Fixed Income

Executive Summary Foreign And Domestic Politics Won't Stop The Fed Foreign And Domestic Politics Won't Stop The Fed Foreign And Domestic Politics Won't Stop The Fed Investors woke up to the Ukraine risk this week. It is not yet resolved. Stay defensive. Market reactions to Ukraine suggest investors will favor defensive sectors and growth stocks in the short term, with the notable exception of the energy sector. External risks will not dissuade the Fed from hiking rates in the face of 6% core inflation. Later the Fed might adjust to foreign crises but the stock market faces more downside in the interim. Polarization is reviving ahead of the midterm elections, which will usher in gridlock. Gridlock is disinflationary, reinforcing a tactically defensive market positioning despite our cyclical House View. Bottom Line: Biden’s external risks are not yet subsiding. The Fed will hike rates even in the face of external supply shocks. Stay tactically defensive. Feature Our three key views for the year are: gridlock, executive power, and foreign policy. First, Congress will become gridlocked even prior to the midterm elections. Second, President Biden will have to shift to executive power to achieve policy objectives. Third, Biden’s focus will be forced to engage in foreign policy more than he would prefer due to rising external risks. The Ukraine crisis – covered extensively in our Geopolitical Strategy – is the most pressing external risk but it is not the only one that we think will trouble markets this year. We expect politically induced volatility to persist all year. The cyclical investment view should be driven by the underlying macroeconomic reality. But that macro reality will change if external risks materialize and cause greater supply disruptions or if they alter the US midterm election outlook. We maintain our tactically defensive positioning for now. Mr. Market Wakes Up To Ukraine Risk The reason for the crisis is the historic Russian military buildup on all sides of Ukraine, in the face of US defense cooperation with Ukraine, not the “hysterical” American propaganda over the risk of war. When and if Russian forces withdraw, the crisis will melt away. But for now, Russia’s reported withdrawal of some troops is contradicted by movements of other troops as well as the fact that the Russian navy has effectively blocked off the Black Sea. Investors must judge by capabilities, not intentions, and Russia still has the capability to stage a limited attack at present so investors should maintain a defensive or cautious approach. In this context investors are rightly bidding up the US dollar and bidding down US equities in absolute terms (albeit not relative to European equities). Bond yields have not responded much to the external risk due to the high rate of inflation, which is pushing yields up (Chart 1). If Russia re-invades, stocks and bond yields will fall at least temporarily and the dollar will rise higher. When Russia initially invaded Ukraine eight years ago, in February 2014, the US stock-to-bond ratio moved sideways for several months but cyclicals outperformed defensives. Energy stocks rallied, until the oil crash in summer 2014. Small caps underperformed large caps, yet value outperformed growth stocks (Chart 2). Small caps likely suffered from risk-off sentiment and expectations of a drag on global growth, while value benefited from gently rising interest rates at that time. Chart 1Ukraine Crisis Escalates Ukraine Crisis Escalates Ukraine Crisis Escalates Chart 2Market Response To Crimea Invasion, 2014 Market Response To Crimea Invasion, 2014 Market Response To Crimea Invasion, 2014 Comparing the situation today, the difference is that cyclicals are trailing defensives and small caps are trailing large caps even more than they were in 2014. Yet value stocks have performed far better against growth now than then, in accordance with higher inflation and bond yields (Chart 3). Further escalation of the Ukraine crisis should drive investors to favor defensives, large caps, and growth stocks on a tactical time frame, even though this decision runs against our BCA House View on a cyclical time frame. The past week’s market moves reinforce the 2014 experience in general, with the stock-to-bond ratio faltering and cyclicals falling back (Chart 4). Small caps and value have benefited but these charts suggest that a negative hit to global growth will hurt small caps, while value is overextended relative to growth in the short term. The market only really began to discount the risk of a new war in Europe this past week, specifically on Friday, February 11 and Monday, February 14. Chart 3Market Response 2022 Versus 2014 Market Response 2022 Versus 2014 Market Response 2022 Versus 2014 Chart 4US Equities Just Woke Up To Ukraine US Equities Just Woke Up To Ukraine US Equities Just Woke Up To Ukraine There is not yet a solid diplomatic solution as we go to press on Tuesday, February 15, but some positive signs are fueling a rebound in risk assets. Fade these improvements in risk appetite until Russia makes its decision on whether to use military force and, if so, until Europe makes its decision on whether to impose crippling sanctions.  Bottom Line: Tactically stay long growth stocks versus value, but prepare to switch back to overweighting value if the Ukraine crisis abates. The Energy Sector Response To Ukraine So Far Commodity prices and the energy sector are naturally benefitting from rising supply risks. But there is a risk that they will suffer later if a war breaks out and generates a supply shock and energy price shock that weigh on European and global growth. Russia will likely maintain energy production to help pay for its military adventures. The Saudis could increase production to prevent demand destruction. It is also possible that a US-Iran nuclear deal could release Iranian oil to the market. The global economy can handle gradually rising energy prices but maybe not a sharp supply shock. Oil prices are rising on signs of escalating tensions and energy sector equities are generally outperforming the broad market and other cyclical sectors. Domestically oriented small cap energy stocks are rising relative to large caps, suggesting that the market does not believe that global growth will suffer greatly from any conflict. Apparently investors do believe that US energy companies will benefit from shipping more fossil fuels abroad (Chart 5). Bottom Line: Cyclically stay long small cap energy stocks versus their large cap brethren. Chart 5US Energy Sector Just Woke Up To Ukraine US Energy Sector Just Woke Up To Ukraine US Energy Sector Just Woke Up To Ukraine Peak-To-Trough Drawdowns Amid Geopolitical Crises The peak-to-trough equity drawdown amid major geopolitical crises ranges from 11%-15%, depending on the magnitude and nature of the crisis (Chart 6). In this case, the US will not be directly involved in any war in Ukraine, but US NATO allies will be right next door and providing aid to Ukraine. For “limited incursion” scenarios we looked at over a dozen crises, from the Berlin Blockade of 1949 to the Russian invasion of Crimea in 2014. The peak-to-trough drawdown averages 10%. For an unlimited or “full-scale” invasion, we looked at the S&P500 reaction to major invasions at the dawn of World War II as well as significant wars in the twentieth century, down to the US invasion of Iraq and NATO’s intervention in Libya in 2011. The peak-to-trough equity drawdown averaged 13%. Chart 6Range Of US Equity Peak-To-Trough Drawdowns Amid Geopolitical Crisis Biden, The Fed, And External Risks Biden, The Fed, And External Risks Given that the S&P500 has fallen by 8% since its peak on January 3, 2022, investors should be prepared for more downside. Health care stocks and consumer staples are outperforming the broad market this year so far, though they are underperforming energy where the supply squeeze is happening (Chart 7). The magnitude of war and sanctions will determine whether energy ultimately falls in expectation of demand destruction. Bottom Line: It is too soon to buy the dip in the S&P 500. Stay long health stocks relative to the broad market. Chart 7Health Care And Consumer Staples Health Care And Consumer Staples Health Care And Consumer Staples Will The Fed Respond To External Risks? No. Over the past year, we have argued with investors who tried to differentiate the current bout of inflation from the inflation of the 1970s by arguing that there is no energy supply shock. We argued that an energy shock could transpire by pointing to external risks such as Russia and Iran. While the Biden administration will likely prove risk-averse, for fear that higher prices at the pump will weigh on the Democratic Party in the midterm elections, what about the Federal Reserve? During the Arab oil embargo of late 1973, and the Iranian revolution of 1979, the Federal Reserve continued to hike interest rates, responding to domestic inflation and rising bond yields. Foreign supply shocks threatened to push up inflation, so the Fed was not deterred from hiking rates (Chart 8). When the US itself engages in war, the Fed might react differently (Chart 9). Chart 8The Fed Responds to Oil Shocks by Hiking Rates But... The Fed Responds to Oil Shocks by Hiking Rates But... The Fed Responds to Oil Shocks by Hiking Rates But... Chart 9... US At War Could Trigger Looser Monetary Policy ... US At War Could Trigger Looser Monetary Policy ... US At War Could Trigger Looser Monetary Policy In 1990, the Fed cut the policy rate once after the US entered the Iraq war, then kept rates flat for a few months before cutting more at the end of the year. Bond yields were falling due to recession. In 2001, the Fed was already cutting rates due to the business cycle and the September 11 terrorist attacks reinforced that process. In 2003, the Fed cut rates after the beginning of the Iraq war and did not start hiking rates until mid-2004 when the initial phase of the war ended. The implication is that Fed Chair Alan Greenspan accommodated both the war and the 2004 presidential election. Most external risks will not prevent the Fed from hiking rates, especially during an inflation bout when the nature of the external risk may be an energy supply disruption that pushes up prices. However, while we do not doubt that the Fed could hike by 50bps in March, we doubt that the consensus of 175bps in hikes in 2022 will pan out. The combination of initial hikes, fiscal drag, and foreign growth shocks would temper the Fed’s enthusiasm. Bottom Line: Stocks face more downside risk in this environment.   Bipartisanship And The Return Of Gridlock Polarization and partisanship are recovering. The Philadelphia Fed “Partisan Conflict Index” is now only 0.6% below its 2020 peaks as the midterm election approaches (Chart 10). Interestingly, one of our key views from last year – bipartisan reform – is still taking place beneath the surface. Our 2022 view of gridlock has not yet fully set in. Congress is stealthily cooperating on fiscal spending, the US Postal Service, women’s issues, public servants’ stock trading, and an attempt to revise the Electoral Count Act. Congress is also passing a bipartisan bill to make the US more economically competitive with China and impose sanctions against Russia. Chart 10Foreign And Domestic Politics Won't Stop The Fed Foreign And Domestic Politics Won't Stop The Fed Foreign And Domestic Politics Won't Stop The Fed The only area where bipartisanship is not happening is Biden’s “Build Back Better” reconciliation bill, which even lacks sufficient support from moderate Democratic senators due to high inflation. Passage is still possible in a partisan, watered-down, and deficit-neutral form. These developments show that Republican lawmakers are demonstrating some pragmatic governing ability and will use their voting records to make a case in the midterms, while pinning the blame for inflation, crime, immigration, and any foreign crises on Democrats. As such they reinforce the market consensus that Republicans are likely to take back Congress this fall. Thus while last year’s bipartisanship is spilling into the current legislative session, gridlock is rapidly approaching. When investors look to the second half of the year and beyond, they should expect to see legislative cooperation dry up, especially if Republicans only take the House and not the Senate. Bottom Line: Gridlock will freeze fiscal policy, which is non-inflationary or disinflationary for 2022-24. As such the midterm election is not fully priced. Midterm dynamics will support an overweight or at least neutral stance toward defensives and growth stocks. Investment Takeaways Tactically stay long defensives, notably health care, and growth stocks. Cyclically remain invested in the bull market – and stay long energy small caps. The chief risks to these views would be a speedy diplomatic resolution to the Ukraine and Iran conflicts or a dramatic revival of the Democratic Party’s popular support ahead of the midterm election. Diplomacy would remove risks to global growth, whereas a Democratic comeback would boost inflation expectations.   Matt Gertken Senior Vice President Chief US Political Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com Jesse Anak Kuri Associate Editor jesse.kuri@bcaresearch.com Strategic View Open Tactical Positions (0-6 Months) Open Cyclical Recommendations (6-18 Months) Table A2Political Risk Matrix Biden, The Fed, And External Risks Biden, The Fed, And External Risks Table A3US Political Capital Index Biden, The Fed, And External Risks Biden, The Fed, And External Risks Chart A1Presidential Election Model Biden’s Floor, Republican Cracks Biden’s Floor, Republican Cracks Chart A2Senate Election Model Biden’s Floor, Republican Cracks Biden’s Floor, Republican Cracks Table A4APolitical Capital: White House And Congress Biden, The Fed, And External Risks Biden, The Fed, And External Risks Table A4BPolitical Capital: Household And Business Sentiment Biden, The Fed, And External Risks Biden, The Fed, And External Risks Table A4CPolitical Capital: The Economy And Markets Biden, The Fed, And External Risks Biden, The Fed, And External Risks Footnotes  

Executive Summary China Needs To Create RMB35 Trillion In Credit In 2022 China Needs To Create RMB35 Trillion In Credit In 2022 China Needs To Create RMB35 Trillion In Credit In 2022 The pace of credit creation in January increased sharply over December. However, the jump was less than meets the eye compared with previous easing cycles and adjusted for seasonality. Our calculation suggests that a minimum of approximately RMB35 trillion of new credit, or a credit impulse that accounts for 29% of this year's nominal GDP, will be needed to stabilize the economy. January’s credit expansion falls short of the RMB35 trillion mark on a six-month annualized rate of change basis. Our model will provide a framework for investors to gauge whether the month-over-month credit expansion data is on track to meet our estimate of the required stimulus. Despite an improvement in January's credit growth from December, it is premature to update Chinese stocks (on- and off-shore) to overweight relative to global equities. Bottom Line: Approximately RMB35 trillion in newly increased credit this year will probably be needed to revive China’s domestic demand.  Any stimulus short of this goal would mean that investors should not increase their cyclical asset allocation of Chinese stocks in a global portfolio. Feature January’s credit data for China exceeded the market consensus. The aggregate total social financing (TSF) more than doubled in the first month of 2022 from December last year. However, on a year-over-year basis, the increase in January’s TSF was smaller than in previous easing cycles, such as in 2013, 2016 and 2019. Furthermore, underlying data in the TSF reflects a prolonged weak demand for bank loans from both the corporate and household sectors. While January’s uptick in credit expansion makes us slightly more optimistic about China’s policy support, economic recovery and equity performance in the next 6 to 12 months, we are not yet ready to upgrade our view. An estimated RMB35 trillion in newly increased credit this year will likely be necessary to revive flagging domestic demand. In the absence of seasonally adjusted TSF data in China, our framework will help investors determine whether incoming stimulus is on course to meet this objective. Interpreting January’s Credit Numbers Chart 1A Sharp Increase In Credit Creation In January A Sharp Increase In Credit Creation In January A Sharp Increase In Credit Creation In January January’s credit creation beat the market consensus to reach RMB6.17 trillion, pushed up by a seasonal boost and a frontloading of government bond issuance (Chart 1). However, the composition of the TSF data reflects an extended weakness in business and consumer credit demand. On the plus side, net government bond financing, including local government special purpose bonds, rose to RMB603 billion last month, more than twice the amount from January 2021 (Chart 1, bottom panel). Corporate bond issuance also picked up, reflecting cheaper market rates and more accommodative liquidity conditions (Chart 2). Furthermore, shadow credit (including trust loans, entrust loans and bank acceptance bills) also ticked up in January compared with a year ago. The increase in informal lending sends a tentative signal that policymakers may be willing to ease the regulatory pressure on shadow bank activities (Chart 3). Chart 2Corporate Financing Through Bond Issuance Also Increased Corporate Financing Through Bond Issuance Also Increased Corporate Financing Through Bond Issuance Also Increased Chart 3Shadow Banking Activity Ticked Up For The First Time In A Year Shadow Banking Activity Ticked Up For The First Time In A Year Shadow Banking Activity Ticked Up For The First Time In A Year Meanwhile, several factors suggest that the surge in January’s credit expansion may be less than what it appears to be at first glance. First, credit growth is always abnormally strong in January. Banks typically increase lending at the beginning of a year, seeking to expand their assets rapidly before administrative credit quotas kick in. In recent years loans made during the first month of a year accounted for about 17% - 20% of total bank credit generated for an entire year. Secondly, the credit flow in January, although higher than in January 2021, was weaker than in the first month of previous easing cycles. Credit impulse – measured by the 12-month change in TSF as a percentage of nominal GDP – only inched up by 0.6 percentage points of GDP in January this year from December, much weaker than that during the first month in previous easing cycles (Chart 4). TSF increased by RMB980 billion from January 2021, lower than the RMB1.5 trillion year-on-year jump in 2019 and the RMB1.4 trillion boost in 2016 (Chart 4, bottom panel). Chart 4The Magnitude Of Increase In January’s Credit Impulse Less Than Meets The Eye Takeaways From January’s Credit Data Takeaways From January’s Credit Data Chart 5Corporate Demand For Bank Credit Remains Soft Corporate Demand For Bank Credit Remains Soft Corporate Demand For Bank Credit Remains Soft Furthermore, China’s households and private businesses have significantly lagged in their responses to recent policy easing measures and their demand for credit remained soft in January (Chart 5). Bank credit in both short and longer terms to households were lower than a year earlier due to downbeat consumer sentiment (Chart 6A and 6B). Chart 6AConsumption Was Unseasonably Weak During Chinese New Year Consumption Was Unseasonably Weak During Chinese New Year Consumption Was Unseasonably Weak During Chinese New Year Chart 6BHouseholds' Propensity To Consume Continues Trending Down Households' Propensity To Consume Continues Trending Down Households' Propensity To Consume Continues Trending Down How Much Stimulus Is Necessary? Our calculation suggests that China will probably need to create approximately RMB35 trillion in new credit, or 29% of GDP in credit impulse, over the course of this year to avoid a contraction in corporate earnings. In our previous reports, we argued that the state of the economy today is in a slightly better shape than the deep deflationary period in 2014/15, but the magnitude of the property market contraction is comparable to that seven years ago. Chart 7 illustrates our approach, which uses a model of Chinese investable earnings growth. The model is designed to predict the likelihood of a serious contraction in investable earnings in the coming 12 months. It includes variables on credit, manufacturing new orders and forward earnings momentum. The chart shows that the flow of TSF as a share of GDP needs to reach a minimum of 28.5% in order that the probability of a major earnings contraction falls below 50%. The size of the credit impulse necessary is 2 percentage points higher than that achieved last year, but still lower than the scope of the stimulus rolled out in 2016. Assuming an 8% growth rate in nominal GDP in 2022, the credit flow that should to be originated this year would be about RMB35 trillion, as illustrated in Chart 8. The chart also shows that this amount would exceed a previous high in credit flow reached in late-2020. Chart 7China Needs At Least A 29% Credit Impulse In 2022 To Avoid An Earnings Recession China Needs At Least A 29% Credit Impulse In 2022 To Avoid An Earnings Recession China Needs At Least A 29% Credit Impulse In 2022 To Avoid An Earnings Recession Chart 8China Needs To Create RMB35 Trillion In Credit In 2022 China Needs To Create RMB35 Trillion In Credit In 2022 China Needs To Create RMB35 Trillion In Credit In 2022 Based on a 3-month annualized rate of change, January’s credit growth appears that it will achieve the RMB35 trillion mark. However, the jump in TSF largely reflects a one-month leap in frontloaded local government bond issuance and it is not certain if private credit will accelerate in the months ahead. For now, we contend the stimulus have been insufficiently provided during the past six months (Chart 8, bottom panel). Chance Of A Stimulus Overshoot? We will closely monitor whether the month-to-month pace of credit growth is consistent with the scope of the reflationary policy response required to revive China’s domestic demand. Despite a sharp improvement in January’s headline credit number, we view the policy signal from January’s credit data as neutral. China’s unique cyclical patterns and the lack of official seasonally adjusted data make monthly credit figures difficult to interpret. Charts 9 and 10 represent an approach that we previously introduced to help gauge whether the pace of credit creation is on track to meet the stimulus called for to stabilize the economy. Chart 9Jan Credit Growth Looked To Be Stronger Than A “Half-Strength” Credit Cycle… Takeaways From January’s Credit Data Takeaways From January’s Credit Data Chart 10…But It Is Too Early To Conclude It Is In Line With What Is Needed Takeaways From January’s Credit Data Takeaways From January’s Credit Data The charts show an average cumulative amount of TSF as the year advances, along with a ±0.5 standard deviation, based on data from 2010 to 2021. The thick black line in both charts shows the progress in new credit creation this year, assuming an 8% annual nominal GDP growth rate. Chart 9 shows the cumulative progress in credit, assuming a 27% new credit-to-GDP ratio for the year, whereas Chart 10 assumes 30%. The 27% ratio scenario shown in Chart 9, which is slightly higher than the magnitude of stimulus in 2019, would correspond to a very measured credit expansion. If the thick black line continues to trend within this range, it would suggest that policymakers are reluctant to allow credit growth to surge. Consequently, global investors should continue an underweight stance on Chinese stocks. In contrast, Chart 10 represents a 30% rate of TSF as a share of this year’s GDP; this would be the adequate stimulus needed for a recovery in domestic demand. A cumulative amount of TSF that trends within or above this range would provide more confidence that a credit overshoot similar to 2015/16 and 2020 would occur.   Investment Conclusions It is premature to upgrade Chinese stocks to an overweight cyclical stance (i.e. over 6-12 months) within a global portfolio. For now, we recommend investors stay only tactically overweight in Chinese investable equities versus the global benchmark, given their cheap relative valuations. Meanwhile, the increase in January’s TSF, while registering an improvement relative to previous months, does not signal that the pace of credit growth will be strong enough to overcome the negative ramifications of the ongoing deceleration in housing market activity. Therefore, in view of policymakers’ steadfast desire to avoid another major credit overshoot, our cyclical recommendation to underweight Chinese stocks remains unchanged.   Jing Sima China Strategist jings@bcaresearch.com Strategic Themes Cyclical Recommendations Tactical Recommendations

Dear Client, This week, the US Bond Strategy service is hosting its Quarterly Webcast (February 15 at 10:00 AM EST, 15:00 PM GMT, 16:00 PM CET). In addition, we are sending this Quarterly Chartpack that provides a recap of our key recommendations and some charts related to those recommendations and other areas of interest for US bond investors. Please tune in to the Webcast and browse the Chartpack at your leisure, and do let us know if you have any questions or other feedback. To view the Quarterly Chartpack PDF please click here. Best regards, Ryan Swift, US Bond Strategist

Feature This week, we present the third edition of the BCA Research Global Fixed Income Strategy (GFIS) Global Credit Conditions Chartbook – a review of central bank surveys of bank lending standards and loan demand. The data from lending surveys during the last quarter of 2021 were mixed, with business credit standards easing in the US, Japan, Canada, and New Zealand while remaining mostly unchanged in the euro area and UK (Chart 1). Supply chain disruptions have had a two-pronged effect on borrowing. While they have hurt business confidence and prospects, they have also created loan demand as firms look to replenish depleted inventory stocks. The overall picture is one of solid economic fundamentals that are nonetheless perturbed by inflation concerns and lingering uncertainty regarding Covid-19 infections. Chart 1Credit Standards Eased In Most Developed Markets In Q4/2021 Credit Standards Eased In Most Developed Markets In Q4/2021 Credit Standards Eased In Most Developed Markets In Q4/2021 An Overview Of Global Credit Conditions Surveys Chart 2Credit Standards And Spreads Are Correlated Credit Standards And Spreads Are Correlated Credit Standards And Spreads Are Correlated After every quarter, major central banks compile surveys to assess prevailing credit conditions. The purpose is to obtain from banks an assessment of how their lending standards and demand for loans, for both firms and consumers, changed over the previous quarter. Most surveys also ask questions about the key factors driving these changes and expectations for the next quarter.1 For fixed income investors, these surveys are valuable for a few reasons. Firstly, data on consumer lending is a window into consumer health while business loan demand sheds light on the investment picture. These help derive a view on the path of future economic growth and interest rates and thus, the appropriate duration stance of a bond portfolio. Also, credit standards can tell us about the pass-through from fiscal and monetary policy measures to realized financial conditions (i.e. corporate borrowing rates). Most importantly, credit standards exhibit a direct correlation with corporate bond spreads (Chart 2). As they have access to detailed, non-public information on a large number of borrowers, loan officers are uniquely positioned to evaluate corporate health. When banks are tightening standards, they see an issue with the credit quality of either current or future loans, which impacts borrowing costs in the corporate bond market. Tightening standards indicate a worsening borrowing backdrop and weaker growth, which then pushes up corporate spreads. Vice-versa, easing standards imply a favorable backdrop and plentiful liquidity—both bullish signs for spread product. US In the US, a net percentage of domestic respondents to the Fed’s Senior Loan Officer Survey, reported easing standards for commercial and industrial (C&I) loans to firms of all sizes over Q4/2021 (Chart 3). This marks the fourth consecutive quarter of easing standards. However, banks did report a slower pace of easing, which correlates with tighter financial conditions on the margin (top panel). While we are still in a period of easy financial conditions in absolute terms, this could soon start to change as hot inflation prints and booming economic data cause the Fed to turn increasingly hawkish. Despite this, banks expect to ease standards further over 2022, indicating confidence that underlying economic fundamentals and corporate health will be able to weather monetary tightening. US banks also reported stronger C&I loan demand from all firms in Q4, marking three consecutive quarters of improvement (middle panel). The picture was optimistic, with banks attributing increased loan demand to inventory financing, mergers & acquisitions, and fixed investment. Meanwhile, only 4.2% and 12.5% of banks saw a decrease in internal funds and increasing precautionary demand, respectively, as somewhat important. Inventories accounted for all but 2% of the 6.9% annualized GDP growth in Q4. With inventory stocks still depressed in absolute terms, we expect inventory restocking will continue to buoy demand over 2022. Chart 3US Credit Conditions US Credit Conditions US Credit Conditions ​​​​​ Chart 4US Loan Demand Outlook For 2022 Q1/2022 Credit Conditions Chartbook: Tightening Cometh? Q1/2022 Credit Conditions Chartbook: Tightening Cometh? On the consumer side, banks reported easier standards across the board, with standards easing for credit card, auto, and other consumer loans (bottom panel). However, the pace of easing, which has historically been good at calling turning points in consumer confidence (on a rate-of-change basis), appears to have peaked. Consumer sentiment has already been battered by rampant inflation and falling real wage expectations; tighter credit standards down the road could prove to be a further headwind. As part of the one-off special questions in this edition of the survey, respondents were asked about the reasoning behind their outlook for loan demand over 2022 (Chart 4). Of those that expected higher demand, 70% cited higher spending and investment demand from borrowers as their income prospects improved. Meanwhile, only 33% thought that precautionary demand for liquidity would be a factor. Lenders thought that both, a worsening or an improvement in supply chain disruptions, could contribute to increased demand. 53% expected that continued disruption would create greater inventory financing needs. Meanwhile, 55% expected that easing supply chain troubles would boost demand as product availability concerns faded. Of those that expected weaker loan demand, interest rates were by-and-large the biggest factor, with an overwhelming 96% believing that rising rates would quell loan demand. This was followed by concerns that supply chain disruptions would keep prices high and product availability scarce (70%). On the whole, the responses capture a US economy that is at a tipping point, with market participants watching to see how it weathers an aggressive rate hiking cycle from the Fed. While underlying economic variables such as growth and employment remain strong, it still remains to be seen how much of a tightening in financial conditions the markets can bear. Euro Area In the euro area, banks on net reported a very slight tightening of standards to enterprises for the second consecutive quarter in Q4/2021 (Chart 5). Effectively, standards were unchanged as 96 of the 100 respondents to the survey reported no change from Q3. Slightly lower risk tolerance from banks contributed to tightening while lower risk perceptions related to the general economic outlook and the value of collateral had an easing effect. As in the US, standards in the euro area do show a correlation to overall financial conditions. Those have already tightened noticeably since the February 3rd meeting of the European Central Bank (ECB) Governing Council where President Lagarde set a more hawkish tone. While banks do expect a slight easing of standards over Q1/2022, that is unlikely given high inflation and geopolitical uncertainties which will negatively impact risk perceptions. Chart 5Euro Area Credit Conditions Euro Area Credit Conditions Euro Area Credit Conditions ​​​​​​ Chart 6Credit Demand In Major Euro Area Economies Credit Demand In Major Euro Area Economies Credit Demand In Major Euro Area Economies ​​​​​​ Loan demand growth from enterprises was remarkably strong in Q4, with 18% of firms reporting increased demand for loans (middle panel). The main driver was increased demand for inventories, followed closely by fixed investment and merger & acquisition needs. Loan demand leads realized growth in inventories, which has been already been picking up. In Q1, banks expect continued growth in loan demand, albeit at a slower pace. On the consumer side, however, loan demand only increased slightly, with the pace of growth slowing from the previous quarter (bottom panel). This was in line with consumer confidence taking a hit from rising inflation and the Omicron variant in the fourth quarter. The generally low level of interest rates had a small positive impact, while durable goods spending had a slight negative impact on consumer credit demand. Lenders expect moderate growth in consumer credit demand in Q1. Moving to the four major euro area economies, demand for loans to enterprises picked up in Germany, France, and Italy, while remaining unchanged in Spain (Chart 6). Fixed investment needs made a positive contribution across the board. This is corroborated by data on total lending, which is still growing on a year-on-year basis, even though the pace of growth is slowing in all the major euro area economies except Spain. UK In the UK, overall corporate credit standards eased slightly in Q4/2021, marking the fourth straight quarter of easing (Chart 7). However, there was dispersion along firm size. Large private non-financials accounted for all the easing and standards for small and medium firms actually tightened slightly. Going forward, lenders expect a further easing in standards in Q1, about on par with the easing seen in Q4. Chart 7UK Credit Conditions UK Credit Conditions UK Credit Conditions ​​​​​ Chart 8UK Lenders Expect A Robust Growth To Ease Credit Availability Q1/2022 Credit Conditions Chartbook: Tightening Cometh? Q1/2022 Credit Conditions Chartbook: Tightening Cometh? ​​​​​​ On the demand side, lenders reported slightly weaker corporate demand for lending in Q4. Again, the results were uneven across firm size – loan demand from large firms strengthened moderately, while demand from small and medium firms weakened. On average, lenders expect a slight pickup in corporate demand over Q1. Moving to the UK consumer, demand for unsecured lending continued to rise at a brisk pace, hovering around the highest levels since Q4/2014 (bottom panel). Going forward, lenders expect a continued increase in demand, but at a much slower pace. The strong developments in loan growth are seemingly at odds with the GfK consumer confidence index which has declined a total of 12 points since its July peak. Although the Bank of England does not survey respondents on the factors driving household unsecured lending demand, the divergence between confidence and loan demand suggests that precautionary demand for liquidity is playing a role. This lines up with the GfK survey, where expectations for the general economic situation over the next year are in freefall with consumers bracing for high inflation and further Bank Rate increases. Pivoting back to the drivers of corporate lending, the leading factor behind increased credit availability was an improvement in the overall economic outlook, followed by market share objectives (Chart 8). In contrast to the UK consumer, lenders are bullish on the economic outlook and believe it will continue to drive further easing over Q1/2022. On the demand side, investment in commercial real estate, which has seen steady improvement since Q3/2020, was the leading factor. This was followed by merger & acquisition and inventory financing needs. Capital investment needs, meanwhile, were a drag on demand. Moving forward, real estate investment and inventory restocking needs are expected to drive demand. Japan In Japan, credit standards to firms and households continued to ease in Q4/2021 (Chart 9). However, more than 90% of respondents in each case reported that standards were basically unchanged, and there were no reported instances of tightening among the sample of 50 lenders. Those that did report easier standards cited aggressive competition from other banks and strengthened efforts to grow the business. The vast majority of lenders expect standards to remain unchanged over Q1, but there is a slight easing expected on a net percentage basis. Chart 9Japan Credit Conditions Japan Credit Conditions Japan Credit Conditions Business loan demand on the whole was unchanged in Q4 although small and medium firms did increase demand slightly (middle panel). In contrast to other regions, business loan demand tends to behave counter-cyclically in Japan, with businesses borrowing more on a precautionary basis when they are pessimistic and vice-versa. Those dynamics were at play in Q4, with lenders attributing increased demand to a fall in firms’ internally generated funds. Banks expect a slight net pickup in demand next quarter, in line with business confidence which has fallen from its September peak on the back of concerns about Covid-19 infections, supply chain disruptions, and rising input prices. On the consumer side, loan demand was basically unchanged, with a very small net percentage of banks reporting weaker demand (bottom panel). The key reason for decreased demand was a decrease in household consumption, which is in line with retail sales, where the pace of growth has been falling. Even though core inflation in Japan is low, consumers are still exposed to rising energy prices, which might cause them to tighten other parts of their budgets. Canada Chart 10Canada Credit Conditions Canada Credit Conditions Canada Credit Conditions In Canada, business lending standards continued to ease at a slightly slower pace in Q4/2021 (Chart 10). This marks the fourth consecutive quarter of easing conditions, coming amid booming economic activity, high capacity utilization, and buoyant sentiment. Both, price and non-price lending conditions eased at roughly the same pace. On the consumer side, non-mortgage lending conditions continued to ease, but at a slower pace (middle panel). 1-year ahead consumer spending growth expectations, sourced from the Bank of Canada’s (BoC) Survey Of Consumer Expectations, and non-mortgage lending conditions typically display an inverse correlation, with expected spending growth increasing when standards are getting easier on the margin and vice-versa. The divergence in Q4 is explained in part by excess savings accumulated during the pandemic that have yet to be spent down, and in part by expected price increases over the coming year. In either case, it demonstrates that nominal spending has room to grow even in an environment where consumer credit availability is worsening. We also saw mortgage standards ease at a slightly slower pace in Q4, with both price and non-price lending conditions easing (bottom panel). While the BoC has made a hawkish pivot, underlying conditions are still easy – the conventional 5-year mortgage rate is still flat at 4.79%, the same level as Q3/2020. However, house price growth has peaked, and rate hikes this year will help prices moderate further. New Zealand Chart 11New Zealand Credit Conditions New Zealand Credit Conditions New Zealand Credit Conditions In New Zealand, business credit standards eased in the six month period ended September 2021 (Chart 11). However, the real impact of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand’s (RBNZ) tightening is being felt in the housing market, where actual standards entered tightening territory. More importantly, a net 23.1% of respondents expect mortgage credit availability to erode by the end of March; if realized, this figure would be a series high. Banks reporting less credit availability cited regulatory changes and risk perceptions. On the mortgage loan demand side, banks continued to see increased demand even after the record spike in March 2021 (middle panel). Going forward, demand is expected to moderate and fall from current levels. These dynamics have already made their mark on house prices which have already peaked, indicating that the RBNZ’s push is working as intended. Business loan demand does not appear to have been much affected by higher rates, with demand picking up slightly and expected to increase going forward (bottom panel). However, confidence has been falling since September 2021, with businesses feeling the twin bite of supply chain disruptions and labor shortages.   Shakti Sharma Senior Analyst ShaktiS@bcaresearch.com Appendix: Where To Find The Bank Lending Surveys A number of central banks publish regular surveys of bank lending conditions in their domestic economies. The surveys, and the details on how they are conducted, can be found on the websites of the central banks: US Federal Reserve: https://www.federalreserve.gov/data/sloos.htm European Central Bank: https://www.ecb.europa.eu/stats/ecb_surveys/bank_lending_survey/ Bank of England: https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/credit-conditions-survey/2021/2021-q4 Bank of Japan: https://www.boj.or.jp/en/statistics/dl/loan/loos/index.htm/ Bank of Canada: https://www.bankofcanada.ca/publications/slos/ Reserve Bank of New Zealand: https://www.rbnz.govt.nz/statistics/c60-credit-conditions-survey   Footnotes 1      The weblinks to each individual survey for the US, euro area, UK, Japan, Canada and New Zealand can be found in the Appendix on page 12. GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Recommended Positioning     Active Duration Contribution: GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. Custom Performance Benchmark Q1/2022 Credit Conditions Chartbook: Tightening Cometh? Q1/2022 Credit Conditions Chartbook: Tightening Cometh? The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Q1/2022 Credit Conditions Chartbook: Tightening Cometh? Q1/2022 Credit Conditions Chartbook: Tightening Cometh? Global Fixed Income - Strategic Recommendations* Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Overlay Trades

Highlights A feedback loop has emerged in European markets. Tightening financial conditions will preempt the European Central Bank from hiking rates as much as the money market is pricing in. The widening in peripheral and credit spreads is overdone. Investors already long should maintain their positions. Investors without exposure will soon find an attractive entry point. Despite these near-term gyrations, the ECB is still on track to hike interest rates once in Q4 2022 and lift them aggressively in 2023. Feature Last week’s hawkish pivot by the European Central Bank (ECB) continues to affect markets. We take the words of the ECB at their face value; we anticipate the Governing Council (GC) to begin lifting interest rates at the end of 2022 and to continue to do so steadily over 2023 and 2024. However, as the shock filters through financial asset prices, we become more confident that the ECB will not lift rates five times in 2022 as the Euro Short Term Rate (ESTR) curve currently anticipates. Chart 1Growing Tensions In The Periphery... Growing Tensions In The Periphery... Growing Tensions In The Periphery... First, the behavior of Italian and Greek bond markets constitutes a major support to our view. Italian and Greek 10-year spreads have widened by respectively 46 and 65 basis points over the past six trading days (Chart 1). This tension highlights that investors still view these economies as continental trouble spots. Meanwhile, the ECB’s communication continues to highlight the need for flexibility to maintain order in the sovereign debt market. The GC does not want inadvertently to engineer a severe tightening in financial conditions in the already fragile periphery. In this context, it is highly unlikely that the ECB will rush to terminate the Asset Purchase Program (APP), an end on which rate hikes depend. Second, the corporate bond market is also going through a significant period of ruction. Both investment grade and high-yield bond yields have risen rapidly in recent days, and they are now retesting their late-2018 levels (Chart 2, top two panels). Spreads too are widening meaningfully, even though they remain further away from their 2018 highs (Chart 2, bottom two panels) The ECB is unwilling to let a liquidity shock morph into a solvency problem for European firms. For now, the behavior of the European credit market remains consistent with a liquidity shock. Funding markets are experiencing a violent adjustment, which is bleeding into the overall level of spreads. However, investors are not differentiating based on credit risk. Chart 3 shows that CCC credit (the lowest rated HY bonds) is not selling off relative to the overall high-yield index, which we would anticipate if investors were worried about underlying default risk. Chart 3No Distinction On Credit Risk No Distinction On Credit Risk No Distinction On Credit Risk Chart 2...And In European Corporates ...And In European Corporates ...And In European Corporates If the liquidity shock were to deepen further and last long enough, the resilience of the corporate sector would fritter away. However, the GC has tried to resist a deflationary shock for more than ten years now, and a solvency problem would undo all the progress made toward escaping the European liquidity trap, especially because wages have yet to recover. Third, members of the ECB’s GC are already trying to talk down the market. President Christine Lagarde displayed a more dovish tone when she spoke in front of the EU Parliament on February 7, 2022. ECB Chief Economist Philippe Lane remains steadfast that wages are not yet a problem. The Governor of the Bank of France, François Villeroy de Galhau still sees an imminent peak in CPI, and Olli Rehn, Governor of the Bank of Finland, recently lectured about the need for a gradual normalization of policy. Even hawks like the Bundesbank’s Joachim Nagel or the DNB’s Klaas Knot have gestured toward higher rates, but only toward the end of the year. In this context, we expect credit spreads to begin to narrow again; however, it will likely first require an easing in funding pressures. This is unlikely to happen until US yields form an interim peak. However, as Chart 4 highlights, the Treasury market is becoming extremely oversold. Moreover, a JP Morgan survey shows that its clients are massively short duration. The risk of a pullback in Treasury yields is growing, even if rising inflation and fears of a tighter Fed prevail for now. If US yields were to decline Bunds would likely follow the Treasury market because the ECB is becoming louder that it does not want to tighten financial conditions abruptly. Hence, a pullback in global risk-free yields will be the key to a period of calm in credit spreads, since valuations have improved materially, with the breakeven spreads on investment grade and high-yield bonds moving back to their 43rd and 44th percentiles, respectively (Chart 5). A stabilization in global yields and European spreads should also percolate to the peripheral sovereign bond market and limit the upside to Italian and Greek spreads. Chart 4Oversold Treasurys Oversold Treasurys Oversold Treasurys Chart 5Restoring Value In Corporates Restoring Value In Corporates Restoring Value In Corporates Bottom Line: The tightening in financial conditions taking place in Europe indicates that money market curves are pricing in the path for European policy rates too aggressively. The ECB has changed since 2011. It will not let peripheral borrowing costs threaten the recovery in Southern European economies, nor will it allow a liquidity shock in the corporate bond market to become a solvency issue that will damage growth prospects. European peripheral and corporate spreads will narrow once global risk-free rates peak.   Mathieu Savary, Chief European Strategist Mathieu@bcaresearch.com

Executive Summary The End Of The Negative Bond Yield Era Europe Joins The Global Bond Bear Market Europe Joins The Global Bond Bear Market Recent price action in developed market government bond markets confirms a backdrop that has been in place for the past several years - movements in US Treasuries define the trend in global yields, but Europe sets the effective floor. Higher core European bond yields are also pushing up non-European yields, in the context of the current global monetary policy tightening cycle. The hawkish market pricing for the ECB this year has gone a bit too far, as the start of European rate hikes this year is more likely in Q4 than in the summer – and only after ECB asset purchases begin to formally wind down. In the UK, the Bank of England appears to be trying to front load policy tightening, both rate hikes and balance sheet runoff, in response to overshooting UK inflation. A shorter, sharper policy tightening cycle means that the UK Gilt curve will continue to bear-flatten.  Bottom Line: Within the “Big 3” developed market central banks, the Fed and Bank of England are more likely to deliver discounted rate hikes than the ECB over the next 6-12 months. Remain underweight US Treasuries and UK Gilts versus German Bunds in global bond portfolios. Feature Chart 1A Global Repricing Of Interest Rate Expectations A Global Repricing Of Interest Rate Expectations A Global Repricing Of Interest Rate Expectations Persistent elevated inflation readings are forcing policymakers to move up the timetable of expected cyclical interest rate increases, but without signaling any change to longer-term interest rate expectations. The result has been an upward move in bond yields led by a repricing of shorter-term yields, leading to bearish yield curve flattening pressure across the developed markets (Chart 1). As the global bond bear market has intensified and broadened across countries and fixed income sectors, the amount of bonds worldwide with negative yields has been slashed by $9 trillion since December (Chart 2). Some notable examples: the 10-year German Bund yield is now up to +0.26%, the 30-year US real TIPS yield is now at +0.04% and even the 5-year Japanese government bond yield climbed to +0.02% for the first time since 2016. Last week, bond markets had to digest both a 25bp Bank of England (BoE) rate hike - that was almost a 50bp move - and a huge upside surprise in the January US employment report. However, it was the more hawkish-than-expected messaging from the European Central Bank (ECB) that really rattled fixed income markets. At the February monetary policy meeting, ECB President Christine Lagarde opened the door to potential ECB rate hikes this year, a notable change from the previous forward guidance that rates would stay unchanged in 2022. This not only triggered a major decline in European government bond prices, but also notable jumps in bond volatility for both longer-term and, especially, shorter-term yields. Implied volatilities for swaptions on 2-year European swap rates now sit at the highest levels since the depths of the European Debt Crisis in 2011 (Chart 3). Chart 2The End Of The Negative Bond Yield Era The End Of The Negative Bond Yield Era The End Of The Negative Bond Yield Era ​​​​​ Chart 3The Front-Ends Of Yield Curves Awaken The Front-Ends Of Yield Curves Awaken The Front-Ends Of Yield Curves Awaken ​​​​​​ Overnight index swap (OIS) curves are now discounting multiple rate hikes from the Fed (+127bps), BoE (+125bps) and ECB (+46bps) this year. Tighter monetary policy is the inevitable consequence of the current combination of steady above-trend growth, tight labor markets and very high inflation in those countries. This mix will continue to put upward pressure on global bond yields through a blend of steady inflation expectations and higher real yields as pandemic era monetary stimulus is removed – a process that is already underway in the US and Europe (Chart 4). Our Central Bank Monitors – designed to measure the cyclical pressure to change monetary policy – are all indicating the need for tightening in the US, UK and euro area. However, the risk is that tightening perceived to be too aggressive or too rapid will be received poorly by financial markets that have grown accustomed to easy money policies during the pandemic. Given the current starting point of high equity valuations and relatively tight corporate credit spreads in the US, financial conditions are no impediment to additional Fed rate hikes in 2022 (Chart 5). The same cannot be said in the UK, where the steady appreciation of the trade-weighted pound is tightening financial conditions, on the margin. In the euro area, financial conditions remain relatively stimulative, as the euro is undervalued on a trade-weighted basis. Chart 4A Recipe For Even Higher Bond Yields A Recipe For Even Higher Bond Yields A Recipe For Even Higher Bond Yields Given high realized inflation, financial stability concerns are playing a secondary role in the policy deliberations of central banks facing an inflation-fighting credibility crisis. In the absence of a big fall in inflation, it will take much larger selloffs in equity and corporate credit markets than what has occurred so far in 2022 before policymakers would step back from interest rate increases over the next year. Chart 5Financial Conditions Are No Impediment To Rate Hikes Financial Conditions Are No Impediment To Rate Hikes Financial Conditions Are No Impediment To Rate Hikes ​​​​​​ The ECB Will Lag The Fed On Rate Hikes Chart 6Faster Growth & Slower Inflation Expected In 2022 Faster Growth & Slower Inflation Expected In 2022 Faster Growth & Slower Inflation Expected In 2022 One of our highest conviction bond market views to begin 2022 called for US Treasuries to underperform German Bunds. Our view was based on the likelihood that the Fed would lift the fed funds rate multiple times this year and the ECB was likely to hold off on rate hikes until the first half of 2023 at the earliest. Last week’s shift in the ECB’s tone does not change that relative call. The Fed is still under far greater pressure to hike rates than the ECB, even if there is now a greater chance that the ECB could begin to tighten by the end of 2022. From an economic growth perspective, both central banks have good reasons to consider withdrawing monetary accommodation. The economic expectations in both the US and euro area have started to recover, according to the ZEW survey of financial market professionals, with a bigger bounce seen in the latter since the trough of last October (Chart 6). The fading Omicron wave is likely playing a large role in lifting economic expectations, as the variant has proven to be less lethal than previous waves of the virus. The ZEW survey also asks respondents about their views on future inflation and interest rate changes. The ZEW Inflation Expectations index has fallen back to pre-pandemic lows in both the US and euro area, indicating that a majority expect lower inflation in the US and Europe over the next year. Both the Fed and ECB also expect inflation to fall from current elevated levels this year. However, there is still a much stronger case for tightening in the US given the tight labor market that is pushing up wages. Last week’s January US payrolls data was a shocker, with employment rising +476,000 on the month when some forecasters were calling for an outright contraction in jobs due to the impact of the Omicron variant. Wage growth accelerated smartly, with average hourly earnings up 0.7% on the month and 5.7% on a year-over-year basis (Chart 7). This continues the trend of wage acceleration seen in other data series like the Employment Cost Index, confirming that the US labor market is tight enough to elicit a strong policy response from the Fed. In the euro area, the recent economic data has been a bit more mixed. The Markit manufacturing PMI rose to a five-month high of 59.0 in January, beating expectations. However, the services PMI fell to a nine-month low of 51.2 as renewed COVID lockdowns weighed on consumer confidence and spending (Chart 8). With Omicron numbers now slowing, some recovery in consumer spending is likely over the next few months as euro area governments reduce restrictions. However, the manufacturing recovery will struggle to gain significant upside momentum without stronger demand for European exports – an outcome that is not currently heralded by an upturn in reliable indicators like the global leading economic indicator or the China credit impulse (Chart 9). Chart 7Persistent US Labor Market Strength Persistent US Labor Market Strength Persistent US Labor Market Strength ​​​​​​ Chart 8A Mixed Picture On European Growth A Mixed Picture On European Growth A Mixed Picture On European Growth ​​​​​​ Even within the euro area inflation data, there are mixed trends that make it less clear that a major tightening cycle is necessary. Headline euro area HICP inflation hit a 37-year high of 5.1% in January, which was heavily influenced by a 28.6% rise in the energy component of the index (Chart 10). Goods price inflation reached 6.8%, its highest level since 1991, fueled by global supply chain disruptions and greater consumer demand for goods versus services during the pandemic. For the latter, services inflation reached a much more subdued 2.4% in January, in line with core HICP inflation of 2.3%. We expect goods price inflation to slow substantially, on a global basis and not just in Europe, as supply chain disruptions ease over the course of 2022 and consumers shift spending back towards services from durable goods as economies reopen post-Omicron. Chart 9A Gloomy Picture For European Exports A Gloomy Picture For European Exports A Gloomy Picture For European Exports ​​​​​ Chart 10European Inflation Surge Focused On Energy & Goods European Inflation Surge Focused On Energy & Goods European Inflation Surge Focused On Energy & Goods ​​​​​ Surging oil and natural gas prices will keep the energy component elevated over the next few months, particularly if geopolitical tensions over Ukraine result in Russia withholding natural gas supplies to Europe. Yet it is not clear how much of this will pass through to core inflation, which actually decelerated in January from the 2.6% pace seen in December 2021 despite surging energy prices. What does a typical ECB liftoff look like? Should the ECB focus more on the headline or core inflation numbers when deciding if rate hikes are necessary later this year? The answer may lie more in the breadth across countries, rather than depth across sectors, of euro area inflation pressures. In the relatively short history of the ECB, dating back to the inception of the euro in 1998, there have been only three monetary tightening episodes that involved interest rate increases: 1999-00, 2006-08 and 2011. In Chart 11, we show the percentage share of individual euro area countries that have accelerating growth momentum (measured as a leading economic indicator above the level of a year earlier), and with headline/core inflation above the ECB’s 2% target. In all three of those past ECB tightening episodes, essentially all euro area countries had to see strong growth or inflation at or above the ECB target before the ECB would hike rates. Chart 11The Growth & Inflation Conditions For An ECB Rate Hike Are In Place The Growth & Inflation Conditions For An ECB Rate Hike Are In Place The Growth & Inflation Conditions For An ECB Rate Hike Are In Place Chart 12Watch European Wages To Determine The ECB's Next Move(s) Watch European Wages To Determine The ECB's Next Move(s) Watch European Wages To Determine The ECB's Next Move(s) A similar story can be told looking at the state of the euro area labor market. The 1999-00 and 2006-08 tightening cycles occurred when nearly all euro area countries had an unemployment rate below the OECD’s estimate of the full employment NAIRU (Chart 12). Only in 2011, which was widely regarded as a major policy error, did the ECB hike rates without widespread labor market strength across the euro area. Right now, the breadth of the growth and inflation data across the euro area would indicate that the ECB will soon begin to tighten policy, if history is any guide. The one missing piece of the puzzle is faster wage growth. Euro area wage growth is severely lagging compared to other developed economies. For the last known data point in Q3/2021, wages were only growing at a 1.5% year-over-year rate. Wage growth has very likely accelerated since then, with the overall euro area unemployment rate now down to an all-time low of 7.0%, well below the OECD NAIRU estimate of 7.7%. The ECB will need to see confirmation of that faster wage growth in the data, however, before embarking on a path of rate hikes. Since last week’s ECB meeting, numerous ECB officials – including President Lagarde - have stated that asset purchases must stop before rate hikes can begin. While the ECB’s pandemic emergency bond buying program is set to end next month, the existing Asset Purchase Program is set to continue with no expiry date. If the ECB officials are to be taken at their word, it is very difficult to imagine a scenario where asset purchases would be fully wound down (i.e. net purchases of zero, with buying only to replace maturing bonds held by the ECB) before the July liftoff date now priced into the Euro OIS curve. Such a rapid removal of the ECB bid would be very disruptive to the riskier parts of European fixed income markets, like Italian and Greek sovereign debt, that have benefited from heavy ECB buying under the pandemic bond buying program. European bond strategy implications While an ECB rate hike in 2022 is now a more probable scenario, it is not yet a done deal. The European growth picture remains mixed, and inflation readings outside of supply-constrained energy and durable goods – including wages - are far less threatening than headline inflation. At the moment, underlying inflation pressures are far more intense in the US. Durable goods inflation in the US reached 16.8% on a year-over-year basis last month, but climbed to “only” 3.8% in Europe (Chart 13). The Cleveland Fed’s trimmed mean CPI index accelerated to 4.8% in January, compared to 3.0% for the euro area trimmed mean CPI inflation gauge constructed by our colleagues at BCA Research European Investment Strategy. Chart 13Stay Positioned For A Wider UST-Bund Spread Stay Positioned For A Wider UST-Bund Spread Stay Positioned For A Wider UST-Bund Spread The Fed has a lot more work ahead of it in terms of tightening monetary policy to rein in inflation pressures (and inflation expectations) than the ECB. This will lead to a faster pace of rate hikes in the US than in Europe and renewed widening of the US Treasury-German Bund yield spread. Financial conditions in Europe will also play a role in limiting when, and how much, the ECB can eventually tighten monetary policy. Yields and spreads on the riskier parts of the European fixed income markets like Italian government bonds have already widened substantially in response to the more hawkish guidance from the ECB (Chart 14). The euro has also stabilized after the steady depreciation seen since the May 2021 peak. Markets are obviously pricing in an end to ECB asset purchases – the precursor to rate hikes – which would force the private sector to absorb a greater share of Italian bond issuance than has been the case over the past few years. It will likely take higher yields to entice those buyers compared to the price-insensitive ECB that has been buying Italian debt as a monetary policy tool. The speed of the adjustment in Italian bond yields has no doubt alerted the ECB Governing Council to the financial stability risks of moving too fast on tightening monetary conditions. We must acknowledge that most the recent trends in the Treasury-Bund spread (narrower) and Italian bond yields/spreads (higher) go against our current strategic recommendations to overweight European fixed income. Markets have moved to price in a far more aggressive move from the ECB than we had envisioned for 2022. However, as highlighted above, it is not clear that the ECB needs to dial back monetary accommodation as rapidly as markets now expect. Thus, we are sticking with our strategic recommendations to overweight euro area government bonds, both in the core and periphery, in global bond portfolios. At the same time, we continue to recommend a below-benchmark duration stance within dedicated European portfolios, even with the 10-year German Bund yield having already reached our end-2022 yield target of 0.25% (Chart 15). European bond yields will remain under upward pressure until euro area inflation finally peaks and the ECB will be under less pressure to tighten. Chart 14ECB Facing An "Italy-vs-Inflation" Tradeoff ECB Facing An "Italy-vs-Inflation" Tradeoff ECB Facing An "Italy-vs-Inflation" Tradeoff ​​​​​ Chart 15Too Much, Too Soon Priced Into Bund Yields Too Much, Too Soon Priced Into Bund Yields Too Much, Too Soon Priced Into Bund Yields ​​​​​ Bottom Line: Markets are overestimating how quickly the ECB can begin to tighten European monetary policy. An initial rate hike can occur in Q4 of this year, at the earliest, which is later than the current mid-summer liftoff date discounted in interest rate forwards. Ride out the current European rates volatility and stay overweight European government debt versus the US. UK Update: The BoE Wants To Tighten Fast At last week's policy meeting, the BoE Monetary Policy Committee (MPC) voted 5-4 to raise Bank Rate by 25bps to 0.5%. That close vote is less dovish than it appears, though, as the four “dissenting” MPC members wanted to raise rates by 50bps instead! This was a hawkish surprise that resulted in bearish flattening of the UK Gilt yield curve. Chart 16UK Gilts: Volatile, But Underperforming UK Gilts: Volatile, But Underperforming UK Gilts: Volatile, But Underperforming We have maintained a below-benchmark strategic recommendation on Gilts since August of last year. The relative performance of Gilts versus the Bloomberg Global Treasury benchmark index has seen tremendous volatility since then, particular after the BoE delayed the expected initial rate hike last November (Chart 16) Gilts began to underperform again after the BoE hiked in December and have continued to be one of the worst performing G10 bond markets, validating our bearish call. After last week’s BoE hike, we still see value in betting on additional Gilt underperformance, as markets may still be underestimating how high the BoE will have to raise rates in the current tightening cycle. In the new set of economic projections from the BoE’s Monetary Policy Report published last week, the central bank raised its expectation for the April peak in UK inflation to 7.25% (Chart 17). This compares to the latest inflation rate of 5.4%. Higher energy and goods prices account for three-quarters of that expected inflation increase, according to the BoE. UK inflation is projected to fall rapidly from that April peak, in response to an expected deceleration of energy and goods prices and slower UK economic growth. However, the Monetary Policy Report also highlighted that domestic UK cost pressures are intensifying in response to a very tight UK labor market. The BoE’s Agents’ survey of UK businesses reported that UK firms continue to have difficulty filling job openings, while also having success in passing on rising labor costs into selling prices. Thus, the UK labor market is now the critical variable to watch to determine how many more rate hikes the BoE will need to deliver in the current cycle. On that note, the BoE expects UK wage growth to accelerate to just under 5% over the next year, which is well above the central bank’s estimate of “underlying” pre-pandemic wage growth around 3.5%. Inflation expectations in the UK remain elevated. The YouGov/Citigroup survey shows that UK consumers expect inflation to be 4.8% on year from now and 3.8% 5-10 years ahead (Chart 18, top panel). Market-based inflation expectations have been more volatile of late but CPI swaps are pricing in inflation of 5.0% in two years and 4.2% in ten years.1 Thus, by any measure – realized inflation, expected inflation or wage growth – UK inflation is too high, which justifies tighter monetary policy. The UK OIS curve now discounts a peak in Bank Rate of 1.85% in April 2023, but this is immediately followed by rate cuts that take Bank Rate to 1.5% by the end of 2024. That path over the next year is a bit more hawkish than the results from the BoE’s new Market Participants Survey of bond investors, which showed an expected peak in Bank Rate of 1.5% sometime in the latter half of 2023. In both cases, Bank Rate is expected to settle below the BoE’s 2% inflation target, or below current inflation expectations. Suggesting an implied belief that the BoE will not be able to raise real interest rates into positive territory. In terms of forward guidance, several BoE officials have noted that they expect that only a few more hikes will be needed to help bring UK inflation back down to the 2% target. Yet the OIS curve is pricing in a “policy error” scenario where the BoE pushes up rates too rapidly and is then forced to cut rates soon afterward. We see both the BoE guidance and the OIS pricing as far too cautious on the eventual peak in Bank Rate, which leads us to maintain our underweight recommendation on UK Gilt exposure, both in terms of duration and country allocation in global bond portfolios. Chart 17BoE Sees A Short, Sharp Shock From Inflation & Rates BoE Sees A Short, Sharp Shock From Inflation & Rates BoE Sees A Short, Sharp Shock From Inflation & Rates We have also been recommending a Gilt curve steepening trade in our Tactical Overlay portfolio on page 20 since last October. This trade went long a 10-year Gilt bullet versus a barbell combination of a 7-year and 30-year Gilt. Chart 18Stay Underweight UK Gilts Stay Underweight UK Gilts Stay Underweight UK Gilts ​​​​​ Our view at the time of trade inception was that a Gilt steepener would benefit from a scenario where the market would be forced to reassess how high rates would go in the next BoE tightening cycle. However, the BoE now appears to be “front loading” the tightening cycle by moving rates sooner and more aggressively, as evidenced by the near 50bp rate hike last week, while also moving to an accelerated runoff of bonds accumulated during quantitative easing operations. The Gilt yield curve has flattened considerably in response to increasing BoE hawkishness, with the yield spread between the 10-year and 2-yield Gilt now down to a mere +17bps. While we still see the potential for the longer-end of the Gilt curve to rise in response to an eventual repricing of terminal rate expectations that appear too low, the BoE’s acceleration of its hiking timetable will make it difficult for the curve to bearishly steepen in the near term. Thus, we are closing out our tactical Gilt curve steepener at a small gain of +23bps.   Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1      UK CPI swaps, and inflation breakevens on index-linked Gilts, reference the UK Retail Price Index (RPI) which typically runs higher than the UK Consumer Price Index (CPI). This imparts an upward bias to UK inflation expectations when compared to CPI swaps and breakevens in other countries. Currently, RPI inflation is running at 7.5% compared to CPI inflation of 5.4%. GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Recommended Positioning     Active Duration Contribution: GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. Custom Performance Benchmark Europe Joins The Global Bond Bear Market Europe Joins The Global Bond Bear Market The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Cyclical Recommendations (6-18 Months) Europe Joins The Global Bond Bear Market Europe Joins The Global Bond Bear Market Tactical Overlay Trades

Highlights Chart 1Most Sectors Have Fully Recovered Most Sectors Have Fully Recovered Most Sectors Have Fully Recovered Last week’s January employment report shocked markets by showing much greater job gains than had been anticipated. More important than the headline number, however, were the revisions to prior months that reveal a much different picture of the post-COVID labor market. In overall terms, the revised data show that employment is still significantly below where it was prior to the pandemic. Specifically, the economy is still missing about 2.9 million jobs. However, the data now reveal that more than 60% of the missing jobs come from the Leisure & Hospitality sector and that the Health Care and State & Local Government sectors account for the rest. In other words, except for the few sectors that have been most impacted by the pandemic, the US labor market has made a full recovery (Chart 1). The new data justify the Fed’s recent push toward tightening. This is because there is no longer any evidence of labor market slack beyond what we see in the select few close-contact service industries that have been most impacted by COVID. Investors should maintain below-benchmark portfolio duration as the Fed moves toward rate hikes. Feature Table 1Recommended Portfolio Specification The COVID Labor Market The COVID Labor Market Table 2Fixed Income Sector Performance The COVID Labor Market The COVID Labor Market Investment Grade: Neutral Chart 2Investment Grade Market Overview Investment Grade Market Overview Investment Grade Market Overview Investment grade corporate bonds underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 115 basis points in January. The index option-adjusted spread widened 14 bps on the month to reach 108 bps, and our quality-adjusted 12-month breakeven spread moved up to its 15th percentile since 1995 (Chart 2). This indicates that, despite the recent selloff, corporate bonds remain expensive. We discussed the intermediate-term outlook for corporate bonds in a recent report.1  Specifically, we analyzed the performance of both investment grade and high-yield corporate bonds during previous Fed tightening cycles. Our conclusion is that it will soon be appropriate to reduce our cyclical exposure to corporate credit. For investment grade corporates, this will mean reducing our recommended allocation from neutral (3 out of 5) to underweight (2 out of 5). Our analysis of past cycles suggests that the slope of the yield curve is a critical indicator of corporate bond performance. Excess corporate bond returns are generally strong when the 3-year/10-year Treasury slope is above 50 bps but take a step down when the slope shifts into a range of 0 – 50 bps. The 3/10 slope has just recently dipped below 50 bps (bottom panel). Though our fair value estimates can’t rule out a near-term bounce back above 50 bps, this will become less and less likely as Fed rate hikes approach. We maintain our current recommended allocation for now but expect to downgrade within the next few weeks. Table 3ACorporate Sector Relative Valuation And Recommended Allocation* The COVID Labor Market The COVID Labor Market Table 3BCorporate Sector Risk Vs. Reward* The COVID Labor Market The COVID Labor Market High-Yield: Overweight Chart 3High-Yield Market Overview High-Yield Market Overview High-Yield Market Overview High-Yield underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 158 basis points in January. The index option-adjusted spread widened 59 bps in January to reach 342 bps. The 12-month spread-implied default rate – the default rate that is priced into the junk index assuming a 40% recovery rate on defaulted debt and an excess spread of 100 bps – also moved up to 4% (Chart 3). The odds are good that defaults will come in below 4% during the next 12 months, which should coincide with the outperformance of high-yield bonds versus Treasuries. For context, the high-yield default rate came in at 1.24% in 2021 and we showed in a recent report that corporate balance sheets are in excellent shape.2 Specifically, we noted that the ratio of total debt to net worth for the nonfinancial corporate sector has fallen to 41%, the lowest ratio since 2010 (bottom panel). While high-yield valuations are more favorable than for investment grade, the bonds will still have to contend with a more challenging monetary environment this year as the Fed lifts rates and the yield curve flattens. For this reason, we expect to reduce our recommended allocation to high-yield corporates in the coming weeks – from overweight (4 out of 5) to neutral (3 out of 5) – though we will retain our preference for high-yield over investment grade. MBS: Underweight Chart 4MBS Market Overview MBS Market Overview MBS Market Overview Mortgage-Backed Securities underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 12 basis points in January. The zero-volatility spread for conventional 30-year agency MBS tightened 7 bps on the month, split between a 17 bps tightening of the option-adjusted spread (OAS) and a 10 bps increase in the compensation for prepayment risk (option cost) (Chart 4). We wrote in a recent report that MBS’ poor performance in 2021 was attributable to an option cost that was too low relative to the pace of mortgage refinancings, noting that the MBA Refinance Index was slow to fall in 2021 despite the back-up in yields.3 This valuation picture is starting to change. The option cost is now up to 36 bps, its highest level since March 2020, and refi activity is slowing as the Fed moves toward rate hikes. At 23 bps, the index OAS remains unattractive. However, the elevated option cost raises the possibility that the OAS may be over-estimating the pace of mortgage refinancings for the first time in a while. If these trends continue, it may soon make sense to increase exposure to agency MBS. We continue to recommend an up-in-coupon bias within an overall underweight allocation to MBS. Higher coupon MBS exhibit more attractive option-adjusted spreads and higher convexity than lower coupon MBS. This makes high-coupon MBS (4%, 4.5%) more likely to outperform low-coupon MBS (2%, 2.5%, 3%) in an environment where bond yields are flat or rising (bottom panel). Emerging Market Bonds (USD): Overweight Chart 5Emerging Markets Overview Emerging Markets Overview Emerging Markets Overview This week we officially initiate coverage of USD-denominated Emerging Market (EM) bonds. To start, we will focus on investment grade rated Sovereigns, Corporates and Quasi-Sovereigns. We plan to expand our coverage to include high-yield in the coming months. This EM section replaces the previous Government-Related section in our monthly summary. We will continue to cover Government-Related securities from time to time, but that sub-index will no longer be regularly included in our recommended portfolio allocation. Emerging Market bonds underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 88 basis points in January. EM Sovereigns underperformed the Treasury benchmark by 134 bps on the month and the EM Corporate & Quasi-Sovereign Index underperformed by 58 bps. After strong relative performance in the back-half of 2021, the EM Sovereign index eked out just 4 bps of outperformance versus the duration-equivalent US corporate bond index in January (Chart 5). Meanwhile, the EM Corporate & Quasi-Sovereign index outperformed the duration-matched US corporate index by 24 bps on the month. Yield differentials for EM sovereigns and corporates remain attractive relative to US corporates (panel 4). Additionally, EM currencies are hanging in there versus the dollar even as the Fed moves toward tightening (bottom panel). We recommend an overweight allocation to USD-denominated EM bonds in US bond portfolios, and we maintain our preference for EM sovereign and corporate bonds relative to US corporates with the same credit rating and duration. Municipal Bonds: Maximum  Overweight Chart 6Municipal Market Overview Municipal Market Overview Municipal Market Overview Municipal bonds underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 121 basis points in January (before adjusting for the tax advantage). The economic and policy back-drop remains favorable for municipal bond performance. Trailing 4-quarter net state & local government savings are incredibly high (Chart 6) and 2021’s federal spending splurge will support state & local government coffers for some time. A recent report showed that the average duration of municipal bond indexes has fallen significantly during the past few decades, a trend that has implications for how we should perceive municipal bond valuations.4 Specifically, the trend makes municipal bonds more attractive relative to both Treasury securities and investment grade corporates. Long-maturity bonds are especially compelling. We calculate that 12-17 year maturity Revenue munis offer a breakeven tax rate of 14% relative to credit rating and duration matched US corporate bonds. 12-17 year General Obligation Munis offer a breakeven tax rate of 19% versus corporates (panel 2). High-yield muni spreads are reasonably attractive compared to high-yield corporates (panel 4), but we recommend only a neutral allocation to high-yield munis versus high-yield corporates. The deep negative convexity of high-yield munis makes them susceptible to extension risk as bond yields rise. Treasury Curve: Buy 2-Year Bullet Versus Cash/10 Barbell Chart 7Treasury Yield Curve Overview Treasury Yield Curve Overview Treasury Yield Curve Overview The Treasury curve bear-flattened dramatically in January, and yields continued their sharp rise through the first week of February – though in a more parallel fashion. All in all, the 2-year/10-year Treasury slope has flattened 17 bps since the end of December, bringing it to 62 bps. The 5-year/30-year slope has flattened 19 bps since the end of December, bringing it to 45 bps. The aggressive flattening of the curve has occurred alongside the Fed’s increased near-term hawkishness. Our 12-month discounter has risen from 77 bps at the end of last year to 149 bps today (Chart 7). In other words, the market has gone from anticipating just over three 25 basis point rate hikes during the next 12 months to nearly six! Last week’s report argued that the most recent move to discount more than four 25 basis point rate hikes in 2022 is overdone.5  We contend that tightening financial conditions and falling inflation expectations will cause the Fed to moderate its pace of rate hikes in the second half of this year. We still see the Fed lifting rates three or four times in 2022, but this is now significantly below what’s priced in the market. Given our view, we recommend a position long the 2-year Treasury note versus a barbell consisting of cash and the 10-year note. This trade will profit as a more moderate expected pace of near-term rate hikes limits the upward pressure on the 2-year yield. TIPS: Neutral Chart 8TIPS Market Overview TIPS Market Overview TIPS Market Overview TIPS underperformed the duration-equivalent nominal Treasury index by 23 basis points in January. The 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate has declined by 16 bps since the end of December while the 2-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate has fallen by 1 bp. The 10-year and 2-year rates currently sit at 2.43% and 3.21%, respectively. The Fed’s preferred 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rate is down 22 bps since the end of December. It currently sits at 2.05%, below the Fed’s 2.3% - 2.5% target range. Our valuation indicator shows that 10-year TIPS are slightly expensive compared to 10-year nominal Treasuries (Chart 8), and we retain a neutral allocation to TIPS versus nominals at the long-end of the curve. We acknowledge the risk that a prolonged period of high inflation could lead to a break-out in long-dated TIPS breakevens, but this now looks less likely given how the market has reacted to the Fed’s increasing hawkishness. We see better trading opportunities at the front-end of the TIPS curve where the 2-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate remains well above the Fed’s target range (panel 4). Short-maturity breakevens are more sensitive to swings in CPI than those at the long end. Therefore, the 2-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate has considerable downside during the next 6-12 months, assuming inflation moderates as we expect. We recommend an underweight allocation to TIPS versus nominals at the front-end of the curve. Given our view that CPI inflation will be lower in 6-12 months, we recommend shorting 2-year TIPS outright, positioning in 2/10 TIPS breakeven inflation curve steepeners (bottom panel) and 2/10 TIPS (real) yield curve flatteners. ABS: Overweight Chart 9ABS Market Overview ABS Market Overview ABS Market Overview Asset-Backed Securities outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 20 basis points in January. Aaa-rated ABS outperformed by 19 bps on the month and non-Aaa ABS outperformed by 20 bps. During the past two years, substantial federal government support for household incomes has caused US households to build up an extremely large buffer of excess savings. During this period, many households have used their windfalls to pay down consumer debt and credit card debt levels have fallen to well below pre-COVID levels (Chart 9). Though consumer credit growth has rebounded, debt levels are still low. This indicates that the collateral quality backing consumer ABS remains exceptionally strong. Investors should remain overweight consumer ABS and should take advantage of the high quality of household balance sheets by moving down the quality spectrum, favoring non-Aaa rated securities over Aaa-rated ones.       Non-Agency CMBS: Neutral Chart 10CMBS Market Overview CMBS Market Overview CMBS Market Overview Non-Agency Commercial Mortgage-Backed Securities underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 3 basis points in January. Aaa Non-Agency CMBS underperformed Treasuries by 3 bps in January, but non-Aaa Non-Agency CMBS outperformed by 2 bps (Chart 10). Though returns have been strong and spreads remain relatively wide, particularly for lower-rated CMBS, we continue to recommend only a neutral allocation to the sector because of the structurally challenging environment for commercial real estate. Agency CMBS: Overweight Agency CMBS outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 3 basis points in January. The average index option-adjusted spread tightened 1 bp on the month. It currently sits at 36 bps (bottom panel). Though Agency CMBS spreads have recovered to well below their pre-COVID levels, they still look attractive compared to other similarly risky spread products. Stay overweight.     Appendix A: Butterfly Strategy Valuations The following tables present the current read-outs from our butterfly spread models. We use these models to identify opportunities to take duration-neutral positions across the Treasury curve. The following two Special Reports explain the models in more detail: US Bond Strategy Special Report, “Bullets, Barbells And Butterflies”, dated July 25, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com US Bond Strategy Special Report, “More Bullets, Barbells And Butterflies”, dated May 15, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Table 4 shows the raw residuals from each model. A positive value indicates that the bullet is cheap relative to the duration-matched barbell. A negative value indicates that the barbell is cheap relative to the bullet. Table 4Butterfly Strategy Valuation: Raw Residuals In Basis Points (As Of January 31, 2022) The COVID Labor Market The COVID Labor Market Table 5 scales the raw residuals in Table 4 by their historical means and standard deviations. This facilitates comparison between the different butterfly spreads. Table 5Butterfly Strategy Valuation: Standardized Residuals (As Of January 31, 2022) The COVID Labor Market The COVID Labor Market Table 6 flips the models on their heads. It shows the change in the slope between the two barbell maturities that must be realized during the next six months to make returns between the bullet and barbell equal. For example, a reading of -53 bps in the 5 over 2/10 cell means that we would expect the 5-year to outperform the 2/10 if the 2/10 slope flattens by less than 53 bps during the next six months. Otherwise, we would expect the 2/10 barbell to outperform the 5-year bullet. Table 6Discounted Slope Change During Next 6 Months (BPs) The COVID Labor Market The COVID Labor Market Appendix B: Excess Return Bond Map The Excess Return Bond Map is used to assess the relative risk/reward trade-off between different sectors of the US bond market. It is a purely computational exercise and does not impose any macroeconomic view. The Map’s vertical axis shows 12-month expected excess returns. These are proxied by each sector’s option-adjusted spread. Sectors plotting further toward the top of the Map have higher expected returns and vice-versa. Our novel risk measure called the “Risk Of Losing 100 bps” is shown on the Map’s horizontal axis. To calculate it, we first compute the spread widening required on a 12-month horizon for each sector to lose 100 bps or more relative to a duration-matched position in Treasury securities. Then, we divide that amount of spread widening by each sector’s historical spread volatility. The end result is the number of standard deviations of 12-month spread widening required for each sector to lose 100 bps or more versus a position in Treasuries. Lower risk sectors plot further to the right of the Map, and higher risk sectors plot further to the left. Chart 11Excess Return Bond Map (As Of January 31, 2022) The COVID Labor Market The COVID Labor Market Recommended Portfolio Specification The COVID Labor Market The COVID Labor Market Other Recommendations The COVID Labor Market The COVID Labor Market Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com    Footnotes 1 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Positioning For Rate Hikes In The Corporate Bond Market”, dated January 25, 2022. 2 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The Fed’s Inflation Problem”, dated November 23, 2021. 3 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The Omicron Impact”, dated November 30, 2021. 4 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The Best & Worst Spots On The Yield Curve”, dated October 26, 2021. 5 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The Best Laid Plans”, dated February 1, 2022.