Equities

Highlights Japan’s long-term weaknesses – a shrinking population, low productivity growth, excess indebtedness – are very well known. However, it still punches above its weight in the realm of geopolitics. Abenomics – sorry, Kishidanomics – can still deliver some positive surprises every now and then. As the global pandemic wanes, and China faces a historic confluence of internal and external risks, investors should begin buying the yen on weakness. Japanese industrials also are an attractive play in a global portfolio. While the yen will likely fare better than the dollar over the next 6-9 months, it will lag other procyclical currencies. Feature Japan has always been an “earthquake society,”  in which things seem never to change until suddenly everything changes at once. The good news for investors is that that change occurred in 2011 and the latest political events reinforce policy continuity. Why “Abenomics” Remains The Playbook Over ten years have passed since Japan suffered a triple crisis of earthquake, tsunami, and nuclear meltdown. In fact, the Fukushima nuclear crisis merely punctuated a long accumulation of national malaise: the country had suffered two “Lost Decades” and was in the thrall of the Great Recession, a rare period of domestic political change, and a rise in national security fears over a newly assertive China. The nuclear meltdown marked the nadir. The result of all these crises was a miniature policy revolution in 2012 – Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) returned to power and initiated a range of bolder policies to whip the country’s deflationary mindset and reboot its foreign and trade relations. The new economic program, “Abenomics,” consisted of easy money, soft budgets, and pro-growth reforms. It succeeded in changing Japan. Both private debt and inflation, which had fallen during the lost decades, bottomed after the 2011 crisis and began to rise under Abe (Chart 1). By the 2019 House of Councillors election, however,  Abe was running out of steam. Consumption tax hikes, the US-China trade war, and COVID-19 thwarted his plans of national revival. In particular, Abe hoped to capitalize on excitement over the 2020 Tokyo Olympics to hold a popular referendum on revising the constitution. Constitutional revision is necessary to legitimize the Self-Defense Forces and thus make Japan a “normal” nation again, i.e. one that can maintain armed forces. But the global pandemic interrupted. Until the next heavyweight prime minister comes along, Japan will relapse into its old pattern of a “revolving door” of prime ministers who come and go quickly. For example, the only purpose of Abe’s immediate successor, Yoshihide Suga, was to tie off loose ends and oversee the Olympics before passing the baton (Chart 2). Chart 1Abenomics Was Making Progress The next few Japanese prime ministers will almost inevitably lack Abe’s twin supermajority in parliament, which was exceptional in modern history (Chart 3). It will be hard for the LDP to expand its regional grip given that it holds a majority in all 11 of the regional blocks in which the political parties contend for seats based on their proportion of the popular vote (Table 1). Table 1LDP+ Komeito Regional Performance Short-lived, traditional prime ministers will not be able to create a superior vision for Japan and will largely follow in Abe’s footsteps.   In September Prime Minister Fumio Kishida replaced Suga – a badly needed facelift for the ruling Liberal Democrats ahead of the October 31 election. The LDP retained its single-party majority in the Diet, so Kishida is off to a tolerable start (Chart 4). But he is far from charismatic and will not last long if he fumbles in the upper house elections in July 2022. This gives him a little more than half a year to make a mark. Kishida will oversee a roughly 30-40 trillion yen stimulus package, or supplemental budget, by the end of this year. Japanese stimulus packages are almost always over-promised and under-delivered. However, given the electoral calendar, he will put together a large package that will not disappoint financial markets. His other goal will be to build on recent American efforts to cobble together a coalition of democracies to counter China and Russia. Japan’s Grand Strategy In Brief Chart 5Japan Exposed To China Trade Japan’s grand strategy over centuries consists of maintaining its independence from foreign powers, controlling its strategic geographic approaches to prevent invasion, and stopping any single power from dominating the eastern side of the Eurasian landmass. Originally the hardest part of this grand strategy was that it required establishing unitary political control over the far-flung Japanese archipelago. However, since the Meiji Restoration, Tokyo has maintained centralized government. Since then Japan has focused on controlling its strategic approaches and maintaining a balance among the Asian powers. During the imperialist period it tried to achieve these objectives on its own. After World War II, the United States became critical to Japan’s grand strategy. Through its broad alliance with Washington, Tokyo can maintain independence, make sure critical territories are not hostile (e.g. Taiwan and South Korea), and deter neighboring threats (North Korea, China, Russia). It can at least try to maintain a balance of power in Eurasia. Yet these constant national interests underscore Japan’s growing vulnerabilities today: China’s economy is now two-times larger than Japan’s and Japan is more dependent on China’s trade than vice versa (Chart 5). Under Xi Jinping, Beijing is actively converting its wealth into military and strategic capabilities that threaten Japan’s security. Rising tensions across the Taiwan Strait are fueling nationalism and re-armament in Japan.  Russia’s post-Soviet resurgence entails an ever-closer Russo-Chinese partnership. It also entails Russian conflicts with the US that periodically upset any attempts at Russo-Japanese détente. North Korea’s asymmetric war capabilities and nuclearization pose another security threat. South Korea’s attempts to engage with the North and China, and compete with Japan, are unhelpful.    All of these realities drive Japan closer to the United States. Even the US is increasingly unpredictable, though not yet to the point of causing serious doubts about the alliance. If the US were fundamentally weakened, or abandoned the alliance, Japan would either have to adopt nuclear weapons or accommodate itself to Chinese hegemony to meet its grand strategy. Nuclearization would be the more likely avenue. The stability of Asia depends greatly on American arbitration. Japan’s Strategy Since 1990 Beneath this grand strategy Japan’s ruling elites must pursue a more particular strategy suited to its immediate time and place. Ever since Japan’s working population and property bubble peaked in the early 1990s, the country’s relative economic heft has declined. To maintain stability and security, the central government in Tokyo has had to take on a very active role in the economy and society. The first step was to stabilize the domestic economy despite collapsing potential growth. This has been achieved through a public debt supercycle (Chart 6). Unorthodox monetary and fiscal policy largely stabilized demand, at the cost of the world’s highest net debt-to-GDP ratio. The economic adjustment was spread out over a long period of time so as to prevent a massive social and political backlash. Unemployment peaked in 2009 at 5.5% and never rose above this level. The ruling elite and the Liberal Democrats maintained control of institutions and government. The second step was to ensure continued alliance with the United States. Japan could deal with its economic problems – and the rise of China – if it maintained access to US consumers and protection from the US military. To maintain the alliance required making investments in the American economy, in US-led global institutions, and cooperating with the US on various initiatives, including controversial foreign policies. As in the 1950s-60s, Japan would bulk up its Self-Defense Forces to share the burden of global security with the United States, despite the US-written constitution’s prohibition on keeping armed forces. The third step was to invest abroad and put Japan’s excess savings to work, developing materials and export markets abroad while employing foreign workers and factories to become Japan’s new industrial base in lieu of the shrinking Japanese workforce (Chart 7).  Chart 6Japan's Public Debt Supercycle Japan’s post-1990 strategy has staying power because of the massive pressures on Japan listed above: China’s rise, Russo-Chinese partnership, North Korean threats, and American distractions. Investors tend to underrate the impact of these trends on Japan. Unless they fundamentally change, Japan’s strategy will remain intact regardless of prime minister or even ruling party. Russia’s role is less clear and could serve as a harbinger of any future change. President Vladimir Putin and Abe had the best chance in modern memory to resolve the two countries’ territorial disputes, build on mutual interests, and maybe even sign a peace treaty. But Russia’s clash with the West  proved an insurmountable obstacle. New opportunities could emerge at some later juncture, as Japan’s interest in preventing China from dominating Eurasia gives it a strong reason to normalize ties with Russia. Russia will at some point worry about overdependency on China. But this change is not on the immediate horizon.  Japan’s Tactics Since 2011 Japan is nearly a one-party state. Brief spells of opposition rule, in 1993 and 2009-11, are exceptions that prove the rule. The Liberal Democrats did not fall from power so much as suffer a short “time out” to reflect on their mistakes before voters put them right back into power. However, these timeouts have been important in forcing the ruling party to adjust its tactics for changing times, as with Abenomics. Kishida will not have enough political capital to change direction. The emphasis will still be on defeating deflation and rekindling animal spirits and corporate borrowing (as opposed to relying exclusively on public debt). Kishida has talked about a new type of capitalism and a more active redistribution of wealth, in keeping with the current zeitgeist among the global elite. However, Japan lacks the impetus for dramatic change. Wealth inequality is not extreme and political polarization is non-existent (Chart 8). The LDP is wary of losing votes to the populist Japan Innovation Party, or other regional movements, but populism does not have as fertile ground in countries with low inequality.  The desire to boost wages was a central plank of Abenomics (Chart 9) and an area of success. It will come through in Kishida’s policies as well. But the ultimate outcome will depend on how tight the labor market gets in the upcoming economic cycle. Similarly Kishida can be expected to encourage, or at least not roll back, women’s participation in the labor force, as labor markets tighten (Chart 10). As the pandemic wanes it is also likely that he will reignite Abe’s loose immigration policy, which saw the number of foreign workers triple between 2010 and 2020. This inflow is perhaps the surest sign of any that insular and xenophobic Japan is changing with the times to meet its economic needs.  Chart 9Kishidanomics To Build On Abe's Wage Growth Chart 10Women Off To Work But Fertility ##br##Relapsed The only substantial difference between Kishidanomics and Abenomics is that Abe compromised his reflationary fiscal efforts by insisting on going forward with periodic hikes to the consumption tax. Kishida is under no such expectation. Instead he is operating in a global political and geopolitical context in which ambitious public investments are positively encouraged even at the expense of larger budget deficits (Chart 11). Yet interest rates are still low enough to make such investments cheaply. The stage is set for fiscal largesse. Chart 11Fiscal Largesse To Continue Kishida can be expected to promote large new investments in supply-chain resilience, renewable energy, and military rearmament. The US and EU may exempt climate policies from traditional budget accounting – Japan may do the same. Even more so than China and Europe, Japan has a national interest in renewable energy since it is almost entirely dependent on foreign imports for its fossil fuels. The green transition in Japan is lagging that of Germany but the Japanese shift away from nuclear power has gone even faster, creating an import dependency that needs to be addressed for strategic reasons (Chart 12). Monetary-fiscal coordination began under Abe and can increase under Kishida. What is clear is that public investment is the top priority while fiscal consolidation is not. Military spending is finally starting to edge up as a share of GDP, as noted above. For many years Japanese leaders talked about military spending but it remained steady at 1% of GDP. Now, at the onset of the US-China cold war, the Japanese are spending more and say the ratio will rise to 2% of GDP (Chart 13). Tensions with China, especially over Taiwan, will continue to drive this shift, though North Korea’s weapons progress is not negligible. The Biden administration is prioritizing US allies and the competition with China, which makes the Japanese alliance top of mind. Tokyo’s various attempts to talk with Beijing in recent years have amounted to nothing, with the exception of the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership, which is far from ratification and implementation. Japan’s relations with China are driven by interests, not passing attitudes and emotions. If Biden proves too dovish toward China – a big “if” – then it will be Japan pushing the US to take a more hawkish line rather than vice versa. Japan will take various strategic, economic, technological, and military actions to defend itself from the range of external threats it faces. These actions will intimidate and provoke China and other neighbors, which will help to entrench the “security dilemma” between the US and China and their allies. For example, Japan will eagerly participate in US efforts to upgrade its military and its regional alliances and partnerships, including via the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue with India and Australia. The Biden administration might force Japan to play nice with South Korea and patch up their trade war. But that is a price Japan can pay since American involvement also precludes any shift by South Korea fully into China’s camp. If China should invade Taiwan – which we cannot rule out over the long run – Japan’s vital supply lines and national security would fall under permanent jeopardy. Japan would have an interest in defending Taiwan but its willingness to war with China may depend on the US response. However, both Japan and the US would have to draw a stark line in defense of Japanese territory, not least Okinawa, where US troops are based. Both powers would mobilize and seek to impose a strategic containment policy around China at that point. Until The Next Earthquake … For Japan to abandon its post-1990 strategy, it would need to see a series of shocks to domestic and international politics. If China’s economy collapsed, Korea unified, or the US abandoned the Asia Pacific region, then Tokyo would have to reassess its strategy. Until then the status quo will prevail. At home Japan would need to see a split within the Liberal Democrats, or a permanent break between the LDP and their junior partner Komeito, combined with a single, consolidated, and electorally viable opposition party and a charismatic opposition leader. This kind of change would follow from major exogenous shocks. Today it is nowhere in sight – the last two shocks, in 2011 and 2020, reinforced the LDP regime. Theoretically some future Japanese government could adopt a socialist platform that relies entirely on public debt rather than trying to reboot private debt. It could openly embrace debt monetization and modern monetary theory  rather than trying to raise taxes periodically to maintain the appearance of fiscal rectitude. But if it tried to distance itself from the United States and improve relations with Russia and China, such a strategy would not go very far. It would jeopardize Japan’s grand strategy. For the foreseeable future, Japan’s economic security and national security lie in maintaining the American alliance and continuing an outward investment strategy focused on emerging markets other than China. Macroeconomic Developments The key message from an economic context is that fiscal stimulus is likely to be larger in Japan than the market currently expects. The IMF is penciling in a fiscal deficit of around 2% of potential GDP next year, which will be a drag on growth (Chart 14). More likely, Kishida will cobble together a slightly larger package to implement most of the initiatives he has proposed on the campaign trail. Meanwhile, a large share of JGBs are about to mature over the next couple of years, providing room for more issuance, which the BoJ will be happy to assimilate (Chart 15). Chart 14More Fiscal Stimulus In Japan Likely Chart 15Lots Of JGBs Mature In The Next Few Years Real numbers on the size of the fiscal package have been scarce, but it should be around 30-40 trillion yen, spread over a few years. With Japan’s net interest expense at record lows (Chart 16), and a lot of the spending slated for worthwhile productivity-enhancing projects such as supply chains, green energy, education and some boost to the financial sector in the form of digital innovation and consolidation, we expect fiscal policy in Japan will remain moderately loose, with the BoJ staying accommodative. The timing of more fiscal stimulus is appropriate as Japan has managed to finally put the pandemic behind it. The number of new Covid-19 cases is at the lowest recorded level per capita, and Japan now  has more of its population vaccinated than the US. As a result, the manufacturing and services PMIs, which have been the lowest in the developed world, could stage a coiled-spring rebound. This will be a welcome fillip for Japanese assets (Chart 17). Chart 16Little Cost To Issuing More Debt Chart 17The Japanese Recovery Has Lagged Consumption could also surprise to the upside in Japan. With the consumption tax hike of 2019 and the 2020 pandemic now behind us, pent-up demand could finally be unleashed in the coming quarters. Rising wages and high savings underscore that Japan could see a vigorous rebound in consumption, as was witnessed in other developed economies. This will be particularly the case as inflation stays low. The big risk for Japan from a macro perspective is an external slowdown, driven by China. A boom in foreign demand has been a much welcome cushion for Japanese growth, especially amidst weak domestic demand. The risk is that this tailwind becomes a headwind as Chinese growth slows, especially as a big share of Japanese exports go to China. Our view has been that policy makers in China will be able to ring-fire the property crisis, preventing a “Lehman” moment. As such, while China’s slowdown is a reality and downside risks warrant monitoring, we also expect China to avoid a hard landing. Meanwhile, Japanese exports are also diversified, with other developed and emerging markets accounting for the lion’s share of total exports. For example, exports to the US account for 19% of sales while EU exports account for 9%. Both exports and foreign machinery orders remain quite robust, suggesting that the slowdown in China will not crush all external demand (globally, export growth remains very strong).  It is noteworthy that many countries now have “carte blanche” to boost infrastructure spending, especially in areas like renewable energy and supply chain resiliency. Japan continues to remain a big supplier of capital goods globally. This will ensure that an economic recovery around the world will buffer foreign machinery orders. Market Implications Japanese equities have underperformed the US over the last decade, and Kishidanomics is unlikely to change this trend. But to the extent that more fiscal stimulus helps lift aggregate demand, a few sectors could begin to see short-term outperformance. More importantly, the underperformance of certain Japanese equity sectors have not been fully justified by the improving earnings picture (Chart 18). This suggests some room for catch-up. Banks in particular could benefit from a steeper yield curve in Japan, rising global yields and proposed reform in the sector (Chart 19). We will view this as a tactical opportunity however, than a strategic call. Our colleagues in the Global Asset Allocation service have clearly outlined key reasons against overweighting Japan, and are currently neutral.  More importantly, industrials also look poised to see some pickup in relative EPS growth, as global industrial demand stays robust. An improvement in domestic demand should also favor small caps over large caps. Chart 18ADismal Earnings Explain Some Underperformance Of Japanese Equities Chart 18BDismal Earnings Explain Some Underperformance Of Japanese Equities Chart 19Japanese Banks Will Benefit From A Steeper Yield Curve Foreigners have huge sway over the performance of Japanese assets, especially equities. Foreign holders account for nearly 30% of the Japanese equity float. This is important not only for the equity call but for currency performance as well since portfolio flows dominate currency movements. Historically, the yen and the Japanese equity market have been negatively correlated. This was due to positive profit translation effects from a lower currency. However, it is possible that Japanese domestic profits are no longer driven only by translation effects, but rather by underlying productivity gains. This could result in less yen hedging by foreign equity investors, which would restore a positive relationship between the relative share price performance and the currency. As for the yen, the best environment for any currency is when the economy can generate non-inflationary growth. Japan may well be entering this paradigm. Historically, now has been the exact environment where the yen tends to do well, as the economy exits deflation and enters non-inflationary growth (Chart 20). Chart 20The Yen And Japanese Growth Markets have been wrongly focusing on nominal rather than real yields in Japan and the implication for the yen. Therefore the risk to a long yen view is that the Bank of Japan keeps rates low as global yields are rising. However, in an environment where global inflationary pressures normalize (say in the next 6-9 months) and temper the increase in global yields, this could provide room for short covering on the yen. In our view, the yen is already the most underappreciated currency in the G10, as rising global yields have led to a massive accumulation of short positions. Finally, from a valuation standpoint, the yen is the cheapest G10 currency according to our PPP models, and is also quite cheap according to our intermediate-term timing model (Chart 21). With the yen being a risk-off currency, it also tends to rise versus the dollar not only during recessions, but also during most episodes of broad-based dollar weakness. This low-beta nature of the currency makes it a good portfolio hedge in an uncertain world. Chart 21The Yen Is Undervalued Given the historic return of geopolitical risk to Japan’s neighborhood, as the US and Japan engage in active great power competition with China, the yen is an underrated hedge. Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Chester Ntonifor Vice President Foreign Exchange Strategy chestern@bcaresearch.com

This week we continue our series of thematic Special Reports. Over the past few months, we have covered the EV Revolution and Generation Z. In this report, we conduct a “deep dive” analysis of Cybersecurity as an investment theme for equity investors. Spoiler Alert: We recommend Cybersecurity as a structural and tactical overweight. For a shorter investment horizon, the recent pullback and deflated valuation premium present a good entry-point. A Primer On Cybersecurity What Is Cybersecurity? Cybersecurity focuses on protecting computers, networks, programs, and data from unauthorized and/or unintended access. A wide range of malicious activities fall under the umbrella of cybercrime: Theft and damage of personal and financial data, theft of money, embezzlement, demands for ransom, theft of intellectual property, and illicit and illegal use of computers' processing power or cloud storage. The methods the hackers use are breaches, phishing, privileged-access credential abuse, and endpoint security attacks. Cybersecurity Index ISE Cyber Security Index (HXR) is a NASDAQ index launched in 2010, that encapsulates publicly traded companies that operate in the Cybersecurity space, whether by providing infrastructure or services. Cybersecurity is a theme that spans several different industries: It is dominated by Software (57%) and Computer Services (29%). The remaining 14% are split between Telecommunications Equipment and Defense (Chart 1). The space includes both legacy providers and aggressive cloud-only newcomers. Cybersecurity Vs Software Services The S&P 500 Software and Services Industry Group Index (Software and Services) is HXR’s best proxy – the correlation of monthly returns is 65%. Compared to Software and Services, HXR index performance has been volatile and more recently underwhelming. Cybersecurity was underperforming for the past six months (Chart 2). There are several reasons for Cybersecurity lagging Software and Services. Chart 2Cybersecurity Has Underperformed Software And Services First, companies in the former are much younger and smaller than in the latter (Chart 3), and the size effect has been at play. Second, the industry composition of the two indexes is different, with HXR's allocations to Telecom and Defense sectors being slightly more defensive in nature. Last, and most important, Cybersecurity stocks surged early in the pandemic on the back of lockdowns and a ubiquitous shift to remote work, and hence some of the performance and profits growth were “borrowed” from the future. Chart 3Cybersecurity Theme Is Exposed To The Size Effect Cybercrime Statistics Cybercrime statistics are sobering, with the number of occurrences increasing fast, and financial damage reaching catastrophic amounts. Cybercrime will cost the world $6 trillion in 2021, and $10.5 trillion annually by 2025,1 representing one of the greatest transfers of wealth in history. The average total cost of a data breach is $4.24 million in 2021, which is up from $3.86 million in 2020.2 US ransomware attacks cost an estimated $915 million in 2020.3 93% of companies deal with rogue cloud apps usage.4 86.2% of surveyed organizations were affected by a successful cyberattack.5 The cost and damage of cyberattacks underpins why Cybersecurity has risen from being an accessory to becoming a “must-have” for companies’ survival (Charts 4 and 5). Chart 5Cybercrime Losses Spur Demand For Cybersecurity   Key Cybersecurity Verticals And Companies Cybersecurity has evolved over time. Legacy non-cloud incumbents that used to offer on-premises anti-virus software, such as NortonLifeLock, are morphing into or giving way to cloud-based solutions and software-as-a-service (SaaS) providers. These cutting-edge security players leverage Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Machine Learning (ML) to preempt threats, as opposed to reacting to them. In addition, the advantage of the cloud-based solutions is that there is no hardware to buy or manage. The Cybersecurity universe can be split into three major categories: Physical Network Infrastructure, Digital Network Infrastructure, and Cloud And Data Security. Physical Network Infrastructure Companies in this segment provide a mix of digital and physical solutions including supplying communication appliances such as routers and other network hardware. This segment has two incumbents: Cisco Systems (CSCO) and Juniper Networks (JNPR). Digital Network Infrastructure Companies focus on providing broad server and network security against a wide range of attacks. Product offerings may also include firewalls and AI threat detection. A10 Networks (ATEN) and Akamai Technologies (AKAM) operate in this segment. Cloud And Data Security The key verticals of Cloud And Data Security are Endpoint Protection, Secure Web Gateways, Identity Access Management, and Detection and Blocking of malicious emails. Most companies in this space offer cloud-based solutions and SaaS and have products in each of the four data security categories. Companies that roll up a variety of security software functions into a cloud- based service comprise a broad segment called Secure Access Service Edge, or SASE. Fortinet (FTNT), Check Point Software (CHKP), Palo Alto Networks (PANW), and Zscaler (ZS) are all SASE. These companies replace existing gateways, virtual private networks (VPN), edge routers, and firewalls. SASE is expected to have 57% growth in spending in 2021, with 40% compounded growth through 2024.6 Endpoint Protection Platforms help customers secure end-user devices such as mobile devices, laptops, and servers. To be one step ahead of cyber adversaries, these cloud-based companies offer SaaS that deploys AI and ML algorithms to detect and predict threats based on the analysis of the vast data collected across the entire platform. Crowdstrike, Check Point, and SentinelOne are the segment leaders. Secure Web Gateways prevent unsecured traffic from entering an internal network through external web applications. This is executed by the providers acting as a middleman so that users can bypass their internal networks to connect to the applications by leveraging providers data-cloud. These cloud-only companies’ SaaS and Firewall-as-a-Service secure customer access to internally and externally managed applications, such as email or customer relationship management. Fortinet, Zscaler, Palo Alto Networks (PANW), AvePoint (AVE), and Cloudflare (NET) are the best-of-breed players in this space. Identity Access Management (IAM) focuses on enabling access to networks only to authorized users. Multi-factor authentication, application programming interface (API) access management, and single sign-on (SSO) are a few identity solutions that fall under this vertical. Okta (OCTA) and Ping Identity (PING) are the leading players in this space. Their cloud native solutions offer access to all applications within a single portal using the same authentication. Detection And Blocking Of Malicious Emails – Companies in this segment detect and block emails that include known or unknown malware, malicious URLs, and impersonation of legitimate contacts. Mass and spear phishing is becoming a preferred gateway for cyber criminals and is becoming epidemic – 95% of cyberattacks use email. These providers complement traditional detection techniques with AI to identify fake logos and detect anomalous email patterns and high-risk links. Mimecast (MIME) and Check Point (CHKP) are active in this segment. Key Industry Drivers Digitization, Remote Work, And Shift To Cloud Increase Demand For Cybersecurity The pandemic-driven shift to remote work, broad-based migration to cloud computing, development of the Internet-of-Things – every new digital process and asset create new potential targets for hackers. The sophistication of the attacks is also on the rise, deploying AI, ML, and 5G. There appears also to be cooperation among different hacker groups. This year alone, high-profile data breaches, such as Kaseya, Accellion, Pulse Secure, and Solar Winds, affected universities, defense firms, S&P 500 companies, and government agencies. These developments, as troubling as they are, are a boon for Cybersecurity companies. Cybersecurity is becoming business-critical. Despite its celebrity status, this is an industry that is still in the early innings, and ubiquitous digitization requires increasingly more complex cyber defenses. Cyber-Space: A New Realm Of (Geo)Political Conflict Generally the risk of a major exogenous shock affecting global markets from a cyber incident is underrated (Table 1). The world is inherently an anarchic place because nations are sovereign and there is not a single world government to enforce international law. However, nations periodically work out codes of conduct and norms of behavior to impose limitations on conflict and chaos. The post-WWII and post-Cold War global order is an example. A tolerably functional international order is beneficial for global trade and investment flows. Increasingly international rules and norms are being challenged. The decline of the US and Europe in economic, technological, and military weight – relative to the rest of the world – has given rise to a “multipolar” distribution of power in which the rules of the road are contested. Disputes over sovereignty, territory, maritime rights, and air space have been escalating for over a decade in the areas around Russia, China, and the Mediterranean region. Table 1Cyber Event Underrated In Consensus View Of Global Risks Cyber-space is a new realm or domain of human activity. Because it is international, it is inherently ungovernable, and because it is new, nations have not had decades in which to establish basic rules or norms. It is very close to pure anarchy. Given that overall geopolitical competition is rising in the context of multipolarity, cyber-space is an attractive arena for nations to pursue their objectives because it presents fewer constraints – nations can act more independently and aggressively with limited accountability. Cyber gives nation-states (and their proxy groups) greater anonymity and plausible deniability. Russia can directly intervene in American social and political life through state-backed cyber agents, or it can condone the actions of criminal groups that conduct ransomware attacks. Nations can also use cyber tools to pursue state economic goals that align with broader strategic goals. For example, China can pursue technological upgrades for state-backed industry through cyber-theft. The trend for the foreseeable future is for governments to invest in Cybersecurity and cyber-capabilities in order to fortify this new and lawless realm of competition. Russia and China have attempted to seal off their cyber-space to prevent interference from foreign powers. They have also used cyber capabilities to take advantage of the relatively unregulated cyberspace of the liberal democracies. The democracies are now attempting to increase control over their own cyber domains. They need to protect critical infrastructure but also are increasingly focused on patrolling the ideological space. Finally, while nations are often deterred from aggression by conventional militaries, cyber-space creates an avenue to pursue interests aggressively with minimal risk of physical conflict. The US and Israel will continue to sabotage Iran’s nuclear program. Russia will continue to use cyber tools to try to reclaim dominance in the former Soviet Union. And China could resort to cyber-attacks against Taiwan if it is not yet willing to pursue an extremely difficult and risky amphibious invasion. Governments and corporations will deal with extreme uncertainty in this environment. They will have to invest in Cybersecurity. But they will also run the risk that at some point cyber-meddling will go too far and provoke real-world retaliation. President Biden reflected the sentiment of the US political establishment during a speech in July at the Office of the Director of National Intelligence: “I think it’s more likely we’re going to end up, if we end up in a war – a real shooting war with a major power – it’s going to be as a consequence of a cyber breach of great consequence and it’s increasing exponentially, the capabilities.”7 This risk will reinforce the need for more robust cyber defenses to prevent physical harm to a nation’s people and wealth. Hence what governments will not be able to do is penalize or break up their Cybersecurity corporations. Cyber firms will see strong public and private demand without the regulatory pressure that other tech companies (especially social media) will face. Corporate Spending On Cybersecurity Services Is Soaring According to IDC, the global Cybersecurity market is expected to grow from $125 billion in 2020 to $175 billion by 20248 at an 8.8% CAGR. After all, companies that purchased or implemented automated security features in their businesses can reduce potential cyber-attack losses by more than 50%, making it a worthwhile investment. Both large and small businesses are yet to fully implement Cybersecurity defenses. According to an IDG cybersecurity survey,9 91% of organizations are increasing their Cybersecurity budgets in 2021 (compared to 96% in 2020). Companies invest to prevent malicious attacks, and protect an increasingly distributed IT environment, and securely connect their remote workforce (Chart 6). According to an IBM security survey, only 25% of responders stated that they had fully implemented automated security. Clearly, demand for cyber defenses is poised for strong growth. Public Spending Commitments Will Fortify Cyber Defenses In response to the numerous breaches, the current US administration is placing a high priority on defensive cyber programs. Within the broader $6 trillion Biden budget request to Congress, $10 billion will be allocated to civilian government Cybersecurity in 2022 (Chart 7), bringing the total federal IT spending to just over $58 billion. Since 2017, US government departments have seen the Cybersecurity share of their basic discretionary funding rise steadily from 1.38% to 1.73%. The Biden administration’s broader legislative agenda includes expanding broadband Internet, building infrastructure, and regearing the US energy grid. New cyber vulnerabilities will emerge and both public and private entities will need to invest in security. Chart 8 further reveals the importance of Federal software spending to Cybersecurity equity performance. Our bet is that increases in Federal software spending outlays will lead to outperformance of HXR relative to the Software and Services index. Chart 8Stepped Up Government Spending Will Lift Cybersecurity Stocks Key Drivers Of Profitability Sales Growth Cybersecurity sales year-over-year growth is soaring at 40% this year and dwarfs the rate of sales growth of Software and Services (Chart 9). This is consistent with a joint survey by IDC and Bloomberg Intelligence Services, which found that worldwide Cybersecurity spending will outpace general software spending by almost 4.9% annualized from 2020 to 2024 (Chart 10).10 Chart 9Cybersecurity Sales Are Soaring R&D Investing Has Slowed Cybersecurity companies have been investing in R&D aggressively prior to the pandemic. Intellectual property is a competitive advantage in this space, and R&D has likely been ramped up in “arms races”, with different industry players building their competitive moats. Recently, spending on R&D has eased. We believe that this slowdown is temporary as companies need to stay competitive and fend off threats from cybercriminals (Chart 11). Earnings Growth Despite robust revenue growth, year-over-year earnings growth has recently slowed (Chart 12). Shift to remote work in 2020 resulted in a demand surge that has pulled profits forward. However, despite economic normalization and a return to the pre-pandemic trends, the structural shifts towards cloud and remote work are here to stay, while cybercriminals are getting increasingly more creative and aggressive. As a result, earnings growth is bound to pick up going forward. Chart 11R&D Investment Has Slowed Down Chart 12After Lockdown Surge, Earnings Growth Is Normalizing Valuations Currently, HXR is trading at 37x forward earnings, and 104x trailing, which translates into an 13% premium to Software and Services. While this valuation premium appears high, it is low compared to historical values (Charts 13 & 14). The former hefty premium has been deflated by recent underperformance (18%). There is also a meaningful discount to Software and Services when it comes to the Price-To-Sales metric, which is, arguably, the best gauge of value for growing companies. Chart 13Relative Valuation Premium Is Low Compared To Pre-Pandemic Highs Chart 14Cybersecurity Is Cheap By Price-To-Sales Metric From a valuation standpoint, Cybersecurity stocks are exorbitantly expensive, yet we can make a case that they are attractive compared to their own history, and these levels signify an opportunity to build a new position in this theme. How To Invest In Cybersecurity ETFs There are a number of highly liquid ETFs, such as CIBR, BUG, and HACK, powered by the Cybersecurity theme, cutting across several industry groups (Table 2 & Appendix). These passively managed funds have relatively high expense ratios. Direct indexing may be preferable as a basket of the Cybersecurity stocks is relatively easy to assemble. Given that the CIBR ETF has predominantly US companies, is most liquid, and has the highest AUM, it is our vehicle of choice for capturing the Cybersecurity theme. Table 2Cybersecurity ETFs S&P 500 Investors with an S&P500-only mandate may create a Cybersecurity basket from five major players spread across several sectors to gain direct exposure to the large-cap Cybersecurity universe: Cisco (CSCO), Juniper (JNPR), Fortinet (FTNT), NortonLifeLock (NLOK), and Akamai (AKAM). These companies represent the entire network security market, with CSCO and JNPR providing exposure to physical network infrastructure, AKAM representing the Digital Network Infrastructure vertical, FTNT covering Digital Data Security, and finally NLOK a legacy player focused on End Point Protection. It is important to note that some of the fastest growing and innovative players, such as Crowdstrike, Okta, and Zscaler, are outside of the S&P 500 as their market capitalizations are too small. Investment Implications Cybersecurity is increasingly important for businesses in the US and abroad, with demand for solutions surging. As a result, Cybersecurity is a structural investment theme, which warrants a long-term position in most equity portfolios. As with any investment into an emerging technology or theme, it is likely to be volatile, but the long-term upside should justify day-to-day jitters. Also, our analysis demonstrates that now is a good time to build a tactical overweight in Cybersecurity stocks. These stocks have been languishing for a few months, losing some of the valuation froth generated by the work-from-home hype. As a result, most of the cybersecurity stocks are attractively valued compared to history and are poised for a rebound on the back of robust demand for their services. Bottom Line Global digital transformation as well as rising geopolitical tensions create fertile ground for attacks by both cyber criminals and malicious state actors. The cyber defenses of most private and public companies are still ill-prepared, and the space is poised for a robust growth since Cybersecurity is a “must have” for survival. This growing market has attracted a plethora of new cybersecurity players which provide cloud-based SaaS solutions, and are well-versed in deploying AI and ML to counter cyber threats. While many of these companies are still young with relatively small capitalization, their potential is enormous. We recommend tactical and structural overweights to the theme.   Irene Tunkel Chief Strategist, US Equity Strategy irene.tunkel@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Arseniy Urazov Senior Analyst ArseniyU@bcaresearch.com Appendix     Footnotes 1     Special Report: Cyberwarfare In The C-Suite, Cybercrime Magazine, Nov 13, 2020.  2     IBM and Ponemon Institute Research 3    Emsisoft 4    Imperva 2019 Cyberthreat Defense Report 5    CyberEdge Group 2021 Cyberthreat Defense Report 6    Barron’s, Security Software Stocks Should Have Strong Q2 Results. Here’s Why, July 12, 2021. 7     Nandita Bose, “Biden: If U.S. has ‘real shooting war’ it could be result of cyber attacks,” Reuters, July 28, 2021, reuters.com. 8    IDC, “Ongoing Demand Will Drive Solid Growth for Security Products and Services, According to New IDC Spending Guide,” Aug 13, 2020. 9    Cybersecurity at a Crossroads: The Insight 2021 Report", IDG Research Services, 2021. Respondents included more than 200 C-level IT and IT security executives in organizations with an average of 21,300 employees across a wide range of industries. 10   Source: Bloomberg Intelligence (Mandeep Singh - Senior Industry Analyst), August 25, 2021 & IDC.

Highlights Economy – It is more likely that the third quarter slowdown reflected demand deferral than demand destruction: We are not concerned that the lousy third quarter GDP release heralds stagflation. Massive fiscal transfers and an unprecedented increase in household wealth will support consumption and keep the economy from stagnating. Markets – Another quarter, another sizable earnings beat: Despite shortages, bottlenecks and logistics challenges, S&P 500 profit margins held up much better than expected in the third quarter, allowing earnings to maintain their pandemic streak of exceeding the analyst consensus by an unusually wide margin. Strategy – Stay on the right side of the cycles: The business cycle, the credit cycle and the monetary policy cycle all support overweighting equities and underweighting Treasuries and cash. There will be a time to turn defensive, but it’s not here yet. Feature Stagflation, combining stagnant activity and high inflation, is a clever phrase but a deeply unpleasant economic outcome. It is central bankers’ and elected officials’ bête noire because there is no politically palatable way to counter it. Raising rates to throttle inflation risks driving unemployment higher while stimulating the economy to bolster employment risks letting inflation burn out of control. Paul Volcker was hung in effigy for taking the former route, plunging the economy into a painful double-dip recession to shatter the inflationary mindset, while Jimmy Carter saw his re-election prospects evaporate once voters were asked how they’d fared over his stagflation-ridden term. The November edition of the Bank Credit Analyst examines the drivers of the ‘70s/early ‘80s stagflation. After a through then-and-now comparison, it concludes that a stagflationary outcome is unlikely albeit not impossible. We agree, for the simple reason that you can’t have stagflation without stagnating and we expect that the economy will grow well above its trend level all the way through 2022. We expect that sustained nominal GDP growth of 6% or more, in contrast to the 4% rate that has prevailed since 2000, will support risk asset outperformance over the next twelve months. A Discouraging Quarter The rise of the Delta variant cast a pall over the economy in the third quarter, as the first estimate of GDP made clear. A summer that began with great optimism about getting back to normal quickly fizzled in the face of surging infections (Chart 1), stalled vaccinations (Chart 2), spotty supplies and logistical bottlenecks. GDP growth forecasts cratered (Chart 3, top panel) and economists went on to dial back their expectations for next quarter (Chart 3, middle panel) and 2022 (Chart 3, bottom panel). In the end, growth proved to be even worse than expected, falling all the way to 2% with real final domestic demand (GDP after backing out inventory stocking and net exports) growing just 1%. Chart 1So Much For The Summer Of Fun Chart 2Grinding To A Halt Chart 3Downward Revisions A bear could interpret the decline as evidence that extraordinary policy measures have failed, giving way after just two quarters of Potemkin village growth. We are decidedly bullish, however, and view the third quarter as a stumble that will merely stretch out a consumption-fueled blowout that has already begun. A swoon in motor vehicle purchases lopped off 240 basis points of GDP by itself, while declining residential investment cost 40 basis points. The third quarter’s decline in auto sales was unprecedented during an expansion, however (Chart 4), and we view it as a supply-driven hiccup that will disappear once production revives. (Ford’s double-digit rise after reporting earnings last week suggests the equity market sees it that way, too.) Chart 4An Unprecedented Expansion Event As for residential investment, we stand by our view that the housing market has been inadequately supplied for several years.1 Structural issues like tight local zoning rules may be as much of a constraint on supply as cyclical factors, but they are not new and we do not expect that they will thwart builders’ response once the requisite human and material inputs can again be accessed. Like auto sales, residential investment does not typically decline amidst expansions (Chart 5). We attribute the slowdown in services consumption, particularly in food services and accommodations (Chart 6, top panel) and recreation services (Chart 6, bottom panel), to last quarter’s spike in COVID infections. Now that the Delta variant seems to have run its course and 5-to-11-year-olds are poised to become vaccination-eligible, we expect the recovery in discretionary services consumption to return to something between its first half and third quarter pace. Chart 5Residential Investment Looks More Likely To Contribute To Growth Than Detract From It Chart 6Not So Bad For An Outbreak The Creeping Menace The Delta variant upended a quarter’s output, but inflation could prove to be a more durable threat. Nominal GDP growth in the third quarter (7.8%) slowed considerably from the first half (12.1%), but the decline in real growth to 2% from 6.5% was much worse. If inflation doesn’t come down more rapidly than it did last quarter – as measured by the GDP deflator, it was 6.1% in 2Q and 5.7% in 3Q – it threatens to swallow up much of the quickened nominal growth pace. If upward price pressures are not as transitory as they first appeared, the expansion may fail to live up to its hype. The good news from our perspective is that long-run inflation expectations remain muted. Neither consumer surveys nor market-based measures suggest that a potentially self-fulfilling inflationary mindset has taken hold. The University of Michigan’s consumer confidence survey reveals that households’ inflation expectations curve is sharply inverted, with inflation over the next five to ten years, 2.8%, expected to be two percentage points lower than next year’s 4.8% rate (Chart 7). The market-based inflation expectations curve is not so steeply negative – investors aren’t as gloomy about the near-term outlook – but it is decidedly inverted and reinforces the transitory narrative (Table 1). Chart 7Households Think Inflation's Transitory ... We (and the Fed) focus so much attention on the inflation expectations curve because high inflation will not become self-sustaining until economic actors – workers, businesses, consumers and lenders – begin to expect it will persist into the future and change their behavior accordingly. When inflation is expected to be persistently high, workers insist on higher wages to maintain purchasing power, businesses demand higher prices to preserve their margins, consumers accelerate their big-ticket purchases to get the most bang for their buck and lenders require higher nominal pro forma returns. The resulting feedback loops help inflation become entrenched in the same way that expectations of falling prices have enabled the deflationary mindset that continues to grip Japan. As long as households and investors expect inflation to decelerate over time, the inflation genie will not have gotten out of the bottle. Table 1... And So Do Financial Markets Households Have A Great Deal Of Dry Powder We have closely monitored US households’ pandemic savings ever since the CARES Act payments began to flow. We viewed the growing pile of excess savings – aggregate household savings above the level that would have accumulated if pre-pandemic income and consumption trends had continued – as a proxy for households’ ability to make up for foregone consumption once COVID-19 loosened its grip on economic activity. Our running tally, now $2.2 trillion, has stabilized since the final round of economic impact payments was distributed this spring: spending caught up to its pre-pandemic trajectory in August and income slipped below its pre-COVID trend last month upon the expiration of federal supplemental unemployment insurance benefits. Households flexed their formidable spending capacity in the first half of the year, when consumption grew at a whopping 11.7% annualized real rate even while excess savings continued to grow. The experience of the first half testifies to the force of pent-up demand, the magnitude of fiscal support extended to households and the staggering wealth gains that have resulted from the appreciation of home prices and financial assets. As our Global Investment Strategy colleagues highlighted in their latest report, since the end of 2019, household net worth as a share of GDP has grown at its highest rate on record (Chart 8). Citing empirical studies finding that households spend 5 to 8 cents of every incremental dollar of housing wealth and 2 to 4 cents of every incremental dollar of stock market gains, they estimate that the wealth effect will support about $600 to $900 billion of consumption. Chart 8A Wealth Surge For The Books We have lauded excess savings as the primary support for elevated consumption, but those numbers suggest that household net worth gains deserve nearly equal billing. Our ballpark assumption has been that households will spend around one half of their excess savings, or $1.1 trillion, equivalent to nearly 5% of GDP. $600 to $900 billion of wealth effect consumption would tack on another 2.5 to 4%, bringing the total incremental spending capacity to 7 to 9% of GDP. Though these estimates are imprecise and should not be viewed as predictions, they testify to the force of the consumption tailwinds available to support the US economy. Another Robust Quarter For S&P 500 Earnings Amazon’s sizable third quarter earnings miss and stark fourth quarter guidance banished the budding sense of celebration surrounding the current reporting season, but it has nonetheless been exceptional by pre-COVID standards. Through the first three weeks, with 279 companies having reported results, third quarter earnings are projected to be 7.4% ahead of the final consensus estimate (Chart 9). Though it will fall short of the two- and three-standard-deviation level the index has reached the previous five quarters, this quarter is on track to top the maximum 6% beat recorded from 2012 through 2019 (Chart 10). ​​​​​​ ​​​​​​ Possibly the most surprising factor within the bottom-line EPS data has been the magnitude and breadth of margin surprises. Through last Friday, revenues had surprised to the upside by 2% while earnings had beaten by 11%. The 9-percentage-point spread reveals how much margins have surpassed expectations in the face of upward wage and other input cost pressures. Breadth has also been impressive, with every sector but Materials achieving wider-than-expected margins (Table 2). Table 2Margins Positively Surprised Nearly Across The Board We do not know why margins fared better in the real world than they did in analyst models – it was presumably a combination of increased operating leverage and an ability to continue to reduce or eliminate some costs – but we expect margins will contract in subsequent quarters, as per our US Equity Strategy team’s recent detailed analysis. In this regard, perhaps the reduced magnitude of this quarter’s earnings beat heralds a return to the pre-pandemic pattern in which companies were not able to achieve unanticipated efficiency gains quarter after quarter. For the last two quarters, we have been highlighting that expectations were very low because the consensus was calling for highly unusual quarter-over-quarter declines in earnings. If those laughably easy comparisons go away, the path may become a little rockier for equities. For the next twelve months, however, we expect gale-force consumption tailwinds will allow equities to continue to generate positive excess returns over Treasuries and cash.   Doug Peta, CFA Chief US Investment Strategist dougp@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1      Please see the July 12, 2021 US Investment Strategy Special Report, "The US Housing Market: Déjà Vu All Over Again?" available at usis.bcaresearch.com.

Highlights The market pricing of the ECB is too aggressive. More so than in the US, temporary factors explain the European inflation surge. Energy, taxes, and base effects account for the bulk of the price increases. In contrast to supply shortages, European labor shortages are small and slack will limit wage growth. Despite the lack of near-term inflation risks, European growth prospects are significantly stronger than last decade. As a result, European inflation will settle at a higher level than in the 2010s and will increase durably in the second half of the 2020s. The inflation curve will steepen, as will the yield curve. Banks will continue to outperform, especially compared to the insurance sector. A tactical opportunity to buy European high-yield corporates has emerged. In France, Macron remains the favorite for the 2022 presidential election. Feature Last week’s ECB meeting did nothing to curb the impression among traders that the ECB will start removing monetary accommodation in 2022. The implied policy rate stands at -0.25% one year from now and -0.08% in two years. Meanwhile, Italian 10-year spreads over Germany have increased to 127bps, their highest level since November 2020. This market action rests on the perception that inflationary pressures in the Euro Area are durable. While this line of reasoning may have credence in the US, it is weaker across the Atlantic where the economy shows fewer signs of genuine inflationary pressure. Moreover, the deterioration in peripheral financial conditions further limits the ability of the ECB to withdraw accommodation without a financial accident. Meanwhile, the NGEU program has created a climate where the likelihood of a premature and excessive fiscal tightening is low. Thus, the weak European growth of the past decade will not be repeated. When considering these inflationary and fiscal views, it becomes apparent that the European yield curve has room to steepen further. Consequently, European banks remain attractive and should be bought on dips, especially relative to insurance companies. The EONIA Curve Is Too Aggressive The sudden increase in interest rate hikes priced in the EONIA curve is a consequence of the rapid acceleration in European realized inflation and CPI swaps. Neither are durable. Headline HICP has surged to 4.1% and core CPI towers at 2.1%, their highest reading in 13 and 19 years, respectively. These surges are the reflection of transitory factors: Chart 1The Energy Path-Through Energy prices are lifting HICP and are sipping through to core CPI. Inflation for electricity, gas, and fuel has reached 14.7% and the energy CPI is at 23.5%. Both are moving in line with headline and core CPI (Chart 1). Now that Brent oil and natural gas have increased four and twenty folds since Q2 2020, respectively, their ability to contribute as much to overall inflation has decreased because they are unlikely to appreciate as much again. While oil prices may rise again here, European natural gas will decline meaningfully in the coming months. Tax increases are another important driver of core CPI. Core inflation with constant taxes stand at 1.37%, which is 0.67% below core CPI. In other words, while core CPI is high by the standard of the past decade, once we adjust for tax increases, it stands at normal levels (Chart 2). Base-effects are another dominant ingredient of the surge in European core CPI. The annualized two-year rate of change of the Eurozone’s core CPI stands at 1.11%, which is within the norm of the past seven years and below the rates experienced prior to 2014. In comparison, the annualized two-year core inflation in the US is 2.87%, well outside the range of the past decade (Chart 3). Chart 2Death And Taxes Chart 3Controlling For The Base Effect Inflation remains narrowly based. The Euro Area trimmed-mean CPI stands at 0.22%, or 1.82% below core CPI. Meanwhile, in the US, trimmed-mean CPI has reached 3.5% or 0.5% below core CPI (Chart 4). These figures confirm that the Eurozone inflation increase is more muted and narrower than that of the US. Wages are not experiencing any meaningful shock so far. Negotiated wages are growing at a 1.7% annual rate; meanwhile, the Atlanta Fed Wage Tracker is expanding at 3.6% and is rising even more steadily for low-skill jobs (Chart 5). Chart 4Much More Narrow Than In The US Chart 5Limited Wage Pressures Continental Europe’s more limited inflationary pressures compared to the US are a consequence of policy decisions during the crisis. The Euro Area fiscal stimulus in 2020 and 2021 amounted to 11% of 2019 GDP, but output declined by 15% in Q2 2020 and suffered a second dip in Q1 2021. Meanwhile, US fiscal packages amounted to 25% of 2019 GDP, while GDP declined by 10% in Q2 2020. Consequently, the Eurozone’s output gap is -4.1% of GDP, while that of the US has essentially closed. The contrasting nature of the stimuli accentuated the different outcomes created by their respective size. In Europe, governmental support focused on keeping people at work, which left aggregate supply unchanged. In the US, public programs allowed jobs to disappear, but they placed money directly in the pockets of consumers, which caused aggregate demand to rise relative to aggregate supply. In this context, a wage-price spiral is unlikely to develop in Europe as long as the energy crisis does not continue through 2022. First, the labor shortage problems are less acute in the Eurozone than in the US or the UK. Chart 6 highlights the factors limiting production in various industries. In the industrial sector, the “labor shortages” category has grown, but pale compared to the role of “material and equipment shortages” as a problem. In the services sector, the “weak demand” and “other” categories are greater obstacles to production than the “labor” factor, which remains at Q1 2020 levels (Chart 6, middle panel). Only in the construction sector are “labor shortages” the chief problem, but they still hurt production less than “insufficient demand” did in February 2021, when real estate prices were already strong (Chart 6, bottom panel). Second, labor market slack remains comparable to 2011 levels, when the ECB erroneously increased interest rates to fight energy-driven inflation (Chart 7). Additionally, the rise in persons available to work but not currently seeking employment represent 75% of the increase in labor market slack since Q4 2019. At the crisis peak in Q2 2020, this category accounted for 105% of the increase in labor market slack. This suggests that, as the vaccination campaign continues to progress across the continent; as households use up their savings; and as government supports ebb across Europe, a large share of those who are a part of the labor market slack will start looking for jobs again, which will increase the supply of workers and limit wage pressures. If traders are overly worried about realized inflation remaining high in Europe, they are also over-emphasizing some CPI swap measures that trade above 2%. CPI swaps only tell one part of the inflation expectations story, because they are one and the same as energy prices. Elevated energy prices sap spending power in the rest of the economy, if other inflation expectation measures remain well anchored; thus, rising energy inflation rarely translates into broad-based pricing pressure. For now, our Common Inflation Expectation measure for the Eurozone, based on the New York Fed’s method for the US, is still toward the low-end of its distribution, even though it includes CPI swaps (Chart 8). This confirms that the energy crisis remains a relative-price shock and that it is unlikely to lead to a generalized inflation outburst in the Euro Area. Chart 8Different Inflation Expectations Bottom Line: Markets expect a first 10bps ECB rate hike by June 2022 and the deposit rate to be 25bps higher by September 2023. However, unlike in the US, there are few signs that European inflation reflects anything more than higher energy prices, rising taxes, and base effects. Moreover, the stories in the press of labor shortages are exaggerated, while broad-based inflation expectations are not unmoored. In this context, we lean against the EONIA pricing and expect the ECB to increase rates in 2024, at the earliest. Fiscal Policy Unlike Last Decade The 2010s were a lost decade for Europe. GDP only overtook its 2008 peak in 2015. Today, GDP is recovering much faster from the recession than it did twelve years ago, and it is unlikely to relapse as it did back then. Chart 9A Lost Decade The European economic underperformance last decade was rooted in fiscal policy. As the top panel of Chart 9 highlights, the fiscal thrust during the GFC was minimal, at 1.3% of GDP, and was rapidly followed by a negative fiscal thrust. Moreover, the ECB unduly tightened policy in 2011 and left peripheral spreads fester at elevated levels between 2011 and 2014. This combination substantially hurt demand, especially in the European periphery. Capex proved particularly vulnerable. It is derived demand and therefore adds considerable variance to GDP. Faced with strong policy headwinds, its share of GDP plunged for most of the decade, which greatly contributed to the European economic malaise (Chart 9, bottom panel). According to the IMF, the Eurozone fiscal thrust will not exert the same drag as it did last decade; hence, capex is also unlikely to repeat its mediocre performance. Instead, the poorer Eastern and Central European economies as well as the weaker peripheral nations will receive a significant fillip from the NGEU program (Chart 10). When the NGEU grants and loans as well as the EU’s Multiannual Financial Framework funds are aggregated together, the EU will provide EUR1.9 trillion funding (adjusted for inflation) to member states over the next five years (Table 1). These sums will prevent any meaningful fiscal retrenchment from taking place. Table 1Bigger Spending The NGEU funds will be particularly supportive for capex. The Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF), which will be the main instrument to deliver funds across Europe, is heavily weighted toward green transition, reskilling, and digital transformation (Chart 11, top panel). Practically, this spending focuses on electrical, power, water, and broadband infrastructures, as well as renovation and modernization projects (Chart 11, bottom panel). This reinforces the notion that capex is unlikely to follow the same trajectory it did last decade. The implication of more accommodative fiscal policy and more robust capex is that the European output gap will close much faster than it did after the GFC. Hence, even if we expect the current inflation spike to pass next year, inflation will ultimately settle higher than it did last decade. Moreover, in the second half of the 2020s, European inflation will trend higher as full employment will be achieved. Bottom Line: The Euro Area is unlikely to experience another lost decade like the previous one. European trend growth remains low, but fiscal policy will not be as tight. Consequently, capex will not be as depressed, especially because the NGEU grants will greatly incentivize investments in certain sectors of the economy. As a result, the output gap will close much faster than it did in the 2010s. Moreover, once the current pandemic-driven inflation surge passes, CPI will settle at a higher level than it did last decade and will trend higher durably in the second half of the 2020s. Investment Implications Three main conclusions can be derived from our expectation on European inflation and growth dynamics over the coming decade. First, the inflation yield curve will steepen meaningfully. Today, near-term CPI swaps are lifted by energy markets and 2-year CPI swaps are 20bps above 20-year CPI swaps (Chart 12). From 2012 to 2020, 20-year CPI swaps stood between 30 bps and 150 bps above short maturity ones. Second, a steeper inflation curve, along with greater inflation risk toward the end of the decade will cause the European term premium to normalize from its -1.21% level. This will allow German 10-year yields to rise and the European yield curve to steepen (Chart 13). Chart 12Long-Term Inflation Expectations Have Upside Chart 13A Steeper German Yield Curve Third, higher German yields and a steeper curve will greatly benefit European banks (Chart 14, top panel). This pattern will be especially evident against insurance firms, which have massively outperformed deposit-taking institutions over the past seven years as yields fell (Chart 14, bottom panel). Additionally, banks’ balance sheets have become more robust than they once were and NPLs are unlikely to rise meaningfully as a result of government guarantees and easy fiscal policy (Chart 15). Investors should go long bank/short insurance on a cyclical basis. Chart 14Long Bank / Short Insurance Chart 15Imporving Balance Sheets A Tactical Buying Opportunity In European High-Yield Corporate Bond Market Chart 16Tactical Buying Opportunity The 40 basis points widening in European high-yield spreads has created a tactical buying opportunity. Inflation fears spurred by rising energy prices and by input prices are the likely culprit behind the recent spread widening (Chart 16). Although US junk spreads have already narrowed significantly, European high-yield corporate bond spreads are still 40 bps wider than at the beginning of September.     The 12-month breakeven spread, which measures the degree of spread widening required over a 12-month period for corporate bond returns to break even with a duration-matched position in government bond securities, now ranks at its 20th percentile, from 10th (Chart 16, second panel). Spreads will narrow back to near post-crisis lows before year-end on both an absolute and breakeven basis: First, monetary and fiscal policy remain very accommodative. Importantly, Spain and Italy will receive large shares of the NGEU funds until 2026. Second, growth will remain above trend despite recent inflation worries. Third, the European default rate is still falling, leaving the worst of the default cycle behind (Chart 16, third panel). Finally, our bottom-up Corporate Health Monitor signals improving corporate health, which historically coincides with narrowing spreads (Chart 16, bottom panel). Bottom Line: The recent widening in European high-yield spreads represents a short window of opportunity to buy the dip. Beyond this timeframe, a more cautious approach toward European credit is appropriate, as the ECB will become less active in the bond market. A French Update Last month, French President Emmanuel Macron unveiled a EUR30 billion investment plan aimed at supporting and fostering industrial and tech “champions of the future.” This new plan comes on top of the EUR100 billion recovery package that was announced in September 2020 to face the pandemic. While these investments will be made across many sectors of the French economy, the focus will be the French tech and energy sectors (Chart 17, top panel). This announcement comes six months before the next presidential election and amid the emergence of Eric Zemmour as a potential far-right candidate. However, Zemmour’s candidacy is unlikely to alter our expectation that Macron will be re-elected in 2022. Recent polls that include Zemmour as a potential candidate in the first-round show that he is appealing to Marine Le Pen’s voter base (Chart 17, bottom panel). Meanwhile, former Prime Minister Edouard Philippe—who would have made a formidable opponent to Macron had he decided to run—announced the creation of his own party with the objective of supporting Macron’s re-election campaign. Chart 18Recent Developments Support These Trades These political developments come as the French health and economic picture keeps improving. Although the vaccination pace has slowed in France, 68% of the population is fully vaccinated and 76% of the population has received at least one dose. Thus, the healthcare system continues to weather well recent COVID waves. Moreover, business confidence remains robust and reached its highest reading since July 2007, despite supply issues holding back production. The French jobs market is also recovering, with the unemployment rate expected to fall to 7.6% in Q3 from 8% in Q2. The introduction of a new investment plan, the emergence of a far-right candidate and Edouard Philippe’s newfound support, and the COVID-19 and economic developments bode well for President Macron’s chances at re-election. This implies additional French reforms over the next five years that aim to suppress unit labor costs and to make French exports more competitive vis-à-vis their main competitor, Germany. As a result, investors should overweight French industrial stocks relative to German ones (Chart 18, top panel). Meantime, additional investment in the French tech is bullish for a sector that is inexpensive relative to its European peers. Overweight French tech equities relative to European ones (Chart 18, panel 2 and 3).   Mathieu Savary, Chief European Strategist Mathieu@bcaresearch.com Jeremie Peloso, Associate Editor JeremieP@bcaresearch.com Tactical Recommendations Cyclical Recommendations Structural Recommendations Closed Trades Currency Performance Fixed Income Performance Equity Performance

In this report we examine the risk of stagflation by comparing the current environment to that of the late-1960s and 1970s. Today, investors cannot rule out the possibility of a stagflationary outcome, for four reasons: long-term household inflation expectations have risen significantly over the past year; fiscal policy has been expansionary; monetary policy will remain expansionary at the Fed’s projected terminal Fed funds rate; and component shortages and price increases linked to energy market and supply chain disruptions may persist or worsen over the coming year. However, the strong demand-pull inflationary dynamics that existed in the late-1960s were mostly absent in the lead-up to the pandemic, supply-chain issues are in part due to strong goods demand and supply disruptions that will eventually dissipate, and economic agents do not expect severe price pressures to persist beyond the pandemic. On balance, this points to a stagflationary outcome over the coming 6-24 months as a risk, but not a likely event. Investors should use the Misery Index, which is the sum of the unemployment rate and headline PCE inflation, as a real-time stagflation indicator. The Misery Index underscores that the US economy is unlikely to experience true stagflation unless the unemployment rate rises. A portfolio of the US dollar, the Swiss Franc, and industrial commodities may serve as a useful hedge for investors who are concerned about absolute return prospects in a world in which long-maturity bond yields are rising and risks of stagflationary dynamics are present. Chart II-1The Misery Index Reflects The Risk Of Stagflation Over the past several weeks, concerns about a possible return to 1970s-style stagflation have re-emerged significantly in the minds of many investors. These investors have pointed toward similarities between the current environment and that of the 1970s, including shortages limiting output, a snarled global trade and logistical system, and rising energy prices. Chart II-1 highlights that the US “Misery Index” – the sum of the unemployment rate and headline PCE inflation – rose again over the past several months to high single-digit territory, after having fallen dramatically from April 2020 to February of this year. Panel 2 of Chart II-1 highlights that last year's rise in the Misery Index was driven almost entirely by the unemployment rate, whereas the current level is due to a combination of a modestly elevated unemployment rate and a pronounced acceleration in inflation. The headline PCE deflator has risen above 4%, a level that has not been reached since 1991 during the First Gulf War. In this report, we examine the risk of stagflation by comparing the current environment to that of the late 1960s and 1970s. We conclude that while investors cannot rule out the possibility of a stagflationary outcome, there are important differences that point toward a stagflation outcome over the coming 6-24 months as a risk, not a likely event. We conclude by highlighting assets that may produce absolute returns in a world in which long-maturity bond yields are rising and risks of stagflationary dynamics are present. Revisiting The 1960s And 70s Chart II-2The 1960s Laid The Groundwork For Elevated Inflation The first step in judging the risk of a return to 1970s-style stagflation is to review, in a detailed way, what caused those conditions. Investors are well aware of the role that two separate energy price shocks played in raising prices and damaging output during this period, but they are less cognizant of the impact that a persistent period of above-trend output and significant labor market tightness had in setting up the conditions for sharply higher inflation. This focus of investors on energy prices partially reflects the fact that the Misery Index increased most visibly in the 1970s and that policymakers in the 1960s may not have realized how extensively economic output was running above its potential. With the benefit of hindsight, Chart II-2 illustrates the extent to which inflationary pressures built up in the 1960s, well before the first oil price shock in 1973. The chart shows that the unemployment rate was below NAIRU – the non-accelerating inflation rate of unemployment – for 70% of the time during the 1960s, and that inflation had already responded to this in the latter half of the decade. Annual headline PCE inflation was running just shy of 5% at the onset of the 1970 recession; it fell to 3% in the aftermath of the recession, but had already begun to reaccelerate in the first half of 1973. Following the 1973/1974 recession, inflation did decelerate significantly, falling from 11-12% to 5% in headline terms, and from 10% to 6% in core terms. But the pace of price appreciation did not fall below 5-6% in the second half of the 1970s, despite a significant and sustained rise in the unemployment rate above its natural rate. The 1975 to 1978 period is especially important for investors to understand, because it is arguably the clearest period of true stagflation in the 1970s. The fact that the Misery Index rose sharply during two major oil price shocks is not particularly surprising in and of itself, given the direct impact of energy prices on headline consumer prices; it is the fact that the index remained so elevated between these shocks, the result of persistently high inflation in the face of significant labor market slack, that is most relevant to investors. There are two reasons that both inflation and unemployment remained high during this period. First, labor market slack was sizeable during these years because the US economy was more energy-intensive in the 1970s than it is today. Chart II-3 highlights that goods-producing employment lagged overall employment growth from late 1973 to late 1977, underscoring that the rise in oil prices significantly impacted jobs growth in energy-intensive industries. Second, it is clear that the combination of demand-pull inflation in the late 1960s and the predominantly cost-push inflation of the 1970s led to expectations of persistent inflation among households and firms. The original Phillips Curve, as formulated by New Zealand economist William Phillips in the late 1950s, described a negative relationship between the unemployment rate and the pace of wage growth. Given the close correlation between wage and overall price growth at the time, the Phillips Curve was soon extended and generalized to describe an inverse relationship between labor market slack and overall price inflation. But the experience of the 1970s highlighted that inflation expectations are also an important determinant of inflation, a realization that gave birth to the expectations-augmented (i.e. “modern-day”) Phillips Curve (more on this below). The Stagflation Era Versus Today Table II-1 presents a stagflation “threat matrix,” representing the Bank Credit Analyst service’s assessment of the various factors that could potentially contribute to a stagflationary environment today, relative to what occurred in the 1960s and 1970s. While we acknowledge that there are some similarities today to what occurred five decades ago, the most threatening factors have been present for a shorter period of time and appear to have a smaller magnitude than what occurred during the stagflationary era. In addition, key factors, such as the visibility available to policymakers and investors about household inflation expectations and the potential output of the economy, would appear to reduce significantly the risk of a stagflationary outcome today. We discuss each of the factors presented in Table II-1 below: Fiscal & Monetary Policy Chart II-4Government Spending Last Cycle Looked Nothing Like The 1960s The persistently tight labor market that contributed to the inflationary buildup in the 1960s occurred as a result of easy fiscal and monetary policy. Chart II-4 highlights that the contribution to real GDP growth from government expenditure and investment was very elevated in the 1960s. Chart II-5 shows that a positive output gap in the late 1960s and the first half of the 1970s is well explained by the fact that 10-year US government bond yields were persistently below nominal GDP growth. The relationship between the stance of monetary policy and the output gap only meaningfully diverged in the latter half of the 1970s, during the true stagflationary era that we noted above. Chart II-5Easy Monetary Policy Juiced Aggregate Demand In The 60s And Early 70s Chart II-6Monetary Policy Today Is Extremely Easy Today, it is clear that the stance of fiscal policy has recently been extraordinarily easy, and 10-year US government bond yields have remained well below nominal GDP growth for the better part of the last decade. Relative to estimates of potential nominal GDP growth, 10-year Treasury yields are the lowest they have been since the 1970s (Chart II-6). Ostensibly, this supports concerns that policy might contribute to a stagflationary outcome. These concerns were raised by Larry Summers in March, when he described the Biden administration’s fiscal policy as the “least responsible” that the US has experienced in four decades and warned of the potential inflationary consequences of overheating the economy.1 But there are two important counterpoints to these concerns. First, easy fiscal policy this cycle has followed a period during the last economic cycle in which government spending contributed to the most sustained drag on economic activity since the 1950s. Unlike the 1960s, the unemployment rate has been below NAIRU for only a third of the time over the past decade. In addition, Chart II-7 highlights that fiscal thrust will turn to fiscal drag next year, underscoring the temporary nature of the massive burst in fiscal spending that has occurred in response to the pandemic. Under normal circumstances, the fiscal drag implied by Chart II-7 would substantially raise the risks of a recession next year, but we have noted in previous reports that a significant amount of excess savings remain to support spending and employment. The net impact of these two factors results in a reasonable expectation that the US economy will return to maximum employment next year, but this is a far cry from the 1960s when the unemployment rate was below its natural rate for 70% of the decade. Based on conventional measures, US monetary policy has been easy for a decade, but easy monetary policy did not begin to contribute positively to a rise in household sector credit growth last cycle until 2014/2015. This underscores that the natural rate of interest (“R-star”) did fall during the early phase of the last economic expansion. However, we argued in an April report that R-star was likely rising in the latter half of the last expansion,2 and we believe that the terminal Fed funds rate is likely higher than what the Fed is currently projecting, barring any additional negative policy shocks. Thus, while we do not believe that the duration of easy monetary policy over the past decade has laid the groundwork for a major rise in prices, it is now clearly positively contributing to aggregate demand and does risk a future overshoot in prices if long maturity bond yields remain well below the pace of economic growth for a sustained period of time. The Impact Of Shortages Chart II-8Gasoline Shortages Plagued The US Economy In The 1970s Gasoline shortages occurred during the oil shocks of the 1970s and are a key similarity that some investors point toward when comparing the situation today with the stagflationary era. Chart II-8 highlights that the annual growth in real personal consumption expenditures on energy goods and services fell into negative territory on six occasions in the 1970s, although it was most pronounced during the two oil price shocks and their resulting recessions. Today, the impact of shortages appears to be broader than what occurred in the 1970s, but less impactful and not likely to be as long-lasting. Chart II-9 highlights that the OPEC oil embargo of 1973 raised the global oil bill by 2.4% of global GDP and permanently raised the price of oil. The global oil bill will only be fractionally above its pre-pandemic level in 2022, with oil prices at $80/bbl, and, while it is true that US gasoline prices have risen significantly, they are not higher than they were from 2011-2014 (Chart II-10). Chart II-9$80/bbl Oil Is Not Onerous Chart II-10US Gasoline Prices Are High, But They Have Been Higher It is certainly true that global shipping costs have skyrocketed and that this is contributing to the increase in US consumer prices. We estimate, however, that this increase in shipping costs as a share of GDP is no more than a quarter of the impact of the 1973 increase in oil prices, without the attendant negative effects on US goods-producing employment that occurred in the 1970s. If anything, surging shipping costs create an incentive to re-shore manufacturing production, which would contribute positively to US goods-producing employment. We also do not expect the rise in shipping costs to be meaningfully permanent, i.e., shipping costs may ultimately settle at a higher level than they were in late-2019, but at a much lower level than what prevails today. Chart II-11A Tight Labor Market Is Causing Wage Growth To Pick Up Semiconductor and labor shortages would appear to represent a more salient threat of stagflation in the US, as the domestic production of motor vehicles cannot occur without key inputs and a tight labor market is already contributing to an acceleration in wage growth (Chart II-11). As we noted in Section 1 of our report, auto production significantly impacted growth in the third quarter. However, Chart II-12 highlights that, for now, the breadth of impact of these shortages appears to be limited: the production component of the ISM manufacturing index remains in expansionary territory, industrial production of durable manufacturing excluding motor vehicles and parts has not broken down, and both housing starts and building permits remain above pre-pandemic levels despite this year’s downtrend in permits. Chart II-12Shortages Do Not Yet Seem To Be Broad-Based A physical shortage of components is a less relevant factor for the services side of the economy, which appears to have re-accelerated meaningfully in October. The services sector is more considerably impacted by shortages in the labor market, which seem to be linked to a still-low labor force participation rate. We noted in our September report that the decline in the participation rate has significantly overshot what would be implied by the ongoing pace of retirements. Chart II-13 highlights that this has occurred not just because of a significant retirement effect, but also because of the shadow labor force (people who want a job but are not currently looking for work) and family responsibilities. We expect that the recent expiry of expanded unemployment insurance benefits, a steady rise in the immunity of the US population, an abating Delta wave of COVID-19, and a likely upcoming reduction in school/classroom closures once the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine is approved for school-age children will likely ease the labor shortage issue over the coming several months. Output Gap Uncertainty It remains a debate among economists why policymakers maintained such easy monetary policy in the 1960s and 1970s, but Chart II-14 highlights that uncertainty about the size of the output gap may have contributed to too-low interest rates. The chart shows the unemployment rate compared with today's estimate of NAIRU, alongside a simple proxy for policymakers’ real time estimate of the natural rate of employment: the cumulative average unemployment rate in the post-war environment. To the extent that policymakers used past averages of the unemployment rate as their guide for NAIRU, Chart II-14 highlights how they may have underestimated the degree to which output was running above its potential level in the 1960s, and would not have even concluded that output was above potential in the early 1970s. Chart II-14Policymakers Overestimated Labor Market Slack In The 60s And 70s Chart II-15Policymakers Know That NAIRU Is Likely At Or Below 4% Today, the environment is quite different, because the acceleration in wage growth at the tail end of the last expansion gives policymakers and investors a good estimate of where NAIRU is. Chart II-15 highlights that wage growth accelerated in 2018/2019 in response to a sub-4% unemployment rate, which is consistent with both the Fed’s NAIRU estimate of 3.5-4.5% and Fed Vice Chair Richard Clarida’s expressed view that a 3.8% unemployment rate likely constitutes maximum employment (barring any issues with the breadth and inclusivity of the labor market recovery). It is possible that the pandemic has structurally lowered potential output, which could mean that policymakers may no longer rely on the wage growth / unemployment relationship that existed in the latter phase of the last expansion. However, we do not find any credible arguments that would support the notion of a structurally lower level of potential output: the pandemic is likely to end at some point in the not-too-distant future, the negative impact of working-from-home policies on office properties and employment in central business districts is not sizeable,3 and productivity may have permanently increased in some industries because of the likely stickiness of a hybrid work culture. The Behavior Of Inflation Expectations Chart II-16Rising Long-Term Expectations Have Merely Normalized (For Now) One parallel to the argument that policymakers may have underestimated the degree of labor market tightness in the 1960s and early 1970s is the fact that they did not yet understand that inflation expectations are an important determinant of actual inflation, nor were they able to monitor them even if they did. Most credible surveys of inflation expectations began in the 1980s, and policymakers in the 1960s and 1970s were guided by the original Phillips Curve that solely related inflation to unemployment. Today, policymakers have the experience of the stagflationary episode to serve as a warning not to allow inflation expectations to get out of control, and both policymakers and investors have reliable measures of inflation expectations for households and market-participants. Chart II-16 highlights that households expect significant inflation over the coming year, but also expect prices over the longer term to rise at a pace that is almost exactly in line with their average from 2000-2014. The Rudd Controversy: (Adaptive) Inflation Expectations Do Matter One potential criticism of the idea that inflation expectations are signaling a low risk of higher future inflation has emerged through arguments made by Jeremy Rudd, a Federal Reserve economist. In a recent paper, Rudd questioned the view that households’ and firms’ expectations of future inflation are a key determinant of actual inflation; he suggested instead that relatively stable inflation since the mid-1990s might reflect a situation in which inflation simply does not enter workers’ employment decisions and expectations are irrelevant. Rudd’s paper was primarily addressed to policymakers who view inflation dynamics in a highly quantitative light. A full response to the paper would be mostly academic and thus not especially relevant to investors; however, we would like to highlight three points related to the Rudd piece that we feel are important.4 First, we disagree with Rudd’s argument that the trend in inflation has not responded to changes in economic conditions since the mid-1990s. Chart II-17 highlights that while the magnitude of the relationship has shifted, the trend in inflation relative to a measure of long-term expectations based on prior actual inflation has mimicked that of the output gap. The fact that inflation was (ironically) too high during the early phase of the last economic cycle provides some support for Rudd’s inflation responsiveness view, although we would still point toward the Fed’s strong record of maintaining low and stable inflation, its active communication with the public in the years following the global financial crisis, and the fact that a recovery began and the output gap began to (slowly) close as the best explanation for the avoidance of deflation during that period. Second, we agree with Rudd’s point that regime shifts in inflation’s responsiveness to economic conditions can occur, and that adaptive measures of inflation expectations, and even surveys of inflation, may not capture such a shift in real time. Chart II-18 shows that the 2014-2016 period was a good example of this, when adaptive expectations as well as household survey measures of long-term inflation expectations both lagged the actual decline in inflation that was caused by a collapse in the price of oil. Chart II-17The Trend In Inflation Continues To Respond To Economic Conditions Chart II-18Surveyed Inflation Expectations Can Lag, But This Time They Led But Chart II-18 also shows that long-term household survey measures of inflation led the rise in actual inflation (and thus our adaptive expectations measure) last year, underscoring that these measures are likely more reliable indicators today of whether a major regime shift is occurring. As noted above, long-term expectations have risen significantly relative to what prevailed prior to the pandemic, but this has merely raised expectations from extraordinarily depressed levels back to the average that prevailed prior to (and immediately after) the global financial crisis. Therefore, household expectations are not yet at dangerous levels. Chart II-19Unit Labor Costs Modestly Lead Inflation, But Are Far From Extreme Third, one of the core observations in Rudd’s paper is that unit labor cost (ULC) growth leads the trend in inflation, which he argued was evidence against the idea that expectations of future inflation are a key determinant of actual inflation. Chart II-19 highlights that Rudd is correct that ULC growth modestly leads inflation (especially core inflation), but we disagree with his conclusion that it argues against the importance of expectations. As we noted in Section 2 of our January 2021 Bank Credit Analyst,5 one crucial aspect of the expectations-augmented, or “modern-day” Phillips Curve is that, if inflation expectations are largely formed based on the experience of past inflation, then inflation is ultimately determined by three dimensions of the output gap: whether it is rising or falling, whether it is above or below zero, and how long it has been above or below zero. Our view is that ULC growth is fundamentally linked to slack in the labor market, which is directly incorporated in output gap measures. As we noted above, investors currently have a good estimate of the magnitude of the output/employment gap, meaning that it is possible to track the inflationary consequences of prevailing aggregate demand. As a final point about ULC growth, Chart II-19 highlights that while the five-year CAGR of unit labor costs is currently running at its strongest pace since the global financial crisis, investors should note that it remains well below the levels that prevailed in the late-1960s when persistently above-potential output laid the groundwork for a massive inflationary overshoot. Conclusions And Investment Strategy Our review of the 1960s and 1970s highlights that stagflation is a phenomenon in which supply-side shocks raise prices of key inputs to production, which lowers output and raises unemployment. Energy price shocks in the 1970s occurred after a long period of policy-driven above-trend growth in the 1960s, meaning that both demand-pull and cost-push inflation contributed to stagflation in the 1970s. Today, investors cannot rule out the possibility of a stagflationary outcome, for four reasons: long-term household inflation expectations have risen significantly over the past year; fiscal policy has been very expansionary; monetary policy will remain expansionary at the Fed’s projected terminal Fed funds rate; and component shortages and price increases linked to energy market and supply chain disruptions may persist or worsen over the coming year. Chart II-20It Is Not Stagflation If The Unemployment Rate Continues To Fall However, the strong demand-pull inflationary dynamics that existed in the late-1960s were mostly absent in the lead-up to the pandemic, supply-chain issues are in part the result of strong goods demand and disruptions that are clearly linked to the pandemic (and thus will eventually dissipate), and long-term inflation expectations are behaving differently than short-term expectations, signaling that economic agents do not expect severe price pressures to persist beyond the pandemic. Policymakers also have more visibility about the magnitude of economic / labor market slack than they did during the stagflationary era and better tools to track inflation expectations. On balance, this points to a stagflationary outcome over the coming 6-24 months as a risk, but not as a likely event. Using the Misery Index as real-time stagflation indicator, investors should note that the US economy is not likely experiencing true stagflation unless the unemployment rate rises. Chart II-20 highlights that there is no evidence yet of a contraction in goods-producing or service-producing jobs. Even if goods-producing employment slows meaningfully over the coming few months as a result of component shortages, the unemployment rate is still likely to fall if services spending normalizes, as it would imply that the gap in services-producing employment, which is currently 20% of the level of pre-pandemic goods-producing employment, will continue to close. Investors have been focused on the issue of stagflation because its occurrence would imply a sharply negative correlation between stock prices and bond yields. This is not our base case view, but we have highlighted that months with negative returns from both stocks and long-maturity bonds tend to be associated with periods of monetary policy tightening (or in anticipation of such periods). As we discussed in Section 1 of our report, we do expect the Fed to raise interest rates next year. We do not see a rise in bond yields to levels implied by the Fed’s interest rates projections as being seriously threatening to economic activity, corporate earnings growth, or equity multiples. But the adjustment to higher long-maturity bond yields may unnerve equity investors for a time, implying temporary periods of a negative stock price / bond yield correlation. Table II-2 highlights that, since 1980, commodities, the US dollar, and the Swiss franc have typically earned positive returns during non-recessionary months in which stock and long-maturity bond returns are negative. While the dollar is not likely to perform well in a stagflationary scenario, Chart II-21 highlights that CHF-USD and industrial commodities performed quite well in the late-1970s. As such, a portfolio of these three assets might serve as a useful hedge for investors who are concerned about absolute return prospects in a world in which long-maturity bond yields are rising and risks of stagflationary dynamics are present. Chart II-21The Swiss Franc and Raw Industrials Did Well During The Stagflationary Era Jonathan LaBerge, CFA Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst Footnotes 1  “Summers Sees ‘Least Responsible’ Fiscal Policy in 40 Years,” Bloomberg News, March 20, 2021. 2 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst “R-star, And The Structural Risk To Stocks,” dated March 31, 2021, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst “Work From Home “Stickiness” And The Outlook For Monetary Policy,” dated June 24, 2021, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 4 Rudd, Jeremy B. (2021). “Why Do We Think That Inflation Expectations Matter for Inflation? (And Should We?),” Finance and Economics Discussion Series 2021-062. Washington: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. 5  Please see The Bank Credit Analyst “The Modern-Day Phillips Curve, Future Inflation, And What To Do About It,” dated December 18, 2021, available at bca.bcaresearch.com

Highlights The circumstances of the pandemic improved in October, but data highlighting the economic consequences of the Delta wave grew more severe. US economic activity slowed meaningfully in the third quarter, driven by lower car sales and a slowdown in services spending. The imminent vaccination of school-aged children, and signs that services activity and spending are increasing, will likely raise labor force participation, boost education employment, and hasten the return of real services spending back to pre-pandemic levels. Investors have the right bond view, but the wrong reason. Investors believe that the Fed will be forced to raise interest rates earlier than it currently expects to prevent an out-of-control rise in prices, whereas it will likely do so because of a quicker return to maximum employment. Bond yields are likely to move higher over the coming year, but this will be driven by real yields, not inflation expectations. Once the Fed begins to raise interest rates, investors should be on the lookout for signs that market expectations for the real natural rate of interest, or “R-star,” are rising. The Fed’s terminal rate projection is well below nominal potential GDP growth, and a gap between these two measures no longer makes sense. Stocks are likely to generate mid-single digit returns next year, which will beat the returns offered by bonds and cash. But stocks will generate much lower returns compared with those enjoyed by investors over the past year. A benign rise in long-maturity bond yields argues for the outperformance of value versus growth stocks over the coming year. Cyclical stocks are now becoming stretched versus defensives on an equally-weighted basis; stay overweight for now, but a downgrade to neutral may be in the cards at some point next year. Feature Chart I-1The Waning Impact Of Delta Over the past month, the focus of investors has shifted from day-to-day developments to the consequences of the Delta wave of the pandemic. Chart I-1 highlights that, while an estimate of the COVID-19 reproduction rates in advanced economies has recently inched higher, it remains below one and hospitalizations continue to trend lower in most major economies. UK hospitalizations have increased over the course of the month, but remain at a level that is a quarter of their January peak – despite an elevated pace of confirmed cases. In the US, both these cases and hospitalizations continue to fall, trends that are likely to be reinforced by the vaccination of children over the coming weeks. A 50-60% vaccination rate for school-aged children would increase the US vaccination rate by 4-5 percentage points. Vaccinating all children at this rate would increase the total vaccination rate by 7-8 percentage points. In combination with a meaningful level of natural immunity, the vaccination of children is likely to bring the US very close to, if not above, the non-accelerating hospitalization rate of immunity (or “NAHRI”).1 The Delta Hangover While the circumstances of the pandemic improved in October, the economic consequences grew more severe. US economic activity slowed meaningfully in the third quarter, as highlighted by yesterday’s advance release. Chart I-2 highlights that durable goods spending subtracted almost three percentage points from Q3 growth, and that most other components of GDP contributed less to growth in Q3 than in Q2. The significant slowdown in Q3 growth is disappointing, but several factors point toward the conclusion that it is not likely to be sustained: Chart I-3Services PMIs Are Pointing To A Stronger Q4 The Delta wave very likely impacted services spending, which we have highlighted is likely to drive overall consumption over the coming year. Given the ongoing impact of semiconductor shortages on the availability of new cars, it is not surprising that a slowdown in services spending resulted in a significant slowdown in overall growth. After having declined significantly in Q3, Chart I-3 highlights that the US, UK, French, and Japanese October flash services PMI rose anew, underscoring that recent services weakness have been closely linked to the Delta variant of COVID-19 (whose impact is now waning). Chart I-3 also highlights that the US services PMI is currently at a level that has been historically consistent with solid real PCE growth. Finally, while it is true that manufacturing PMIs are being supported by supplier deliveries components, the October output component of the US Markit manufacturing index remained in expansionary territory, as was the case in Germany, Japan, and the UK (despite month-over-month declines in these components). Chart I-4 highlights that Q3’s real GDP reading was highly anomalous relative to the pace of jobs growth in the quarter, based on the relationship between the two since the global financial crisis. In quarters in which real GDP growth was 1% or less than implied by the trendline shown in Chart I-4, real GDP accelerated in the subsequent quarter 80% of the time. In conjunction with a pickup in services activity in October, this suggests that growth will be meaningfully stronger in Q4. Chart I-5Global Growth Is Peaking, But A Major Downturn Is Unlikely Chart I-5 shows our global Nowcast indicator, alongside our global LEI. Our Nowcast indicator is a high-frequency measure of economic activity that is designed to predict global industrial production. The chart shows that both the Nowcast and global LEI are declining, but that this decline is occurring from an extremely elevated level. The global economy is at an inflection point in terms of the pace of growth, but Chart I-5 still points to above-trend growth – and certainly not a major cyclical downturn. The expectation of a slowdown in growth in Q3 has significantly raised concerns about a possible return to 1970s-style stagflation in the minds of many investors. We address this topic in depth in this month’s Special Report, and conclude that, while investors cannot rule out the possibility of stagflation, there are important differences that point toward a stagflationary outcome over the coming 6-24 months as a risk, not a likely event. We note in our report that the risk of stagflation can be monitored in real time by tracking the Misery Index, which is the sum of headline PCE inflation and the unemployment rate. Currently, the Misery Index is elevated relative to the average of the past 30 years, but it is meaningfully lower than it was during the latter half of the 1970s. This also underscores that true stagflation is only likely to occur if the unemployment rate rises, which means that the economic and financial market outlook over the coming year is strongly tied to the pace of jobs growth (even more so than usual). Table I-1 presents an industry breakdown of the jobs gap relative to pre-pandemic levels, sorted by industries with the largest gap. The table highlights that leisure and hospitality, government, and education and health services jobs continue to account for two-thirds of the five million jobs gap, with the latter two largely reflecting the same effect: 60% of the government jobs gap is accounted for by state and local government education-related employment. Chart I-6Leisure And Hospitality Employment Tracks The Hotel Occupancy Rate US education employment has been impacted by school and classroom closures, which we noted above are likely to end once school-aged children are vaccinated against the disease. Chart I-6 highlights that leisure and hospitality employment is clearly predicted by the US hotel occupancy rate, which wobbled over the past few months as a result of the Delta wave of the pandemic. Correspondingly, monthly growth in leisure and hospitality employment slowed in August and September. Taken together, the imminent vaccination of school-aged children and signs that services activity and spending are increasing will likely raise labor force participation, boost education employment, and hasten the return of real services spending back to pre-pandemic levels. The Bond Market Outlook Chart I-7The Market Now Agrees With Us About The Timing Of Fed Rate Hikes... A continued normalization of the labor market over the coming 6-12 months argues in favor of Fed rate hikes next year, which is a view that we have maintained for several months. Recently, investors have come to agree with us, by moving forward their expectations for the Fed funds rate (Chart I-7). However, Chart I-8 highlights that investors have the right view for the wrong reason. The chart highlights that US government bond yields have risen entirely due to inflation expectations and that real yields have fallen. This means that investors believe that the Fed will be forced to raise interest rates earlier than it currently expects to prevent an out-of-control rise in prices, whereas we believe that they will do so because of a return to maximum employment. The implication for investors is that bond yields are still likely to rise over the coming year, but that higher yields are likely to occur alongside falling inflation expectations. This trend underscores that common hedges against inflation, such as precious metals and the relative performance of TIPS, are likely to underperform over the coming year. We have noted in previous reports that the fair value for long-maturity government bond yields implied by the Fed’s interest rate projections is not likely threatening for equity multiples, and certainly not for economic activity. A September 2022 rate hike, coupled with a pace of three hikes per year and a 2.5% terminal Fed funds rate, implies that 10-year Treasury yields will rise to 2.15% over the coming year, which would be only modestly higher than the level that prevailed prior to the pandemic (Chart I-9). Chart I-8...But For The Wrong Reason Chart I-9Higher Bond Yields Are Unlikely To Be Restrictive Next Year   However, once the Fed begins to raise interest rates, investors should be on the lookout for signs that market expectations for the real natural rate of interest, or “R-star,” are rising. The Fed’s terminal rate projection is well below nominal potential GDP growth, and, while a gap between these two measures made sense in the years following the global financial crisis, this no longer appears to be the case. Chart I-10 highlights that real household mortgage liabilities began to contract sharply in 2006, and did not turn positive on a year-over-year basis until the end of 2016. It is likely that R-star was falling or weak during this period, but the correlation between the two series clearly shifted in the latter phase of the last economic cycle. Chart I-11 emphasizes this point by highlighting that the household debt service ratio is now the lowest it has been since the 1970s, underscoring the capacity that US consumers have to withstand higher interest rates. Chart I-10R-star Fell Post-GFC, For A Time Chart I-11Today, US Households Have A Lot Of Capacity To Tolerate Higher Rates     We doubt that investor expectations for the terminal rate will rise significantly before the Fed begins to normalize monetary policy, but it may happen. In addition, the Fed may begin raising interest rates next year as soon as late in the summer or early in the fall, which would locate the liftoff date within our 6-12 month investment time horizon. As such, our base case view is that a rise in interest rates over the coming year will not be threatening to the equity market, but this view may change at some point next year. Equities: Expect Modest Returns In 2022 A benign increase in long-maturity bond yields in 2022 suggests that equity multiples will neither contribute to, nor subtract from, equity returns. As such, return expectations for equities should be centered around expected earnings growth. Table I-2 presents consensus estimates for nominal GDP growth, S&P 500 revenue growth, and earnings growth for 2022. The table highlights that expectations for revenue growth estimates appear to be reasonable, given that bottom-up analysts continue to expect an expansion in profit margins next year. Chart I-12 highlights that margins have already risen back above their pre-pandemic high, and that this is true for both tech and ex-tech sectors. Chart I-12US Profit Margins Have Already Risen To Record Levels We doubt that further increases in profit margins will be sustained next year. It is possible that margins will actually decline – a view that was recently espoused by our US Equity Strategy service.2 Risks to profit margins underscore that stocks are likely to generate mid-single digit returns next year, which will beat the returns offered by bonds and cash. But stocks will generate much lower returns compared with those enjoyed by investors over the past year. Within the equity market, we remain of the view that even a benign rise in long-maturity bond yields argues for the outperformance of value versus growth stocks over the coming year. Chart I-13 highlights that the rolling one-year correlation between relative global growth versus value stock prices and the US 10-year Treasury yield has become increasingly negative over time, which bodes well for value. We also continue to recommend that investors favor small over large caps and cyclicals over defensives, although cyclical stocks are now becoming stretched versus defensives on an equally-weighted basis as they are closing in on their 2018 highs (Chart I-14). We think it is too early to position against cyclicals, but a downgrade to neutral may be in the cards at some point next year. Chart I-13Growth Will Underperform Value If Long-Maturity Bond Yields Rise Chart I-14Cyclicals Are Starting To Look Stretched Versus Defensives   Investment Conclusions Next month’s report will feature BCA’s 2022 outlook, as well as a transcript of our recently held annual discussion with Mr. X and his daughter Ms. X (who joined his family office a couple of years ago). Our annual outlook will provide a detailed walkthrough of our views for the upcoming year, as well as answers to sobering questions raised by Mr. X and Ms. X about the longer-term outlook. For now, we recommend that investors stick with a pro-cyclical view, favoring the following assets: Global stocks over bonds A short-duration position within a government bond portfolio Speculative-grade corporate bonds within a credit portfolio Global ex-US stocks vs US, focused on DM ex-US Global value versus growth stocks Cyclicals versus defensives, and small versus large caps Major currencies versus the US dollar Jonathan LaBerge, CFA Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst October 29, 2021 Next Report: November 30, 2021 II. Gauging The Risk Of Stagflation In this report we examine the risk of stagflation by comparing the current environment to that of the late-1960s and 1970s. Today, investors cannot rule out the possibility of a stagflationary outcome, for four reasons: long-term household inflation expectations have risen significantly over the past year; fiscal policy has been expansionary; monetary policy will remain expansionary at the Fed’s projected terminal Fed funds rate; and component shortages and price increases linked to energy market and supply chain disruptions may persist or worsen over the coming year. However, the strong demand-pull inflationary dynamics that existed in the late-1960s were mostly absent in the lead-up to the pandemic, supply-chain issues are in part due to strong goods demand and supply disruptions that will eventually dissipate, and economic agents do not expect severe price pressures to persist beyond the pandemic. On balance, this points to a stagflationary outcome over the coming 6-24 months as a risk, but not a likely event. Investors should use the Misery Index, which is the sum of the unemployment rate and headline PCE inflation, as a real-time stagflation indicator. The Misery Index underscores that the US economy is unlikely to experience true stagflation unless the unemployment rate rises. A portfolio of the US dollar, the Swiss Franc, and industrial commodities may serve as a useful hedge for investors who are concerned about absolute return prospects in a world in which long-maturity bond yields are rising and risks of stagflationary dynamics are present. Chart II-1The Misery Index Reflects The Risk Of Stagflation Over the past several weeks, concerns about a possible return to 1970s-style stagflation have re-emerged significantly in the minds of many investors. These investors have pointed toward similarities between the current environment and that of the 1970s, including shortages limiting output, a snarled global trade and logistical system, and rising energy prices. Chart II-1 highlights that the US “Misery Index” – the sum of the unemployment rate and headline PCE inflation – rose again over the past several months to high single-digit territory, after having fallen dramatically from April 2020 to February of this year. Panel 2 of Chart II-1 highlights that last year's rise in the Misery Index was driven almost entirely by the unemployment rate, whereas the current level is due to a combination of a modestly elevated unemployment rate and a pronounced acceleration in inflation. The headline PCE deflator has risen above 4%, a level that has not been reached since 1991 during the First Gulf War. In this report, we examine the risk of stagflation by comparing the current environment to that of the late 1960s and 1970s. We conclude that while investors cannot rule out the possibility of a stagflationary outcome, there are important differences that point toward a stagflation outcome over the coming 6-24 months as a risk, not a likely event. We conclude by highlighting assets that may produce absolute returns in a world in which long-maturity bond yields are rising and risks of stagflationary dynamics are present. Revisiting The 1960s And 70s Chart II-2The 1960s Laid The Groundwork For Elevated Inflation The first step in judging the risk of a return to 1970s-style stagflation is to review, in a detailed way, what caused those conditions. Investors are well aware of the role that two separate energy price shocks played in raising prices and damaging output during this period, but they are less cognizant of the impact that a persistent period of above-trend output and significant labor market tightness had in setting up the conditions for sharply higher inflation. This focus of investors on energy prices partially reflects the fact that the Misery Index increased most visibly in the 1970s and that policymakers in the 1960s may not have realized how extensively economic output was running above its potential. With the benefit of hindsight, Chart II-2 illustrates the extent to which inflationary pressures built up in the 1960s, well before the first oil price shock in 1973. The chart shows that the unemployment rate was below NAIRU – the non-accelerating inflation rate of unemployment – for 70% of the time during the 1960s, and that inflation had already responded to this in the latter half of the decade. Annual headline PCE inflation was running just shy of 5% at the onset of the 1970 recession; it fell to 3% in the aftermath of the recession, but had already begun to reaccelerate in the first half of 1973. Following the 1973/1974 recession, inflation did decelerate significantly, falling from 11-12% to 5% in headline terms, and from 10% to 6% in core terms. But the pace of price appreciation did not fall below 5-6% in the second half of the 1970s, despite a significant and sustained rise in the unemployment rate above its natural rate. The 1975 to 1978 period is especially important for investors to understand, because it is arguably the clearest period of true stagflation in the 1970s. The fact that the Misery Index rose sharply during two major oil price shocks is not particularly surprising in and of itself, given the direct impact of energy prices on headline consumer prices; it is the fact that the index remained so elevated between these shocks, the result of persistently high inflation in the face of significant labor market slack, that is most relevant to investors. There are two reasons that both inflation and unemployment remained high during this period. First, labor market slack was sizeable during these years because the US economy was more energy-intensive in the 1970s than it is today. Chart II-3 highlights that goods-producing employment lagged overall employment growth from late 1973 to late 1977, underscoring that the rise in oil prices significantly impacted jobs growth in energy-intensive industries. Second, it is clear that the combination of demand-pull inflation in the late 1960s and the predominantly cost-push inflation of the 1970s led to expectations of persistent inflation among households and firms. The original Phillips Curve, as formulated by New Zealand economist William Phillips in the late 1950s, described a negative relationship between the unemployment rate and the pace of wage growth. Given the close correlation between wage and overall price growth at the time, the Phillips Curve was soon extended and generalized to describe an inverse relationship between labor market slack and overall price inflation. But the experience of the 1970s highlighted that inflation expectations are also an important determinant of inflation, a realization that gave birth to the expectations-augmented (i.e. “modern-day”) Phillips Curve (more on this below). The Stagflation Era Versus Today Table II-1 presents a stagflation “threat matrix,” representing the Bank Credit Analyst service’s assessment of the various factors that could potentially contribute to a stagflationary environment today, relative to what occurred in the 1960s and 1970s. While we acknowledge that there are some similarities today to what occurred five decades ago, the most threatening factors have been present for a shorter period of time and appear to have a smaller magnitude than what occurred during the stagflationary era. In addition, key factors, such as the visibility available to policymakers and investors about household inflation expectations and the potential output of the economy, would appear to reduce significantly the risk of a stagflationary outcome today. We discuss each of the factors presented in Table II-1 below: Fiscal & Monetary Policy Chart II-4Government Spending Last Cycle Looked Nothing Like The 1960s The persistently tight labor market that contributed to the inflationary buildup in the 1960s occurred as a result of easy fiscal and monetary policy. Chart II-4 highlights that the contribution to real GDP growth from government expenditure and investment was very elevated in the 1960s. Chart II-5 shows that a positive output gap in the late 1960s and the first half of the 1970s is well explained by the fact that 10-year US government bond yields were persistently below nominal GDP growth. The relationship between the stance of monetary policy and the output gap only meaningfully diverged in the latter half of the 1970s, during the true stagflationary era that we noted above. Chart II-5Easy Monetary Policy Juiced Aggregate Demand In The 60s And Early 70s Chart II-6Monetary Policy Today Is Extremely Easy Today, it is clear that the stance of fiscal policy has recently been extraordinarily easy, and 10-year US government bond yields have remained well below nominal GDP growth for the better part of the last decade. Relative to estimates of potential nominal GDP growth, 10-year Treasury yields are the lowest they have been since the 1970s (Chart II-6). Ostensibly, this supports concerns that policy might contribute to a stagflationary outcome. These concerns were raised by Larry Summers in March, when he described the Biden administration’s fiscal policy as the “least responsible” that the US has experienced in four decades and warned of the potential inflationary consequences of overheating the economy.3 But there are two important counterpoints to these concerns. First, easy fiscal policy this cycle has followed a period during the last economic cycle in which government spending contributed to the most sustained drag on economic activity since the 1950s. Unlike the 1960s, the unemployment rate has been below NAIRU for only a third of the time over the past decade. In addition, Chart II-7 highlights that fiscal thrust will turn to fiscal drag next year, underscoring the temporary nature of the massive burst in fiscal spending that has occurred in response to the pandemic. Under normal circumstances, the fiscal drag implied by Chart II-7 would substantially raise the risks of a recession next year, but we have noted in previous reports that a significant amount of excess savings remain to support spending and employment. The net impact of these two factors results in a reasonable expectation that the US economy will return to maximum employment next year, but this is a far cry from the 1960s when the unemployment rate was below its natural rate for 70% of the decade. Based on conventional measures, US monetary policy has been easy for a decade, but easy monetary policy did not begin to contribute positively to a rise in household sector credit growth last cycle until 2014/2015. This underscores that the natural rate of interest (“R-star”) did fall during the early phase of the last economic expansion. However, we argued in an April report that R-star was likely rising in the latter half of the last expansion,4 and we believe that the terminal Fed funds rate is likely higher than what the Fed is currently projecting, barring any additional negative policy shocks. Thus, while we do not believe that the duration of easy monetary policy over the past decade has laid the groundwork for a major rise in prices, it is now clearly positively contributing to aggregate demand and does risk a future overshoot in prices if long maturity bond yields remain well below the pace of economic growth for a sustained period of time. The Impact Of Shortages Chart II-8Gasoline Shortages Plagued The US Economy In The 1970s Gasoline shortages occurred during the oil shocks of the 1970s and are a key similarity that some investors point toward when comparing the situation today with the stagflationary era. Chart II-8 highlights that the annual growth in real personal consumption expenditures on energy goods and services fell into negative territory on six occasions in the 1970s, although it was most pronounced during the two oil price shocks and their resulting recessions. Today, the impact of shortages appears to be broader than what occurred in the 1970s, but less impactful and not likely to be as long-lasting. Chart II-9 highlights that the OPEC oil embargo of 1973 raised the global oil bill by 2.4% of global GDP and permanently raised the price of oil. The global oil bill will only be fractionally above its pre-pandemic level in 2022, with oil prices at $80/bbl, and, while it is true that US gasoline prices have risen significantly, they are not higher than they were from 2011-2014 (Chart II-10). Chart II-9$80/bbl Oil Is Not Onerous Chart II-10US Gasoline Prices Are High, But They Have Been Higher It is certainly true that global shipping costs have skyrocketed and that this is contributing to the increase in US consumer prices. We estimate, however, that this increase in shipping costs as a share of GDP is no more than a quarter of the impact of the 1973 increase in oil prices, without the attendant negative effects on US goods-producing employment that occurred in the 1970s. If anything, surging shipping costs create an incentive to re-shore manufacturing production, which would contribute positively to US goods-producing employment. We also do not expect the rise in shipping costs to be meaningfully permanent, i.e., shipping costs may ultimately settle at a higher level than they were in late-2019, but at a much lower level than what prevails today. Chart II-11A Tight Labor Market Is Causing Wage Growth To Pick Up Semiconductor and labor shortages would appear to represent a more salient threat of stagflation in the US, as the domestic production of motor vehicles cannot occur without key inputs and a tight labor market is already contributing to an acceleration in wage growth (Chart II-11). As we noted in Section 1 of our report, auto production significantly impacted growth in the third quarter. However, Chart II-12 highlights that, for now, the breadth of impact of these shortages appears to be limited: the production component of the ISM manufacturing index remains in expansionary territory, industrial production of durable manufacturing excluding motor vehicles and parts has not broken down, and both housing starts and building permits remain above pre-pandemic levels despite this year’s downtrend in permits. Chart II-12Shortages Do Not Yet Seem To Be Broad-Based A physical shortage of components is a less relevant factor for the services side of the economy, which appears to have re-accelerated meaningfully in October. The services sector is more considerably impacted by shortages in the labor market, which seem to be linked to a still-low labor force participation rate. We noted in our September report that the decline in the participation rate has significantly overshot what would be implied by the ongoing pace of retirements. Chart II-13 highlights that this has occurred not just because of a significant retirement effect, but also because of the shadow labor force (people who want a job but are not currently looking for work) and family responsibilities. We expect that the recent expiry of expanded unemployment insurance benefits, a steady rise in the immunity of the US population, an abating Delta wave of COVID-19, and a likely upcoming reduction in school/classroom closures once the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine is approved for school-age children will likely ease the labor shortage issue over the coming several months. Output Gap Uncertainty It remains a debate among economists why policymakers maintained such easy monetary policy in the 1960s and 1970s, but Chart II-14 highlights that uncertainty about the size of the output gap may have contributed to too-low interest rates. The chart shows the unemployment rate compared with today's estimate of NAIRU, alongside a simple proxy for policymakers’ real time estimate of the natural rate of employment: the cumulative average unemployment rate in the post-war environment. To the extent that policymakers used past averages of the unemployment rate as their guide for NAIRU, Chart II-14 highlights how they may have underestimated the degree to which output was running above its potential level in the 1960s, and would not have even concluded that output was above potential in the early 1970s. Chart II-14Policymakers Overestimated Labor Market Slack In The 60s And 70s Chart II-15Policymakers Know That NAIRU Is Likely At Or Below 4% Today, the environment is quite different, because the acceleration in wage growth at the tail end of the last expansion gives policymakers and investors a good estimate of where NAIRU is. Chart II-15 highlights that wage growth accelerated in 2018/2019 in response to a sub-4% unemployment rate, which is consistent with both the Fed’s NAIRU estimate of 3.5-4.5% and Fed Vice Chair Richard Clarida’s expressed view that a 3.8% unemployment rate likely constitutes maximum employment (barring any issues with the breadth and inclusivity of the labor market recovery). It is possible that the pandemic has structurally lowered potential output, which could mean that policymakers may no longer rely on the wage growth / unemployment relationship that existed in the latter phase of the last expansion. However, we do not find any credible arguments that would support the notion of a structurally lower level of potential output: the pandemic is likely to end at some point in the not-too-distant future, the negative impact of working-from-home policies on office properties and employment in central business districts is not sizeable,5 and productivity may have permanently increased in some industries because of the likely stickiness of a hybrid work culture. The Behavior Of Inflation Expectations Chart II-16Rising Long-Term Expectations Have Merely Normalized (For Now) One parallel to the argument that policymakers may have underestimated the degree of labor market tightness in the 1960s and early 1970s is the fact that they did not yet understand that inflation expectations are an important determinant of actual inflation, nor were they able to monitor them even if they did. Most credible surveys of inflation expectations began in the 1980s, and policymakers in the 1960s and 1970s were guided by the original Phillips Curve that solely related inflation to unemployment. Today, policymakers have the experience of the stagflationary episode to serve as a warning not to allow inflation expectations to get out of control, and both policymakers and investors have reliable measures of inflation expectations for households and market-participants. Chart II-16 highlights that households expect significant inflation over the coming year, but also expect prices over the longer term to rise at a pace that is almost exactly in line with their average from 2000-2014. The Rudd Controversy: (Adaptive) Inflation Expectations Do Matter One potential criticism of the idea that inflation expectations are signaling a low risk of higher future inflation has emerged through arguments made by Jeremy Rudd, a Federal Reserve economist. In a recent paper, Rudd questioned the view that households’ and firms’ expectations of future inflation are a key determinant of actual inflation; he suggested instead that relatively stable inflation since the mid-1990s might reflect a situation in which inflation simply does not enter workers’ employment decisions and expectations are irrelevant. Rudd’s paper was primarily addressed to policymakers who view inflation dynamics in a highly quantitative light. A full response to the paper would be mostly academic and thus not especially relevant to investors; however, we would like to highlight three points related to the Rudd piece that we feel are important.6 First, we disagree with Rudd’s argument that the trend in inflation has not responded to changes in economic conditions since the mid-1990s. Chart II-17 highlights that while the magnitude of the relationship has shifted, the trend in inflation relative to a measure of long-term expectations based on prior actual inflation has mimicked that of the output gap. The fact that inflation was (ironically) too high during the early phase of the last economic cycle provides some support for Rudd’s inflation responsiveness view, although we would still point toward the Fed’s strong record of maintaining low and stable inflation, its active communication with the public in the years following the global financial crisis, and the fact that a recovery began and the output gap began to (slowly) close as the best explanation for the avoidance of deflation during that period. Second, we agree with Rudd’s point that regime shifts in inflation’s responsiveness to economic conditions can occur, and that adaptive measures of inflation expectations, and even surveys of inflation, may not capture such a shift in real time. Chart II-18 shows that the 2014-2016 period was a good example of this, when adaptive expectations as well as household survey measures of long-term inflation expectations both lagged the actual decline in inflation that was caused by a collapse in the price of oil. Chart II-17The Trend In Inflation Continues To Respond To Economic Conditions Chart II-18Surveyed Inflation Expectations Can Lag, But This Time They Led But Chart II-18 also shows that long-term household survey measures of inflation led the rise in actual inflation (and thus our adaptive expectations measure) last year, underscoring that these measures are likely more reliable indicators today of whether a major regime shift is occurring. As noted above, long-term expectations have risen significantly relative to what prevailed prior to the pandemic, but this has merely raised expectations from extraordinarily depressed levels back to the average that prevailed prior to (and immediately after) the global financial crisis. Therefore, household expectations are not yet at dangerous levels. Chart II-19Unit Labor Costs Modestly Lead Inflation, But Are Far From Extreme Third, one of the core observations in Rudd’s paper is that unit labor cost (ULC) growth leads the trend in inflation, which he argued was evidence against the idea that expectations of future inflation are a key determinant of actual inflation. Chart II-19 highlights that Rudd is correct that ULC growth modestly leads inflation (especially core inflation), but we disagree with his conclusion that it argues against the importance of expectations. As we noted in Section 2 of our January 2021 Bank Credit Analyst,7 one crucial aspect of the expectations-augmented, or “modern-day” Phillips Curve is that, if inflation expectations are largely formed based on the experience of past inflation, then inflation is ultimately determined by three dimensions of the output gap: whether it is rising or falling, whether it is above or below zero, and how long it has been above or below zero. Our view is that ULC growth is fundamentally linked to slack in the labor market, which is directly incorporated in output gap measures. As we noted above, investors currently have a good estimate of the magnitude of the output/employment gap, meaning that it is possible to track the inflationary consequences of prevailing aggregate demand. As a final point about ULC growth, Chart II-19 highlights that while the five-year CAGR of unit labor costs is currently running at its strongest pace since the global financial crisis, investors should note that it remains well below the levels that prevailed in the late-1960s when persistently above-potential output laid the groundwork for a massive inflationary overshoot. Conclusions And Investment Strategy Our review of the 1960s and 1970s highlights that stagflation is a phenomenon in which supply-side shocks raise prices of key inputs to production, which lowers output and raises unemployment. Energy price shocks in the 1970s occurred after a long period of policy-driven above-trend growth in the 1960s, meaning that both demand-pull and cost-push inflation contributed to stagflation in the 1970s. Today, investors cannot rule out the possibility of a stagflationary outcome, for four reasons: long-term household inflation expectations have risen significantly over the past year; fiscal policy has been very expansionary; monetary policy will remain expansionary at the Fed’s projected terminal Fed funds rate; and component shortages and price increases linked to energy market and supply chain disruptions may persist or worsen over the coming year. Chart II-20It Is Not Stagflation If The Unemployment Rate Continues To Fall However, the strong demand-pull inflationary dynamics that existed in the late-1960s were mostly absent in the lead-up to the pandemic, supply-chain issues are in part the result of strong goods demand and disruptions that are clearly linked to the pandemic (and thus will eventually dissipate), and long-term inflation expectations are behaving differently than short-term expectations, signaling that economic agents do not expect severe price pressures to persist beyond the pandemic. Policymakers also have more visibility about the magnitude of economic / labor market slack than they did during the stagflationary era and better tools to track inflation expectations. On balance, this points to a stagflationary outcome over the coming 6-24 months as a risk, but not as a likely event. Using the Misery Index as real-time stagflation indicator, investors should note that the US economy is not likely experiencing true stagflation unless the unemployment rate rises. Chart II-20 highlights that there is no evidence yet of a contraction in goods-producing or service-producing jobs. Even if goods-producing employment slows meaningfully over the coming few months as a result of component shortages, the unemployment rate is still likely to fall if services spending normalizes, as it would imply that the gap in services-producing employment, which is currently 20% of the level of pre-pandemic goods-producing employment, will continue to close. Investors have been focused on the issue of stagflation because its occurrence would imply a sharply negative correlation between stock prices and bond yields. This is not our base case view, but we have highlighted that months with negative returns from both stocks and long-maturity bonds tend to be associated with periods of monetary policy tightening (or in anticipation of such periods). As we discussed in Section 1 of our report, we do expect the Fed to raise interest rates next year. We do not see a rise in bond yields to levels implied by the Fed’s interest rates projections as being seriously threatening to economic activity, corporate earnings growth, or equity multiples. But the adjustment to higher long-maturity bond yields may unnerve equity investors for a time, implying temporary periods of a negative stock price / bond yield correlation. Table II-2 highlights that, since 1980, commodities, the US dollar, and the Swiss franc have typically earned positive returns during non-recessionary months in which stock and long-maturity bond returns are negative. While the dollar is not likely to perform well in a stagflationary scenario, Chart II-21 highlights that CHF-USD and industrial commodities performed quite well in the late-1970s. As such, a portfolio of these three assets might serve as a useful hedge for investors who are concerned about absolute return prospects in a world in which long-maturity bond yields are rising and risks of stagflationary dynamics are present. Chart II-21The Swiss Franc and Raw Industrials Did Well During The Stagflationary Era Jonathan LaBerge, CFA Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst III. Indicators And Reference Charts BCA’s equity indicators highlight that the “easy” money from expectations of an eventual end to the pandemic have already been made. Our technical, valuation, and sentiment indicators remain very extended, highlighting that investors should expect positive but modest returns from stocks over the coming 6-12 months. Our monetary indicator has retreated below the boom/bust line, although this mostly reflects the use of producer prices to deflate money growth. In nominal terms, the supply of money continues to grow. Still, the retreat in the indicator over the past year highlights that the monetary policy stance is likely to shift in a tighter direction over the coming year. Forward equity earnings are pricing in a substantial further rise in earnings per share. Net earnings revisions and net positive earnings surprises appear to have peaked, but there is not yet any meaningful sign of waning forward earnings. Bottom-up analyst earning expectations remain too high, but stocks are likely to be supported by robust revenue growth over the coming year. Within a global equity portfolio, we would continue to recommend that investors position for the underperformance of financial assets that are negatively correlated with long-maturity government bond yield. The US 10-Year Treasury yield remains above its 200-day moving average after failing to break meaningfully below it. 10-Year Treasury Yields remain below the fair value implied by a late-2022 rate hike scenario, underscoring that a move higher over the coming year is likely. However, most of the recent move higher in government bond yields has occurred due to rising inflation expectations, whereas the increase in yields over the coming year will likely occur in real terms. Commodity prices remain elevated, and our composite technical indicator highlights that they are still overbought. An eventual slowdown in US goods spending, coupled with eventual supply-chain normalization and the absence of a significant reflationary impulse from Chinese policy, may weigh on commodity prices at some point over the coming 6-12 months. US and global LEIs remain very elevated but have started to roll over. Our global LEI diffusion index has declined very significantly, but this likely reflects the outsized impact of a few emerging market countries (whose vaccination progress is still lagging). Still-strong leading and coincident indicators underscore that the global demand for goods is robust, and that output is below pre-pandemic levels in most economies because of very weak services spending. The latter will recover significantly at some point over the coming year, as social distancing and other pandemic control measures disappear. EQUITIES: Chart III-1US Equity Indicators Chart III-2Willingness To Pay For Risk Chart III-3US Equity Sentiment Indicators Chart III-4US Stock Market Breadth Chart III-5US Stock Market Valuation Chart III-6US Earnings Chart III-7Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Chart III-8Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance FIXED INCOME: Chart III-9US Treasurys And Valuations Chart III-10Yield Curve Slopes Chart III-11Selected US Bond Yields Chart III-1210-Year Treasury Yield ComponentsChart III-13US Corporate Bonds And Health Monitor Chart III-14Global Bonds: Developed Markets Chart III-15Global Bonds: Emerging Markets CURRENCIES: Chart III-16US Dollar And PPP Chart III-17US Dollar And Indicator Chart III-18US Dollar Fundamentals Chart III-19Japanese Yen Technicals Chart III-20Euro Technicals Chart III-21Euro/Yen Technicals Chart III-22Euro/Pound Technicals COMMODITIES: Chart III-23Broad Commodity Indicators Chart III-24Commodity Prices Chart III-25Commodity Prices Chart III-26Commodity Sentiment Chart III-27Speculative Positioning ECONOMY: Chart III-28US And Global Macro Backdrop Chart III-29US Macro Snapshot Chart III-30US Growth Outlook Chart III-31US Cyclical Spending Chart III-32US Labor Market Chart III-33US Consumption Chart III-34US Housing Chart III-35US Debt And Deleveraging Chart III-36US Financial Conditions Chart III-37Global Economic Snapshot: Europe Chart III-38Global Economic Snapshot: China Jonathan LaBerge, CFA Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst   Footnotes 1  Please see Section 1 of the September 2021 Bank Credit Analyst for a detailed discussion of the US immunity level. 2  Please see US Equity Strategy "Marginally Worse," dated October 11, 2021, available at uses.bcaresearch.com 3  “Summers Sees ‘Least Responsible’ Fiscal Policy in 40 Years,” Bloomberg News, March 20, 2021. 4 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst “R-star, And The Structural Risk To Stocks,” dated March 31, 2021, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 5 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst “Work From Home “Stickiness” And The Outlook For Monetary Policy,” dated June 24, 2021, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 6 Rudd, Jeremy B. (2021). “Why Do We Think That Inflation Expectations Matter for Inflation? (And Should We?),” Finance and Economics Discussion Series 2021-062. Washington: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. 7  Please see The Bank Credit Analyst “The Modern-Day Phillips Curve, Future Inflation, And What To Do About It,” dated December 18, 2021, available at bca.bcaresearch.com EQUITIES:FIXED INCOME:CURRENCIES:COMMODITIES:ECONOMY:

Weekly Performance Update For the week ending Thu Oct 28, 2021 The Market Monitor displays the trailing 1-quarter performance of strategies based around the BCA Score. For each region, we construct an equal-weighted, monthly rebalanced portfolio consisting of the top 3 stocks per sector and compare it with the regional benchmark. For each portfolio, we show the weekly performance of individual holdings in the Top Contributors/Detractors table. In addition, the Top Prospects table shows the holdings that currently have the highest BCA Score within the portfolio. For more details, click the region headers below to be redirected to the full historical backtest for the strategy. BCA US Portfolio Total Weekly Return BCA US Portfolio S&P500 TRI 0.30% 1.03% Top Contributors   SIM:US SHW:US WMG:US PSA:US GOOG.L:US Weekly Return 50 bps 15 bps 10 bps 9 bps 9 bps Top Detractors   GRMN:US LAMR:US TTC:US MMP:US ESGR:US Weekly Return -36 bps -16 bps -15 bps -13 bps -12 bps Top Prospects   GOOG.L:US AMN:US MPLX:US SC:US ESGR:US BCA Score 97.20% 94.53% 94.00% 92.50% 92.09% BCA Canada Portfolio Total Weekly Return BCA Canada Portfolio S&P/TSX TRI -0.33% -0.00% Top Contributors   IMO:CA LNF:CA BTE:CA IGM:CA TOU:CA Weekly Return 19 bps 13 bps 8 bps 8 bps 8 bps Top Detractors   CS:CA IFP:CA NVEI:CA ONEX:CA CSH.UN:CA Weekly Return -30 bps -19 bps -11 bps -11 bps -8 bps Top Prospects   ELF:CA CS:CA WIR.UN:CA IMO:CA TOU:CA BCA Score 98.70% 98.07% 96.62% 96.03% 95.74% BCA UK Portfolio Total Weekly Return BCA UK Portfolio FTSE 100 TRI 0.45% 0.84% Top Contributors   SVT:GB UU.:GB NG.:GB FXPO:GB SGRO:GB Weekly Return 14 bps 13 bps 13 bps 12 bps 10 bps Top Detractors   KETL:GB PZC:GB OXB:GB TUNE:GB CTH:GB Weekly Return -21 bps -13 bps -13 bps -7 bps -7 bps Top Prospects   ROSN:GB VVO:GB JHD:GB SVST:GB FDM:GB BCA Score 98.72% 98.38% 98.09% 98.01% 97.52% BCA Eurozone Portfolio Total Weekly Return BCA EMU Portfolio MSCI EMU TRI 1.25% 1.51% Top Contributors   BSL:DE OR:FR HLAG:DE ARG:FR BREB:BE Weekly Return 34 bps 20 bps 14 bps 14 bps 14 bps Top Detractors   SRT:DE RWAY:IT DLG:IT TTE:FR STR:AT Weekly Return -22 bps -10 bps -7 bps -7 bps -6 bps Top Prospects   094124453:BE ROTH:FR STR:AT SOL:IT FSKRS:FI BCA Score 99.51% 99.44% 97.48% 96.61% 95.31% BCA Japan Portfolio Total Weekly Return BCA Japan Portfolio TOPIX TRI -0.92% -0.06% Top Contributors   8739:JP 2208:JP 4298:JP 1417:JP 4928:JP Weekly Return 11 bps 9 bps 8 bps 4 bps 3 bps Top Detractors   5019:JP 9436:JP 9509:JP 5930:JP 9729:JP Weekly Return -18 bps -13 bps -11 bps -9 bps -8 bps Top Prospects   9436:JP 6960:JP 9422:JP 9882:JP 9729:JP BCA Score 99.91% 99.33% 99.22% 99.07% 97.26% BCA Hong Kong Portfolio Total Weekly Return BCA Hong Kong Portfolio Hang Seng TRI -0.10% -1.77% Top Contributors   746:HK 973:HK 1967:HK 1708:HK 6868:HK Weekly Return 60 bps 35 bps 29 bps 20 bps 15 bps Top Detractors   6118:HK 323:HK 1088:HK 1866:HK 857:HK Weekly Return -39 bps -39 bps -31 bps -28 bps -26 bps Top Prospects   1277:HK 1088:HK 857:HK 1576:HK 6118:HK BCA Score 100.00% 99.36% 98.96% 98.71% 97.42% BCA Australia Portfolio Total Weekly Return BCA Australia Portfolio S&P/ASX All Ord. TRI 0.08% 0.15% Top Contributors   CDD:AU 360:AU CGS:AU PWH:AU TLS:AU Weekly Return 60 bps 50 bps 21 bps 18 bps 14 bps Top Detractors   CDA:AU BLX:AU NHC:AU AUB:AU CAJ:AU Weekly Return -59 bps -26 bps -23 bps -18 bps -12 bps Top Prospects   MHJ:AU BLX:AU ADI:AU MMS:AU PL8:AU BCA Score 99.61% 98.62% 98.34% 97.98% 97.92%