, is a compelling Japanese politician and one of the few Liberal Democratic leadership candidates who would mark a change with Abe, as Table 1 above indicates. If Ishiba looks to become prime minister, now or later, he would create some financial market jitters primarily because he would not symbolize seamless policy continuity. He is a major rival of Abe and has publicly criticized Abenomics, including in his 2018 book.2 He is reputed to be a hawk on monetary and fiscal policy. However, a close look at his record shows that he is not ideological and would not revolutionize Japanese national policy once in office. Ishiba is a careful and rational thinker and an institutional and establishment LDP politician. Both Ishiba and his father (Jiro Ishiba) were scions of the Tanaka/Takeshita factions whose base was agriculture, construction industry, defense industry, and the postal service.3 His is not the background of a radical fiscal hawk. One of Ishiba’s major concerns is generating growth outside of the major cities, but he does not take a slash and burn approach to the central government budget. For example, at a forum on Abenomics, the director of the Japanese Civilization Institute spoke with Ishiba in his capacity as Minister of Regional Revitalization. The moderator gave Ishiba the opportunity to denounce excess government spending and promote central spending cuts, saying, “Maybe you must arrange fiscal discipline more appropriately. Then, you can supply that money to regional areas.” Ishiba responded drily, “But I think regional areas must make their own money too.” The yen could rally on a bout of political uncertainty if Ishiba at any time looks likely to become LDP leader and he criticizes excessively easy economic policies. But, as we noted above in the report above, the BoJ Policy Board, not the prime minister’s office, will set monetary policy – and Ishiba would struggle to stack the board with hawks due to institutional resistance. Moreover in the wake of a global recession, the next prime minister will not have much ability to drive parliament into budget cuts or tax hikes. Ishiba would more likely seek to pursue deregulation. If he insisted on austerity, the economy would slump and his premiership would be ruined. Chances are he would listen to his advisers. The one policy that concerns Ishiba above all is national defense and security. Ishiba previously served as defense minister and was known for his hawkish tone, particularly over disputes in the East China Sea and domestic protests against the country’s new security law. More recently he differed with Abe’s constitutional revision – not over the need to normalize Japan’s self-defense forces, but because Abe tried to avoid an explicit mention of Japan’s right to maintain armed forces. If anything, Ishiba would be inclined to increase military spending. Yet his foreign policy is not a risk to the markets, beyond rhetoric, as he is also more willing to engage China than some other LDP leaders. Footnotes 1 In truth, something of a national awakening had already begun in the early 2000s under Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi. This is reflected in the improvement of the fertility rate from 2005. But it fell to Abe to pick up where Koizumi had left off, fighting deflation and strengthening Japan’s international position. 2 See "Abe’s rival to declare bid to become Japan’s next leader," Nikkei, July 13, 2018, asia.nikkei.com. See a campaign synopsis at ishiba.com. 3 See Jojin V. John, "Developments in Japanese Politics: LDP Presidential Election and the Future of Prime Minister Shinzo Abe," Indian Council of World Affairs, August 29, 2018, icwa.in

Highlights EM domestic fundamentals, global trade and commodities prices, as well as global financial market themes are the main drivers of EM financial assets and currencies. The positive effect of improving global growth and rising commodity prices on EM currencies (ex-China, Korea and Taiwan) has been offset by these countries’ inferior domestic fundamentals. The odds of a near-term US dollar rebound are rising. This will likely produce a setback in EM currencies, fixed-income markets and equities. However, such a setback will likely prove to be a buying opportunity. Increased central bank intervention in asset markets may diminish the importance of fundamentals in determining the asset prices. Feature Chart I-1Unusual Divergences EM risk assets have done well in absolute terms but have underperformed their DM counterparts.  This is unusual given the substantial weakness in the US dollar and the rally in commodities prices since April (Chart I-1). Until early this year, many commentators had argued that monetary policies of DM central banks were the principal drivers of EM financial markets. Given the zero interest rates and money printing that is prevalent in DM, the underperformance of EM equities and currencies is especially intriguing. Is this underperformance an aberration or is it fundamentally justified? What really drives EM performance? Back To Basics As we have argued over the years, EM risk assets and currencies are primarily driven by their domestic fundamentals, rather than by the actions and policies of the US Federal Reserve or the ECB. The critical determinant of EM stocks’ absolute as well as relative performance versus DM equities has been corporate profits. Chart I-2 illustrates that relative equity performance and relative EPS between EM and the US move in tandem, both in common and, critically, local currency terms. Similarly, the main reason why EM share prices in absolute terms have failed to deliver positive returns over the past 10 years is that their profits have been stagnant over the same period, even prior to the pandemic (Chart I-3). Interestingly, fluctuations in EM EPS resemble those of Korea’s exports. This reflects the importance of global growth in shaping EM profit trends. Chart I-2Corporate Profits Drive EM Absolute And Relative Performance Chart I-3EM EPS Has Been Flat For 10 Years   The key drivers of EM risk assets and currencies have been and remain: 1. EM domestic fundamentals that can be encapsulated by a potential risk-adjusted return on capital. The latter is impacted by both cyclical and structural growth trajectories, as well as by the quality and composition of growth. Risks to growth can be gauged based on factors such as (but not limited to): productivity, wages, inflation, fiscal and balance of payment positions, the global economic and financial environment, and the health of the banking system. In EM (ex-China, Korea and Taiwan), the fundamentals remain challenging: The business cycle recovery is slower in these economies than it is in China and advanced economies. Fiscal stimulus has not been as large as in many advanced countries, while the pandemic situation has been worse. Their banking systems were already fragile before the pandemic, and have lately been hit by defaults stemming from the unprecedented recession. These governments have less room than in DM and China, to stimulate fiscally and bail out debtors and banks. Banks in EM (ex-China, Korea and Taiwan) will continue struggling for some time, and their ability to finance a new expansion cycle will, for now, remain constrained (Chart I-4). A restructuring of non-performing loans and a recapitalization of banks will be required to kick-start a new credit cycle in many of these economies. 2. Global growth, especially relating to China’s business cycle and commodities. The recovery in China since April, along with rising commodities prices have been positive for EM (ex-China, Korea and Taiwan). Given the substantial stimulus injected into the Chinese economy, its recovery will continue well into next year (Chart I-5). As a result, higher commodities prices will benefit resource producing economies by supporting their balance of payments and enhancing income growth. Chart I-4EM ex-China: Limited Bank Support For Growth Chart I-5China's Stimulus Entails More Upside In Commodity Prices   3. Global financial market themes: a search for yield and leadership of new economy stocks. Global investment themes have an important bearing on EM financial markets. For example, in recent years, the increased market cap of new economy and semiconductor stocks – due to an exponential rise in their share prices – has amplified their importance for the aggregate EM equity index. The largest six mega cap stocks in the EM benchmark are new economy and semiconductor companies, and make up about 25% of the EM MSCI market cap. The six FAANGM stocks presently account for about 25% of the S&P 500. Hence, the concentration risk in EM is as high as it is in the US. Consequently, the trajectory of new economy and semiconductor stocks globally will be essential to the performance of the EM equity index. On August 20, we published an in-depth Special Report assessing near-term and structural outlooks for global semiconductor stocks. With new economy and semiconductor share prices going parabolic worldwide, we are witnessing a full-fledged mania, as we discussed in our July 16 report. The equal-weighted US FAANGM stock index has risen by 24-fold in nominal and 20-fold in real (inflation-adjusted) terms, since January 1, 2010 (Chart I-6). Chart I-6History Of Manias Of Past Decades In brief, with respect to magnitude and duration, the bull market in FAANGM is on par with the bubbles of previous decades (Chart I-6). Those bubbles culminated in bear markets, where prices fell by at least 50% after topping out. Chart I-7EM ex-TMT Stocks: Absolute And Relative Performance We do not know when the FAANGM rally will end. Timing a reversal in a powerful bull market is impossible. Also, we are not certain about the magnitude of such a potential drawdown. Nevertheless, our message is that the risk-reward tradeoff of chasing FAANGM at this stage is very unattractive. Excluding technology, media and telecommunication (TMT) – as most growth stocks are a part of TMT– EM equities remain in a bear market (Chart I-7, top panel). In relative terms, EM ex-TMT stocks have massively underperformed their global peers (Chart I-7, bottom panel).  Even with a larger weighting of mega-cap growth TMT stocks than the overall DM equity index, the aggregate EM equity index has underperformed the overall DM index. Bottom Line: EM domestic fundamentals, global trade and commodities prices, and global financial market themes are the main drivers of EM financial assets and currencies. What About The Dollar? The high correlation of the trade-weighted US dollar and EM equities is due to the following: (1) the greenback has been a countercyclical currency; and (2) the US dollar’s exchange rate against EM currencies reflects relative fundamentals in the US versus EM economies. When a global business cycle accelerates, the broad trade-weighted US dollar weakens. If this growth acceleration is led by China and other emerging economies, the greenback depreciates considerably versus EM currencies. The opposite is also true. In other words, the US dollar exchange rate’s strong negative correlation to EM equities is primarily due to the fact that the greenback’s exchange rates against EM currencies reflect both the global business cycle as well as EM growth and fundamentals. Chart I-8Divergence Between DM And EM Currencies In recent months, the greenback has: (1) depreciated due to the global economic recovery; (2) tumbled versus DM currencies due to the still raging pandemic and the socio-political instability in the US as well as the Fed’s commitment to staying behind the inflation curve in the years to come; and (3) not fallen much against EM (ex-China, Korea and Taiwan) currencies because their fundamentals have been poor, as discussed above. Bottom Line: Exchange rates in EM (ex-China, Korea and Taiwan) have failed to appreciate versus the dollar despite the latter’s plunge versus other DM currencies (Chart I-8). The positive effect of improving global growth and rising commodities prices on EM currencies (ex-China, Korea and Taiwan) has been offset by these countries’ inferior domestic fundamentals. Flows And Cash On The Sidelines Chart I-9Cash On The Sidelines Has Been Produced By The Fed's Debt Monetization What about capital flows? Aren’t they essential in driving EM financial markets? Of course, they are important. However, we view flows as resulting from and determined by fundamentals. Over the medium and long term, we assume that capital flows to regions where the return on capital is high or rising. Thus, we see ourselves as responsible for directing investors to those areas that we have identified as providing a high or rising return on capital (and cautioning investors when the opposite is true). The presumption is that beyond short-term volatility, investment flows will gravitate to countries/sectors/asset classes with high or rising returns on capital, just as they will abandon areas of low or falling returns on capital. In brief, fundamentals drive flows and flows determine asset price performance. Isn’t sizable cash on the sidelines a reason to be bullish? Yes, there is substantial cash on the sidelines. Along with zero short-term rates, this has been the potent force leading investors to purchase equities, credit and other risk assets since late March. Below we examine the case of the US, but this has also been true in many markets around the world. The top panel of Chart I-9 demonstrates that US institutional and retail money market funds – a measure of cash on the sidelines - presently stand at $4.2 trillion, having increased by $900 billion since March. Yet, the Fed and US commercial banks have increased their debt securities holdings by $2.9 trillion since March.   Furthermore, the Fed and US commercial banks hold $10.6 trillion of debt securities (Chart I-9, middle panel) – amounting to 18% of the aggregate equity and US dollar fixed-income market value (Chart I-9, bottom panel). These securities, held by the Fed and US commercial banks, are not available to non-bank investors. Chart I-10Investors' Cash Holdings Ratio Is Still Elevated Excluding debt securities owned by the Fed and commercial banks, we reckon that cash on the sidelines is equal to 8.4% of the value of equities and US dollar debt securities available to non-bank investors (Chart I-10). This is a relatively high cash ratio. Unprecedented purchases by the Fed and US commercial banks have not only removed a considerable chuck of debt securities from the market; they have also created money “out of thin air”. When central or commercial banks acquire a security from, or lend to, a non-bank entity, they are creating new money “out of thin air”. No one needs to save for the central bank and commercial banks to lend to or purchase a security from a non-bank. In short, savings versus spending decisions by economic agents (non-banks) do not affect the stock of money supply. We have deliberated on these topics at length in past reports. In sum, the Fed’s large purchases of debt securities amount to a de facto monetization of public and private debt. These operations have both reduced the amount of securities available to investors and boosted the latter’s cash balances. Hence, the Fed has boosted asset prices not only indirectly, by lowering short-term interest rates, but also directly, by printing new money and shrinking the amount of securities available to investors. We have in recent months argued that global risk assets are overpriced relative to fundamentals. However, investors have continued to deploy cash in asset markets, pushing prices higher. Given the zero money market interest rates and the still elevated cash balances, one can envision a scenario in which cash continues to be deployed in asset markets, pushing valuations to bubble levels across all risk assets. Pressure on investors to deploy their cash amid rising asset prices implies that only a major negative shock might be able to reverse this rally. There have been plenty of reasons to be cautious, including escalating US-China geopolitical tensions, the increasing odds of a contested US presidential election and, hence, elevated political uncertainty, the possibility of a US fiscal cliff, and a potential second wave of the pandemic. However, investors have so far shrugged off all of these and continue to allocate capital to risk assets. Bottom Line: Increased central bank intervention in asset markets may diminish the importance of fundamentals in determining the price of risk assets. This would also mean that the role of momentum investing and psychology may increase. Investment Strategy Currencies: The US dollar has become oversold and could stage a rebound in the near term. The euro has risen to its technical resistance (Chart I-11). The EM currency index (ex-China, Korea and Taiwan) has failed to break above its 200-day moving average (Chart I-12, top panel).  The emerging Asian trade-weighted currency index (ADXY) has rebounded to the upper boundary of its falling channel (Chart I-12, bottom panel). Chart I-11A Short-Term Resistance For Euro/USD Chart I-12EM Currencies Have Not Entered A Bull Market   Such technical profiles suggest that EM currencies have not yet entered a bull market despite the greenback’s considerable depreciation against DM currencies. This is a reflection of the poor fundamentals of EM (ex-China, Korea and Taiwan). In short, the odds of a US dollar rebound are rising. This could dent commodities prices and weigh on EM currencies. We continue recommending shorting a basket of EM currencies versus the euro, CHF and JPY. The downside in these DM currencies versus the greenback is limited. The euro could drop to 1.15, but not much below that level. Our basket of EM currencies to short includes: BRL, CLP, ZAR, TRY, PHP, KRW and IDR. Chart I-13EM Local Currency Bonds: Looking For A Better Entry Point Fixed-Income Markets: We have been neutral on EM local currency bonds and EM credit markets (USD bonds) since April 23 and June 4, respectively. The strategy is to wait for a correction in these markets before going long. The rebound in the US dollar and correction in commodities will provide a better entry point for these fixed-income markets (Chart I-13). Equities: On July 30, we recommended shifting the EM equity allocation within a global equity portfolio from underweight to neutral. In the near term, EM share prices will likely continue underperforming their DM counterparts. A bounce in the US dollar, rising geopolitical tensions between the US and China, as well as the continuation of a FAANGM-driven mania in US equities will result in EM equity underperformance versus DM. However, in the medium- to long-term, the balance of risks no longer justifies an underweight allocation. Arthur Budaghyan Chief Emerging Markets Strategist arthurb@bcaresearch.com Equities Recommendations Currencies, Credit And Fixed-Income Recommendations

Highlights Achieving 2 percent inflation, whether as a point-target or as an average over time, will continue to be a mission impossible. As central banks continue to push the monetary policy pedal to the metal, it will underpin the valuation of equities and other risk-assets. So long as bond yields do not spike, stock market sell offs will be short-lived rather than an outright bear market. Within bonds, steer towards those where the monetary policy toolbox is not fully depleted, namely US T-bonds. Within currencies, steer towards those where the monetary policy toolbox is already depleted, namely the Swiss franc and the yen. Inflationary fiscal policy, by spiking bond yields, risks collapsing the valuation underpinning of $450 trillion of global risk-assets and catalysing a deflationary bear market. Fractal trade: Euro strength is vulnerable. Feature Chart of the WeekUltra-Low Bond Yields Do Not Create Consumer Price Inflation, They Create Asset Price Inflation Five years ago, we published a Special Report, Mission Impossible: 2% Inflation. We predicted that 2 percent inflation would remain elusive. Or that in the rare economies that it did appear, it would be runaway, rather than a sedate 2 percent. Either way, the 2 percent inflation point-target that had become a quasi-religious commandment for the world’s central banks would be a ‘mission impossible’.1  Our August 2015 report was heterodox and provocative. Some people pushed back, arguing that the all-powerful central banks could pick and hit whatever inflation target they desired. Yet five years on, we have been vindicated. Last week, the Federal Reserve finally threw in the towel on the 2 percent inflation point-target (Chart I-2). Chart I-2"Forecasts For 2 Percent Inflation Were Never Realised On A Sustained Basis" “Over the years, forecasts from FOMC participants and private-sector analysts routinely showed a return to 2 percent inflation, but these forecasts were never realised on a sustained basis… (hence) our new statement indicates that we will seek to achieve inflation that averages 2 percent over time…”2   We suspect that, just like the Fed, European central banks will soon move their goal posts. Nevertheless, today we are doubling down on our August 2015 prediction. Achieving 2 percent inflation, whether as a point-target or as an average over time, will continue to be a mission impossible (Chart I-3). Chart I-3Mission Impossible: 2 Percent Inflation Price Stability Is A State, Not A Number The current school of central bankers have misunderstood price stability. They have defined it as an over-precise inflation rate: two point zero. Yet most people feel price stability imprecisely and intuitively. A recent IFO paper points out that households’ inflation perceptions are “more in line with the imperfect information view prevailing in social psychology than with the rational actor view assumed in mainstream economics.”3 The human brain cannot distinguish between very low rates of inflation or deflation, a range we just perceive as ‘price stability’. In Real-Feel Inflation: Quantitative Estimation of Inflation Perceptions, Michael Ashton confirms that “it would be challenging for a consumer to distinguish 1 percent inflation from 2 percent inflation – that fine of a gradation in perception would be extremely unusual to find.”4 The human brain cannot distinguish between very low rates of inflation or deflation. As the entire range of ultra-low inflation just feels like one state of price stability, it is impossible for central banks to fine-tune our inflation expectations within that range. Therefore, our behaviour in terms of wage demands and willingness to borrow also stays unchanged. And if our behaviour is unchanged, what is the transmission mechanism to 2 percent inflation – or for that matter, any arbitrarily chosen inflation rate? Hence, inflation targeting can ‘phase-shift’ an economy between the states of price instability and price stability. Most notably, its inception in the 1990s ultimately phase-shifted many advanced economies into the state of price stability (Chart I-4). But once in either state, inflation targeting cannot fine-tune inflation to a desired number such as 2 percent, 4 percent, or 10 percent. Chart I-4Inflation Targeting Phase-Shifted Advanced Economies Into Price Stability A recent NBER paper Inflation Expectations As A Policy Tool? points out that in advanced economies, “the inattention of households and firms to inflation is likely a reflection of policy-makers’ success in stabilizing inflation around a low level for decades. This price stability has reduced the benefit to being informed about aggregate inflation, leading many to rely on readily available price signals.”5  The ultimate proof is that even market-based inflation expectations just track realised inflation. Central Banks Have Gone Backwards In his must-read What’s Wrong With The 2 Percent Inflation Target, the late and great Paul Volcker argued that price stability is “that state in which expected changes in the general price level do not effectively alter business or household decisions. It is ill-advised to define that state with a point target, such as 2 percent, as false precision can lead to dangerous policies.”6 The irony, and tragedy, is that both the Fed and the ECB have gone backwards. Their original definitions of price stability were more correct than their more recent iterations. False precision can lead to dangerous policies. At the Federal Reserve’s July 1996 policy meeting, Chairman Alan Greenspan argued that if the aim of inflation targeting was a truly stable price level, it entailed an inflation target of 0-1 percent. But one of the persons present was not so sure. The dissenter was a Fed governor called Janet L. Yellen. She countered that if inflation ended up at 0-1 percent, the zero-bound of interest rates would prevent “real interest rates becoming negative on the rare occasions when required to counter a recession”, an argument that Jay Powell repeated last week. “Expected inflation feeds directly into the general level of interest rates… so if inflation expectations fall below our 2 percent objective, interest rates would decline in tandem. In turn, we would have less scope to cut interest rates to boost employment during an economic downturn.” Meanwhile in Europe, the ECB’s original inflation target of below 2 percent was close to Greenspan’s proposal of 0-1 percent. But in 2003 the ECB changed its inflation target to its current “below but close to 2 percent.” The reason, according to Mario Draghi: “The founding fathers of the ECB thought about the rebalancing of the different members. To rebalance these disequilibria, since the countries do not have the exchange rate, they must readjust their prices. This readjustment is much harder if you have zero inflation than if you have 2 percent.” Hence, the Fed, ECB and other central banks are targeting inflation at an arbitrary 2 percent to always allow some leeway for negative real rates. The central bank argument can be summarised as: we desperately need you to expect 2 percent inflation. Because otherwise, we won’t be able to help you by cutting real interest rates in a downturn. Yet this argument is facile, as it takes no account of the true science of inflation expectation formation (Chart I-5 and Chart I-6). And it is dangerous, as it takes no account of the financial and economic risks of pushing the monetary policy pedal to the metal. Chart I-5Inflation Expectations Just Track Realised Inflation Chart I-6Inflation Expectations Just Track Realised Inflation Beware The Twists In The Inflation Story Now we come to a couple of twists in the story. When bond yields become ultra-low, their impact on consumer price inflation breaks down – because the economy is already in the state of price stability – but the impact on stock market inflation increases exponentially (Chart of the Week). We refer readers to previous reports in which we have detailed this dynamic.7 The good twist is that as central banks continue to push the monetary policy pedal to the metal, it will underpin the valuation of equities and other risk-assets. So long as bond yields do not spike, stock market sell offs will be short-lived rather than an outright bear market. Remarkably, this has held true even this year in the worst economic downturn since the Depression. The current school of central bankers have misunderstood price stability. Within bonds, steer towards those where the monetary policy toolbox is not fully depleted, namely US T-bonds (Chart I-7 and Chart I-8). Conversely, within currencies, steer towards those where the monetary policy toolbox is already depleted, namely the Swiss franc and the yen. Chart I-7Steer Towards Bonds Where Monetary Policy Is Not Fully Depleted... Chart I-8...Namely US ##br##T-Bonds Finally, given that any economy can ultimately phase-shift to price instability, when should we worry about inflation in advanced economies? Not yet. To expand the broad money supply, somebody must borrow and spend money. If policymakers really want to create rampant inflation, that somebody is the government. It must borrow and spend money at will, with the central bank creating the money. In other words, the central bank loses its independence and government spending goes vertical. So far, we are not remotely close to this situation because government spending has barely replaced the lost incomes and livelihoods of the pandemic. Indeed, things could get worse once the current income replacement schemes end. Yet, in theory at least, government spending could ultimately go vertical. This would lead to the final bad twist. As bond yields spiked in response, the entire valuation support of global risk-assets would collapse, catalysing a devastating bear market. Given that the $450 trillion worth of global risk-assets (including real estate) is five times the size of the $90 trillion global economy, we reach an important conclusion. The road to inflation, if ever taken, goes via deflation. Fractal Trading System* This week we note that the recent strength in EUR/USD is vulnerable to a countertrend pullback. However, as we are already exposed to this via the correlated position in long USD/PLN, there is no new trade. The rolling 1-year win ratio now stands at 59 percent. Chart I-9EUR/USD When the fractal dimension approaches the lower limit after an investment has been in an established trend it is a potential trigger for a liquidity-triggered trend reversal. Therefore, open a countertrend position. The profit target is a one-third reversal of the preceding 13-week move. Apply a symmetrical stop-loss. Close the position at the profit target or stop-loss. Otherwise close the position after 13 weeks. * For more details please see the European Investment Strategy Special Report “Fractals, Liquidity & A Trading Model,” dated  December 11, 2014, available at eis.bcaresearch.com.   Dhaval Joshi Chief European Investment Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see the European Investment Strategy Special Report ‘Mission Impossible: 2% Inflation’, dated August 20, 2015, available at eis.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see New Economic Challenges and the Fed's Monetary Policy Review, August 27, 2020 available at https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/powell20200827a.htm 3 Please see Households’ Inflation Perceptions and Expectations: Survey Evidence from New Zealand, IFO Working Paper, February 2018 available at https://www.ifo.de/DocDL/wp-2018-255-hayo-neumeier-inflation-perceptions-expectations.pdf 4 Please see Real-Feel Inflation: Quantitative Estimation of Inflation Perceptions by Michael Ashton, National Association for Business Economics available at https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1057/be.2011.35.pdf 5 Please see Inflation Expectations As A Policy Tool? NBER, May 28th, 2018 available at http://conference.nber.org/conf_papers/f117592.pdf 6 Please see https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2018-10-24/what-s-wrong-with-the-2-percent-inflation-target 7 Please see the European Investment Strategy Weekly Report ‘Risk: The Great Misunderstanding Of Finance’, dated October 25, 2018, available at eis.bcaresearch.com. Fractal Trading System   Cyclical Recommendations Structural Recommendations Closed Fractal Trades Trades Closed Trades Asset Performance Currency & Bond Equity Sector Country Equity Indicators Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields   Interest Rate Chart II-5Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations  

Special Report

Highlights Fed Policy Changes: The official shift to an average inflation targeting regime represents a massive structural break relative to how the Fed conducted monetary policy in the past. The main takeaway for investors should be that inflation expectations will carry more weight than ever in the Fed’s thinking, with far less emphasis on estimated measures like the output gap. Investment Implications: The Fed’s new policy framework supports our current US fixed income recommendations: a neutral duration stance; overweighting TIPS versus nominal US Treasuries; positioning for real yield curve steepeners; and overweighting US spread product most directly supported by the Fed’s balance sheet (i.e. investment grade corporates and Ba-rated high-yield). Feature The pandemic forced the Federal Reserve to move its annual Jackson Hole Economic Policy Symposium online this year.  That change deprived policymakers of a late-August vacation in the mountains of Wyoming, but offered the public a rare glimpse at the full proceedings live on YouTube.1 Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell took advantage of that larger audience to announce significant changes to the Fed’s Statement on Longer-Run Goals and Monetary Policy Strategy. Though many of the basic elements of the new strategy were well telegraphed in advance, the adjustments are hugely significant and will shape the conduct of US – and, potentially, global - monetary policy for years to come. This Special Report presents the most important takeaways – and fixed income investment implications - from the Fed’s new approach to setting monetary policy. Say Hello To Average Inflation Targeting The most significant change has to do with how the Fed defines its price stability mandate. In its old Statement, the Fed defined its 2% inflation target as “symmetrical”, meaning that the Fed would be equally concerned if inflation were running persistently above or below the target. In the Fed’s words, communicating this symmetry was enough to “keep longer-term inflation expectations firmly anchored.” The Fed now believes that a more aggressive approach is required to keep inflation expectations anchored. The new Statement reads: In order to anchor longer-term inflation expectations at [2 percent], the Committee seeks to achieve inflation that averages 2 percent over time, and therefore judges that, following periods when inflation has been running persistently below 2 percent, appropriate monetary policy will likely aim to achieve inflation moderately above 2 percent for some time.2 In other words, the Fed’s 2% inflation target is no longer purely forward-looking. It is now dependent on the history of realized US inflation, and thus is now much more like a price level target than an inflation target. We will know that the Fed has seen enough inflation overshooting when long-term expectations are anchored at levels consistent with its 2% inflation target. For example, Chart 1 shows how the headline PCE price index would have evolved since the end of 2007 had it averaged 2% growth per year, exactly equal to the Fed’s target. Starting from today, PCE inflation would need to average 3% for the next seven years, or 2.5% for the next fourteen years, for the index to converge with this target. In other words, if the Fed seeks to achieve average 2% inflation since 2007, we are in for a prolonged period of overshooting the old 2% target. Chart 1An Illustration Of Average Inflation Targeting Notice that we had to make several assumptions in our above example. First, we had to assume that the Fed will seek to achieve average 2% inflation since the end of 2007. The Fed could just as easily choose a different start date for calculating the 2% average. We also assumed that the year-over-year PCE inflation rate never breaks above 3% during the overshooting phase. As of now, we have no sense of whether the Fed would act to make sure that inflation only overshoots 2% by a small amount (say, between 0.5 and 1 percentage point) or whether it would tolerate a larger overshoot. A larger overshoot would potentially be more de-stabilizing, but it would allow the Fed to catch up to its price level target more quickly. We will probably get some more information about these missing details when the Fed translates its new framework into more explicit forward rate guidance (see section titled "Are There Any Additional Changes Coming?" below), but the Fed will still want to retain some flexibility. That is, we shouldn’t expect the Fed to tie its hands with a strict policy rule. This means that the question of how much inflation would prompt any future Fed tightening could linger for some time. Faced with this ambiguity, investors are advised to focus more keenly than ever on inflation expectations (Chart 2). Note that in the above excerpt from the revised Statement on Longer-Run Goals and Monetary Policy Strategy, the explicit goal of average inflation targeting is to “anchor long-term inflation expectations at [2 percent]”. This means that we will know that the Fed has seen enough inflation overshooting when long-term expectations are anchored at levels consistent with its 2% inflation target. We view this “well anchored” level as a range between 2.3% and 2.5% for long-dated TIPS breakeven inflation rates (top two panels). When TIPS breakevens reach those levels, we should expect the Fed to shift toward a more restrictive policy stance. Chart 2The Fed Wants Higher Inflation Expectations How long will it take for TIPS breakevens to reach our target range? We expect it will take quite some time because Fed communications alone cannot drive long-term TIPS breakevens back to target. Rather, inflation expectations tend to follow trends in the actual inflation data, so expectations will only return to well-anchored levels once inflation has risen significantly. Further, long-dated inflation expectations tend to adapt slowly to changes in the actual inflation data. Notice in Chart 3 that the 5-year/5-year forward CPI swap rate correlates much more strongly with the 8-year rate of change in CPI inflation than it does with the 1-year rate of change. This suggests that, most likely, 12-month inflation will have to run above 2% for some time before long-term TIPS breakevens sustainably return to our target range. One way to understand the link between actual inflation and inflation expectations is to look at the distribution of individual inflation forecasts. Chart 4 shows the distribution of 10-year headline CPI inflation forecasts from the Survey of Professional Forecasters from 2004 – a year when inflation expectations were well anchored around 2% – and from August 2020. Notice that a similar proportion of respondents at both points in time expect inflation to be near the Fed’s target, in a range of 2% to 2.5%. The difference is that, in 2004, a large minority of respondents anticipated a significant overshoot of the inflation target. Today, hardly anyone anticipates a significant overshoot, and many expect a significant undershoot. Chart 3Inflation Expectations Adapt Slowly To The Actual Data Chart 4Distribution Of Inflation Forecasts ##br##(2004 & Today) Since market prices can be thought of as a weighted average of the entire distribution of inflation forecasts, it follows that to drive TIPS breakevens higher we need to see investors shift their forecasts from the left tail of the distribution to the right tail. This will only happen if actual inflation rises, and probably only if it stays durably above 2% for a prolonged period. Chart 5shows that the percentage of respondents that expect inflation to average above 3% for the next ten years tends to follow both the long-run inflation rate and the median inflation forecast. Chart 5Few Expect Inflation To Be Above 3% Bottom Line:  The official shift to an average inflation targeting regime represents a massive structural break relative to how the Fed conducted monetary policy in the past. The main takeaway for investors should be that inflation expectations carry more weight than ever in the Fed’s thinking. In particular, we should expect the Fed to move to a more restrictive policy stance only when long-maturity TIPS breakeven inflation rates return to a well-anchored range of 2.3% to 2.5%. Some Key Questions Following The Fed’s Big Shift Does The Phillips Curve Still Matter? The second big change that the Fed made to its official Statement on Longer-Run Goals and Monetary Policy Strategy is in how it views the unemployment rate relative to its “natural” level. Specifically, the change has to do with making estimates of the natural rate of unemployment (NAIRU) less important in the Fed’s reaction function. In its old Statement, the Fed talked about minimizing “deviations of employment from the Committee’s assessments of its maximum level”. The revised Statement talks about mitigating “shortfalls of employment from the Committee’s assessment of its maximum level.” This one word change says a lot about the Fed’s faith in the Phillips curve. In the past, the Fed viewed an unemployment rate below its estimate of NAIRU as a signal that inflation was poised to accelerate. This often led to premature tightening, and over time, a pattern of missing the inflation target to the downside. Now, the Fed is explicitly saying that it only cares about shortfalls of employment from its estimated maximum level. If the labor market appears overheated, the Fed will not take this as a sign that inflation is about to accelerate. Rather, it will wait for the evidence to show up in the actual inflation data. The percentage of respondents that expect inflation to average above 3% for the next ten years tends to follow both the long run inflation rate and the median inflation forecast. This change sends a very clear signal that the Fed will put much less emphasis on expected “Phillips curve effects” in the future than it has in the past. In addition to long-term implications, this change will likely also impact the type of forward rate guidance the Fed provides this year. What’s Missing? It is also interesting to touch on the things that Powell did not mention in his Jackson Hole speech. First, as noted above, Powell provided few details on the length of time over which the Fed will seek to hit average 2% inflation and did not specify any upper limit to the amount of inflation the Fed would tolerate during the overshooting phase. Perhaps more importantly, Powell also did not say much about how the Fed will seek to drive inflation higher, and whether there are additional tools at his disposal that have not yet been rolled out. We think there is good reason for this. In effect, we think the Fed is more or less tapped out in terms of the amount of additional monetary easing it can provide. Negative interest rates have already been ruled out. A Yield Curve Control policy of capping intermediate-maturity bond yields has been discussed, but this policy doesn’t accomplish much beyond what the Fed is already doing with its forward rate guidance. For example, a policy of capping the 2-year Treasury yield at the current level of 0.13% has essentially the same impact on bond prices as convincing the market that the fed funds rate will stay in a range between 0% and 0.25% for the next two years or more. The notion that the Fed is “out of bullets” was hammered home during the final Jackson Hole panel on Friday. The speakers for the panel titled “Post-Pandemic Monetary Policy and the Effective Lower Bound” shifted much of the onus for boosting growth, with policy interest rates at the effective lower bound, toward fiscal policymakers. Given the limitations on the amount of additional easing that the Fed can deliver, the potent impact of the changes announced last week will not really be felt until the economic recovery is further underway. Only once inflation starts to rise will we get a test of the Fed’s resolve to stay on the sidelines. Now that the changes have been enshrined in an official Fed document, we have no doubt that they will follow through. What About The Role Of QE? Chart 6The Future Of QE: Go Big & Go Fast Not every speaker at Jackson Hole, however, felt that central banks had run out of policy options.  Bank of England (BoE) Governor Andrew Bailey gave a speech on Day Two of the conference that focused on the use of central bank balance sheets as a more regular part of policymakers’ toolkits over the next decade with policy rates at the effective lower bound. Bailey noted that the use of quantitative easing (QE) in the future would be less about signaling future central bank intentions on interest rates, or forcing changes to the composition of assets held by the private sector, and would be more about “going big and going fast” to calm financial markets during periods of instability.3 Some past examples of such use of QE include the 2008 Global Financial Crisis, the 2011/12 European Debt Crisis and the 2016 UK Brexit shock (Chart 6). In Bailey’s view, QE will now have to be “state contingent”, based on the nature of the financial market shock and where liquidity (cash) needs are greatest at that time.  In 2008, it was the banking system that needed liquidity, so central banks expanded their balance sheets in ways that got cash directly to the banks – like repos and government bond purchases.  In 2020, the demand for liquidity from the COVID-19 shock came more from non-bank entities, like investment funds or the corporate sector itself.  Therefore, central bank balance sheets had to be used to support loans to the private sector or even buying private assets like corporate debt, on top of the usual QE buying of sovereign debt to help drive down risk-free bond yields. What does that mean for the new policy regime of the Fed?  It means that the type of market intervention we saw earlier this year – with the Fed announcing a variety of measures to support liquidity like corporate bond purchases when markets were not functioning – will become more commonplace during periods of severe market stress.  This is because there cannot be any “emergency” Fed rate cuts to calm markets if the Fed is keeping rates at very low levels to try and make up for past undershoots of its inflation target. Chart 7The Fed Has Room To Do More QE In The Future This also means that the balance sheets of the Fed, and other major global central banks, will likely continue to get larger over time.  Tapering of balance sheets, as the Fed engineered during 2014-19, will become very rare events before inflation expectations are stabilized at policymaker targets.  That does raise issues of capacity constraints for QE programs, as Bailey mentioned in his speech, where the central bank footprint in financial markets becomes so large as to impair market functionality.  That is the case today where the Bank of Japan now owns nearly 50% of all outstanding Japanese government bonds (JGB) and the day-to-day liquidity in the JGB market is extremely challenging for market participants that need to buy and trade JGBs, like Japanese banks and investment funds.  Bailey noted that there was still ample capacity for the BoE to ramp up its buying of UK Gilts (and even UK corporate debt) before the sheer size of its presence became a BoJ-like problem for the UK bond market (Chart 7). The same can be argued in the US, where the Fed only owns a little over 20% of outstanding US Treasuries – the supply of which is growing rapidly thanks to large US budget deficits. Are There Any Additional Changes Coming? As we outlined in a recent US Bond Strategy Webcast, after revising the Statement on Longer-Run Goals and Monetary Policy Strategy, the Fed’s next step will be to provide more explicit guidance about the economic conditions that will have to be in place before it considers lifting the fed funds rate.4 We speculate that this next announcement will occur before the end of the year, possibly at this month’s FOMC meeting, and that the guidance will be similar to the Evans Rule employed in 2012. The Evans Rule was a promise that the Fed would not lift rates at least until the unemployment rate was below 6.5% or inflation was above 2.5%. For the 2020 version of the Evans Rule, policymakers had been debating whether to specify both an unemployment target and an inflation target, as was done in 2012, or whether to specify only an inflation target. With the Fed’s new Statement putting much less emphasis on Phillips curve effects and estimates of NAIRU, it now appears much more likely that the 2020 version of the Evans Rule will have only an inflation trigger, or perhaps an inflation trigger and an inflation expectations trigger. Bottom Line: There are still many lingering unanswered questions about the new Fed strategy, but what we do know is that the Fed will focus more on inflation, rather than forecasts of inflation, when making future interest rate decisions.  The Fed will also likely use its balance sheet more as a market stability tool during times of crisis. Investment Implications Chart 8Financial Conditions The first implication of the Fed’s big shift has to do with the long-run outlook for risk asset prices (corporate bonds, equities and other fixed income spread product). With the Fed committing to give the economic recovery more runway before choking it off, risk asset valuations have been provided with a massive tailwind. In fact, the longer it takes for inflation to move up, the longer the Fed will stay on hold and the more expensive risk asset valuations will become. It is even possible that, if inflation remains subdued for a few more years, risk asset valuations will become so stretched that the Fed might have to exercise its financial stability “out clause”. That is, if the Fed viewed a growing asset bubble as a threat to the economic recovery and/or financial system, it could abandon its inflation target and lift interest rates to deflate that bubble. This out clause is specifically enshrined in the Fed’s Statement on Longer-Run Goals and Monetary Policy Strategy: Moreover, sustainably achieving maximum employment and price stability depends on a stable financial system. Therefore, the Committee’s policy decisions reflect its longer-run goals, its medium-term outlook, and its assessments of the balance of risks, including risks to the financial system that could impede the attainment of the Committee’s goals. We should stress that US financial asset valuations are currently nowhere near expensive enough to prompt this sort of move (Chart 8). However, that picture could change after a few more years of low inflation and zero interest rates. We have been saying since March 2019 that the two most important indicators to watch for gauging the eventual pace of Fed tightening are inflation expectations and financial conditions.5 Last week’s announcement serves to reinforce that view. The Fed could abandon its inflation target and lift interest rates to combat a growing asset bubble. A second investment implication of the Fed’s announcement is that TIPS will continue to outperform nominal US Treasuries until there is an eventual re-anchoring of long-run TIPS breakeven inflation rates in a range between 2.3% and 2.5%. As noted above, this structural investment position could take some time to pan out, and we may even get an opportunity to tactically position for periods of TIPS underperformance if breakevens start to look too high compared to the actual inflation data.6 For now, our models suggest that TIPS breakevens are fairly valued relative to the actual inflation data, and we recommend staying overweight TIPS versus nominal Treasuries as a core allocation in fixed income portfolios. We would also advise investors to enter flatteners along the inflation protection curve (TIPS breakevens or CPI swaps). This recommendation flows directly from the Fed’s announcement. If the Fed is eventually successful at achieving a temporary overshoot of its 2% inflation target, then the cost of short-maturity inflation protection should rise above the cost of long-maturity inflation protection. That is, the inflation protection curve should invert (Chart 9). This would be a stark dislocation compared to the past, but it is a logical one if the Fed is to be attacking its inflation target from above instead of from below. As for nominal Treasury yields, our baseline view is that yields will be flat-to-higher over the next 12 months, with the amount of upside dictated by the pace of economic recovery. The Fed’s extraordinarily dovish monetary policy will keep some downward pressure on nominal yields, but expectations of Fed tightening will eventually infiltrate the long end of the curve. Given that the Fed’s grip is much firmer at the short end of the curve than at the long end, we prefer to play the nominal Treasury curve through yield curve steepeners rather than through outright duration bets (Chart 10). Chart 9Position For Inflation Curve Inversion Chart 10Enter Nominal Curve Steepeners Finally, the level of real yields is perhaps the trickiest to get right in the current environment. The Fed’s dovish policies are clearly meant to push real yields down, but now that those policies have been announced, it may signal that we are near the trough. In fact, real yields actually rose somewhat on Thursday after the Fed’s announcement. As with nominal yields, we prefer to play the real Treasury (TIPS) curve via steepeners (Chart 11). Whether or not the Fed is able to apply further downward pressure on real yields, as long as its policies are viewed as reflationary and the economic recovery is maintained, then the real yield curve has ample room to steepen. Chart 11Enter Real Curve Steepeners Bottom Line: The Fed’s new policy framework supports our current US fixed income recommendations: a neutral duration stance; overweighting TIPS versus nominal US Treasuries; positioning for real yield curve (TIPS) steepeners; and overweighting US spread product most directly supported by the Fed’s balance sheet (i.e. investment grade corporates and Ba-rated high-yield).   Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com   Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 https://www.youtube.com/user/KansasCityFed 2 https://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/guide-to-changes-in-statement-on-longer-run-goals-monetary-policy-strategy.htm 3 The full text of BoE Governor Bailey’s speech can be found here: https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/speech/2020/andrew-bailey-federal-reserve-bank-of-kansas-citys-economic-policy-symposium-2020 4 https://www.bcaresearch.com/webcasts/detail/338 5 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The New Battleground For Monetary Policy”, dated March 26, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 6 This possibility is discussed in US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Positioning For Reflation And Avoiding Deflation”, dated August 11, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com