Fixed Income

Highlights Economy: The Democrats did not sweep the US election, but the Democratic House and Republican Senate will likely find some middle ground on a stimulus deal. This will keep the economic recovery on track. A highly effective COVID vaccine that becomes widely available would supercharge it. Rates: Investors should continue to position for a bear-steepening nominal Treasury curve on a 6-12 month horizon. They should also overweight TIPS versus nominal Treasuries, favor inflation curve flatteners and real yield curve steepeners. Treasury Supply & Fed Demand: The Treasury department will continue to increase coupon issuance at the expense of bills. If current policy remains in place, Fed purchases will decline as a percent of coupon issuance in the coming quarters. But the Fed could take steps to modify its asset purchase strategy during the next few months. Feature We’ve seen enough. After a week of checking and re-checking the numbers, BCA’s US Bond Strategy service has concluded that a moderate bear-steepening of the Treasury curve remains the most likely outcome for the next 6-to-12 months. Of course, the dust has not completely settled on the US election. President Trump has issued several legal challenges and control of the Senate won’t be decided until early January when two run-off elections take place in Georgia. However, it now looks safe to assume that Joe Biden will take over as President next year. We also expect, with slightly less conviction, that the Republican party will keep control of the Senate, as Democrats need to win both Georgia races in order to secure a majority. In this week’s report, we assess the fall-out from the election on different sectors of the US bond market. We also consider how the election result impacts the outlook for fiscal stimulus and provide an update on supply and demand trends in the Treasury market. The Election Fall-Out In Bond Markets Nominal Yields Chart 1A Moderate Bear-Steepening A Moderate Bear-Steepening A Moderate Bear-Steepening The 10-year Treasury yield got as high as 0.90% in advance of election day, as the market was pricing-in a Democratic sweep that would have led to a substantial increase in government spending. This outcome is still technically possible, but it now looks unlikely. The 10-year Treasury yield fell back to 0.78% as the election results came in but returned to 0.90% yesterday morning on news that Pfizer’s COVID vaccine was 90% effective in phase 3 trials. This market action affirms our recommended positioning. The Bloomberg Barclays Treasury Index has been underperforming cash since August, the uptrend in the 10-year Treasury yield remains intact and the yield curve continues to steepen (Chart 1). All these trends will remain in place as long as the economic recovery continues, and timely distribution of an effective COVID vaccine will certainly speed that process up. The biggest risk to our view is that a Democrat-controlled House and Republican-controlled Senate are unable to agree on a follow-up fiscal stimulus package during the next few months, and that the economic recovery stalls as a result. This is possible, but our base case scenario is that a compromise will be easier to reach now that the election is over. We expect a moderately-sized relief bill to be delivered relatively soon, possibly even before the end of the year. The Inflation Curve Chart 2Own Inflation Curve Flatteners... Own Inflation Curve Flatteners... Own Inflation Curve Flatteners... The 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate fell 8 bps immediately after the election, but unlike with nominal yields, the trend in the cost of inflation compensation had been relatively flat heading into election day (Chart 2). It’s not hard to see why. Inflationary pressures in the economy have clearly moderated compared to the summer. The oil price has taken a step down (Chart 2, panel 3) and month-over-month CPI growth has been trending lower (Chart 2, bottom panel). We don’t expect this deceleration in inflation to continue. Global economic recovery will keep commodities well bid, and core inflation will slowly recover back to target. This argues for staying overweight TIPS versus nominal Treasuries. We also recommend owning inflation curve flatteners. The inflation curve has been steepening since August, as the short-dated cost of inflation compensation has fallen by more than the long-dated cost (Chart 2, panel 2). This steepening is typical for periods when TIPS breakeven rates are falling, and it will reverse when breakevens start rising again. Looking further out, the Fed’s commitment to allow a temporary overshoot of its 2% inflation target means that we should expect the inflation curve to invert. This means that inflation curve flatteners have a lot of room to run. Real Yields With almost no volatility in short-maturity nominal yields, short-maturity real yields are simply the mirror image of short-maturity inflation expectations. For this reason, the 2-year real yield has been moving up since August as the 2-year cost of inflation compensation has declined (Chart 3). This dynamic doesn’t hold for long maturities, where nominal yields have been rising as markets price-in eventual Fed tightening (Chart 3, top panel). Inflationary pressures in the economy have clearly moderated compared to the summer. The different behavior of long- and short-maturity real yields gives us high conviction in recommending a real yield curve steepener (Chart 3, bottom panel). A recovery in inflation expectations will push short-maturity real yields lower but will not have the same impact at the long-end where nominal yields will also rise. Chart 3…And Real Yield Curve Steepeners ...And Real Yield Curve Steepeners ...And Real Yield Curve Steepeners Corporate Credit Chart 4Credit Spreads Welcomed The Election Results Credit Spreads Welcomed The Election Results Credit Spreads Welcomed The Election Results Interestingly, the election result of a Biden presidency and divided House and Senate was viewed positively by both the “risk-free” Treasury market and risky credit spreads (Chart 4). Treasury yields fell on expectations of less fiscal stimulus, but credit spreads also tightened because a Republican Senate will keep corporate tax hikes at bay and a Biden presidency will ratchet down trade tensions with China. We maintain our positive outlook on credit and continue to recommend overweight allocations to corporate bonds rated Ba and higher. We remain underweight low-rated junk bonds (B & below) for now, because those spreads are pricing-in a rapid drop in the default rate. We may soon shift into low-rated junk as well, depending on how quickly an effective vaccine can be distributed. One less discussed risk for corporate spreads is the expiration of the Fed’s emergency lending facilities at the end of the year. The facilities are currently scheduled to expire on December 31st, though Fed Chair Powell seemed to imply last week that he would like to extend them. The one hitch could be that the Treasury department will also have to sign-on to an extension. It is currently unclear whether it is interested in doing so. Municipal Bonds Chart 5Munis Still Very Attractive Munis Still Very Attractive Munis Still Very Attractive The strong relative performance of municipal bonds since election day has been the most confounding market move (Chart 5). All logic tells us that Municipal / Treasury yield spreads should have widened as it became clear that the Republicans will likely keep control of the Senate. A Republican Senate will prevent Joe Biden from raising income taxes, which would have made tax-advantaged munis look more attractive on a relative basis. A Republican Senate has also been staunchly opposed to providing federal aid to cash-strapped state & local governments. But munis have outperformed Treasuries despite these obvious negative catalysts, possibly in part due to Mitch McConnell’s post-election comments that suggested he is open to compromise on a fiscal relief bill and would even be open to including some funds for state & local governments. Despite McConnell’s comments, the prospect of federal funds for state & local governments is uncertain at best. But we nonetheless maintain an overweight allocation to municipal bonds due to continued extraordinary valuations relative to both Treasuries (Chart 5, panel 2) and corporates (Chart 5, bottom panel). The Stimulus Risk As we alluded to above, the biggest risk to our bond-bearish view is that the failure to pass a follow-up to the CARES act results in a spate of negative economic data that spooks investors. This negative data would likely first show up in consumer spending, which so far continues to recover (Chart 6). However, we think the odds are that, in the absence of stimulus, we will see a disappointing consumer spending report within the next few months. How markets react to that news will depend on the status of stimulus talks at that time, as well as news about a potential vaccine roll-out. Disposable personal income was still above pre-COVID levels in September, but it continues to be buttressed by income support from the federal government. Notice that non-transfer income remains below pre-COVID levels (Chart 6, panel 3). Further, the drop in the savings rate during the past few months has outpaced the improvement in consumer sentiment (Chart 6, bottom panel). This suggests that any excess savings that households may have accumulated in the spring are now close to being exhausted. In the absence of stimulus, we will see a disappointing consumer spending report within the next few months. Elsewhere, the labor market continues to make steady improvements, but it could also use some help from policymakers. Excluding temporary census employment, nonfarm payrolls rose 786k in October, slightly above September’s pace but below the rapid gains seen in May and June (Chart 7). Further, initial jobless claims remain above 700k per week and real-time employment data from Homebase has been steady at a low level. All this to say that the labor market is making only modest gains and there remains a gap of 10 million jobs between current nonfarm payrolls and those from February (Chart 7, top panel). Chart 6Keep Monitoring Consumer Spending Keep Monitoring Consumer Spending Keep Monitoring Consumer Spending Chart 7A Slow Recovery In Employment A Slow Recovery In Employment A Slow Recovery In Employment The bottom line is that, without further fiscal stimulus, the odds are high that the economic data will disappoint at some point during the next few months. This will cause bond yields to fall and credit spreads to widen, unless it looks like Congress is close to a deal or like a vaccine will be available in a timely manner. Fortunately, we do think the odds are relatively high that a Republican Senate and Democratic House will be able to reach a compromise stimulus deal, albeit a modest one in the range of $700 billion to $1 trillion. The political incentives against compromise have faded now that the election is over, and we expect a deal either this year or early next year. Treasury Supply And Fed Demand The Treasury department recently released its financing estimates for the next two quarters. A few trends are worth mentioning. First, the Treasury will continue to increase coupon issuance as it seeks to extend the average maturity of the outstanding debt (Chart 8, top panel). Chart 8The Path For Treasury Supply And Fed Demand Bond Bear Intact Bond Bear Intact Second, the Treasury will continue to operate with an historically elevated cash balance, but it will seek to reduce its cash holdings to $800 billion from $1.6 trillion currently (Chart 9). Chart 9Treasury Will Deploy Some Cash Treasury Will Deploy Some Cash Treasury Will Deploy Some Cash Third, the Treasury assumed in its projections that Congress will deliver another $1 trillion of stimulus. The combination of (i) increased coupon issuance, (ii) a falling cash balance and (iii) stimulus projections that may be too high, points to a continued drop in T-bill issuance (Chart 10). In fact, the Treasury acknowledged that bill issuance will likely fall going forward and said that it would be comfortable with a distribution where bills account for 15%-20% of the outstanding debt (Chart 11). Chart 10Expect T-Bill Issuance To ##br##Keep Falling… Expect T-Bill Issuance To Keep Falling... Expect T-Bill Issuance To Keep Falling... Chart 11…And To Settle At Around 15-20% Of Outstanding Debt ...And To Settle At ArouNd 15-20% Of Oustanding Debt ...And To Settle At ArouNd 15-20% Of Oustanding Debt Fed Chairman Powell also addressed the media last week, after the conclusion of the November FOMC meeting, and announced that the Fed made no changes to its asset purchases. For the time being, the Fed will continue to purchase “at least” $80 billion of Treasuries and $40 billion of MBS per month. However, Powell did indicate that FOMC participants discussed different ways in which they might modify the asset purchase program in the future. Presumably this means that if the Committee feels the need to deliver further monetary stimulus it will do so by either shifting its Treasury purchases to the long-end of the curve – in order to remove more duration risk from the market – or by increasing the outright pace of purchases. Powell made it clear that he sees these sorts of balance sheet moves as viable forms of monetary stimulus, though the tone of the questions he received during the press conference suggests that the consensus increasingly senses that the Fed might be out of ammo. Several questioners noted Powell’s repeated calls for fiscal stimulus and asked directly whether the Fed has done all it can. In conclusion, if the Fed maintains the current pace and distribution of Treasury purchases (Chart 8, panel 2), its asset purchases will continue to trend down compared to gross Treasury issuance (Chart 8, bottom panel). However, we could see the Fed taking a step to mitigate that decline at the long-end of the curve by shifting the maturity distribution of its asset purchases towards longer maturities. This move could occur as early as next month. The Treasury will continue to operate with an historically elevated cash balance, but it will seek to reduce its cash holdings to $800 billion from $1.6 trillion currently. The bar for actually increasing the monthly pace of purchases is likely much higher, and it would require a significant tightening of financial conditions or drop in economic activity to push the Fed into action. The bigger question, however, is whether the market even cares anymore about tweaks to the Fed’s asset purchase program. The tone of questions at last week’s press conference suggests it might not. Appendix: Buy What The Fed Is Buying The Fed rolled out a number of aggressive lending facilities on March 23. These facilities focused on different specific sectors of the US bond market. The fact that the Fed has decided to support some parts of the market and not others has caused some traditional bond market correlations to break down. It has also led us to adopt of a strategy of “Buy What The Fed Is Buying”. That is, we favor those sectors that offer attractive spreads and that benefit from Fed support. The below Table tracks the performance of different bond sectors since the March 23 announcement. We will use this to monitor bond market correlations and evaluate our strategy’s success. TablePerformance Since March 23 Announcement Of Emergency Fed Facilities Bond Bear Intact Bond Bear Intact Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification

I will be co-hosting a webcast with our Chief Geopolitical Strategist, Matt Gertken, in which we will discuss arguably the two biggest topics of the moment. The US Election Result, And The Pandemic: What Happens Next? on Friday November 6 at 8.00AM EST (1.00PM GMT, 2.00PM CET, 9.00PM HKT). Also, in lieu of the next strategy report, I will be presenting the quarterly webcast on Thursday November 12 at 10.00AM EST (3.00PM GMT, 4.00PM CET, 11.00PM HKT). I hope you can join both webcasts. Highlights Productivity growth will continue to outperform in the US versus Europe through 2021. Equity investors should tilt towards viable small companies and businesses with operations in the US rather than in Europe. Higher productivity growth in the US means that this cycle’s low in US versus euro area core CPI inflation is unlikely to be reached until deep into 2021, at the earliest. Remain structurally overweight long-dated US bonds versus long-dated core European bonds. Structurally favour European currencies versus the dollar. Investors who cannot tolerate volatility should own CHF/USD. Investors who can tolerate volatility should own the more undervalued SEK/USD. Fractal trade: Underweight Australian construction. Feature If the economic difference between the US and Europe could be encapsulated in one picture, then the Chart of the Week would be that picture. In the US, you can hire and fire workers very easily. In Europe, you cannot. This means that in good times, the US can create millions of jobs, Europe much less so. The flip side is that in bad times, the US can destroy millions of jobs, Europe much less so. Chart of the WeekThe US Can Hire And Fire Workers. Europe Much Less So The US Can Hire And Fire Workers. Europe Much Less So The US Can Hire And Fire Workers. Europe Much Less So After the dot com bust of 2000, employment fell by 2 percent in the US, but did not fall at all in France. After the global financial crisis of 2008, employment fell by 6 percent in the US, but by just 1.5 percent in France. After the pandemic recession of this year, US employment has rebounded strongly, yet is still down by 7 percent. In contrast, employment in France is down by just 3 percent.  After A Recession, Productivity Surges In The US, But Not In Europe If an economy can shed millions of jobs in a recession, then it is easier to restructure the economy with a new labour-saving technology or strategy that substitutes for the labour input permanently. In which case – to paraphrase Ernest Hemingway – the economy’s productivity growth comes gradually, and then suddenly. The suddenly tends to be immediately after a recession. In Europe, where the economy cannot easily shed workers in a recession, such a sudden post-recession productivity boom never happens. In the US, it always does. For example, at the start of the Great Depression a substantial part of the US automobile industry was still based on skilled craftsmanship. These smaller, less productive craft-production plants were the ones that shut down permanently, while plants that had adopted labour-saving mass production had the competitive advantage that enabled them to survive. The result was a major restructuring of the auto productive structure. Another simple example is the ‘typing pool’ which was a ubiquitous feature of the office environment until the late 1990s. Following the 2000 downturn, these typing jobs became extinct, to be replaced by the wholesale roll-out of Microsoft Word. Productivity growth will continue to outperform in the US versus Europe through 2021. After the 2000 downturn, productivity surged by 9 percent in the US, but rose by just 2 percent in France. After the 2008 recession, productivity increased by 5 percent in the US, but did not increase at all in France. And after this year’s recession, productivity is already up by 4 percent in the US, while it is down by 1 percent in France1 (Chart I-2). Chart I-2After Recessions, Productivity Surges In The US But Not In Europe After Recessions, Productivity Surges In The US But Not In Europe After Recessions, Productivity Surges In The US But Not In Europe If history is any guide, productivity growth will continue to outperform in the US versus Europe through 2021. One conclusion is that equity investors should tilt towards viable small companies and businesses with operations in the US rather than in Europe. A Surge In Productivity Means Lower Inflation Yet the flip side of the post-recession productivity boom is rising unemployment. After the 2000 downturn, the number of permanently unemployed US workers continued to rise until September 2003, two years after the trough in economic activity. After the 2008 recession, permanent unemployment continued to rise until February 2010, almost a year after the economy had bottomed (Chart I-3). Chart I-3US Permanent Unemployment Peaks Well After The Economy Bottoms US Permanent Unemployment Peaks Well After The Economy Bottoms US Permanent Unemployment Peaks Well After The Economy Bottoms Therefore, optimistically assuming the pandemic trough in the economy occurred in the second quarter of 2020, the rise in the number of permanently unemployed US workers is likely to continue through the winter. In fact, it could last much longer because, compared to the global financial crisis, the pandemic is wreaking much more structural havoc on the way that we live, work, and interact. This means that compared to a common-or-garden recession, many more jobs are now economically unviable. Worse, if a resurgent pandemic causes a double-dip recession, then the peak in structural unemployment will be pushed back even further. Higher structural unemployment depresses rent inflation. Higher structural unemployment hurts the security and growth of wages. Therefore, as we pointed out in last week’s Special Report, The Real Risk Is Real Estate, one major consequence is that it depresses housing rent inflation (Chart I-4). It also depresses owner equivalent rent (OER) inflation – the imputed costs that homeowners notionally pay ‘to consume’ their home – because OER inflation closely tracks actual rent inflation (Chart I-5). Chart I-4Higher US Permanent Unemployment Depresses Rent Inflation Higher US Permanent Unemployment Depresses Rent Inflation Higher US Permanent Unemployment Depresses Rent Inflation Chart I-5Owner Equivalent Rent Inflation Tracks Actual Rent Inflation Owner Equivalent Rent Inflation Tracks Actual Rent Inflation Owner Equivalent Rent Inflation Tracks Actual Rent Inflation This is important for European investors, because another big difference between the US and Europe is the treatment of owner-occupied housing costs in the consumer price index (CPI). The US includes OER in its inflation rate, whereas Europe does not. The result is that shelter – the sum of OER and actual rents – carries a 42 percent weighting in the US core CPI, compared with just a 13 percent weighting in the euro area core CPI. Hence, US core CPI inflation closely tracks rent inflation (Chart I-6). Meaning that US core CPI inflation reaches its cycle low only after the number of permanently unemployed workers reaches its peak. This holds true both in absolute terms, and in relative terms versus euro area core CPI inflation. After the 2000 downturn, both the absolute and relative inflation cycle lows were not reached until late 2003. After the 2008 recession, the inflation lows were not reached until late 2010 (Chart I-7 and Chart I-8). Chart I-6US Core CPI Inflation Tracks ##br##Rent Inflation US Core CPI Inflation Tracks Rent Inflation US Core CPI Inflation Tracks Rent Inflation Chart I-7Only After Permanent Unemployment Peaks Does US Core Inflation Bottom, Both In Absolute Terms... Only After Permanent Unemployment Peaks Does US Core Inflation Bottom, Both In Absolute Terms... Only After Permanent Unemployment Peaks Does US Core Inflation Bottom, Both In Absolute Terms... Chart I-8...And Relative To Euro Area Core CPI Inflation ...And Relative To Euro Area Core CPI Inflation ...And Relative To Euro Area Core CPI Inflation On this basis, this cycle’s low in US versus euro area core CPI inflation is unlikely to be reached until deep into 2021, even on the most optimistic assumptions. Some Investment Conclusions From an investment perspective, US versus euro area core CPI inflation is important because it drives relative bond yields. As the spread between relative inflation rates compresses, the spread between long-dated bond yields also compresses (Chart I-9). Chart I-9When US And Euro Area Core CPI Inflation Rates Converge, So Do US And Euro Area Bond Yields When US And Euro Area Core CPI Inflation Rates Converge, So Do US And Euro Area Bond Yields When US And Euro Area Core CPI Inflation Rates Converge, So Do US And Euro Area Bond Yields One conclusion is to remain overweight long-dated US bonds versus long-dated core European bonds. Our preferred expression is to stay overweight a 50:50 portfolio of higher yielding US T-bonds and Spanish Bonos versus a 50:50 portfolio of near-zero yielding German Bunds and French OATs. In this strategic position, any price moves in the aftermath of the US election result are just short-term noise. A second conclusion is that the likely yield spread compression between US and European long-dated bond yields will structurally favour European currencies versus the dollar. Though an important caveat is that the dollar will retain its haven qualities during periods of market stress, because many haven assets and markets are denominated in the greenback.  Remain overweight long-dated US bonds versus long-dated core European bonds. Therefore, investors who cannot tolerate volatility should own Europe’s haven currency, the Swiss franc versus the dollar. Investors who can tolerate volatility should own the more undervalued Swedish krona versus the dollar. Fractal Trading System* This week’s recommended trade is to underweight the Australian construction sector versus the market. One way to implement this is to short an equally-weighted basket of James Hardie, Lendlease, and Boral versus the market. Set the profit target and symmetrical stop-loss at 5.7 percent. In other trades, short MSCI Finland versus MSCI Switzerland achieved its 7 percent profit target. But long 30-year T-bond versus French 30-year OAT reached its 3.2 percent stop-loss just before the T-bond’s strong post-election rally. The rolling 1-year win ratio now stands at 53 percent. Chart I-10Australia: Construction Materials Vs. Market Australia: Construction Materials Vs. Market Australia: Construction Materials Vs. Market When the fractal dimension approaches the lower limit after an investment has been in an established trend it is a potential trigger for a liquidity-triggered trend reversal. Therefore, open a countertrend position. The profit target is a one-third reversal of the preceding 13-week move. Apply a symmetrical stop-loss. Close the position at the profit target or stop-loss. Otherwise close the position after 13 weeks. * For more details please see the European Investment Strategy Special Report “Fractals, Liquidity & A Trading Model,” dated   December 11, 2014, available at eis.bcaresearch.com.   Dhaval Joshi Chief European Investment Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Productivity is defined here as real GDP per employed person, and productivity growth is quoted for the periods q1 2002 through q4 2003, q2 2008 through q4 2010, and q4 2019 through q3 2020. Fractal Trading System   Cyclical Recommendations Structural Recommendations Closed Fractal Trades Trades Closed Trades Asset Performance Currency & Bond Equity Sector Country Equity Indicators Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Interest Rate 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 Our base case of a Biden win with a GOP Senate may come to pass. But the US election is not over yet. Trump still has a chance of victory by winning Pennsylvania and one other state. If the vote count does not settle the outcome clearly this week, a full-fledged contested election will emerge that may not be settled until just before December 14 (or even January). Risk-off sentiment will prevail in the interim, given the importance of the executive-legislative configuration for the pandemic response and the fiscal policy outlook. What we know is that Republicans kept the Senate, in line with our final forecast last week. This means gridlock is assured – which is positive for US stocks beyond near-term fiscal risks. Stay long JPY-USD, short CNY-USD, long stocks over bonds, long health care equipment, and long infrastructure plays. Keep dry powder for the presidential outcome, as global trade hangs in the balance. Feature The US presidential election is unsettled as we go to press, but we know that Republicans will keep control of the Senate and hence that American government will be divided or “gridlocked” for the next two years. As things stand, Democrats picked up two senate seats, Arizona and Colorado, but fell short everywhere else. They may even have lost a seat in Michigan. This leaves the balance of power at ~52-48 in favor of Republicans – which is one seat better than our final 51-49 forecast in their favor (Chart 1).1 Chart 1Our Senate Election Model Correctly Predicted Republican Control Gridlock Gridlock Table 1Gridlock Is Inevitable Regardless Of Presidential Outcome Gridlock Gridlock Gridlock is the inevitable consequence. If President Trump pulls off a victory in any two of the upper Midwestern states (Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin), then he will still face a Democrat-controlled House of Representatives. If former Vice President Joe Biden pulls off a victory in two of these states, then he will face a Republican controlled Senate (Table 1). Chart 2Gridlock More Favorable Than Sweep For Wall Street, But Fiscal Risks Abound In Short Run Gridlock More Favorable Than Sweep For Wall Street, But Fiscal Risks Abound In Short Run Gridlock More Favorable Than Sweep For Wall Street, But Fiscal Risks Abound In Short Run Historically gridlock offers more upside for the S&P 500 than a single-party sweep (Chart 2), and we agree with this expectation when it comes to the long-run impact of this election. However, we have also warned against the fiscal risks of a Biden win with a Republican Senate in the short run. The status quo Trump gridlock is reflationary at first but later problematic due to trade war. The Biden gridlock is deflationary at first but the best outcome for investors over the long run. Consider the following: Trump with Senate Republicans: Trump is a spendthrift and he and his party joined the House Democrats in blowing out the budget deficit from 2018-20. Trump’s victory will force House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to concede to a Republican-drafted ~$1-$1.5 trillion new COVID-19 fiscal relief bill right away. For the second term, Trump will push an infrastructure bill, border security, and make his tax cuts permanent. The fiscal thrust in 2021 will be flat-to-up. The budget deficit will probably end up somewhere between the Republican “high spending” scenario and the Democratic “low spending” scenario in our budget deficit projections (Chart 3). This is positive for US growth and especially corporate earnings, but it comes with a catch: Trump will be emboldened in his trade wars, which could expand beyond China to Europe or others. Tariffs and currency depreciation will weigh on global growth. Still, Trump’s second term will occur in the early stages of the business cycle and the Fed is committed not to hike rates until 2023, so the overall picture is reflationary.   Chart 3Trump Gridlock Reflationary, Biden Gridlock Deflationary Over Short Run Gridlock Gridlock Biden with Senate Republicans: Since Senate Republicans did not capitulate to large Democratic spending demands prior to the election, when their seats were at risk, they will have less incentive to do so afterwards when the president hails from the opposing party. The only way they will agree to a new fiscal stimulus in the “lame duck” session (November-December) is if the Democrats concede to their skinny proposals for the time being. But Democrats will probably insist on their demands having made electoral gains. In this case, either financial markets will sell off, forcing Republicans to capitulate, or investors will have to wait until early 2021 to receive a new fiscal bill that is uncertain in size and timing. The first battle of Biden’s presidency will be with the GOP Senate. The Republican “low spending” scenario in Chart 3 is most likely. It is not realistic that Congress will allow the baseline scenario, in which the budget deficit contracts by ~7.4% of GDP. Republican senators today are not the Tea Party House Republicans of 2010, who were rabid fiscal hawks. Still, uncertainty will weigh heavily and markets will have to fall before GOP senators wake up to the underlying risk to the economic recovery. The consolation is that beyond this 3-6 month period of negative sentiment and deflationary fiscal risk, the outlook will be fairly positive. Biden will not use broad-based unilateral tariffs the way Trump did, with the possible exception of China later in his term. And the Republican Senate will not agree to tax hikes at any point, making taxes a concern for 2023 or thereafter. This is the best of both worlds for US business sentiment and the corporate earnings outlook over the two-year period. Risk-off sentiment will prevail until the election is decided. This could be in a couple of days if the vote count is clear in Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. Or it could extend until just before December 14, when the Electoral College votes, if the litigation and court rulings in these critical states drag on, which we discuss below. The reason risk-off sentiment will prevail is that the US economy is burning through its remaining stimulus funds rapidly, the fiscal trajectory is unclear until the presidency is decided, Europe is going into partial lockdowns over the pandemic, and a Biden victory would imply more US lockdowns. Diagram 1 outlines the macro and market implications as we see them, depending on the presidential outcome. We never took the view that a Democratic sweep of White House and Senate would be the best outcome for the overall investment outlook, though we conceded that it was the most reflationary and bullish in the short term. But now this point is moot. Investors will have to wait another two years at minimum for the full smorgasbord of Democratic spending proposals to have a chance at passage. Diagram 1Gridlock Rules Out Massive Fiscal Boost Gridlock Gridlock Bottom Line: The presidency is indeterminate as we go to press. What is clear is that Republicans retained the Senate. Therefore gridlock will prevail. This is generally market positive, though a Biden win would weigh on risk assets in the near term until financial markets force Republican senators to capitulate to a new fiscal bill. A Controversial Election Or A Contested Election? The critical battleground states are undecided as we go to press. Trump needs to win any two of Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin to retain the White House. The vote count will last through Wednesday and possibly beyond. The Republican and Democratic legal teams are preparing for trench warfare. Major legal challenges are highly likely and will delay the final outcome into December or even January. The first thing is to finish counting the absentee and mail-in ballots. Georgia, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Arizona are not accepting ballots after election day, so they will finish counting soon. Then all that remains is to see if any legal disputes arise that prevent the Electoral College members from being settled in these states, which is still possible. For example, Wisconsin is within a percentage point. Nevada will accept ballots by November 10 and North Carolina by November 12 as long as they are postmarked by election day. It is likely but not certain that Democrats will keep Nevada (~75% counted) while Republicans will keep North Carolina (~100% counted). Thus Pennsylvania poses the biggest risk of a contested result – and this was anticipated. The deadline to receive mailed ballots is Friday, November 6, but a legal dispute is already underway as to whether the original November 3 deadline should be reinstated.2 We will not pretend to predict the final court verdict on Pennsylvania, but it would not be surprising at all if the Supreme Court ruled that ballots received after election day cannot be accepted. The constitution grants state legislatures the sole power of choosing a state’s electors. Each state passes its own election laws. The Pennsylvania state legislature clearly stated that ballots must be returned by election day. It was a court decision that extended the deadline. The Supreme Court could easily determine that a lower court does not have the power to change the deadline. But nobody will know until the court rules. The fact that Trump appointed several of the judges has little bearing on their decisions because they serve lifetime appointments. Once election disputes rise above state vote-counting to the federal level, Trump gets a lifeline. First, the two-seat conservative leaning on the Supreme Court should produce strict readings of the law that could favor his bid. Second, the GOP’s victory in the Senate means that Democrats cannot unilaterally settle disputed electoral votes in their own favor at the joint session of Congress on January 6, which they could have done with a united Congress. Third, the Republicans are likely to have maintained a one or two-state majority of state delegations in the House of Representatives (based on results as we go to press), which means that Trump would win if the candidates failed to reach a 270-vote majority on the Electoral College or tied at 269. Note that an Electoral College tie is a distinct possibility in this election. Right now, if Trump loses in Michigan and Wisconsin, but wins Pennsylvania, and nothing else changes, then an Electoral College tie could result at 269-269 electoral votes.3 Polls … And Exit Polls Before condemning the entire profession of opinion pollsters to death it will be important to receive the verified results of the election and compare them with the final polling averages. It is clear that Trump was widely underrated yet again, but it is not yet clear that this was primarily or exclusively the fault of pollsters. Right now Trump is down by 1.8% in the nationwide popular vote, whereas he lagged by 7.2% in the average of the national polls and 2.3% in the battleground average on election day. This is a big 5.4% gap in the national poll, but in the battleground poll it is a minor 0.5% polling gap and as such merely confirms what many observers knew, that the battleground polls were the ones that really mattered due to the Electoral College. Trump’s battleground support average was 46.6% and his approval rating was 45.9% on election day, which respectively is 1.8% and 2.5% below his tentative share of the national vote at 48.4%. These gaps are within the average 3% margin of error – and normally sitting presidents outperform their polling by around 1%. State opinion polling had huge errors like the national poll. Charts 4 and 4B shows the final election polling in the critical swing states along with a “T” or “B” to mark Trump’s and Biden’s tentative vote share as we go to press. Swing state polls showed Trump staging a major rally in the final weeks of the campaign, which is what prompted us to upgrade his odds to 45%. Neither major pundits nor the mainstream media paid enough attention to this shift. Several prominent outlets denied that there was any real tightening in the polls even in late October. Chart 4APundits Overlooked Trump’s Rally In Swing State Polls In Final Weeks Pundits Overlooked Trump's Rally In Swing State Polls In Final Weeks Pundits Overlooked Trump's Rally In Swing State Polls In Final Weeks Chart 4BPundits Overlooked Trump’s Rally In Swing State Polls In Final Weeks Pundits Overlooked Trump's Rally In Swing State Polls In Final Weeks Pundits Overlooked Trump's Rally In Swing State Polls In Final Weeks What this demonstrates to us is the power of momentum in opinion polling, especially in the final week before an election when people’s attitudes harden and they bare more of their true opinions. It does not tell us that opinion polling is dead. What about the exit polls? Biden cut into Trump’s lead in key demographic groups just as the Democratic Party machinery anticipated, but it is not clear if it was enough to win the election. Trump lost ground and Democrats gained ground, relative to 2016, with white voters, old folks, and non-college-educated voters. But Trump improved his support among blacks and Hispanics, a signal point that gives the lie to much of this year’s media hype (Charts 5A and 5B). Chart 5ADemocrats Gained Ground With White, Elderly, And Non-College-Educated Voters; GOP Gained Among Blacks And Hispanics Gridlock Gridlock Chart 5BDemocrats Gained Ground With White, Elderly, And Non-College-Educated Voters; GOP Gained Among Blacks And Hispanics Gridlock Gridlock By far voters cared most about the issues, not personalities, and the biggest issue was the economy (35% of voters versus 20% on racial inequality and 17% on the coronavirus, which was apparently overrated as an issue by Democrats). The economic focus is the only explanation for Trump’s outperformance – the law and order narrative was less popular. Trump’s vote share may end up exactly equal to the number of respondents who said the economy was “good” or “excellent” (48%). Otherwise Trump’s base is well known: it consists predominantly of white people, rural people, those in the Midwest and South, those who have been fairly successful in income, and those who think America needs a “strong leader” more than a unifier with good judgment who seems to care about the average person. If Trump is defeated, the clear implication is that he failed to expand his base. If he wins, the clear implication is that Democrats suffered in the key regions for their aggressive approach to COVID lockdowns, their condoning of lawlessness, and their divisive handling of racial inequality and police brutality. With such a close vote for the White House, sweeping narratives are questionable. It is not clear yet whether liberalism or nationalism won, and at any rate the margin was thin. What is clear is that Democrats substantially disappointed in the Senate and they might even have failed to gain the White House. Given that this year witnessed a recession, pandemic, and widespread social unrest – well-attested historical signs that point to the failure of the incumbent party and recession – Democrats apparently failed to capitalize. National exit polls suggest the fault lay in their relative neglect of bread and butter in favor of the coronavirus or left-wing social theory. This is true not so much in the House of Representatives but in the presidential and senate races. If Trump wins – especially through a contested election – then US political polarization will rise due to the continued divergence of popular opinion and the constitutional system. “Peak polarization” will last another four years at least. But if Trump loses, given that Republicans held the Senate, there is room for compromise that would reduce polarization. But it is too early to say. Investment Takeaways Trade and foreign policy hinge on the presidency. Trump is favored in several of the key states at the moment and he is especially favored in a contested election process, but it is too soon to make investment recommendations on the executive branch other than that US equity outperformance is likely to continue on both of the scenarios at hand. Table 2Earnings Shock From Partial Repeal Of Trump Tax Cuts Has Been Averted Gridlock Gridlock For now we recommend investors stay long JPY-USD, short CNY-USD, long health care equipment, and overweight stocks relative to bonds. On the Senate, the key takeaway is that Biden and the Democrats will not be able to raise taxes. This is a big benefit to the sectors that faced the greatest earnings shock from a partial repeal of Trump’s Tax Cuts and Jobs Act – namely real estate, tech, health care, utilities, consumer discretionary, and financials (Table 2). A simple play on these sectoral benefits courtesy of Anastasios Avgeriou, our US equity strategist, would be to go long small caps versus large caps, i.e. S&P 600 relative to the S&P 500, but wait till the fiscal hurdle is cleared. The BCA infrastructure basket should benefit regardless, as infrastructure is one of the few areas of bipartisan agreement, especially amid a large output gap.   Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1 We upgraded the Republicans to favored status last week based on our quantitative Senate election model, which showed a 51% chance that Republicans would maintain control, with 51-49 votes. Our presidential model also showed Trump winning with a 51% chance, but we subjectively capped his odds at 45% due to our doubts about his ability to win Michigan given Biden’s 4% lead in head-to-head public opinion polls there. 2 It is possible that Nevada’s November 10 deadline or North Carolina’s November 12 deadline could become relevant, but we doubt it. 3 Precise Electoral College outcomes cannot be predicted due to faithless electors, i.e. electoral college members who vote differently than required based on their state’s popular vote. In 2016 there were seven faithless electors and in 2020 there could be several and they could make the difference. Material punishments may not prevent an elector from making a conscientious decision to stray from his or her state’s results in an election viewed as having historic importance.

Highlights Chart 1Bond Yields Have Upside In A Blue Sweep Bond Yields Have Upside In A Blue Sweep Bond Yields Have Upside In A Blue Sweep Today’s US election has important implications for the near-term path of bond yields. In particular, a “blue sweep” outcome where the Democrats win control of the House, Senate and White House will probably cause yields to jump (Chart 1), as such an outcome virtually guarantees a large fiscal relief package early next year. Fiscal negotiations will be more contentious if the Republicans maintain control of the Senate, and yields could decline this evening if that occurs. However, no matter the election outcome, our 6-12 month below-benchmark portfolio duration recommendation will not change tomorrow. The economic recovery appears to be on track and some further fiscal stimulus is likely next year no matter who prevails tonight. The stimulus will just be smaller if a divided government necessitates compromise. In any case, bond investors should keep portfolio duration below-benchmark and stay overweight TIPS versus nominal Treasuries. They should also maintain positions in nominal and real yield curve steepeners and inflation curve flatteners. Feature Investment Grade: Overweight Chart 2Investment Grade Market Overview Investment Grade Market Overview Investment Grade Market Overview Investment grade corporate bonds outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 99 basis points in October, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to -300 bps. Corporate bonds are certainly not as cheap as they were back in March, but we still see acceptable value in the sector. The corporate index’s 12-month breakeven spread is at its 20th percentile since 1995 and the equivalent Baa spread is at its 28th percentile (Chart 2). Both levels appear somewhat expensive at first blush. However, considering the strong tailwinds from the Fed’s extraordinarily accommodative interest rate policy and emergency lending facilities, we see a lot of room for further tightening. Corporate bond issuance increased in September, though it remains well below the extreme levels seen in the spring (panel 4). The fact that the Financing Gap – the difference between capital expenditures and retained earnings – turned negative in the second quarter suggests that firms have enough cash to cover their investment needs (bottom panel). This will keep issuance low in the coming months. At the sector level, we continue to recommend overweight allocations to subordinate bank bonds,1  Healthcare and Energy bonds.2  We also advise underweight allocations to Technology3 and Pharmaceutical bonds.4 Table 3ACorporate Sector Relative Valuation And Recommended Allocation* A Big Night For The Bond Market A Big Night For The Bond Market Table 3BCorporate Sector Risk Vs. Reward* A Big Night For The Bond Market A Big Night For The Bond Market High-Yield: Neutral Chart 3High-Yield Market Overview High-Yield Market Overview High-Yield Market Overview High-Yield outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 86 basis points in October, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to -373 bps. Ba-rated bonds outperformed lower-rated credits in October, and they remain the best performing corporate credit tier since the March 23 peak in spreads (See Appendix A). In terms of value, if we assume a 25% recovery rate on defaulted debt and a minimum required spread of 150 bps in excess of default losses, then the High-Yield index is priced for a default rate of 4.8% during the next 12 months (Chart 3). Such a large drop in the default rate cannot be ruled out completely, but it would necessitate a rapid pace of economic recovery. We are not yet confident enough in the recovery to position for such a fast drop-off in defaults, especially with Job Cut Announcements still well above pre-COVID levels (bottom panel). We therefore continue to recommend an overweight allocation to the Ba-rated credit tier – where access to the Fed’s emergency lending facilities is broadly available – and an underweight allocation to bonds rated B and below. At the sector level, we advise overweight allocations to high-yield Technology5 and Energy bonds.6 We are underweight the Healthcare and Pharmaceutical sectors.7   MBS: Underweight Chart 4MBS Market Overview MBS Market Overview MBS Market Overview Mortgage-Backed Securities outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 12 basis points in October, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to -39 bps. The conventional 30-year MBS index option-adjusted spread (OAS) tightened 11 bps on the month to land at 72 bps. This is now slightly below the 76 basis point spread offered by Aa-rated corporate bonds but well above the 62 bps offered by Agency CMBS and the 29 bps offered by Aaa-rated consumer ABS. Despite the relatively attractive OAS, we remain concerned that the elevated primary mortgage spread is a warning that refinancing risk is greater than what is currently being priced in the market (Chart 4). Yes, the mortgage spread has tightened during the past few months, but it remains 35 bps above its average 2019 level. This suggests that the mortgage rate could fall another 35 bps due to spread compression alone, even if Treasury yields are unchanged. Such a move would lead to a significant increase in prepayment losses. The recent spike in the mortgage delinquency rate does not pose a near-term risk to spreads as it is being driven by households that have been granted forbearance from the federal government (panel 4). The risk for MBS holders only comes into play if many households are unable to resume their regular mortgage payments when the forbearance period expires early next year. But even in that case, further government intervention to either support household incomes or extend the forbearance period would mitigate the risk. Government-Related: Underweight Chart 5Government-Related Market Overview Government-Related Market Overview Government-Related Market Overview The Government-Related index outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 30 basis points in October, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to -284 bps. Sovereign debt outperformed duration-equivalent Treasuries by 151 bps on the month, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to -420 bps. Foreign Agencies outperformed the Treasury benchmark by 18 bps in October, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to -690 bps. Local Authority debt underperformed Treasuries by 21 bps in October, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to -362 bps. Domestic Agency bonds outperformed by 7 bps, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to -33 bps. Supranationals outperformed by 5 bps, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to -7 bps. US dollar weakness is usually a boon for Emerging Market (EM) Sovereign and Foreign Agency returns. However, this year’s dollar weakness has been relative to other Developed Market currencies. In recent months, the dollar has actually strengthened versus EM currencies (Chart 5). Value also remains poor for EM Sovereigns, which continue to offer a lower spread than Baa-rated corporate debt (panel 4). We looked at EM Sovereign valuation on a country-by-country basis in a recent report.8 We concluded that Mexican and Russian bonds offer the most compelling risk/reward trade-offs relative to the US corporate sector. Of those two countries, Mexican debt offers the best opportunity as US politics remain a concern for the Russian currency. Municipal Bonds: Overweight Chart 6Municipal Market Overview Municipal Market Overview Municipal Market Overview Municipal bonds outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 41 basis points in October, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to -464 bps (before adjusting for the tax advantage). Municipal bond spreads versus Treasuries tightened in October, but value remains exceptional with most maturities trading at a positive before-tax spread. As we showed in a recent report, municipal bonds are also attractively priced relative to corporate bonds across the entire investment grade credit spectrum.9 On a duration-matched basis, the Bloomberg Barclays General Obligation and Revenue Bond indexes trade at before-tax premiums relative to corporate bonds of the same credit rating, an extremely rare occurrence (Chart 6). Extraordinary valuation is the main reason for our recommendation to overweight municipal bonds. The severe ongoing state & local government credit crunch is a concern, but it is a risk we are willing to take. If the Democrats win the House, Senate and White House this evening – a fairly likely scenario – federal aid for state & local governments will be delivered in January. This would alleviate a lot of concern. But even in the absence of federal assistance, the combination of austerity measures (bottom panel) and all-time high State Rainy Day Fund balances should help stave off a wave of municipal downgrades. Treasury Curve: Buy 5-Year Bullet Versus 2/10 Barbell Chart 7Treasury Yield Curve Overview Treasury Yield Curve Overview Treasury Yield Curve Overview The Treasury curve bear-steepened in October, largely due to rising expectations of a “blue sweep” election outcome. The 2/10 and 5/30 Treasury slopes steepened 18 bps and 9 bps, respectively, to reach 74 bps and 127 bps. Our expectation is that continued economic recovery will cause investors to price-in eventual monetary tightening at the long-end of the Treasury curve. With the Fed maintaining a firm grip on the front end, this will lead to Treasury curve bear steepening. More bear steepening is likely if the Democrats win the House, Senate and White House tonight, as this would mean that a large amount of fiscal stimulus is coming early next year. But we will stick with our curve steepening recommendation regardless of the election outcome. No matter who wins the election, some further fiscal stimulus is likely on a 6-12 month horizon. We recommend positioning for a steeper curve by owning the 5-year Treasury note and shorting a duration-matched barbell consisting of the 2-year and 10-year notes. This position is designed to profit from 2/10 curve steepening. Valuation is a concern with our recommended steepener, as the 5-year yield is below the yield on the duration-matched 2/10 barbell (Chart 7). However, the 5-year looked much more expensive during the last zero-lower-bound period between 2010 and 2013 (bottom 2 panels). We anticipate a return to similar valuation levels. TIPS: Overweight Chart 8TIPS Market Overview TIPS Market Overview TIPS Market Overview TIPS outperformed the duration-equivalent nominal Treasury index by 38 basis points in October, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to -93 bps. The 10-year and 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rates rose 7 bps and 5 bps on the month. They currently sit at 1.71% and 1.82%, respectively. Core CPI rose 0.19% in September and the year-over-year rate held steady at 1.73%. The 12-month trimmed mean CPI ticked down from 2.48% to 2.37%, so the gap between core and trimmed mean continued to narrow (Chart 8). We anticipate further narrowing in the months ahead, and therefore expect core CPI to come in relatively hot. For this reason, we recommend maintaining an overweight allocation to TIPS versus nominal Treasuries for the time being, even though the 10-year TIPS breakeven rate is no longer cheap according to our Adaptive Expectations Model (panel 2).10 Inflation pressures may moderate once core and trimmed mean inflation measures converge, and this could give us an opportunity to tactically reduce TIPS exposure sometime next year. We also recommend holding real yield curve steepeners and inflation curve flatteners. With the Fed now officially targeting an overshoot of its 2% inflation goal, we would expect the cost of 2-year inflation protection to rise above the cost of 10-year inflation protection (panel 4). With the Fed also exerting more control over short-dated nominal yields than over long-term ones, we expect that short-maturity real yields will come under downward pressure relative to the long end (bottom panel). ABS: Overweight Chart 9ABS Market Overview ABS Market Overview ABS Market Overview Asset-Backed Securities outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 9 basis points in October, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +72 bps. Aaa-rated ABS outperformed the Treasury benchmark by 6 bps on the month, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +59 bps. Non-Aaa ABS outperformed by 29 bps, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +157 bps. Aaa ABS are a high conviction overweight, given that spreads remain elevated compared to historical levels and that the sector benefits from Fed support through the Term Asset-Backed Loan Facility (TALF). However, spreads are even more attractive in non-Aaa ABS (Chart 9) and we recommend owning those securities as well. This is despite the fact that only Aaa-rated bonds are eligible for TALF. We explained our rationale for owning non-Aaa consumer ABS in a June report.11  We noted that stimulus received from the CARES act caused disposable income to increase significantly since February. Then, faced with fewer spending opportunities, households used much of that windfall to pay down consumer debt (panel 4). Granted, further income support from fiscal policymakers is needed now that the CARES act’s enhanced unemployment benefits have expired. But given the substantial boost to savings that has already occurred, we are confident that more stimulus will arrive in time to prevent a wave of consumer bankruptcies. 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 9 basis points in October, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to -250 bps. Aaa Non-Agency CMBS underperformed Treasuries by 10 bps on the month, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to -73 bps. Non-Aaa Non-Agency CMBS outperformed by 72 bps, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to -738 bps (Chart 10). We continue to recommend an overweight allocation to Aaa Non-Agency CMBS and an underweight allocation to non-Aaa CMBS. Our reasoning is simple. Aaa CMBS are eligible for TALF, meaning that spreads can still tighten even as the hardship in commercial real estate (CRE) continues. Without Fed support, non-Aaa CMBS will struggle to deal with tightening CRE lending standards and falling demand (panels 3 & 4). Agency CMBS: Overweight Agency CMBS outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 29 basis points in October, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +17 bps. The average index spread tightened 6 bps on the month. It currently sits at 62 bps, well above typical historical levels (bottom panel). At its last meeting, the Fed decided to slow its pace of Agency CMBS purchases. It will no longer seek to increase its Agency CMBS holdings, but will instead purchase only what is “needed to sustain smooth market functioning”. This is nonetheless a Fed back-stop of the market, and it does not change our overweight recommendation. Appendix A: Buy What The Fed Is Buying The Fed rolled out a number of aggressive lending facilities on March 23. These facilities focused on different specific sectors of the US bond market. The fact that the Fed has decided to support some parts of the market and not others has caused some traditional bond market correlations to break down. It has also led us to adopt of a strategy of “Buy What The Fed Is Buying”. That is, we favor those sectors that offer attractive spreads and that benefit from Fed support. The below Table tracks the performance of different bond sectors since the March 23 announcement. We will use this to monitor bond market correlations and evaluate our strategy’s success. TablePerformance Since March 23 Announcement Of Emergency Fed Facilities A Big Night For The Bond Market A Big Night For The Bond Market Appendix B: 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 October 30TH, 2020) A Big Night For The Bond Market A Big Night For The Bond Market Table 5 scales the raw residuals in Table 4 by their historical means and standard deviations. This facilitates comparison between the different butterfly spreads. Table 5Butterfly Strategy Valuation: Standardized Residuals (As Of October 30TH, 2020) A Big Night For The Bond Market A Big Night For The Bond Market Table 6 flips the models on their heads. It shows the change in the slope between the two barbell maturities that must be realized during the next six months to make returns between the bullet and barbell equal. For example, a reading of 63 bps in the 5 over 2/10 cell means that we would only expect the 5-year to outperform the 2/10 if the 2/10 slope steepens by more than 63 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) A Big Night For The Bond Market A Big Night For The Bond Market Appendix C: Excess Return Bond Map The Excess Return Bond Map is used to assess the relative risk/reward trade-off between different sectors of the US bond market. It is a purely computational exercise and does not impose any macroeconomic view. The Map’s vertical axis shows 12-month expected excess returns. These are proxied by each sector’s option-adjusted spread. Sectors plotting further toward the top of the Map have higher expected returns and vice-versa. Our novel risk measure called the “Risk Of Losing 100 bps” is shown on the Map’s horizontal axis. To calculate it, we first compute the spread widening required on a 12-month horizon for each sector to lose 100 bps or more relative to a duration-matched position in Treasury securities. Then, we divide that amount of spread widening by each sector’s historical spread volatility. The end result is the number of standard deviations of 12-month spread widening required for each sector to lose 100 bps or more versus a position in Treasuries. Lower risk sectors plot further to the right of the Map, and higher risk sectors plot further to the left. Chart 11Excess Return Bond Map (As Of October 30TH, 2020) A Big Night For The Bond Market A Big Night For The Bond Market   Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The Case Against The Money Supply”, dated June 30, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see US Bond Strategy Special Report, “The Outlook For Energy Bonds Part 1: A Model Of Energy Bond Excess Returns”, dated July 14, 2020 and US Bond Strategy Special Report, “The Outlook For Energy Bonds Part 2: Buy The Dip In High-Yield Energy”, dated July 21, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Take A Look At High-Yield Technology Bonds”, dated June 23, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 4 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Assessing Healthcare & Pharma Bonds In A Pandemic”, dated June 9, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 5 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Take A Look At High-Yield Technology Bonds”, dated June 23, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 6 Please see US Bond Strategy Special Report, “The Outlook For Energy Bonds Part 1: A Model Of Energy Bond Excess Returns”, dated July 14, 2020 and US Bond Strategy Special Report, “The Outlook For Energy Bonds Part 2: Buy The Dip In High-Yield Energy”, dated July 21, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 7 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Assessing Healthcare & Pharma Bonds In A Pandemic”, dated June 9, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 8 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Trading Bonds In A Dollar Bear Market”, dated September 22, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 9 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Political Risk Will Dominate In A Pivotal Month For The Bond Market”, dated October 13, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 10 For more details on our model please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “How Are Inflation Expectations Adapting?”, dated February 11, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 11 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “No Holding Back”, dated June 16, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification Corporate Sector Relative Valuation And Recommended Allocation

Highlights COVID-19 In Europe: The latest surge in COVID-19 cases in Europe has unnerved investors who now see renewed national lockdowns increasing the risk of a double-dip European recession and continued deflationary pressures. ECB: The signals from last week’s ECB policy meeting could not be more clear – the central bank will deliver new stimulus measures in December in response to the second wave of coronavirus sweeping through the euro area. This will be a combination of policies focused on expanding and extending the existing bond-buying vehicles and TLTROs, rather than cutting policy rates deeper into negative territory. European Bond Strategy: Stay overweight core European government debt, particularly versus US Treasuries. Remain overweight Italian and Spanish government bonds, as well, which remain supported by both ECB asset purchases and perceptions of increases European fiscal integration. Stay cautious on euro area corporate debt, however, as the renewed recession risk comes at a time when yields and spreads offer poor protection from future credit downgrades and defaults. Feature Chart of the WeekA Bad Time For A Second Wave A Bad Time For A Second Wave A Bad Time For A Second Wave Today’s long anticipated US election will be the focus for investors in the coming days (and, potentially, weeks) as all votes are counted. We have discussed our views on the potential bond market impact of the election - bearish for US Treasuries with both Joe Biden and Donald Trump promising big fiscal stimulus in 2021 – in our previous two reports. We will provide an update of those views as soon as we get clarity on the election result. This week, we discuss a new concern for jittery markets - the explosion of new COVID-19 cases in Europe that has already led to governments imposing aggressive lockdown measures. The timing of the new viral surge could not be worse for the euro area economy, which had recovered smartly from the massive lockdown-related demand shock this past spring. Real GDP for the entire euro area exploded higher at a 12.7% rate in Q3/2020, a big rebound from the 11.8% drop in Q2. Yet the second wave of coronavirus is starting to weigh on the more domestically focused service sectors most vulnerable to lockdowns and declining consumer confidence (Chart of the Week). From the perspective of European fixed income strategy, the imposition of lockdowns will only force the ECB to turn more dovish at a time when Europe is already in deflation, as was strongly signaled at last week’s ECB policy meeting. This will support the performance of euro area government bond markets, both in absolute terms and especially versus US Treasuries where yields are drifting higher and should continue to do so after the US election. Another Deflationary Shock To Europe From The Virus The surge in COVID-19 cases has hit the euro area hard and fast. France has seen the most stunning increase, with a population-adjusted daily increase of 596 new cases per million, a nearly six-fold increase in just two months (Chart 2). Importantly, this second wave has so far been nowhere near as lethal as the first wave. The “case fatality ratio” – confirmed deaths as a percentage of confirmed cases – is down in the low single digits for the largest euro area countries (bottom panel). The imposition of lockdowns will only force the ECB to turn more dovish at a time when Europe is already in deflation, as was strongly signaled at last week’s ECB policy meeting. Even with this second wave being less deadly, governments are taking no chances. France and Germany announced national lockdowns last week for at least the month of November, and Italy and Spain have put new restrictions on activity as well. The new lockdowns are already denting consumer confidence across the euro area and this trend will continue as people choose to spend less time outside of their homes to avoid infection. If the case numbers do not begin to stabilize and the lockdown measures extend into December or beyond, governments will likely be forced to consider new fiscal stimulus measures. According to the latest IMF Fiscal Monitor, the largest euro area economies are projected to have a negative “fiscal thrust” – the change in the cyclically-adjusted primary budget balance as a share of potential GDP – in 2021 of at least -3% of GDP (Chart 3). Chart 22nd Wave Of European Coronavirus Is Far Less Lethal 2nd Wave Of European Coronavirus Is Far Less Lethal 2nd Wave Of European Coronavirus Is Far Less Lethal Chart 3A Big European Fiscal Drag Coming Next Year The Implications Of Europe's Second Wave Of Coronavirus The Implications Of Europe's Second Wave Of Coronavirus In the case of Italy, the fiscal thrust is expected to be a whopping -6.6% of GDP. The main cause is reduced government spending as the massive temporary stimulus measures to fight the 2020 COVID-19 recessions roll off. Chart 4The ECB Has A Deflation Problem The ECB Has A Deflation Problem The ECB Has A Deflation Problem A fresh set of lockdowns will result in a need for more government support measures for unemployed workers, especially those in service-related industries like hospitality and tourism most exposed to lost business as consumers stay home. This poses a serious problem in countries like Spain and Italy that saw a rise in unemployment during the first lockdown but have seen no reversal since (Chart 4). More elevated unemployment rates suggest a lack of inflationary pressure, a point confirmed by recent inflation data. Overall headline HICP inflation fell to -0.3% in September, while core inflation is now a mere +0.4%. Headline HICP inflation rates are now below 0% in the largest euro area economies (Germany, France, Italy and Spain), while core HICP inflation in Italy fell to -0.3% in September. The collapse in oil prices earlier in 2020 has been the main cause of the negative headline inflation prints in the euro area, but is not the only source of weak inflation. According to a decomposition of inflation presented in the Bank of Italy’s October 2020 Economic Bulletin, a falling contribution from services inflation was responsible for about one-third of the entire decline in euro area headline HICP inflation since January (Chart 5). This comes from the part of the euro area economy most exposed to COVID-19 restrictions, highlighting the deflationary risk of the second wave. Chart 5Euro Area Deflation Is Mostly, But Not Only, Driven By Oil The Implications Of Europe's Second Wave Of Coronavirus The Implications Of Europe's Second Wave Of Coronavirus Simply put, the second wave of COVID-19 could not have come at a worse time. The euro area economy is still dealing with excess capacity and deflation, made worse by previous appreciation of the euro, with a looming fiscal tightening next year. Policymakers need to spring into action to help provide support for the euro area economy during this time, starting with the ECB. The second wave of COVID-19 could not have come at a worse time. The euro area economy is still dealing with excess capacity and deflation, made worse by previous appreciation of the euro, with a looming fiscal tightening next year. Bottom Line: The latest surge in COVID-19 cases in Europe has unnerved investors who now see renewed national lockdowns increasing the risk of a double-dip European recession and continued deflationary pressures. The ECB Will Deliver New Stimulus In December At last week’s policy meeting, ECB President Christine Lagarde announced that the Governing Council would reassess its monetary policy stance at the December meeting, when a new set of economic projections would be presented that factored in the negative impact of the second COVID-19 wave. Lagarde was very candid about the expected outcome of that next meeting, when she stated that the ECB would “recalibrate its instruments” based on the new economic forecasts. Chart 6European Banks Are Tigthening Lending Standards European Banks Are Tigthening Lending Standards European Banks Are Tigthening Lending Standards In our view, the ECB’s next policy options can only realistically focus on three options: Cutting policy rates deeper into negative territory Increasing the size, or altering the composition of its bond-buying programs Altering the terms of its current Targeted Long-Term Refinancing Operations (TLTROs) We view a rate cut as a low probability outcome. Not only are policy rates at or below 0%, but it is not clear that a cut would even help boost the demand or supply of new loans. According to the ECB’s latest Bank Lending Survey, euro area banks tightened credit conditions in Q3/2020 (Chart 6). Worsening perceptions of risk and a deteriorating economic outlook were cited as the main reasons for tightening lending standards. The tightening was most severe in Spain, but Italy also saw a big swing away from the easing standards seen in the Q2/2020 survey. Within the details of the Q3/2020 survey, the demand for loans from companies was expected to improve in Q4/2020. The demand for housing and consumer credit increased due to favorable borrowing conditions and a softening in negative contribution from consumer sentiment. Not only are policy rates at or below 0%, but it is not clear that a cut would even help boost the demand or supply of new loans. The ECB’s bond buying programs – the Asset Purchase Program (APP) and the Pandemic Emergency Purchase Program (PEPP) – were deemed to have a positive impact on bank liquidity and financing but a negative impact on profitability. Chart 7Low Interest Rates Are Crushing European Bank Stocks Low Interest Rates Are Crushing European Bank Stocks Low Interest Rates Are Crushing European Bank Stocks Therein lies the problem of the ECB’s negative interest rate policy and large-scale bond buying – it has lowered borrowing costs for euro area governments, consumers and businesses, but has crushed the profits of Europe’s banks. That can be seen when looking at the ongoing miserable performance of euro area bank stocks, which continue to plumb new lows. The relative performance of euro area banks versus the broad equity market benchmark index tracks the slope of government bond yield curves quite closely in the major euro area economies (Chart 7), highlighting the link between the level of euro area interest rates and bank profits. In Chart 8A, we show the Tier 1 capital ratio, as well as the non-performing loan (NPL) ratio for the five largest banks in Germany, France, Italy, Spain and the Netherlands. The message from the chart is clear – European banks remain well capitalized, with double-digit Tier 1 capital ratios well in excess of regulatory minimums, and have a relatively low share of assets that are non-performing. This is especially true in Italy, where the NPL ratio has collapsed from a high of 20% to 7% over the past five years. In Chart 8B, we present the return on equity and return on asset ratios for the same banks presented in the previous chart. Most large euro area banks suffer from a very low return on assets, not materially above 0%, reflecting the non-existent interest rates banks earn on their government bond holdings as well as the low rates on their loan books. Chart 8AEuropean Banks: The Good News European Banks: The Good News European Banks: The Good News Chart 8BEuropean Banks: The Bad News European Banks: The Bad News European Banks: The Bad News So given the fragile state of euro area bank health, and with banks already tightening lending standards in anticipation of slower economic activity because of second wave lockdowns, we can rule out a policy interest rate cut as an option to ease policy in December. This leaves only two other easing options, both associated with an expansion of the ECB’s balance sheet – more asset purchases of sovereign bonds and encouraging bank lending through cheap funding via TLTROs (Chart 9). The impact of either policy in offsetting slowing growth is debatable. Government bond yields are already miniscule, if not outright negative, across the euro area and do not represent a hindrance to increased government spending. The ECB can tweak some of the terms of the existing TLTRO programs, like maturity or the price of funding, but that may not encourage new lending if both borrowers and lenders fear a double-dip recession because of the second wave. The pressure is on the ECB to do something to stem the decline in euro area inflation. Nonetheless, the pressure is on the ECB to do something to stem the decline in euro area inflation. While real interest rates are still negative, they are increasingly becoming less so as inflation expectations continue to drift lower. The 5-year/5-year forward EUR CPI swap rate is now down to 1.1%, and was last trading near the ECB’s inflation target of just under 2% in 2013-14 (Chart 10). Unsurprisingly, the rising real rate backdrop has helped boost the value of the euro, especially versus the US dollar, which has suffered under the weight of falling real US interest rates this year. Chart 9The ECB Can Only Expand Its Balance Sheet The ECB Can Only Expand Its Balance Sheet The ECB Can Only Expand Its Balance Sheet In the end, greater fiscal stimulus will be the only option available to get Europe through the second wave. All the ECB can do is provide a backdrop of loose monetary policy that supports easy financial conditions, so that any stimulus will have the maximum effect on growth. Chart 10Deflation Is Pushing Up Real Rates In Europe Deflation Is Pushing Up Real Rates In Europe Deflation Is Pushing Up Real Rates In Europe Bottom Line: The signals from last week’s ECB policy meeting could not be more clear – the central bank will deliver new stimulus measures in December in response to the second wave of coronavirus sweeping through the euro area. This will be a combination of policies focused on expanding and extending the existing bond-buying vehicles and TLTROs, rather than cutting policy rates deeper into negative territory. Stay Overweight European Government Bonds, But Stay Cautious On Euro Area Credit With the ECB set to deliver some form of easing in December, core European bond yields are likely to remain stable over at least the next six months. The ECB has shown no reservations about expanding its balance sheet via bond purchases when needed. A surge of buying similar in size to that of the first COVID-19 wave is not out of the question if Europe faces a double-dip second wave recession (Chart 11). Chart 11Stay Overweight Core European Government Bonds Stay Overweight Core European Government Bonds Stay Overweight Core European Government Bonds Chart 12Italian BTPs Are Preferable To Euro Area Corporate Credit Italian BTPs Are Preferable To Euro Area Corporate Credit Italian BTPs Are Preferable To Euro Area Corporate Credit In an environment where we see US Treasury yields having more upside on the back of post-election fiscal stimulus, this makes the likes of German bunds and French OATs good “defensive” lower-beta plays to replace high-beta US Treasury exposure in global USD-hedged bond portfolios. We also like core Europe as a pure spread trade versus Treasuries, as we see scope for the UST-Bund spread to widen further – a tactical trade we initiated last week (see our Tactical Overlay table on page 15). We continue to recommend overweighting Italian government bonds as the preferred way to add scarce yield to a European bond portfolio with an asset that will directly benefit from more ECB buying.  We continue to recommend overweighting Italian government bonds as the preferred way to add scarce yield to a European bond portfolio with an asset that will directly benefit from more ECB buying (Chart 12). The ECB has already been purchasing a greater share of Italy in the PEPP, allowing significant deviations from the Capital Key weights that limit purchases in the older APP. ECB President Lagarde noted last week that those deviations will continue over the life of the PEPP, which should help support further declines in Italian bond yields over at least the next six months. We are maintaining a relatively cautious stance on European credit, however, even with the ECB likely to make a move in December. The renewed recession risk from the second wave comes at a time when low yields and spreads for euro area corporate bonds offer poor protection from future credit downgrades and defaults. We continue to prefer owning US corporate credit, both investment grade and high-yield, versus US equivalents in USD-hedged bond portfolios.   Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com   Recommendations The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index The Implications Of Europe's Second Wave Of Coronavirus The Implications Of Europe's Second Wave Of Coronavirus Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

Highlights Global risk assets have more downside in the near term. The US dollar is primed to rebound. Without major fiscal stimulus in the US, the upside in the greenback will be substantial. China’s business cycle recovery will continue but Chinese stocks and China-related plays are over-hyped and will experience a setback. For equity and credit investors, we recommend maintaining a neutral allocation to EM versus their DM counterparts. Feature Global risk assets have been in a twilight zone. On the one hand, there has been enormous uncertainty related to the US elections, the US fiscal stimulus and the impact of renewed social mobility restrictions on economic activity, especially in Europe. On the other hand, ultra-accommodative central banks, zero or negative interest rates on risk-free investments and the possibility of positive news on the COVID-19 vaccine front have until recently precluded a carnage in global risk assets. What will be the path going forward? We believe the risk-off period in global markets will continue in the near run, i.e., there will be a dusk before a sunrise. Hence, investors should maintain dry powder at the moment. Several negative outcomes have a non-trivial probability of occurring over the very near term. Chiefly these include a contested US presidential election or a Republican Senate under a Biden presidency acting as a constraint on large fiscal stimulus. Chart I-1The US Needs $1.5tn (7.4% Of GDP) Of Fiscal Stimulus In 2021 To Have A Neutral Fiscal Thrust The US Needs $1.5bn (7.4% Of GDP) Of Fiscal Stimulus In 2021 To Have A Neutral Fiscal Thrust The US Needs $1.5bn (7.4% Of GDP) Of Fiscal Stimulus In 2021 To Have A Neutral Fiscal Thrust Needless to say, without a large fiscal stimulus package, the US is facing a fiscal cliff. According to the US Congressional Budget Office, the fiscal thrust will be negative 7.4% of GDP in 2021 if no further stimulus is enacted (Chart I-1). The fiscal thrust is the change in the cyclically-adjusted budget deficit. Even if the cyclically-adjusted budget deficit as a share of GDP remains the same, fiscal thrust will be zero. Hence, to achieve a positive fiscal thrust in the US, the fiscal stimulus must be greater than 7.4% of GDP or above $1.5 trillion.  Even though Congress eventually approves a large fiscal package, there is a risk that the economy will slip in the interim. To emphasize, we do not mean there will be no fiscal stimulus. The point is that a large fiscal package is possible only if markets riot. With equity and credit markets still richly priced relative to their fundamentals, the carnage in global risk assets will likely continue.     With equity and credit markets still richly priced relative to their fundamentals, the carnage in global risk assets will likely continue. Chart I-2The US: Lower Inflation Expectations, Higher Real Rates And A Stronger Dollar The US: Lower Inflation Expectations, Higher Real Rates And A Stronger Dollar The US: Lower Inflation Expectations, Higher Real Rates And A Stronger Dollar In the absence of a large US fiscal package and amid falling oil prices, US break-even inflation expectations will drop and the TIPS (real) yields will bounce in the near term (Chart I-2). A rebound in TIPS (real) yields will induce a bounce in the US dollar (Chart I-2, bottom panel).  Provided that the primary risks presently stem from DM rather than Chinese growth, we recommend maintaining a neutral allocation to EM within respective global equity and credit portfolios. Why not overweight EM versus DM? First, the rebound in the greenback will weigh on EM financial markets. Second, outside China, Korea and Taiwan, EM fundamentals are poor. Net-net, odds of EM out- and under-performance versus DM are, for now, balanced. China: Peak Stimulus, Equities And Commodities China’s business cycle recovery is intact. However, Chinese equities have become fully priced and are at risk of a setback (in absolute terms) along with global share prices. Notably, there are several elements that could trigger a meaningful setback in Chinese stocks. First, the money and credit impulses are about to peak. The top panel of Chart I-3 shows that changes in commercial banks’ excess reserves ratio lead the credit impulse by about six months. The drop in the excess reserves ratio since May foreshadows the top in the private credit impulse. Interbank rates – shown inverted in the bottom panel of Chart I-3 – point to an apex in the narrow money (M1) impulse. Authorities have been shrinking commercial banks’ excess reserves at the PBoC since May/June.  Tightening liquidity conditions in the banking system have led to higher interbank rates as well as government and corporate bond yields. Higher borrowing costs will weigh on money and credit growth. Second, the loan approval index of the PBoC banking survey has rolled over (Chart I-4). This implies that bank loan origination will subside going forward. Chart I-3China: Money/Credit Impulses Are At An Apex China: Money/Credit Impulses Are At An Apex China: Money/Credit Impulses Are At An Apex Chart I-4China: Loan Growth To Moderate China: Loan Growth To Moderate China: Loan Growth To Moderate Finally, fiscal stimulus is also peaking. Chart I-5 shows that the issuance of local government bonds is set to dwindle in the coming months. A peak in stimulus does not herald an immediate end of the recovery in the business cycle. China’s combined credit and fiscal spending impulse leads the business cycle by about nine months (Chart I-6). Therefore, even as the credit and fiscal spending impulse reaches an apex, the Chinese mainland’s economic activity will stay firm in H1 2021. Consequently, corporate profits will continue to recover. Chart I-5China: Fiscal Stimulus Is Peaking China: Fiscal Stimulus Is Peaking China: Fiscal Stimulus Is Peaking Chart I-6China: The Economy Will Continue Recovering China: The Economy Will Continue Recovering China: The Economy Will Continue Recovering What do all these imply for share prices? In periods when borrowing costs rise along with accelerating profit growth/improving net EPS revisions, share prices could still advance (Chart I-7). Hence, peak stimulus is not a sufficient reason to turn negative on share prices. Chart I-7China: Share Prices (ex-TMT), EPS Expectations And Corporate Bond Yields China: Share Prices (ex-TMT), EPS Expectations And Corporate Bond Yields China: Share Prices (ex-TMT), EPS Expectations And Corporate Bond Yields That said, there are some signs that the Chinese equity market is overbought and over-hyped, making it vulnerable: A major IPO often marks a top in an asset class. Chart I-8 illustrates that Goldman Sachs’ IPO in 1999 preceded the secular top in US equities, IPOs of KKR and Blackstone in 2007 took place before the US credit bubble and the LBO boom unraveled; and finally, Glencore, the largest commodity trading house, went public in 2011 at the very peak of the secular bull market in commodities. In this respect, will Ant Group’s upcoming IPO mark a major top in Chinese or new economy stocks? Time will tell. Chart I-9 illustrates that Chinese IPO booms were historically associated with equity market tops. The current surge in Chinese IPOs – in various jurisdictions including China, Hong Kong, and the US – is a symptom of an over-hyped market. Chart I-8A Major IPO Often Marks The Top in Respective Asset Classes A Major IPO Often Marks The Top in Respective Asset Classes A Major IPO Often Marks The Top in Respective Asset Classes Chart I-9China: Booming IPOs = An Equity Market Top? China: Booming IPOs = An Equity Market Top? China: Booming IPOs = An Equity Market Top? Finally, new economy stocks in both the US and China have risen by about 20-fold since January 2010. Both in terms of duration and magnitude, their rallies are identical to the bull market in the Nasdaq 100 index in the 1990s (Chart I-10). The striking similarity with those episodes as well as current euphoria among investors about FAANG and Chinese new economy stocks warrant caution. In regard to commodities, in recent months we have been arguing that China is entering a commodity destocking cycle following the major restocking cycle that occurred in April-August. As Chinese imports of key commodities temporarily diminish due to destocking, commodities prices will relapse. Importantly, investor sentiment and net long positions in some key commodities are very elevated, suggesting overbought conditions (Chart I-11). Chart I-10FAANG And Tencent Have Been Tracking The Trajectory Of Nasdaq 100 In The 1990s FAANG And Tencent Have Been Tracking The Trajectory Of Nasdaq 100 In The 1990s FAANG And Tencent Have Been Tracking The Trajectory Of Nasdaq 100 In The 1990s Chart I-11Investors Are Very Bullish On Copper Investors Are Very Bullish On Copper Investors Are Very Bullish On Copper Critically, global mining stocks have been dropping since early September and are signaling a relapse in industrial metals prices (Chart I-12). In brief, commodity prices and commodity plays remain vulnerable. Chart I-12Global Mining Stocks Point To A Relapse In Industrial Commodities Prices Global Mining Stocks Point To A Relapse In Industrial Commodities Prices Global Mining Stocks Point To A Relapse In Industrial Commodities Prices Bottom Line: Marrying the positive outlook for China’s business cycle on the one hand with an  impending potential correction in global stocks, the peak in Chinese stimulus and signs of Chinese equity investor euphoria, we conclude that the risk-reward profiles of Chinese stocks and China-related plays in absolute terms are unattractive. That said, we continue recommending overweighting Chinese stocks within an EM equity portfolio. From a cyclical perspective, Chinese corporate profits will outperform EM and DM corporate earnings because China has dealt with the pandemic much better than almost all other countries. An Update On Currencies And Local Fixed-Income We have been shorting a basket of EM currencies – BRL, CLP, ZAR, TRY, KRW and IDR – against an equally-weighted basket of the euro, CHF and JPY. This strategy remains intact. However, we believe the US dollar is primed to stage a major rebound, in general, and versus EM currencies, in particular. Therefore, US dollar-based investors should hedge their currency risk or short the same EM currency basket versus the greenback. In EM local fixed-income markets, we have been receiving 10-year swap rates but have not recommended owning cash domestic bonds because of currency risk. We continue to recommend investors receive 10-year swap rates in the following markets: Mexico, Colombia, Russia, China, India and Korea. We have also been recommending long positions in domestic bonds in certain frontier markets like Egypt, Ukraine, and Pakistan. The global risk-off phase will cause their currencies to relapse versus the US dollar, raising the possibility that local bond yields will rise. Therefore, investors who are long these markets should close these positions.   Arthur Budaghyan Chief Emerging Markets Strategist arthurb@bcaresearch.com Equities Recommendations Currencies, Credit And Fixed-Income Recommendations

Your feedback is important to us. Please take our client survey today. Highlights US Election & Duration: We estimate that there is an 80% probability of a US election result that will give a lift to US Treasury yields via increased fiscal stimulus. Those are strong enough odds to justify a move to a below-benchmark cyclical US duration stance on a 6-12 month horizon. US Treasuries: We anticipate a moderate bear market in US Treasuries to unfold during the next 6-12 months. In addition to below-benchmark portfolio duration, investors should overweight TIPS versus nominal Treasuries, hold nominal and real yield curve steepeners, and hold inflation curve flatteners. Non-US Country Allocation: Within global government bond portfolios, downgrade the US to underweight. Favor countries that have lower sensitivity to rising US Treasury yields with central banks that are likely to be more dovish than the Fed in the next few years. That means increasing allocations to core Europe and Japan, while reducing exposure to Canada and Australia. Stay neutral on the UK given the near-term uncertainties over the final Brexit outcome. Feature With the US presidential election just two weeks away, public opinion polls continue to show that Joe Biden is the favorite to win the White House. However, the odds of a “Blue Sweep” - combining a Biden victory with the Democratic Party winning control of both the US Senate and House of Representatives - have increased since the end of September according to online prediction markets. US Treasury yields have also moved higher over that same period (Chart II-1), which we interpret as the bond market becoming more sensitive to the likelihood of a major increase in US government spending under single-party Democratic control. Chart II-1A Blue Sweep Is Bond Bearish A Blue Sweep Is Bond Bearish A Blue Sweep Is Bond Bearish Table II-1A Comparison Of The Candidates' Budget Proposals November 2020 November 2020 According to a recent analysis done by the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, President Trump’s formal policy proposals would increase US federal debt by $4.95 trillion between 2021 and 2030, while Biden’s plan would increase the debt by $5.60 trillion (Table II-1).1 While those are both massive fiscal stimulus plans, there is a stark difference in the policy mix of their proposals that matters for the future path of US bond yields. Under Biden, spending is projected to increase by a cumulative $11.1 trillion, partially offset by $5.8 trillion in revenue increases and savings with the former vice-president calling for tax hikes on corporations and high-income earners. On the other hand, Trump’s plan includes $5.45 trillion of spending increases and tax cuts over the next decade, offset by $0.75 trillion in savings. Conclusion: Biden would increase spending by over twice that of a re-elected Trump, with much of that spending expected to be front-loaded in the early part of his first term. Outright spending is more reflationary than tax cuts because it puts more money in the pockets of consumers (spenders) relative to producers (savers). The Biden plan would be more stimulating for overall activity even if the increase in debt is about the same. Chart II-2The Biden Platform Is Highly Stimulative The Biden Platform Is Highly Stimulative The Biden Platform Is Highly Stimulative Another analysis of the Biden and Trump platforms was conducted by Moody’s in September, based on estimates of how much of each candidate’s promises could be successfully implemented under different combinations of White House and Congressional control.2 The stimulus figures were run through the Moody’s US economic model, which is similar to the budget scoring model of the US Congressional Budget Office, to produce a year-by-year path for the US economy over the next decade (Chart II-2). Moody’s concluded that the US economy would return to full employment in the second half of 2022 under a President Biden – especially if the Democrats win the Senate - compared to the first half of 2024 under a re-elected President Trump. Such a rapid closing of the deep US output gap that opened up because of the COVID-19 recession would likely trigger a reassessment of the Fed’s current highly dovish policy stance. At the moment, the US overnight index swap (OIS) curve discounts one full 25bp Fed hike by late 2023/early 2024, and two full hikes by late 2024/early 2025 (Chart II-3). This pricing of the future path of interest rates has occurred even with the Fed promising to keep the funds rate anchored near 0% until at least the end of 2023. The likelihood of some form of increased fiscal spending after the election will cause the bond market to challenge the Fed’s current forward guidance even more, putting upward pressure on Treasury yields. Chart II-3US Fiscal Stimulus Will Pull Forward Fed Liftoff US Fiscal Stimulus Will Pull Forward Fed Liftoff US Fiscal Stimulus Will Pull Forward Fed Liftoff Our colleagues at BCA Geopolitical Strategy see a Blue Sweep as the most likely outcome of the US election, although their forecasting models suggest that the race for control of the Senate will be much closer than the Biden vs Trump battle (there is little chance that control of the House of Representatives would switch back to the Republicans).3 Their scenarios for each of the White House/Senate combinations, along with their own estimated probability for each, are the following: Biden wins in a Democratic sweep: BCA probability = 27%. The US economy will benefit from higher odds of unfettered fiscal stimulus in 2021, although financial markets will simultaneously have to adjust for the negative shock to US corporate earnings from higher taxes and regulation. Government bond yields should rise on the generally reflationary agenda. Trump wins with a Republican Senate: BCA probability = 23%. In this status quo scenario, a re-elected President Trump would still face opposition from House Democrats on most domestic economic issues, forcing him to tilt towards more protectionist foreign and trade policies in his second term. Fiscal stimulus would be easy to agree, though not as large as under a Democratic sweep. US Treasury yields would rise, but would later prove volatile due to the risk to the cyclical recovery from a global trade war, as Trump’s tariffs will not be limited to China and could even affect the European Union. Biden wins with the Senate staying Republican: BCA probability = 28%. This is ultimately the most positive outcome for financial markets - reduced odds of a full-blown trade war with China, combined with no new tax hikes. Bond yields would drift upward over time, but not during the occasional fiscal battles that would ensue between the Democratic president and Republican senators. The first such battle would start right after the election. Treasuries would remain well bid until financial market pressures forced a Senate compromise with the new president sometime in H1 2021. Trump wins with a Democratic Senate: BCA probability = 22%. This is the least likely scenario but one that could produce a big positive fiscal impulse. Trump is a big spender and will veto tax hikes, but will approve populist spending on areas where he agrees. The Democratic Senate would not resist Trump’s tough stance on China, however, thus keeping the risk of US-China trade skirmishes elevated. This is neutral-to-bearish for US Treasuries, depending on the size of any bipartisan stimulus measures and Trump’s trade actions. The key takeaway is that the combined probability of scenarios that will put upward pressure on US Treasury yields is 72%, versus a 28% probability of a more bond-neutral outcome. That is a bond-bearish skew worth positioning for by reducing US duration exposure now, ahead of the November 3 election. Of this 72%, 45 percentage points come from scenarios in which President Trump would remain in power. Hence his trade wars would eventually undercut his reflationary fiscal policy. This would become the key risk to the short duration view after the initial market response. Bottom Line: The most likely scenarios for the US election will give a cyclical lift to US Treasury yields via increased fiscal stimulus. This justifies a move to a below-benchmark US duration stance on a 6-12 month horizon. If Trump is re-elected, the timing of Trump’s likely return to using broad-based tariffs will have to be monitored closely. A Moderate Bear Market While our anticipated Blue Sweep election outcome will lead to a large amount of fiscal spending in 2021 and beyond, we anticipate only a modest increase in bond yields during the next 6-12 months. In terms of strategy, our recommended reduction in portfolio duration reflects the fact that fiscal largesse meaningfully reduces the risk of another significant downleg in bond yields and strengthens our conviction in a moderate bear market scenario for bonds. This does raise the question of how large an increase in US Treasury yields we expect during the next 6-12 months. We turn to this question now. Chart II-4Less Election-Day Upside Than In 2016 Less Election-Day Upside Than In 2016 Less Election-Day Upside Than In 2016 Not Like 2016 First, we do not expect a massive election night bond rout like we saw in 2016 (Chart II-4). For one thing, the Fed was much more eager to tighten policy in 2016 than it is today, and it did deliver a rate hike one month after the Republicans won the House, Senate and White House (Chart II-4, bottom panel). This time around, the Fed has made it clear that it will wait until inflation is running above its 2% target before lifting rates off the zero bound and will not respond directly to expectations for greater fiscal stimulus. Second, 2016’s election result was mostly unanticipated. This led to a dramatic adjustment in market prices once the results came in. The PredictIt betting market odds of a “Red Sweep” by the Republicans in 2016 were only 16% the night before the election. As of today, the betting markets are priced for a 58% chance of a Blue Sweep in 2020. Unlike in 2016, bonds are presumably already partially priced for the most bond-bearish election outcome. A Slow Return To Equilibrium To more directly answer the question of how high bond yields can rise, survey estimates of the long-run (or equilibrium) federal funds rate provide a useful starting point. In a world where the economy is growing at an above-trend pace and inflation is expected to move towards the Fed’s target, it is logical for long-maturity Treasury yields to settle near estimates of the long-run fed funds rate. Indeed, this theory is borne out empirically. During the last two periods of robust global economic growth (2017/18 & 2013/14), the 5-year/5-year forward Treasury yield peaked around levels consistent with long-run fed funds rate estimates (Chart II-5). As of today, the median estimates of the long-run fed funds rate from the New York Fed’s Survey of Market Participants and Survey of Primary Dealers are 2% and 2.25%, respectively. In other words, a complete re-convergence to these equilibrium levels would impart 80 – 100 bps of upward pressure to the 5-year/5-year forward Treasury yield. We expect this re-convergence to play out eventually, but probably not within the next 6-12 months. In both prior periods when the 5-year/5-year forward Treasury yield reached these equilibrium levels, the Fed’s reaction function was much more hawkish. The Fed was hiking rates throughout 2017 & 2018 (Chart II-5, panel 4), and the market moved quickly to price in rate hikes in 2013 (Chart II-5, bottom panel). The Fed’s new dovish messaging will ensure that the market reacts less quickly this time around. Also, continued curve steepening will mean that the 5-year/5-year forward yield’s 80 – 100 bps of upside will translate into significantly less upside for the benchmark 10-year yield. The 10-year yield and 5-year/5-year forward yield peaked at similar levels in 2017/18 when the Fed was lifting rates and the yield curve was flat (Chart II-6). But, the 10-year peaked far below the 5-year/5-year yield in 2013/14 when the Fed stayed on hold and the curve steepened. Chart II-5How High For Treasury Yields? How High For Treasury Yields? How High For Treasury Yields? Chart II-6Less Upside In 10yr Than In 5y5y Less Upside In 10yr Than In 5y5y Less Upside In 10yr Than In 5y5y   The next bear move in bonds will look much more like 2013/14. The Fed will keep a firm grip over the front-end of the curve, leading to curve steepening and less upside in the 10-year Treasury yield than in the 5-year/5-year forward. In addition to shifting to a below-benchmark duration stance, investors should maintain exposure to nominal yield curve steepeners. Specifically, we recommend buying the 5-year note versus a duration-matched barbell consisting of the 2-year and 10-year notes (Chart II-6, bottom panel).4 TIPS Versus Nominals We have seen that a full re-convergence to “equilibrium” implies 80 – 100 bps of upside in the 5-year/5-year forward nominal Treasury yield. Bringing TIPS into the equation, we have also observed that long-maturity (5-year/5-year forward and 10-year) TIPS breakeven inflation rates tend to settle into a range of 2.3 – 2.5 percent when inflation is well-anchored and close to the Fed’s target (Chart II-7). The additional fiscal stimulus that will follow a Blue Sweep election makes it much more likely that the economic recovery will stay on course, leading to an eventual return of inflation to target and of long-maturity TIPS breakeven inflation rates to a 2.3 – 2.5 percent range. However, as with nominal yields, this re-convergence will be a long process whose pace will be dictated by the actual inflation data. To underscore that point, consider that our Adaptive Expectations Model of the 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate – a model that is driven by trends in the actual inflation data – has the 10-year breakeven rate as close to fair value (Chart II-8).5 This fair value will rise only slowly over time, alongside increases in actual inflation. Chart II-7Overweight TIPS Versus Nominals Overweight TIPS Versus Nominals Overweight TIPS Versus Nominals Chart II-8Real Yields Have Likely Bottomed Real Yields Have Likely Bottomed Real Yields Have Likely Bottomed   All in all, we continue to recommend an overweight allocation to TIPS versus nominal Treasuries. TIPS breakeven inflation rates will move higher during the next 6-12 months, but are unlikely to reach our 2.3 – 2.5 percent target range within that timeframe. TIPS In Absolute Terms As stated above, we expect nominal yields to increase more than real yields during the next 6-12 months, but what about the absolute direction of real (aka TIPS) yields? Here, our sense is that real yields have also bottomed. If we consider the extreme scenario where the 5-year/5-year forward nominal yield returns to its equilibrium level and where long-maturity TIPS breakeven inflation rates return to our target range, it implies about 80 bps of upside in the nominal yield and 40 bps of upside in the breakeven. This means that the 5-year/5-year real yield has about 40 bps of upside in a complete “return to equilibrium” scenario. While we don’t expect this “return to equilibrium” to be completed within the next 6-12 months, the process is probably underway. The only way for real yields to keep falling in this reflationary world is for the Fed to become increasingly dovish, even as growth improves and inflation rises. After its recent shift to an average inflation target, our best guess is that Fed rate guidance won’t get any more dovish from here. Real yields fell sharply this year as the market priced in this change in the Fed’s reaction function, but the late-August announcement of the Fed’s new framework will probably mark the bottom in real yields (Chart II-8, bottom panel).6 Chart II-9Own Inflation Curve Flatteners And Real Curve Steepeners Own Inflation Curve Flatteners And Real Curve Steepeners Own Inflation Curve Flatteners And Real Curve Steepeners Two More Curve Trades In addition to moving to below-benchmark duration, maintaining nominal yield curve steepeners and staying overweight TIPS versus nominal Treasuries, there are two additional trades that investors should consider in order to profit from the reflationary economic environment. The first is inflation curve flatteners. The cost of short-maturity inflation protection is below the cost of long-maturity inflation protection, meaning that it has further to run as inflation returns to the Fed’s target (Chart II-9). In addition, if the Fed eventually succeeds in achieving a temporary overshoot of its inflation target, then we should expect the inflation curve to invert. Real yield curve steepeners are in some ways the mirror image of inflation curve flatteners. Assuming no change in nominal yields, the real yield curve will steepen as the inflation curve flattens. But what makes real yield curve steepeners look even more attractive is that increases in nominal yields during the next 6-12 months will be concentrated in long-maturities. This will impart even more steepening pressure to the real yield curve. Investors should continue to hold inflation curve flatteners and real yield curve steepeners. Bottom Line: We anticipate a moderate bear market in US Treasuries to unfold during the next 6-12 months. In addition to below-benchmark portfolio duration, investors should overweight TIPS versus nominal Treasuries, hold nominal and real yield curve steepeners, and hold inflation curve flatteners. Non-US Government Bonds: Reduce Exposure To US Treasuries The mildly bearish case for US Treasuries that we have laid out above not only matters for our recommended duration stance, but also for our suggested country allocation within global government bond portfolios. Simply put, the risk of rising bond yields is much higher in the US than elsewhere, both for the immediate post-election period but also over the medium-term. Thus, the immediate obvious portfolio decision is to downgrade US Treasuries to underweight. The move higher in US Treasury yields that we expect is strictly related to spillovers from likely US fiscal stimulus. While other countries in the developed world are contemplating the need for additional fiscal measures, particularly in Europe where there is a renewed surge in coronavirus infections and growing economic restrictions, no country is facing as sharp a policy choice as the US with its upcoming election. We can say with a fair degree of certainty that the US will have a relatively more stimulative fiscal policy stance than other developed economies over at least the next couple of years. This implies a higher relative growth trajectory for the US that hurts Treasuries more on the margin than non-US government debt. In addition, the likely path of relative monetary policy responses are more bearish for US Treasuries. As described above, the scope of the US stimulus will cause bond investors to further question the Fed’s commitment to keeping the funds rate unchanged for the next few years. That also applies to the Fed’s other policy tools, like asset purchases. The Fed is far less likely to continue buying US Treasuries at the same aggressive pace it has for the past eight months if there is less need for monetary stimulus because of more fiscal stimulus. Chart II-10The Fed Will Gladly Trade Less QE For More Fiscal Stimulus November 2020 November 2020 According to the IMF, the Fed has purchased 57% of all US Treasuries issued since late February of this year, in sharp contrast to the ECB and Bank of Japan that have purchased over 70% of euro area government bonds and JGBs issued (Chart II-10). If US Treasury yields are rising because of improving US growth expectations, fueled by fiscal stimulus, the Fed will likely tolerate such a move and buy an even lower share of Treasuries issued – particularly if the higher bond yields do not cause a selloff in US equity markets that can tighten financial conditions and threaten the growth outlook. The fact that US equities have ignored the rise in Treasury yields seen since the end of September may be a sign that both bond and stock investors are starting to focus on a faster trajectory for US growth. In terms of country allocation, beyond downgrading US Treasuries to underweight, we recommend upgrading exposure to countries that are less sensitive to changes in US Treasury yields (i.e. countries with a lower yield beta to changes in US yields). In Chart II-11, we show the rolling beta of changes in 10-year government bond yields outside the US to changes in 10-year US Treasury yields. This is a variation of the “global yield beta” concept that we have discussed in the BCA Research bond publications in recent years. Here, we modify the idea to look at which countries are more or less correlated to US yields, specifically. A few points stand out from the chart: Chart II-11Reduce Exposure To Bond Markets More Correlated To UST Yields Reduce Exposure To Bond Markets More Correlated To UST Yields Reduce Exposure To Bond Markets More Correlated To UST Yields All countries have a “US yield beta” of less than 1, suggesting that Treasuries are a consistent outperformer when US yields fall and vice versa. This suggests moving to underweight the US when US yields are rising is typically a winning strategy in a portfolio context. The list of higher beta countries includes Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the UK and Germany; although Canada stands out as having the highest yield beta in this group. The list of lower beta countries includes France, Italy, Spain, and Japan. In Chart II-12, we show what we call the “upside yield beta” that is estimated only using data for periods when Treasury yields are rising. This gives a sense of which countries are more likely to outperform or underperform during a period of rising Treasury yields, as we expect to unfold after the election. From this perspective, the “safer” lower US upside yield beta group includes the UK, France, Germany and Japan. The riskier higher US upside yield beta group includes Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Italy and Spain. Chart II-12Favor Bond Markets Less Correlated to RISING UST Yields Favor Bond Markets Less Correlated to RISING UST Yields Favor Bond Markets Less Correlated to RISING UST Yields Spain and Italy are less likely to behave like typical high-beta countries as US yields rise, however, because the ECB is likely to remain an aggressive buyer of their government bonds as part of their asset purchase programs over the next 6-12 months. We also do not recommend trading UK Gilts off their yield beta to US Treasuries in the immediate future, given the uncertainties over the negotiations over a final Brexit deal. Both sets of US yield betas suggest higher-beta Canada, Australia and New Zealand are more at risk of relative underperformance versus lower-beta France, Germany and Japan. In terms of government bond country allocation, we recommend reducing exposure to the former group and increasing allocations to the latter group. Bottom Line: Within global government bond portfolios, downgrade the US to underweight. Favor countries that have lower sensitivity to rising US Treasury yields, especially those with central banks that are likely to be more dovish than the Fed in the next few years. That means increasing allocations to core Europe and Japan, while reducing exposure to “higher-beta” Canada and Australia.   Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 http://www.crfb.org/papers/cost-trump-and-biden-campaign-plans 2 https://www.moodysanalytics.com/-/media/article/2020/the-macroeconomic-consequences-trump-vs-biden.pdf 3 Please see BCA Research Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, “Introducing Our Quantitative US Senate Election Model”, dated October 16, 2020, available at gps.bcaresearch.com 4 For more details on this recommended steepener trade please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Positioning For Reflation And Avoiding Deflation”, dated August 11, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 5 For more details on our Adaptive Expectations Model please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “How Are Inflation Expectations Adapting?”, dated February 11, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 6 For a detailed look at the implications of the Fed’s policy shift please see US Bond Strategy / Global Fixed Income Strategy Special Report, “A New Dawn For US Monetary Policy”, dated September 1, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com

Your feedback is important to us. Please take our client survey today. Highlights Mounting populism has created a structural tailwind behind inflation. The risk that inflation accelerates quickly is greater than the market appreciates. Monetary dynamics strongly influence consumer prices when inflation is stationary. The Federal Reserve’s back-door monetization of debt is inflationary. Financial assets do not embed a sufficiently large risk premium against higher inflation. The long-term, real returns of equities are likely to be poor. Small cap stocks and commodities offer cheap protection against higher inflation. Feature The equity market is extremely vulnerable to positive inflation surprises. The expectation of an extended period of low interest rates and extraordinarily easy monetary policy is the crucial justification for the S&P 500’s exceptionally elevated multiples. Anything that could threaten this policy set up would create a danger for stocks. Whether the mean of inflation in a given period is stationary will determine the influence that money has on inflation. The problem for the S&P 500 is that investors assign a much-too-small probability to the inflation risk, especially as structural and political forces point to an elevated chance that inflation will reach 3% to 5% within the next 10 years. There is also a non-trivial probability that inflation begins rising significantly faster than the market anticipates, even if it is not BCA Research’s base case. The dichotomy between the low odds of a quick turnaround in inflation embedded in financial asset prices and the inflationary threat created by monetary and fiscal choices is too large. It will force market participants to assign a greater inflation risk premium in bonds and stocks to protect against this eventuality. This process could precipitate painful corrections in both bond and equity prices. The good news is that inflation protection remains cheap. Three Stages Of Inflation The staggering recent increase in money supply and the extraordinary fiscal stimulus rolled out this year raise two questions: Are we exiting the recent period of low and stable inflation that has prevailed? Is inflation becoming a threat to financial asset prices? Major turning points in inflation provide context to assess the risk of an impending threat of increased inflation. From a statistical perspective, three phases in inflation dynamics have defined the past 100 years (Chart I-1): Chart I-1Three Stages Of Inflation Three Stages Of Inflation Three Stages Of Inflation 1922 to 1965: Inflation gyrated violently from as low as -12.1% to as high as 11.9% in response to various shocks such as the Great Depression or World War II. Nonetheless, inflation’s mean was stationary or trendless. 1965 to 1998: A period of great upheaval when inflation trended strongly, moving up until 1980 and then down until 1998. 1998 to present: Inflation has been stable, flatlining between 0.6% and 2.9%. Chart I-2More Often Than Not, Money Matters More Often Than Not, Money Matters More Often Than Not, Money Matters Empirically speaking, whether the mean of inflation in a given period is stationary will determine the influence that money has on inflation. The era of stationary inflation from 1922 to 1965 saw M2 closely correlated with changes in US consumer prices, but the link was severed from 1965 to 1998 when inflation trended strongly (Chart I-2, top and bottom panel). When inflation stabilized again from 1998 to 2020, M2 growth again explained gyrations in consumer prices (Chart I-2, bottom panel). Why did inflation behave differently from 1965 to 1998 compared with other episodes in the past 100 years? The defining factor of the pre-1965 era was an adherence to the gold standard. The gold standard created a hard anchor on prices because its rigidity made monetary policy credible, which produced stable inflation expectations. The velocity of money was also steady. Consequently, using the Fisher formulation of the equation of exchange (Price*Output = Money*Velocity or PY=MV), inflation became a direct derivative of the money supply. Various shocks such as a war or a depression would impact the rate of expansion of money, leading to a nearly linear effect on prices. When we examine unstable inflation from 1965 to 1998, it helps if we split the period into two subsamples: 1965 to 1977 and 1977 to 1998. The first interval generated accelerating inflation due to a multitude of factors. In the mid-1960s, slack in the US economy disappeared while demand became excessive as a result of the federal government’s increased spending from The Great Society programs and the Vietnam War. Additionally, by 1965, the gold standard was under attack. The US current account disappeared between 1965 and 1969. Worried by the deteriorating US balance of payment dynamics, French President De Gaulle sent his navy to repatriate France’s gold at the New York Fed. Other countries followed suit. The continued pressure on the US balance of payments, along with the need for easier monetary policy following the 1970 recession, lead to the 1971 Smithsonian Agreement whereby President Nixon unpegged the dollar from gold, effectively killing the gold standard. Any semblance of monetary rectitude disappeared and inflation expectations began to drift up. The oil shock of 1973 fueled the inflationary dynamics and pushed inflation higher through the rest of the decade. The developments outside of monetary policy reinforced downward pressure on inflation expectations created by the Fed’s orthodoxy. The second interval began in 1977, three years before inflation peaked. This date marks the implementation of the Federal Reserve Reform Act, which modified the Fed’s mandate from only targeting full employment to full employment and stable inflation. At first, the Act had little practical impact until Paul Volker became Fed chair in 1979 and began to combat inflation. Prior to 1977, the unemployment rate was below NAIRU (the unemployment rate consistent with full employment) most of the time, the economy overheated and ultimately, inflation trended up (Chart I-3). However, since 1977, the unemployment rate has mostly been above NAIRU and the labor market has predominantly experienced excess slack. Consequently, inflation expectations re-anchored to the downside and realized inflation collapsed. Chart I-3The Effect Of The Federal Reserve Reform Act Of 1977 The Effect Of The Federal Reserve Reform Act Of 1977 The Effect Of The Federal Reserve Reform Act Of 1977 Chart I-4The Monetarist Fed: 1977 to 1998 The Monetarist Fed: 1977 to 1998 The Monetarist Fed: 1977 to 1998 The relationship between short rates and money supply provides another way to appreciate the change in monetary policy after 1977. The Fed opted for a monetarist approach (officially and unofficially) when it had to combat high realized and expected inflation. During most of the past 100 years, money supply changes and short rates were either negatively correlated or not linked at all (Chart I-4, top and second panel); however, they began to move together from 1979 to 1998 (Chart I-4, bottom panel). The Fed boosted rates to preempt the inflationary impact of faster money supply expansion, which curtailed the link between prices and M2. Between 1977 and 1998, major structural forces also pushed down inflation and severed the bond between money supply and CPI. Starting with President Reagan, a period of aggressive deregulation and union-busting increased competition and removed some pricing power from labor.1 Most importantly, the rapid widening in globalization resulted in international trade representing an ever-climbing portion of global GDP. By adding more people to the global network of supply chains, globalization further entrenched the loss of workers’ pricing power, which caused wages to lag productivity and decline as a share of national income (Chart I-5). The developments outside of monetary policy reinforced downward pressure on inflation expectations created by the Fed’s orthodoxy. In the final phase from 1998 to 2020, the stabilization of inflation reunited prices and money supply. Inflation flattened due to several factors. By 1998, 70% of the global population lived in a capitalist system (compared to market shares only 28% in 1977). Thus, most of the expansion of the global labor supply was completed. China entered the WTO only in 2001, but it had been exerting its deflationary influence for many years by stealing market share away from newly industrialized Asian economies. Additionally, following the Asian Crisis of 1997, many Asian economies (including China and Japan) elected to build large dollar FX reserves to contain their currencies versus the USD, and subsidize economic activity. This process created some stability in global goods prices and slowed the USD’s depreciation started in 2002. In response to these influences, inflation expectations stabilized in the late 1990s, creating an anchor for realized inflation (Chart I-6). Thanks to this steadiness in inflation expectations, the Phillips curve (the inverse link between wages and the unemployment rate) flattened. The economy entered a feedback loop where consistent inflation rates begat stable wages, which in turn created more stability in aggregate prices. Fluctuations in the rate of inflation became directly linked to changes in the output gap and thus, variations in demand. Importantly, the flat Phillips curve and the well-anchored inflation expectations freed the Fed to maintain easier policy during expansions and allow money supply to expand in line with money demand. Chart I-5Expanding Globalization Robbed Labor Of Its Bargaining Power Expanding Globalization Robbed Labor Of Its Bargaining Power Expanding Globalization Robbed Labor Of Its Bargaining Power Chart I-6The Anchoring Of Inflation Expectations The Anchoring Of Inflation Expectations The Anchoring Of Inflation Expectations   Bottom Line: The correlation between inflation and M2 growth since 1998 is as relevant as it was from 1922 to 1965. What The Future Holds Structurally, inflation will likely trend higher. The Median Voter Theory (MVT), developed by Anthony Downs and upheld by our Geopolitical Strategy service as the key constraint on global and US policymakers, is at the heart of our position. Over the past 40 years, income and wealth inequalities have soared worldwide, especially in the US and the UK, which have both embraced ‘laissez-faire’ capitalism enthusiastically. Moreover, these countries also suffer from pronounced levels of intergenerational social immobility.2 The effect of these aforementioned trends has become so pervasive that life expectancy for a large swath of the US population is decreasing (Chart I-7). The shift by median voters to the left on economic matters will force greater fiscal profligacy and regulatory rigidity. This policy mix will add a secular drift to inflation. In response to widening inequalities, voter preferences have shifted to the left on economic matters and toward populism. Brexit and the election of President Trump both fit this pattern because they represent the repudiation of the prevalent neoliberal discourse that pushed toward more globalization, more immigration and more deregulation. Moreover, voters in the UK and the US increasingly doubt the benefits of free trade (Chart I-8). Chart I-7Inequalities Are Physically Hurting Many US Voters November 2020 November 2020 Chart I-8Free Trade Is Out… November 2020 November 2020   Attitudes toward the government’s role in the economy have also changed. Voters in the US are much more open than they were 10 or 20 years ago to a greater involvement of the public sector in the economy. Additionally, support toward socialism has become more widespread among various demographic groups (Chart I-9). The MVT posits that politicians who want to access or remain in power must cater to voter preferences. Hence, when compared with the Great Financial Crisis, the swift fiscal policy easing that accompanied the COVID-19 recession illustrates the understanding by politicians that spending is popular, especially in times of crisis (Chart I-10). Chart I-9…But State Intervention Is In November 2020 November 2020 Chart I-10Politicians Deliver What Voters Want November 2020 November 2020   Greater government spending and larger fiscal deficits are used to achieve faster nominal growth. When the output gap is negative, public spending helps the economy and may even increase national savings. However, if profligacy continues after the economy has reached full employment, it generates excess demand relative to aggregate supply and puts downward pressure on the national savings rate. This is inflationary. To redistribute income toward the middle class, populists aim to diminish competition in the economy. They reregulate the economy, which indirectly protects workers. They also limit global trade flows as much as possible. Free trade is good for the economy, but it puts downward pressure on the price of goods relative to services. Therefore, to remain competitive domestic goods producers must compress their labor costs, which either hurts wages for middle-class workers or destroys the number of manufacturing jobs with high wages. Undoing this process raises labor costs and undermines a major deflationary influence on the economy. Tax policy is another tool to force a redistribution of income and wealth toward the middle class. We should expect increased taxes on higher-income households. This process puts more money in the pockets of a middle class whose marginal propensity to consume is around 95% to 99% compared with 50% to 60% for households at the top of the income distribution. Re-shuffling the composition of national income toward the middle class will boost demand and puts upward pressure on consumer prices. Central banks are not immune to the preference of the median voter. As we showed earlier, the Fed Reform Act of 1977 had a meaningful impact on inflation, but only after Volcker took the helm of the FOMC. Given the damages wrought by high inflation in the 1970s, the median voter wanted to see less inflation, which enabled Volcker’s hawkish shift. As Marko Papic argued in a recent BCA Research webcast,3 a minority of voters (and policymakers) remember the pain created by inflation, but everyone is aware of the difficulties created by low nominal growth. Moreover, the Fed is still a creature of Congress and the median voter’s preferences greatly affect the legislative body’s decisions. Consequently, the Fed’s policy stance will likely become structurally looser in response to indirect voter pressure. Inflation accelerates when the Fed expands money supply faster than the federal government sucks in liquidity via its deficit. The Fed’s recent adoption of an average inflation mandate fits within this paradigm. According to its new strategy, the Fed will start tightening policy after the unemployment gap has closed and inflation is above 2%. This is reminiscent of the model prior to 1977 (when full employment conditions were paramount), which generated a significant inflation upside. Bottom Line: The shift by median voters to the left on economic matters will force greater fiscal profligacy and regulatory rigidity. It will also contribute to a more dovish bias by central banks. This policy mix will add a secular drift to inflation. What About Now? Markets may be failing to recognize the risk that inflation will rise sooner rather than later. Low yields, subpar inflation expectations, dovish central bank pricing and the valuation premium of growth relative to value stocks already reflect the strong deflationary force created by a deeply negative output gap. Thus, a quicker-than-expected recovery in inflation threatens the financial markets. Our structural inflation view is not the source of this danger. The hidden, near-term inflationary risk arises because we are still in an environment where broad money matters because inflation remains stationary. M2 is expanding at 23.7%, its fastest rate on record. If relationships of the past 20-plus years hold, then this is a warning sign for inflation. The catalyst to crystalize the structural inflationary pressures created by economic populism may be the loose monetary and fiscal conditions caused by the COVID-19 recession. Chart I-11The Real Near-term Inflation Risk The Real Near-term Inflation Risk The Real Near-term Inflation Risk This view may seem simplistic in light of the current large output gap, but when fiscal policy is included in the assessment, the picture becomes clearer. Since 1998, the gap between the expansion of M2 and the issuance of debt to the public by the federal government has explained inflation better than broad money alone (Chart I-11). Inflation accelerates when the Fed expands money supply faster than the federal government sucks in liquidity via its deficit. However, inflation decelerates when the Fed expands the money supply slower than the public sector pulls in private funds. In other words, if the Fed eases monetary conditions enough to finance the deficit, then debt monetization occurs, the private sector is not crowded out and demand gets a massive boost. This point is crucial and feeds the stronger economic recovery compared with the one post-GFC. In 2009 and 2010, the private sector was deleveraging and commercial banks were retrenching their lending. Neither the demand for nor the supply of credit was ample. Therefore, the Fed’s rapid balance sheet expansion had a limited impact on broad money. Instead, it skewed the composition of M2 toward commercial bank excess reserves at the Fed and away from private-sector deposits. Broad money was not rising quickly enough to fully finance the government and real interest rates did not fall as far as they should have. The economy suffered. A virtuous cycle has emerged, one which creates more inflation risks than are priced in. Nowadays, broad money responds much better to the Fed’s intervention because the balance sheets of the nonfinancial private sector are much healthier than in 2008 and deleveraging is absent. This mitigates the tightening credit standards of commercial banks. As Chart I-12 illustrates, household net worth is more robust than it was 12 years ago, debt-servicing costs account for a much narrower slice of disposable income and the government’s aggressive actions have bolstered household finances. Moreover, the majority of job losses have been concentrated in low-income jobs, thus, above-average earners have kept their incomes. Under these conditions, households have taken advantage of record low mortgage rates to purchase real estate, which is contributing to growth in the residential sector (Chart I-13, top two panels). Meanwhile, the rapid rebound in businesses’ capex intentions (which even small firms exhibit) and in core capital goods orders indicates that animal spirits are much more vigorous than anyone expected this past spring (Chart I-13, bottom two panels). At that time, the dominant narrative posited that firms were tapping their credit lines to set aside cash. Chart I-12Robust Household Balance Sheets = No Liquidity Trap Robust Household Balance Sheets = No Liquidity Trap Robust Household Balance Sheets = No Liquidity Trap Chart I-13Housing And Capex Are In The Driver's Seat Housing And Capex Are In The Driver's Seat Housing And Capex Are In The Driver's Seat   Chart I-14Unlike In 2008/09, Real Rates Have Collapsed Unlike In 2008/09, Real Rates Have Collapsed Unlike In 2008/09, Real Rates Have Collapsed Thanks to these more favorable balance sheet dynamics, the Fed’s injection of liquidity is boosting M2 enough to finance the Treasury’s issuance. Hence, real interest rates are much lower than in 2009/10 even if the economy is recovering much more quickly (Chart I-14). Policymakers are not crowding out the private sector. A virtuous cycle has emerged, one which creates more inflation risks than are priced in. A counterargument is that technology is too deflationary for the above dynamics to matter. The reality is that technology is always a deflationary force. The expansion of the capital stock has always been about providing each worker with access to newer and better technology to boost productivity. The current low level of productivity gains suggests that the dominant discourse exaggerates the economic advances from new technologies. Thus, inflation stationarity and the interplay between monetary and fiscal policy still matters to CPI. Investors should monitor factors that would indicate if the upside risk to near-term inflation described above is morphing into reality. Doing so would seriously damage financial asset prices made vulnerable to higher inflation by prohibitive valuations. We propose tracking the following variables: The household savings rate. If savings normalize faster because consumer confidence firms, then spending will accelerate, profits will rise more quickly and money will expand further, all of which will bring back inflation sooner. A Blue Sweep in the US presidential election. If the Democrats take control of both the executive and legislative branches, then they will expand stimulating policies that will bolster demand. This, too, would boost profits and broad money supply, which would be inflationary. The velocity of money. An increase in money velocity, which remains depressed, would accentuate the impact of rapid money growth. It would also suggest that animal spirits are strengthening, which will further encourage economic transactions. A weak dollar. The dollar is set to weaken because of savings dynamics and the global recovery. A runaway decline in the USD would indicate that the interplay between monetary and fiscal policy is debasing money, unleashing an inflationary spiral.  Bottom Line: The probability that inflation returns quickly is much more meaningful than financial markets appreciate because of the interplay between money growth, fiscal deficits and robust private-sector balance sheets. This dissonance will create a substantial risk for asset prices next year. Investment Implications The most important implication of the analysis above is that investors should consider inflation protection in all asset classes. However, this protection is cheap to acquire because investors are focusing on deflation, not inflation. Chart I-15Inflation Protection Remains Cheap Inflation Protection Remains Cheap Inflation Protection Remains Cheap Bonds Our bond strategists recently moved to a below-benchmark duration in fixed-income portfolios in light of the economic recovery and the increasing probability of a Blue Wave on November 3, an argument highlighted in the Section II Special Report written by our colleagues Rob Robis and Ryan Swift. The Fed’s new average-inflation target, coupled with the global economic recovery, should put upward pressure on inflation breakeven rates, which are still well below 2.3%-2.5% normally associated with stable inflation near 2% (Chart I-15). The underestimated upward risk to inflation further favors climbing yields. Beyond lifting inflation breakeven rates, this risk would also raise inflation uncertainty, which warrants a greater term premium and a steeper yield curve (Chart I-16). Additionally, higher inflation would occur lockstep with declining savings. The recent surge in excess savings was a primary driver of the collapse in yields; its reversal would push up long-term interest rates (Chart I-17). Chart I-16Rising Inflation Uncertainty Will Steepen The Yield Curve Rising Inflation Uncertainty Will Steepen The Yield Curve Rising Inflation Uncertainty Will Steepen The Yield Curve Chart I-17Excess Savings Will Fall And Yields Will Rise Excess Savings Will Fall And Yields Will Rise Excess Savings Will Fall And Yields Will Rise   The Dollar The US dollar is the major currency most exposed to growing populism because of the extraordinary income inequalities observed in the US. Moreover, a generous combined monetary and fiscal policy setting in the US has eroded the dollar’s appeal as the country’s trade deficit widens (it normally narrows during a recession) in response to pronounced national dissaving (Chart I-18, left panel). Furthermore, US broad money growth stands far above that of other major economies (Chart I-18, right panel). Compared with other major central banks, the Fed is more guilty of financing the public-sector’s debt binge. Debt monetization creates a real risk to a stable USD. Chart I-18AFalling Savings And The Fed's Generosity Will Tank The Greenback November 2020 November 2020 Chart I-18BFalling Savings And The Fed’s Generosity Will Tank The Greenback November 2020 November 2020   The expanding global recovery creates an additional problem for the countercyclical dollar. China’s role is particularly important in this regard as the nation’s domestic economic activity will improve further in response to the lagged impact of a rapid climb in total social financing (Chart I-19, top panel). Sturdy Chinese demand results in climbing global industrial production, which will hurt the greenback. Likewise, China’s healthy recovery has lifted interest rate differentials in favor of the yuan (Chart I-19, bottom panel). A strong CNY flatters China’s purchasing power abroad and diminishes deflationary pressures around the world. This combination should stimulate the global manufacturing sector, which benefits foreign economies more than it does the US.  Investors should consider inflation protection in all asset classes. Equities BCA Research still prefers global equities to bonds on a cyclical basis. The early innings of a pickup in inflation would solidify this bias. Our Adjusted Equity Risk Premium, which accounts for the expected growth rate of earnings and the non-stationarity of the traditional ERP, shows a solid valuation cushion in favor of stocks (Chart I-20). Moreover, forward earnings for the S&P 500 have upside, judging by the gap between the Backlog of Orders and the Customer Inventories components of the ISM Manufacturing survey (Chart I-21). Chart I-19China's Robust Growth Hurts The Dollar China's Robust Growth Hurts The Dollar China's Robust Growth Hurts The Dollar Chart I-20The Adjusted ERP Still Favors Stocks The Adjusted ERP Still Favors Stocks The Adjusted ERP Still Favors Stocks   We also continue to overweight cyclical sectors over defensive ones. The existence of greater inflation risk than the market believes confirms this view. Cyclicals would outperform if investors priced in quicker inflation because they would also bid down the dollar and push up inflation breakeven rates (Chart I-22). These relationships exist because industrials and materials enjoy greater pricing power in an inflationary environment and financials would benefit from a steeper yield curve. An outperformance of deep cyclicals relative to defensive equities should result in an underperformance of US shares relative to the rest of the world. Chart I-21Earnings Revisions Have Upside Earnings Revisions Have Upside Earnings Revisions Have Upside Chart I-22Deep Cyclicals Will Like The Brand New World Deep Cyclicals Will Like The Brand New World Deep Cyclicals Will Like The Brand New World   The long-term outlook for real stock returns is poor, despite a positive six- to nine-month view. Higher inflation will force a greater upside in yields. However, the current extraordinary market multiples can only be justified if one believes that yields will stay depressed for many more years. Thus, inflation would likely prompt a de-rating of equities. Furthermore, our structural inflation view rests on the imposition of populist economic policies. A move backward in globalization and redistributionist policies would lift the share of wages in national income, which would compress extraordinarily wide profit margins (Chart I-23). Therefore, real long-term profits will probably suffer. Paradoxically, nominal stock prices may still eke out positive nominal gains, but that will be a consequence of the money illusion created by higher inflation. Chart I-23Populism Threatens Profit Margins Populism Threatens Profit Margins Populism Threatens Profit Margins BCA Research still prefers global equities to bonds on a cyclical basis. Investors should continue to overweight equities versus bonds, despite pronounced hurdles to long-term, real returns in stocks. Historically, periods of transition from low inflation to higher inflation have allowed stocks to outperform bonds, even if equities generate negative real returns (Table I-1). The exceptionally low real yields and thin inflation protection offered by government bonds increases the likelihood that history will be repeated. Table I-1Rising Inflation: Equities Beat Bonds November 2020 November 2020 A size bias may offer some protection against higher inflation both in the near and long term. We have been positive on small cap equities since September and our US Equity Strategy service upgraded the Russell 2000 to overweight this week.4 A bump in railroad freight volumes augurs well for the domestic economy to which small caps are very sensitive. Additionally, stronger railroad freight volumes also indicate net rating upgrades for junk bonds, which decreases the riskiness of a highly levered small cap sector (Chart I-24). Moreover, small cap stocks are positively linked to major trends produced by higher inflation, such as a weaker dollar and higher commodity prices (Chart I-25). Small firms also enjoy rising consumer confidence, a variable targeted by populist politicians (Chart I-26). Therefore, the potential for a re-rating of the Russell 2000 relative to the S&P 500 is elevated, especially if investors reassess the likelihood of higher inflation.  Chart I-24Small-Cap Stocks Are Set To Shine Small-Cap Stocks Are Set To Shine Small-Cap Stocks Are Set To Shine Chart I-25Small-Cap Will Enjoy Higher Inflation... Small-Cap Will Enjoy Higher Inflation... Small-Cap Will Enjoy Higher Inflation... Chart I-26...And Populists ...And Populists ...And Populists Commodities BCA Research remains positive on the prices of natural resources on a cyclical basis even if there is more risk of a near-term correction for this asset class. Commodities are highly sensitive to a global industrial cycle that offers significant upside and to China in particular. Moreover, commodities are high-beta plays on a weaker dollar and higher inflation expectations (Chart I-27). Natural resources will benefit from economic populism because it lifts demand for cyclical spending. Moreover, commodities are natural hedges against the risk of higher inflation. In this context, it makes sense to allocate more funds to resource stocks to protect an equity portfolio against inflation. Investors worried about the near-term outlook for commodities should rotate out of copper into crude. Copper has withstood the COVID-19 shock much better than Brent despite the strong cyclicality of both natural resources. Following this move, net speculative positions and sentiment measures for copper are toward the top of their ranges of the past 15 years. Meanwhile, the opposite is true for oil. Since 2005, increases in the Brent-to-copper ratio have followed declines to the current levels in the relative Composite Sentiment Indicator (Chart I-28), which includes sentiment and positioning measures for both commodities. Chart I-27Commodities Remain Efficient Inflation Hedges Commodities Remain Efficient Inflation Hedges Commodities Remain Efficient Inflation Hedges Chart I-28A Contrarian Tactical Trade: Buy Brent / Sell Copper A Contrarian Tactical Trade: Buy Brent / Sell Copper A Contrarian Tactical Trade: Buy Brent / Sell Copper   Fundamentals also point in that direction. After collapsing in recent months, global inventories of copper are beginning to climb relative to Brent. Moreover, oil production has dropped significantly relative to copper. Oil demand fell even more dramatically than that of copper, but the gap between production and demand growth is moving in favor of crude. Real long-term profits will probably suffer. This trade is agnostic to the direction of the business cycle. Copper prices embed a much more optimistic take toward global economic activity than Brent. Therefore, copper is more vulnerable to a negative economic upset than oil and less likely to benefit from a positive economic surprise. Mathieu Savary Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst October 29, 2020 Next Report: November 30, 2020   II. Beware The Bond-Bearish Blue Sweep US Election & Duration: We estimate that there is an 72% probability of a US election result that will give a lift to US Treasury yields via increased fiscal stimulus. Those are strong enough odds to justify a move to a below-benchmark cyclical US duration stance on a 6-12 month horizon. US Treasuries: We anticipate a moderate bear market in US Treasuries to unfold during the next 6-12 months. In addition to below-benchmark portfolio duration, investors should overweight TIPS versus nominal Treasuries, hold nominal and real yield curve steepeners, and hold inflation curve flatteners. Non-US Country Allocation: Within global government bond portfolios, downgrade the US to underweight. Favor countries that have lower sensitivity to rising US Treasury yields with central banks that are likely to be more dovish than the Fed in the next few years. That means increasing allocations to core Europe and Japan, while reducing exposure to Canada and Australia. Stay neutral on the UK given the near-term uncertainties over the final Brexit outcome. With the US presidential election just two weeks away, public opinion polls continue to show that Joe Biden is the favorite to win the White House. However, the odds of a “Blue Sweep” - combining a Biden victory with the Democratic Party winning control of both the US Senate and House of Representatives - have increased since the end of September according to online prediction markets. US Treasury yields have also moved higher over that same period (Chart II-1), which we interpret as the bond market becoming more sensitive to the likelihood of a major increase in US government spending under single-party Democratic control. Chart II-1A Blue Sweep Is Bond Bearish A Blue Sweep Is Bond Bearish A Blue Sweep Is Bond Bearish Table II-1A Comparison Of The Candidates' Budget Proposals November 2020 November 2020 According to a recent analysis done by the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, President Trump’s formal policy proposals would increase US federal debt by $4.95 trillion between 2021 and 2030, while Biden’s plan would increase the debt by $5.60 trillion (Table II-1).5 While those are both massive fiscal stimulus plans, there is a stark difference in the policy mix of their proposals that matters for the future path of US bond yields. Under Biden, spending is projected to increase by a cumulative $11.1 trillion, partially offset by $5.8 trillion in revenue increases and savings with the former vice-president calling for tax hikes on corporations and high-income earners. On the other hand, Trump’s plan includes $5.45 trillion of spending increases and tax cuts over the next decade, offset by $0.75 trillion in savings. Conclusion: Biden would increase spending by over twice that of a re-elected Trump, with much of that spending expected to be front-loaded in the early part of his first term. Outright spending is more reflationary than tax cuts because it puts more money in the pockets of consumers (spenders) relative to producers (savers). The Biden plan would be more stimulating for overall activity even if the increase in debt is about the same. Chart II-2The Biden Platform Is Highly Stimulative The Biden Platform Is Highly Stimulative The Biden Platform Is Highly Stimulative Another analysis of the Biden and Trump platforms was conducted by Moody’s in September, based on estimates of how much of each candidate’s promises could be successfully implemented under different combinations of White House and Congressional control.6 The stimulus figures were run through the Moody’s US economic model, which is similar to the budget scoring model of the US Congressional Budget Office, to produce a year-by-year path for the US economy over the next decade (Chart II-2). Moody’s concluded that the US economy would return to full employment in the second half of 2022 under a President Biden – especially if the Democrats win the Senate - compared to the first half of 2024 under a re-elected President Trump. Such a rapid closing of the deep US output gap that opened up because of the COVID-19 recession would likely trigger a reassessment of the Fed’s current highly dovish policy stance. At the moment, the US overnight index swap (OIS) curve discounts one full 25bp Fed hike by late 2023/early 2024, and two full hikes by late 2024/early 2025 (Chart II-3). This pricing of the future path of interest rates has occurred even with the Fed promising to keep the funds rate anchored near 0% until at least the end of 2023. The likelihood of some form of increased fiscal spending after the election will cause the bond market to challenge the Fed’s current forward guidance even more, putting upward pressure on Treasury yields. Chart II-3US Fiscal Stimulus Will Pull Forward Fed Liftoff US Fiscal Stimulus Will Pull Forward Fed Liftoff US Fiscal Stimulus Will Pull Forward Fed Liftoff Our colleagues at BCA Geopolitical Strategy see a Blue Sweep as the most likely outcome of the US election, although their forecasting models suggest that the race for control of the Senate will be much closer than the Biden vs Trump battle (there is little chance that control of the House of Representatives would switch back to the Republicans).7 Their scenarios for each of the White House/Senate combinations, along with their own estimated probability for each, are the following: Biden wins in a Democratic sweep: BCA probability = 27%. The US economy will benefit from higher odds of unfettered fiscal stimulus in 2021, although financial markets will simultaneously have to adjust for the negative shock to US corporate earnings from higher taxes and regulation. Government bond yields should rise on the generally reflationary agenda. Trump wins with a Republican Senate: BCA probability = 23%. In this status quo scenario, a re-elected President Trump would still face opposition from House Democrats on most domestic economic issues, forcing him to tilt towards more protectionist foreign and trade policies in his second term. Fiscal stimulus would be easy to agree, though not as large as under a Democratic sweep. US Treasury yields would rise, but would later prove volatile due to the risk to the cyclical recovery from a global trade war, as Trump’s tariffs will not be limited to China and could even affect the European Union. Biden wins with the Senate staying Republican: BCA probability = 28%. This is ultimately the most positive outcome for financial markets - reduced odds of a full-blown trade war with China, combined with no new tax hikes. Bond yields would drift upward over time, but not during the occasional fiscal battles that would ensue between the Democratic president and Republican senators. The first such battle would start right after the election. Treasuries would remain well bid until financial market pressures forced a Senate compromise with the new president sometime in H1 2021. Trump wins with a Democratic Senate: BCA probability = 22%. This is the least likely scenario but one that could produce a big positive fiscal impulse. Trump is a big spender and will veto tax hikes, but will approve populist spending on areas where he agrees. The Democratic Senate would not resist Trump’s tough stance on China, however, thus keeping the risk of US-China trade skirmishes elevated. This is neutral-to-bearish for US Treasuries, depending on the size of any bipartisan stimulus measures and Trump’s trade actions. The key takeaway is that the combined probability of scenarios that will put upward pressure on US Treasury yields is 72%, versus a 28% probability of a more bond-neutral outcome. That is a bond-bearish skew worth positioning for by reducing US duration exposure now, ahead of the November 3 election. Of this 72%, 45 percentage points come from scenarios in which President Trump would remain in power. Hence his trade wars would eventually undercut his reflationary fiscal policy. This would become the key risk to the short duration view after the initial market response. Bottom Line: The most likely scenarios for the US election will give a cyclical lift to US Treasury yields via increased fiscal stimulus. This justifies a move to a below-benchmark US duration stance on a 6-12 month horizon. If Trump is re-elected, the timing of Trump’s likely return to using broad-based tariffs will have to be monitored closely. A Moderate Bear Market While our anticipated Blue Sweep election outcome will lead to a large amount of fiscal spending in 2021 and beyond, we anticipate only a modest increase in bond yields during the next 6-12 months. In terms of strategy, our recommended reduction in portfolio duration reflects the fact that fiscal largesse meaningfully reduces the risk of another significant downleg in bond yields and strengthens our conviction in a moderate bear market scenario for bonds. This does raise the question of how large an increase in US Treasury yields we expect during the next 6-12 months. We turn to this question now. Chart II-4Less Election-Day Upside Than In 2016 Less Election-Day Upside Than In 2016 Less Election-Day Upside Than In 2016 Not Like 2016 First, we do not expect a massive election night bond rout like we saw in 2016 (Chart II-4). For one thing, the Fed was much more eager to tighten policy in 2016 than it is today, and it did deliver a rate hike one month after the Republicans won the House, Senate and White House (Chart II-4, bottom panel). This time around, the Fed has made it clear that it will wait until inflation is running above its 2% target before lifting rates off the zero bound and will not respond directly to expectations for greater fiscal stimulus. Second, 2016’s election result was mostly unanticipated. This led to a dramatic adjustment in market prices once the results came in. The PredictIt betting market odds of a “Red Sweep” by the Republicans in 2016 were only 16% the night before the election. As of today, the betting markets are priced for a 58% chance of a Blue Sweep in 2020. Unlike in 2016, bonds are presumably already partially priced for the most bond-bearish election outcome. A Slow Return To Equilibrium To more directly answer the question of how high bond yields can rise, survey estimates of the long-run (or equilibrium) federal funds rate provide a useful starting point. In a world where the economy is growing at an above-trend pace and inflation is expected to move towards the Fed’s target, it is logical for long-maturity Treasury yields to settle near estimates of the long-run fed funds rate. Indeed, this theory is borne out empirically. During the last two periods of robust global economic growth (2017/18 & 2013/14), the 5-year/5-year forward Treasury yield peaked around levels consistent with long-run fed funds rate estimates (Chart II-5). As of today, the median estimates of the long-run fed funds rate from the New York Fed’s Survey of Market Participants and Survey of Primary Dealers are 2% and 2.25%, respectively. In other words, a complete re-convergence to these equilibrium levels would impart 80 – 100 bps of upward pressure to the 5-year/5-year forward Treasury yield. We expect this re-convergence to play out eventually, but probably not within the next 6-12 months. In both prior periods when the 5-year/5-year forward Treasury yield reached these equilibrium levels, the Fed’s reaction function was much more hawkish. The Fed was hiking rates throughout 2017 & 2018 (Chart II-5, panel 4), and the market moved quickly to price in rate hikes in 2013 (Chart II-5, bottom panel). The Fed’s new dovish messaging will ensure that the market reacts less quickly this time around. Also, continued curve steepening will mean that the 5-year/5-year forward yield’s 80 – 100 bps of upside will translate into significantly less upside for the benchmark 10-year yield. The 10-year yield and 5-year/5-year forward yield peaked at similar levels in 2017/18 when the Fed was lifting rates and the yield curve was flat (Chart II-6). But, the 10-year peaked far below the 5-year/5-year yield in 2013/14 when the Fed stayed on hold and the curve steepened. Chart II-5How High For Treasury Yields? How High For Treasury Yields? How High For Treasury Yields? Chart II-6Less Upside In 10yr Than In 5y5y Less Upside In 10yr Than In 5y5y Less Upside In 10yr Than In 5y5y   The next bear move in bonds will look much more like 2013/14. The Fed will keep a firm grip over the front-end of the curve, leading to curve steepening and less upside in the 10-year Treasury yield than in the 5-year/5-year forward. In addition to shifting to a below-benchmark duration stance, investors should maintain exposure to nominal yield curve steepeners. Specifically, we recommend buying the 5-year note versus a duration-matched barbell consisting of the 2-year and 10-year notes (Chart II-6, bottom panel).8 TIPS Versus Nominals We have seen that a full re-convergence to “equilibrium” implies 80 – 100 bps of upside in the 5-year/5-year forward nominal Treasury yield. Bringing TIPS into the equation, we have also observed that long-maturity (5-year/5-year forward and 10-year) TIPS breakeven inflation rates tend to settle into a range of 2.3 – 2.5 percent when inflation is well-anchored and close to the Fed’s target (Chart II-7). The additional fiscal stimulus that will follow a Blue Sweep election makes it much more likely that the economic recovery will stay on course, leading to an eventual return of inflation to target and of long-maturity TIPS breakeven inflation rates to a 2.3 – 2.5 percent range. However, as with nominal yields, this re-convergence will be a long process whose pace will be dictated by the actual inflation data. To underscore that point, consider that our Adaptive Expectations Model of the 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate – a model that is driven by trends in the actual inflation data – has the 10-year breakeven rate as close to fair value (Chart II-8).9 This fair value will rise only slowly over time, alongside increases in actual inflation. Chart II-7Overweight TIPS Versus Nominals Overweight TIPS Versus Nominals Overweight TIPS Versus Nominals Chart II-8Real Yields Have Likely Bottomed Real Yields Have Likely Bottomed Real Yields Have Likely Bottomed   All in all, we continue to recommend an overweight allocation to TIPS versus nominal Treasuries. TIPS breakeven inflation rates will move higher during the next 6-12 months, but are unlikely to reach our 2.3 – 2.5 percent target range within that timeframe. TIPS In Absolute Terms As stated above, we expect nominal yields to increase more than real yields during the next 6-12 months, but what about the absolute direction of real (aka TIPS) yields? Here, our sense is that real yields have also bottomed. If we consider the extreme scenario where the 5-year/5-year forward nominal yield returns to its equilibrium level and where long-maturity TIPS breakeven inflation rates return to our target range, it implies about 80 bps of upside in the nominal yield and 40 bps of upside in the breakeven. This means that the 5-year/5-year real yield has about 40 bps of upside in a complete “return to equilibrium” scenario. While we don’t expect this “return to equilibrium” to be completed within the next 6-12 months, the process is probably underway. The only way for real yields to keep falling in this reflationary world is for the Fed to become increasingly dovish, even as growth improves and inflation rises. After its recent shift to an average inflation target, our best guess is that Fed rate guidance won’t get any more dovish from here. Real yields fell sharply this year as the market priced in this change in the Fed’s reaction function, but the late-August announcement of the Fed’s new framework will probably mark the bottom in real yields (Chart II-8, bottom panel).10 Chart II-9Own Inflation Curve Flatteners And Real Curve Steepeners Own Inflation Curve Flatteners And Real Curve Steepeners Own Inflation Curve Flatteners And Real Curve Steepeners Two More Curve Trades In addition to moving to below-benchmark duration, maintaining nominal yield curve steepeners and staying overweight TIPS versus nominal Treasuries, there are two additional trades that investors should consider in order to profit from the reflationary economic environment. The first is inflation curve flatteners. The cost of short-maturity inflation protection is below the cost of long-maturity inflation protection, meaning that it has further to run as inflation returns to the Fed’s target (Chart II-9). In addition, if the Fed eventually succeeds in achieving a temporary overshoot of its inflation target, then we should expect the inflation curve to invert. Real yield curve steepeners are in some ways the mirror image of inflation curve flatteners. Assuming no change in nominal yields, the real yield curve will steepen as the inflation curve flattens. But what makes real yield curve steepeners look even more attractive is that increases in nominal yields during the next 6-12 months will be concentrated in long-maturities. This will impart even more steepening pressure to the real yield curve. Investors should continue to hold inflation curve flatteners and real yield curve steepeners. Bottom Line: We anticipate a moderate bear market in US Treasuries to unfold during the next 6-12 months. In addition to below-benchmark portfolio duration, investors should overweight TIPS versus nominal Treasuries, hold nominal and real yield curve steepeners, and hold inflation curve flatteners. Non-US Government Bonds: Reduce Exposure To US Treasuries The mildly bearish case for US Treasuries that we have laid out above not only matters for our recommended duration stance, but also for our suggested country allocation within global government bond portfolios. Simply put, the risk of rising bond yields is much higher in the US than elsewhere, both for the immediate post-election period but also over the medium-term. Thus, the immediate obvious portfolio decision is to downgrade US Treasuries to underweight. The move higher in US Treasury yields that we expect is strictly related to spillovers from likely US fiscal stimulus. While other countries in the developed world are contemplating the need for additional fiscal measures, particularly in Europe where there is a renewed surge in coronavirus infections and growing economic restrictions, no country is facing as sharp a policy choice as the US with its upcoming election. We can say with a fair degree of certainty that the US will have a relatively more stimulative fiscal policy stance than other developed economies over at least the next couple of years. This implies a higher relative growth trajectory for the US that hurts Treasuries more on the margin than non-US government debt. In addition, the likely path of relative monetary policy responses are more bearish for US Treasuries. As described above, the scope of the US stimulus will cause bond investors to further question the Fed’s commitment to keeping the funds rate unchanged for the next few years. That also applies to the Fed’s other policy tools, like asset purchases. The Fed is far less likely to continue buying US Treasuries at the same aggressive pace it has for the past eight months if there is less need for monetary stimulus because of more fiscal stimulus. Chart II-10The Fed Will Gladly Trade Less QE For More Fiscal Stimulus November 2020 November 2020 According to the IMF, the Fed has purchased 57% of all US Treasuries issued since late February of this year, in sharp contrast to the ECB and Bank of Japan that have purchased over 70% of euro area government bonds and JGBs issued (Chart II-10). If US Treasury yields are rising because of improving US growth expectations, fueled by fiscal stimulus, the Fed will likely tolerate such a move and buy an even lower share of Treasuries issued – particularly if the higher bond yields do not cause a selloff in US equity markets that can tighten financial conditions and threaten the growth outlook. The fact that US equities have ignored the rise in Treasury yields seen since the end of September may be a sign that both bond and stock investors are starting to focus on a faster trajectory for US growth. In terms of country allocation, beyond downgrading US Treasuries to underweight, we recommend upgrading exposure to countries that are less sensitive to changes in US Treasury yields (i.e. countries with a lower yield beta to changes in US yields). In Chart II-11, we show the rolling beta of changes in 10-year government bond yields outside the US to changes in 10-year US Treasury yields. This is a variation of the “global yield beta” concept that we have discussed in the BCA Research bond publications in recent years. Here, we modify the idea to look at which countries are more or less correlated to US yields, specifically. A few points stand out from the chart: Chart II-11Reduce Exposure To Bond Markets More Correlated To UST Yields Reduce Exposure To Bond Markets More Correlated To UST Yields Reduce Exposure To Bond Markets More Correlated To UST Yields All countries have a “US yield beta” of less than 1, suggesting that Treasuries are a consistent outperformer when US yields fall and vice versa. This suggests moving to underweight the US when US yields are rising is typically a winning strategy in a portfolio context. The list of higher beta countries includes Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the UK and Germany; although Canada stands out as having the highest yield beta in this group. The list of lower beta countries includes France, Italy, Spain, and Japan. In Chart II-12, we show what we call the “upside yield beta” that is estimated only using data for periods when Treasury yields are rising. This gives a sense of which countries are more likely to outperform or underperform during a period of rising Treasury yields, as we expect to unfold after the election. From this perspective, the “safer” lower US upside yield beta group includes the UK, France, Germany and Japan. The riskier higher US upside yield beta group includes Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Italy and Spain. Chart II-12Favor Bond Markets Less Correlated to RISING UST Yields Favor Bond Markets Less Correlated to RISING UST Yields Favor Bond Markets Less Correlated to RISING UST Yields Spain and Italy are less likely to behave like typical high-beta countries as US yields rise, however, because the ECB is likely to remain an aggressive buyer of their government bonds as part of their asset purchase programs over the next 6-12 months. We also do not recommend trading UK Gilts off their yield beta to US Treasuries in the immediate future, given the uncertainties over the negotiations over a final Brexit deal. Both sets of US yield betas suggest higher-beta Canada, Australia and New Zealand are more at risk of relative underperformance versus lower-beta France, Germany and Japan. In terms of government bond country allocation, we recommend reducing exposure to the former group and increasing allocations to the latter group. Bottom Line: Within global government bond portfolios, downgrade the US to underweight. Favor countries that have lower sensitivity to rising US Treasury yields, especially those with central banks that are likely to be more dovish than the Fed in the next few years. That means increasing allocations to core Europe and Japan, while reducing exposure to “higher-beta” Canada and Australia.   Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com III. Indicators And Reference Charts The S&P 500 is experiencing its second correction in the past two months. The market looks even more fragile than it did in September. COVID-19 is heating up fast enough that lockdowns are re-emerging globally, the odds of an imminent fiscal deal have cratered to a near-zero chance, and investors are paying more attention to the growing risk of gridlock in Washington where a Biden Presidency and a Republican Senate majority would result in temporary fiscal paralysis. In this context, the decline in the momentum of the BCA Monetary Indicator, the elevated reading of our Speculation Indicator and the overvaluation of the stock market create the perfect cocktail for a dangerous few weeks. The longer we live in uncertainty regarding the elections’ result, the worse the market will fare. Short-term indicators confirm that equities are likely to remain under downward pressure in the coming weeks. Both the proportion of NYSE stocks above their 30-week and 10-week moving averages are still deteriorating after forming negative divergences with the S&P 500. They are also nowhere near levels consistent with a solid floor under the market. Moreover, our Intermediate Equity Indicator and the S&P 500 as a deviation from its 200-day moving average have rolled-over after reaching extremely overbought levels. Finally, both the poor performance of EM stocks as well as the underperformance of the Baltic Dry index and global chemical stocks relative to bond prices and the VIX indicate that cyclical assets could suffer from a wave of growth disappointment. Despite these short-term headwinds, the main pillar supporting the rally remains intact: global monetary conditions are highly accommodative. Moreover, the economic and financial risks created by the tepidity of fiscal support in recent months is self-limiting. As the economy progressively teeters toward a second leg of the recession, the pressure will rise for policymakers to spend generously once again to support their nations. Our cyclical indicators confirm the positive backdrop for stocks. Our Monetary Indicator remains at the top of its pre-COVID-19 distribution, which will put a natural floor under stocks, even if its recent deterioration is consistent with a market correction. Moreover, our Revealed Preference Indicator continues to flash a buy signal for stocks. Additionally, the BCA Composite Sentiment Indicator stands toward the middle of its historical distribution and the VIX has not hit the extremely compressed levels that normally precede major cyclical tops in the S&P 500. When weighing the short-term negative forces against the cyclical positives, we expect the S&P 500 to find a floor between 3000 and 3100. At this level, the froth highlighted by our Speculation Indicator will have dissipated.  The bond market’s dynamics are interesting. Despite the violent sell-off in equities, Treasury yields are not declining much. Bonds are too expensive and with short-term rates near their lower bound, Treasurys are losing their ability to hedge equity risk in portfolios. Moreover, the bond market seems to understand that any recession will encourage additional fiscal profligacy, which puts a floor under yields. These dynamics suggest that once equities stabilize, yields could start rising meaningfully. Finally, the dollar continues its sideways correction. However, as risk aversion rises and global growth deteriorates, the dollar is likely to catch further upside in the near term, especially as it has not fully worked out this summer’s oversold conditions. Moreover, the dollar is a momentum currency. Thus, once its start to turn around, its rally is likely to be more powerful than most expect, which will put additional downward pressures on commodity prices. Consequently, it is too early to start selling the USD again or to bottom fish natural resources. EQUITIES: Chart III-1US Equity Indicators US Equity Indicators US Equity Indicators Chart III-2Willingness To Pay For Risk Willingness To Pay For Risk Willingness To Pay For Risk Chart III-3US Equity Sentiment Indicators US Equity Sentiment Indicators US Equity Sentiment Indicators   Chart III-4Revealed Preference Indicator Revealed Preference Indicator Revealed Preference Indicator Chart III-5US Stock Market Valuation US Stock Market Valuation US Stock Market Valuation Chart III-6US Earnings US Earnings US Earnings Chart III-7Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Chart III-8Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance   FIXED INCOME: Chart III-9US Treasurys And Valuations US Treasurys And Valuations US Treasurys And Valuations Chart III-10Yield Curve Slopes Yield Curve Slopes Yield Curve Slopes Chart III-11Selected US Bond Yields Selected US Bond Yields Selected US Bond Yields Chart III-1210-Year Treasury Yield Components 10-Year Treasury Yield Components 10-Year Treasury Yield Components Chart III-13US Corporate Bonds And Health Monitor US Corporate Bonds And Health Monitor US Corporate Bonds And Health Monitor Chart III-14Global Bonds: Developed Markets Global Bonds: Developed Markets Global Bonds: Developed Markets Chart III-15Global Bonds: Emerging Markets Global Bonds: Emerging Markets Global Bonds: Emerging Markets   CURRENCIES: Chart III-16US Dollar And PPP US Dollar And PPP US Dollar And PPP Chart III-17US Dollar And Indicator US Dollar And Indicator US Dollar And Indicator Chart III-18US Dollar Fundamentals US Dollar Fundamentals US Dollar Fundamentals Chart III-19Japanese Yen Technicals Japanese Yen Technicals Japanese Yen Technicals Chart III-20Euro Technicals Euro Technicals Euro Technicals Chart III-21Euro/Yen Technicals Euro/Yen Technicals Euro/Yen Technicals Chart III-22Euro/Pound Technicals Euro/Pound Technicals Euro/Pound Technicals   COMMODITIES: Chart III-23Broad Commodity Indicators Broad Commodity Indicators Broad Commodity Indicators Chart III-24Commodity Prices Commodity Prices Commodity Prices Chart III-25Commodity Prices Commodity Prices Commodity Prices Chart III-26Commodity Sentiment Commodity Sentiment Commodity Sentiment Chart III-27Speculative Positioning Speculative Positioning Speculative Positioning   ECONOMY: Chart III-28US And Global Macro Backdrop US And Global Macro Backdrop US And Global Macro Backdrop Chart III-29US Macro Snapshot US Macro Snapshot US Macro Snapshot Chart III-30US Growth Outlook US Growth Outlook US Growth Outlook Chart III-31US Cyclical Spending US Cyclical Spending US Cyclical Spending Chart III-32US Labor Market US Labor Market US Labor Market Chart III-33US Consumption US Consumption US Consumption Chart III-34US Housing US Housing US Housing Chart III-35US Debt And Deleveraging US Debt And Deleveraging US Debt And Deleveraging   Chart III-36US Financial Conditions US Financial Conditions US Financial Conditions Chart III-37Global Economic Snapshot: Europe Global Economic Snapshot: Europe Global Economic Snapshot: Europe Chart III-38Global Economic Snapshot: China Global Economic Snapshot: China Global Economic Snapshot: China   Mathieu Savary Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst   Footnotes 1 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst Special Report "Labor Strikes Back," dated February 27, 2020, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 2 High odds of staying in the income decile of your parents. 3 Please see Geopolitical Strategy Webcast "Geopolitical Alpha In 2020-21," dated October 21, 2020. Marko also recently published a book "Geopolitical Alpha." 4 Please see US Equity Strategy Weekly Report "Vigilantes Gone Missing?" dated October 26, 2020, available at uses.bcaresearch.com 5 http://www.crfb.org/papers/cost-trump-and-biden-campaign-plans 6 https://www.moodysanalytics.com/-/media/article/2020/the-macroeconomic-consequences-trump-vs-biden.pdf 7 Please see BCA Research Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, “Introducing Our Quantitative US Senate Election Model”, dated October 16, 2020, available at gps.bcaresearch.com 8 For more details on this recommended steepener trade please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Positioning For Reflation And Avoiding Deflation”, dated August 11, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 9 For more details on our Adaptive Expectations Model please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “How Are Inflation Expectations Adapting?”, dated February 11, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 10 For a detailed look at the implications of the Fed’s policy shift please see US Bond Strategy / Global Fixed Income Strategy Special Report, “A New Dawn For US Monetary Policy”, dated September 1, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com