Fiscal Policy

Executive Summary At the margin, the European Union’s proposed €140 billion “windfall profits” tax on electricity providers not using natural gas to generate power will blunt the message markets are sending to consumers to conserve energy, by distributing this windfall to households to offset higher energy costs. A “solidarity contribution” from oil, gas and coal producers – an Orwellian rendering of “fossil-fuel tax” – will reduce capex at a time when it is needed to expand supply. These measures – the direct fallout of the EU’s failed Russia-engagement policy – will compound policy uncertainty in energy markets, which also will discourage investment in new supply. Efforts to contain energy prices of households and firms in the UK will be borne by taxpayers, who will be left with a higher debt load in the wake of the government’s programs to limit energy costs, and higher taxes to service the debt. EU Still At Risk To Russia Gas Cutoff Bottom Line: The EU and UK governments are inserting themselves deeper into energy markets, which will distort fundamentals and prices, leaving once-functioning markets “unfit for purpose.” This likely will reduce headline inflation beginning in 3Q22 by suppressing energy prices, and will discourage conservation and capex. Energy markets will remain tight as a result. We were stopped out of our long the COMT ETF with a loss of 5.4% and our XOP ETF with a gain of 24.6%. We will re-open these positions at tonight’s close with 10% stop-losses. Feature The EU is attempting to address decades of failed policy – primarily its Ostpolitik change-through-trade initiative vis-à-vis Russia – in a matter of months.1 This policy was brought to a crashing halt earlier this year by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, which led to an economic war pitting the EU and its NATO allies against Russia. This conflict is playing out most visibly in energy markets. For investors, the most pressing issue in the short term center around the trajectory of energy prices – primarily natural gas, which, unexpectedly, has become the most important commodity in the world: It sets the marginal cost of power in the EU; forces dislocations in oil and coal markets globally via fuel substitution, and drives energy and food inflation around the world higher by increasing space-heating fuel costs and fertilizer costs. These effects are unlikely to disappear quickly, especially in the wake of deeper government involvement in these markets. The EU is dealing with its energy crisis by imposing taxes on power generators and hydrocarbons producers. It is proposing a €140 billion “windfall profits” tax on electricity providers not using natural gas to generate power, and is advancing a “solidarity contribution” from oil, gas and coal producers – an Orwellian rendering of a “fossil-fuel tax. Lastly, the EU will mandate energy rationing to stretch natural gas supplies over the summer and winter heating season. The tax hikes under consideration will reduce capex at a time when it is needed to expand supply. Related Report  Commodity & Energy StrategyOne Hot Mess: EU Energy Policy The UK is taking a different route v. the EU, by having the government absorb the cost of stabilizing energy prices for households and firms directly on its balance sheet. Beginning 1 October, annual energy bills – electricity and gas – will be limited to £2,500. The government is ready to provide support for firms facing higher energy costs out of a £150 billion package that still lacks formal approval via legislation to be dispensed. This obviously has businesses concerned.2 Over the medium to long term, this economic war will realign global energy trade – bolstering the US as the world’s largest energy exporter, and cementing the alliance of China-Russia energy trade. Whether this ultimately evolves into a Cold War standoff remains an open question. EU Policy Failures And The Power Grid’s Limitations Chart 1Russia Plugged The Gap In EU Energy Supply In addition to its failed Russia policy, the EU’s aggressive support of renewable energy disincentivized domestic fossil fuel production and forced an increased reliance on imports – with a heavy weighting toward Russian hydrocarbons – instead. Once Russia stopped playing the role of primary energy supplier to the EU, the bloc’s energy insecurity became obvious (Chart 1). The EU’s current power-pricing system is forcing households and industries to bear the brunt of energy insecurity and high natgas prices resulting from poor energy policy design.3 And it forces the government to tax energy suppliers – with “windfall profits” taxes ostensibly meant to capture economic rents, as officials are wont to describe the taxes – to fund consumer-support programs. While REPowerEU aims to alleviate the bloc’s energy insecurity by importing non-Russian LNG and increasing renewable energy’s share in the energy mix, both alternatives face bottlenecks, which could delay their implementation. This could keep energy markets in the EU tight over the medium term, until additional LNG capacity comes online in the US and elsewhere. Renewable electricity is not as reliable as electricity generated by fossil fuels on the current power grid, which needs to be constantly balanced to avoid cascading failure. This means power consumed must equal power supplied on a near-instantaneous basis to avoid grid failure. However, given its reliance on variable weather conditions, renewable energy by itself cannot keep the grid balanced, primarily due to the lack of utility-scale storage for renewable power. Battery-storage technology and green-hydrogen energy can be used in conjunction with other renewables to balance the power grid, but they still are nascent technologies and not yet scalable to the point where they can replace hydrocarbon energy sources. Furthermore, the continued addition of small-scale renewables-based power generation located further away from demand centers – cities and industrial complexes – will continue to increase the complexity and scale of the power grid.4 Realizing the importance of incumbent power sources and the infrastructure requirements to diversify away from Russian fuels, the EU labelled investments in natural gas and nuclear power as green investments in July.5 Of the two energy sources, natural gas will likely play a larger role in ensuring the bloc’s energy security over the next 3-5 years, given the polarized views on nuclear power.6 In its most recent attempt to stabilize power prices, the EU plans to redirect “inframarginal” power producers’ windfall profits to households and businesses, provided those producers do not generate electricity using natgas. The Commission did not suggest capping Russian natgas prices since that could be divisive among EU member states, and could further jeopardize the bloc’s energy security. The redistribution of the windfall profits taxes is coupled with calls for mandatory electricity demand reductions in member states. We are unsure of the net effect of these directives on physical power and natural gas balances. However, government interference will feed into the policy uncertainty surrounding electricity and natural gas markets. EU Storage Continues To Build Against all odds, the EU has been aggressively building gas in storage (Chart 2), as demand from Asia has been low during the summer months (Chart 3). This has allowed high Dutch Title Transfer Facility (TTF) prices – the European natgas benchmark – to lure US LNG exports away from Asia (Chart 4). According to Refinitiv data, US exports of LNG to Europe increased 74% y/y to a total of over 1,370 Bcf for the first half of 2022. Chart 2Europe Has Been Aggressively Building Gas Storage Chart 3US LNG Exports To Asia Dropped In H1 2022 Chart 4High TTF Prices Attract US LNG Since Russian gas flows to Asian states have not been completely cut off, this will reduce ex-EU demand for US LNG, providing much needed breathing room for international LNG markets. However, as the pre-winter inventory-injection period in Asia continues, there is an increasing likelihood the spread between Asian and European gas prices narrows. This could incentivize US producers to export more fuel to Asia, slowing the EU’s build-up of gas storage. US plans to increase LNG export capacity will alleviate current tightness in international gas markets over the medium term, as new export facilities are expected to begin operations by 2024, and be fully online by 2025 (Chart 5). Until US LNG exports increase, global natgas markets will continue to remain tight and prices will be volatile. Chart 5US LNG Export Capacity Projected To Rise Russia’s Asian Gas Pivot Since the energy crisis began, China has accelerated the rate at which it imports discounted Russian LNG.7 Russia is aiming to increase gas exports to China to replace the sales lost to the EU following its invasion of Ukraine. Russia recently signed a deal with China to increase gas flows by an additional 353 Bcf per year, with both states agreeing to settle this trade in yuan and rouble to circumvent Western currencies, primarily the USD. Additionally, the Power of Siberia pipeline is expected to reach peak transmission capacity of ~ 1,340 Bcf per year by 2025. Chart 6China Will Not Want All Eggs In One Basket Adding to the China-Russia gas trade is the planned Power of Siberia 2 pipeline, which will have an annual expected capacity of 1,765 Bcf. This will move gas to China from western Siberia via Mongolia, and is expected to come into service by 2030; construction is scheduled to begin in 2024. This will redirect gas once bound toward the EU to China. Russia’s ability to develop and construct the required infrastructure to pivot gas exports to China and the rest of Asia will be hindered by Western sanctions, as international private companies walk away from Russian projects and international investment in that state decline. This is a deeper consequence of the sanctions imposed by the US and its allies, as it denies Russia the capital, technology and expertise needed to fully develop its resource base. On China’s side, even if both Power of Siberia pipelines are developed to operate at full capacity, the world’s largest natgas importer may be wary of becoming overly reliant on Russia for a significant proportion of its gas (and oil) imports. China has developed a diversified network of natgas suppliers, which, as the experience of the EU demonstrates, is the best way to avoid energy-supply shocks (Chart 6). Investment Implications We expect natural gas price volatility to remain elevated over the next 2-3 years. EU governments’ interference with the natgas and power markets' structure and pricing mechanisms – be it via natgas price caps or skimming gas suppliers’ profits – will distort price signals, detaching them from fundamental gas balances. This will perpetuate the energy crisis currently plaguing the EU, by encouraging over-consumption of gas and reducing capex via taxes and levies on profitable companies operating below the market’s marginal cost curve. As a result of the dislocations caused by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, dislocations in natural gas trade flows will continue, forcing markets to find work-arounds to replace lost Russian pipeline exports in the short-to-medium term. The EU will become more reliant on US LNG supplies, and will – over the next 2-3 years – have to outbid Asian states for supplies. Trade re-routing will take time and likely will lead to sporadic, localized shortages in the interim. The US is the largest exporter of LNG at present, but, by next year, it’s export capacity will max out. It will only start to increase from 2024, reaching full capacity by 2025. While higher export capacity from the world’s largest LNG supplier will help alleviate tight markets, in the interim, global gas prices, led by the TTF will remain elevated and volatile. The EU still receives ~ 80mm cm /d of pipeline gas from Russia, or ~ 7.4% of 2021 total gas consumption on an annual basis (Chart 7). A complete shut-off of Russian gas flows to the EU means the bloc would face even more difficulty refilling storage in time for next winter. This would keep the energy- and food-driven components of inflation high, and constrain aggregate demand in the EU generally. Chart 7EU Still At Risk To Russia Gas Cutoff We continue to expect global natural gas markets to remain tight this year and next. We also expect natural gas prices to remain extremely volatile – particularly in winter (November – March), when weather will dictate the evolution of price levels. We were stopped out of our long the COMT ETF with a loss of 5.4% and our XOP ETF with a gain of 24.6%. We remain bullish commodities generally and oil in particular, and will re-open these positions at tonight’s close with 10% stop-losses.   Robert P. Ryan Chief Commodity & Energy Strategist rryan@bcaresearch.com Ashwin Shyam Research Analyst Commodity & Energy Strategy ashwin.shyam@bcaresearch.com Paula Struk Research Associate Commodity & Energy Strategy paula.struk@bcaresearch.com Commodities Round-Up Energy: Bullish US distillate and jet-fuel stocks recovered slightly in the week ended 9 September 2022, rising by 4.7mm barrels to just over 155mm barrels, according to the US EIA. Distillate inventories – mostly diesel fuel and heating oil – stood at 116mm barrels, down 12% y/y. At 39.2mm barrels, jet fuel stocks are 7% below year-earlier levels. Refiners are pushing units to build distillates going into winter, in order to meet gas-to-oil switching demand in Europe and the US. Distillate inventories have been under pressure for the better part of the summer on strong demand. This is mostly driven by overseas demand. Distillate demand fell by 492k b/d last week, which helped domestic inventories recover. Year-on-year distillate demand was down 1.6% in the US. Ultra-low sulfur diesel prices delivered to the NY Harbor per NYMEX futures specification are up 50% since the start of the year (Chart 8). Base Metals: Bullish On Monday Chile’s government launched a plan to boost foreign investments, which includes providing copper miners with a 5-year break from the ad-valorem tax proposed in a new mining royalty. The plan however does not provide relief from the tax on operating profits, which are also part of the royalty. According to Fitch, the originally planned mining royalty would have significantly depleted copper miners’ profits, disproportionately impacting smaller operators, which cannot avail themselves of the benefits of economies of scale. In a sign that higher taxes spooked bigger players as well, in mid-July, BHP stated that it would reconsider investment plans in Chile if the state proceeded with the mining royalty in its original format. Ags/Softs: Neutral In its September WASDE, the USDA adjusted its supply and demand estimates for soybeans, and made substantial changes to new-crop 2022/23 US production estimates. This reduced acreage and yields by 2.7% from the previous August 2022 forecast. Ukraine’s soybean production was increased in the USDA's estimate. The USDA's soybean projections also include lower ending stocks, which are reduced from 245 million bushels to 200 million bushels. This is 11% below than 2021 levels for beans. The USDA's 2021/22 average price for soybeans remains at $14.35/bu, unchanged from last month but $1.05/bu above the 2021/22 average price (Chart 9). Chart 8NY Harbor ULSD Price Going Down Chart 9Soybean Prices Going Down   Footnotes 1 For a discussion of the EU’s past policy mistakes which laid the foundation for current crisis, please see One Hot Mess: EU Energy Policy, which we published on May 26, 2022. It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see UK business warned of delay to state energy support, published by ft.com on September 13, 2022. 3 The current EU power pricing system is set up so that the most expensive power generator – currently plants using natgas – set the price for the entire electricity market. This system was put in place to incentivize renewably  generated power, however, the EU does not have the required infrastructure and technology to be reliant solely on green electricity. 4 For a more detailed discussion on power grid stability, and how renewables will affect it, please ENTSO-E’s position paper on Stability Management in Power Electronics Dominated Systems: A Prerequisite to the Success of the Energy Transition. According to estimates by WindEurope and Hitachi Energy, Europe will need to double annual investments in the power grid to 80 billion euros over the next 30 years to prepare the power grid for renewables. 5 For our most recent discussion on the infrastructure requirements of pivoting away from Russian piped gas, please see Natgas Markets: The Eye Of The Storm, which we published on June 9, 2022. It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com.  6 In 2021, nuclear power constituted majority of France’s energy mix at 36% and had nearly the lowest share for Germany at 5%. In response to the current energy crisis, Germany has opted to restart coal power plants and only keep nuclear plants on standby, signaling that the EU’s largest energy consumer would prefer to use coal despite its carbon emissions target. 7 According to Bloomberg, China signed a tender to receive LNG from Russia’s Sakhalin-2 project through December at nearly half the cost of the spot gas rates at the time. Investment Views and Themes  New, Pending And Closed Trades WE WERE STOPPED OUT OF OUR LONG THE COMT ETF WITH A LOSS OF 5.4% AND OUR XOP ETF WITH A GAIN OF 24.6%. WE WILL RE-OPEN THESE POSITIONS AT TONIGHT’S CLOSE WITH 10% STOP-LOSSES. Strategic Recommendations Trades Closed in 2022

In lieu of next week’s report, I will host the monthly Counterpoint Webcast on Thursday, September 22 (9:00 AM EDT, 2:00 PM BST). In this Webcast, I will discuss the near-term and longer-term prospects for all the major asset classes: stocks, bonds, sectors, commodities, currencies, and real estate. Please mark the date in your calendar, and I do hope you can join. Executive Summary Analysing the economy as the ‘non-linear system’ that it is leads to profound conclusions about how the economy and inflation are likely to unfold, and reveals that some outcomes are impossible to achieve. It is impossible to lift the unemployment rate by ‘just’ 1-2 percent. Therefore, it is impossible to depress wage inflation by ‘just’ 1 percent. The non-linear choice is to not depress wage inflation at all, or to make wage inflation slump. Presented with this non-linear choice, central banks will likely choose to make wage inflation slump, which will take core inflation well south of the 2 percent target within the next couple of years. The structural low in bond yields, the structural low in commodity prices, the structural high in stock market valuations, and the structural high in the US dollar are yet to come. It Is Impossible To Lift The Unemployment Rate By ‘Just’ 1-2 Percent Bottom Line: Inflation will slump to well below 2 percent within the next couple of years. Feature Our non-linear world often surprises our linear minds. If we discover that a small cause produces a small effect, we think that double the cause produces double the effect, and that triple the cause produces triple the effect. But in our non-linear world, double the cause could produce no effect, or half the effect, or ten times the effect. Just as important, in a non-linear world, some outcomes turn out to be impossible. In a non-linear system, some outcomes are impossible to achieve. As I will now discuss, analysing the economy as the non-linear system that it is leads to profound conclusions about how the economy and inflation are likely to unfold, and reveals that some outcomes are impossible to achieve. In A Non-Linear System, Some Outcomes Are Impossible A good physical example of a non-linear system that we can apply to inflation is to attach an elastic band to the front of a brick. And then to try pulling the brick across a table at a constant speed, say 2 mph. It’s impossible! First, nothing happens. The brick is held in place by friction. Then, at a tipping point of pulling, it starts to accelerate. Simultaneously, the friction decreases, self-reinforcing the acceleration to well above 2 mph. Meanwhile, your response – to stop pulling – happens with a lag. The result is that, the brick refuses to budge, and then it hits you in the face. Try as you might, it is impossible to pull the brick at a constant 2 mph (Figure 1 and Figure 2). Figure 1The Forces On A Brick Pulled By An Elastic Band Figure 2The Net Forces On A Brick Pulled By An Elastic Band In mathematical terms, the reduction in friction as the brick starts to move is known as ‘self-reinforcing feedback’. The lag in applying the brakes is called ‘delayed corrective feedback’. Their combined effect is to make it impossible to pull the brick at a constant 2 mph.  Now, to model inflation, attach an elastic band to both the front and the back of the brick, and find a friend. Your task, ‘policy loosening’, is to accelerate the stationary brick to a steady 2 mph. The analogy being to run inflation at 2 percent. On the opposite side, your friend’s task, call it ‘policy tightening’, is what central banks are desperate to do now – to rein back an out-of-control brick heading towards your face at 10 mph. But without slowing it to a standstill, or worse, reversing direction. The analogy being to avoid outright deflation. You will discover that you can move the brick sharply forwards (and sharply backwards), but you cannot move it forwards at a steady 2 mph!  The brick-on-an-elastic-band analogy explains why it is impossible for policymakers to run inflation at a constant 2 percent. Inflation either careers out of control, as now, or stays stuck below 2 percent, as it did through the 2010s. Inflation cannot run ‘close to 2 percent’. It Is Impossible To Lift The Unemployment Rate By ‘Just’ 1-2 Percent Central to the non-linearity of inflation is the non-linearity of the jobs market, in which some outcomes are impossible. Specifically, it has proved impossible to lift the unemployment rate by ‘just’ 1-2 percent. It has proved impossible to lift the unemployment rate by ‘just’ 1-2 percent. Through the past 75 years, whenever the US unemployment rate has increased by 0.6 percent, it has then gone on to increase by at least 2.1 percent from the trough. In no case has the unemployment rate risen by ‘just’ 0.6-2.1 percent. In other words, the unemployment rate nudges up by 0.5 percent or less, or it surges by 2.1 percent or more. There is no middle ground. Indeed, through more recent history the surge has been 2.5 percent or more (Chart I-1 and Chart I-2). Chart I-1It Is Impossible To Lift The Unemployment Rate By 'Just' 1-2 Percent Chart I-2It Is Impossible To Lift The Unemployment Rate By 'Just' 1-2 Percent As with the brick-on-an-elastic-band, we can explain this non-linearity through the concepts of self-reinforcing feedback combined with delayed negative feedback. At a tipping point of rising unemployment, consumers pull in their horns and slow their spending, while banks slow their lending. This constitutes the self-reinforcing feedback which accelerates the downturn. Meanwhile, as it takes time for this downturn to appear in the data, policymakers respond with a lag, and when their response eventually comes, it also acts with a lag. This constitutes the delayed negative feedback, by which time the unemployment rate has surged, with every 1 percent rise in the unemployment rate depressing wage inflation by 0.5 percent (Chart I-3 and Chart I-4). Chart I-32001-02: Every 1 Percent Rise In The Unemployment Rate Depressed Wage Inflation By 0.5 Percent Chart I-42008-09: Every 1 Percent Rise In The Unemployment Rate Depressed Wage Inflation By 0.5 Percent All of which brings me to a crucial point: The non-linearity in the jobs market implies a non-linearity in inflation control. Given that it is impossible to lift the unemployment rate by ‘just’ 2 percent, it is also impossible to depress wage inflation by ‘just’ 1 percent. The choice is to not depress wage inflation at all, or to make wage inflation slump. This presents a major dilemma for policymakers in their current battle against inflation. If they choose to not depress wage inflation at all, core inflation will remain north of 3 percent and destroy central banks’ already tattered credibility to achieve and maintain price stability (Chart I-5). In the medium term, this would un-anchor long-term inflation expectations, push up bond yields, and further destabilise the financial and housing markets. Chart I-5Wage Inflation Is Running Too Hot For The 2 Percent Inflation Target On the other hand, if central banks do choose to depress wage inflation, the non-linearity of the jobs market implies that wage inflation will slump, taking core inflation south of the 2 percent target. Central banks could pray that a surge in productivity growth might save their skins. If productivity growth surged, elevated wage inflation might still be consistent with 2 percent inflation, as it was in the early 2000s. But we wouldn’t bet on this outcome (Chart I-6). Chart I-6Don't Bet On A Repeat Of The Early 2000s Productivity Miracle Inflation Will Not Run ‘Close To 2 Percent’ To summarise then, the economy is a non-linear system, and should be analysed as such. In uniquely doing so in this report, we reach a profound conclusion. The non-linearity of the jobs market and inflation control means that it is impossible for core inflation to run ‘close to 2 percent’. Depending on which of the non-linear options that policymakers choose – to not depress wage inflation at all, or to make wage inflation slump – inflation will either remain well above 2 percent, or slump to well below 2 percent within the next couple of years. Which option will the central banks choose? My answer is that they will make wage inflation slump. This is not just to save their own skins, but a genuine belief that the worse long-term outcome for the economy would be if central banks’ credibility to maintain price stability was destroyed. To prevent this outcome, a recession is a price that they are willing to pay. Central banks will choose to make wage inflation slump. Not just to save their own skins, but because the worse long-term outcome for the economy would be if price stability was destroyed. But what if I am wrong, and they choose not to depress wage inflation? In this case, long-term inflation expectations would become un-anchored, pushing up bond yields, and crashing the financial and housing markets. In turn, this would unleash a massive deflationary impulse which would end up creating an even deeper recession. So, we would end up at the same place, albeit later and via a more circuitous route. All of which confirms some long-held views. The structural low in bond yields, the structural low in commodity prices, the structural high in stock market valuations, and the structural high in the US dollar are yet to come. Chart 1Hungarian Bonds Are Oversold Chart 2Copper Is Experiencing A Tactical Rebound Chart 3US REITS Are Oversold Versus Utilities Chart 4FTSE100 Outperformance Vs. Euro Stoxx 50 Is Vulnerable To Reversal Chart 5Netherlands' Underperformance Vs. Switzerland Has Ended Chart 6The Sell-Off In The 30-Year T-Bond At Fractal Fragility Chart 7Food And Beverage Outperformance Is Exhausted Chart 8German Telecom Outperformance Has Started To Reverse Chart 9Japanese Telecom Outperformance Vulnerable To Reversal Chart 10The Strong Trend In The 18-Month-Out US Interest Rate Future Has Ended Chart 11The Strong Downtrend In The 3 Year T-Bond Has Ended Chart 12The Outperformance Of Tobacco Vs. Cannabis Is Ending Chart 13Biotech Is A Major Buy Chart 14Norway's Outperformance Has Ended Chart 15Cotton Versus Platinum Has Reversed Chart 16Switzerland's Outperformance Vs. Germany Is Exhausted Chart 17USD/EUR Is Vulnerable To Reversal Chart 18The Outperformance Of MSCI Hong Kong Versus China Has Ended Chart 19US Utilities Outperformance Vulnerable To Reversal Chart 20The Outperformance Of Oil Versus Banks Is Exhausted Dhaval Joshi Chief Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com Fractal Trading System Fractal Trades 6-Month Recommendations Structural Recommendations Closed Fractal Trades Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Euro Area Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Europe Ex Euro Area Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Asia Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Other Developed   Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-5Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations  

In this <i>Strategy Outlook</i>, we present the major investment themes and views we see playing out for the rest of the year and beyond.

    Executive Summary At our monthly view meeting on Monday, BCA strategists voted to change the House View to a neutral asset allocation stance on equities, with a slight plurality favoring an outright underweight. The view of the Global Investment Strategy service is somewhat more constructive, as I think it is still more likely than not that the US will avoid a recession; and that if a recession does occur, it will be a fairly mild one. Nevertheless, the risks to my view have increased. I now estimate 40% odds of a recession during the next 12 months, up from 20% a month ago. In The Past, When Unemployment Has Started Rising In The US, It Has Kept On Rising Bottom Line: With the S&P 500 down 27% in real terms from its highs at the time of the meeting, the view of the Global Investment Strategy service is that a modest overweight is appropriate. However, investors should refrain from adding to equity positions until more clarity emerges about the path for inflation and growth. Heading For Recession? Every month, BCA strategists hold a view meeting to discuss the most important issues driving the macroeconomy and financial markets. This month’s meeting, which was held yesterday, was especially pertinent as it comes on the heels of a substantial decline in global equities. The key issue that we grappled with was whether the Fed could achieve a proverbial soft landing or whether the US and the rest of the global economy were spiraling towards recession (if it wasn’t already there). I began the meeting by showing one of my favorite charts, a deceptively simple chart of the US unemployment rate (Chart 1). The chart makes three things clear: 1) The US unemployment rate is rarely stable; It is almost always either rising or falling; 2) Once it starts rising, it keeps rising. In fact, the US has never averted a recession when the 3-month average of the unemployment rate has risen by more than a third of a percentage point; and 3) As a mean-reverting series, the unemployment rate is most likely to start rising when it is very low. Chart 1In The Past, When Unemployment Has Started Rising In The US, It Has Kept On Rising Taken at face value, the chart paints a damning picture about the economic outlook. The US unemployment rate is near a record low, which means that it has nowhere to go but up. And once the unemployment rate starts going up, history suggests that a recession is inevitable. Five Caveats Despite this ominous implication, I did highlight five caveats. First, the observation that even a modest increase in the unemployment rate invariably heralds a recession is based on a limited sample of business cycles from the US. Across the G10, soft landings have occurred, Canada being one example (Chart 2). Second, unlike the unemployment rate, the employment-to-population ratio is still 1.1 percentage points below its pre-pandemic level, and 4.6 percentage points below where it was in April 2000. A similar, though less pronounced, pattern holds if one focuses only on the 25-to-54 age cohort (Chart 3). Chart 2G10 Economies Sometimes Manage To Avoid A Recession Amid Rising Unemployment Chart 3The Employment-To-Population Ratio Remains Below Pre-Pandemic Levels   While the number of people not working either because they are worried about the pandemic, or because they are still burning through their stimulus checks, has been trending lower, it is still fairly high in absolute terms (Chart 4). As my colleague Doug Peta discussed in his latest report, one can envision a scenario where job growth remains positive, but the unemployment rate nonetheless edges higher as more workers rejoin the labor force. Chart 4ALabor Supply Should Increase As Covid Fears Continue To Abate And More Workers Burn Through Their Stimulus Savings (I) Chart 4BLabor Supply Should Increase As Covid Fears Continue To Abate And More Workers Burn Through Their Stimulus Savings (II)     Third, the job vacancy rate is extremely high today – much higher than a pre-pandemic “Beveridge Curve” would have predicted (Chart 5). This provides the labor market with a wide moat against an increase in firings. As Fed governor Christopher Waller has emphasized, the main effect of the Federal Reserve’s efforts to cool labor demand could be to push down vacancies rather than to push up unemployment. Fourth, as we have highlighted in past research, the Phillips curve is kinked at very low levels of unemployment (Chart 6). This means that a decline in unemployment from high to moderate levels may do little to spur inflation, but once the unemployment rate falls below its full employment level, then watch out! Chart 5The Fed Hopes That Its Tightening Policy Will Bring Down Job Openings More Than It Pushes Up The Unemployment Rate Chart 6The Phillips Curve Is Kinked At Very Low Levels Of Unemployment   The converse is also true, however. If a small decrease in unemployment can trigger a large increase in inflation, then a small increase in unemployment can trigger a large decrease in inflation, provided that long-term inflation expectations remain reasonably well anchored in the meantime. In other words, it is possible that the so-called “sacrifice ratio” — the amount of output that has to be sacrificed to reduce inflation — may be quite low. Fifth, and perhaps most importantly, there is a lot of variation from one recession to the next in how much unemployment rises. In general, the greater the financial and economic imbalances going into a recession, the deeper it tends to be. US household balance sheets are in reasonably good shape these days. Households are sitting on $2.2 trillion in excess savings (Chart 7). Yes, most of those savings belong to relatively well-off households. But as Chart 8 illustrates, even rich people spend well over half of their income. Chart 7Households Have Only Just Begun To Draw Down Their Accumulated Savings Chart 8Even The Rich Spend The Majority Of Their Income     The ratio of household debt-to-disposable income in the US is down by a third since its peak in 2008. Despite falling equity prices, the ratio of household net worth-to-disposable income is still up nearly 50 percentage points since the end of 2019, mainly because home prices have risen (Chart 9). As is likely to be the case in many other countries, home prices in the US will level off and quite possibly decline over the next few years. In and of itself, that may not be such a bad outcome for equity markets since lower real estate prices will cool aggregate demand, thus lowering inflation without the need for much higher interest rates. The danger, of course, is that we could see a replay of the GFC. This risk cannot be ignored but is probably quite small. The quality of mortgage lending has been very strong over the past 15 years. Moreover, unlike in 2007, when there was a large glut of homes, the homeowner vacancy rate today is at a record low. Tepid homebuilding has pushed the average age of the US residential capital stock to 31 years, the highest since 1948 (Chart 10). Chart 9The US Household Debt Burden Has Come Down Significantly Since 2008, While Net Worth Is Still Higher Than Before The Pandemic Chart 10Tight Supply Conditions In The Housing Market Argue Against A Repeat Of The GFC   A Bleaker Picture Outside The US The situation is admittedly dicier outside the US. Putin’s despotic regime continues to wage war on Ukraine. While European natural gas prices are still well below their March peak, they have recently surged as Russia has begun to throttle natural gas exports (Chart 11). The euro area manufacturing PMI clocked in a respectable 54.6 in May but is likely to drop over the coming months as higher energy prices restrain production. The only saving grace is that fiscal policy in Europe has turned more expansionary. The IMF’s April projection foresaw the structural primary budget balance easing from a surplus of 1.2% of GDP between 2014 and 2019 to a deficit of 1.2% of GDP between 2022 and 2027, the biggest swing among the major economies (Chart 12). Even the IMF’s numbers probably underestimate the fiscal easing that will transpire considering the need for Europe to invest more in energy independence and defense. Chart 11The European Economy Is Threatened By Rising Gas Prices Chart 12Euro Area Fiscal Policy Is Expected To Be More Expansionary In The Years To Come Than Before The Pandemic   The Chinese economy continues to suffer from the “triple threat” of renewed Covid lockdowns, a shift of global demand away from manufactured goods towards services, and a floundering property market. We expect the Chinese property market to ultimately succumb to the same fate that befell Japan 30 years ago. Chart 13Chinese Stocks Are Cheap Unlike Japanese stocks in the early 1990s, however, Chinese stocks are trading at fairly beaten down valuations – 10.9-times earnings and 1.4-times book for the investable index (Chart 13). With the Twentieth Party Congress slated for later this year and the population jaded by lockdowns, the political incentive to shower the economy with cash and loosen the reins on regulation will intensify. A Scenario Analysis For The S&P 500 Corralling all these moving parts is no easy matter. We would put the odds of a US recession over the next 12 months at 40%. This is double what we would have said a month ago when we tactically upgraded stocks after the S&P 500 fell below the 4,000 mark. The May CPI report was clearly a shocker, both to the Fed and the markets. The median dot in the June Summary of Economic Projections sees the Fed funds rate rising to 3.8% next year, smack dab in the middle of our once highly out-of-consensus estimate of 3.5%-to-4% for the neutral rate of interest. With interest rates potentially moving into restrictive territory next year, equity investors are right to be concerned. Yet, as noted above, if a recession does occur, it is likely to be a fairly mild one. At the time of the BCA monthly view meeting, the S&P 500 was already down 23% in nominal terms and 27% in real terms from its peak in early January. We assume that the S&P 500 will fall a further 10% in real terms over the next 12 months in a “mild recession” scenario (30% odds) and by 25% in a “deep recession” scenario (10% odds). Conversely, we assume that the S&P 500 will be 20% higher in 12 months’ time in a “no recession” scenario (60% odds). Note that even in a “no recession” scenario, the real value of the S&P 500 would still be down 12% in June 2023 from its all-time high. On a probability-weighted basis, the expected 12-month real return across all three scenarios works out to 6.5%, or 8% with dividends (Table 1). That is enough to justify a modest overweight in my view – but given the risks, just barely. Investors focused on capital preservation should consider a more conservative stance. Table 1S&P 500 Drawdowns Depending On Whether The US Will Enter A Recession And How Severe It Will Be Most of my colleagues were more cautious than me, as they generally thought that the odds of a recession were greater than 50%. They voted to shift the BCA house view to a neutral asset allocation stance on equities, with a slight plurality favoring an outright underweight (10 for underweight; 9 for neutral; and 6 for overweight). Peter Berezin Chief Global Strategist peterb@bcaresearch.com   Global Investment Strategy View Matrix Special Trade Recommendations Current MacroQuant Model Scores  

Listen to a short summary of this report.     Executive Summary Higher Real Yields Have Weighed On Equity Valuations I had the pleasure of visiting clients in Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and Abu Dhabi last week. In contrast to the rest of the world, the mood in the Middle East was very positive. While high oil prices are helping, there is also a lot of optimism about ongoing structural reforms. Petrodollar flows are increasingly being steered towards private and public equities. EM assets stand to benefit the most. Producers in the region are trying to offset lost Russian output, but realistically, they will not be able to completely fill the gap in the near term. Today’s high energy prices have largely baked in this reality, as reflected in strongly backwardated futures curves. There was no consensus about how high oil prices would need to rise to trigger a global recession, although the number $150 per barrel got bandied about a lot. Given that most Middle Eastern currencies are pegged to the dollar, there was a heavy focus on Fed policy. Market estimates of the neutral rate in the US have increased rapidly towards our highly out-of-consensus view. Nevertheless, we continue to see modest upside for bond yields over a multi-year horizon. Over a shorter-term 6-to-12-month horizon, the direction of bond yields will be guided by the evolution of inflation. While US CPI inflation rose much more than expected in May, the details of the report were somewhat less worrying, as they continue to show significant supply-side distortions. Bottom Line: Inflation should come down during the remainder of the year, allowing the Fed to breathe a sigh of relief and stocks to recover some of their losses. A further spike in oil prices is a major risk to this view.   Dear Client, Instead of our regular report next week, we will be sending you a Special Report written by Chester Ntonifor, BCA Research’s Chief Foreign Exchange Strategist, discussing the outlook for gold. We will be back the following week with the GIS Quarterly Strategy Outlook, where we will explore the major trends that are set to drive financial markets in the rest of 2022 and beyond. As always, I will hold a webcast discussing the outlook the following week, on Thursday, July 7th. Best regards, Peter Berezin Chief Global Strategist Peter in Arabia I had the pleasure of visiting clients in Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and Abu Dhabi last week. This note summarizes my impressions and provides some commentary about recent market turmoil. The Mood in the Region is Very Positive In contrast to the rest of the world, the mood in the Middle East was upbeat. Obviously, high oil prices are a major contributor (Chart 1). Across the region, stock markets are still up for the year (Chart 2). Chart 1Oil Prices Have Shot Up Chart 2Middle Eastern Stock Markets Are Doing Relatively Well This Year   That said, I also felt that investors were encouraged by ongoing structural reforms, especially in Saudi Arabia where the Vision 2030 program is being rolled out. The program seeks to diversify the Saudi economy away from its historic reliance on petroleum exports. A number of people I spoke with cited the Saudi sovereign wealth fund’s acquisition of a majority stake in Lucid, a California-based EV startup, as the sort of bold move that would have been unthinkable a few years ago. I first visited Riyadh in May 2011 where I controversially delivered a speech entitled “The Coming Commodity Bust” (oil was $120/bbl then and copper prices were near an all-time high). The city has changed immensely since then. The number of restaurants and entertainment venues has increased exponentially. The ban on women drivers was lifted only four years ago. In that short time, it has become a common-day occurrence. Capital Flows Into and Out of the Region are Reflecting a New Geopolitical Reality In addition to high oil prices and structural reforms, geopolitical considerations are propelling significant capital inflows into the region. The freezing of Russia’s foreign exchange reserves sent a shockwave across much of the world, with a number of other EM countries wondering if “they are next.” Ironically, the Middle East has emerged as a neutral player of sorts in this multipolar world, and hence a safer destination for capital flows. On the flipside, the region’s oil exporters appear to be acting more strategically in how they allocate their petrodollar earnings. Rather than simply parking the proceeds of oil sales in overseas US dollar bank accounts, they are investing them in ways that further their economic and political goals. One clear trend is that equity allocations to both overseas public and private markets are rising. Other emerging markets stand to benefit the most from this development, especially EMs who have assets that Middle Eastern countries deem important – assets tied to food security being a prime example. Assuming that the current level of oil prices is maintained, we estimate that non-US oil exports will rise to $2.5 trillion in 2022, up from $1.5 trillion in 2021 (Chart 3). About 40% of this windfall will flow to the Middle East. That is a big slug of cash, enough to influence the direction of equity markets. Chart 3Oil Exporters Reaping The Benefits Of High Oil Prices Middle Eastern Energy Producers Will Boost Output, But Don’t Expect Any Miracles in the Short Term Russian oil production will likely fall by about 2 million bpd relative to pre-war levels over the next 12 months. To help offset the impact, OPEC has already raised production by 200,000 barrels and will almost certainly bump it up again following President Biden’s visit to the region in July (Chart 4). The decision to raise production to stave off a super spike in oil prices is not entirely altruistic. The region’s oil exporters know that excessively high oil prices could tip the global economy into recession, an outcome that would surely lead to much lower oil prices down the road. There was not much clarity on what that tipping point is, but the number $150 per barrel got bandied around a lot. Politics is also a factor. A further rise in oil prices could compel the US to make a deal with Iran, something the Saudis do not want to see happen. Still, there is a practical limit to how much more oil the Saudis and other Middle Eastern producers can bring to market in the near term. Today’s high energy prices have largely baked in this reality, as reflected in strongly backwardated futures curves (Chart 5). Chart 4Output Trends In The Major Oil Producers Chart 5Energy Prices On Both Sides Of The Atlantic Data on Saudi’s excess capacity is notoriously opaque, but I got the feeling that an extra 1-to-1.5 million bpd was the most that the Kingdom could deliver. The same constraints apply to natural gas. Qatar is investing nearly $30 billion to expand its giant North Field, which should allow gas production to rise by as much as 60%. However, it will take four years to complete the project. The share of Qatari liquefied natural gas (LNG) going to Europe has actually declined this year. About 80% of Qatar’s LNG is sold to Asian buyers under long-term contracts that cannot be easily adjusted. And even if those contracts could be rewritten, this would only bring limited benefits to Europe. For example, Germany has no terminals to accept LNG imports, although it is planning to build two. While there was plenty of sympathy to Europe’s plight in the region, there was also a sense that European governments had been cruising for a bruising by doubling down on strident anti-fossil fuel rhetoric over the past decade without doing much to end their dependence on Russian oil and gas. In that context, few in the region seemed willing to bend over backwards to help Europe. In the meantime, the US remains Europe’s best hope. US LNG shipments to Europe have tripled since last year. The US is now sending nearly three quarters of its liquefied gas to Europe. This has pushed up US natural gas prices, although they still remain a fraction of what they are in Europe. Huge Focus on the Fed Chart 6Most Of The Increase In Bond Yields Has Been In The Real Component Most Middle Eastern currencies are pegged to the dollar, and hence the region effectively imports its monetary policy from the US. Not surprisingly, clients were very focused on the Federal Reserve. Many expressed concern about the abrupt pace of rate hikes. One of our high-conviction views is that the neutral rate of interest in the US has risen as the household deleveraging cycle has ended, fiscal policy has become structurally looser, and a growing number of baby boomers have transitioned from working (and saving) to retirement (and dissaving). The markets have rapidly priced in this view over the course of 2022. The 5-year/5-year forward Treasury yield – a proxy for the neutral rate – has increased from 1.90% at the start of the year to 3.21% at present. Most of this increase in the market’s estimate of the neutral rate has occurred in the real component. The 5-year/5-year forward TIPS yield has climbed from -0.49% to 0.84%; in contrast, the implied TIPS breakeven inflation rate has risen from only 2.24% to 2.37% (Chart 6). Implications of Higher Bond Yields on Equity Prices and the Economy Chart 7Higher Real Yields Have Weighed On Equity Valuations As both theory and practice suggest, there is a strong negative correlation between real bond yields and equity valuations. Chart 7 shows that the S&P 500 forward P/E ratio has been moving broadly in line with the 5-year/5-year forward TIPS yield. The bad news is that there is still scope for bond yields to rise over the long haul. Our fair value estimate of 3.5%-to-4% for the neutral rate is about 25-to-75 basis points above current pricing. The good news is that a high neutral rate helps insulate the economy from a near-term recession. Recessions typically occur only when monetary policy turns restrictive. A few clients cited the negative Q1 GDP reading and the near-zero Q2 growth estimate in the Atlanta Fed GDPNow model as evidence that a US recession is either close at hand or has already begun (Chart 8). Chart 8Underlying US Growth Is Expected To Be Solid In Q2 We would push back against such an interpretation. In contrast to the -1.5% real GDP print, real Gross Domestic Income (GDI) rose by 2.1% in Q1. Conceptually, GDP and GDI should be equal, but since the two numbers are compiled in different ways, there can often be major statistical discrepancies. A simple average of the two suggests the US economy still grew in the first quarter. More importantly, real final sales to private domestic purchasers rose by 3.9% in Q1. This measure of economic activity – which strips out the often-noisy contributions from inventories, government expenditures, and net exports – is the best predictor of future GDP growth of any item in the national accounts (Table 1). Table 1A Good Sign: Real Final Sales To Private Domestic Purchasers Rose By 3.9% In Q1 As far as Q2 is concerned, real final sales to private domestic purchasers are tracking at 2.0% according to the Atlanta Fed model – a clear deceleration from earlier this year, but still consistent with a generally healthy economy. Growth will probably slow in the third quarter, reflecting the impact of higher gasoline prices, rising interest rates, and lower asset prices. Nevertheless, the fundamental underpinnings for the economy – low household debt, $2.2 trillion in excess savings, a dire need to boost corporate capex and homebuilding, and a strong labor market – remain in place. The odds of a recession in the next 12 months are quite low. Gauging Near-Term Inflation Dynamics A higher-than-expected neutral rate of interest implies that bond yields will probably rise from current levels over the long run. Over a shorter-term 6-to-12-month horizon, however, the direction of yields will be guided by the evolution of inflation. While the core CPI surprised on the upside in May, the details of the report were somewhat less worrying, as they continue to show significant supply-side distortions. Excluding vehicles, core goods prices rose 0.3% in May, down from a Q1 average of 0.7% (Chart 9). Recent commentary from companies such as Target suggest that goods inflation will ease further. Chart 9Goods Inflation Is Moderating, While Service Price Growth Is Elevated Stripping out energy-related services, services inflation slowed slightly to 0.6% in May from 0.7% in April. A deceleration in wage growth should help keep a lid on services inflation over the coming months (Chart 10). Chart 10A Deceleration In Wage Growth Should Help Keep Services Inflation Contained During his press conference, Fed Chair Powell described the rise in inflation expectations in the University of Michigan survey as “quite eye-catching.” Although long-term inflation expectations remain a fraction of what they were in the early 1980s, they did rise to the highest level in 14 years in June (Chart 11). Powell also noted that the Fed’s Index of Common Inflation Expectations has been edging higher. The Fed’s focus on ensuring that inflation expectations remain well anchored is understandable. That said, there is a strong correlation between the level of gasoline prices and inflation expectations (Chart 12). If gasoline prices come down from record high levels over the coming months, inflation expectations should drop.  Chart 11Consumer Long-Term Inflation Expectations Keep Rising, But Are Still Not At Historically High Levels Chart 12Lower Gasoline Prices Would Help Soothe Consumer Fears Over Inflation The Fed expects core PCE inflation to fall to 4.3% on a year-over-year basis by the end of 2022. This would require month-over-month readings of about 0.35 percentage points, which is slightly above the average of the past three months (Chart 13). Our guess is that the Fed may be highballing its near-term inflation projections in order to give itself room to “underpromise and overdeliver” on the inflation front. If so, we could see inflation estimates trimmed later this year, which would provide a more soothing backdrop for risk assets. Chart 13AUS Inflation Will Fall By More Than The Fed Expects If The Monthly Change In Core PCE Is Less Than 0.35% (I) Chart 13BUS Inflation Will Fall By More Than The Fed Expects If The Monthly Change In Core PCE Is Less Than 0.35% (II) Concluding Thoughts on Investment Strategy According to Bank of America, fund managers cut their equity exposure to the lowest since May 2020. Optimism on global growth fell to a record low. Meanwhile, bears outnumbered bulls by 39 percentage points in this week’s AAII poll (Chart 14). If the stock market is about to crash, it will be the most anticipated crash in history. In my experience, markets rarely do what most people expect them to do. Chart 14Sentiment Towards Equities Is Pessimistic Chart 15Global Equities Are More Attractively Valued After The Recent Sell-Off Chart 16US And European EPS Estimates Have Been Trending Higher This Year US equities are trading at 16.3-times forward earnings, with non-US stocks sporting a forward P/E ratio of 12.1 (Chart 15). Despite the decline in share prices, earnings estimates in both the US and Europe have increased since the start of the year (Chart 16). The consensus is that those estimates will fall. However, if our expectation that a recession will be averted over the next 12 months pans out, that may not happen. A sensible strategy right now is to maintain a modest overweight to stocks while being prepared to significantly raise equity exposure once clear evidence emerges that inflation has peaked. Peter Berezin Chief Global Strategist peterb@bcaresearch.com Follow me on        LinkedIn Twitter       View Matrix Special Trade Recommendations Current MacroQuant Model Scores

Executive Summary Investors face a dilemma. The faster that inflation comes down, the better it will be for valuations via a stronger rally in the bond price. But if a collapse in inflation requires a sharp deceleration in growth, the worse it will be for profits. Bond yields are likely in a peaking process, but the sharpest declines may come a few months down the road, after an unambiguous roll-over in food and energy inflation. The stock market’s valuation-driven sell-off is likely over, but the danger is that it morphs into a profits-driven sell-off. As such, the stock market will remain under pressure through 2022, though it is likely to be higher 12 months from now in June 2023. High conviction recommendation: Overweight healthcare versus basic resources. In other words, tilt towards sectors that benefit the most from rising bond prices and that suffer the least from contracting profits. New high conviction recommendation: Go long the Japanese yen. As bond yield differentials re-tighten, the yen will rally. Additionally, the yen will benefit from its haven status in a period of recessionary risk. Fractal trading watchlist: JPY/USD, GBP/USD, and Australian basic resources. If 2022-23 = 1981-82, Then This Is What Happens To The Stock Market Bottom Line: The risk is that the valuation-driven sell-off morphs into a profits-driven sell-off. Feature In May, many stock markets reached the drawdown of 20 percent that defines a technical bear market. Yet what has caught many people off guard is that the bear market in stocks has happened during a bull market in profits. Since the start of 2022, US profits are up by 5 percent.1 The bear market in stocks has happened during a bull market in profits… so far. This shatters the shibboleth that bear markets only happen when there is a profits recession. The 2022 bear market has been a valuation-driven bear market. US profits rose 5 percent, but the multiple paid for those profits collapsed by 25 percent, taking the market into bear territory. None of this should come as any surprise to our regular readers. As we have pointed out many times, a stock market can be likened to a bond with a variable rather than a fixed income. So, just as with a bond, every stock market has a ‘duration’ which establishes which bond it most behaves like. It turns out that that long-duration US stock market has the same duration as a 30-year bond. This means that: The US stock market = (The 30-year T-bond price) multiplied by (US profits) It follows that if the 30-year bond price falls by more than profits rise, then the stock market will sell off. And if the 30-year bond price falls by much more than profits rise, then the stock market will enter a valuation-driven bear market. Therein lies the story of 2022 so far (Chart I-1). Chart I-1The Bear Market Is Valuation-Driven. Profits Are Up... For Now Just As In 1981-82, Will The Sell-Off Morph From Valuation-Driven To Profits-Driven? In Markets Echo 1981, When Stagflation Morphed Into Recession, we argued that a good template for what happens to the economy and the markets in 2022-23 is the experience of 1981-82. Does 2022-23 = 1981-82? Then, just as now, the world’s central banks were obsessed with ‘breaking the back’ of inflation, and piloting the economy to a ‘soft landing’. Then, just as now, the central banks were desperate to repair their badly damaged credibility in managing the economy. And then, just as now, an invasion-led war between two major commodity producers – Iran and Iraq – was disrupting commodity supplies and adding to inflationary pressures. In 1981, just as now, the equity market sell-off started as a valuation sell-off, driven by a declining 30-year T-bond price. Profits held up through most of 1981, just as they have so far in 2022. In September 1981, US core inflation finally peaked, with bond yields following soon after. In the current experience, March 2022 appears to have marked the equivalent peak in US core inflation (Chart I-2 and Chart I-3). Chart I-2Does September 1981... Chart I-3...Equal March 2022? In late 1981, when the 30-year T-bond price rebounded, the good news was that beaten-down equity valuations also reached their low point. The bad news was that just as the valuation-driven sell-off ended, profits keeled over, and the valuation-driven sell-off morphed into a profits-driven sell-off (Chart I-4). In 2022-23, could history repeat? Chart I-4In September 1981, The Sell-Off Morphed From Valuation-Driven To Profits-Driven Recession Or No Recession? That Is Not The Question History rhymes, it rarely repeats exactly. What if the 2022-23 experience can avoid the outright economic recession of the 1981-82 experience? This brings us to another shibboleth that needs to be shattered. You don’t need the economy to go into recession for profits to go into recession. To understand why, we need to visit the concept of operational leverage. Profits is a small number that comes from the difference of two large numbers: sales and the costs of generating those sales. As any company will tell you, sales can be volatile, but costs – which are dominated by wages – are sticky and much slower to change. The upshot is that if sales growth exceeds costs growth, there is a massively leveraged impact on profits growth. This is the magic of operational leverage. But if sales growth falls below sticky cost growth, the magic turns into a curse. The operational leverage goes into reverse, and profits collapse. Using US stock market profits as an example, the magic turns into a curse at real GDP growth of 1.25 percent, above which profits grow at six times the difference, and below which profits shrink at six times the difference (Chart I-5). Chart I-5A Model For US Profits Growth: (Real GDP Growth - 1.25) Times 6 Strictly speaking, we should compare US profits growth with world GDP growth because multinationals generate their sales globally rather than domestically. But to the extent that the US has both the world’s largest stock market and the world’s largest economy, it is a reasonable comparison. We should also compare both profits and sales in either nominal or real terms, rather than a mixture. But even with these tweaks, we would still find that the dominant driver of profit growth is operational leverage. ‘Recession or no recession?’ is a somewhat moot question, because even non-recessionary low growth is enough to tip profits into contraction. Therefore, the conclusion still stands – ‘recession or no recession?’ is a somewhat moot question, because even non-recessionary low growth is enough to tip profits into contraction. Such a period of low growth is now likely. If 2022-23 = 1981-82, What Happens Next? To repeat: The US stock market = (The 30-year T-bond price) multiplied by (US profits) This means that investors face a dilemma. The faster that inflation comes down, the better it will be for valuations via a stronger rally in the bond price. But if a collapse in inflation requires a sharp deceleration in growth, the worse it will be for profits. This was the precise set-up in December 1981, the equivalent of June 2022 in our historical template. In which case, what can we expect next? 1. Bond yields are likely in a peaking process, but the sharpest declines may come a few months down the road, after an unambiguous roll-over in food and energy inflation (Chart I-6). Chart I-6If 2022-23 = 1981-82, Then This Is What Happens To The Bond Yield 2. The stock market’s valuation-driven sell-off is likely over, but the danger is that it morphs into a profits-driven sell-off. As such, the stock market will remain under pressure through 2022, though it is likely to be higher 12 months from now in June 2023 (Chart I-7). Chart I-7If 2022-23 = 1981-82, Then This Is What Happens To The Stock Market 3. Long-duration defensive sectors will outperform short-duration cyclical sectors. In other words, tilt towards sectors that benefit the most from rising bond prices and suffer the least from contracting profits. As such, a high conviction recommendation is to overweight healthcare versus basic resources (Chart I-8). Chart I-8If 2022-23 = 1981-82, Then This Is What Happens To Healthcare Versus Resources 4. In foreign exchange, the setup is very bullish for the Japanese yen through the next 12 months. The yen’s recent sell-off is explained by bond yields rising outside Japan. As these bond yield differentials re-tighten, the yen will rally. Additionally, the yen will benefit from its haven status in a period of recessionary risk. A new high conviction recommendation is to go long the Japanese yen (Chart I-9). Chart I-9The Yen's Sell-Off Is Due To Bond Yields Rising Outside Japan Fractal Trading Watchlist Supporting our bullish fundamental case for the Japanese yen, the sell-off in JPY/USD has reached the point of fragility on its 260-day fractal structure that marked previous major turning points in 2013 and 2015 (Chart 10). Hence, a first new trade is long JPY/USD, setting the trade length at 6 months, and the profit target and symmetrical stop-loss at 5 percent. Chart I-10The Sell-Off In JPY/USD Has Reached A Potential Turning Point Supporting our bearish fundamental case for resources stocks, the outperformance of Australian basic resources has reached the point of fragility on its 130-day fractal structure that marked previous turning points in 2013, 2015, and 2021 (Chart I-11). Hence, a second new trade is short Australian basic resources versus the world market, setting the trade length at 6 months, and the profit target and symmetrical stop-loss at 10 percent. Chart I-11The Australian Basic Resources Sector Is Vulnerable To Reversal Finally, we are adding GBP/USD to our watchlist, given that its 260-day fractal structure is close to the point of fragility that marked major turns in 2014, 2015, and 2016. Our full watchlist of 29 investments that are at, or approaching turning points, is available on our website: cpt.bcaresearch.com Fractal Trading Watchlist: New Additions GBP/USD At A Turning Point Chart 1AUD/KRW Is Vulnerable To Reversal   Chart 2Canada Versus Japan Is Reversing Chart 3Canada's TSX-60's Outperformance Might Be Over Chart 4US Healthcare Providers Vs. Software At Risk of Reversal Chart 5BRL/NZD At A Resistance Point Chart 6Homebuilders Versus Healthcare Services Has Turned Chart 7CNY/USD Has Reversed Chart 8CAD/SEK Reversal Has Started Chart 9Financials Versus Industrials To Reverse Chart 10The Outperformance Of Resources Versus Biotech Has Started To Reverse Chart 11The Outperformance Of Resources Versus Healthcare Is Vulnerable To Reversal Chart 12FTSE100 Outperformance Vs. Euro Stoxx 50 Is Reversing Chart 13Netherlands Underperformance Vs. Switzerland Has Been Exhausted Chart 14The Sell-Off In The 30-Year T-Bond Is Approaching Fractal Fragility Chart 15The Sell-Off In The NASDAQ Is Approaching Fractal Fragility Chart 16Food And Beverage Outperformance Has Been Exhausted Chart 17The Strong Trend In The 18-Month-Out US Interest Rate Future Is Fragile Chart 18The Strong Trend In The 3 Year T-Bond Is Fragile Chart 19A Potential Switching Point From Tobacco Into Cannabis Chart 20Biotech Is A Major Buy Chart 21Norway's Outperformance Could End Chart 22Cotton Versus Platinum Is Reversing Chart 23Switzerland's Outperformance Vs. Germany Has Started To End Chart 24The Rally In USD/EUR Has Ended Chart 25The Outperformance Of MSCI Hong Kong Versus China Is Vulnerable To Reversal Chart 26A Potential New Entry Point Into Petcare Chart 27Czech Outperformance Near Exhaustion Chart 28US REITS Are Oversold Versus Utilities Chart 29GBP/USD At A Turning Point   Dhaval Joshi Chief Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1 Defined as 12-month forward earnings per share. Fractal Trading System 6-Month Recommendations Structural Recommendations Closed Fractal Trades Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Euro Area Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Europe Ex Euro Area Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Asia Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Other Developed   Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-5Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations  

Highlights The neutral rate of interest in the US is 3%-to-4% in nominal terms or 1%-to-2% in real terms, which is substantially higher than the Fed believes and the market is discounting. The end of the household deleveraging cycle, rising wealth, stronger capital spending and homebuilding, and a structurally looser fiscal stance have all increased aggregate demand. In addition, deglobalization and population aging are depleting global savings, raising the neutral rate in the process. A higher neutral rate implies that monetary policy is currently more stimulative than widely perceived. This is good news for stocks, as it reduces the near-term odds of a recession. The longer-term risk is that monetary policy will stay too loose for too long, causing the US economy to overheat. This could prompt the Fed to raise rates well above neutral, an outcome that would certainly spell the end of the secular equity bull market. Investors should overweight stocks in 2022 but look to turn more defensive in late 2023. We are taking partial profits on our long December-2022 Brent futures trade, which is up 17.3% since inception. We are also closing our short meme stocks trade. AMC and GME are down 53% and 47%, respectively, since we initiated it.  The Neutral Rate Matters At first glance, the neutral rate of interest – the interest rate consistent with full employment and stable inflation – seems like a concept only an egghead economist would care about. After all, unlike actual interest rates, the neutral rate cannot be observed in real time. The best one can do is deduce it after the fact, something that does not seem very relevant for investment decisions. While this perspective is understandable, it is misguided. The yield on a long-term bond is largely a function of what investors expect short-term rates to be over the life of the bond. Today, investors expect the Fed to raise rates to only 1.75% during this tightening cycle, a far cry from previous peaks in interest rates (Chart 1). Chart 2Investor Worries That The Fed Will Tighten Too Much Has Led To A Flattening Of The Yield Curve Chart 1Expected Rate Hikes Are A Far Cry From Previous Peaks In Interest Rates     Far from worrying that the Fed will keep rates too low for too long in the face of high inflation, investors are worried that the Fed will tighten too much. This is the main reason why the yield curve has flattened over the past three months and the 20-year/30-year portion of the yield curve has inverted (Chart 2). Secular Stagnation Remains The Consensus View Why are so many investors convinced that the Fed will be unable to raise rates all that much over the next few years? The answer is that most investors have bought into the secular stagnation thesis, which posits that the neutral rate of interest has fallen dramatically over time. The secular stagnation thesis comes in two versions: The first or “strong form” describes an economy that needs a deeply negative – and hence unattainable – nominal interest rate to reach full employment. Japan comes to mind as an example. The country has had near-zero interest rates since the mid-1990s; and yet it continues to suffer from deflation. The second or "weak form" describes the case where a country needs a low, but still positive, interest rate to reach full employment. Such an interest rate is attainable by the central bank, and hence creates a goldilocks outlook for investors where profits return to normal, but asset prices continue to get propped up by an ultra-low discount rate. The “weak form” version of the secular stagnation thesis arguably describes the United States. Post-GFC Deleveraging Pushed Down The Neutral Rate One can think of the neutral rate as the interest rate that equates aggregate demand with aggregate supply at full employment. If something causes the aggregate demand curve to shift inwards, a lower real interest rate would be required to bring demand back up (Chart 3). Like many other countries, the US experienced a prolonged deleveraging cycle following the Global Financial Crisis. The ratio of household debt-to-GDP has declined by 23 percentage points since 2008. The need for households to repair their balance sheets weighed on spending, thus necessitating a lower interest rate. Admittedly, corporate debt has risen over the past decade, with the result that overall private debt has remained broadly stable as a share of GDP (Chart 4). However, the drag on aggregate demand from declining household debt was not offset by the boost to demand from rising corporate debt. Whereas falling household debt curbed consumer spending, rising corporate debt did little to boost investment spending. This is because most of the additional corporate debt went into financial engineering – including share buybacks and M&A activity – rather than capex. In fact, the average age of the private-sector capital stock has increased from 21 years in 2010 to 23.4 years at present (Chart 5). Chart 4Household Debt Has Fallen From Its Highs, While Corporate Debt Has Risen Since The GFC Chart 5The Average Age Of Capital Stock Has Been Increasing Buoyant Consumer And Business Spending Will Prop Up The Neutral Rate Today, the US economy finds itself in a far different spot than 12 years ago. Households are borrowing again. Consumer credit rose by $40 billion in November, the largest monthly increase on record, and double the consensus estimate (Chart 6). Banks are easing lending standards across all consumer loan categories (Chart 7). Chart 6Big Jump In Consumer Credit Chart 7Banks Are Easing Lending Standards For All Consumer Loans Chart 8Net Worth Has Soared Over The Past Two Years Meanwhile, years of easy money have pushed up asset prices, a dynamic that was only supercharged by the pandemic. We estimate that household wealth rose by 145% of GDP between the end of 2019 and the end of 2021 – the largest two-year increase on record (Chart 8). A back-of-the-envelope calculation suggests that this increase in wealth could boost aggregate demand by 5%.1 Reacting to the prospect of stronger final demand, businesses are ramping up capex (Chart 9). After moving sideways for two decades, capital goods orders have soared. Surveys of capex intentions remain at elevated levels. Against the backdrop of empty shelves and warehouses, inventory investment should also remain robust. Residential investment will increase (Chart 10). The homeowner vacancy rate has dropped to a record low, as have inventories of new and existing homes for sale. Homebuilder sentiment rose to a 10-month high in December. Building permits are 11% above pre-pandemic levels. Amazingly, homebuilders are trading at only 7-times forward earnings. We recommend owning the sector. Chart 9Investment Spending Will Stay Strong Chart 10US Housing Will Remain Well Supported Fiscal Policy: Tighter But Not Tight Chart 11Chinese Credit Impulse Seems To Be Bottoming As in most other countries, the US budget deficit will decline over the next few years, as pandemic-related measures roll off and tax receipts increase on the back of a strengthening economy. Nevertheless, we expect the structural budget deficit to remain 1%-to-2% of GDP larger in the post-pandemic period, following the passage of the infrastructure bill last November and what is likely to be a slimmed down social spending package focusing on green energy, universal pre-kindergarten, and health insurance subsidies. The shift towards structurally more accommodative fiscal policies will play out in most other major economies. In the euro area, spending under the Next Generation EU recovery fund will accelerate later this year, with southern Europe being the primary beneficiary. In Japan, the government has approved a US$315 billion supplementary budget. Matt Gertken, BCA’s Chief Geopolitical Strategist, expects Prime Minister Kishida to pursue a quasi-populist agenda ahead of the upper house election on July 25th.  China is also set to loosen policy. The Ministry of Finance has indicated that it intends to “proactively” support growth in 2022. For its part, the PBoC cut the reserve requirement ratio by 50 basis points on December 6th. The 6-month credit impulse has already turned up (Chart 11). More Than The Sum Of Their Parts Chart 12The Labor Share Typically Rises When Unemployment Falls As discussed above, the end of the deleveraging cycle, rising household wealth, stronger capital spending and homebuilding, and a structurally looser fiscal stance have all increased aggregate demand in the US. While each of these factors have independently raised the neutral rate of interest, taken together, the impact has been even greater. For example, stronger consumption has undoubtedly incentivized greater investment by firms eager to expand capacity. Strong GDP growth, in turn, has pushed up asset prices, leading to even more spending. Furthermore, a tighter labor market has propped up wage growth, especially among low-wage workers. Historically, labor’s share of overall national income has increased when unemployment has fallen (Chart 12). To the extent that workers spend more of their income than capital owners, a higher labor share raises aggregate demand, thus putting upward pressure on the neutral rate. The Retreat From Globalization Will Push Up The Neutral Rate… Chart 13The Ratio Of Global Trade-To-Output Has Been Flat For Over A Decade Globalization lowered the neutral rate of interest both because it shifted the balance of power from workers to businesses; and also because it allowed countries such as the US, which run chronic current account deficits, to import foreign capital rather than relying exclusively on domestic savings.  The era of hyperglobalization has ended, however. The ratio of global trade-to-manufacturing output has been flat for over a decade (Chart 13). Looking out, the ratio could decline as geopolitical tensions between China and the rest of the world continue to simmer, and more companies shift production back home in order to gain greater control over the supply chains of essential goods. … As Will Population Aging Chart 14Most Of The Deceleration In US Potential Real GDP Growth Has Already Taken Place Aging populations can affect the neutral rate either by dragging down investment demand or by reducing savings. The former would lead to a lower neutral rate, while the latter would lead to a higher rate. As Chart 14 shows, most of the decline in US potential GDP growth has already occurred. According to the Congressional Budget Office, real potential GDP growth fell from over 3% in the early 1980s to about 1.9% today, mainly due to slower labor force growth. The CBO expects potential growth to edge down to 1.7% over the next few decades. In contrast, the depletion of national savings from an aging population is just beginning. Baby boomers are leaving the labor force en masse. They hold over half of US household wealth, considerably more than younger generations (Chart 15). As baby boomers transition from net savers to net dissavers, national savings will fall, leading to a higher neutral rate. The pandemic has accelerated this trend insomuch as it has caused about 1.2 million workers to retire earlier than they would have otherwise (Chart 16). Chart 16Number Of Retired People Jumped During The Pandemic To What Extent Are Higher Rates Self-Limiting? Some commentators contend that any effort by central banks to bring policy rates towards neutral would reduce aggregate demand by so much that it would undermine the rationale for why the neutral rate had increased in the first place. In particular, they argue that higher rates would drag down asset prices, thus curbing the magnitude of the wealth effect. While there is some truth to this argument, its proponents overstate their case. History suggests that stocks tend to brush off rising bond yields, provided that yields do not rise to prohibitively high levels (Table 1). Table 1As Long As Bond Yields Don’t Rise Into Restrictive Territory, Stocks Will Recover Chart 17The Equity Risk Premium Remains High The last five weeks are a case in point. Both 10-year and 30-year Treasury yields have risen nearly 40 bps since December 3rd. Yet, the S&P 500 has gained 2.7% since then. Keep in mind that the forward earnings yield for US stocks still exceeds the real bond yield by 552 bps, which is quite high by historic standards. The gap between earnings yields and real bond yields is even greater abroad (Chart 17). Thus, stocks have scope to absorb an increase in bond yields without a significant PE multiple contraction. Investment Implications Our analysis suggests that the neutral rate of interest in the US is substantially higher than widely believed. How much higher is difficult to gauge, but our guess is that in real terms, it is between 1% and 2%. This is substantially higher than survey measures of the neutral rate, which peg it at close to 0% in real terms (Chart 18). It is also significantly higher than 10-year and 30-year TIPS yields, which stand at -0.73% and -0.17%, respectively (Chart 19). The neutral rate has also increased in other economies, although not as much as in the US. Chart 18Both The Fed And Investors Have Lowered Their Estimate Of The Neutral Rate Chart 19Long-Term Real Rates Remain Depressed If the neutral rate turns out to be higher than the consensus view, then monetary policy is currently more stimulative than widely perceived. That is good news for stocks, as it would reduce the near-term odds of a recession. Hence, we remain positive on stocks over a 12-month horizon, with a preference for non-US equities. In terms of sector preferences, we maintain our bias for banks over tech. The longer-term risk is that monetary policy will stay too easy, causing the economy to overheat. This could prompt the Fed to raise rates well above neutral, an outcome that would certainly spell the end of the secular equity bull market. Such a day of reckoning could be reached by late 2023. Two Trade Updates We are taking partial profits on our long December-2022 Brent futures trade by cutting our position by 50%. The trade is up 17.3% since inception. Bob Ryan, BCA’s Chief Commodity Strategist, still sees upside for oil prices, so we are keeping the other half of our position for the time being. We are also closing our short meme stocks trade. AMC and GME are down 53% and 47%, respectively, since we initiated it. While the outlook for both companies remains challenging, there is an outside chance that they will find a way to leverage their meme status to create profitable businesses. This makes us inclined to move to the sidelines.   Peter Berezin Chief Global Strategist peterb@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 In line with published estimates, we assume that households spend 5 cents of every one dollar increase in housing wealth, 2 cents of every dollar increase in equity wealth, 10 cents out of bank deposits, and 2 cents out of other assets. Of the 145% of GDP in increased household net worth between the end of 2019 and the end of 2021, 19% stemmed from higher housing wealth, 52% from higher equity wealth, 12% from higher bank deposits, and 17% from other categories.    View Matrix Special Trade Recommendations Current MacroQuant Model Scores

Special Report

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 fourth quarter will be volatile as China still poses a risk of overtightening policy and undermining the global recovery. US political risks are also elevated. A debt default is likely to be averted in the end. Fiscal stimulus could be excessive. There is a 65% chance that taxes will rise in the New Year. A crisis over Iran’s nuclear program is imminent. Oil supply disruptions are likely. A return to diplomacy is still possible but red lines need to be underscored. European political risks are comparatively low, although they cannot go much lower, Russia still poses threats to its neighbors, and China’s economic wobbles will weigh on European assets. Our views still support Mexican equities and EU industrials over the long run but we are booking some gains in the face of higher volatility. Feature Our annual theme for 2021 was “No Return To Normalcy” and events have borne this out. The pandemic has continued to disrupt life while geopolitics has not reverted to pre-Trump norms. Going forward, the pandemic may subside but the geopolitical backdrop will be disruptive. This is primarily due to Chinese policy, unfinished business with Iran, and the struggle among various nations to remain stable in the aftermath of the pandemic. Chart 1Delta Recedes With Vaccinations Chart 2Global Recovery Marches On Chart 3Global Labor Markets On The Mend The underlying driver of markets in the fourth quarter will be the fact that the COVID-19 pandemic is waning as vaccination campaigns make progress (Chart 1). New cases of the Delta variant have rolled over in numerous countries and in US states that are skeptical toward vaccines. Global growth will still face crosswinds. US growth rates are unlikely to be downgraded further while Europe’s growth has been upgraded. However, forecasters are likely to downgrade Chinese growth expectations in the face of the government’s regulatory onslaught against various sectors and property sector instability (Chart 2). Barring a Chinese policy mistake, the global composite PMI is likely to stabilize. Labor markets will continue healing (Chart 3). The tug of war between unemployment and inflation will continue to give way in favor of inflation, given that wage pressures will emerge, stimulus-fueled household demand will be strong, and supply shortages will persist. Central banks will try to normalize policy but will not move aggressively in the face of any new setbacks to the recovery. Will China Spoil The Recovery? Maybe. Chinese policy and structural imbalances pose the greatest threat to the global economic recovery both in the short and the long run. The immediate risk to the recovery is clear from our market-based Chinese growth indicator, which has not yet bottomed (Chart 4). The historic confluence of domestic political and geopolitical risks in China is our key view for the year. China is attempting to make the economic transition that other East Asian states have made – away from the “miracle” manufacturing phase of growth toward something more sustainable. But there are two important differences: China is making its political and economic system less open and free (the opposite of Taiwan and South Korea) and it is confronting rather than befriending the United States. The Xi administration is focused on consolidating power ahead of the twentieth national party congress in fall 2022. Xi is attempting to stay in power beyond the ten-year limit that was in place when he took office. On one hand he is presenting a slate of socioeconomic reforms – dubbed “common prosperity” – to curry popular favor. This agenda represents a tilt from capitalism toward socialism within the context of the Communist Party’s overarching idea of socialism with Chinese characteristics. On the other hand, Xi is cracking down on the private sector – Big Tech, property developers – which theoretically provides the base of power for any political opposition. The crackdowns have caused Chinese equities to collapse relative to global and have reaffirmed the long trend of underperformance of cyclical sectors relative to defensives within Chinese investable shares (Chart 5, top panel). Chart 4China Threatens To Spoil The Party In terms of financial distress, so far only high-yield corporate bonds have seen spreads explode, not investment grade. But current policies force property developers to liquidate their holdings, pay off debts, and raise cash while forcing banks to cut bank on loans to property developers and homebuyers. (Not to mention curbs on carbon emissions and other policies squeezing industrial and other sectors.) Chart 5Beijing Could Easily Trigger Global Market Riot If these policies are not relaxed then property developers will continue to struggle, property prices will fall, credit tightening will intensify, and local governments will be starved of revenue and forced to cut back on their own spending. Yet the government’s signals of policy easing are so far gradual and behind the curve. If policy is not relaxed, then onshore equities will sell off (as well as offshore) and credit spreads will widen more generally (Chart 5, bottom panel). Broad financial turmoil cannot be ruled out in the fourth quarter. Ultimately, however, China will be forced to do whatever it takes to try to secure the post-pandemic recovery. Otherwise it will instigate a socioeconomic crisis ahead of the all-important political reshuffle in fall 2022. That would be the opposite of what Xi Jinping needs as he tries to consolidate power. Chinese households have stored their wealth, built up over decades of economic success, in the housing sector (Chart 6). Economic instability could translate to political instability. Chart 6Beijing Will Provide Bailouts And Stimulus … Or Face Political Instability Investors often ask how the government can ease policy if doing so will further inflate housing prices, which hurts the middle class and is the opposite of the common prosperity agenda. High housing prices are the biggest of the three “mountains” that are said to be crushing the common folks and weighing on Chinese birthrates and fertility (the other two are high education and medical costs). The answer is that while policymakers want to cap housing prices and encourage fertility, they must prevent a general collapse in prices and economic and financial crisis. There is no evidence that suppressing housing prices will increase fertility or birthrates – if anything, falling fertility is hard to reverse and goes hand in hand with falling prices. Rather, evidence from the US, Japan, South Korea, Thailand, and other countries shows that a bursting property bubble certainly does not increase fertility or birthrates (Charts 7A and 7B). Chart 7AEconomic Crash Not A Recipe For Higher Fertility Chart 7BEconomic Crash Not A Recipe For Higher Fertility Bringing it all together, investors should not play down negative news and financial instability emerging from China. There are no checks and balances on autocrats. Our China Investment Strategy has a high conviction view that policy stimulus is not forthcoming and regulatory curbs will not be eased. The implication is that China’s government could make major policy mistakes and trigger financial instability in the near term before changing its mind to try to preserve overall stability. At that point it could be too late. Will Countries Add More Stimulus? Yes. Chart 8Global Monetary Policy Challenges With China’s stability in question, investors face a range of crosswinds. Central banks are struggling with a surge in inflation driven by stimulus-fueled demand and supply bottlenecks. The global output gap is still large but rapid economic normalization will push inflation up further if kinks are not removed (Chart 8). A moderating factor in this regard is that budget deficits are contracting in 2022 and coming years – fiscal policy will shift from thrust to drag (Chart 9). However, the fiscal drag is probably overstated as governments are also likely to increase deficit spending on the margin. The US is certainly likely to do so. But before considering US fiscal policy we must address the immediate question: whether the US will default on national debt. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen has designated October 18 as the “X-date” at which the Treasury will run out of extraordinary measures to make debt payments if Congress does not raise the statutory debt ceiling. There is presumably a few weeks of leeway after this date but markets will grow very jittery and credit rating agencies will start to downgrade the United States, as Standard & Poor’s did in 2011. Chart 9Global Fiscal Drag Rears Its Head Democrats have full control of Congress and can therefore suspend the debt ceiling through a party-line vote. They can do this through regular legislation, if Republicans avoid raising a filibuster, though that requires Democrats to make concessions in a back-room deal with Republicans. Or they can compromise the filibuster, though that requires convincing moderate Democrats who support the filibuster that they need to make an exception to preserve the faith and credit of the US. Or they can raise the debt ceiling via budget reconciliation, though this would run up against the time limit and so far Senate Leader Chuck Schumer claims to refuse this option. While the odds of a debt default are not zero, the Democrats have the power to avoid it and will also suffer the most in public opinion if it occurs. Therefore the debt limit will likely be suspended at the last minute in late October or early November. Investors should expect volatility but should view it as short-term noise and buy on dips – i.e. the opposite of any volatility that stems from Chinese financial turmoil. Congress is likely to pass Biden’s $550 billion bipartisan infrastructure bill (80% subjective odds). It is also likely to pass a partisan social welfare reconciliation bill over the coming months (65% subjective odds). The full impact on the deficit of both bills should range from $1.1-$1.6 trillion over ten years. This will not be enough to prevent the fiscal drag in 2022 but it will provide for a gradually expanding budget deficit over the course of the decade (Chart 10). Chart 10New Fiscal Stimulus Will Reduce Fiscal Drag On Margin The reconciliation package will be watered down and late in coming. Investors will likely buy the rumor and sell the news. If reconciliation fails, markets may cheer, as it will also include tax hikes and pose the risk of pushing up inflation and hastening Fed rate hikes. Elsewhere governments are also providing “soft budgets.” The German election results confirmed our forecast that the government will change to left-wing leadership that will be able to boost domestic investment but not raise taxes. This is due to the inclusion of at least one right-leaning party, most likely the Free Democrats. Fiscal deficits will go up. Germany has a national policy consensus on most matters of importance and thus can pass some legislation. But the new coalition will be ideologically split and barely have a majority in the Bundestag, so controversial or sweeping legislation will be unlikely. This outcome is positive for German markets and the euro. Looking at popular opinion toward western leaders and their ruling coalitions since the outbreak of COVID-19, the takeaway is that the Europeans have the strongest political capital (Chart 11). Governments are either supported by leadership changes (Italy, Germany) or likely to be supported in upcoming elections (France). The UK does not face an election until 2024, unless an early election is called. This seems doubtful to us given the government’s strong majority. Chart 11DM Shifts In Popular Opinion Since COVID-19 Chart 12EM Shifts In Popular Opinion Since COVID-19 After all, Canada called an early election and it became a much riskier affair than the government intended and did not increase the prime minister’s political capital. Spain is far more likely to see tumult and an early election. Japan’s election in November will not bring any surprises: as we have written, Kishidanomics will be Abenomics by a different name. The implication is that after November, most developed markets will be politically recapitalized and fiscal policy will continue to be accommodative across the board. In emerging markets, popular opinion has been much more damning for leaders, calling attention to our expectation that the aftershocks of the global pandemic will come in the form of social and political instability (Chart 12). Russia has a record of pursuing more aggressive foreign policy to distract from its domestic ills. The next conflict could already be emerging, with allegations that it is deliberately pushing up natural gas prices in Europe to try to force the new German government to certify and operate the NordStream II pipeline. The Americans are already brandishing new sanctions. Chart 13Stary Neutral Dollar For Now Brazil and Turkey both face extreme social instability in the lead-up to elections in 2022 and 2023. India has been the chief beneficiary of today’s climate but it also faces an increase in political and geopolitical risk due to looming state elections and its increasing alliance with the West against China. Putting it all together, the US is likely to stimulate further and pump up inflation expectations. Europe is politically stable but Russia disrupt it. Other emerging markets, including China, will struggle with economic, political, and social instability. This is an environment in which the US dollar will remain relatively firm and the renminbi will depreciate – with negative effects on EM currencies more broadly (Chart 13). Annual Views On Track Our three key views for 2021 are so far on track but face major tests in the fourth quarter: 1. China’s internal and external headwinds: If China overtightens policy and short-circuits the global economic recovery, then its domestic political risks will have exceeded even our own pessimistic expectations. We expect China to ease fiscal policy and do at least the minimum to secure the recovery. Investors should be neutral on risky assets until China provides clearer signals that it will not overtighten policy (Chart 14). 2. Iran is the crux of the US pivot to Asia: A crisis over Iran is imminent since Biden did not restore the 2015 nuclear deal promptly upon taking office. Any disruption of Middle Eastern energy flows will add to global supply bottlenecks and price pressures. Brent crude oil prices will see upside risks relative both to BCA forecasts and the forward curve (Chart 15). Chart 14Wait For China To Relax Policy Chart 15Expect A Near-Term Crisis Over Iran The reason is that Iran is expected to reach nuclear “breakout” capability by November or December (i.e. obtain enough highly enriched uranium to make a nuclear device). The Biden administration is focused on diplomacy and so far hesitant to impose a credible threat of war to halt Iranian advances. Israel’s new government has belatedly admitted that it would be a good thing for the US and Iran to rejoin the 2015 nuclear deal – if not, it supports a global coalition to impose sanctions, and finally a military option as a last resort. Biden will struggle to put together a global coalition as effective as Obama did, given worse relations with China and Russia. The US and Israel are highly likely to continue using sabotage and cyberattacks to slow Iran’s nuclear and missile progress. Chart 16Pivot To Asia Runs Through Iran Chart 17Europe: A Post-Trump Winner? Depends On China Thus the Iranians are likely to reach breakout capability at which point a crisis could erupt. The market is not priced for the next Middle East crisis (Chart 16). Incidentally, any additional foreign policy humiliation on top of Afghanistan could undermine the Biden administration more broadly, in both domestic and foreign policy. 3. Europe benefits most from a post-pandemic, post-Trump world: Europe is a cyclical economy and is also relatively politically stable in a world of structurally rising policy uncertainty and geopolitical risk. We thought it stood to benefit most from the global recovery and the passing of the Trump administration. However, China’s policy tightening has undermined European assets and will continue to do so. Therefore this view is largely contingent on the first view (Chart 17). Investment Takeaways Strategically we maintain a diversified portfolio of trades based on critical geopolitical themes: long gold, short China/Taiwan, long developed markets, long aerospace/defense, long rare earths, and long value over growth stocks. Taiwanese equities have continued to outperform despite bubbling geopolitical tensions. We maintain our view that Taiwan is overpriced and vulnerable to long-term semiconductor diversification as well as US-China conflict. Our rare earths basket, which focuses on miners outside China, has been volatile and stands to suffer if China’s growth decelerates. But global industrial, energy, and defense policy will continue to support rare earths and metals prices. Russian tensions with the West have been manageable over the course of the year and emerging European stocks have outperformed developed European peers, contrary to our recommendation. However, fundamental conflicts remain unresolved and the dispute over the recently completed Nord Stream II pipeline to Germany could still deal negative surprises. We will reassess this recommendation in a future report. We are booking gains on the following trades: long Mexico (8%), long aerospace and defense in absolute terms (4%), long EU industrials relative to global (4%), and long Italian BTPs relative to bunds (0.2%).   Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com   Appendix: GeoRisk Indicator China Russia United Kingdom Germany France Italy Canada Spain Taiwan Korea Turkey Brazil Australia Appendix: Geopolitical Calendar

Highlights We cannot predict how China will manage Evergrande precisely but we have a high conviction that it will do whatever it takes to prevent contagion across the property sector. However, China’s stimulus tools are losing their effectiveness over time. The country is due for a prolonged struggle with financial and economic instability regardless of whether Evergrande defaults. A messy default would obviously exacerbate the problem. China’s regulatory crackdowns target private companies and will continue to weigh on animal spirits in the private sector. The government will be forced to use fiscal policy to compensate. The US’s and China’s switch from engagement to confrontation poses a persistent headwind for investor sentiment toward China. The new consensus that investors should buy into China’s “strategic sectors” to avoid arbitrary regulatory crackdowns is vulnerable to its own logic and to sanctions by the US and its allies. Feature China poses a unique confluence of domestic and foreign political risks and global markets are now pricing them. Property giant Evergrande could default on $120 million in onshore and offshore interest payments as early as September 23, or next month, prompting investors to run for cover. Is this crisis fleeting or part of a larger systemic failure? It is a larger systemic failure. We expect a slow-motion, Japanese-style crisis over the coming decade, marked with periodic bailouts and stimulus packages. We recommend investors stay the course: steer clear of China and stay short the renminbi and Taiwanese dollar. Tactically, stick with large caps, defensive sectors, and developed markets within the global equity universe. Strategically, prefer emerging markets that benefit from forthcoming Chinese (and American) stimulus. 1. A “Minsky Moment” Cannot Be Ruled Out The chief fear is whether the approaching default of Evergrande marks China’s “Minsky Moment.” Hyman Minsky’s financial instability hypothesis held that long periods of stable revenues lead to risky financial deals and large accumulations of systemic risk that are underpriced. When revenues cannot cover interest payments, a crash ensues followed by deleveraging. Minsky’s hypothesis speaks to debt crises in an entire economy, yet nobody knows for sure whether China’s economy has reached such a breaking point. China’s national savings rate stands at 45.7% of GDP and nominal growth exceeds the long-term government bond yield. However, a sharp drop in asset prices, especially in the property sector, could change everything, as it could lead to balance sheet recession among corporates and a fall in national income. Evergrande is supposed to make an $84 million interest payment on offshore debt and a $36 million payment on onshore debt this week, and after 30 days it would default. It owes $37 billion in debt payments over the next 12 months but only has $13 billion cash on hand (as of June 30, 2021). Authorities can opt for a full bailout or a partial bailout, in which the company defaults on offshore bonds but not onshore. They could even let the company fail categorically, though that would produce exactly the kind of precipitous drop in property asset prices that would lead to wider financial contagion. State intervention to smooth the crisis is more likely – and the government can easily pressure other companies into acquiring Evergrande’s assets and business divisions. Chart 1Yes, This Could Be China's Minsky Moment Chart 1 shows that China’s corporate debt-to-GDP ratio stands head and shoulders above other countries that experienced financial crises in recent decades, courtesy of our Emerging Markets Strategy. While China can undoubtedly bear large debts due to its savings, the implication is that China has large enough financial imbalances to suffer a full-fledged financial crisis, even if the timing is hard to predict. Household credit is also elevated at 61.7% of GDP, and the household debt-to-disposable-income ratio is now higher than in the United States. About two-thirds of China’s corporate debt is held by state-owned or state-controlled entities, prompting some investors to dismiss the gravity of the risk. However, financial crises often involve the transfer of debt from the state to private sector or vice versa. 59% of bond defaults in H1 2021 have involved state companies. Total debt is the main concern. Don’t take our word for it: China’s Communist Party has warned for the past decade about the danger of “implicit guarantees” and “moral hazard” that encourage financial excesses in the corporate sector. The Xi Jinping administration has tried to induce a deleveraging process since it came to power in 2012-13. Xi’s “three red lines” for the property sector precipitated the current turmoil. Even if Evergrande’s troubles are managed, China’s systemic risks will continue to boil over as its potential growth rate slows and the government continues trying to wring out financial excesses. Chart 2Policy Uncertainty, Financial Stress Can Rise Higher More broadly China is experiencing an unprecedented overlap of economic and political crises: The population is aging and labor force is shrinking; The economic model since 2009 has been changing from export-manufacturing to domestic-oriented, investment-driven growth; Indebtedness is spreading from corporates to households and ultimately the government; The governance model is shifting from “single-party rule” to “single-person rule” or autocracy; The population is reaching middle class status and demanding better quality of life; The international trade environment is turning from hyper-globalization to hypo-globalization; The geopolitical backdrop is darkening with the US and its allies attempting to contain China’s ambitions of regional supremacy. Almost all of these changes bring more risks than opportunities to China over the long haul. The need for rapid policy shifts provides the ostensible reasoning for President Xi Jinping’s decision not to step down but to remain president for the foreseeable future. He will clinch this position at the twentieth national party congress in fall 2022. The implication is that policy uncertainty will continue climbing up to at least 2019 peaks while offshore equity markets will continue to trend lower, as they have done since the onset of the US trade war (Chart 2). Credit default swap rates have so far been subdued but they are showing signs of life. A sharp rise in policy uncertainty and property sector stress would pull them up. Domestic equities (A-shares) have rallied since 2019 but we would expect them to fall back given China’s historic confluence of structural and cyclical challenges, which will create further negative surprises (Chart 2, bottom panel). 2. Beijing Will Provide Bailouts And Stimulus Ad Nauseum Evergrande’s future may be in doubt but Beijing will throw all its power at stopping nationwide financial contagion. True, a policy miscalculation is possible. A tardy or failed intervention cannot be ruled out. However, investors should remember that a clear pattern of bailouts and stimulus has emerged over the course of the Xi Jinping administration whenever a “hard landing” or financial collapse loomed. The government tightens controls on bloated sectors until the financial fallout threatens to undermine general economic and social stability, at which point the government eases policy. It is often forced to stimulate the economy aggressively. Chart 3 shows these cycles in two ways: China’s control of credit through the state-controlled banks, and the frequency of news stories mentioning important terms associated with financial and economic distress: defaults, layoffs, and bankruptcies. These three terms used to be unheard of among China watchers. Under the Xi administration, a higher tolerance of creative destruction has served as the way to push forward reform. The current rise in distress is not extended, suggesting that more bad news is coming, but it also shows that the government has repeatedly been forced to provide stimulus even under the Xi administration. Chart 3Xi Jinping Has Bailed Out System Three Times Already Could this time be different? Not likely. The American experience and the pandemic will also force China’s government to ease policy: China learns from US mistakes. The US lurched from Lehman’s failure into a financial crisis, an impaired credit channel, a sluggish economic recovery, a spike in polarization, policy paralysis, a near-default on the national debt, a surge in right- and left-wing populism, the tumultuous Trump presidency, widespread social unrest, a contested leadership succession, and a mob storming the nation’s capitol (Chart 4). This is obviously the nightmare of any Chinese leader and a trajectory that the Xi administration will avoid at any cost. Chart 4Lehman Brothers A Powerful Disincentive For China To Let Evergrande Fail Chinese households store their wealth in the property sector, so any attempt at policy restraint or austerity faces a massive constraint. Only a few countries are comparable to China with respect to the share of non-financial household wealth (property and land) within total household wealth. All of them are hosts of property sector bubbles, including the bubbles in Spain and Ireland back in 2007 (Chart 5). A property collapse would destroy the savings of the Chinese people over four decades of prosperity. Chart 5Property Is The Bedrock Of Chinese Households Social instability is already flaring up. Almost all China experts agree that “social stability” is the Communist Party’s bottom line. But note that the Evergrande saga has already led to protests, not only at the company’s headquarters in Shenzhen but also in other cities such as Shenyang, Guangzhou, Chongqing. Protests were filmed and shown on social media (posts have been censored). Protesters demanded repayment for wealth management products gone sour and properties they are owed that have not been built. This is only a taste of the cross-regional protests that would emerge if the broader property sector suffered. The lingering COVID-19 pandemic is still relevant. Investors should not underrate the potential threat that the pandemic poses to the regime. Severe epidemics have occurred about 11% of the time over the course of China’s history and they often have major ramifications. Disease has played a role in the downfall of six out of ten dynasties – and in four cases it played a major role. It would be suicidal for any regime to add self-inflicted economic collapse to a lingering pandemic (Table 1). Table 1Disease Threatens Chinese Dynasties – Not A Time To Self-Inflict A Recession Easing policy does not necessarily mean bringing out the “bazooka” and splurging on money and credit growth, though that is increasingly likely as the crisis intensifies. Notably the July Politburo statement specifically removed language that said China would “avoid sharp turns in policy.” In other words, sharp turns might be necessary. That can only mean sharp reflationary turns, as there is very little chance of doubling down on policy tightening. A counterargument holds that the Chinese government is now exclusively focused on power consolidation to the neglect of financial and economic stability. Perhaps the leadership is misinformed, overconfident, or thinks a financial collapse will better purge its enemies – along the lines of the various political purges under Chairman Mao Zedong. Wealthy tech magnates and property owners could conceivably challenge the return of autocracy. After all, the US political establishment almost “fell” to a rich property baron – why couldn’t China’s Communist Party? Political purges should certainly be expected ahead of next year’s party congress. But not to the point of killing the economy. The government would not be trying to balance policy tightening and loosening so carefully if it sought to induce chaos. It must be admitted, however, that the change to autocracy means that the odds of irrational or idiosyncratic policy have gone up substantially and permanently. Of course, the high likelihood that Beijing will provide bailouts and stimulus should not be read as a bullish investment thesis, even though it would create a pop in oversold assets. The Chinese system is saturated with money and credit, which have been losing their effectiveness in driving growth. Financial imbalances get worse, not better, with each wave of credit stimulus. Beijing is caught between a rock and a hard place. Hence stimulus comes only reluctantly and reactively. But it does come in the end because a financial crash would threaten the life of the regime and preclude all other policy priorities, domestic and foreign. 3. Yes, China’s Regulatory Crackdown Targets The Private Sector Global growth and other emerging economies will get most of the benefit once China stimulates, since China’s own firms will still face a negative domestic political backdrop. Bullish investors argue that the government’s regulatory tightening is misunderstood and overblown. The claim is that China is not targeting the private sector generally but only isolated sectors causing social problems. Costs need to be reduced in property, education, and health to improve quality of life. China shares the US’s and EU’s desire to rein in tech giants that monopolize their markets, abuse consumer data and privacy, and benefit from distorted tax systems. Most of these arguments are misleading. China does not have a strong record on data privacy, equality, social safety nets, rule of law, or “sustainable” growth (as opposed to “unsustainable,” high-debt, high-polluting growth). China actively encourages state champions that monopolize key sectors. Many developed markets have better records in these areas, notably in Europe, yet China is eschewing these regulatory models in preference for an approach that is arbitrary and absolutist, i.e. negative for governance. As for the private sector, animal spirits have been in a long decline throughout the past decade. This is true whether judging by money velocity – i.e. the pace of economic activity relative to the increase in money supply – or by households’ and businesses’ marginal propensity to save (Chart 6). The 2015-16 period shows that even periodic bouts of government stimulus have not reversed the general trend. Regulatory whack-a-mole and financial turmoil will not improve the situation. Chart 6Private Sector Animal Spirits Depressed Throughout Xi Era Chart 7Even Official Data Shows Consumer Confidence Flagging Surveys of sentiment confirm that the latest developments will have a negative effect (Chart 7). Cumulatively, the changes in China’s domestic and international policy context are being interpreted as negative for business, entrepreneurship, and economic freedom – notwithstanding the government’s claims to expand opportunity in its “common prosperity” plan. 4. The Withdrawal Of US Friendship Is A Headwind For China Chart 8Other Asians Sought US Friendship, Not Conflict, When Export Models Expired All of the successful Asian economies – including China for most of the past forty years of prosperity – have tried to stay on the good side of the United States. By contrast, China and the US today are shifting from engagement to confrontation and breaking up their economic ties (Chart 8). This is a problem for China because the US and to some extent its allies will seek to undermine China’s economy and its autocratic model as part of this great power competition. The rise in geopolitical risk is underscored by the Australia-UK-US (AUKUS) agreement, by which the US will provide Australia with nuclear submarines over the next decade. This was a clear demonstration of the US’s “pivot to Asia” and the fact that the US and China are preparing for war – if only to deter it. China’s return to autocracy and clash with the US and Asian neighbors is also leading to a deterioration of its global image, particularly over issues of transparency and information sharing. The dispute over the origins of COVID-19 is a major source of division with the US and other countries. Transparency is important for investors. The World Bank has discontinued its “Ease of Doing Business” rankings after a scandal was revealed in which China’s ranking was artificially bumped up. The last-published trend is still downward (Chart 9). Most recently China has stepped up censorship of its financial news media amid the current market turmoil, which makes it harder for investors to assess the full extent of property and financial risks.1 The US political factions agree on China-bashing if nothing else. The Biden administration has little political impetus to eschew tariffs and export controls. One important penalty will come from the Securities and Exchange Commission, which is likely to ban Chinese firms from US stock exchanges unless they conform to common accounting standards. Hence the dramatic fall in the share prices of Chinese companies listed via American Depository Receipts (ADRs), in both absolute and relative terms (Chart 10, top panel). This threat prompted China’s recent crackdown on its own firms that were attempting to hold initial public offerings on US exchanges. Chart 9US Conflict Exposes China’s Global Influence Campaign The Quadrilateral Forum – the US, Japan, Australia, and India – has agreed to link the semiconductor supply chain to human rights standards, foreclosing China’s participation in that supply chain. US semiconductor firms are among the most exposed to China but they have not suffered over the course of the US-China tech war, suggesting that US vulnerabilities are limited (Chart 10, bottom panel). Chart 10US Regulators Will Kick Chinese Firms While They Are Down The point is not to exaggerate the strength of the US and its allies but rather the costs to China of actively opposing them. The US has a difficult enough time cobbling together a coalition of states to impose sanctions on Iran over its nuclear program, not to mention forming any coalition that would totally exclude and isolate China. China is far more important to US allies than Iran – it is irreplaceable in the global economy (Chart 11). The EU and China’s Asian neighbors will typically restrain the US’s more aggressive impulses so as not to upset the global recovery or end up on the front lines of a war.2 Chart 11No Substitute For China In Global Economy This diplomatic constraint on the US is probably positive for global growth but not for China per se. American allies are still able to increase the costs on China for pursuing its own state-backed development path and geopolitical sphere of influence. Japan, Australia, and others are likely to veto China’s application to join the Comprehensive and Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP), while the UK and eventually the US are likely to join it. Investors should view US-China ties as a headwind at least until the two powers manage to negotiate a diplomatic thaw, i.e. substantial de-escalation of tensions. A thaw is unlikely in the lead-up to Xi Jinping’s consolidation of power and the US midterm elections in fall 2022. Presidents Biden and Xi are still working on a bilateral summit, not to mention a more substantial improvement in ties. We doubt a diplomatic thaw would be durable anyway but the important point is that until it happens China will face periodic bouts of negative sentiment from the emerging cold war. Other Asian economies thrived under US auspices – China is sailing in uncharted waters. 5. Global Investors Cannot Separate Civilian From State And Military Investments The word on Wall Street is that investors should align their strategies with those of China’s leaders so as not to run afoul of arbitrary and draconian regulators. For example, instead of “soft tech” or consumer-oriented companies – like those that give people rides, deliver food, or make creative video games – investors should invest in “hard tech” or strategic companies like those that make computer chips, renewable energy, biotechnologies, pharmaceuticals, and capital equipment. There is no question that the trend in China – and elsewhere – is for governments to become more active in picking winners and losers. Industrial policy is back. Investors have no choice but to include policy analysis in their toolbox. However, for global investors, an investment strategy of buying whatever the government says is far from convincing. The most basic investment strategy in keeping with the Xi administration’s goals would be to invest in state-owned enterprises in domestic equity markets. So SOEs should have outperformed the market, right? Wrong. They were in a downtrend prior to the 2015 bubble, the burst of which caused a further downtrend (Chart 12, top panel). Similarly, the preference for “hard tech” over “soft tech” is promising in theory but complicated in practice: hard tech is flat-to-down over the decade and down since COVID-19 (Chart 12, middle panel). It has underperformed its global peers (Chart 12, bottom panel). China’s policy disposition should be beneficial for industrials, health care, and renewable energy. First, China is doubling down on its manufacturing economy. Second, the population is aging and health care is a critical part of the common prosperity plan. Third, green energy is a way of diversifying from dependency on imported oil and natural gas. However, the profile of these sectors relative to their global counterparts is only unambiguously attractive in the case of industrials, which began to outperform even during the trade war (Chart 13). Chart 12State Approved' Trades Still Bring Risks Chart 13Beware 'State Approved' Trades In Table 2 we outline the valuations and political risks of onshore equity sectors. Valuations are not cheap. Domestic and foreign risks are not fully priced. Table 2China Onshore Equities, Valuations, And (Geo)Political Risks There is a bigger problem for global investors, especially Americans: investing in China’s strategic sectors directly implicates investors in the Communist Party’s domestic human rights practices, state-owned enterprises, and national security goals. “Civil-military fusion” is a well-established doctrine that calls for the People’s Liberation Army to have access to the cutting-edge technology developed by civilians and vice versa. These investments will eventually be subject to punitive measures since the US policy establishment believes it can no longer afford to let US wealth buttress China’s military and technological rise. Investment Takeaways China may or may not work out a partial bailout for Evergrande but it will definitely provide state assistance and fiscal stimulus to try to prevent contagion across the property sector and financial system. Bad news in the coming weeks and months will be replaced by good news in this sense. However, the fact that China will eventually be forced to undertake traditional stimulus yet again will increase its systemic financial risks, in a well-established pattern. The best equity opportunities will lie outside of China, where companies will benefit from global recovery yet avoid suffering from China’s unique confluence of domestic and foreign political risks. We prefer developed markets and select emerging markets in Latin America and Asia-ex-China. Chinese households and businesses are downbeat. This behavior cannot be separated from the historic changes in the economy, domestic politics, and foreign policy. It is hard to see an improvement until the government boosts growth and the 2022 political reshuffle is over. American opposition is a bigger problem for China than global investors realize. Not only are the two economies divorcing but other democracies will distance themselves from China as well – not because of US demands but because their own manufacturing, national security, and ideological space is threatened by China’s reversion to autocracy and assertive foreign policy. Investing in China’s “hard tech” and strategic sectors with government approval is not a simple solution. This approach will directly funnel capital into China’s state-owned enterprises, domestic security forces, and military. As such the US and West will eventually impose controls. Investments may not be liquid since China would suffer if capital ever fled these kinds of projects. Both American and Chinese stimulus is looming this winter but the short run will see more volatility. We are closing our long JPY-KRW tactical trade for a gain of 4.4%   Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1 We have often noted in these pages over the past decade that multilateral organizations overrated improvements in China’s governance based on policy pronouncements rather than structural changes. 2 Still, tensions among the allies should not be overrated since they share a fundamental concern over China’s increasing challenge to the current global order. The EU is pursuing trade talks with Taiwan, and there are ways that the US can compensate France over the nullification of its submarine sales to Australia (most of which are detrimental to China’s security).