Fixed Income

Highlights We reformatted and added three sections to our existing trade tables: strategic themes, cyclical asset allocations and tactical investment recommendations. An extensive audit of our current trade book shows that our country and sector allocation recommendations have been successful. Of the eight open trades in our book, six have so far generated positive returns. We now recommend closing three out of the eight positions, based on a review of the original basis and subsequent performance of our trades. We have also added one cyclical and two tactical trades. We will look for opportunities to propose new trades to our book in the coming months. Feature In this week's report, we introduce our newly formatted trade tables (on Page 15), which include the following: Strategic themes (structural views beyond 18 months) Cyclical asset allocations within Chinese financial markets (in the next 6 to 18 months) Tactical trades (investment recommendations for the next 0 to 6 months) We revisited the original basis and subsequent performance of our open trades as part of an audit of our trade book. We maintain five of the eight trades and will add one cyclical and two tactical trades. Our new features and the rationale for retaining or closing each trade are presented below. Strategic Themes The new Strategic Themes section now includes the following market relevant structural forces: President Xi Jinping’s “common prosperity” policy initiative, which is intended to narrow the nation’s wealth gap; a demographic shift of a shrinking population by 2025; and secular disputes between the US and China (Table 1). Table 1 Introducing New Trade Tables Introducing New Trade Tables These structural aspects will have a macro impact on China’s policy landscape, economy and financial markets. Investors should consider whether the themes point toward a reflationary policy bias; whether they will have a medium- to long-term effect on corporate earnings; and whether these themes will, on a structural basis, warrant higher/lower risk premiums for owning Chinese stocks. Cyclical Equity Index Allocation Recommendations (Relative To MSCI All Country World) Table 2 is a summary of our cyclical recommendations for Greater China equity indexes. We recommend the following equity index allocations within a global equity portfolio, for the next 6 to 18 months: Table 2 Introducing New Trade Tables Introducing New Trade Tables Underweight MSCI China (Chinese investable stocks). Underweight MSCI China A Onshore (Chinese onshore or A-share stocks). Neutral stance on MSCI Hong Kong Index. Overweight MSCI Taiwan Index. Chart 1Chinese Stocks Substantially Underperformed Global Equities Chinese Stocks Substantially Underperformed Global Equities Chinese Stocks Substantially Underperformed Global Equities Our recommendation to underweight MSCI China Index and MSCI China A Onshore Index were extremely successful in 2021 (Chart 1). We will continue to maintain an underweight stance for the time being, based on our concern that the current policy easing measures will be insufficient to revive China’s slowing economy. We expect policy stimulus to step up in the coming months and economic growth to start improving by mid-2022. However, corporate profits are set to disappoint in the first half of the year. This implies that Chinese share prices will remain volatile with substantial downside risks. Chinese investable stocks are in oversold territory and will likely rebound in the near term in both absolute and relative terms (discussed in the Tactical Recommendations section on Page 14) (Chart 2). Nonetheless, on a cyclical basis, they face challenges both from the impact of a slowing economy on earnings growth and ongoing regulatory and geopolitical risks. Our model suggests high odds (70%) of a considerable earnings contraction in Chinese investable stocks in the next 6 to 12 months. We recommend investors upgrade their allocation to the MSCI Hong Kong Index from underweight to neutral within a global equity portfolio. The MSCI Hong Kong equity index appears to be very cheap compared with global equities (Chart 3). Chart 2Chinese Investable Stocks Are Oversold Chinese Investable Stocks Are Oversold Chinese Investable Stocks Are Oversold Chart 3MSCI HK Equities Are Cheap MSCI HK Equities Are Cheap MSCI HK Equities Are Cheap The MSCI Hong Kong equity index includes Hong Kong-domiciled companies and not mainland issuers listed in Hong Kong. Rising US Treasury yields will be a headwind to Hong Kong-domiciled company stock performance because the HKD is pegged to the USD and therefore Hong Kong bond yields tend to follow the direction of bond yields in the US. Chart 4MSCI HK Index Is Defensive In Nature MSCI HK Index Is Defensive In Nature MSCI HK Index Is Defensive In Nature However, an offsetting factor is that due to composition changes over time, the MSCI Hong Kong equity index has become much more defensive and tends to perform better than the emerging Asian and EM equity benchmarks during turbulent times (Chart 4). The weight of insurance companies and diversified financials account for over 40% of the MSCI Hong Kong Index, compared with property stocks, which take up 20% of the equity market cap. The insurance and diversified financials subsectors are less vulnerable to escalating short-term interest rates compared with property stocks. During risk-off phases, the defensive nature in the MSCI Hong Kong Index will support its performance relative to the some of the more industrial- and tech-heavy EM and global equity indexes. We maintain an overweight stance on the MSCI Taiwan Index relative to global equities. The trade (see discussion in the Cyclical Equity And Sector Trades section) has brought an impressive 40% rate of return since its inception in 2019. Cyclical Recommended Asset Allocation (Within Chinese Onshore Assets) Image We recommend an underweight position in equities in China’s onshore multi-asset portfolios (Table 3). Chinese onshore stocks are not cheap and will likely underperform onshore government bonds as the economy struggles to regain its footing. Chart 5Total Returns In Chinese Onshore Stocks Have Barely Kept Up With Onshore GB Total Returns In Chinese Onshore Stocks Have Barely Kept Up With Onshore GB Total Returns In Chinese Onshore Stocks Have Barely Kept Up With Onshore GB Chart 5 shows that in the past decade total returns in Chinese onshore stocks have barely kept up with that in onshore long-duration government bonds. During policy easing cycles Chinese onshore stocks generated positive excess returns over government bonds, however, the outperformance has been extremely volatile and very brief. Given that we do not expect Beijing to allow a significant overshoot in stimulus this year, there is a good chance that the returns in Chinese onshore stocks will underperform onshore government bonds. Cyclical Equity And Sector Trades Our rationale for retaining or closing each trade is described below. Chart 6Chinese Onshore Stocks Outperformance Has Been Passive Chinese Onshore Stocks Outperformance Has Been Passive Chinese Onshore Stocks Outperformance Has Been Passive Long China A-Shares/Short Chinese Investable Stocks (Maintain) We initiated this trade in March 2021. The recommendation has been our most successful trade, generating a 40+% return since then (Chart 6). China’s internet platform giants have a large weight in the MSCI Investable index and they remain vulnerable (Chart 7). Although China’s antitrust regulations may have passed the peak of intensity, they will not be rolled back and multiple compression in these stocks will likely continue in 2022. In contrast, the A-share index is heavily weighted in value stocks. The trade is in line with our view that the global investment backdrop has shifted in favor of global value versus growth stocks due to an above-trend US expansion and climbing US bond yields in the next 6 to 12 months. The relative ratio between China A-shares and investable stocks is overbought and will likely pull back in the near term (Chart 8). However, the cyclical and structural outlook continues to favor onshore stocks versus the investable universe. Chart 7Sizable Underperformance In Investable Consumer Discretionary Stocks Sizable Underperformance In Investable Consumer Discretionary Stocks Sizable Underperformance In Investable Consumer Discretionary Stocks Chart 8A Near-Term Pullback In Relative Ratio Is Likely A Near-Term Pullback In Relative Ratio Is Likely A Near-Term Pullback In Relative Ratio Is Likely Long CSI500/Short Broad A-Share Market (Maintain) The CSI500 index, which comprises 500 SMID-cap companies, has outperformed the broad A-share market by 32% since mid-February (Chart 9). We think the outperformance in SMID stocks has not fully run its course. Historically, SMID-caps tend to outperform large caps in the late phase of an economic recovery and the valuation premia in small cap stocks remains near decade lows (Chart 10). In addition, the government’s increasing efforts to support small- and medium-sized corporates will help to shore up confidence in those companies. Therefore, SMID will probably continue to outperform large cap stocks this year. Chart 9A Low Valuation Premia And More Policy Support Will Help Lift Prices Of SMID-Caps A Low Valuation Premia And More Policy Support Will Help Lift Prices Of SMID-Caps A Low Valuation Premia And More Policy Support Will Help Lift Prices Of SMID-Caps Chart 10SMID-Caps Tend To Outperform Large-Caps In Late Business Cycle SMID-Caps Tend To Outperform Large-Caps In Late Business Cycle SMID-Caps Tend To Outperform Large-Caps In Late Business Cycle Long MSCI Taiwan Index/Short MSCI All Country World (Maintain) The MSCI Taiwan equity index has consistently outperformed global equities since mid-2019, mostly driven by the rally in Taiwanese semiconductor stocks. Global chip supply shortages since the COVID pandemic have further boosted the sector’s outperformance (Chart 11). Furthermore, Chart 12 highlights improvements in the cyclical case for Taiwanese stocks as an aggregate. Panels 1 & 2 show an uptick in the new export orders component of Taiwanese manufacturing PMI. The new export orders component has historically coincided with both Taiwanese exports to China and the relative Taiwanese manufacturing PMI on a cyclical basis. As such, the economic fundamentals also support a continued outperformance in Taiwanese stocks. Chart 11A Great Run In MSCI Taiwan Equity Index And Semis A Great Run In MSCI Taiwan Equity Index And Semis A Great Run In MSCI Taiwan Equity Index And Semis Chart 12Exports To China, 12-Month Forward EPS, And Relative Stock Prices: All Likely To Improve Exports To China, 12-Month Forward EPS, And Relative Stock Prices: All Likely To Improve Exports To China, 12-Month Forward EPS, And Relative Stock Prices: All Likely To Improve Long Chinese Onshore Industrial Stocks/Short MSCI China A Index (Maintain) This trade, initiated in September last year, has brought a slightly positive return as of today. Our view was based on improving manufacturing investment and policy support for the sector, even though China’s business cycle had already peaked. Chart 13China Onshore Industrials Closely Track Economic Fundamentals China Onshore Industrials Closely Track Economic Fundamentals China Onshore Industrials Closely Track Economic Fundamentals While we maintain the trade for now, we will monitor credit growth in Q1 to assess whether to close the trade. The sector’s performance is highly correlated with our BCA China Activity Index and the Li Keqiang Leading Indicator (Chart 13). A bottoming in both indicators in mid-2022 would suggest that investors should maintain the trade. The caveat, however, is that the sector’s valuations have already become extreme, indicating that the bar may be higher for the sector to outperform even when economic fundamentals improve in 2H22. We will watch for signs of an overshoot in stimulus in the coming three to six months. Conversely, credit growth in Q1 that is at or below expectations will warrant closing this trade. Long Domestic Semiconductor Sector/Short Global Semiconductor Benchmark (Close) Replace with: Long Domestic Semiconductor Sector/Short MSCI China A Onshore The trade has been our biggest loser since its inception in August 2020. Although Chinese onshore semiconductor stocks outperformed the broad A-share market by a large margin, they have underperformed their global peers (Chart 14). Thus, we are closing the trade and replacing it with long Chinese onshore semis relative to the broad A-share market. We remain bullish on Chinese semi stocks, on both a structural and cyclical basis. Secular pressures from the US and the West to curb the advancement of Chinese technology will encourage China’s authorities to double down on supporting state-led technology programs. Moreover, prices of Chinese onshore semis have plummeted since November last year, bringing their lofty valuations closer to long-term trend and providing a better cyclical risk-reward profiles for these stocks (Chart 15). Chart 14Chinese Onshore Semis Underperformed Global... Chinese Onshore Semis Underperformed Global... Chinese Onshore Semis Underperformed Global... Chart 15...But Outperformed Domestic Broad Market ...But Outperformed Domestic Broad Market ...But Outperformed Domestic Broad Market Long Domestic Consumer Discretionary/Short Broad A-Share Market (Close) Chart 16A Trend Reversal In Chinese Onshore Consumer Discretionary Stocks Performance A Trend Reversal In Chinese Onshore Consumer Discretionary Stocks Performance A Trend Reversal In Chinese Onshore Consumer Discretionary Stocks Performance We placed the trade in May 2020 when China’s economy and household discretionary consumption showed a strong rebound from the deep slump in Q1 2020. As strength waned in the country’s domestic demand for housing, housing-related durable goods and automobiles, the sector’s relative performance also started to dwindle from its peak in the fall of last year (Chart 16). Going forward, even though China’s economy will start to improve on a cyclical basis, domestic consumer discretionary sector will face non-trivial headwinds. The performance of its subsectors, such as hotels, restaurants, and services, will remain subdued due to China’s zero tolerance COVID policy that leads to frequent lockdowns and travel restrictions (Chart 17). Moreover, the internet and direct-marketing retail subsectors are facing tighter regulations, which lowers the sector’s profitability and valuations (Chart 18). Chart 17Domestic COVID Flareups Pose Significant Threat To Chinese Consumer Services Sector Performance Domestic COVID Flareups Pose Significant Threat To Chinese Consumer Services Sector Performance Domestic COVID Flareups Pose Significant Threat To Chinese Consumer Services Sector Performance Chart 18Online Retailing Also Faces Regylatory Pressures Online Retailing Also Faces Regylatory Pressures Online Retailing Also Faces Regylatory Pressures Short Hong Kong 10-Year Government Bond/Long US 10-Year Treasury (Maintain) In the past decade, Hong Kong's 10-year government bond yield has been consistently below that of the US, even though Hong Kong has an exchange rate pegged to the US dollar and its monetary policy is directly tied to that of the US. Chart 19The US-HK Yield Gap Should Widen In The Coming Months The US-HK Yield Gap Should Widen In The Coming Months The US-HK Yield Gap Should Widen In The Coming Months The US-Hong Kong 10-year yield spread has substantially narrowed since early 2020 when the US Fed aggressively cut its policy rate. In the coming 6-12 months, however, the spread will likely widen given that the Fed will start to normalize rates (Chart 19, top panel). Chart 19 (bottom panel) highlights that the relative total return profile of the trade (in unhedged terms) trends higher over time due to the carry advantage. Although cyclically the relative total return will likely reverse to its trend line and argues for a short stance on US Treasury, we think it is too early to close the trade. The USD will likely remain strong in the near term, and we have yet to turn positive on Chinese and Hong Kong assets over a 6 to 18-mont time horizon. Therefore, we maintain this trade until the USD starts to weaken, and foreign investment flows into China and Hong Kong shows sustainable momentum. Long USD-CNH (Close) We are closing this trade, which we initiated in May 2020 when tensions between the US and China were rising. The trade has lost more than 10% since its inception because the RMB exchange rate was boosted in 2021 by China’s record current account surplus, wide interest rate differentials and speculation that tension between the US and China would abate. Chart 20A Weaker USD Will Prevent Sizable RMB Depreciation A Weaker USD Will Prevent Sizable RMB Depreciation A Weaker USD Will Prevent Sizable RMB Depreciation We expect all three favorable conditions supporting the RMB to start reversing in 1H22, suggesting downward pressure on the RMB. However, over a longer period of 6 to 18 months the US dollar also has the potential to trend lower, preventing the RMB from any sizable depreciation (Chart 20). The dollar strength in the past year has been the result of both speculative flows into the US dollar based on rising interest rate expectations and portfolio inflows into the US equity markets.  In the next 6 to 18 months, however, our Foreign Exchange Strategist Chester Ntonifor predicts that the dollar could begin a paradigm shift, whereby any actions by the Fed could eventually lead to a weakening of the US dollar. Higher rates than the market expects will initially boost the US dollar, but will also undermine the US equity market leadership, reversing the substantial portfolio inflows from recent years. On the flip side, fewer rate hikes will severely unwind higher rate expectations in the US relative to other developed markets. Chester further predicts that the DXY could touch 98 in the near term but will break below 90 in the next 12-18 months. Tactical Recommendations (0-6 months) We are initiating two tactical trades to go long on the MSCI China Index and MSCI Hong Kong Index relative to global equities. Relative to global stocks, Chinese investable equities are very oversold and offer value. In addition, while US tech stocks are entering a rollercoaster phase due to higher bond yields in the US, Chinese tech stocks will also fall but by a lesser degree because China’s monetary policy cycle is less affected by the Fed’s policy decisions. In other words, Chinese investable stocks may passively outperform global equities. Nonetheless, as noted in our previous reports, Chinese investable stocks face both cyclical and structural challenges. Hence the overweight stance on these stocks is strictly a tactical play rather than a cyclical one. We favor the MSCI Hong Kong Index versus global equities for similar reasons as Chinese investable stocks. The Hong Kong equity index is also technically oversold. Since the composition of the index has become more defensive, it will likely outperform in risk-off phases. In addition, if the US dollar rallies in the near term, share prices of Hong Kong-domiciled companies will materially outperform.   Jing Sima China Strategist jings@bcaresearch.com Strategic View Cyclical Recommendations Tactical Recommendations

Highlights Duration: A look at past rate hike cycles shows that Treasury returns are generally low, though not always negative. For the current cycle, we continue to recommend a below-benchmark portfolio duration stance as we don’t think the full extent of Fed rate hikes is adequately priced in the yield curve. Interest Rate Policy: The Fed will deliver its first rate hike in March and will lift rates 2 or 3 more times this year. We see the fed funds rate moving above 2% this cycle, higher than what is currently priced in the market. Fed Balance Sheet: The Fed will start the passive runoff of its securities holdings in the first half of this year, after one or two rate hikes have been delivered. Balance sheet reduction will proceed more quickly than it did last cycle, but the Fed will refrain from outright sales. Feature Chart 1Market Expectations Are Too Low Market Expectations Are Too Low Market Expectations Are Too Low Rate hikes are just around the corner. In fact, there is a growing consensus among FOMC participants that it will be appropriate to deliver the first rate hike in March, as soon as net asset purchases reach zero. Just last week, San Francisco Fed President Mary Daly called a March rate hike “quite reasonable” and Fed Vice-Chair Lael Brainard testified that the Fed will be “in a position” to lift rates as soon as purchases end. Brainard also mentioned that the Fed has discussed shrinking its balance sheet.1 We expect the Fed to follow through with a 25 basis point rate hike in March, and with 2 or 3 more hikes over the course of 2022. We also see the Fed shrinking its balance sheet this year, via the passive runoff of maturing securities. With all that in mind, this week’s report draws on the experience of past rate hike cycles to give us a sense of what Treasury returns to expect as the Fed lifts rates. We also discuss how the Fed’s balance sheet will evolve over the next few years.  Treasury Returns During Rate Hike Cycles Table 1 provides a useful summary of Treasury returns during the prior four rate hike cycles. The table shows excess Treasury returns versus cash for the Bloomberg Barclays Treasury Index as well as its Intermediate Maturity and Long Maturity sub-indexes. Table 1Treasury Returns During Fed Rate Hike Cycles Positioning For Rate Hikes In The Treasury Market Positioning For Rate Hikes In The Treasury Market The first conclusion we draw is that Treasury returns are generally poor during Fed tightening cycles. Intermediate maturity Treasuries underperformed cash in all four cycles. Long maturity Treasuries provided only modestly positive returns in two of the four cycles and deeply negative returns in one of them. One important caveat is that our analysis only considers cycles where the Fed lifted rates multiple times in a row. For example, we exclude the 1997-98 period when one rate hike in 1997 was quickly reversed in 1998. We also define the most recent tightening cycle as spanning from 2015 to 2018 even though the Fed kept the policy rate steady from December 2015 to December 2016. Obviously, if the Fed is forced to abandon its tightening cycle after one or two hikes, then Treasury returns will be much stronger than our historical analysis suggests. Next, let’s dig a bit deeper by looking at each rate hike cycle individually. The 2015-2018 Cycle Chart 22015-2018 Cycle 2015-2018 Cycle 2015-2018 Cycle The most recent Fed tightening cycle started with a 25 basis point rate hike in December 2015. The Fed then went on hold for 12 months before delivering a string of 8 hikes between December 2016 and December 2018. All in all, the tightening cycle lasted 36 months and the Fed raised the target fed funds rate by 225 bps, from a range of 0% - 0.25% to a range of 2.25% - 2.5% (Chart 2). If we look at the 36-month discounter on the day before the first hike (Chart 2, panel 3), it shows that the market was priced for 159 bps of tightening over the next three years. The fact that the Fed delivered more tightening (225 bps) explains why excess Treasury returns were negative for short and intermediate maturities. The 5-year/5-year forward Treasury yield is another useful metric because it is a good approximation of the market’s expected terminal fed funds rate, i.e. the fed funds rate at the end of the tightening cycle. The 5-year/5-year forward Treasury yield stood at 2.92% in December 2015, slightly above where the fed funds rate peaked in 2018 (Chart 2, bottom panel). This explains why long-maturity excess Treasury returns were slightly positive during the cycle.         The 2004-2006 Cycle Chart 32004-2006 Cycle 2004-2006 Cycle 2004-2006 Cycle During this cycle, which spanned from June 2004 to June 2006, the Fed lifted rates by 400 bps (sixteen 25 basis point rate hikes). The fed funds rate rose from 1% to 5.25% during the two-year span (Chart 3). The 24-month fed funds discounter stood at 369 bps the day before the first hike (Chart 3, panel 3), indicating that the market discounted 31 bps less tightening than was ultimately delivered. Once again, this explains why excess Treasury returns were negative for short and intermediate maturities. The 5-year/5-year forward Treasury yield was 5.72% just prior to the first hike in June 2004 (Chart 3, bottom panel). But, as was the case in the 2015-2018 cycle, the fed funds rate never reached this level. It peaked at 5.25% in 2006 and long-maturity excess Treasury yields were somewhat positive as a result.                 The 1999-2000 Cycle Chart 41999-2000 Cycle 1999-2000 Cycle 1999-2000 Cycle In this cycle, the Fed lifted rates by 175 bps between June 1999 and May 2000, driving the fed funds rate from 4.75% to 6.5% (Chart 4). The 12-month fed funds discounter stood at 108 bps on the day before the first hike (Chart 4, panel 3). Once again, this was slightly less than the 175 bps of tightening that transpired. Excess returns for short and intermediate maturity Treasuries were negative as a result. The 5-year/5-year forward Treasury yield was 5.99% on the day before the first hike (Chart 4, bottom panel). This time, the market’s assessment proved to be too low compared to the funds rate’s 6.5% peak. This divergence explains why long-maturity Treasury excess returns were worse during this period than they were in the 2015-18 and 2004-06 cycles.                 The 1994-1995 Cycle Chart 51994-1995 Cycle 1994-1995 Cycle 1994-1995 Cycle The Fed surprised markets by lifting rates extremely quickly during this cycle. The Fed moved rates from 3% to 6% in the span of only 12 months between February 1994 and February 1995 (Chart 5). The 12-month discounter was only 130 bps at the beginning of the tightening cycle, well short of the 300 bps rate increase that was delivered (Chart 5, panel 3). This large divergence explains why excess Treasury returns were so poor during this period. Interestingly, the 5-year/5-year forward Treasury yield stood at 6.69% just prior to the first hike (Chart 5, bottom panel), not that far from the ultimate peak in the fed funds rate. In other words, while market expectations for the near-term path of interest rates were too low, expectations for the ultimate peak in interest rates were fairly accurate. However, terminal rate expectations became unmoored when the Fed started to tighten, and the 5-year/5-year forward Treasury yield rose all the way to 8.5%, far above the fed funds rate’s ultimate peak. This dramatic shift in terminal rate expectations explains the deeply negative long-maturity Treasury returns observed during the period. Of course, those losses were quickly reversed in H1 1995 once it became clear that the Fed would not lift rates further. The 5-year/5-year forward Treasury yield plummeted back to 6.5%. Investment Implications Let’s apply the above analysis to today’s situation. At present, the 12-month fed funds discounter stands at 93 bps. The 24-month discounter is 151 bps and the 36-month discounter is 159 bps (Chart 1). In other words, the market is discounting that the Fed will deliver between 3 and 4 rate hikes this year, but only 2 more in 2023 before the funds rate stabilizes at roughly 1.5%. Our expectation is that the fed funds rate will rise to at least 2% during the next three years, and we therefore continue to recommend running below-benchmark portfolio duration. For its part, the 5-year/5-year forward Treasury yield is currently 2.03%. This is at the low-end of survey estimates for the long-run neutral fed funds rate (Chart 1, bottom panel). We expect the 5-year/5-year forward Treasury yield to rise closer to the middle of the range of survey estimates (~2.25%) as it becomes clear that the fed funds rate will rise to at least 2%. It’s also possible that, like in the 1994-95 episode, terminal rate expectations will rise dramatically as the Fed lifts rates more quickly than anticipated. This, however, is not our base case outlook given that expectations for a low terminal fed funds rate are very well entrenched. Bottom Line: A look at past rate hike cycles shows that Treasury returns are generally low, though not always negative. For the current cycle, we continue to recommend a below-benchmark portfolio duration stance as we don’t think the full extent of Fed rate hikes is adequately priced in the yield curve. The Balance Sheet Outlook Chart 6Hike First, Then QT Hike First, Then QT Hike First, Then QT We expect the Fed to start shrinking its securities holdings this year. The process will probably begin in the first half of the year after one or two rate hikes have been delivered. To arrive at this conclusion, we first look at how the Fed proceeded during the last tightening cycle. Back then, the Fed waited until the funds rate was around 1% before it started to shrink its balance sheet in September 2017 (Chart 6). Notably, the Fed didn’t immediately move toward the full passive runoff of its portfolio. Rather, it started slowly by permitting only $6 billion of Treasuries and $4 billion of MBS to mature in October 2017. These amounts were gradually increased in the subsequent months. The Fed will move more quickly toward balance sheet reduction this cycle and the pace of said reduction will be faster. Here are the relevant passages from the minutes of the December FOMC meeting: Almost all participants agreed that it would likely be appropriate to initiate balance sheet runoff at some point after the first increase in the target range for the federal funds rate. However, participants judged that the appropriate timing of balance sheet runoff would likely be closer to that of policy rate liftoff than in the Committee’s previous experience. […] Many participants judged that the appropriate pace of balance sheet runoff would likely be faster than it was during the previous normalization episode. Many participants also judged that monthly caps on the runoff of securities could help ensure that the pace of runoff would be measured and predictable…2 From these quotes, we surmise that balance sheet runoff will start earlier than last time – after one or two rate hikes instead of four. Also, while the runoff will proceed more quickly than last time, there is still support for maintaining monthly caps on the pace. The Fed will probably not move immediately to the complete passive runoff of its portfolio, and outright bond sales do not appear to be part of the discussion. One concern that investors might have about the Fed’s balance sheet runoff is the extra supply of Treasuries that will hit the market. As an upper-bound, if we assume complete passive runoff starting in April 2022, the Fed’s Treasury holdings will shrink from $5.7 trillion today to $3.5 trillion by the end of 2024, adding an average of $715 billion extra Treasury supply to the market each year (Chart 7). If we exclude T-bills and TIPS to focus only on coupon-paying nominal Treasury securities, then we calculate that Fed holdings will fall from $4.9 trillion to $3 trillion, adding an extra $639 billion of supply to the market on average for the next three years. However, it’s important to note that Fed policy alone doesn’t dictate the supply of Treasury securities. The Treasury department’s issuance plans also need to be considered. When the Fed allows a maturing bond to passively roll off its portfolio it doesn’t dump that bond directly into the market. Rather, the Treasury Department issues new debt to replace the maturing bond. The Treasury could decide, for example, to increase T-bill issuance instead of coupon issuance. In fact, this sort of decision becomes more likely if Treasury officials are concerned about dumping too much coupon supply on the market. Currently, the Treasury Department targets a range of 15% - 20% for the amount of outstanding T-bills as a proportion of the overall funding mix, a target that it is hitting (Chart 8). However, the minutes from the most recent Quarterly Refunding meeting stressed that the Treasury feels the need to maintain “flexibility” when it comes to this target range and noted that “there is likely more leeway at the top of the recommended range than at the bottom.”3 Chart 7The Pace Of ##br##Runoff The Pace Of Runoff The Pace Of Runoff Chart 8T-bill Issuance Could Rise As The Fed's Portfolio Shrinks T-bill Issuance Could Rise As The Fed's Portfolio Shrinks T-bill Issuance Could Rise As The Fed's Portfolio Shrinks Finally, it is important to consider the extent to which the Fed will be able to shrink its balance sheet. The Fed’s goal will be to achieve a reserve supply that allows it to maintain the funds rate within its target band without putting undue pressure on either its Overnight Reverse Repo Facility (ON RRP) or its new Standing Repo Facility (SRF). Chart 9The Fed's Balance Sheet Was Too Small In September 2019 The Fed's Balance Sheet Was Too Small In September 2019 The Fed's Balance Sheet Was Too Small In September 2019 The ON RRP acts as a floor on interest rates and its usage therefore increases when the Fed’s balance sheet is too large. The third panel of Chart 9 shows that this is currently the case. Conversely, the SRF acts as a ceiling on interest rates and its usage will ramp up if the Fed’s balance sheet becomes too small. This last occurred in September 2019 when the Fed briefly lost control of interest rates and was forced to increase repo holdings and reserve supply (Chart 9).​​​​​​​ Going forward, the Fed will continue to run down its balance sheet until ON RRP usage drops close to zero. However, it will want to stop reducing its holdings before SRF usage picks up. It is highly uncertain when this will occur, but we suspect that the Fed won’t be able to get the balance sheet back to September 2019 levels before seeing SRF usage increase. Bottom Line: The Fed will start the passive runoff of its securities holdings in the first half of this year, after one or two rate hikes have been delivered. Balance sheet reduction will proceed more quickly than it did last cycle, but the Fed will refrain from outright sales. While the size of the Fed’s balance sheet will shrink during the next few years, it will remain larger than it was in September 2019.   Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see https://www.reuters.com/business/exclusive-feds-daly-march-liftoff-is-quite-reasonable-2022-01-13/ and https://www.nbcnews.com/business/economy/interest-rate-hike-come-soon-march-feds-brainard-signals-rcna12112 2 https://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/files/fomcminutes20211215.pdf 3 https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/jy0464 Recommended Portfolio Specification Other Recommendations Treasury Index Returns Spread Product Returns

Dear Client, Next week there will be no regular strategy report. Instead, we will hold our quarterly webcast which will discuss the outlook for the European economy and assets in 2022. I look forward to this interaction. Best regards, Mathieu Savary   Highlights European and global yields have considerable upside over the coming year, even if inflation peaks in 2022. The post-World War II experience is instructive: massive war-time fiscal and monetary stimulus allowed for an upward re-estimation of the neutral rate as trend nominal growth improved. A similar development is likely to result in an improvement in nominal growth and the neutral rate compared to the post-GFC decade. China and a financial accident outside the US constitute the greatest risks this year to higher yields. European stocks and value stocks will benefit from this rise in yields. Cyclicals in general and industrials in particular are the European sectors most levered to higher yields. Overweight these assets. Defensives will underperform meaningfully if yields rise further. Long Sweden and the Netherlands / Short Switzerland is an appealing trade to bet on higher yields, especially if inflation peaks in 2022. Feature Last week, US Treasury yields finally reached levels that prevailed before the pandemic started. In Europe, German 10-year yields flirted with the symbolic 0% level, rising to their highest reading since May 2019. With the Fed preparing to increase interest rates in March, and global inflation remaining perky, do yields already reflect all the bearish bond news or will they continue to climb higher on a cyclical basis? Moreover, what would be the implications for equity prices of higher yields? BCA expects yields to rise further, for which German Bunds will not be an exception. This process will continue to generate volatility in stock prices, but ultimately, higher equities will prevail. Increasing yields will help European stocks and are strongly associated with an outperformance of cyclical equities. What’s Moving Yields Up? Not all yield increases are created equal. A breakdown of yields helps us understand what investors are pricing in for the future. In the US, the upside in 10-year yields mostly reflects the increase in 5-year yields. This maturity has moved back to levels that prevailed prior to the pandemic, while the 5-year/5-year forward yield remains below its spring 2021 peak (Chart 1, top panel). Moreover, these shifts mirror higher real interest rates, which are rising across maturities, while inflation expectations have been declining in recent weeks or have been flat since mid-2021 on a 5-year/5-year forward basis (Chart 1, middle and bottom panels). This breakdown confirms investors are driving yields higher because they expect more Fed tightening. However, this upgraded view of the Fed’s policy path is limited to the next few years, and long-term policy expectations approximated by the forward rates are not rising as much. In other words, markets do not expect that the Fed will be able to push up interest rates on a long-term basis. In Germany, the breakdown of the most recent shift in yield paints a different picture (Chart 2). As in the US, real yields, not inflation expectations, drove the latest bond selloff. This points toward pricing in an eventual policy tightening in Europe. However, unlike what is happening in the US, 5-year/5-year forward rates are the main force driving yields higher; investors are therefore expecting the ECB to have to follow the Fed later on. Chart 1Near-Term Tightening Is Driving Treasurys Near-Term Tightening Is Driving Treasurys Near-Term Tightening Is Driving Treasurys Chart 2longer-Term Tightening Is Driving Bunds longer-Term Tightening Is Driving Bunds longer-Term Tightening Is Driving Bunds Can the Yield Upside Continue? While BCA’s target for the 10-year Treasury yield in 2022 stands at 2.25% and the Bund yield at 0.25%, the coming two to three years should witness significantly higher yields. The period after World War II offers an interesting historical equivalent. During the War, government spending as a share of GDP exploded, lifting US gross federal debt from 52% of GDP at the dawn of the conflict to 114% at the end of 1945. However, the Fed kept a lid on interest rates during this period to help finance the war effort. T-Bill rates were pegged at 3/8th of a percent and the Fed also capped T-Bond yields at 2.5%. Chart 3The Post WWII Experience The Post WWII Experience The Post WWII Experience As a consequence of this policy effort, the Fed balance sheet increased significantly and continued to do so after the war (Chart 3). The stimulative fiscal and monetary policy, as well as the capacity constraints associated with shifting production from military goods to consumer and capital goods, contributed to an inflation spike to 20% in March 1947. Moreover, the Korean War boosted government spending between 1950 and 1953, resulting in another inflation spike to 9.5% in 1951. The Fed’s cap on yields ended after the March 1951 Treasury-Fed Accord. It was followed by the beginning of a multi-decade uptrend in bond yields, which culminated in 1981 with T-Bond yields above 15% following the inflationary surge of the 1970s. Nonetheless, the yield increase from 2.5% in 1951 to 4% at the end of the 1950s happened after the inflation peak of the Korean War. This original inflection reflected economic vigor and a normalization of the neutral rate after the trauma of the Great Depression. The current situation is not dissimilar. The neutral rate and the market-based estimates of the terminal rate of interest are still very low in the US and in Europe (Chart 4). However, the vast amount of monetary and fiscal stimulus injected in the economy has jolted a recovery. It has also caused a massive wealth transfer to households and the private sector in general that is likely to increase consumption permanently. As a result, growth in the coming decade will be stronger than it was in the past decade, in both the US and Europe. This process will allow the neutral rate to rise over time, which in turn will lift the terminal rate of interest and yields. In this context, even if inflation were to cool in 2022 because some of the supply constraints that marked 2021 dissipate, yields may continue to rise and do so for the remainder of the decade. This is also true in Europe where the household savings rate still towers near 19% of disposable income and may fall by 6% to reach its pre-pandemic levels, as the US experience presages (Chart 5). Chart 4Terminal Rates Proxies Are Too Low Terminal Rates Proxies Are Too Low Terminal Rates Proxies Are Too Low Chart 5European Savings Rate Has Downside European Savings Rate Has Downside European Savings Rate Has Downside A simple modeling exercise confirms that yields will have greater upside over the coming year. Conceptually, yields are anchored by policy rates and the terminal rate, which is somewhere above the neutral rate of interest. One of the key determinants of the nominal neutral rate is the trend growth rate of nominal GDP. While the market cannot know precisely where that growth rate stands, recent experience influences the perception of market participants. Thus, a long-term moving average of nominal GDP growth constitutes a rough proxy of this measure and will relate to investors’ assessment of the neutral rate and the terminal interest rates. Chart 6Bond Yields Are Too Low, Especially If Trend Nominal Growth Picks Up Bond Yields Are Too Low, Especially If Trend Nominal Growth Picks Up Bond Yields Are Too Low, Especially If Trend Nominal Growth Picks Up Using this approach reveals two important bearish forces for bonds. Even after accounting for the slow growth rate of both the US and Eurozone economies over the past ten years, as well as extraordinarily low policy rates, T-Notes and Bunds yields are too low (Chart 6). More importantly, if nominal GDP growth is higher this decade than next, this alone will push up the equilibrium level of yields in Advanced Economies. The upside in yields is not without risks. China is still going through a deflationary shock whereby growth is slowing. As China eases policy, Chinese yields will continue to fall, bucking the global trend (Chart 7). In recent years, Chinese yields have rarely diverged from global yields. If Chinese growth plummets from here, the divergence will not be resolved via higher Chinese yields. However, Chinese authorities do not want growth to collapse. Reports from the State Council suggest an acceleration of the implementation of major spending projects under the 14th Five-year plan and that the credit impulse is trying to bottom. Nonetheless, China remains a risk to monitor closely. The second major risk stems from the intertwined nature of the global financial system. The US economy is able to withstand higher Treasury yields, but is the rest of the world? As Chart 8 highlights, US private debt-servicing costs are low today, as a result of minimal interest rates and the decline in debt loads after the GFC. The same is not true for the G-10 outside the US, let alone EM economies. These differences suggest that the US will be much more resilient to rising yields than the rest of the world. A major financial accident outside the US would prompt a wave of risk aversion that would decrease yields around the world. Chart 7An Unusual Divergence An Unusual Divergence An Unusual Divergence Chart 8Will The Rest Of The World Withstand Higher US Yields? Will The Rest Of The World Withstand Higher US Yields? Will The Rest Of The World Withstand Higher US Yields? Bottom Line: Global yields have much greater upside for the years ahead, even if inflation slows in 2022. While BCA targets 2.25% and 0.25% for, respectively, Treasurys and Bund yields this year, the multi-year upside is much greater as neutral rates are re-adjusted upward. The change will not move in a straight line, but the trend will not be friendly for bondholders. In the near-term, the main culprits preventing higher yields are a further slowdown in China as well as a financial accident outside the US. Investment Implications The most obvious investment implication is that investors should use any pullback in yields to sell duration. As a corollary, investors should maintain an overweight stance on equities relative to bonds. The equity risk premium, especially in Europe, remains elevated, and European dividend yields stand near record highs compared to Bund yields (Chart 9). Moreover, when yields rise because of a higher neutral rate, this also means that the expected long-term growth rate of earnings is firming, which negates some of the adverse impacts on valuations of higher discount rates. Nonetheless, if inflation does not stabilize, the increase in yields could become much more painful for stocks, as the negative correlation between stock prices and bond yields would reassert itself—a possibility we described five weeks ago. A rising neutral rate and terminal rate are also associated with an outperformance of European stocks compared to the US and an outperformance of value stocks over growth stocks in Europe (Chart 10). These relationships reflect the greater procyclicality of European equities and value stocks. Chart 9A Valuation Cushion For Stocks A Valuation Cushion For Stocks A Valuation Cushion For Stocks Chart 10Higher Terminal Rates Favor Europe And Value Higher Terminal Rates Favor Europe And Value Higher Terminal Rates Favor Europe And Value Finally, we looked at the performance of European sectors based on the trend in yields. Table 1 highlights that industrials are the great winner when yields rise, which is a testament to their pro-cyclicality. They beat the market on 3-month, 6-month and 12-month horizons by 1.6%, 2.9% and 5.8%, respectively. The regularity of their benchmark-beating performance is extremely high. When yields rise, financials also see a marked improvement of their relative returns compared to their historical average returns. Surprisingly, so do European tech firms, which reflect the more hardware focus of European tech compared to the US. Table 1Rising Yields & Sector Relative Performance Implications Of Rising Yields Implications Of Rising Yields Table 2 repeats the same exercise, but, this time, we control for the slope of the yield curve, focusing on periods when the yield curve is positively sloped. Again, industrials are the star sector, but other cyclicals such as materials and consumer discretionary also stand out. European tech remains dominated by its cyclical properties, while the outperformance of financials becomes more marked. Table 2Rising Yields & Sector Relative Performance With Postive Yield Curve Slope As A Control Variable Implications Of Rising Yields Implications Of Rising Yields Table 3 looks at the behavior of sectors when yields rise and when the Euro Area PMI Manufacturing improves, which is a scenario we expect for most of 2022 once the winter passes. Industrials win more clearly than materials or consumer discretionary. The European tech sector continues to generate a very strong outperformance, while the excess return of financials firms up as well. This scenario also shows a particularly steep underperformance for all the defensive sectors. Table 3Rising Yields & Sector Relative Performance With Improving Manufacturing PMI As A Control Variable Implications Of Rising Yields Implications Of Rising Yields Table 4 completes the picture, focusing on rising yields when core CPI decelerates, another development we foresee in 2022. Once again, industrials stand out as a result of the extent and regularity of their outperformance. However, under this controlling variable, the performance of materials and consumer discretionary stocks deteriorates significantly. Financials also see a large downgrade to their relative performance. Tech performs best under these circumstances. Here, staples suffer the worst fate, closely followed by utilities and healthcare. Table 4Rising Yields & Sector Relative Performance With Falling Core CPI As A Control Variable Implications Of Rising Yields Implications Of Rising Yields Based on these observations, the highest likelihood scenario is that European cyclicals will outperform defensive equities significantly this year after a period of consolidation since last spring. A more targeted approach would be to overweight industrials and tech at the expense of staples and utilities. Geographically, investors should buy a basket of Swedish (overweight industrials) and Dutch stocks (overweight tech), while selling Swiss stocks (overweight healthcare).   Mathieu Savary, Chief European Strategist Mathieu@bcaresearch.com Tactical Recommendations Cyclical Recommendations Structural Recommendations Closed Trades Currency Performance Fixed Income Performance Equity Performance

Highlights We introduce a novel concept called the ‘wealth impulse’, which describes the counterintuitive relationship between wealth and economic growth. To the extent that GDP growth is impacted by wealth, the impact comes not from the level of wealth or from the change in wealth, but from the change in the increase in wealth – which we define as the wealth impulse. The global wealth impulse has entered a downcycle, which tends to last 1-2 years. Previous downcycles in the wealth impulse in 2010-11, 2013-14, and 2018-19 all coincided with US economic growth falling to, or remaining at, below-trend. A similar pattern could emerge through 2022-23. Previous downcycles in the wealth impulse also coincided with strong down-legs in the 30-year T-bond yield. This supports our view that while the long bond yield could rise by a further 40-50 bps, the recent spike in yields is simply a tactical countertrend move within a broader structural downtrend, which remains intact. Fractal trading watchlist: Bitcoin, the euro, EUR/CZK, semiconductors, and Polish 10-year bonds. Feature Feature ChartThe 'Wealth Impulse' Has Peaked The 'Wealth Impulse' Has Peaked The 'Wealth Impulse' Has Peaked The post-pandemic synchronized boom in global house prices and global stock markets has caused an unprecedented windfall in household wealth. Albeit, it is a windfall that is highly concentrated in the top fraction of the world’s households. Many commentators claim that this unprecedented wealth windfall will boost economic growth in 2022-23 through the so-called ‘wealth effect’. However, these claims belie a basic misunderstanding about how wealth impacts economic growth. In this short Special Report, we introduce a novel concept called the ‘wealth impulse’, which describes the true relationship between wealth and economic growth. Using this concept of the wealth impulse we explain why, somewhat counterintuitively, wealth will be a headwind rather than a tailwind to growth in 2022-23 (Chart I-1). It Is The ‘Impulse’ Of Wealth That Drives Growth, And The Impulse Has Peaked In accounting terms, wealth is a stock. By contrast, GDP is a change in a stock, or flow, meaning that GDP growth is a change in a flow. It follows that, to the extent that GDP growth is impacted by wealth, it must also come from the change in the flow of wealth: in other words, not from the level of wealth and not from the change in wealth, but from the change in the increase in wealth. We define this as the ‘wealth impulse’ (Charts 1-2-Chart 1-5) Chart I-2The Level Of Real Estate Wealth Has Surged… The Level Of Real Estate Wealth Has Surged... The Level Of Real Estate Wealth Has Surged... Chart I-3…But The Impulse Is Fading ...But The Impulse Is Fading ...But The Impulse Is Fading Chart I-4The Level Of Stock Market Wealth Has Surged… The Level Of Stock Market Wealth Has Surged... The Level Of Stock Market Wealth Has Surged... Chart I-5...But The Impulse Is Fading ...But The Impulse Is Fading ...But The Impulse Is Fading To be clear, your stock of wealth will also generate a flow through dividends, rents, and interest income. And the higher the level of your wealth, the larger this flow will be – Bill Gate’s flow is much larger than Joe Sixpack’s flow. But given that these income flows are dwarfed by the capital gains flows, they will play second fiddle for all-important spending growth. If all of this sounds somewhat convoluted, let’s illuminate the concept with a simple example. Say that your starting wealth of $1000 increased by $100 in 2020, and by another $100 in 2021. In this case, you have effectively gained a constant additional ‘capital gain’ flow to your income flow. Let’s say you spent a constant tenth of these capital gain flows. What would be the growth in your spending? The counterintuitive answer is zero. As there is no change in these capital gain flows, the wealth impulse would be zero, and there would be no growth in your spending: it would be $10 in 2020 and $10 in 2021. To get economic growth from the wealth effect, the increase in your wealth in 2021 would have to be greater than the $100 increase in 2020. Let’s say the increase was $150. In this case, the wealth impulse would be 50 percent and your spending would grow from $10 to $15.1 Now let’s say that after this $150 increase in 2021, your wealth increased by $200 in 2022. Given that the 2022 increase was greater than the 2021 increase, the wealth impulse would be positive, and your spending would grow. But what about the rate of growth? The counterintuitive answer is that economic growth would slow, because the wealth impulse has declined to 33 percent (200/150) in 2022 from 50 percent (150/100) in 2021. To the extent that GDP growth is impacted by wealth, it must come from the change in the increase in wealth, which we define as the ‘wealth impulse’. Finally, let’s say that your wealth increased by a further $150 in 2023. In this case, the wealth impulse would turn negative, to -25 percent (150/200). The counterintuitive thing is that, despite an increase in wealth, your spending would contract. In fact, this is precisely what is happening in the real world. The wealth impulse peaked in the second half of 2021, and has entered a downcycle. Significantly, downcycles in the wealth impulse tend to last 1-2 years, and end up in deeply negative territory. Hence, contrary to what the commentators are claiming, the ‘wealth effect’ tailwind to growth is already fading, and is highly likely to become a headwind through 2022-23. Creating A Composite Wealth Impulse By far the largest component of household wealth is real estate, meaning the value of our homes. Significantly, through the past decade, global real estate prices have become highly synchronized and correlated. Hence, we can derive a real estate wealth impulse from a reliable monthly US house price index, such as the S&P/Case-Shiller Home Price Index. One rejoinder is that real estate wealth should be measured net of the mortgage debt that is owed on our homes. However, as the wealth impulse is a change of a change in wealth, and the mortgage debt changes very slowly, it does not really matter whether we calculate the impulse from gross or net real estate wealth. Either way, the impulse is fading. The wealth impulse peaked in the second half of 2021, and has entered a downcycle. The other significant component of household wealth comes from the exposure to equities. Hence, we can derive an equity wealth impulse using a broad equity index such as the MSCI All Country World. Significantly, the equity wealth impulse also peaked in 2021 and has already fallen to zero. We can then create a ‘composite’ wealth impulse which combines real estate and equities in the three to one proportion that households hold these two main assets. Unsurprisingly, this composite wealth impulse is also fading fast (Chart I-6). Chart I-6The Composite Wealth Impulse Has Peaked The Composite Wealth Impulse Has Peaked The Composite Wealth Impulse Has Peaked One final issue relates to the periodicity of calculating the wealth impulse. All the analysis so far has related to the 1-year impulse: that is, the 1-year change in the 1-year increase in wealth. This periodicity should match the time that it takes for wealth changes to impact household behaviour. Based on theoretical and empirical evidence, the optimal periodicity is indeed around a year – especially as we also assess the change in our incomes and taxes over a year. But what if households react faster to the change in their wealth? We can address this by looking at the 6-month wealth impulse: that is, the 6-month change in the 6-month increase in wealth. These 6-month impulses for both real estate wealth and composite wealth are already deeply in negative territory (Chart I-7 and Chart I-8). Chart I-7The 6-Month Real Estate Wealth Impulse Has Turned Negative The 6-Month Real Estate Wealth Impulse Has Turned Negative The 6-Month Real Estate Wealth Impulse Has Turned Negative Chart I-8The 6-Month Composite Wealth Impulse Has Turned Negative The 6-Month Composite Wealth Impulse Has Turned Negative The 6-Month Composite Wealth Impulse Has Turned Negative What Does A Wealth Impulse Downcycle Mean? There are several drivers of economic growth and the wealth impulse is a marginal player amongst these drivers. Still, while the wealth impulse may not be the overarching cause of growth, it does have the potential to amplify the growth cycle in either direction.  Downcycles in the wealth impulse have coincided with strong down-legs in the 30-year T-bond yield. In this regard, it is notable that in the post-GFC era, upcycles in the wealth impulse have coincided with accelerations in US economic growth. Whereas downcycles in the wealth impulse through 2010-11, 2013-14, and 2018-19 have all coincided with growth falling to, or remaining at, below-trend. A similar pattern could emerge through 2022-23, in stark contrast to what many commentators are predicting (Chart I-9). Chart I-9Wealth Impulse Downcycles Coincide With Fading Or Sub-Par Growth Wealth Impulse Downcycles Coincide With Fading Or Sub-Par Growth Wealth Impulse Downcycles Coincide With Fading Or Sub-Par Growth Unsurprisingly, the post-GFC downcycles in the wealth impulse have also coincided with strong down-legs in the 30-year T-bond yield. This supports our view that while the long bond yield could rise by a further 40-50 bps, the recent spike in yields is simply a tactical countertrend move. The broader structural downtrend in the long bond yield remains intact (Chart I-10). Chart I-10Wealth Impulse Downcycles Coincide With Down-Legs In The 30-Year T-Bond Yield Wealth Impulse Downcycles Coincide With Down-Legs In The 30-Year T-Bond Yield Wealth Impulse Downcycles Coincide With Down-Legs In The 30-Year T-Bond Yield Fractal Trading Watchlist From this week, we are pleased to introduce a new section: a fractal trading ‘watchlist’, which will highlight investments that are approaching, but not yet at, points of fractal fragility that presage upcoming turning points. This will help to prepare future trades. In the starting watchlist, we highlight potential upcoming buying opportunities for bitcoin, the trade-weighted euro, and EUR/CZK, and an upcoming selling opportunity for semiconductors versus technology. Catching our eye this week though is the very aggressive sell-off in Polish government bonds relative to their peers. Inflation has surged everywhere, including in Poland, but the inflation rate in Poland remains below that in the US. This means that the massive underperformance of Polish bonds seems overdone, confirmed by an extremely fragile 260-day fractal structure (Chart I-11). Chart I-11The Underperformance Of Polish Bonds Is Overdone The Underperformance Of Polish Bonds Is Overdone The Underperformance Of Polish Bonds Is Overdone Accordingly, the recommended trade would be to overweight Polish 10-year bonds versus US 10-year T-bond (or German 10-year bunds), setting the profit-target and symmetrical stop-loss at 8 percent. Fractal Trading Watch List Fractal Trading Watch List Fractal Trading Watch List Fractal Trading Watch List Fractal Trading Watch List Fractal Trading Watch List Fractal Trading Watch List Fractal Trading Watch List Fractal Trading Watch List   Dhaval Joshi Chief Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1  In practice, your income flow might also rise slightly. Assuming a yield of 2 percent on your $1000 initial wealth, and a 10 percent growth rate, your income flows would evolve from $20 to $22 (in 2020) to $24.2 (in 2021), equalling a $2.2 rise in 2021. But these would be dwarfed by the capital gain flows of $100 and $150, equalling a $50 rise in 2021. Admittedly, the propensity to spend income flows is higher than the propensity to spend capital gain flows, but assuming we spend half our income flow versus a tenth of our capital gain flow, the increase in the capital gain flow would still drive the growth in spending ($5 versus $1.1). Fractal Trading System Fractal Trades Image 6-Month Recommendations Structural Recommendations Closed Fractal Trades Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - ##br##Euro Area Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Euro Area Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Euro Area Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Europe Ex Euro Area Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Europe Ex Euro Area Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Europe Ex Euro Area Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - ##br##Bond Yields - Asia Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Asia Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Asia Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Other Developed Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Other Developed Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Other Developed   Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-5Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations  

Highlights This week we highlight key charts for US Political Strategy themes and views in the New Year. For H1 2022, we maintain a pro-cyclical, risk-on approach. We favor industrials, energy, infrastructure, and cyclicals. Foreign supply kinks will persist due to Omicron. The US Congress will pass one more spending bill as Democrats try to save their skin ahead of the midterm election. Yet other trends are not so inflationary: Fed rate hikes, an 8% of GDP fiscal drag, and a looming return to congressional gridlock. Midterm elections usually see defensive and growth stocks outperform cyclical and value stocks. This is a risk to our view and may require adjustments later this year. Feature This week we offer our updated US Political Strategy chart pack for the new year. Inflation and stagflation are the top concerns. But the Federal Reserve is kicking into gear, with the market now expecting three-to-four interest rate hikes in 2022 alone. We doubt that will come to pass but it is possible and there is no question that a 12-month core PCE print of 4.7% is forcing the Fed to move. Since the mega-stimulus of March 2020, markets have seen a 91% rally in the S&P 500 and a 114% rally in the tech sector. Ultra-low interest rates and stay-at-home policies created a paradise for tech stocks. But the 10-year Treasury yield surged from 1.45% in December, when Omicron emerged and the Fed turned hawkish, to 1.76% today. An inflation-induced pullback and rotation out of tech stocks was to be expected and has been our most consistent sectoral view. Long-term inflation expectations have not taken off, however. Many investors see secular stagnation over the long run – and even in the short run the resilient dollar should work against inflation. Not only will the Fed wind down asset purchases by $30bn a month starting January 2022 and start hiking rates in March, but also the budget deficit is contracting, making for an 8% of GDP fiscal drag in 2022. In addition the market no longer has any confidence that Congress will pass President Biden’s “Build Back Better” plan. We still think a reconciliation bill will pass, albeit in watered down form. But ultimately the looming midterm election will paralyze Congress, as we argued in our 2022 outlook report, “Gridlock Begins Before The Midterms.” Gridlock will ensure that whatever passes only modestly expands the long-term deficit and then that fiscal taps will be turned off in 2023. In the context of Fed hikes, this should reduce fears of inflation later in 2022, though we still see inflation as a persistent long-term problem. If history is any guide, stocks and bond yields will be flattish for most of the year due to election uncertainty. The difference between this year and other midterm years is that the US consumer is in better financial shape and yet foreign supply kinks will persist due to Omicron. The takeaway is to prefer industrials, energy, small caps, and cyclicals, even though we may not maintain these recommendations for the whole year. We are hedging by staying long health care stocks. Omicron: Less Relevant At Home, More Relevant Abroad American economic growth is declining but will likely settle at or above trend (Chart 1A). Money growth, a proxy for stimulus, is also coming off its peaks while credit growth is rising moderately. The long deleveraging of the American consumer since 2008 appears to have come to an end. But it is too soon to say how aggressively Americans will lever back up and whether a new private sector “debt super cycle” will begin (Chart 1B). Chart 1AEconomic Growth Peaked, Will Slow To Trend Economic Growth Peaked, Will Slow To Trend Economic Growth Peaked, Will Slow To Trend Chart 1BEconomic Growth Peaked, Will Slow To Trend Economic Growth Peaked, Will Slow To Trend Economic Growth Peaked, Will Slow To Trend The Omicron variant of COVID-19 will have a modest negative impact early in the year. Hospitalizations are picking up in the wake of a surge in new cases following Christmas gatherings. Only 61% of Americans are fully vaccinated and only 23% have received the booster shot that is most effective against Omicron (Chart 2A & Chart 2B). Yet new deaths from the disease remain subdued and only about a fifth of those hospitalized go to the intensive care unit today. Chart 2 Chart 2BCOVID-19 Continues But Relevance Wanes COVID-19 Continues But Relevance Wanes COVID-19 Continues But Relevance Wanes Pharmaceuticals, both vaccines and anti-viral medications, are saving the day and Americans are becoming resigned to the likelihood of getting the virus at some point. Social mobility has dropped off since summer 2021 but will boom in the springtime and consumer confidence is already picking back up (Chart 3A & Chart 3B). The Biden administration is not likely to impose unpopular social restrictions during an election year unless a variant is deadlier, more contagious, and resistant to vaccines, which is not the case with Omicron. Chart 3AOmicron Not A Major Setback For Recovery Omicron Not A Major Setback For Recovery Omicron Not A Major Setback For Recovery The resilience of the US will come with persistent inflation in goods given that Omicron will still cause supply disruptions abroad. Not all countries have as effective vaccines when it comes to Omicron – if they maintain tighter social restrictions, prices of imported goods will continue to rise. The Fed cannot resolve foreign bottlenecks. While manufacturing surveys show bottlenecks easing from last year’s highs, foreign supply constraints will remain a problem throughout the year. Chart 3BOmicron Not A Major Setback For Recovery Omicron Not A Major Setback For Recovery Omicron Not A Major Setback For Recovery Buy The Rumor, Sell The News Of “Build Back Better” The Biden administration and Democratic Party are still likely to pass one last blast of fiscal spending – the “Build Back Better” budget reconciliation act, a social welfare bill. The output gap is virtually closed and the economy does not need new demand stimulus. However, the Democratic Party needs a legislative win ahead of the midterm election. Thin majorities in both chambers of Congress enable a single senator to derail the bill. But the bill’s provisions are popular among political independents and especially the Democratic Party’s base, which is lacking in enthusiasm about the election as things stand (Charts 4A & 4B). Moderate Democrats in the Senate are still negotiating: their goal is to chop the plan down to size and pass only the most popular provisions, rather than to sink the president and their own party. Chart 4 Chart 4 This means the bill’s top-line spending will be further reduced. The final size should fall from the earlier range of $2.5-$4.7 trillion to $2.3 trillion or less. Add a few tax hikes, like the minimum corporate tax, and the deficit impact will be around $600 billion (Table 1). Table 1"You’ve Gotta Pass It To See What’s In It" Chart Pack: Gridlock Now Chart Pack: Gridlock Now Ultimately we cannot have high conviction on the BBB plan because we cannot predict what a single senator will do. That is a matter of intelligence, not macro analysis. Chart 5 Chart 5 But subjectively we still give 65% odds that the Democratic Party will circle the wagons and pass the bill. The party views itself as surrounded by populism on both its right and left flanks – a failure to compromise will whet the appetites of both the Sanderistas (left-wing populists) and the Trumpists (right-wing populists) (Chart 5A). The Republicans still have a better position in the states, and the states have constitutional control of elections, so establishment Democrats are more terrified than usual of flopping in the midterm elections (Chart 5B). Otherwise the midterms – which are already likely to be bad for the Democrats – will deal a devastating blow. Republicans are recovering in party affiliation and tentatively surpassing Democrats among independent voters (Chart 6A). Biden and the Democrats lashed out at former President Trump and the Republican Party on the anniversary of the January 6, 2020 rebellion, but this tactic will not lift their popularity in polls. Their current polling is not much better than that of Republicans in 2018, when the latter suffered a bruising defeat in the midterms (Chart 6B). Chart 6ADemocrats Need A Win Before The Midterm Democrats Need A Win Before The Midterm Democrats Need A Win Before The Midterm Chart 6 Biden’s legislation would reduce the fiscal drag marginally in fiscal year 2023 but overall the budget deficit will shrink and then lie flat over 2022-24 regardless of what Congress does (Chart 7). New spending would be marginally inflationary over the long run since the budget deficit is expected to expand again beyond fiscal year 2024. Chart 7 Republicans will not be able to slash the budget until they control both Congress and the White House, but in that case they are likely to prove big spenders as in the past. Populism will persist on all sides: the political establishment will keep trying to use fiscal profligacy to peel voters away from populists, who are even more fiscally profligate. Only an inflation-induced recession will restore some fiscal discipline – and that is a way off. Ultimately the significance of the BBB bill is to verify whether establishment politicians – fiscal authorities – are capable of moderating their spending plans according to the threat of inflation, as Modern Monetary Theory maintains. Otherwise the implication is that polarization and populism will produce fiscal overshoots regardless of near-term inflation, even with the narrowest of possible majorities in Congress. The latter, a BBB fiscal overshoot, is what we expect. If it happens it will probably be received negatively by the equity market, fearing faster Fed rate hikes, and it would add credibility to long-term concerns about inflation, because it would reveal that fiscal authorities are not good at adjusting in real time. The former, a BBB failure and a halt to fiscal spending, would suggest that fiscal extravagance remains a crisis-era phenomenon and will be reined in by Congress after a crisis passes, which is probably positive for equities. It would at least suggest that fiscal authorities will adjust when the facts change. Of course, how investors respond to any legislative outcome will depend on a range of factors. But the takeaway is this: Inflation fears may or may not peak in the short run but they will persist over the long run. The Fed: Focus On The Framework In the wake of the Great Recession the Federal Reserve as an institution – both the Federal Open Market Committee and the Board of Governors – shifted in a more accommodative or dovish direction (Chart 8). The shift culminated in the review of monetary policy strategy in August 2020, which produced average inflation targeting. Chart 8 In practice the dovish policy shift is apparent in a real Fed funds rate at -4%, the lowest level since the inflationary 1970s under Fed Chair Arthur Burns. But what is more remarkable is the simultaneous surge in the budget deficit, unlike anything since World War II, and unlike anything in peacetime (Chart 9). Chart 9Inflation And Stagflation Risks Inflation And Stagflation Risks Inflation And Stagflation Risks The massive increase in federal debt, from 34% of GDP in 2000 to 75% before COVID-19 and 106% today, acts as a constraint on any future Fed hawkishness (Chart 10). A Fed chair who drives interest rates too high amid high debt levels will cause a recession and force the debt-to-GDP ratio up even higher. Yet the result of low rates is to stimulate indebtedness. While the private debt super cycle has subsided, a public debt super cycle is thriving. Chart 10A Major Check On Fed Hawkishness A Major Check On Fed Hawkishness A Major Check On Fed Hawkishness This brings us to today’s predicament. The Fed’s criteria for raising interest rates have mostly been met: 12-month core PCE inflation is running at 4.7% while the inflation breakeven rate in the Treasury market suggests that inflation is well anchored and likely to persist above the 2% inflation target for some time (Chart 11A). The economy is virtually at “maximum employment” (Table 2) – the Fed has set aside concerns about low labor force participation to focus on the collapsing unemployment rate, which is now within the range at which it will feed inflation (Chart 11B). Chart 11AThe Fed's Criteria For Liftoff The Fed's Criteria For Liftoff The Fed's Criteria For Liftoff Table 2The Fed’s Criteria For Liftoff Chart Pack: Gridlock Now Chart Pack: Gridlock Now Chart 11BThe Fed's Criteria For Liftoff The Fed's Criteria For Liftoff The Fed's Criteria For Liftoff The takeaway is that the Fed is suddenly restoring the credibility of its 2% inflation target, with headline PCE rapidly coming up on the trajectory established in the wake of the Great Recession (Chart 12), as our US bond strategist Ryan Swift has demonstrated. Chart 12Lo And Behold: Debt Monetization Generates Inflation Lo And Behold: Debt Monetization Generates Inflation Lo And Behold: Debt Monetization Generates Inflation The explosion of fiscal spending played a critical role in generating this new trajectory. The combination of monetary and fiscal accommodation has worked wonders. Assuming the BBB passes, Chairman Powell will face even greater pressure to prevent this correction of the inflation trajectory from overshooting and turning into a wage-price spiral. The unexpected risk would be if the BBB bill fails, the Fed hikes aggressively, global growth sputters, the dollar surges, and Republicans retake Congress — then Powell may yet see disinflationary challenges in his term in office. Our sense is that the BBB will pass, reinforcing Powell’s less dovish pivot, and yet the Fed’s framework will not permit too hawkish of a stance, resulting in persistent inflation risks over the long run. Three Strategic Themes In our annual strategic outlook, we highlighted three structural or strategic themes that are not beholden to the 12-month forecasting period: 1.   Rise Of Millennials And Generation Z: The sharp drop in labor force participation will gradually mend in the wake of the crisis but the aging of the population ensures that the general trend will decline over time as the dependency ratio rises (Chart 13A). Chart 13AStrategic Theme #1: Rise Of Millennials/Gen Z Strategic Theme #1: Rise Of Millennials/Gen Z Strategic Theme #1: Rise Of Millennials/Gen Z Chart 13 Politically the millennials and younger generations are gaining clout over time, although their partisan identity will also evolve as they mature and gain a greater stake in the economy and become asset owners (Chart 13B). 2.   Peak Polarization: US political polarization stands at historic highs and will likely remain so over the 2022-24 political cycle (Chart 14A). Polarization coincides with the transformation of society amid falling bond yields and technological revolution (Chart 14B). Chart 14AStrategic Theme #2: Peak Polarization Strategic Theme #2: Peak Polarization Strategic Theme #2: Peak Polarization Chart 14BStrategic Theme #2: Peak Polarization Strategic Theme #2: Peak Polarization Strategic Theme #2: Peak Polarization The pandemic era has been especially polarized due to the 2020 election and controversies over vaccination (Chart 15). Chart 15 Domestic terrorism of whatever stripe is possible (Chart 16). But any historic incidents will generate a majority opposed to political violence. Chart 16Risk Of Domestic Terrorism Risk Of Domestic Terrorism Risk Of Domestic Terrorism True, former President Trump is still likely to run on the Republican ticket, which will ensure that polarization remains elevated (Diagram 1). However, US elections hinge on structural factors, not individuals. Diagram 1GOP 2024 Is Up To Trump Chart Pack: Gridlock Now Chart Pack: Gridlock Now So far structural factors point to policy continuity: not only are Democrats still slated to retain the White House, but President Biden has coopted many of Trump’s key policies, including infrastructure, protectionism, and big budget deficits (Chart 17). If Democrats falter, Trump’s policies will be reaffirmed. The implication is that a new national policy consensus is taking shape beneath the surface. Chart 17 3.   Limited “Big Government”: Americans have been turning away from “small government” and toward “big government” since the 1990s. Voters no longer worry so much about budget discipline and instead look for the “visible hand” of government to support the economy (Charts 18A & 18B). Chart 18 Chart 18 Both domestic populism and geopolitical challenges encourage this shift. Industrial policy and domestic manufacturing are making a comeback (Table 3). Table 3Strategic Theme #3: Limited “Big Government” Chart Pack: Gridlock Now Chart Pack: Gridlock Now With extremely robust fiscal policy, the US has avoided the policy mistake of the period after the Global Financial Crisis, when premature fiscal tightening undermined the economic recovery (Chart 19). Policy uncertainty will increase as gridlock returns to Congress and fiscal policy will be frozen. But investors need not fear a slide back into deflation. The Republican Party’s populist base may prevent more Democratic social spending but they will not be able to repeal what is done.  Chart 19Even With Looming Gridlock, The US Is Far From Tightening Fiscal Policy Too Soon This Time Even With Looming Gridlock, The US Is Far From Tightening Fiscal Policy Too Soon This Time Even With Looming Gridlock, The US Is Far From Tightening Fiscal Policy Too Soon This Time Three Key Views For 2022 The key views for the 12-month period are connected with the above but of a more short-term or cyclical duration: 1.   From Single-Party Rule To Gridlock: Republicans are highly likely to win back control of the House of Representatives and likely the Senate (Charts 20A & 20B). President Biden’s approval rating suggests that Democrats could lose 40 seats in the House (Chart 21) and three in the Senate (Chart 22), whereas they only need to lose five and one to lose control. Our quantitative Senate election model shows an even split but the model’s trend favors Republicans, as does the political cycle and partisan enthusiasm (Chart 23). Chart 20 Chart 20 Chart 21 Chart 22 Chart 23 2.   From Legislative To Executive Power: Biden may still pass one more spending bill but otherwise the legislature will be frozen. Democrats will not succeed in ramming legislation through by abolishing the Senate filibuster. Biden will turn to executive decree, where he is already on track to make a historic increase in regulation, which will increase concerns among small business (Chart 24A & Chart 24B). Anti-trust laws are unlikely to be overhauled and Democrats will struggle to bring back the tough anti-trust posture of the 1900s-1950s without new legislation, meaning that Big Tech faces a bigger threat from inflation than regulation (Table 4). The green transition will continue but primarily in the form of any subsidies passed in the reconciliation bill, rather than new taxes or any carbon pricing scheme (Chart 25A & Chart 25B). Chart 24AKey View #2: From Legislative To Executive Power Key View #2: From Legislative To Executive Power Key View #2: From Legislative To Executive Power Chart 24 Table 4Key View #2: From Legislative To Executive Power Chart Pack: Gridlock Now Chart Pack: Gridlock Now Chart 25 Chart 25BGreen Energy: Subsidies But No Carbon Tax Green Energy: Subsidies But No Carbon Tax Green Energy: Subsidies But No Carbon Tax   3.   From Domestic To Foreign Policy Risks: Biden faces a slew of foreign policy and external risks that could damage the Democrats in the midterms. The surge in illegal immigration on the southern border is truly historic and will have significant policy ramifications over the long run (Chart 26A & Chart 26B). The surge in inflation will force Biden to contend with foreign policy challenges with one hand tied behind his back, since energy supply disruptions could derail his party ahead of the midterm election (Chart 27). While Biden could ease some inflationary pressure via reduced trade tariffs, protectionist impulses will prevail during an election year (Chart 28). Chart 26AKey View #3: External Risks For Biden Key View #3: External Risks For Biden Key View #3: External Risks For Biden Chart 26BKey View #3: External Risks For Biden Key View #3: External Risks For Biden Key View #3: External Risks For Biden Chart 27Foreign Policy Could Hit Prices At Pump Foreign Policy Could Hit Prices At Pump Foreign Policy Could Hit Prices At Pump Chart 28Tariff Relief In 2022? Don't Bet On It Tariff Relief In 2022? Don't Bet On It Tariff Relief In 2022? Don't Bet On It Investment Takeaways The stock market tends to be flat, with risks skewed to the downside, during midterm election years due to policy uncertainty. The same is true for bond yields (Chart 29). Chart 29Stocks And Bond Yields Trend Lower Before Midterms ... Stocks And Bond Yields Trend Lower Before Midterms ... Stocks And Bond Yields Trend Lower Before Midterms ... When united or single-party governments approach midterms, stocks tend to perform worse than for divided governments in midterm years, while bond yields tend to be a bit higher (Chart 30). This trend is supercharged in 2022 due to the inflationary effects of the pandemic. Chart 30... But United Govts See Higher Bond Yields And Weaker Stocks ... ... But United Govts See Higher Bond Yields And Weaker Stocks ... ... But United Govts See Higher Bond Yields And Weaker Stocks ... Assuming Republicans regain at least the House, the US will transition from united to divided government (gridlock). In previous such transitions, stocks tend to perform in line with the average for a midterm election year, but bond yields skew higher – reinforcing the previous point (Chart 31). Chart 31... Shift From United To Divided Govt Implies Higher Bond Yields Than Otherwise ... Shift From United To Divided Govt Implies Higher Bond Yields Than Otherwise ... Shift From United To Divided Govt Implies Higher Bond Yields Than Otherwise We will update our US Sector Political Risk Matrix to bring it better into line with our views, particularly in light of Table 5 below regarding sector relative performance during midterm election years. Normally defensives and growth stocks outperform in midterm years, Table 5ConDisc, Tech, Health Do Best During Midterms …But Waning Pandemic Makes An Exception Chart Pack: Gridlock Now Chart Pack: Gridlock Now while cyclicals and value stocks underperform, but 2022 looks to be different due to inflation. Still over the course of the year we would expect the historic trend to reassert itself. Investors should favor cyclicals even though they probably cannot outperform defensives for much longer (Chart 32A). We recommend health care stocks as a hedge given that the dollar should still be resilient this year, Fed hikes should moderate inflation expectations, and midterm policy uncertainty will eventually weigh on risk appetite (Chart 32B). Chart 32AFavor Cyclicals, Though They May Not Outperform Defensives Much Longer Favor Cyclicals, Though They May Not Outperform Defensives Much Longer Favor Cyclicals, Though They May Not Outperform Defensives Much Longer Chart 32BLong Health Care As Hedge Long Health Care As Hedge Long Health Care As Hedge Value stocks are forming a bottom relative to growth stocks, although this trend is less clear in the US, especially among US large caps, than it is abroad (Chart 33). We favor value over growth on a cyclical basis but midterm election uncertainties will pull the other way, making for a choppy bottom. Chart 33Favor Value And Small Caps, Though Bottom Formation Remains Choppy Favor Value And Small Caps, Though Bottom Formation Remains Choppy Favor Value And Small Caps, Though Bottom Formation Remains Choppy The same process is visible on a sector basis, where energy and materials continue to outperform tech (Chart 34A). We recommend staying long energy on a cyclical basis, though its outperformance against tech could abate later in 2022. Infrastructure stocks – such as building and construction materials – also continue to outperform. Since Biden’s honeymoon period ended, the outperformance is largely relative to tech rather than the S&P as a whole. We still favor infrastructure stocks as the fiscal policy theme will continue even beyond the current legislation, which will barely start to be implemented in 2022 (Chart 34B). Chart 34AFavor Energy, Materials, And Infrastructure Versus Tech Favor Energy, Materials, And Infrastructure Versus Tech Favor Energy, Materials, And Infrastructure Versus Tech Chart 34BFavor Energy, Materials, And Infrastructure Versus Tech Favor Energy, Materials, And Infrastructure Versus Tech Favor Energy, Materials, And Infrastructure Versus Tech   Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com   Strategic View Open Tactical Positions (0-6 Months) Open Cyclical Recommendations (6-18 Months) Image Image Image Image Image Image Image

Highlights 2022 Key Views & Allocations: Translating our 2022 global fixed income Key Views into recommended positioning within our model bond portfolio results in the following conclusions to begin the year. Target a moderate level of overall portfolio risk, maintain below-benchmark overall duration exposure, make developed market government bond country allocations based on relative expected central bank hawkishness (underweight the US, UK and Canada; overweight Germany, France, Italy, Australia, Japan), and be selective on allocations to global spread product (overweight high-yield with a bias toward Europe over the US, neutral global investment grade, underweight emerging market hard currency debt). Specific Allocation Changes: Much of the current positioning in our model bond portfolio already reflects our 2022 investment themes. The only significant changes we make to begin the year are reducing emerging market USD-denominated corporate bond exposure to underweight, and shifting some high-yield corporate bond exposure from the US to Europe. Feature In our last report of 2021, we published our 2022 Key Views, outlining the themes and investment implications of the 2022 BCA Outlook for global fixed income markets. In this report, our first of the new year, we translate those views into more specific recommendations and allocations within the BCA Research Global Fixed Income Strategy model bond portfolio. The main takeaways are that another year of expected above-trend global growth, even after the risks to start the year from the Omicron variant, will further absorb spare capacity across the developed economies. Realized inflation will slow from the elevated readings of 2021, but will remain high enough to force central banks – led by the US Federal Reserve – to incrementally remove highly accommodative monetary policies put in place during the pandemic. The backdrop for global bond markets will turn far less friendly as a result, with higher bond yields (led by US Treasuries), flatter yield curves and much weaker returns on spread products that have benefited from easy monetary policies like investment grade corporate debt and emerging market (EM) hard currency debt. Against this challenging backdrop for overall fixed income returns, bond investors will need to focus more on relative exposures between countries, sectors and credit ratings to generate outperformance versus benchmarks. Our recommended portfolio allocations to begin 2022 reflect that shift (Table 1). Table 1GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Recommended Positioning For The Next Six Months Our Model Bond Portfolio Strategy To Begin 2022: Choosing Our Battles Wisely Our Model Bond Portfolio Strategy To Begin 2022: Choosing Our Battles Wisely A Review Of The Model Bond Portfolio Performance In 2021 Chart 12021 Performance: A Positive, Yet Volatile, Year 2021 Performance: A Positive, Yet Volatile, Year 2021 Performance: A Positive, Yet Volatile, Year Before we begin our discussion of the model bond portfolio for 2022, we will take a final look back at the performance of the portfolio in 2021. Last year, the model bond portfolio delivered a small negative total return (hedged into US dollars) of -0.51%, but this still outperformed its custom benchmark index by +36bps (Chart 1).1 It was a very challenging year for global fixed income markets, in aggregate, with significant swings in bond yields (i.e. US Treasuries were up in Q1, down in Q2/Q3, up then down in Q4) and credit spreads (US high-yield spreads fell in H1/2021 and were rangebound in H2/2021, while EM hard currency spreads were stable in H1/2021 before steadily widening during the rest of the year). Over the full year, the government bond portion of the portfolio outperformed the custom benchmark index by +27bps while the spread product segment outperformed by +9bps (Table 2). The bulk of that government bond outperformance occurred during the first quarter of the year when global bond yields surged higher as COVID-19 vaccines began to be distributed and economic optimism improved in response – trends that benefited the below-benchmark duration tilt within the portfolio. The credit market outperformance was more evenly spread out during the final nine months of the year. Table 2GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Full Year 2021 Overall Return Attribution Our Model Bond Portfolio Strategy To Begin 2022: Choosing Our Battles Wisely Our Model Bond Portfolio Strategy To Begin 2022: Choosing Our Battles Wisely In terms of specific country exposures on government debt (Chart 2), our underweight stance on US Treasuries (both in allocation and duration exposure) generated virtually all of the full-year outperformance of the government bond portion of the portfolio (+38bps versus the benchmark). The biggest underperformer was the UK (-9bps), concentrated at the very end of the year as Gilt yields declined on the back of the Omicron surge, to the detriment of our underweight stance. All other country allocations provided little excess return, in aggregate, over the full year in 2021 – although there was significant variance of those returns during the year. Chart 2 Within spread product (Chart 3), the biggest gains were seen in US high-yield (+19bps) where we remained overweight throughout 2021. The largest drag on performance came from UK investment grade corporates (-9bps), although this all came in Q1/2021 where we maintained an overweight stance at the time and spreads widened. Other spread product sectors delivered little in the way of excess return, although that should not be a surprise as we maintained a neutral stance on US and euro area investment grade corporates – which have a combined 18% weighting within the model bond portfolio custom benchmark index – throughout 2021. Chart 3 In the end, our recommended portfolio tilts during 2021 were generally on the right side of the market, with our overweights outperforming in an overall down year for bond returns (Chart 4). The numbers would have been even better without the drag on performance in the fourth quarter (-17bps for the entire portfolio). That came entirely from our two biggest government bond underweights – US Treasuries and UK Gilts – which saw significant bond yield declines in response to the emergence of the Omicron variant. (the detailed breakdown of the Q4/2021 performance can be found in the Appendix on pages 19-23). Chart 4 Importantly, the surge in bond yields seen in the first week of 2022 has already resulted in a full recovery of that Q4/2021 underperformance, providing a good start to the new year for our model portfolio. Top-Down Bond Market Implications Of Our Key Views We now present the specific fixed income investment recommendations that derive from those themes, described along the following lines: overall portfolio risk, overall duration exposure, country allocations within government bonds, yield curve allocations within countries, and corporate credit allocations by country and credit rating. Overall Portfolio Duration Exposure: BELOW BENCHMARK As we concluded in our 2022 Key Views report, longer-maturity government bond yields are now too low given the mix of very high inflation and very low unemployment seen in many countries. While we expect inflation to come down this year from the very rapid pace of 2021, it will not be by enough to force central banks off the path towards rate hikes that already began at the end of last year in places like the UK and New Zealand. The Fed is now signaling that multiple US rate hikes are likely in 2022, while even some European Central Bank (ECB) officials are expressing concern over very high European inflation. Longer maturity bond yields remain too low, in our view, because investors are discounting very low terminal rates – the peak level of policy rates to be reached in the next monetary tightening cycle. (Chart 5). An upward adjustment of global interest rate expectations is likely this year as central banks like the Fed and the Bank of England (BoE) deliver on expected rate hikes, with more tightening necessary beyond 2022. This will be the primary driver of the rise in global bond yields that we expect this year - an outcome that has already begun in the first week of 2022. Chart 5Global Government Bond Yields Vulnerable To Hawkish Repricing Global Government Bond Yields Vulnerable To Hawkish Repricing Global Government Bond Yields Vulnerable To Hawkish Repricing ​​​​​​ Chart 6Staying Below-Benchmark On Overall Duration Exposure Staying Below-Benchmark On Overall Duration Exposure Staying Below-Benchmark On Overall Duration Exposure ​​​​​​ We ended 2021 with a model bond portfolio duration that was -0.65 years below that of the custom performance benchmark (Chart 6). We feel comfortable maintaining that position, in that size, to begin the new year. Government Bond Country Allocation: OVERWEIGHT THE EURO AREA (CORE & PERIPHERY), JAPAN & AUSTRALIA; UNDERWEIGHT THE US, UK & CANADA Our country allocation decisions within our model bond portfolio entering 2022 are based on a simple framework. We are overweighting countries where central banks are less likely to raise rates this year, and vice versa. We expect the largest increase in developed market bond yields in 2022 to occur in the US, as markets are still not priced for the cumulative tightening that the Fed will likely deliver over the next couple of years. Markets are also underpricing how much the Bank of England and Bank of Canada will need to raise rates over the full tightening cycle, even with multiple hikes discounted for 2022. We see the necessary upward repricing of post-2022 rate expectations in all three of those countries – the US, UK and Canada – justifying underweight allocations in our model portfolio. Chart 7Our Recommended DM Government Bond Allocations To Start 2022 Our Recommended DM Government Bond Allocations To Start 2022 Our Recommended DM Government Bond Allocations To Start 2022 The opposite is true in core Europe and Australia. Overnight index swap (OIS) curves are discounting multiple rate hikes this year from the Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) and even an ECB rate hike later in 2022. As we discussed in our Key Views report, there is still not enough evidence pointing to rapid wage growth in Australia or Europe that would force the RBA and ECB to turn more hawkish than their current forward guidance which calls for no rate hikes in 2022. While both central banks may talk about the possibility that monetary policy will need to be tightened, we expect the actual rate hikes to occur in 2023 and not 2022. Thus, both markets justify overweight allocations in our model bond portfolio. We are also maintaining an overweight to Japanese government bonds, as Japanese inflation remains far too low – even in an environment of high energy prices and global supply chain disruption – for the Bank of Japan to contemplate any tightening of monetary policy. The country allocations within the model portfolio as of the end of 2021 all fit with the above analysis, thus we see no major changes that need to be made to begin 2022 (Chart 7).2 The only significant move made was to slightly bump up the size of the overweights in Italy and Spain, to be funded by the reduction in EM corporate bond exposure (as we discuss below). We continue to see a positive case for owning Peripheral European government bonds for the relatively high yields within Europe, with the ECB maintaining an overall dovish policy stance in 2022 even as it scales back the size of its bond buying activity starting in March. Inflation-Linked Bond Allocations: MAINTAIN A NEUTRAL OVERALL ALLOCATION TO GLOBAL LINKERS Chart 8Our Recommended Inflation-Linked Bond Allocations To Start 2022 Our Recommended Inflation-Linked Bond Allocations To Start 2022 Our Recommended Inflation-Linked Bond Allocations To Start 2022 Inflation-linked bonds have been a necessary part of bond investors' portfolios since the lows in global inflation breakeven spreads were seen in mid-2020. Now, with inflation expectations at or above central bank inflation targets in most developed market countries, and with realized inflation likely to subside from current levels this year, the backdrop no longer justifies structural overweights to linkers across all countries. We are sticking with our end-2021 overall neutral allocation to global inflation-linked bonds, focusing more on country allocations based on our inflation breakeven valuation indicators, as discussed in our 2022 Key Views report (Chart 8). This means maintaining a neutral stance on US TIPS and linkers (vs. nominal government bonds) in Canada, Australia and Japan. We are also staying with underweight positions in linkers (vs. nominals) in the UK, Germany, France and Italy where breakevens appear too high based on our indicators. Spread Product Allocation: MAINTAIN A SMALL OVERWEIGHT TO GLOBAL SPREAD PRODUCT FOCUSED ON EUROPEAN & US HIGH-YIELD CORPORATES, WHILE UNDERWEIGHTING EM CREDIT Chart 9Negative Real Yields: Global Bonds' Biggest Vulnerability Negative Real Yields: Global Bonds' Biggest Vulnerability Negative Real Yields: Global Bonds' Biggest Vulnerability Our expectation of above-trend global growth in 2022, with still relatively high inflation (compared to pre-pandemic levels), should be positive for spread products like corporate bonds that benefit from strong nominal economic (and revenue) growth. However, the less accommodative global monetary policy backdrop we also expect is a potential negative for credit market performance - specially as rate hikes put upward pressure on deeply negative real interest rates, most notably in the US (Chart 9). Thus, we are entering 2022 with a cautious, but still positive, overall position on spread product in our model bond portfolio. We are focusing more on credit valuation, however - both in absolute terms and between countries and sectors – to try and generate outperformance for the credit portion of the portfolio. We are maintaining a neutral stance on investment grade corporates in the US, euro area and UK given the tight spread valuations in those markets. We prefer to focus our corporate credit exposure on overweights to high-yield bonds in the US and Europe, but with a marginal preference for European junk bonds over US equivalents as we discussed in our 2022 Key Views report (Chart 10). Within EM USD-denominated credit, we remain cautious entering 2022 given the poor fundamental backdrop for EM credit: slowing momentum of Chinese economic growth and global commodity prices, a firmer US dollar, and a less-accommodative global monetary policy backdrop (Chart 11). Thus, an underweight stance on EM credit is appropriate within the portfolio to start the year. Chart 10Increase Euro High-Yield Exposure Vs US High-Yield Increase Euro High-Yield Exposure Vs US High-Yield Increase Euro High-Yield Exposure Vs US High-Yield Chart 11Reduce EM USD-Denominated Corporate Debt Exposure To Underweight Reduce EM USD-Denominated Corporate Debt Exposure To Underweight Reduce EM USD-Denominated Corporate Debt Exposure To Underweight ​​​​​​ Chart 12   Finally, we are entering 2022 with the same relative tilt within US mortgage-backed securities (MBS) that we maintained during the latter half of 2021, with an overweight stance on agency commercial MBS and an underweight on agency residential MBS. Based on our outlook for 2022, we are immediately making two marginal changes to the spread product allocations to the model bond portfolio: Reducing the size of our US high-yield overweight and using the proceeds to increase the size of the European high-yield overweight Reducing our EM USD-denominated corporate bond allocation to underweight from neutral, and placing the proceeds into Italian and Spanish government bonds (hedged into USD) to limit the reduction in the portfolio yield from the EM downgrade. The above moves will lower our overall credit overweight versus government bonds from 5% to 4%, all coming from the EM to Italy/Spain switch (Chart 12). Overall Portfolio Risk: MODERATE The changes made to our spread product allocations had no material impact on the estimated tracking error of the model portfolio – the relative volatility versus that of the benchmark. The tracking error is 78bps, still below our self-imposed limit of 100bps but above the lows seen in early 2021 (Chart 13). That higher tracking error is likely related to our underweight stance on US Treasuries, given the rise in bond volatility evident in measures like the MOVE index (bottom panel). Nonetheless, a moderate level of portfolio risk is reasonable given the combination of solid global economic growth, but with tighter global monetary policy, that we expect in 2022. Chart 13Keeping Overall Portfolio Risk At Moderate Levels Keeping Overall Portfolio Risk At Moderate Levels Keeping Overall Portfolio Risk At Moderate Levels ​​​​​​ Chart 14Positive Portfolio Carry Via Selective Spread Product Overweights Positive Portfolio Carry Via Selective Spread Product Overweights Positive Portfolio Carry Via Selective Spread Product Overweights ​​​​​​ The overweights to US high-yield, European high-yield and Italian government bonds all contribute to the model bond portfolio having a yield that begins 2022 modestly higher (+14bps) than that of the benchmark index (Chart 14). Portfolio Scenario Analysis For The Next Six Months After making all the changes to our model portfolio allocations, which can be seen in the tables on pages 24-25, we now turn to our regular quarterly scenario analysis to determine the return expectations for the portfolio during the first half of 2022. On the credit side of the portfolio, we use risk-factor-based regression models to forecast future yield changes for global spread product sectors as a function of four major factors - the VIX, oil prices, the US dollar and the fed funds rate (Table 2A). For the government bond side of the portfolio, we avoid using regression models and instead use a yield-beta driven framework, taking forecasts for changes in US Treasury yields and translating those in changes in non-US bond yields by applying a historical yield beta (Table 2B). Chart Chart For our scenario analysis over the next six months, we use a base case scenario plus two alternate “tail risk” scenarios, based on the following descriptions and inputs: Base Case Omicron related economic weakness is visible in some major economies (euro area, Canada), but the US stays resiliently strong and the US labor market continues to tighten. China is a growth laggard, but this will lead to policymakers providing more macro stimulus (credit, monetary, fiscal) starting in Q2/2022. Inflation pressures from supply chain disruption remain stubbornly strong and realized global inflation rates stay elevated for longer. Developed market central banks continue dialing back pandemic-era monetary policy accommodation, led by Fed tapering and a June 2022 liftoff of the funds rate. There is a mild initial bear steepening of the US Treasury curve with additional widening of US inflation breakevens in Q1/2022, leading to bear flattening in Q2 in the run-up to liftoff – the net effect is a parallel shift higher in the entire yield curve. The VIX index stays near current levels at 20, both the US dollar and oil prices are broadly unchanged and the fed funds rate is increased to 0.25%. Hawkish Fed The Omicron wave is short-lived with limited impact on global growth, which remains well above trend. Global inflation only declines moderately from current elevated levels, both from persistent supply squeezes and faster wage growth. China loosens monetary/credit policies and announces new fiscal stimulus in late Q1/2022 – a positive surprise for global growth expectations. Developed economy central banks turn even more hawkish. Fed liftoff is in March, with another hike in June. The US Treasury curve bear-flattens as US inflation breakevens reach their cyclical peak. The VIX index climbs to 25, the US dollar depreciates by -3% (pulled in opposing directions by strong global growth but relatively higher US interest rates), oil prices climb +10% and the fed funds rate is increased to 0.5%. Pessimistic Scenario The Omicron wave persists in many major countries (including the US) and leads to extended lockdowns and weaker consumer spending. Global growth momentum slows sharply. China does not signal adequate stimulus to offset its slowdown, while a weakened Biden administration passes much smaller US fiscal stimulus. Supply chain disruptions persist and are made worse by Omicron, keeping inflation elevated even as growth slows (stagflation). Developed economy central banks, stuck between slowing growth and elevated inflation, are unable to ease in response to economic weakness. The Fed goes for a slower taper that still ends in June, but liftoff is delayed until at least September. The US Treasury curve bull steepens modestly as the front end prices out 2022 hikes. US inflation breakevens remain sticky due to persistent realized inflation. The VIX index climbs to 30, the US dollar appreciates by +5% on a safe haven bid, oil prices fall -10% and the fed funds rate remains at 0%. The excess return scenarios for the model bond portfolio, using the above inputs in our simple quantitative return forecast framework, are shown in Table 3A. The US Treasury yield assumptions are shown in Table 3B. For the more visually inclined, we present charts showing the model inputs and Treasury yield projections in Chart 15 and Chart 16, respectively. Chart Chart Chart 15Risk Factor Assumptions For The Scenario Analysis Risk Factor Assumptions For The Scenario Analysis Risk Factor Assumptions For The Scenario Analysis ​​​​​ Chart 16US Treasury Yield Assumptions For The Scenario Analysis US Treasury Yield Assumptions For The Scenario Analysis US Treasury Yield Assumptions For The Scenario Analysis ​​​​​ The model bond portfolio is expected to deliver an excess return over its performance benchmark during the next six months of +54bps in the Base Case and +31bps in the Hawkish Fed scenario, but is projected to underperform by -9bps in the Pessimistic scenario. Importantly, there is virtually no expected excess return from the credit side of model bond portfolio in the Hawkish Fed scenario, even with strong global growth. A faster-than-expected pace of Fed rate hikes in the first half of 2022 would be a clear signal to downgrade exposure to the riskier parts of the fixed income universe like US high-yield. Although in that Hawkish Fed scenario, greater-than-expected China stimulus and a weaker US dollar would also represent signals to begin adding back emerging market credit exposure.   Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1      Our model bond portfolio custom benchmark index is the Bloomberg Barclays Global Aggregate Index, but with allocations to global high-yield corporate debt and USD-denominated emerging market debt replacing very high quality spread product (i.e. AA-rated). We believe this to be more indicative of the typical internal benchmark used by global multi-sector fixed income managers. 2     We also made very slight adjustments within the US, Japan, Germany and France allocations to refine our allocations across the various maturity buckets while keeping the overall portfolio duration unchanged entering 2022. Appendix Image Image Image Image Image Recommendations Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Recommended Positioning     Active Duration Contribution: GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. Custom Performance Benchmark Image The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index

Highlights Chart 1Stick With Steepeners Stick With Steepeners Stick With Steepeners The new year promises to be one of Fed tightening. The minutes from the December FOMC meeting reinforced the notion that rate hikes will begin as early as March and the market is now priced for 85 bps of rate increases (between 3 and 4 hikes) by the end of 2022. The long-end of the curve has responded to the hawkishness with the 10-year Treasury yield moving above its previous post-pandemic high of 1.74%. Just as interesting, however, is that the 5-year/5-year forward Treasury yield has only just climbed back to the lower-end of the range of neutral fed funds rate estimates (Chart 1). This has implications for our preferred yield curve positioning. With the 5-year/5-year forward yield still below our target, it makes sense to position for a bear-steepening of the Treasury curve. A shift from steepeners to flatteners will be warranted once the 5-year/5-year is more consistent with survey estimates of the neutral rate. For now, we recommend keeping portfolio duration low and owning 2/10 Treasury curve steepeners (long 2-year, short cash/10 barbell). Feature Table 1Recommended Portfolio Specification Prepare For Liftoff Prepare For Liftoff Table 2Fixed Income Sector Performance Prepare For Liftoff Prepare For Liftoff Investment Grade: Neutral Chart 2Investment Grade Market Overview Investment Grade Market Overview Investment Grade Market Overview Investment grade corporate bonds outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 60 basis points in December and by 162 bps in 2021. The index option-adjusted spread tightened 7 bps on the month and our quality-adjusted 12-month breakeven spread ticked down to its 6th percentile since 1995 (Chart 2). This indicates that corporate bonds remain expensive, despite the Fed’s pivot toward tightening. The slope of the yield curve is a critical indicator for our corporate bond call. We are very comfortable holding corporate bonds when the 3-year/10-year Treasury slope is above 50 bps, but our work suggests that returns to credit risk take a significant step down once the slope flattens into a range of 0 bps to 50 bps.1 The 3-year/10-year Treasury slope recently bounced off the 50 bps level and it currently sits at 59 bps. However, our fair value estimates for the 3/10 slope suggest that it won’t stay above 50 bps for long (bottom panel). The three scenarios we consider all suggest that the 3/10 slope will break below 50 bps within the next six months.2 We will turn more defensive on corporate bonds once that occurs. Chart Chart High-Yield: Overweight Chart 3High-Yield Market Overview High-Yield Market Overview High-Yield Market Overview High-Yield outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 216 bps in December and by 669 bps in 2021. The index option-adjusted spread tightened 54 bps on the month, ending the year at 283 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 fell back to 3.3% (Chart 3). The odds are good that defaults will come in below 3.3% in 2021, which should coincide with the outperformance of high-yield bonds versus duration-matched Treasuries. For context, the high-yield default rate came in at 1.8% for the 12 months ending in November and we showed in a recent report that corporate balance sheets are in excellent shape.3 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). We recommend that investors favor high-yield over investment grade corporate bonds. While, as noted on page 3, we will turn more defensive on credit risk (including high-yield) once the 3/10 Treasury slope moves sustainably below 50 bps, we will likely retain a preference for high-yield over investment grade based on relative valuations.      MBS: Underweight Chart 4MBS Market Overview MBS Market Overview MBS Market Overview Mortgage-Backed Securities outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 21 basis points in December but lagged by 69 bps in 2021. The zero-volatility spread for conventional 30-year agency MBS tightened 6 bps on the month, evenly split between 3 bps of option-adjusted spread (OAS) tightening and a 3 bps drop 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.4 The robust pace of home price appreciation has been an important factor boosting refis, as homeowners have been increasingly incentivized to tap the equity in their homes. With no indication that cash-out refi activity is about to slow, we expect refinancings to remain stubbornly high in 2022. This will put upward pressure on MBS spreads. We 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). Government-Related: Overweight Chart 5Government-Related Market Overview Government-Related Market Overview Government-Related Market Overview The Government-Related index outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 34 basis points in December and by 68 bps in 2021. Sovereign debt outperformed duration-equivalent Treasuries by 216 bps in December but lagged by 10 bps in 2021. Foreign Agencies outperformed the Treasury benchmark by 6 bps on the month and by 41 bps in 2021. Local Authority bonds underperformed by 37 bps in December but beat duration-matched Treasuries by 368 bps in 2021. Domestic Agency bonds underperformed by 1 bp in December and were flat versus Treasuries on the year. Supranationals outperformed Treasuries by 2 bps in December and by 20 bps in 2021. The investment grade Emerging Market Sovereign bond index outperformed the duration-equivalent US corporate bond index by 109 bps in December. The Emerging Market Corporate & Quasi-Sovereign index outperformed duration-matched US corporates by 16 bps (Chart 5). Both EM indexes continue to offer significant yield advantages versus US corporate bonds with the same credit rating and duration. We continue to recommend overweighting USD-denominated EM sovereigns and corporates versus investment grade US corporates with the same credit rating and duration.5  Within EM sovereigns, attractive countries include: Philippines, Russia, Mexico, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, UAE and Qatar. Municipal Bonds: Maximum  Overweight Chart 6Municipal Market Overview Municipal Market Overview Municipal Market Overview Municipal bonds outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 43 basis points in December and by 416 bps in 2021 (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.6 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 19% relative to credit rating and duration matched US corporate bonds. 12-17 year General Obligation Munis offer a breakeven tax rate of 25% 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 if 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 in December but reversed some of that flattening in the first week of January. All in all, the 2-year/10-year Treasury slope has flattened 2 bps since the end of November, bringing it to 89 bps. As noted on the front page of this report, the 5-year/5-year forward Treasury yield is rising but it is still only at the low-end of survey estimates of the long-run neutral fed funds rate. This argues for continuing to hold curve steepeners in the near term. It will make sense to shift into flatteners once the 5-year/5-year forward yield rises to the middle of the range of survey estimates. We also observe that the 2/5/10 butterfly spread is extremely high, both in absolute terms and relative to our model’s fair value (Chart 7). This signals that a 2/10 curve steepening position (long 5-year bullet, short 2/10 barbell) is incredibly cheap. Indeed, the 2/10 slope has already flattened to below the levels that were witnessed on the last two Fed liftoff dates in 2015 and 2004 (panel 4) and the Fed has still not raised rates off the zero bound. A trade long the 5-year bullet and short a duration-matched 2/10 barbell looks attractive in this environment. However, we note that the 2/5 Treasury slope has also flattened to below levels seen on the prior two Fed liftoff dates (bottom panel). In other words, the 2/5 slope also has room to steepen. For that reason, we prefer to focus our long positions on the 2-year Treasury note rather than the 5-year. We recommend buying the 2-year bullet versus a duration-matched cash/10 barbell. We also advise investors to own a position long the 20-year bond versus a duration-matched 10/30 barbell. This latter position offers a very attractive duration-neutral yield advantage of 20 bps. TIPS: Neutral Chart 8TIPS Market Overview TIPS Market Overview TIPS Market Overview TIPS outperformed the duration-equivalent nominal Treasury index by 85 basis points in December and by 830 bps in 2021. The 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate rose 8 bps on the month while the 2-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate fell by 2 bps. The 10-year and 2-year rates currently sit at 2.52% and 3.17%, respectively. The Fed’s preferred 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rate rose 5 bps on the month. It currently sits at 2.19%, somewhat 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 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. All three trades will profit from falling short-maturity inflation expectations. ABS: Overweight Chart 9ABS Market Overview ABS Market Overview ABS Market Overview Asset-Backed Securities outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 5 basis points in December and by 31 bps in 2021. Aaa-rated ABS outperformed by 4 bps in December and by 17 bps in 2021. Non-Aaa ABS outperformed Treasuries by 9 bps in December and by 103 bps in 2021. 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 is starting to rebound, 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 outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 24 basis points in December and by 180 bps in 2021. Aaa Non-Agency CMBS outperformed Treasuries by 17 bps in December and by 80 bps in 2021. Non-Aaa Non-Agency CMBS outperformed Treasuries by 42 bps in December and by 513 bps in 2021 (Chart 10). Though returns have been strong and spreads remain relatively high, 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 12 basis points in December and by 70 bps in 2021. 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 December 31st, 2021) Prepare For Liftoff Prepare For Liftoff 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 December 31st, 2021) Prepare For Liftoff Prepare For Liftoff 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 -58 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 58 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) Prepare For Liftoff Prepare For Liftoff 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 11   Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1  Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Expected Returns In Corporate Bonds”, dated September 21, 2021. 2  We consider three scenarios for the fed funds rate. (1) March liftoff, 100 bps per year hike pace, 2.08% terminal rate. (2) March liftoff, 75 bps per year hike pace, 2.08% terminal rate. (3) March liftoff, 75 bps per year hike pace, 2.33% terminal rate. 3  Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The Fed’s Inflation Problem”, dated November 23, 2021. 4  Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The Omicron Impact”, dated November 30, 2021. 5  Please see US Bond Strategy Special Report, “2022 Key Views: US Fixed Income”, dated December 14, 2021. 6  Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The Best & Worst Spots On The Yield Curve”, dated October 26, 2021.