Emerging Markets

Image We have entered a new phase of the cycle, with central banks in most developed markets turning more hawkish (the Bank of England surprisingly hiking in December, and the Fed signaling three rate hikes for 2022). How much does this matter for equities and other risk assets? Our view is that, as long as economic growth continues to be strong (and we think it will), and provided that central banks don’t overdo the tightening (and, with inflation likely to come down this year, we think excess tightening is unlikely), the hawkish turn might temporarily raise volatility and cause the occasional correction, but it does not undermine the case for equities to outperform bonds over the next 12 months. We remain overweight global equities. Economic growth is likely to continue to be well above trend for the next year or two (Chart 1), driven by (1) consumers spending some of the $5 trillion of excess savings they have accumulated in the G10 economies, (2) the unprecedented wealth effect from recent stock and house price rises (Chart 2), and (3) strong capex as companies strive to increase capacity to meet the consumer demand (Chart 3). The upsurge in Covid cases in December (Chart 4) will undoubtedly slow growth temporarily. But the signs are that the now-prevalent Omicron variant is mild, and its rapid spread could help the developed world achieve “herd immunity” thanks to widespread vaccination and natural immunity, though emerging countries – especially China – may continue to struggle. Chart 1Growth Will Continue To Be Above Trend Growth Will Continue To Be Above Trend Growth Will Continue To Be Above Trend Chart 2Growth Will Be Boosted By The Wealth Effect... Growth Will Be Boosted By The Wealth Effect... Growth Will Be Boosted By The Wealth Effect... Chart 3...And Capex To Increase Production ...And Capex To Increase Production ...And Capex To Increase Production With US growth very strong – the Atlanta Fed Nowcast suggests Q4 QoQ annualized real GDP growth was 7.6% – and core PCE inflation 4.1%, it is hardly surprising that the Fed wants to accelerate the rate at which it withdraws accommodation. The FOMC dots, which see three rate hikes this year and another three in 2023, are unexceptional and close to what the futures market has already been (and still is) pricing in (Chart 5). Chart 4Covid Cases Not Leading to Hospitalizations And Deaths Covid Cases Not Leading to Hospitalizations And Deaths Covid Cases Not Leading to Hospitalizations And Deaths Chart 6Fed Hikes Have Usually Caused Only A Short-Lived Selloff Fed Hikes Have Usually Caused Only A Short-Lived Selloff Fed Hikes Have Usually Caused Only A Short-Lived Selloff Chart 5The Futures Market Is In Line With The FOMC Dots The Futures Market Is In Line With The FOMC Dots The Futures Market Is In Line With The FOMC Dots         In the past, the first Fed hike in a cycle has often triggered a mild short-term sell off in stocks (the timing depending on how well the hike was flagged in advance), but the equity market digested the news rapidly, quickly resuming its upward trend as the Fed continued to tighten (Chart 6). The same was true around the tapering and end of asset purchases in 2013-17 (Chart 7). All that depends, though, on whether the Fed is rushed into further rate hikes because inflation surprises even more to the upside. Our view remains that inflation will decline this year. The high inflation prints we are seeing now are mostly the result of exceptional demand for consumer manufactured goods, which the supply side has temporarily been unable to fulfil, causing shortages. This can be seen in the very different pattern of goods and services inflation (Chart 8). As we have argued previously, the supply response is now kicking in for key inputs into manufactured goods, such as semiconductors and shipping and, with demand likely to shift to services this year as the pandemic fades, this should bring inflation down. Chart 7Tapering Didn't Much Affect Stocks Either Tapering Didn't Much Affect Stocks Either Tapering Didn't Much Affect Stocks Either Chart 8Inflation Probably Will Decline This Year Inflation Probably Will Decline This Year Inflation Probably Will Decline This Year That said, the year-on-year inflation number will continue to look scary for some time, even if month-on-month inflation settles back to its pre-pandemic level of 0.2% (Chart 9). The consensus average forecast of 3.3% core PCE inflation in 2022 is factoring in monthly inflation around this level. The risks to inflation remain to the upside, particularly if wages respond to higher prices (US wage growth is currently 4-6%, significantly lagging behind price inflation – Chart 10), causing companies to raise prices further, triggering a price-wage spiral. Chart 9Year-On-Year Inflation Will Remain High Year-On-Year Inflation Will Remain High Year-On-Year Inflation Will Remain High Chart 10Risk Of A Price-Wage Spiral? Risk Of A Price-Wage Spiral? Risk Of A Price-Wage Spiral? All this suggests a year of significant volatility and uncertainty. The US stock market has not seen a correction (a drop of more than 10%) in this cycle, and there were no drawdowns last year of more than 5% (Chart 11). This is unusual: There were six 10%-plus corrections in the 2009-2019 bull market. The US equity rally is also looking increasingly narrow, with the run-up to a record-high in December driven by just a few large-cap growth stocks (Chart 12). This – and pricey valuations – makes it vulnerable and, as a hedge to downside risks, we continue to recommend an overweight in cash (rather than government bonds, which offer very asymmetrical returns, with significant downside in the event that inflation proves to be stubborn). Chart 11Where Have All The Corrections Gone? Where Have All The Corrections Gone? Where Have All The Corrections Gone? Chart 12Stock Market Has Got Very Narrow Stock Market Has Got Very Narrow Stock Market Has Got Very Narrow The other policy focus remains China. The authorities’ recent cut of the banks’ reserve ratio and more dovish talk does suggest that they are now concerned about how weak growth has become (Chart 13). A slight loosening of monetary policy has probably caused credit growth to bottom (Chart 14). However, our China strategists argue that the easing is likely to be only moderate since policymakers want to continue with structural reforms, such as reducing debt. The next few months may resemble early 2019 when the PBOC engineered a brief injection of liquidity which lasted only a few months. Moreover, the slump in the property market has not run its course (Chart 15), and this will hamper the authorities’ ability to accelerate infrastructure spending, much of which is financed by local governments’ property sales. Even if Chinese credit growth and the property market do pick up a little, the economy – and indeed commodity prices – will not bottom for another 6-9 months (Chart 16). But, when this happens, it would be a signal to turn more risk-on and bullish on cyclical countries and sectors, such as Emerging Markets, Europe, and Value stocks. Chart 13Chinese Data Looks Very Poor Chinese Data Looks Very Poor Chinese Data Looks Very Poor Chart 14Is Credit Growth Now Bottoming? Is Credit Growth Now Bottoming? Is Credit Growth Now Bottoming? Chart 15Slump In China Property Is Not Over Slump In China Property Is Not Over Slump In China Property Is Not Over Chart 16It Will Take A While For Commodity Prices To Pick Up It Will Take A While For Commodity Prices To Pick Up It Will Take A While For Commodity Prices To Pick Up Equities: While we remain overweight equities, returns this year will be only modest. Returns in 2020 were driven by multiple expansion, and last year by strong margin expansion (Chart 17), as often happens in Years 1 and 2 of a bull market. But this year, while sales growth should remain strong, BCA Research’s US equity strategists’ model points to a small decline in margins, which are at a record high (Chart 18). The PE multiple is likely to fall further too, as it usually does when the Fed is hiking. Even with buybacks and dividends, this amounts to a total return from US equities of only about 8%. Chart 17What Can Drive Returns In 2022? What Can Drive Returns In 2022? What Can Drive Returns In 2022? Chart 18Margins Likely To Slip From Record High Margins Likely To Slip From Record High Margins Likely To Slip From Record High Chart 19Europe Is More Sensitive To China Slowing... Europe Is More Sensitive To China Slowing... Europe Is More Sensitive To China Slowing... Nonetheless, we continue to prefer the US to other developed markets. Europe is more sensitive to the slowdown in China (Chart 19) and tends to underperform when global growth is slowing and is concentrated in services. Neither is it notably cheap versus the US relative to history (Chart 20). Emerging Markets face multiple headwinds, from the slowdown in China, to rampant inflation that is forcing central banks to hike aggressively (Brazil, for example has raised rates to 9.25% from 2% since April even in the face of weak growth and continuing risks from Covid). Chart 20...And Not Particularly Cheap ...And Not Particularly Cheap ...And Not Particularly Cheap Chart 22US Treasurys Are Attractive to Europeans And Japanese US Treasurys Are Attractive to Europeans And Japanese US Treasurys Are Attractive to Europeans And Japanese Chart 21Long Rates Low Given Fed Signaling Long Rates Low Given Fed Signaling Long Rates Low Given Fed Signaling Fixed Income: Long-term rates are surprisingly low, given the hawkish pivot of the Fed and other central banks (Chart 21). One explanation Fed chair Powell has given is the attractiveness of US Treasurys, after FX hedges, to European and Japanese investors (Chart 22). He is correct about this, but the advantage will wane as the Fed raises rates (while the ECB and BOJ don’t). We continue to forecast the 10-year Treasury yield to rise to 2-2.25% by the time of the first Fed hike. We are underweight duration and expect a moderate steepening of the yield curve. TIPs look richly valued, especially at the short end. We are neutral on US TIPs, where 10-years at least represent a hedge against tail-risk inflation. Inflation-linked bonds in the euro zone are particularly unattractive now (Chart 23).     Chart 23Breakevens Already Pricing In A Lot Of Inflation Breakevens Already Pricing In A Lot Of Inflation Breakevens Already Pricing In A Lot Of Inflation Chart 24 In credit, we continue to see value in riskier high-yield bonds, where US B- and Caa-rated names are trading at breakeven spreads close to historic averages (Chart 24). Our global fixed-income strategists have also recently turned more positive on US dollar-denominated EM debt, which offers a decent spread pickup versus US corporate debt of the same credit rating and maturity (Chart 25). Currencies: Relative monetary policy between the US and Europe and Japan could mean some further upside for the dollar over the next few months (Chart 26). However, the dollar is expensive relative to fair value, long-dollar is an increasingly crowded trade and, in the second half of the year, a rebound in China would boost growth in Europe and Emerging Markets, which would be positive for commodity currencies. Bearing that in mind, we remain neutral on the USD. Chart 25...As Are Some EM Dollar Bonds ...As Are Some EM Dollar Bonds ...As Are Some EM Dollar Bonds Chart 26Dollar To Rise On More Hawkish Fed? Dollar To Rise On More Hawkish Fed? Dollar To Rise On More Hawkish Fed? Chart 28Gold Is Vulnerable To Rising Real Rates Gold Is Vulnerable To Rising Real Rates Gold Is Vulnerable To Rising Real Rates Chart 27 Commodities: Metals prices are likely to suffer further in the first half of the year, as China’s growth continues to slow. This would suggest a further decline in the equity Materials sector. Nonetheless, we continue to have a neutral on commodities as an asset class because of the positive long-term story: Demand for metals for use in alternative energy is not being met by increased supply because investor pressure is stymying capex in the mining sector (Chart 27). It makes sense to have long-term exposure to metals such as copper and lithium which are used in electric vehicles. The oil price is mostly determined currently by Saudi supply. Our energy strategists forecast Brent oil to average $78.50 in 2022 and $80 in 2023, roughly the same as the current spot price. We remain neutral on gold: The bullion is not particularly attractively valued currently and will suffer if, as we expect, real long-term rates rise (Chart 28). Garry Evans, Senior Vice President Global Asset Allocation garry@bcaresearch.com   Recommended Asset Allocation 

Highlights Global growth will remain above-trend in 2022, although with more divergence between regions than at any time during the pandemic (US strong, Europe steady, China slowing). Global inflation will transition from being driven by supply squeezes towards more sustainable inflation fueled by tightening labor markets - a shift leading to tighter monetary policies that are not adequately discounted in the current low level of bond yields, most notably in the US. Maintain below-benchmark overall global duration exposure. Diverging growth and inflation trends will lead to a varying pace of monetary policy tightening between countries, resulting in greater opportunities to benefit from relative bond market performance and cross-country yield spread moves. Underweight government bonds in countries where central banks are more likely to hike rates in 2022 (the US, the UK, Canada) versus overweights where monetary policy is more likely to remain unchanged (Germany, France, Italy, Australia, Japan). Deeply negative real bond yields reflect an implied path of nominal interest rates that is too low relative to inflation expectations in the majority of developed countries. Real bond yields will adjust higher in countries where rate hikes are more likely, resulting in more stable inflation breakevens compared to 2021. Stay neutral global inflation-linked bonds versus nominal government debt. A tightening global monetary policy backdrop and rising real interest rates will weigh on returns in global credit markets, even as strong nominal economic growth minimizes downgrade and default risks. Like government bonds, global growth and policy divergences will create relative investment opportunities between countries, especially later in 2022 when the Fed begins to hike rates and China begins to ease macro policies. Overweight euro area high-yield and investment grade corporates versus US equivalents. Limit exposure to EM hard-currency debt until there are clear signals of China policy stimulus and upside momentum on the US dollar fades. Feature Dear Client, This report, detailing our global fixed income investment outlook for next year, will be our last for 2021. We wish you a very safe, happy and prosperous 2022. We look forward to continuing our conversation in the new year. Rob Robis, Chief Global Fixed Income Strategist BCA Research’s Outlook 2022 report, “Peak Inflation – Or Just Getting Started?”, outlining the main investment themes for the upcoming year based on the collective wisdom of our strategists, was sent to all clients in late November. In this report, we discuss the broad implications of those themes for the direction of global fixed income markets, along with our main investment recommendations for 2022. A Brief Summary Of The 2022 BCA Outlook The tone of the 2022 Outlook report was quite positive on the prospects for global growth, even with the recent development of the rapid spread of the Omicron COVID-19 variant. It remains to be seen how severe this new variant will be in terms of hospitalizations and deaths compared to previous COVID waves. We assume that any negative economic impacts from Omicron in the developed economies will be contained to the first half of 2022, however, given more widespread vaccination rates (including booster shots) and greater access to anti-viral treatments. The baseline economic scenario in 2022 is one of persistent above-trend growth in the developed world (Chart 1) with a closing of output gaps in the US and euro area. The mix of spending in those economies will shift away from goods towards services, although Omicron may delay that transition until later in 2022. Chart 1Another Year Of Above Trend Growth Expected In 2022 Another Year Of Above Trend Growth Expected In 2022 Another Year Of Above Trend Growth Expected In 2022 ​​​​​ Chart 2Strong Fundamental Support For US Growth Strong Fundamental Support For US Growth Strong Fundamental Support For US Growth ​​​​​ Chart 3China In 2022: Deceleration Leading To Policy Easing China In 2022: Deceleration Leading To Policy Easing China In 2022: Deceleration Leading To Policy Easing The US looks particularly well supported to maintain a solid pace of economic activity. The US labor market is very strong. Monetary policy remains accommodative (although that is slowly changing). Financial conditions are still easy, with the lagged impact of elevated equity and housing values providing a robust tailwind to consumer spending that is already well supported by excess savings resulting from the pandemic (Chart 2). China starts the year as a “one-legged” economy supported only by external demand, and policy stimulus later in the year will eventually be needed for the Chinese government to reach its growth targets (Chart 3).That policy shift will have significant implications for the outlook of many financial assets as 2022 evolves, including emerging market (EM) fixed income, industrial commodity prices and the US dollar (as we discuss later in this report). Global inflation will recede from the overheated pace of 2021 as supply chain bottlenecks become less acute. Inflationary pressures in 2022 will come from more “normal” sources like tightening labor markets, rising wage growth and higher housing costs (rents). This constellation of lower unemployment with still-elevated underlying inflation will look most acute in the US, leading the Fed to begin a tightening cycle that is not fully discounted in US Treasury yields. The broad investment conclusions of the BCA 2022 Outlook are more positive for global equity markets relative to bond markets, although with elevated uncertainty stemming from Omicron and future China stimulus. The views are more nuanced for other assets, like the US dollar (stronger to start the year, weaker later) and oil prices (essentially flat from pre-Omicron levels). Our Four Key Views For Global Fixed Income Markets In 2022 The following are the main implications for global fixed income investment strategy based off the conclusions from the 2022 BCA Outlook. Key View #1: Maintain below-benchmark overall global duration exposure. As we have noted in the title of our report, the investment outlook for 2022 is more complicated for investors to navigate than the relatively straightforward story from this time a year ago. Then, the development of COVID-19 vaccines led to optimism on reopening from 2020 lockdowns, but with no threat of the early removal of pandemic monetary and fiscal policy stimulus. The fixed income investment implications at the time were obvious, in the majority of developed countries - expect higher government bond yields, steeper yield curves, wider inflation breakevens and tighter corporate credit spreads. Today, the story is more complicated, but is still one that points to higher global bond yields. Take, for example, global fiscal policy. According to the IMF, the US is expected to see no fiscal drag in 2022 thanks to the Biden Administration’s spending initiatives, while Europe and EM will see significant fiscal drag (Chart 4). However, in the case of Europe, this should not be viewed negatively as it is the result of expiring pandemic era employment and income support programs that are no longer needed after economies emerged from wholesale lockdowns. So less fiscal stimulus is a sign of a healthier European economy that is more likely to put upward pressure on global bond yields, on the margin. The outlook for global consumer spending is also a bit more complicated, but still one that points to higher bond yields. Consumer confidence was declining over the final months of 2021 in the US, Europe, the UK, Canada and most other developed countries. This occurred despite falling unemployment rates and very strong labor demand, which would typically be associated with consumer optimism (Chart 5). High global inflation, which has outstripped wage gains and reduced real purchasing power, is why consumers have become gloomier in the face of healthy job markets. Chart 4Global Fiscal Policy Divergence In 2022 Global Fiscal Policy Divergence In 2022 Global Fiscal Policy Divergence In 2022 ​​​​​​ Chart 5Lower Inflation Will Help Boost Consumer Confidence Lower Inflation Will Help Boost Consumer Confidence Lower Inflation Will Help Boost Consumer Confidence ​​​​​​ The implication is that the expectation of lower inflation outlined in the 2022 BCA Outlook, which sounds bond-bullish on the surface, could actually prove to be bond-bearish if it makes consumers more confident and willing to spend. On that note, there are already signs that the some of the sources of the global inflation surge of 2021 are fading in potency. Commodity price inflation has rolled over, in line with slowing momentum in manufacturing activity and a firmer US dollar (Chart 6). Measures of global shipping costs, while still elevated, have stopped accelerating. The spread of the Omicron variant may delay a further easing of supply chain disruptions in the short-term, but on a rate of change basis, the upward pressure on global inflation from supply squeezes will diminish in 2022. The inflation story will also be more complicated next year. While there will be less inflation from the prices of commodities and durable goods, there will be more inflation from the elimination of output gaps, tightening labor markets and an overall dearth of global spare capacity. Put another way, expect the gap between global headline and core inflation rates to narrow in most countries, but with domestically generated core inflation rates remaining elevated (Chart 7). Chart 6Some Relief On Supply-Driven Inflation On The Way Some Relief On Supply-Driven Inflation On The Way Some Relief On Supply-Driven Inflation On The Way ​​​​​​ Chart 7Global Inflation Will Be Lower, But More Sustainable, In 2022 Global Inflation Will Be Lower, But More Sustainable, In 2022 Global Inflation Will Be Lower, But More Sustainable, In 2022 The more complicated investment story for 2022 extends to global bond yields themselves. Longer-maturity government bond yields remain far too low given the mix of very high inflation and very low unemployment in many countries. Chart 8Bond Markets Vulnerable To More Hawkish Repricing Bond Markets Vulnerable To More Hawkish Repricing Bond Markets Vulnerable To More Hawkish Repricing Even as major central banks like the Fed are tapering bond purchases and signaling more rate hikes in 2022, and others like the Bank of England (BoE) have actually raised rates, bond yields remain low. The reason for this is that markets are discounting very low terminal rates – the peak level of policy rates to be reached in the next monetary tightening cycle. We proxy this by looking at 5-year overnight index swap (OIS) rates, 5-years forward. A GDP-weighted aggregate of those forward OIS rates for the major developed economies (the US, Germany, the UK, Japan, Canada and Australia) is currently 0.9%. This compares to GDP-weighted 10-year government bond yield of 0.8% (Chart 8). Forward OIS rates and 10-year bond yields are typically closely linked, which suggests upward scope for longer-maturity bond yields as markets begin to discount a higher trajectory for policy rates. We see this as the primary driver of higher bond yields in 2022 – an upward adjustment of interest rate expectations as central banks like the Fed, BoE and Bank of Canada (BoC) promise, and eventually deliver, more rate hikes than markets currently expect. We therefore recommend maintaining a below-benchmark stance on overall interest rate (duration) exposure in global bond portfolios in 2022. Government bond yield curves will eventually see more flattening pressure as central banks tighten, most notably in the US, but not before longer-term yields rise to levels more consistent with the most likely peak levels of central bank policy rates. Key View #2: Underweight government bonds in countries where central banks are more likely to hike rates in 2022 (the US, the UK, Canada) versus overweights where monetary policy is more likely to remain unchanged (Germany, France, Italy, Australia, Japan). The more complicated fixed income investing story for 2022 also extends to country allocation decisions, with more opportunities to take advantage of diverging bond market performance and cross-country spread moves. Current pricing in OIS curves shows a very modest expected path for interest rates in the major developed economies (Chart 9). Some central banks, like the BoE, BoC and the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (RBNZ) are expected to be more aggressive with rate hikes in 2022 compared to the Fed. Yet there are not many rate hikes discounted beyond 2022, even in the US (Table 1). Chart 9Markets Are Pricing Short, Shallow Hiking Cycles Markets Are Pricing Short, Shallow Hiking Cycles Markets Are Pricing Short, Shallow Hiking Cycles Table 1Only Modest Tightening Expected Over The Next Three Years 2022 Key Views: The Story Gets More Complicated 2022 Key Views: The Story Gets More Complicated The US OIS curve is currently priced for an expectation that the Fed will struggle to hike the fed funds rate beyond 1.25% by the end of 2024, even with the latest set of FOMC rate forecasts calling for 75bps of rate hikes in 2022 alone. In the case of the UK, markets are pricing in lower rates in 2024 after multiple rate hikes in 2022/23, indicative of an expectation of a policy error of BoE “overtightening” even with the BoE Bank Rate expected to peak just above 1% The relative performance of government bond markets is typically correlated to changes in relative interest rate expectations. That was once again evident in 2021, where the UK, Canada and Australia significantly underperformed the Bloomberg Global Treasury aggregate in the third quarter as markets moved to rapidly price in multiple rate hikes (Chart 10). That volatility of bond market performance was particularly unusual Down Under, as the Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) did not signal any desire to begin hiking rates in 2022, unlike the BoE and BoC. As rate expectations in those three countries stabilized in the fourth quarter, their government bonds began to outperform. On the other hand, relative government bond performance was more stable in the euro area, Japan and the US for most of 2021 (Chart 11). In the case of the US, rate hike expectations only began to move higher in September after the Fed signaled that tapering of bond purchases was imminent. Even then, markets have moved slowly to discount 2022 rate hikes. Now, the pricing in the US OIS curve is more in line with the median interest rate “dot” from the latest FOMC projections, calling for three rate hikes next year starting in June. Chart 10Rate Hike Expectations Driving Relative Bond Returns Rate Hike Expectations Driving Relative Bond Returns Rate Hike Expectations Driving Relative Bond Returns ​​​​​​ Chart 11Stay Underweight US Interest Rate Exposure Stay Underweight US Interest Rate Exposure Stay Underweight US Interest Rate Exposure ​​​​​​ Looking ahead to next year, we see the widening divergences on growth, inflation and monetary policies between countries leading to the following investible opportunities on country allocation in global bond portfolios. Underweight US Treasuries Chart 12Cyclical Upside Risk To Longer-Dated UST Yields Cyclical Upside Risk To Longer-Dated UST Yields Cyclical Upside Risk To Longer-Dated UST Yields The Fed has already begun to taper its bond buying, which is set to end by March 2022. As shown in Table 1, 79bps of rate hikes are discounted in the US by the end 2022, but only another 41bps are priced over the subsequent two years. Survey-based measures of interest rate expectations are similarly dovish, even with the US unemployment rate now at 4.2% - within the FOMC’s range of full employment (NAIRU) estimates between 3.5-4.5% - and wage inflation accelerating (Chart 12). Markets are underestimating how much the funds rate will have to rise over the next 2-3 years as the Fed belated catches up to a very tight US labor market and inflation persistently above the Fed’s 2% target. Stay below-benchmark on US interest rate risk, through both reduced duration exposure and lower portfolio allocations to Treasuries. Overweight Core Europe While interest rate markets are underestimating how much monetary tightening the Fed will deliver, the opposite is true in Europe. The EUR OIS curve is discounting 39bps of rate hikes to the end of 2024, even with cyclical growth indicators like the manufacturing PMI and ZEW expectations survey well off the 2021 highs (Chart 13). At the same time, there is little evidence to date indicating that the surge in European inflation this year, which has been narrowly concentrated in energy prices and durable goods prices, is feeding through into broader inflation pressures or faster wage growth. We recommend maintaining an overweight allocation to core European government bond markets (Germany, France), particularly versus underweights in US Treasuries. Our expectation of a wider 10-year US Treasury-German bund spread is one of our highest conviction views for 2022, playing on our theme of widening growth, inflation and monetary policy divergences (Chart 14). Chart 13Stay Overweight European Interest Rate Exposure Stay Overweight European Interest Rate Exposure Stay Overweight European Interest Rate Exposure ​​​​​​ Chart 14Expect More US-Europe Spread Widening In 2022 Expect More US-Europe Spread Widening In 2022 Expect More US-Europe Spread Widening In 2022 ​​​​​​ Overweight European Peripherals Chart 15Stay O/W European Peripheral Exposure To Begin 2022 Stay O/W European Peripheral Exposure To Begin 2022 Stay O/W European Peripheral Exposure To Begin 2022 The ECB will be allowing its Pandemic Emergency Purchase Program, or PEPP, to expire at the end of March 2022. Beyond that, the ECB has announced that the pace of buying in the existing pre-pandemic Asset Purchase Program (APP) will be upsized from €20bn per month to between €30-40bn until at least the third quarter of 2022. This represents a meaningful slowing of the pace of ECB bond purchases, which were nearly €90bn per month under PEPP. Nonetheless, unlike most other developed economy central banks that are ending pandemic-era quantitative easing (QE) programs, the ECB will still be buying bonds on a net basis and expanding its balance sheet in 2022 (Chart 15). The central bank has taken great care in signaling that no rate hikes should be expected in 2022, likely to avoid any unwanted surges in Peripheral European bond yields or the euro. A continuation of asset purchases reinforces that message, leaving us comfortable in maintaining an overweight recommendation on Italian and Spanish government bonds for 2022. Underweight the UK and Canada Chart 16Stay U/W UK & Canadian Interest Rate Exposure Stay U/W UK & Canadian Interest Rate Exposure Stay U/W UK & Canadian Interest Rate Exposure A combination of rapidly tightening labor markets and soaring inflation is almost impossible for any inflation-targeting central bank to ignore. That is certainly the case in the UK, where the unemployment rate is 4.2% with two job vacancies available for every unemployed person – a series high for that ratio (Chart 16, top panel). UK headline CPI inflation is at a 10-year high of 5.2% and the BoE expects inflation to peak around 6% in April 2022. Medium-term inflation expectations, both market based and survey based, are also elevated and well above the BoE’s 2% inflation target. The BoE surprised markets a couple of times at the end of 2021, not delivering on an expected hike in November and actually lifting rates in December in the midst of the intense UK Omicron wave. We see the latter decision as indicative of the central bank’s growing concern over high UK inflation becoming embedded in inflation expectation. The BoE will likely have to eventually raise rates to a level higher than the 2023 peak of 1.1% currently discounted in the GBP OIS curve. That justifies an underweight stance on UK interest rate exposure (both duration and country allocation) in 2022. A similar argument applies to Canada. The Canadian unemployment rate now sits at 6.0%, closing in on the February 2020 pre-COVID low of 5.7%. The BoC’s Q3/2021 Business Outlook Survey showed a net 64% of respondents reporting intensifying labor shortages (the highest level in the 20-year history of the survey). Wage growth is accelerating, headline CPI inflation is running at 4.7% and underlying inflation (trimmed mean CPI) is now at 3.4% - the latter two are well above the BoC inflation target range of 1-3%. The CAD OIS curve currently discounts 147bps of rate hikes in 2022, which is aggressively hawkish, but very little is priced beyond that in 2023 (another 19bp hike) and 2024 (a rate cut of 24bps). The BoC estimates that the neutral interest rate in Canada is between 1.75% and 2.75%. Thus, markets do not expect the BoC to lift rates to even the low end of that range over the next three years, despite a very tight labor market and an inflation overshoot. We see this as justifying a continued underweight stance on Canadian interest rate exposure (both duration and country allocation) in 2022, even with markets already discounting significant monetary tightening next year. Overweight Australia and Japan Outside of Europe, we recommend overweights on Australian and Japanese government bonds entering 2022 (Chart 17). The RBA has been quite clear in what needs to happen before it will begin to lift rates. Australian wage growth must climb into the 3-4% range that has coincided with underlying Australian inflation sustainably staying in the RBA’s 2-3% target range. Wage growth and trimmed mean CPI inflation only reached 2.2% and 2.1%, respectively, for the latest available data from Q3/2021. As Australian wage and inflation data is only released on a quarterly basis, the RBA will not be able to assess whether wage dynamics are consistent with reaching its inflation target until the latter half of 2022. The AUD OIS curve is currently discounting 119bps of rate hikes in 2022 and an additional 86bps of hikes in 2023. Those are both far too aggressive for a central bank that is unlikely to begin lifting rates until the end of 2022, at the very earliest. Thus, we recommend an overweight stance on Australian bond exposure in global bond portfolios in 2022. The case for overweighting Japanese government bonds is a simple one. There are none of the inflation or labor market pressures seen in other countries to justify a hawkish turn by the Bank of Japan (bottom panel). Japanese core CPI is shockingly in deflation (-0.7%), bucking the trend seen in other countries and showing no pass-through from rising energy prices of global supply chain disruptions. This makes Japan a good defensive “safe haven” bond market against the backdrop of rising global bond yields that we expect in 2022. Chart 17Stay O/W Australian & Japanese Interest Rate Exposure Stay O/W Australian & Japanese Interest Rate Exposure Stay O/W Australian & Japanese Interest Rate Exposure ​​​​​​ Chart 18Our Recommended DM Government Bond Country Allocations Our Recommended DM Government Bond Country Allocations Our Recommended DM Government Bond Country Allocations ​​​​​​ In summary, our government allocations reflect the growing gap between expected monetary policy changes in 2022. This gives us a bias to favor lower-yielding markets, with Australia being the notable exception (Chart 18). However, in an environment where global bond volatility is expected to increase as multiple central banks exit QE and begin rate hiking cycles, carry/yield considerations play a secondary role in determining optimal country allocations. Key View #3: Stay neutral global inflation-linked bonds versus nominal government debt Another part of the global fixed income universe where the investment story has become more complicated is inflation-linked bonds. Overweighting inflation-linked bonds versus nominal government debt was the right strategy for bond investors as economies reopened from 2020 COVID lockdowns and global growth recovered. Booming commodity prices and supply chain squeezes added to the positive backdrop for linkers in 2021, as realized inflation soared to levels not seen in over a generation in many countries. Yet now, there is much less upside potential for inflation breakevens from current levels. Our Comprehensive Breakeven Indicators (CBI) are one of our preferred tools to assess the attractiveness of inflation-linked bonds versus nominals within the developed markets. For each country, the CBI reflects the distance of 10-year inflation breakevens from three different measures – the fair value from our breakeven spread model, medium-term survey-based inflation expectations and the central bank inflation target. The further breakevens are from these three measures, the less scope there is for additional increases in breakevens. As can be seen in Chart 19, there is limited upside potential for breakevens in almost all countries. Only Canada has a CBI below zero, with the CBIs for the UK, US, Germany and Italy well above zero. Chart 19 With central banks belated starting to respond to high realized inflation with tapering and rate hikes, it is still too soon to move to a full-blown underweight stance on global inflation-linked bond exposure versus nominal government debt. Instead, we recommend no more than a neutral exposure in countries where our CBIs are relatively lower – Canada, Australia, Japan – and underweight allocations where the CBIs are relatively higher – the UK, Germany, Italy and France (Chart 20). One country where we are deviating from our CBI signal is the US. We are keeping the recommended US TIPS exposure at neutral to begin 2022, but we anticipate downgrading TIPS later in 2022 if the Fed begins to lift rates sooner and more aggressively than expected. We do recommend positioning within that neutral overall TIPS allocation by underweighting shorter maturities versus longer-dated TIPS, A more hawkish Fed and some likely deceleration of realized US inflation should result in a steeper TIPS breakeven curve and a flatter TIPS real yield curve. Beyond looking at inflation breakevens, the outlook for real bond yields may be THE most complicated part of the 2022 investment story. Perhaps no single topic generates a greater debate among BCA’s strategists than real bond yields, which remain negative across the developed world (Chart 21). Determining why real yields are negative is critical for making calls across other asset classes beyond just government bonds. Valuations for equities and corporate credit have become more closely correlated with real yields in recent years. Real yield differentials are also an important factor driving currency levels. Chart 20Our Recommended Inflation-Linked Bond Allocations Our Recommended Inflation-Linked Bond Allocations Our Recommended Inflation-Linked Bond Allocations We see negative real yields as a reflection of persistent central bank policy dovishness that looks increasingly unrealistic. Chart 22 should look familiar to regular readers of Global Fixed Income Strategy. We show real central bank policy rates (adjusted for realized inflation) and the market-implied expectations for those real rates derived from the forward curves for OIS rates and CPI swap rates. Chart 21Negative Real Yields: Global Bonds' Biggest Vulnerability Negative Real Yields: Global Bonds' Biggest Vulnerability Negative Real Yields: Global Bonds' Biggest Vulnerability ​​​​​​ Chart 22 In the US, UK and Europe, markets are pricing a future path for nominal short-term interest rates that is consistently lower than the expected path of inflation. If markets believe that central banks will be unwilling (or unable) to ever lift policy rates above inflation, or that neutral medium-term real interest rates are in fact negative in most developed countries, then it should come as no surprise that longer-maturity real bond yields should also be negative. We do not subscribe to the view that neutral real rates are negative across the developed world, especially in the US. Even if we did, however, such a view is already reflected in the future pricing of bond yields and interest rates. As outlined earlier, OIS curves in many countries are underestimating how high nominal policy rates will go in the next 2-3 years. The potential for a “real rate shock”, where central banks tighten policy at a faster pace than markets expect, is a significant risk for global financial markets in the coming years. We see this as more of a risk for markets in 2023, with the Fed likely to become more aggressive on rate hikes and even the ECB likely to begin considering an interest rate adjustment. For 2022, however, we do expect global real yields to stabilize and likely begin to turn less negative as central banks continue to tighten policy. Key View #4: Overweight euro area high-yield and investment grade corporates versus US equivalents. Limit exposure to EM hard-currency debt until there are clear signals of China policy stimulus and upside momentum on the US dollar fades. The outlook for global credit markets in 2022 has also become more complicated, particularly for corporate bonds and EM hard currency debt. On the one hand, the levels of index yields (Chart 23) and spreads (Chart 24) for investment grade and high-yield corporate debt in the US, euro area and UK have clearly bottomed. The Omicron threat to global growth may be playing a role in the recent increases, but the more likely culprit is growing central bank hawkishness and fears of tighter monetary policy. Chart 23Global Corporate Bond Yields Have Reached A Cyclical Bottom Global Corporate Bond Yields Have Reached A Cyclical Bottom Global Corporate Bond Yields Have Reached A Cyclical Bottom ​​​​​​ Chart 24Global Corporate Bond Spreads Have Reached A Cyclical Bottom Global Corporate Bond Spreads Have Reached A Cyclical Bottom Global Corporate Bond Spreads Have Reached A Cyclical Bottom ​​​​​​ On the other hand, the fundamental backdrop for corporate debt is not conducive to major spread widening. As outlined at the start of this report, nominal economic growth in the major developed economies remains solid, which supports the expansion corporate revenues. Combined with still-low borrowing rates, this creates a relatively positive backdrop that limits risks from downgrades and defaults. Chart 25Monetary Policy Backdrop Turning More Negative For Credit Markets Monetary Policy Backdrop Turning More Negative For Credit Markets Monetary Policy Backdrop Turning More Negative For Credit Markets Corporate bond performance, both absolute returns and excess returns versus government debt, has worsened on a year-over-year basis for the latter half of 2021 (Chart 25). That has coincided with slowing growth in the balance sheets of the Fed and other major central banks and, more recently, the flattening trend of government bond yield curves as markets have discounted 2022 rate hikes. This suggests that monetary policy tightening expectations are dominating the still relatively positive fundamental backdrop for corporate credit. Looking ahead to 2022, we see a greater need to focus on relative value and cross-country valuation considerations when allocating to developed market corporate debt – particularly when looking the biggest markets in the US and euro area. We see a strong case for favoring euro area corporates over US equivalents, both for investment grade and particularly for high-yield. Our preferred method of corporate bond valuation is looking at 12-month breakevens. Breakevens measure the amount of spread widening that would need to occur over a one year horizon to eliminate the yield advantage of owning corporate bonds over government bonds of similar duration. We calculate this as the ratio of the index spread to the index duration for a particular credit market, like US investment grade. We then take a percentile ranking of those 12-month breakevens to determine the attractiveness of spreads versus its own history. On that basis, the 12-month breakeven for US investment grade corporates looks very unattractive, sitting near the bottom of the historical distribution (Chart 26). This reflects not only tight spreads but also the high durations of investment grade credit. US high-yield corporate spreads are not as stretched, but are also not particularly cheap, with the 12-month breakeven sitting at the 34th percentile of its distribution. In the euro area, the 12-month breakeven for investment grade is not as stretched as in the US, sitting in the 36th percentile (Chart 27). The euro area high-yield 12-month breakeven looks similar to the US, at the 24th percentile of its historical distribution. Chart 26US Corporate Spread Valuations Are Not Compelling US Corporate Spread Valuations Are Not Compelling US Corporate Spread Valuations Are Not Compelling ​​​​​​ Chart 27Euro Area Corporate Spread Valuations Are Also Stretched Euro Area Corporate Spread Valuations Are Also Stretched Euro Area Corporate Spread Valuations Are Also Stretched ​​​​​​ Our current recommended strategy on US corporate exposure is to be neutral investment grade and overweight high-yield. We see no reason to change that view to begin 2022. However, we do anticipate downgrading US corporate exposure later in the year when the Fed begins to lift interest rates and the US Treasury curve flattens more aggressively. Earlier, we recommended positioning for a wider US Treasury-German bund spread as a way to play for the growing policy divergence between a more hawkish Fed and a still dovish ECB. Another way to do that is to overweight euro area corporate debt versus US equivalents, for both investment grade and especially for high-yield. In terms of potential default losses, the outlook is positive on both sides of the Atlantic. Moody’s is projecting a 2022 default rate of 2.3% in the US and 2.2% in the euro area (Chart 28). The last two times that the default rates were so similar, in 2014/15 and 2017/18, also coincided with a period of euro area high-yield outperforming US high-yield (on a duration-matched and currency-matched performance). We see that pattern repeating in 2022. Chart 28Favor Euro Area High-Yield Over US Equivalents In 2022 Favor Euro Area High-Yield Over US Equivalents In 2022 Favor Euro Area High-Yield Over US Equivalents In 2022 ​​​​​​ Chart 29 When looking within credit tiers, we see the best value in favoring Ba-rated euro area high-yield versus US equivalents when looking at 12-month breakeven percentile rankings (Chart 29). Yet even looking at just yields rather than spread, lower-rated euro area high-yield corporates offer more attractive yields than US equivalents, on a currency-hedged basis (Chart 30). Chart 30 Chart 31Stay Cautious On EM Hard Currency Debt Stay Cautious On EM Hard Currency Debt Stay Cautious On EM Hard Currency Debt Turning to EM hard currency debt, we recommend a cautious stance entering 2022. EM fundamentals that typically need to in place to produce tighter EM credit spreads are currently not in place. Chinese economic growth is slowing, commodity price momentum is fading and the US dollar is appreciating versus EM currencies (Chart 31). An improvement in non-US economic growth will help turn around all three trends, especially the strengthening US dollar which typically trades off US/non-US growth differentials. The key to any non-US growth acceleration in 2022 will come from China. When Chinese policymakers announce more aggressive stimulus measures in 2022, as we expect, that would represent an opportunity to turn more positive on EM USD-denominated debt. Until that happens, we recommend staying underweight EM hard currency debt, with a slight bias to favor sovereigns over corporates.   Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com   Recommendations Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Recommended Positioning     Active Duration Contribution: GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. Custom Performance Benchmark Image The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index

Highlights Our three strategic themes over the long run: (1) great power rivalry (2) hypo-globalization (3) populism and nationalism. The implications are inflationary over the long run. Nations that gear up for potential conflict and expand the social safety net to appease popular discontent will consume a lot of resources. Our three key views for 2022: (1) China’s reversion to autocracy (2) America’s policy insularity (3) petro-state leverage. The implications are mostly but not entirely inflationary: China will ease policy, the US will pass more stimulus, and energy supply may suffer major disruptions. Stay long gold, neutral US dollar, short renminbi, and short Taiwanese dollar. Stay tactically long global large caps and defensives. Buy aerospace/defense and cyber-security stocks. Go long Japanese and Mexican equities – both are tied to the US in an era of great power rivalry. Feature Chart 1US Resilience US Resilience US Resilience Global investors have not yet found a substitute for the United States. Despite a bout of exuberance around cyclical non-US assets at the beginning of 2021, the year draws to a close with King Dollar rallying, US equities rising to 61% of global equity capitalization, and the US 30-year Treasury yield unfazed by inflation fears (Chart 1). American outperformance is only partly explained by its handling of the lingering Covid-19 pandemic. The US population was clearly less restricted by the virus (Chart 2). But more to the point, the US stimulated its economy by 25% of GDP over the course of the crisis, while the average across major countries was 13% of GDP. Americans are still more eager to go outdoors and the government has been less stringent in preventing them (Chart 3). Chart 2 ​​​​​ Chart 3Social Restrictions Short Of Lockdown Social Restrictions Short Of Lockdown Social Restrictions Short Of Lockdown ​​​​​​ Going forward, the pandemic should decline in relevance, though it is still possible that a vaccine-resistant mutation will arise that is deadlier for younger people, causing a new round of the crisis. The rotation into assets outside the US will be cautious. Across the world, monetary and credit growth peaked and rolled over this year, after the extraordinary effusion of stimulus to offset the social lockdowns of 2020 (Chart 4). Government budget deficits started to normalize while central banks began winding down emergency lending and bond-buying. More widespread and significant policy normalization will get under way in 2022 in the face of high core inflation. Tightening will favor the US dollar, especially if global growth disappoints expectations. Chart 4Waning Monetary And Credit Stimulus Waning Monetary And Credit Stimulus Waning Monetary And Credit Stimulus Chart 5Global Growth Stabilization Global Growth Stabilization Global Growth Stabilization Global manufacturing activity fell off its peak, especially in China, where authorities tightened monetary, fiscal, and regulatory policy aggressively to prevent asset bubbles from blowing up (Chart 5). Now China is easing policy on the margin, which should shore up activity ahead of an important Communist Party reshuffle in fall 2022. The rest of the world’s manufacturing activity is expected to continue expanding in 2022, albeit less rapidly. This trend cuts against US outperformance but still faces a range of hurdles, beginning with China. In this context, we outline three geopolitical themes for the long run as well as three key views for the coming 12 months. Our title, “The Gathering Storm,” refers to the strategic challenge that China and Russia pose to the United States, which is attempting to form a balance-of-power coalition to contain these autocratic rivals. This is the central global geopolitical dynamic in 2022 and it is ultimately inflationary. Three Strategic Themes For The Long Run The international system will remain unstable in the coming years. Global multipolarity – or the existence of multiple, competing poles of political power – is the chief destabilizing factor. This is the first of our three strategic themes that will persist next year and beyond (Table 1). Our key views for 2022, discussed below, flow from these three strategic themes. Table 1Strategic Themes For 2022 And Beyond 2022 Key Views: The Gathering Storm 2022 Key Views: The Gathering Storm 1. Great Power Rivalry Multipolarity – or great power rivalry – can be illustrated by the falling share of US economic clout relative to the rest of the world, including but not limited to strategic rivals like China. The US’s decline is often exaggerated but the picture is clear if one looks at the combined geopolitical influence of the US and its closest allies to that of the EU, China, and Russia (Chart 6). Chart 6 China’s rise is the most destabilizing factor because it comes with economic, military, and technological prowess that could someday rival the US for global supremacy. China’s GDP has surpassed that of the US in purchasing power terms and will do so in nominal terms in around five years (Chart 7). Chart 7 True, China’s potential growth is slowing and Chinese financial instability will be a recurring theme. But that very fact is driving Beijing to try to convert the past 40 years of economic success into broader strategic security. Chart 8America's Global Role Persists (If Lessened) America's Global Role Persists (If Lessened) America's Global Role Persists (If Lessened) ​​​​​ Since China is capable of creating an alternative political order in Asia Pacific, and ultimately globally, the United States is reacting. It is penalizing China’s economy and seeking to refurbish alliances in pursuit of a containment policy. The American reaction to the loss of influence has been unpredictable, contradictory, and occasionally belligerent. New isolationist impulses have emerged among an angry populace in reaction to gratuitous wars abroad and de-industrialization. These impulses appeared in both the Obama and Trump administrations. The Biden administration is attempting to manage these impulses while also reinforcing America’s global role. The pandemic-era stimulus has enabled the US to maintain its massive trade deficit and aggressive defense spending. But US defense spending is declining relative to the US and global economy over time, encouraging rival nations to carve out spheres of influence in their own neighborhoods (Chart 8). Russia’s overall geopolitical power has declined but it punches above its weight in military affairs and energy markets, a fact which is vividly on display in Ukraine as we go to press. The result is to exacerbate differences in the trans-Atlantic alliance between the US and the European Union, particularly Germany. The EU’s attempt to act as an independent great power is another sign of multipolarity, as well as the UK’s decision to distance itself from the continent and strengthen the Anglo-American alliance. If the US and EU do not manage their differences over how to handle Russia, China, and Iran then the trans-Atlantic relationship will weaken and great power rivalry will become even more dangerous. 2. Hypo-Globalization The second strategic theme is hypo-globalization, in which the ancient process of globalization continues but falls short of its twenty-first century potential, given advances in technology and governance that should erode geographic and national boundaries. Hypo-globalization is the opposite of the “hyper-globalization” of the 1990s-2000s, when historic barriers to the free movement of people, goods, and capital seemed to collapse overnight. Chart 9From 'Hyper-Globalization' To Hypo-Globalization From 'Hyper-Globalization' To Hypo-Globalization From 'Hyper-Globalization' To Hypo-Globalization The volume of global trade relative to industrial production  peaked with the Great Recession in 2008-10 and has declined slowly but surely ever since (Chart 9). Many developed markets suffered the unwinding of private debt bubbles, while emerging economies suffered the unwinding of trade manufacturing. Periods of declining trade intensity – trade relative to global growth – suggest that nations are turning inward, distrustful of interdependency, and that the frictions and costs of trade are rising due to protectionism and mercantilism. Over the past two hundred years globalization intensified when a broad international peace was agreed (such as in 1815) and a leading imperial nation was capable of enforcing law and order on the seas (such as the British empire). Globalization fell back during times of “hegemonic instability,” when the peace settlement decayed while strategic and naval competition eroded the global trading system. Today a similar process is unfolding, with the 1945 peace decaying and the US facing the revival of Russia and China as regional empires capable of denying others access to their coastlines and strategic approaches (Chart 10).1 Chart 10Hypo-Globalization And Hegemonic Instability Hypo-Globalization And Hegemonic Instability Hypo-Globalization And Hegemonic Instability Chart 11Hypo-Globalization: Temporary Trade Rebound Hypo-Globalization: Temporary Trade Rebound Hypo-Globalization: Temporary Trade Rebound No doubt global trade is rebounding amid the stimulus-fueled recovery from Covid-19. But the upside for globalization will be limited by the negative geopolitical environment (Chart 11). Today governments are not behaving as if they will embark on a new era of ever-freer movement and ever-deepening international linkages. They are increasingly fearful of each other’s strategic intentions and using fiscal resources to increase economic self-sufficiency. The result is regionalization rather than globalization. Chinese and Russian attempts to revise the world order, and the US’s attempt to contain them, encourages regionalization. For example, the trade war between the US and China is morphing into a broader competition that limits cooperation to a few select areas, despite a change of administration in the United States. The further consolidation of President Xi Jinping’s strongman rule will exacerbate this dynamic of distrust and economic divorce. Emerging Asia and emerging Europe live on the fault lines of this shift from globalization to regionalism, with various risks and opportunities. Generally we are bullish EM Asia and bearish EM Europe. 3. Populism And Nationalism A third strategic theme consists of populism and nationalism, or anti-establishment political sentiment in general. These forces will flare up in various forms across the world in 2022 and beyond. Even as unemployment declines, the rise in food and fuel inflation will make it difficult for low wage earners to make ends meet. The “misery index,” which combines unemployment and inflation, spiked during the pandemic and today stands at 10.8% in the US and 11.4% in the EMU, up from 5.2% and 8.1% before the pandemic, respectively (Chart 12). Large budget deficits and trade deficits, especially in the US and UK, feed into this inflationary environment. Most of the major developed markets have elected new governments since the pandemic, with the notable exception of France and Spain. Thus they have recapitalized their political systems and allowed voters to vent some frustration. These governments now have some time to try to mitigate inflation before the next election. Hence policy continuity is not immediately in jeopardy, which reduces uncertainty for investors. By contrast, many of the emerging economies face higher inflation, weak growth, and are either coming upon elections or have undemocratic political systems. Either way the result will be a failure to address household grievances promptly. The misery index is trending upward and governments are continually forced to provide larger budget deficits to shore up growth, fanning inflation (Chart 13). Chart 12DM: Political Risk High But New Governments In Place DM: Political Risk High But New Governments In Place DM: Political Risk High But New Governments In Place ​​​​​ Chart 13EM: Political Risk High But Governments Not Recapitalized EM: Political Risk High But Governments Not Recapitalized EM: Political Risk High But Governments Not Recapitalized ​​​​​​ Chart 14EM Populism/Nationalism Threatens Negative Surprises In 2022 EM Populism/Nationalism Threatens Negative Surprises In 2022 EM Populism/Nationalism Threatens Negative Surprises In 2022 Just as social and political unrest erupted after the Great Recession, notably in the so-called “Arab Spring,” so will new movements destabilize various emerging markets in the wake of Covid-19. Regime instability and failure can lead to big changes in policies, large waves of emigration, wars, and other risks that impact markets. The risks are especially high unless and until Chinese imports revive. Investors should be on the lookout for buying opportunities in emerging markets once the bad news is fully priced. National and local elections in Brazil, India, South Korea, the Philippines, and Turkey will serve as market catalysts, with bad news likely to precede good news (Chart 14). Bottom Line: These three themes – great power rivalry, hypo-globalization, and populism/nationalism – are inflationary in theory, though their impact will vary based on specific events. Multipolarity means that governments will boost industrial and defense spending to gear up for international competition. Hypo-globalization means countries will attempt to put growth on a more reliable domestic foundation rather than accept dependency on an unreliable international scene, thus constraining supplies from abroad. Populism and nationalism will lead to a range of unorthodox policies, such as belligerence abroad or extravagant social spending at home. Of course, the inflationary bias of these themes can be upset if they manifest in ways that harm growth and/or inflation expectations, which is possible. But the general drift will be an inflationary policy setting. Inflation may subside in 2022 only to reemerge as a risk later. Three Key Views For 2022 Within this broader context, our three key views for 2022 are as follows: 1. China’s Reversion To Autocracy As President Xi Jinping leads China further down the road of strongman rule and centralization, the country faces a historic confluence of internal and external risks. This was our top view in 2021 and the same dynamic continues in 2022. The difference is that in 2021 the risk was excessive policy tightening whereas this coming year the risk is insufficient policy easing. Chart 15China Eases Fiscal Policy To Secure Recovery In 2022 China Eases Fiscal Policy To Secure Recovery In 2022 China Eases Fiscal Policy To Secure Recovery In 2022 China’s economy is witnessing a secular slowdown, a deterioration in governance, property market turmoil, and a rise in protectionism abroad. The long decline in corporate debt growth points to the structural slowdown. Animal spirits will not improve in 2022 so government spending will be necessary to try to shore up overall growth. The Politburo signaled that it will ease fiscal policy at the Central Economic Work Conference in early December, a vindication of our 2021 view. Neither the combined fiscal-and-credit impulse nor overall activity, indicated by the Li Keqiang Index, have shown the slightest uptick yet (Chart 15). Typically it takes six-to-nine months for policy easing to translate to an improvement in real economic activity. The first half of the year may still bring economic disappointments. But policymakers are adjusting to avoid a crash. Policy will grow increasingly accommodative as necessary in the first half of 2022. The key political constraint is the Communist Party’s all-important political reshuffle, the twentieth national party congress, to be held in fall 2022 (usually October). While Xi may not want the economy to surge in 2022, he cannot afford to let it go bust. The experience of previous party congresses shows that there is often a policy-driven increase in bank loans and fixed investment. Current conditions are so negative as to ensure that the government will provide at least some support, for instance by taking a “moderately proactive approach” to infrastructure investment (Chart 16). Otherwise a collapse of confidence would weaken Xi’s faction and give the opposition faction a chance to shore up its position within the Communist Party. Chart 16China Aims For Stability, Not Rapid Growth, Ahead Of 20th National Party Congress China Aims For Stability, Not Rapid Growth, Ahead Of 20th National Party Congress China Aims For Stability, Not Rapid Growth, Ahead Of 20th National Party Congress Party congresses happen every five years but the ten-year congresses, such as in 2022, are the most important for the country’s overall political leadership. The party congresses in 1992, 2002, and 2012 were instrumental in transferring power from one leader to the next, even though the transfer of power was never formalized. Back in 2017 Xi arranged to stay in power indefinitely but now he needs to clinch the deal, lest any unforeseen threat emerge from at home or abroad. Xi’s success in converting the Communist Party from “consensus rule” to his own “personal rule” will be measurable by his success in stacking the Politburo and Politburo Standing Committee with factional allies. He will also promote his faction across the Central Committee so as to shape the next generations of party leaders and leave his imprint on policy long after his departure. The government will be extremely sensitive to any hint of dissent or resistance and will move aggressively to quash it. Investors should not be surprised to see high-level sackings of public officials or private magnates and a steady stream of scandals and revelations that gain prominence in western media. The environment is also ripe for strange and unexpected incidents that reveal political differences beneath the veneer of unity in China: defections, protests, riots, terrorist acts, or foreign interference. Most incidents will be snuffed out quickly but investors should be wary of “black swans” from China in 2022. Chinese government policies will not be business friendly in 2022 aside from piecemeal fiscal easing. Everything Beijing does will be bent around securing Xi’s supremacy at all levels. Domestic politics will take precedence over economic concerns, especially over the interests of private businesses and foreign investors, as is clear when it comes to managing financial distress in the property sector. Negative regulatory surprises and arbitrary crackdowns on various industrial sectors will continue, though Beijing will do everything in its power to prevent the property bust from triggering contagion across the economic system. This will probably work, though the dam may burst after the party congress. Relations with the US and the West will remain poor, as the democracies cannot afford to endorse what they see as Xi’s power grab, the resurrection of a Maoist cult of personality, and the betrayal of past promises of cooperation and engagement. America’s midterm election politics will not be conducive to any broad thaw in US-China relations. While China will focus on domestic politics, its foreign policy actions will still prove relatively hawkish. Clashes with neighbors may be instigated by China to warn away any interference or by neighbors to try to embarrass Xi Jinping. The South and East China Seas are still ripe for territorial disputes to flare. Border conflicts with India are also possible. Taiwan remains the epicenter of global geopolitical risk. A fourth Taiwan Strait Crisis looms as China increases its military warnings to Taiwan not to attempt anything resembling independence (Chart 17A). China may use saber-rattling, economic sanctions, cyber war, disinformation, and other “gray zone” tactics to undermine the ruling party ahead of Taiwan’s midterm elections in November 2022 and presidential elections in January 2024. A full-scale invasion cannot be ruled out but is unlikely in the short run, as China still has non-military options to try to arrange a change of policy in Taiwan. Chart 17 ​​​​​​ Chart 17BMarket-Based Risk Indicators Say China/Taiwan Risk Has Not Peaked Market-Based Risk Indicators Say China/Taiwan Risk Has Not Peaked Market-Based Risk Indicators Say China/Taiwan Risk Has Not Peaked China has not yet responded to the US’s deployment of a small number of troops in Taiwan or to recent diplomatic overtures or arms sales. It could stage a major show of force against Taiwan to help consolidate power at home. China also has an interest in demonstrating to US allies and partners that their populations and economies will suffer if they side with Washington in any contingency. Given China’s historic confluence of risks, it is too soon for global investors to load up on cheap Chinese equities. Volatility will remain high. Weak animal spirits, limited policy easing, high levels of policy uncertainty, regulatory risk, ongoing trade tensions, and geopolitical risks suggest that investors should remain on the sidelines, and that a large risk premium can persist throughout 2022. Our market-based geopolitical risk indicators for both China and Taiwan are still trending upwards (Chart 17B). Global investors should capitalize on China’s policy easing indirectly by investing in commodities, cyclical equity sectors, and select emerging markets. 2. America’s Policy Insularity Our second view for 2022 centers on the United States, which will focus on domestic politics and will thus react or overreact to the many global challenges it faces. The US faces the first midterm election after the chaotic and contested 2020 presidential election. Political polarization remains at historically high levels, meaning that social unrest could flare up again and major domestic terrorist incidents cannot be ruled out. So far the Biden administration has focused on the domestic scene: mitigating the pandemic and rebooting the economy. Biden’s signature “Build Back Better” bill, $1.75 trillion investment in social programs, has passed the House of Representatives but not the Senate. The spike in inflation has shaken moderate Democratic senators who are now delaying the bill. We expect it to pass, since tax hikes were dropped, but our conviction is low (65% subjective odds), as a single defection would derail the bill. The implication would be inflationary since it would mark a sizable increase in government spending at a time when the output gap is already virtually closed. Spending would likely be much larger than the Congressional Budget Office estimate, shown in Chart 18, because the bill contains various gimmicks and hard-to-implement expiration clauses. Equity markets may not sell if the bill fails, since more fiscal stimulus would put pressure on the Federal Reserve to hike rates faster. Chart 18 Chart 19 Whether the bill passes or fails, Biden’s legislative agenda will be frozen thereafter. He will have to resort to executive powers and foreign policy to lift his approval rating and court the median voter ahead of the midterm elections. Currently Democrats are lined up to lose the House and probably also the Senate, where a single seat would cost them their majority (Chart 19). The Senate is still in play so Biden will be averse to taking big risks. For the same reason, Biden’s foreign policy goal will be to stave off various bubbling crises. Restoring the Iranian nuclear deal was his priority but Russia has now forced its way to the top of the agenda by threatening a partial reinvasion of Ukraine. In this context Biden will not have room for maneuver with China. Congress will be hawkish on China ahead of the midterms, and Xi Jinping will be reviving autocracy, so Biden will not be able to improve relations much. Biden’s domestic policy could fuel inflation, while his domestic-focused foreign policy will embolden strategic rivals, which increases geopolitical risks. 3. Petro-State Leverage A surge in gasoline prices at the pump ahead of the election would be disastrous for a Democratic Party that is already in disarray over inflation (Chart 20). Biden has already demonstrated that he can coordinate an international release of strategic oil reserves this year. Oil and natural gas producers gain leverage when the global economy rebounds, commodity prices rise, and supply/demand balances tighten. The frequency of global conflicts, especially those involving petro-states, tend to rise and fall in line with oil prices (Chart 21). Chart 20Inflation Constrains Biden Ahead Of Midterms Inflation Constrains Biden Ahead Of Midterms Inflation Constrains Biden Ahead Of Midterms Chart 21 Both Russia and Iran are vulnerable to social unrest at home and foreign strategic pressure abroad. Both have long-running conflicts with the US and West that are heating up for fundamental reasons, such as Russia’s fear of western influence in the former Soviet Union and Iran’s nuclear program. Both countries are demanding that the US make strategic concessions to atone for the Trump administration’s aggressive policies: selling lethal weapons to Ukraine and imposing “maximum pressure” sanctions on Iran. Biden is not capable of making credible long-term agreements since he could lose office as soon as 2025 and the next president could reverse whatever he agrees. But he must try to de-escalate these conflicts or else he faces energy shortages or price shocks, which would raise the odds of stagflation ahead of the election. The path of least resistance for Biden is to lift the sanctions on Iran to prevent an escalation of the secret war in the Middle East. If this unilateral concession should convince Iran to pause its nuclear activities before achieving breakout uranium enrichment capability, then Biden would reduce the odds of a military showdown erupting across the region. Opposition Republicans would accuse him of weakness but public opinion polls show that few Americans consider Iran a major threat. The problem is that this logic held throughout 2021 and yet Biden did not ease the sanctions. Given Iran’s nuclear progress and the US’s reliance on sanctions, we see a 40% chance of a military confrontation with Iran over the coming years. With regard to Ukraine, an American failure to give concessions to Russia will probably result in a partial reinvasion of Ukraine (50% subjective odds). This in turn will force the US and EU to impose sanctions on Russia, leading to a squeeze of natural gas prices in Europe and eventually price pressures in global energy markets. If Biden grants Russia’s main demands, he will avoid a larger war or energy shock but will make the US vulnerable to future blackmail. He will also demoralize Taiwan and other US partners who lack mutual defense treaties. But he may gain Russian cooperation on Iran. If Biden gives concessions to both Russia and Iran, his party will face criticism in the midterms but it will be far less vulnerable than if an energy shock occurs. This is the path of least resistance for Biden in 2022. It means that the petro-states may lose their leverage after using it, given that risk premiums would fall on Biden’s concessions. Of course, if energy shocks happen, Europe and China will suffer more than the US, which is relatively energy independent. For this reason Brussels and Beijing will try to keep diplomacy alive as long as possible. Enforcement of US sanctions on Iran may weaken, reducing Iran’s urgency to come into compliance. Germany may prevent a hardline threat of sanctions against Russia, reducing Russia’s fear of consequences. Again, petro-states have the leverage. Therefore investors should guard against geopolitically induced energy price spikes or shocks in 2022. What if other commodity producers, such as Saudi Arabia, crank up production and sink oil prices? This could happen. Yet the Saudis prefer elevated oil prices due to the host of national challenges they face in reforming their economy. If the US eases sanctions on Iran then the Saudis may make this decision. Thus downside energy price shocks are possible too. The takeaway is energy price volatility but for the most part we see the risk as lying to the upside. Investment Takeaways Traditional geopolitical risk, which focuses on war and conflict, is measurable and has slipped since 2015, although it has not broken down from the general uptrend since 2000. We expect the secular trend to be reaffirmed and for geopolitical risk to resume its rise due to the strategic themes and key views outlined above. The correlation of geopolitical risk with financial assets is debatable – namely because some geopolitical risks push up oil and commodity prices at the expense of the dollar, while others cause a safe-haven rally into the dollar (Chart 22).  Global economic policy uncertainty is also measurable. It is in a secular uptrend since the 2008 financial crisis. Here the correlation with the US dollar and relative equity performance is stronger, which makes sense. This trend should also pick up going forward, which is at least not negative for the dollar and relative US equity performance (Chart 23). Chart 22Geopolitical Risk Will Rise, Market Impacts Variable Geopolitical Risk Will Rise, Market Impacts Variable Geopolitical Risk Will Rise, Market Impacts Variable ​​​​​​ Chart 23Economic Policy Uncertainty Will Rise, Not Bad For US Assets Economic Policy Uncertainty Will Rise, Not Bad For US Assets Economic Policy Uncertainty Will Rise, Not Bad For US Assets ​​​​​​ We are neutral on the US dollar versus the euro and recommend holding either versus the Chinese renminbi. We are short the currencies of emerging markets that suffer from great power rivalry, namely the Taiwanese dollar versus the US dollar, the Korean won versus the Japanese yen, the Russian ruble versus the Canadian dollar, and the Czech koruna versus the British pound.     We remain long gold as a hedge against both geopolitical risk and inflation. We recommend staying long global equities. Tactically we prefer large caps and defensives. Within developed markets, we favor the UK and Japan. Japan in particular will benefit from Chinese policy easing yet remains more secure from China-centered geopolitical risks than emerging Asian economies. Within emerging markets, Mexico stands to benefit from US economic strength and divorce from China. We would buy Indian equities on weakness and sell Chinese and Russian equities on strength. We remain long aerospace and defense stocks and cyber-security stocks.   -The GPS Team We Read (And Liked) … Conspiracy U: A Case Study “Crazy, worthless, stupid, made-up tales bring out the demons in susceptible, unthinking people.” Thus the author’s father, a Holocaust survivor translated from Yiddish, on conspiracy theories and the real danger they present in the world. Scott A. Shay, author and chairman of Signature Bank, whose first book was a finalist for the National Jewish Book Award, has written an intriguing new book on the topic and graciously sent it our way.2 Shay is a regular reader of BCA Research’s Geopolitical Strategy and an astute observer of international affairs. He is also a controversialist who has written essays for several of America’s most prominent newspapers. Shay’s latest, Conspiracy U, is a bracing read that we think investors will benefit from. We say this not because of its topical focus, which is too confined, but because of its broader commentary on history, epistemology, the US higher education system – and the very timely and relevant problem of conspiracy theories, which have become a prevalent concern in twenty-first century politics and society. The author and the particular angle of the book will be controversial to some readers but this very quality makes the book well-suited to the problem of the conspiracy theory, since it is not the controversial nature of conspiracy theories but their non-falsifiability that makes them specious. As the title suggests, the book is a polemical broadside. The polemic arises from Shay’s unique set of moral, intellectual, and sociopolitical commitments. This is true of all political books but this one wears its topicality on its sleeve. The term “conspiracy” in the title refers to antisemitic, anti-Israel, and anti-Zionist conspiracy theories, particularly the denial of the Holocaust, coming from tenured academics on both the right and the left wings of American politics. The “U” in the title refers to universities, namely American universities, with a particular focus on the author’s beloved alma mater, Northwestern University in Chicago, Illinois. Clearly the book is a “case study” – one could even say the prosecution of a direct and extended public criticism of Northwestern University – and the polemical perspective is grounded in Shay’s Jewish identity and personal beliefs. Equally clearly Shay makes a series of verifiable observations and arguments about conspiracy theories as a contemporary phenomenon and their presence, as well as the presence of other weak and lazy modes of thought, in “academia writ large.” This generalization of the problem is where most readers will find the value of the book. The book does not expect one to share Shay’s identity, to be a Zionist or support Zionism, or to agree with Israel’s national policies on any issue, least of all Israeli relations with Arabs and Palestinians. Shay’s approach is rigorous and clinical. He is a genuine intellectual in that he considers the gravest matters of concern from various viewpoints, including viewpoints radically different from his own, and relies on close readings of the evidence. In other words, Shay did not write the book merely to convince people that two tenured professors at Northwestern are promoting conspiracy theories. That kind of aberration is sadly to be expected and at least partially the result of the tenure system, which has advantages as well, not within the scope of the book. Rather Shay wrote it to provide a case study for how it is that conspiracy theories can manage to be adopted by those who do not realize what they are and to proliferate even in areas that should be the least hospitable – namely, public universities, which are supposed to be beacons of knowledge, science, openness, and critical thinking, but also other public institutions, including the fourth estate. Shay is meticulous with his sources and terminology. He draws on existing academic literature to set the parameters of his subject, defining conspiracy theories as “improbable hypotheses [or] intentional lies … about powerful and sinister groups conspiring to harm good people, often via a secret cabal.” The definition excludes “unwarranted criticism” and “unfair/prejudiced perspectives,” which are harmful but unavoidable. Many prejudices and false beliefs are “still falsifiable in the minds of their adherents,” which is not the case with conspiracy theories, although deep prejudices can obviously be helpful in spreading such theories. Conspiracy theories often depend on “a stunning amount of uniformity of belief and coordination of action without contingencies.” They also rely excessively on pathos, or emotion, in making their arguments, as opposed to logos (reason) and ethos (credibility, authority). Unfortunately there is no absolute, infallible distinction between conspiracy theories and other improbable theories – say, yet-to-be-confirmed theories about conspiracies that actually occurred. Conspiracy theories differ from other theories “in their relationship to facts, evidence, and logic,” which may sound obvious but is very much to the point. Again, “the key difference is the evidence and how it is evaluated.” There is no ready way to refute the fabrications, myths, and political propaganda that people believe without taking the time to assess the claims and their foundations. This requires an open mind and a grim determination to get to the bottom of rival claims about events even when they are extremely morally or politically sensitive, as is often the case with wars, political conflicts, atrocities, and genocides: Reliable historians, journalists, lawyers, and citizens must first approach the question of the cause or the identity of perpetrators and victims of an event or process with an open mind, not prejudiced to either party, and then evaluate the evidence. The diagnosis may be easy but the treatment is not – it takes time, study, and debate, and one’s interlocutors must be willing to be convinced. This problem of convincing others is critical because it is the part that is so often left out of modern political discourse. Conspiracy theories are often hateful and militant, so there is a powerful urge to censor or repress them. Openly debating with conspiracy theorists runs the risk of legitimizing or appearing to legitimize their views, providing them with a public forum, which seems to grant ethos or authority to arguments that are otherwise conspicuously lacking in it. In some countries censorship is legal, almost everywhere when violence is incited. The problem is that the act of suppression can feed the same conspiracy theories, so there is a need, in the appropriate context, to engage with and refute lies and specious arguments. Clients frequently email us to ask our view of the rise of conspiracy theories and what they entail for the global policy backdrop. We associate them with the broader breakdown in authority and decline of public trust in institutions. Shay’s book is an intervention into this topic that clients will find informative and thought-provoking, even if they disagree with the author’s staunchly pro-Israel viewpoint. It is precisely Shay’s ability to discuss and debate extremely contentious matters in a lucid and empirical manner – antisemitism, the history of Zionism, Holocaust denialism, Arab-Israeli relations, the Rwandan genocide, QAnon, the George Floyd protests, various other controversies – that enables him to defend a controversial position he holds passionately, while also demonstrating that passion alone can produce the most false and malicious arguments. As is often the case, the best parts of the book are the most personal – when Shay tells about his father’s sufferings during the Holocaust, and journey from the German concentration camps to New York City, and about Shay’s own experiences scraping enough money together to go to college at Northwestern. These sequences explain why the author felt moved to stage a public intervention against fringe ideological currents, which he shows to have gained more prominence in the university system than one might think. The book is timely, as American voters are increasingly concerned about the handling of identity, inter-group relations, history, education, and ideology in the classroom, resulting in what looks likely to become a new and ugly episode of the culture and education wars. Let us hope that Shay’s standards of intellectual freedom and moral decency prevail.   Matt Gertken, PhD Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1      The downshift in globalization today is even worse than it appears in Chart 10 because several countries have not yet produced the necessary post-pandemic data, artificially reducing the denominator and making the post-pandemic trade rebound appear more prominent than it is in reality. 2     Scott A. Shay, Conspiracy U: A Case Study (New York: Post Hill Press, 2021), 279 pages. Strategic Themes Open Tactical Positions (0-6 Months) Open Cyclical Recommendations (6-18 Months) Appendix: GeoRisk Indicator China China: GeoRisk Indicator China: GeoRisk Indicator Russia Russia: GeoRisk Indicator Russia: GeoRisk Indicator United Kingdom UK: GeoRisk Indicator UK: GeoRisk Indicator Germany Germany: GeoRisk Indicator Germany: GeoRisk Indicator France France: GeoRisk Indicator France: GeoRisk Indicator Italy Italy: GeoRisk Indicator Italy: GeoRisk Indicator Canada Canada: GeoRisk Indicator Canada: GeoRisk Indicator Spain Spain: GeoRisk Indicator Spain: GeoRisk Indicator Taiwan Taiwan Territory: GeoRisk Indicator Taiwan Territory: GeoRisk Indicator Korea Korea: GeoRisk Indicator Korea: GeoRisk Indicator Turkey Turkey: GeoRisk Indicator Turkey: GeoRisk Indicator Brazil Brazil: GeoRisk Indicator Brazil: GeoRisk Indicator Australia Australia: GeoRisk Indicator Australia: GeoRisk Indicator South Africa South Africa: GeoRisk Indicator South Africa: GeoRisk Indicator Section III: Geopolitical Calendar

Dear Clients, This is the final publication for the year, in which we recap some of the key economic developments this month. Our publishing schedule will resume on January 6, 2022. The China Investment Strategy team wishes you a very happy and safe holiday season and a prosperous New Year! Best regards, Jing Sima China Strategist   Feature Recently released data show China’s economy is weakening despite easing monetary policy and power-supply constraints. Our credit impulse – measured by the year-on-year change in total social financing as a share of GDP – inched up in November (Chart 1, top panel).  Given that the indicator leads economic activity by about six to nine months, we maintain the view that China’s economy will not bottom until Q2 next year. Chinese stocks, driven by business cycle, will remain under downward pressures in the next three to six months (Chart 1, middle and bottom panels). On the policy front, the PBoC announced a 50bps cut in the reserve requirement ratio (RRR) rate taking effect in mid-December. Last week’s Central Economic Work Conference (CEWC) signaled that stabilizing the economy will be the government’s core policy objective for 2022. However, we believe that policymakers will be data dependent and will only allow an overshoot in credit growth when the slowdown in the economy gathers pace in early 2022. Thus, investors should maintain an underweight allocation to Chinese equities relative to global stocks, at least for the next three to six months, until credit growth significantly improves.   Chart 1Downside Risks Remain High For Chinese Stocks Until The Econmomy Troughs Downside Risks Remain High For Chinese Stocks Until The Econmomy Troughs Downside Risks Remain High For Chinese Stocks Until The Econmomy Troughs Chart 2Chinese Internet Stocks Are Not Cheap Chinese Internet Stocks Are Not Cheap Chinese Internet Stocks Are Not Cheap Chinese investable stocks, particularly internet companies, will continue to face geopolitical and regulatory headwinds in the next 12 months. Chinese tech stocks sold off this year, but they are not cheap (Chart 2). Economic weakness in the onshore market in the next three to six months may trigger more selloffs and further multiples compressions in Chinese investable stocks.   Qingyun Xu, CFA Associate Editor qingyunx@bcaresearch.com   Cuts To The RRR And Relending Rates: Not Game Changers Chart 3RRR Cut Is Not A Game Changer RRR Cut Is Not A Game Changer RRR Cut Is Not A Game Changer Following the RRR cut announcement in early December, the PBoC announced a 25bps decrease in the relending rate targeting agriculture and small businesses (Chart 3). The measures sent an easing signal in response to mounting downside risks in the economy. However, their impact on credit growth will likely be limited for the following reasons: First, the PBoC indicated that the RRR cut will release around RMB1.2 trillion in liquidity to the banks. From that amount, RMB950 billion will be used to replace maturing Medium-term Lending Facility (MLF) this month, which leaves only RMB250 billion for new liquidity injection. Chart 4Business Conditions For SMEs Deteriorated Faster Than For Larger Businesses Business Conditions For SMEs Deteriorated Faster Than For Larger Businesses Business Conditions For SMEs Deteriorated Faster Than For Larger Businesses Secondly, the PBoC is trying to prevent a jump in market-based rates in the next two quarters.  Demand for liquidity is usually high due to tax season by year-end plus a front-loading of local government bond (LGB) issuance. Moreover, the Chinese New Year in Q1 2022 will further boost demand for liquidity. Thirdly, the targeted relending rate drop is intended to lower the borrowing costs of small-medium enterprises (SMEs) whose profitability has been challenged by rising input costs and sluggish consumer demand (Chart 4). Loan demand from small enterprises, as shown in the PBoC survey, peaked much earlier and tumbled more rapidly than their larger peers (Chart 4, bottom panel). The rate cut has decreased the possibility of a broadly based decline in interest rates in the near-term. China’s Credit Growth May Have Bottomed, But The Rebound Is Moderate  Chart 5Below-Expectation Credit Growth In November Below-Expectation Credit Growth In November Below-Expectation Credit Growth In November China’s aggregate credit growth ticked up slightly in November. The modest advance mainly reflects an acceleration in LGB issuance. Chart 5 highlights that excluding LGB financing, China’s credit impulse remains on a downward trend. LGBs will be frontloaded in Q1 2022 before the March National People’s Congress sets the full-year quota for LGBs.  However, without a meaningful rebound in bank loan growth, the effects of LGB issuance on infrastructure investment will be limited and short-lived, as occurred in Q1 2019 (Chart 6). Shadow banking, which historically has had a tight correlation with infrastructure investment, continued to slide in November to an all-time low. Infrastructure project approval also does not show any signs of strengthening (Chart 7). Chart 6Improvement In Infrastructure Investment Will Be Limited Without An Acceleration In Loan Growth Improvement In Infrastructure Investment Will Be Limited Without An Acceleration In Loan Growth Improvement In Infrastructure Investment Will Be Limited Without An Acceleration In Loan Growth Chart 7Key Indicators Show Weak Signs Of Revival In Infrastructure Spending Key Indicators Show Weak Signs Of Revival In Infrastructure Spending Key Indicators Show Weak Signs Of Revival In Infrastructure Spending Weak demand for bank loans from corporations dragged down credit growth in November as evidenced by softening growth in medium- and long-term corporate loans (Chart 8). Both corporate financing needs and investment willingness continued to wane, implying that corporate demand for bank lending may not turn around soon despite recent monetary easing (Chart 8, bottom panel). In addition, marginal easing measures in the property market have not worked their way into the sector. Bank loans to real estate developers plummeted to all-time lows last month, while trust loans contracted significantly in November, which indicates that financing conditions for real estate developers have not improved (Chart 9). Chart 8Loan Demand Remains Weak And Unlikely To Turn Around Imminently Loan Demand Remains Weak And Unlikely To Turn Around Imminently Loan Demand Remains Weak And Unlikely To Turn Around Imminently Chart 9Deepening Contraction In Trust Loans Indicates Deteriorating Financing Conditions For Real Estate Developers Deepening Contraction In Trust Loans Indicates Deteriorating Financing Conditions For Real Estate Developers Deepening Contraction In Trust Loans Indicates Deteriorating Financing Conditions For Real Estate Developers Easing Of Property Restrictions Will Marginally Benefit The Housing Market Last week’s Politburo meeting and the CEWC both proposed to promote affordable rental housing and support reasonable housing demand. Loan growth to government-subsidized social welfare housing has been decelerating since 2018 and started to contract this year (Chart 10). It will likely strengthen next year amid policy support, but from a very low level and at a modest rate. In addition, although social welfare housing loans account for around 40% of bank loans to real estate developers, they are only about 6% of developers’ total source of funding as of 2020. We expect more policy finetuning in the coming months, which may help slow the pace of deterioration in real estate developers’ financing conditions. Real estate developers’ financing from banks may bottom on the back of government’s intervention, but the improvement in total funds to developers will be gradual without mortgage rate cuts and a pickup in home sales (Chart 11). Meanwhile, the downward trend in housing completion will be sustained in the coming months (Chart 11, top panel). Chart 10Bank Loans To Social Welfare Housing Will Likely Improve Modestly Amid Policy Support Bank Loans To Social Welfare Housing Will Likely Improve Modestly Amid Policy Support Bank Loans To Social Welfare Housing Will Likely Improve Modestly Amid Policy Support Chart 11Less Funding = Reduced Completions And Investments Less Funding = Reduced Completions And Investments Less Funding = Reduced Completions And Investments Housing prices in most Tier-one and Tier-two cities continued to move down through November. Data for high-frequency floor space sold show that housing demand continued to abate last month despite a modest uptick in household mortgage loans (Chart 12). Home sales will remain depressed as buyers expect more discounts in housing prices and real estate tax reforms loom. Falling prices and constraints in developers’ financing will continue to weigh on housing starts, given the strong positive correlation between property starts and housing prices (Chart 13). Chart 12Demand For Housing In November Showed Little Signs Of Revival Demand For Housing In November Showed Little Signs Of Revival Demand For Housing In November Showed Little Signs Of Revival Chart 13Housing Starts Are Highly Correlated With Prices Housing Starts Are Highly Correlated With Prices Housing Starts Are Highly Correlated With Prices   The Rebound In November’s PMI Does Not Signal A Bottom In China’s Economy Chart 14China's PMI Rebounds Amid Supply-Side Improvement China's PMI Rebounds Amid Supply-Side Improvement China's PMI Rebounds Amid Supply-Side Improvement The NBS manufacturing PMI returned to above the 50-expansionary threshold in November, but the rise reflects a near-term supply-side improvement related to the power shortage rather than a demand-driven recovery (Chart 14). China’s overall business conditions and domestic demand are still worsening, indicating that the rebound in the manufacturing PMI may be short-lived. The production subindex jumped by three and half percentage points in November from October, reflecting re-started operation of heavy-industry enterprises that were halted amid electricity shortages in September and October. Robust global demand for China’s manufactured goods supported a strong reading in November’s new export orders subindex. However, domestic demand remains lackluster. A proxy for the new domestic orders derived from the PMI reached its lowest level since February 2020 (Chart 14, bottom panel). In addition, service PMI weakened last month. A sharp resurgence in domestic COVID cases curbed service sector activity last month. Given uncertainties surrounding the Omicron variant and China’s zero-tolerance policy towards COVID, the service sector’s recovery will likely remain below-trend into 1H 2022 (Chart 15 and 16). Chart 15Lingering COVID Effects Will Continue To Impede Service Sector Activity In 1H22 Lingering COVID Effects Will Continue To Impede Service Sector Activity In 1H22 Lingering COVID Effects Will Continue To Impede Service Sector Activity In 1H22 Chart 16Service Sector Recovery In China Has Lagged Service Sector Recovery In China Has Lagged Service Sector Recovery In China Has Lagged Inflation Passthroughs Ongoing Producer price index (PPI) inflation may have peaked. Meanwhile, the consumer price index (CPI) shows another upturn in November. Despite the peak in PPI inflation, it will likely remain above trend through at least 1H22, supported by elevated commodity and energy prices (Chart 17). Chart 17PPI May Have Peaked, But Will Remain Elevated In The Near Term PPI May Have Peaked, But Will Remain Elevated In The Near Term PPI May Have Peaked, But Will Remain Elevated In The Near Term Chart 18Ongoing Inflation Passthroughs Ongoing Inflation Passthroughs Ongoing Inflation Passthroughs A synchronized rise between PPI consumer goods and non-food CPI, and a narrower gap between PPI and CPI inflation, suggest an ongoing inflation passthrough from producers to consumers (Chart 18). Price increases in some key sectors of manufactured consumer goods sped up in November (Chart 19). However, we do not think China’s consumer price inflation will prevent policymakers from further policy easing. Consumer goods prices are lightly weighted in China’s CPI. An acceleration in inflation passthroughs in this component is unlikely to significantly push up the CPI aggregates. Headline CPI may gather steam next year if food prices rise while energy prices remain at current levels. Nonetheless, in recent years China’s monetary policymaking has been more tightly correlated with the PPI and core CPI, and not headline CPI (Chart 20). Chart 19Manufactured Consumer Goods Prices On The Rise Manufactured Consumer Goods Prices On The Rise Manufactured Consumer Goods Prices On The Rise Chart 20Monetary Policy Is Tightly Correlated With Core CPI And Not Headline CPI Monetary Policy Is Tightly Correlated With Core CPI And Not Headline CPI Monetary Policy Is Tightly Correlated With Core CPI And Not Headline CPI Surging Prices Underpin China’s Exports, While The Rebound In Imports Is Unsustainable Chart 21Surging Export Prices Underpinned Strong Growth In The Value Of China's Exports Surging Export Prices Underpinned Strong Growth In The Value Of China's Exports Surging Export Prices Underpinned Strong Growth In The Value Of China's Exports Chinese exports in volume tumbled in November, however, surging export prices underpinned the strong growth in the value of exports (Chart 21). Demand from the US drove Chinese exports this year and the moderation in volume growth was more than offset by escalating prices (Chart 22). China’s export prices have caught up with the global average (Chart 23). Chart 22Strong Demand From US Has Driven Up China's Exports Strong Demand From US Has Driven Up China's Exports Strong Demand From US Has Driven Up China's Exports Chart 23Chinese Export Prices Have Caught Up With The Global Average Chinese Export Prices Have Caught Up With The Global Average Chinese Export Prices Have Caught Up With The Global Average We expect China’s export growth to slow in the new year on the back of softer global growth and a rotation in US household consumption from goods to services  (Chart 24). However, while slowing, global economic growth is projected to remain above trend. The low level of industrial inventories will also provide support to the demand for goods, which will help to sustain strong growth in Chinese exports (Chart 25). China’s imports surprised to the upside in November, boosted by imports of commodities such as coal and crude oil. November’s acceleration in imports reflects a higher demand for primary commodities from Chinese producers, who recovered some production capacity from the power shortages in the previous few months. Chart 24US Household Spending Will Shift From Goods To Services US Household Spending Will Shift From Goods To Services US Household Spending Will Shift From Goods To Services Chart 25Inventory Restocking In The US Will Support Chinese Exports Next Year Inventory Restocking In The US Will Support Chinese Exports Next Year Inventory Restocking In The US Will Support Chinese Exports Next Year Furthermore, the increase in import prices in November outpaced the very modest uptick in the volume of imports, indicating that domestic demand remains sluggish (Chart 26). Credit growth, which normally leads import growth by about six months, only climbed moderately in November and will provide limited support to imports in the coming months (Chart 27). Chart 26Rising Import Prices Masked Weakness In China's Domestic Demand Rising Import Prices Masked Weakness In China's Domestic Demand Rising Import Prices Masked Weakness In China's Domestic Demand Chart 27Modest Rebound In Credit Impulse Will Provide Little Support To Chinese Imports Modest Rebound In Credit Impulse Will Provide Little Support To Chinese Imports Modest Rebound In Credit Impulse Will Provide Little Support To Chinese Imports Chart 28Chinese Demand For Industrial Metals Remains In Deep Contraction Chinese Demand For Industrial Metals Remains In Deep Contraction Chinese Demand For Industrial Metals Remains In Deep Contraction China’s imports of industrial metals, such as copper and steel, improved a little in November, but their year-on-year growth remains in deep contraction (Chart 28). Weakening construction activity amid a continued downtrend in China’s property market will likely reduce the demand for industrial metals. Therefore, the rebound in November’s import growth may be short-lived. The RMB Faces Headwinds In 2022 Regardless Of A Rise In FX Deposit RRR The RMB has climbed about 2% against the dollar since late July despite broad-based dollar strength. In trade-weighted terms, the RMB is at its strongest level since late 2015 (Chart 29). A rapidly appreciating RMB does not bode well for China’s industrial sector profits, and thus not at the PBoC’s best interests (Chart 30). Under this backdrop, last week the PBoC announced that it will raise the banks’ foreign exchange (FX) deposit reserve requirement ratio (RRR) to 9% from 7%, effective December 15. This is the second increase this year aimed at easing the RMB’s pace of appreciation. The RMB fell slightly against the US dollar following the announcement last week. Chart 29The RMB Has Strengthened Despite A Strong USD The RMB Has Strengthened Despite A Strong USD The RMB Has Strengthened Despite A Strong USD Chart 30Strengthening RMB Does Not Bode Well For Corporate Profit Growth Strengthening RMB Does Not Bode Well For Corporate Profit Growth Strengthening RMB Does Not Bode Well For Corporate Profit Growth The RMB appreciation against dollar this year was mainly enhanced by China’s record current account surplus and favorable interest rate differentials between China and the US (Chart 31 and 32). Although the increase in the deposit RRR rate will force banks to hold more foreign currencies and lift the cost of RMB speculation, the RRR hike itself has little impact on altering the existing path in RMB exchange rate. Moreover, the balance of FX deposits stands at US$1 trillion as of November this year. The 200bps increase in the FX deposit reserve ratio will only freeze about US$20 billion in FX liquidity, which is negligible compared with the US$580 billion in China’s trade surplus so far this year. Chart 31Current Account Surplus Will Likely Shrink Next Year Current Account Surplus Will Likely Shrink Next Year Current Account Surplus Will Likely Shrink Next Year Chart 32Interest Rate Differentials Will Narrow Further Interest Rate Differentials Will Narrow Further Interest Rate Differentials Will Narrow Further However, looking forward the conditions favored RMB this year are at risk of reversing in 2022. China’s weaker economic fundamentals and a slower pace in trade surplus next year, as well as narrowed interest rate differentials between the US and China due to falling long-duration bond yields in China, will provide headwinds to RMB. Therefore, investors should closely follow these key factors and to be cautious to bet on continued RMB appreciation. Table 1China Macro Data Summary More Slowdown To Come Before More Easing More Slowdown To Come Before More Easing Table 2China Financial Market Performance Summary More Slowdown To Come Before More Easing More Slowdown To Come Before More Easing Footnotes Market/Sector Recommendations Cyclical Investment Stance

Highlights Below-Benchmark Portfolio Duration: Bond investors should keep portfolio duration low in 2022. While the market’s pricing of the expected Fed liftoff date and initial pace of rate hikes is reasonable, terminal fed funds rate expectations are far too low. Own Treasury Curve Steepeners: The 2/10 Treasury slope will flatten by less than what is currently discounted in the forward curve in 2022. Investors should position for this by going long the 2-year note versus a duration-matched barbell consisting of cash and the 10-year note. Sell Short-Maturity TIPS: Investors should maintain a neutral allocation to long-maturity TIPS versus nominal Treasuries and an underweight allocation to short-maturity TIPS versus nominal Treasuries. We also recommend an outright short position in 2-year TIPS, as short-maturity real yields have a lot of upside in 2022. Overweight Corporate Bonds Versus Treasuries … For Now: We are overweight corporate bonds versus duration-matched Treasuries, for now, but expect to turn more defensive in the first half of 2022 once the yield curve sustainably moves into a flatter regime. Relative valuations suggest that investors should favor high-yield corporates over investment grade. Overweight Emerging Market Bonds Versus US Corporates: EM bonds offer an attractive spread advantage versus US corporates, and a weakening US dollar will help boost returns in 2022. A Maximum Overweight Allocation To Municipal Bonds: Municipal bonds offer exceptional value, especially at the long-end of the curve, and state & local government balance sheets are in excellent shape. Underweight Agency MBS: Agency Mortgage-Backed Securities don’t adequately compensate investors for the likely pace of refi activity in 2021. An up-in-coupon stance is also advisable to take advantage of rising bond yields. Feature BCA published its 2022 Outlook on December 1st. That report lays out the main macroeconomic themes that our strategists see driving markets next year. This Special Report explains how investors can profit from those themes in US fixed income markets. Specifically, we offer seven key US fixed income views for 2022. This report is limited to the seven key investment views, and only discusses Fed policy in the context of how it influences those views. Next week we will publish a more comprehensive “Fed In 2022” report that will delve into our outlook for the Fed next year. Outlook Summary First, a summary of the main economic views presented in BCA’s 2022 Outlook.1   On Economic Growth: The COVID-19 pandemic will recede in importance in 2022 allowing US economic growth to remain above trend. Sizeable household savings and wealth will support consumer spending, the composition of which will shift away from goods and towards services. Corporate capital expenditures also look set to surge. On Inflation: A transition in consumer spending from goods to services and an increase in labor supply will cause US inflation to fall in 2022, though it will remain above the Fed’s target. On Fed Policy: The first Fed rate hike will occur between June and December 2022, depending on the paths of inflation and inflation expectations during the next few months. Fed tightening will continue into 2023. On China and Emerging Markets: Further policy easing in H1 2022 will lead to a reacceleration in Chinese economic activity in the back half of the year. The BCA house view is negative on EM equities for now but will turn more bullish when clearer signs of Chinese policy easing emerge. Risks To The Outlook: The greatest risk to the outlook is that the spread of the Omicron variant leads to the re-imposition of public health measures that will weigh on economic activity. The effect of the Omicron variant remains uncertain, but increasingly widespread vaccination and the advent of anti-viral treatments should help mitigate any negative economic impacts. Key View #1: Below-Benchmark Portfolio Duration Bond investors should keep portfolio duration low in 2022, favoring the 2-year maturity over the 10-year. While the market’s pricing of the expected Fed liftoff date and initial pace of rate hikes is reasonable, terminal fed funds rate expectations are far too low. Our recommendation to keep portfolio duration low in 2022 stems directly from our assessment of Federal Reserve policy. Without going into too much detail – we will do that in next week’s “Fed In 2022” report – the Fed appears to have adopted a more hawkish reaction function during the past month. The Fed’s official forward guidance says that it will not lift rates until the labor market reaches “maximum employment”. However, Fed Chair Jay Powell weakened that commitment in recent Senate testimony. Powell said that persistently high inflation threatens the economic recovery and implied that to reach its maximum employment goal the Fed may need to act pre-emptively to tame inflation. To us, this means that the Fed’s “maximum employment” condition for lifting rates is no longer binding. The Fed will accelerate the pace of tapering when it meets this week and will start lifting rates between June and December of next year, depending on the interim trends in inflation and inflation expectations. After liftoff, Fed rate hikes will proceed at a predictable pace of 75-100 bps per year until economic growth slows significantly. We expect the fed funds rate to reach at least 2% before that occurs, consistent with survey estimates of the long-run neutral fed funds rate. Let’s compare our estimate of the future fed funds rate path with what is currently priced in the bond market (Chart 1). Chart 1The Market's Rate Expectations The Market's Rate Expectations The Market's Rate Expectations Liftoff The overnight index swap (OIS) curve is priced for Fed liftoff in May 2022. This is a tad early compared to our projections, but not by much. Pace After liftoff, the OIS curve is priced for the fed funds rate to rise 79 bps during the subsequent 12 months. Again, this is roughly consistent with our own expectations that the Fed will deliver three or four 25 basis point rate hikes per year. Terminal Rate It is the market’s pricing of the endpoint of the next tightening cycle – the terminal fed funds rate – that disagrees significantly with our forecast. The OIS curve is priced for the funds rate to reach 1.5% in 2024 and then stabilize. This is too low. It is too low compared to the last tightening cycle when the fed funds rate reached 2.45% in 2019. It is also too low compared to survey estimates from market participants and primary dealers. The median respondent to the New York Fed’s Survey of Market Participants estimates that the long-run neutral fed funds rate is 2%. The median response to the same question from the Survey of Primary Dealers is 2.25% and the median FOMC participant pegs the long-run neutral rate at 2.5%. Meanwhile, the 5-year/5-year forward Treasury yield – a rough proxy for the long-run neutral interest rate that’s priced in the Treasury market – sits at only 1.73%. Historically, the 5-year/5-year forward yield converges with survey estimates of the long-run neutral rate as the Fed moves toward tightening (Chart 2). This means the 5-year/5-year forward Treasury yield has at least 27-52 bps of upside in 2022. Chart 25y5y Has Room To Rise 5y5y Has Room To Rise 5y5y Has Room To Rise Treasury Yield Forecasts Chart 3Treasury Yield Forecasts Treasury Yield Forecasts Treasury Yield Forecasts Chart 3 shows the 2-year, 5-year and 10-year Treasury yields along with the expected paths that are discounted in the forward curve for the next 12 months. The shaded regions in each panel represent our fair value estimates of where those yields will trade if the market moves to price-in our expected future path for the fed funds rate. The upper bound of the fair value range represents the most hawkish fed funds rate scenario that we think is feasible. It assumes that Fed liftoff occurs in June, that rate hikes proceed at a pace of 100 bps per year and that the fed funds rate levels-off at a terminal rate of 2.08% (8 bps above the lower-end of a 2%-2.25% target range). The lower bound of the fair value range represents the most dovish fed funds rate scenario that we think is feasible. It assumes that Fed liftoff occurs in December 2022, that rate hikes proceed at a pace of 75 bps per year and that the fed funds rate levels-of at a terminal rate of 2.08%. Chart 3 shows that the 10-year Treasury yield is well below even the lower-end of our fair value range. The 5-year Treasury yield is a bit too low compared to our target range and the 2-year yield is consistent with our fair value range, though at the very upper-end. The investment conclusions are obvious. Bond investors should keep portfolio duration low in 2022. They should avoid the 10-year maturity and allocate most funds to shorter maturities like the 2-year. It should be noted that we used a conservative 2.08% terminal rate estimate in the scenarios presented in Chart 3. This is at the low-end of most survey estimates. What’s more, the BCA Outlook makes a strong case that those survey estimates will be revised higher once it becomes apparent that interest rates will have to rise to well above 2% to contain inflation. We agree that survey estimates of the long-run fed funds rate are probably too low, but we don’t expect them to be revised higher in 2022. Upward terminal rate revisions are probably a story for 2023 or 2024, sometime after the Fed has delivered a few rate hikes and it becomes apparent that more will be needed to slow an overheating economy. Appendix A at the end of this report translates different fed funds rate scenarios into 12-month expected returns for every Treasury maturity. We show scenarios where the liftoff date varies between June 2022 and December 2022, where the pace of rate hikes varies between 75 bps and 100 bps per year and where the terminal fed funds rate varies between 2.08% and 2.58%. The 10-year Treasury note is projected to deliver negative returns in every scenario we tested. Meanwhile, the 2-year Treasury note is projected to deliver a small positive return in every single scenario. These results support our conclusion from Chart 3. Investors should maintain below-benchmark portfolio duration and favor short maturities over long maturities. Risks To The View The first risk to our bearish view on US Treasuries is a resurgence of the pandemic. The 10-year Treasury yield continues to track the “pandemic trade” in the stock market. That is, the 10-year yield rises when a basket of equities that benefit from economic re-opening outperforms a basket of equities that benefit from lockdowns, and vice-versa (Chart 4). So far, the news about the virulence of the Omicron COVID variant has been encouraging, and our base case scenario assumes a further easing of pandemic concerns over the course of 2022. The second risk to our view is that the Fed moves too aggressively toward rate hikes causing an abrupt tightening of financial conditions that weighs on economic growth and sends long-dated bond yields lower. The shaded region in Chart 5 shows that this exact dynamic played out in 2018. Fed rate hikes started to pressure the dollar higher and weigh on equities. This led to tighter financial conditions and slower economic growth. The impact of tighter financial conditions was not immediately evident in the bond market, but slower growth eventually caused the Fed to back away from rate hikes leading to a late-2018 peak in the 10-year yield. Chart 410yr Tracks The "Pandemic Trade" 10yr Tracks The "Pandemic Trade" 10yr Tracks The "Pandemic Trade" Chart 5Watch Financial Conditions In 2022 Watch Financial Conditions In 2022 Watch Financial Conditions In 2022 Compared to the 2018 scenario, we see less risk of Fed over-tightening in 2022 mainly because the fed funds rate is starting out at a much lower level. However, it will be important to track financial conditions as the Fed moves toward liftoff. Undue tightening would cause us to reverse our positioning. Key View #2: Own Treasury Curve Steepeners The 2/10 Treasury slope will flatten by less than what is currently discounted in the forward curve in 2022. Investors should position for this by going long the 2-year note versus a duration-matched barbell consisting of cash and the 10-year note. We also recommend buying the 20-year bond versus a duration-matched barbell consisting of the 10-year note and 30-year bond as an attractive duration-neutral carry trade. The scenarios presented in the prior section show that the 2-year Treasury yield is priced within the bounds of our estimated fair value range while the 10-year Treasury yield looks too low. Logically, it makes sense to position for a steepening of the 2/10 Treasury curve to profit from this divergence. Chart 6 illustrates the implications of the prior section’s fair value estimates for different Treasury slopes. Our fair value range projects that the 2/10 Treasury slope will be between 38 bps and 89 bps in 12 months, above the 37 bps that is currently priced into the forward curve. The forward curve is also priced for too much flattening in the 2/5 Treasury slope, while the 5/10 slope is consistent with the lower end of our fair value range.   The conclusion is that investors should implement 2/10 Treasury curve steepeners in 2022 on the expectation that the 2/10 slope will flatten by less than what is currently discounted in the forward curve. A comparison of the 5-year/5-year forward Treasury yield with a target range based on survey estimates of the long-run neutral fed funds rate also supports the case for 2/10 steepeners. Historically, an increase in the 5-year/5-year forward yield towards its target range corresponds with a steepening of the 2/10 slope (Chart 7). Bear-flattening moves in the 2/10 slope only occur when the 5-year/5-year forward is within its target band, as was the case in 2017/18. Given that the 5-year/5-year forward yield is currently well below its survey-derived target range, there is room for some 2/10 steepening as yields rise. Chart 6Treasury Slope Forecasts Treasury Slope Forecasts Treasury Slope Forecasts Chart 7A Rising 5y5y Will Steepen The Curve A Rising 5y5y Will Steepen The Curve A Rising 5y5y Will Steepen The Curve One way to position for a steeper 2/10 curve is to go long the 5-year Treasury note versus a duration-matched barbell consisting of the 2-year and 10-year notes. Presently, this trade looks very attractive. The 2/5/10 butterfly spread shows a significant yield advantage in the 5-year bullet over the 2/10 barbell, both in absolute terms and relative to our fair value model (Chart 8). While we view this as a good trade, we don’t think it’s the best way to position for 2/10 steepening. We prefer a position long the 2-year note versus a duration-matched barbell consisting of cash and the 10-year note. This trade gives you long exposure at the 2-year maturity instead of the 5-year maturity which will boost returns if the 2/5 slope steepens, as we anticipate it will (Chart 6, panel 2). Chart 8Curve Steepeners Are Cheap Curve Steepeners Are Cheap Curve Steepeners Are Cheap In addition to our recommended 2/10 steepener, we advise clients to favor the 20-year bond versus a duration-matched barbell consisting of the 10-year note and 30-year bond. While we’d expect some flattening of the 10/30 slope in 2022, this trade should still perform well because of its huge carry advantage. The tables in Appendix A show that the 20-year bond earns a massive 12-month carry (income plus rolldown return) of 3.05% compared to 1.85% for the 10-year note and 1.80% for the 30-year bond. Key View #3: Sell Short-Maturity TIPS Chart 9TIPS Breakevens TIPS Breakevens TIPS Breakevens Investors should maintain a neutral allocation to long-maturity TIPS versus nominal Treasuries and an underweight allocation to short-maturity TIPS versus nominal Treasuries. Other attractive positions include: an outright short position in 2-year TIPS, an inflation curve steepener (short 2yr TIPS/long 2yr nominal/long 10yr TIPS/short 10yr nominal), and a TIPS curve flattener (short 2yr TIPS/long 10yr TIPS). As noted at the beginning of this report, we see inflation trending down in 2022. Inflation will remain high enough for the Fed to feel comfortable lifting rates, but it won’t match the elevated readings that are currently discounted in TIPS. Interestingly, long-maturity TIPS breakeven inflation rates are roughly consistent with the Fed’s 2.3%-2.5% target range (Chart 9). The 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rate is a bit too low, at 2.13%, and the 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate is currently 2.47%. With long-dated TIPS breakevens so close to the Fed’s target, we recommend a neutral allocation to long-maturity TIPS versus long-maturity nominal Treasuries heading into 2022. In our view, the mispricing in TIPS lies at the front-end of the curve. The 2-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate has risen to 3.23%, well above the Fed’s 2.3%-2.5% target range. This year’s surge in short-maturity TIPS breakevens has also resulted in a deeply inverted inflation slope (Chart 9, bottom panel). Table 1Regression of Monthly Changes In CPI Swap Rate Versus Monthly Changes In 12-Month Headline CPI Inflation (2010 - Present) 2022 Key Views: US Fixed Income 2022 Key Views: US Fixed Income Short-maturity inflation expectations are highly sensitive to changes in CPI inflation, much more so than long-maturity expectations. In fact, monthly changes in the 2-year CPI swap rate are more than twice as sensitive to headline inflation than are monthly changes in the 10-year CPI swap rate (Table 1). This means that the cost of short-maturity inflation compensation will decline as inflation moderates in 2022. We recommend an underweight allocation to short-maturity TIPS versus short-maturity nominal Treasuries. We also think an outright short position in 2-year TIPS will be highly profitable in 2022. If we assume that the 2-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate falls to the middle of the Fed’s target range during the next 12 months, and additionally that the 2-year nominal Treasury yield converges with our fair value estimate using the scenario of a September Fed liftoff, 100 bps per year hike pace and 2.08% terminal rate, then we calculate that the 2-year TIPS yield will rise from its current -2.56% to -0.98% during the next 12 months (Chart 10). Chart 10A Lot Of Upside In Short-Maturity Real Yields Short 2-Year TIPS A Lot Of Upside In Short-Maturity Real Yields Short 2-Year TIPS A Lot Of Upside In Short-Maturity Real Yields Short 2-Year TIPS Chart 10 also shows that the anticipated rise in the 2-year TIPS yield greatly outpaces the modest expected increase in the 10-year TIPS yield. This means that a position in 2/10 TIPS curve flatteners will turn a profit in 2022 (Chart 10, bottom panel). Key View #4: Overweight Corporate Bonds Versus Treasuries … For Now We are overweight corporate bonds versus duration-matched Treasuries, for now, but expect to turn more defensive in the first half of 2022 once the yield curve sustainably moves into a flatter regime. Relative valuations suggest that investors should favor high-yield corporates over investment grade. A key pillar of our corporate bond investment process is to split the economic cycle into three phases based on the slope of the yield curve (Chart 11). Phase 1 of the cycle is defined as the period from the end of the last recession until the 3-year/10-year Treasury slope breaks below 50 bps. Phase 2 of the cycle spans the period when the slope is between 0 bps and 50 bps. Phase 3 lasts from when the yield curve inverts until the start of the next recession. Chart 11The Three Phases Of The Economic Cycle The Three Phases Of The Economic Cycle The Three Phases Of The Economic Cycle Our historical analysis shows that excess corporate bond returns versus duration-matched Treasuries tend to be strongest in Phase 1. They are usually positive, but much lower, in Phase 2 and are often negative in Phase 3 (Table 2). Table 2Corporate Bond Returns Across The Three Phases Of The Cycle 2022 Key Views: US Fixed Income 2022 Key Views: US Fixed Income We have been firmly in Phase 1 since April 2020 and, as we would expect, excess corporate bond returns have been strong. However, we will not remain in Phase 1 much longer. The 3-year/10-year Treasury slope is currently 50 bps, right on the precipice between Phase 1 and Phase 2. We recommend an overweight allocation to corporate bonds versus Treasuries for now, but we will adopt a more defensive posture toward corporates once we transition into Phase 2. We expect this will happen sometime in the first half of 2022. Why Are We Not In Phase 2 Already? Chart 12Curve Flattening Is Overdone Curve Flattening Is Overdone Curve Flattening Is Overdone The 3-year/10-year Treasury slope is hovering right around 50 bps. However, as is noted earlier in this report, we think that recent yield curve flattening is overdone and expect it to reverse somewhat in the coming months. Chart 12 shows the 3-year/10-year slope along with an expected fair value range. This range is based on a 100 bps Fed rate hike pace, a 2.08% terminal rate and varying the liftoff date between June 2022 and December 2022. This fair value range only breaks below 50 bps between March and September of next year. Given our yield curve view, we are positioned for one last period of strong corporate bond outperformance during the next few months. But we will turn more defensive once we judge that we have sustainably transitioned into a Phase 2 environment. Why Turn More Defensive In Phase 2? Chart 13IG Corporate Valuations IG Corporate Valuations IG Corporate Valuations It’s correct to point out that excess corporate bond returns are still generally positive in Phase 2 environments, so ideally, we would remain overweight corporate bonds versus Treasuries throughout Phase 2. This makes sense theoretically, but strategically we think it will be wise to adopt a different approach this cycle. The main reason to err on the side of caution is that corporate bond valuations are extremely stretched. The 12-month breakeven spread for the investment grade corporate bond index is at its 6th percentile since 1995. This means that the investment grade corporate bond index has only been more expensive than today 6% of the time since 1995 (Chart 13). Tight spreads mean that expected returns will be modest, even in a favorable cyclical environment. In other words, we are not sacrificing much expected return by reducing exposure early in the cycle. Given that we can’t predict the start of the next Phase 3 period with exact precision, we think it makes sense to be more defensive this cycle. We will sacrifice some modest expected returns to ensure that we are well positioned for the next period of significant spread widening. Our corporate bond strategy is supported by an empirical study of historical returns. Table 3A shows average 12-month excess returns for the investment grade corporate bond index after certain combinations of the 3/10 Treasury slope and average index option-adjusted spread (OAS) are observed. Table 3B shows 90% confidence intervals for the averages presented in Table 3A. Chart Chart The tables show that a strategy of remaining overweight corporate bonds versus Treasuries after the yield curve transitions into Phase 2 only works when the corporate index OAS is above 100 bps. A transition into Phase 2 portends negative excess corporate bond returns when the OAS is below 100 bps, as it is today. Favor High-Yield Over Investment Grade Chart 14HY Corporate Valuations HY Corporate Valuations HY Corporate Valuations While investment grade corporate bonds look extremely expensive compared to history, high-yield corporate bonds look somewhat expensive, but much less so. The average High-Yield index OAS is 1 bp below its pre-COVID low, but investors still get a nice spread pickup for moving out of the Baa-rated credit tier and into the Ba-rated tier (Chart 14). Our prior research has shown that high-yield corporates tend to outperform duration-matched Treasuries when the excess index spread after accounting for default losses is above 100 bps.2 If we assume a minimum required excess spread of 100 bps and a 40% recovery rate on defaulted debt, we can calculate that the junk index is priced for a default rate of 3.4% during the next 12 months (Chart 14, bottom panel). All available evidence suggests that the default rate will come in below 3.4% during the next 12 months, leading to positive excess returns for high-yield corporate bonds. The default rate came in at 1.8% for the 12-month period ending in November and it has been dropping like a stone, consistent with the reading from our Default Rate Model (Chart 15). We also recently wrote about the exceptionally good health of corporate balance sheets.3 We expect the default rate will be in the mid-2% range in 2022, below what is priced into the junk index. Chart 15Corporate Defaults Will Stay Low In 2022 Corporate Defaults Will Stay Low In 2022 Corporate Defaults Will Stay Low In 2022 Junk’s valuation advantage leads us to recommend that investors maintain a preference for high-yield corporates over investment grade. We will turn more defensive on both investment grade and high-yield corporates once we transition into a Phase 2 environment, but we may still retain our preference for high-yield over investment grade at that time, as long as junk stays relatively cheap. Key View #5: Overweight Emerging Market Bonds Versus US Corporates Investment grade USD-denominated Emerging Market bonds (both sovereigns and corporates) will outperform US corporate bonds with the same credit rating and duration in 2022. EM bonds offer an attractive spread advantage versus US corporates, and 2022 returns will be boosted by a weakening US dollar. We see an opportunity in Emerging Market (EM) bonds for US investors in 2022. Note that we are only referring to investment grade EM bonds denominated in US dollars. We consider both investment grade USD-denominated EM sovereign bonds and investment grade USD-denominated EM corporate & quasi-sovereign bonds. EM Sovereigns Chart 16EM Sovereigns EM Sovereigns EM Sovereigns EM sovereigns have modestly outperformed Treasuries so far this year (see Appendix B for a complete breakdown of year-to-date performance for different corporate bond sectors), and yet the sector remains attractively valued in the sense that the average index OAS has still not recovered its pre-COVID low (Chart 16). A look at recent performance trends shows that EM sovereigns outperformed credit rating and duration-matched US corporates in H2 2020 when the sector benefited from a huge yield advantage and a rapidly depreciating US dollar.4 This year, EM sovereigns lagged US corporates as the dollar strengthened. Looking ahead to 2022, we think that the recent bout of dollar strength is close to its end as the bond market has already moved to price-in an extremely hawkish Fed outlook at the front-end of the curve. A flat or depreciating dollar will benefit EM bonds in 2022, as will the yield advantage in EM sovereigns versus credit rating and duration-matched US corporates (Chart 16, panel 4). This yield advantage will only look more attractive as the Treasury curve flattens and the outlook for US corporate spreads deteriorates. At the country level, we see the best EM sovereign opportunities in Mexico, Russia, Chile, UAE, Qatar and Saudi Arabia. The bonds of all these countries outperformed credit rating and duration-matched US corporate bonds during the past 12 months, and they continue to offer a sizeable spread advantage (Chart 17). Chart 17 EM Corporates & Quasi-Sovereigns The investment grade USD-denominated EM Corporate & Quasi-Sovereign index shows a similar relative return pattern to the EM Sovereign index, though overall performance has been better (Chart 18). We see that the index outperformed credit rating and duration-matched US corporates dramatically in H2 2020 when the dollar was under pressure. Relative returns have been more stable this year as the dollar has strengthened. Chart 18EM Corporates & Quasi-Sovereigns EM Corporates & Quasi-Sovereigns EM Corporates & Quasi-Sovereigns EM corporates & quasi-sovereigns should continue to outperform credit rating and duration-matched US corporates in 2022. A weaker dollar will certainly help, but the main driver of outperformance will be the very attractive yield advantage (Chart 18, panel 4). Key View #6: A Maximum Overweight Allocation To Municipal Bonds Municipal bonds offer exceptional value, especially at the long-end of the curve, and state & local government balance sheets are in excellent shape. US bond investors should favor tax-exempt municipal bonds relative to both Treasuries and equivalently-rated corporate bonds. Long-maturity tax-exempt municipal bonds continue to be one the most attractively priced assets in the US fixed income space. As we discussed in a recent report, one big reason for the attractive valuation is that municipal bonds tend to pay premium coupon rates.5 This significantly reduces the duration risk in long-dated munis. The first two columns of Table 4 show the yield ratios and breakeven tax rates between different municipal bond sectors and duration-matched Treasury securities. We see that the breakeven tax rate – the tax rate that equalizes after-tax yields between the two sectors – is a mere 11% for 12-17 year general obligation munis. The breakeven tax rate between 12-17 year revenue munis and duration-matched Treasuries is only 3%, and the longest-maturity munis actually offer a before-tax yield advantage versus Treasuries! Table 4Muni/Treasury And Muni/Credit Yield Ratios 2022 Key Views: US Fixed Income 2022 Key Views: US Fixed Income Table 4 shows that munis also offer excellent value compared to corporate bonds with the same credit rating and duration, especially at the long-end of the curve. Breakeven tax rates between munis and corporate credit range from 3% to 21% for maturities longer than 12 years. What’s even more impressive about municipal bonds is that their attractive valuations are buttressed by extremely high credit quality. State & local government balance sheets have received a huge boost from federal stimulus during the past two years, and this has sent net state & local government savings (revenues minus expenditures) surging into positive territory (Chart 19). But it’s not just federal stimulus that has aided state & local governments. Even if we exclude transfer payments altogether, we find that the difference between tax receipts and consumption expenditures is rising sharply relative to interest expense (Chart 19, panel 2). Ratings agencies have noticed the improvement in state & local government budgets and ratings upgrades have far outpaced downgrades during the past year (Chart 19, bottom panel). Chart 19State & Local Balance Sheets In Good Shape State & Local Balance Sheets In Good Shape State & Local Balance Sheets In Good Shape Key View #7: Underweight Agency MBS Chart 20Poor MBS Performance Will Continue Poor MBS Performance Will Continue Poor MBS Performance Will Continue Agency Mortgage-Backed Securities don’t adequately compensate investors for the likely pace of refi activity in 2021. An up-in-coupon stance is also advisable to take advantage of rising bond yields. We noted in a recent report that Agency Mortgage-Backed Securities have performed poorly in 2021.6 The main reason for the poor performance is that the compensation for prepayment risk embedded in MBS spreads (aka option cost) started the year at a very low level, but mortgage refinancing activity has been much higher than expected (Chart 20). The conventional 30-year MBS option cost has been rising, but it is still only back to where it was in 2019 (Chart 20, panel 2). This is not sufficiently attractive for us to advocate buying MBS. While rising bond yields will be a tailwind for refi activity in 2022, we still expect the pace of refinancings to be relatively strong because the rapid run-up in home prices has made it extremely enticing for households to tap the equity in their homes through cash-out refis. Within a recommended underweight allocation to MBS, we recommend that investors favor higher coupon securities over lower coupon ones. Higher-coupon MBS carry less duration than lower-coupon MBS and also wider OAS and greater convexity. This means that high-coupon MBS will outperform low-coupon MBS if bond yields rise in 2022, as we expect they will. Appendix A: Treasury Return Forecasts Image Image Image Image Image Image Image Image Image Image Image Image   Appendix B: US Bond Sector Year-To-Date Performance Image Image Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst, “Outlook 2022: Peak Inflation – Or Just Getting Started?”, dated December 1, 2021. 2 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “No Holding Back”, dated June 16, 2020. 3 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The Fed’s Inflation Problem”, dated November 23, 2021. 4 A weaker dollar tends to benefit USD-denominated EM bonds because it makes it easier for foreign issuers to service their dollar denominated debts. 5 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The Best & Worst Spots On The Yield Curve”, dated October 26, 2021. 6 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The Omicron Impact”, dated November 30, 2021. Recommended Portfolio Specification Other Recommendations Treasury Index Returns Spread Product Returns

Highlights A partial reinvasion of Ukraine cannot be ruled out. The constraints on Russia are not prohibitive, especially amid global energy shortages. On this issue, it is better to be alarmist than complacent. We would put the risk of a partial re-invasion of Ukraine as high as 50/50, albeit with an uncertain time frame over 12-36 months. The negative impact of conflict may not stay contained within Russian and eastern European markets. The US and EU are now threatening major retaliatory sanctions if Russia invades. In response Russia could reduce energy exports, exacerbating global shortages and damaging Europe’s overall economy. Investors should stay short Russian assets and overweight developed European equities over emerging European peers. Stay long gold and GBP-CZK. The dollar will be flat-to-up. Feature Chart 1Ruble Faces More Downside From Geopolitics Ruble Faces More Downside From Geopolitics Ruble Faces More Downside From Geopolitics Geopolitical tensions surrounding Russia remain unresolved and investors should continue to reduce holdings of assets exposed to any renewed conflict in Ukraine and the former Soviet Union. The ruble has dropped off its peaks since early November when strategic tensions revived (Chart 1). Presidents Joe Biden and Vladimir Putin held their second bilateral summit on a secure video link on December 7 to discuss the situation in Ukraine, where Russia has amassed 95,000-120,000 troops on the border in a major show of force. Russia also mustered troops in April and only partially drew them down after the Biden-Putin summit in Geneva where the two sides agreed to hold talks to address differences. The two presidents agreed to hold consultations regarding Ukraine. Putin accused NATO of building up Ukraine’s military and demanded “reliable, legally fixed guarantees excluding the expansion of NATO in the eastern direction and the deployment of offensive strike weapons systems in the states adjacent to Russia.”1 President Putin’s red line against Ukraine joining NATO is well known. Recently he said his red line includes the placement of western military infrastructure or missile systems in Ukraine. Biden refused to accept any limits on NATO membership in keeping with past policy. After the summit National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan said, “I will tell you clearly and directly [Biden] made no such commitments or concessions. He stands by the proposition that countries should be able to freely choose who they associate with.” 2 Biden, who had conferred with the UK, France, Germany, and Italy prior to the call, outlined the coordinated economic sanctions that would be leveled against Russia if it resorted to military force, as well as defense aid that would go to Ukraine and other eastern European countries.  Thus Putin gave an ultimatum and Biden rebuffed it – and yet the two agreed to keep talking. The Russians have since said that they will present proposals to the Americans in less than a week. Talks are better than nothing. But neither side has given concrete indication of a change in position that would de-escalate strategic tensions – instead they have both raised the stakes. Therefore investors should proceed with the strong presumption that tensions will remain elevated or escalate in the coming months. Clearing Away Misconceptions Before going further we should clear away a few misconceptions about the current situation: Ukraine has unique strategic value to Russia. Like Belarus, but unlike Central Asia, Ukraine serves as critical buffer territory protecting Moscow and the Russian core from any would-be invaders. Russia lacks firm geological borders so it protects itself by means of distance and winter. This grand strategy succeeded against King Charles XII of Sweden, Napoleon, and Hitler. The collapse of the Soviet Union left Russia shorn of much of its buffer territory. Ukraine also offers access to the Black Sea. Russia has long striven to gain access to warm-water ports. The loss of control over Ukraine resulted in a loss of access. Russia’s seizure of Crimea in 2014 only partially rectified the situation. Ukraine’s southern coastline around Crimea is the territory at risk today (Map 1). Chart It is Ukraine’s physical existence and unique strategic value – not its democratic leanings or ideological orientation – that ensures perpetual tensions with post-Soviet Russia. Russia has a strategic imperative to reassert control or at least prevent control by foreign powers. Ideological opposition may make things worse but an anti-Russian Ukrainian dictator would also face Russian coercion or aggression, perhaps even more than the current weak democracy. In fact Russia is trying to force Ukraine to revise its constitution and adopt a federal structure so as to grant greater autonomy to separatist regions Donetsk and Luhansk that Russia helped break away in 2014. But Ukraine has not relented to Moscow’s demands of political reform. It is not authoritarianism but a permanent foreclosure of Ukrainian membership in the EU and NATO that Moscow is after. Yet it is highly unlikely that Russia would try to invade and conquer all of Ukraine. Ukraine is the largest country by territory in Europe and has 255,000 active soldiers and 900,000 reserves (contra Russia’s 1 million active and 2 million reserves) who would defend their freedom and sovereignty against an invader.3 Russia would not be able to stage a full-scale invasion with the 175,000 maximum troop buildup that US intelligence is warning about. It would have to mobilize fully, dangerously neglecting other vast dimensions of its national security, and would inevitably get bogged down fighting a vicious insurgency backed by the NATO powers. It would save blood and treasure by paralyzing Ukraine’s politics and preventing it from allying with western militaries, which is what Putin is attempting to do today. Putin uses foreign adventures to strengthen his grip at home but an adventure of this nature would impose such burdens as to threaten his grip at home. A limited re-invasion of Ukraine could yield historic strategic advantages to Russia. Moscow could focus on a partial military incursion that would annex or shore up Donbass, or extend its control from Donbass to the Black Sea, conceivably all the way to the Dnieper river. This pathway would yield Russia maritime access and a buffer space to fortify Crimea. Naval warfare could also yield control of deep-water ports (Yuzhne, Odessa, Mykolaiv, Chornomorsk), control of the mouth of the Dnieper, control of the canal that supplies water to Crimea, and a means of bottling up the Ukrainian navy and preventing foreign maritime assistance. Ukraine would be further weakened and Russia would have a larger beachhead in Ukraine for future pressure tactics. Russia is not bluffing – its military buildup poses a credible threat. If there is anywhere Russia’s threats are credible, it is in taking military action against former Soviet republics like Georgia (2008) and Ukraine (2014) that have pro-western leanings yet lack the collective security of the NATO alliance. At very least, given that Russian forces did deploy in Ukraine in 2014, Russian action in Ukraine cannot be ruled out. The military balance has not changed so significantly in that time and strongly favors Russia (Chart 2). The US has provided around $2.5 billion in military aid to Ukraine since 2014, and has sent lethal weapons including Javelin anti-tank missiles and launchers since 2017-18, including $450 million worth of military aid under the Biden administration (and $300 million just authorized by Congress on December 7). NATO allies have also provided defense aid. This is part of Putin’s complaint but these new arms are not game changers that would prevent Russia from taking military action. Chart 2 Thus if the West rejects Moscow’s core demands, war is likely. This is true even if Russia would prefer to achieve its aims through political and economic rather than military means. Russia does not deem the West’s threat of sanctions as prohibitive of invasion. The West’s sanctions since 2014 have failed to change Russia’s government, strategy, or posture in Ukraine. Yes, European nations joined the US in imposing sanctions. But Germany also pursued the Nord Stream II pipeline as a means of bypassing Ukraine and working directly with Russia to preserve economic engagement and energy security. Former Chancellor Merkel forced the pipeline through despite the objections of eastern Europeans and the United States. The allies also formed the “Normandy Quartet,” excluding the US, to force Ukraine to accept the Minsk agreements on resolving the conflict. Thus the lesson of 2014-21 is not that NATO allies stood shoulder-to-shoulder in defense of Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity but rather that Germany and the EU, and the EU and the US, have major differences in interests and risk-tolerance in dealing with Russia. Russia does not face, or may think it does not face, a united front among the western powers. A partial reinvasion of Ukraine would bring the western allies together initially but probably not for long. Russia determines the timing of any new military incursion in Ukraine. Winter is not the ideal time to invade Ukraine, though it is possible. Russia could act in spring 2022, as the US has warned, but it could also act in the summer of 2023, the spring of 2024, or other times. From a strategic point of view, Russia has enjoyed a historic window of opportunity since 2001 when the US got bogged down in Afghanistan and Iraq and then the US and the EU got bogged down in economic and financial crisis. Given that the American political establishment is withdrawing from foreign quagmires, reactivating fiscal policy, bulking up the military-industrial complex, and making a dedicated effort to revitalize its global alliances, Russia may believe that its historic window is closing. Russia’s domestic fundamentals are deteriorating over time. Putin could decide it is necessary to seize strategic ground in Ukraine sooner rather than later. Bottom Line: Ukraine offers unique and irreplaceable buffer space and maritime access to Russia. Russia’s military actions in 2014 led to stalemate, such that Russia remains insecure, Ukraine remains defiant, and the West is still entertaining defense cooperation or even NATO membership with Ukraine. Yet the Crimea conflict also revealed a lack of concert among western powers exemplified by Germany’s Nord Stream II pipeline. Today Russia has the military capability to seize another slice of Ukrainian territory. Western retaliatory actions would be painful but may not be deemed prohibitive. Investors cannot rule out a partial re-invasion of Ukraine. Nord Stream Pipeline Is Not The Sole Factor Is Russia not making a show of military force merely to ensure that Nord Stream II pipeline goes into operation? Will Russia not back down if the pipeline is guaranteed? A common view in Washington and the financial industry is that Russia’s military buildup is just a bluff, i.e. Moscow’s aggressive way of demanding that Germany’s new government and the European Union approve Nord Stream. The pipeline finished construction in September but now awaits formal regulatory certification. Approval was originally expected by May 2022 but has now been delayed. The pipeline would carry 55 billion cubic meters of natural gas into Europe, about half of Russia’s current export capacity outside of Ukraine. Ukraine’s total capacity is around 150 billion cubic meters. The pipeline enables Russia and Germany to bypass Ukraine, whose conflicts with Moscow since 2004 have threatened Germany’s energy security. About 18% of EU’s total energy imports come from Russia, whilst this figure is 16% for Germany. That is about 0.5% and 0.2% of EU and German GDP, respectively. Meanwhile Russian energy exports to Germany and the EU make up 0.8% and 5.6% of GDP, respectively (Chart 3). Chart 3 The problem with this reasoning is that the US conceded Nord Stream to Russia over the summer. The US initially raised the threat of sanctions because the pipeline  strengthened Russo-German ties, diminished Ukraine’s leverage, and deprived the US of a chance to sell liquefied natural gas to Europe. But the Biden administration proved unwilling to take this aggressive approach. Secretary of State Anthony Blinken has a long history of arguing that the US should prioritize strong relations with its European allies rather than punitive measures to try to block Russian gas sales. Biden met with outgoing Chancellor Angela Merkel in July and agreed to let Nord Stream go forward. The only proviso was that Russia not “weaponize natural gas,” i.e. withhold supplies for geopolitical purposes, as it has done in the past.4 Before Russia’s military threats, Germany and the EU were expected to certify the pipeline by no later than May 2022 and an earlier certification looked possible because of Europe’s low natural gas supplies. Yet Russia, fresh off parliamentary elections, did precisely what Germany said it was not supposed to do. The pipeline was completed in September and reports of Russian limitations on natural gas supply surfaced in October. Moscow not only weaponized the gas but also mustered its army on the Ukrainian border again. Putin may have feared that the new German government, which officially took office on December 8, would change policy and refuse to certify the pipeline. He also could have feared that the US Congress would pass a Republican-backed provision that would require Biden to impose sanctions that would halt the pipeline. But these explanations are not satisfactory. First, the German government was not likely to halt Nord Stream. Quite the opposite, Berlin has pushed against all opposition to speed the pipeline into action. It only delayed the regulatory approval when Russia did the one thing that Germany had expressly prohibited, which was weaponize natural gas. Second, the US Congress was never likely to pass mandatory sanctions on Nord Stream operators. The Democrats opposed it, as it would have tied Biden’s hands, whereas presidents always retain discretion over foreign policy and national security. Even moderate Republicans opposed the measure, for the same reason. If either of these were the reason for Putin’s latest buildup, then the buildup will probably dissipate in the coming months. Putin also wants to force Ukraine to implement the Minsk agreements. But the Biden administration adopted the Minsk framework in June for the first time, which was a concession to Russia. So the latest military threats are not solely about coercing Europe to approve the pipeline or Ukraine to implement Minsk. Putin is driving at something else. Putin’s Focus On Ukraine And NATO Putin used military pressure on Ukraine’s border to force the US to accept the pipeline and the Minsk agreements. He is now using the same tactic to raise the stakes and demand that the US and its allies permanently rule out NATO membership and defense cooperation with Ukraine. Biden rejected the first demand during the summit, as mentioned. There is no way that the US or NATO will forswear any and all eastward expansion. Even on Ukraine specifically, Biden cannot give Russia a legal guarantee because it would require a 60-seat majority in the Senate (not likely). Any future president would retain prerogative over the matter anyway and Putin knows this. Moreover Ukraine is never going to join NATO. Russia would attack. And NATO members would not be unanimous (as is required for new members) because the collective defense treaty would require them to defend Ukraine. They would be signing up for a war with Russia. Still Biden is unlikely to disavow Ukrainian NATO membership because to do so would be to deny the self-determination of nations, capitulate to Russian coercion, and demoralize the Ukrainians, whom the US hopes will maintain a plucky resistance against Russian domination. It would also demoralize US allies and partners – namely Taiwan, which also lacks a formal defense treaty and would be forced to sue for peace with China in the face of American abandonment. Biden’s refusal to ban Ukraine from NATO is encapsulated in Diagram 1, an exercise in game theory that exemplifies why the risk of war should not be dismissed. Diagram 1Game Theory Suggests Russia Will Keep Applying Military Pressure Russia/Ukraine: Don’t Be Complacent Russia/Ukraine: Don’t Be Complacent Biden may give private or executive assurances on Ukraine and NATO but Putin will know that these mean nothing since Biden may be out of office as early as January 2025 and then Putin would have to renegotiate. America is not a credible negotiator because partisanship has resulted in extreme foreign policy vacillations – the next president could revoke the deal. Even after Putin is gone Russia would have to negotiate with the US to prevent the US from arming Ukraine. Hence Moscow may decide to reduce Ukraine and improve Russia’s strategic position by force of arms. This is true even if Biden forswears the NATO option, as Diagram 1 illustrates. Putin’s second demand – that the US not provide offensive weapon systems in countries adjacent to Russia – is more material. This is what the new round of talks will focus on. This new Ukraine line of talks is separate, more urgent and important, than the other bilateral dialogues on the arms race, and cyber-war. US-Russia talks on Iran are also urgent, however, and Russia’s cooperation there may be contingent on US concessions regarding Ukraine. The US may be willing to stop its defense cooperation with Ukraine but not with other allies and partners, however. It is also not clear what Putin will accept. These negotiations will have to be watched. Biden cannot make major concessions with a gun to his head. It is unclear how far the US is willing to concede on defense cooperation with countries around Russia. The US may quietly abandon Ukraine but then it would need to reinforce its other defense relationships. If Putin draws down the troops, and Biden calls a stop to defense aid to Ukraine, then a crisis may be averted. What Could Go Wrong? Economic sanctions under consideration in Washington are significant: the US could freeze bank transactions, expand restrictions on trading Russian sovereign and corporate debt, and lobby Belgium to kick Russia off the SWIFT financial messaging system. However, these sanctions may not be effective in preventing Russia from using military force. Russia has weathered US sanctions since 2014, and the smaller and weaker Iranian economy has weathered maximum pressure sanctions since 2019. Energy producers like Russia and Iran have maximum geopolitical leverage when global energy inventories draw down, as is the case today. Even in the face of Russian military aggression, the Biden administration is vacillating on sanctions targeting Russia’s energy sector that would contribute to global shortages and ultimately raise prices at the pump for voters in a midterm election year.5 Germany’s new government also hesitates to declare unambiguously that it will discontinue the Nord Stream II pipeline if Russia invades Ukraine. True, Germany signaled that the pipeline would be halted. Its energy regulator declared that the pipeline’s ownership must be unbundled, which pushes back the certification date to sometime after May 2022 – this was a geopolitical not a legalistic decision. But construction is completed, the pipeline physically exists, which will vitiate Germany’s commitment to sanctions whenever natural gas shortages occur, as is the case this winter (Chart 4). Shortages will continue to occur and Russia controls a large share of supply. Chart 4 ​​​​​​ Chart 5 It would take a catastrophe to drive Germany to restart coal and nuclear plants, so natural gas will continue to be in demand. Germany does not have liquefied natural gas import capability yet. If Europe imposes crippling sanctions on Russia, Russia could reduce energy supplies and harm Europe’s economy (Chart 5). The Russian economy and society would suffer which is one reason any military action in Ukraine would be limited in scope. Still, Moscow may believe that Germany would restrain the EU, and the EU would restrain the US, thereby preventing sanctions from being fully, uniformly, and durably implemented. Prior to Russia’s aggression, public opinion polls showed that the German public strongly supported Nord Stream. Even a majority of Green Party members supported it despite the fact that the Greens were the most critical of increasing Germany’s dependency on fossil fuels and an authoritarian petro-state. While public approval of the pipeline has surely suffered in the face of Russian aggression, a majority probably still favors the pipeline. Germany has a national consensus in support of engagement with Russia and avoiding a new cold war, given that the original Cold War cut Germany in half. For that reason invasion may only temporarily unite the western powers – it could ultimately drive a wedge between Germany and other EU members, namely in the former Soviet bloc. It would also divide the more risk-averse EU from the US in terms of how to deal with Russia. And it would weaken the Biden administration at a time when it is extremely vulnerable, exacerbating America’s internal divisions. Russian domestic patriotism would rally, at least initially. Note that Russia could miscalculate on this issue and that is one reason for high level of risk. Perhaps the West would prove far more unified and aggressive in its sanctions enforcement than it was after 2014. A falling ruble and rising inflation could cause Russian social unrest. But Russia could misread the situation. Unless the US and Europe escalate the sanctions threat massively to better deter Russia, their lack of concert is another reason for investors not to be complacent about renewed conflict. Bottom Line: The threat of sanctions may prove insufficient to deter renewed Russian aggression against Ukraine. Germany favors engagement with Russia and Europe’s energy dependency on Russia makes it vulnerable to supply disruptions. Russia has leverage given tight global energy markets, Europe’s low natural gas inventories, and US domestic political considerations ahead of the 2022 midterms. Investment Takeaways The point of this report argues that a partial re-invasion of Ukraine cannot be ruled out. Russia has the capability to reinforce de facto control of Donbas, or expand its footprint in southern Ukraine, though not to invade the whole country. The threat of economic sanctions is not yet so overwhelming as to warrant overconfident predictions of de-escalation. In this case it is better to be alarmist than complacent. Russia would want to maintain an element of surprise so the timing of any belligerence is hard to predict. For de-escalation, investors should watch for Russia to withdraw troops from the Ukrainian border, US-Russia consultations to begin promptly and proceed regularly, and for the US and allies to delay or halt defense cooperation and arms transfers to Ukraine. While global investors would quickly become de-sensitized to conflict that is entirely contained in Ukraine, the trans-Atlantic threat of major sanctions now raises the stakes and suggests that global energy shocks could negatively affect the European or global economy in the event of conflict. Any conflict could also spill outside of Ukraine’s borders, as with Malaysian Airlines flight MH17, which was shot down by Russian-backed Ukrainian separatists in July 2014. The Black Sea has seen a dangerous uptick in naval saber-rattling and that strategic situation would become permanently more dangerous if Russia seized more of coastal Ukraine. Russian military integration with Belarus is also a source of insecurity for EU and NATO members. Global financial markets have only started to price the geopolitical risk emanating from Russia. Our Russian GeoRisk Indicator has ticked up (Chart 6). But Russian equity performance relative to broad emerging markets is only arguably underperforming what is implied by Brent crude oil prices. Chart 6Market Slow To React To Ukraine Crisis - Risk To Downside For Russian Assets Market Slow To React To Ukraine Crisis - Risk To Downside For Russian Assets Market Slow To React To Ukraine Crisis - Risk To Downside For Russian Assets This relatively muted reaction suggests more downside lies ahead if we are right that strategic tensions will be flat-to-up over the coming months. Sell the RUB-USD on any strength. Stay long GBP-CZK. Tactically short Russian equities versus EM-ex-Asia (Chart 7). They are exposed to further correction as a result of escalating geopolitical risk. Chart 7Russia Falling Off Peaks Of Performance Versus EM-Ex-Asia Russia Falling Off Peaks Of Performance Versus EM-Ex-Asia Russia Falling Off Peaks Of Performance Versus EM-Ex-Asia ​​​​​​ Chart 8Developed Europe A Safer Bet Than Emerging Europe Amid Tensions Developed Europe A Safer Bet Than Emerging Europe Amid Tensions Developed Europe A Safer Bet Than Emerging Europe Amid Tensions ​​​​​​ Stick to long DM Europe versus EM Europe – our main trade this year to capture rising geopolitical risk between Russia and the West (Chart 8).     Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1      President of Russia, "Meeting with US President Joseph Biden," December 7, 2021, kremlin.ru.  2     White House, "Press Briefing by Press Secretary Jen Psaki and National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan, December 7, 2021," whitehouse.gov. 3     Dan Peleschuk, "Ukraine’s military poses a tougher challenge for Russia than in 2014," Politico, April 14, 2021, politico.eu.; see also Gav Don, "LONG READ: Russia looks poised to invade Ukraine, but what would an invasion actually look like?" Intellinews, November 24, 2021, intellinews.com. 4     US Department of State, "Joint Statement of the United States and Germany on Support for Ukraine, European Energy Security, and our Climate Goals," July 21, 2021, state.gov. 5     Kylie Atwood and Natasha Bertrand, "US likely to hold off for now on energy sanctions for Russia, fearing impact on global prices," CNN, December 9, 2021, cnn.com. Strategic Themes Open Tactical Positions (0-6 Months) Open Cyclical Recommendations (6-18 Months)