Fixed Income

Highlights The global recovery has legs, but it will follow a stop-and-go pattern. Global fiscal policy will ultimately remain loose enough to create an appropriate counterweight to three major risks. Risk assets are still attractive on a 12-month investment horizon despite short-term dangers. The dollar cyclical downtrend will be tested, but it will prevail. 10-year Treasury yields will be range bound between 0.5% and 1%. Industrials, materials, gold and Japanese equities are attractive. Feature Chart I-1Ebbing Surprises Ebbing Surprises Ebbing Surprises The S&P 500 correction remains minimal in the face of Washington’s inability to reach a much-needed fiscal compromise. This resilience reflects that economies in the G-10 and China have pleasantly surprised investors despite rolling second waves of infections across the world, fiscal policy paralysis and generalized unease (Chart I-1). Strong growth has fueled higher earnings expectations. Meanwhile, global central banks are promising to keep accommodative monetary conditions in place indefinitely, which has allowed valuations to balloon. The cyclical outlook for stocks remains attractive. Nonetheless, global equities have entered a period of heightened volatility and downside risk until year-end. The S&P 500 had overshot its fundamentals, but now the momentum of the economic surprise index is deteriorating and central banks have deployed their full arsenal. Investors are concerned by a lack of fiscal support and rising policy uncertainty created by the approaching US election in November. This nervousness will spark powerful fluctuations in stock prices.  Avoid Binary Judgments The global economy is at a complex juncture, buffeted between forces that will either propel its recovery or sink it. The positives will predominate in this contest, which suggests that the business cycle remains in an upswing, albeit, a volatile one. The Good… Five main positive forces underpin the nascent economic bounce and thus, the profit outlook. Pent-up demand and the inventory cycle: The economy is making up for the collapse of both cyclical spending and production at the end of Q1 and into Q2. Inventories of finished products have sharply declined in the past six months. In the US, rapidly shrinking inventories are supercharging the uptick in the new-orders-to inventories ratio. Similar dynamics are occurring in China, Europe and Japan (Chart I-2). China’s stimulus-driven recovery will provide a crucial boost to the global business cycle. The Chinese engine is revving: An aggressive stimulus campaign followed Beijing’s swift actions to contain the domestic spread of COVID-19. China’s policies are generating economic dividends that will percolate through the global industrial and commodity sectors. Sales of floor space are already expanding by 40% annually, driven by a 60% jump in Tier-1 cities. In response, construction is forming a trough. Moreover, the large issuance of local government bonds is financing an increase in infrastructure spending. Thanks to an upturn in building activity, the equipment purchases, construction and installation components of China’s real estate investment are all bottoming (Chart I-3). Chart I-2The Inventory Adjustment Is Advanced The Inventory Adjustment Is Advanced The Inventory Adjustment Is Advanced Chart I-3China: A Policy-Driven Recovery China: A Policy-Driven Recovery China: A Policy-Driven Recovery   BCA Research’s Emerging Markets team recently showed that the expenditure rebound is not limited to the real estate sector.1 Vehicle sales are healthier and tech infrastructure outlays are reaccelerating (Chart I-4). Retail sales also moved back into positive territory in August. Thus, China’s cyclical spending has regained its footing. China’s stimulus-driven recovery will provide a crucial boost to the global business cycle. Beijing’s unconstrained credit easing is the source for the turnaround in China’s cyclical and capital expenditures outlook. Hence, the sharp increase in China’s credit and fiscal impulse foreshadows a powerful rebound in imports and in global industrial production because Chinese capex demands plentiful commodities, industrial goods and capital goods (Chart I-5).  Chart I-4More Chinese Recovery More Chinese Recovery More Chinese Recovery Chart I-5Chinese Stimulus Matters Globally Chinese Stimulus Matters Globally Chinese Stimulus Matters Globally   Chart I-6Robust American Households Robust American Households Robust American Households Consumer balance sheets are robust: Unlike the aftermath of the Great Financial Crisis (GFC), US households do not need to rebuild destroyed balance sheets. This time around, the low level of household debt and the limited hit to net worth has allowed consumers to withstand an even greater income shock than during the GFC (Chart I-6). As a result, expenditures are rebounding much quicker than most investors anticipated six months ago. An extremely vigorous policy response: Policymakers in the G-10 did not wait to deploy their economic arsenal when the economic crisis erupted. Governments have racked up their largest budget deficits since World War II (Chart I-7). Monetary authorities also moved quickly to ease financial conditions. Broad money supply growth among advanced economies has skyrocketed, global corporate bond issuance stands at a record $2.6 trillion, and excess liquidity points to continued industrial production strength. In the US, our Financial Liquidity Index is climbing higher alongside the ISM Manufacturing Index. Even the performance of EM carry trades (a financial variable that shows whether funds are flowing into EM economies) is consistent with a stabilization in global IP (Chart I-8). Chart I-7Exceptional Fiscal Stimulus October 2020 October 2020 Chart I-8Liquidity Helps Growth Liquidity Helps Growth Liquidity Helps Growth     Stronger industrial production models: Our industrial production models for the major advanced economies are all moving up after experiencing massive collapses this past spring. These models encapsulate many influences and their uniformly positive message is very encouraging. In all likelihood, a virtuous cycle has been unleashed. As IP recovers, then so will income, which will fuel the demand expansion and thus, more production. We expect the models to rise even more in the coming quarters. … And The Bad Three near-term concerns still hang over the global economy. Hence, while Q3 is set to deliver stunningly strong numbers boosted by advantageous base effects, growth will recede in Q4.2  While fiscal policy was on point in late Q1 and Q2, Washington’s performance in the past three months has been questionable. Fiscal stimulus hiccups in the US: While fiscal policy was on point in late Q1 and Q2, Washington’s performance in the past three months has been questionable. The CARES Act’s expanded $600 per week unemployment benefit lapsed at the end of July. This benefit, along with one-time $1200 stimulus checks, pushed disposable income higher by 7.5% during the past five months. Thankfully, households managed to save a large proportion of the government support. Consequently, consumption remained strong in August, despite limited help from the federal government. The short-term outlook for consumption is fragile because households cannot continue to tap into their savings. In August, US retail sales disappointed. Calculations by our US fixed-income strategist show that in the coming months, Washington must spend almost $800 billion just for consumer expenditures to match its growth rate of -3% recorded at the depth of the last recession.3 Moreover, a potential wave of eviction of renters looms. Thus, the economy could relapse violently as long as Democrats and Republicans remain apart on a compromise for a new stimulus bill. The upcoming Senate confirmation process to fill the Supreme Court seat left vacant by Ruth Bader-Ginsburg’s passing only complicates the passage of these needed spending measures. Chart I-9Permanent Joblessness Is A Threat Permanent Joblessness Is A Threat Permanent Joblessness Is A Threat Rising permanent job losses: The US unemployment rate has fallen from a high of 14.7% in April to 8.4% in August. This bright picture hides a negative development. The number of permanent job losses has quickly escalated, reaching 4.1 million last month (Chart I-9). Moreover, continuing unemployment insurance claims are barely declining. Mounting long-term unemployment is not associated with an economic recovery. Furthermore, permanent joblessness could easily push down consumer confidence, which would lift the household savings rate and hurt consumption. This problem is not unique to the US. In the UK, an unemployment cliff looms on October 31 when there will be an end to government schemes allowing firms to receive funds as long as they do not permanently severe their links with furloughed workers. The UK’s unemployment rate of only 4.1% is bound to surge when these support measures disappear. In continental Europe, similar stimulus programs could also be rescinded this fall. The weak health of small businesses accentuates risks to the labor market. In the US, 21% of very small firms will run out of money by the end of the year if the government does not dispense supplemental help. Closing these businesses will push up permanent joblessness even more and thus, further weaken consumption. Either weaker stock prices or a deterioration in the economy will be the catalyst for Washington to strike a deal. COVID-19 and the service sector: Many major countries are now fighting a second wave of infections, which may surpass the first wave. Many schools have re-opened and winter in the Northern Hemisphere is approaching (which will force people to congregate inside), bringing with it the regular flu season. Chart I-10The Service Sector Is The Weakest Link The Service Sector Is The Weakest Link The Service Sector Is The Weakest Link This epidemiological backdrop still represents an elevated hurdle to overcome for large swaths of the service sector, especially leisure, food, hospitality and travel. While these industries account for only 10% of GDP in the US, they contribute roughly 25% of employment. If governments toughen social distancing rules and implement localized lockdowns, then the service sector will act as a drag on GDP and employment (Chart I-10). Which Side Will Win? Ultimately, we anticipate that the tailwinds supporting the economy will overcome the headwinds. On the policy front, governments will pass more stimulus. Our Geopolitical strategists believe that the following constraints will force greater spending in the US by mid-October: The Democrats face an election and they want to deliver benefits to their voters.  The White House needs to prevent financial turmoil in the final month of the campaign. If the Republicans fail to agree on a second stimulus bill, there is a significant risk they will lose the White House and their majority in the Senate. Chart I-11No Constraints There No Constraints There No Constraints There The package should total nearly $2 trillion. The Democrats have reduced their demands to $2.3 trillion, while the GOP has moved up its offer to $1.3 trillion. Moreover, a bi-partisan “Problem Solvers Caucus” has emerged in Congress with a $1.5 trillion bill proposal that the White House is considering. Either weaker stock prices or a deterioration in the economy will be the catalyst for Washington to strike a deal. Fiscal stimulus will also remain generous outside the US. In Europe, France is providing an attractive template. On September 3, the Macron government announced an additional EUR100 billion stimulus package, whereby 40% of the funds would come from the common bond issuance recently announced by the EU. In Japan, Prime Minister Yoshihide Suga will continue the policies of his predecessor. Finally, in emerging economies, the absence of inflation and well-behaved sovereign yields and spreads have provided room for local authorities to alleviate any economic pain created by COVID-19 (Chart I-11). Monetary policy will remain extremely stimulative. Central banks will not meaningfully ease policy further, but our monetary indicators are already at their most accommodative levels on record (see Section III). Plus, the US Federal Reserve’s switch to an average-inflation target last month raised the bar that inflation must reach before the FOMC tightens policy. The European Central Bank is contemplating a similar change. Furthermore, the continued woes of service-sector employment constitute another hurdle to clear before central banks can remove accommodation. Chart I-12US Housing Is The New Locomotive US Housing Is The New Locomotive US Housing Is The New Locomotive Finally, COVID-19 currently has a limited impact on the lion’s share of cyclical spending, which will continue to recover. Cyclical sectors include residential investment, business capex and spending on consumer durable goods. In the US, they account for only 20% GDP, but they generate 70% of the variance in its fluctuations. These sectors are heavily geared toward manufacturing, which is crucial for cyclical spending. Importantly, the robustness of household balance sheets and record low borrowing costs have allowed mortgage applications for purchases to rise sharply, home sales to recover and homebuilder confidence to surge to an all-time high (Chart I-12). Hence, residential activity will remain an important driver of domestic demand, especially because residential investment also often galvanizes other forms of cyclical spending. Bottom Line: The global economy remains buffeted between five positive forces that bolster the recovery and three negatives that hamper it. Ultimately, the authorities will have no choice but to add supplementary fiscal stimulus and monetary conditions will remain extremely accommodative. The recovery will then slow from its heady Q3 pace, but cyclical spending will still power ahead next year. In a nutshell, the economy will not be weaker nor much stronger than the base case presented by the IMF. Investment Implications Our somewhat upbeat position on the global economic outlook remains consistent with a favorable stance toward risk assets in the next 12 to 18 months, because adverse economic outcomes are unlikely to materialize, not because growth will be stronger than expected. Nonetheless, we are conscious that the market place remains fraught with many risks and that growth will stay volatile. As a result, episodic violent corrections will punctuate the upward path in risk asset. We are currently in the midst of such a correction. Chart I-13The Dollar Remains Expensive The Dollar Remains Expensive The Dollar Remains Expensive The Dollar We are still bearish on the dollar on a cyclical investment horizon. The USD remains expensive despite its recent weakness. Against major currencies, the dollar has climbed by 30% since 2008. On a broad, trade-weighted basis, it is up 36% in the same period. Therefore, the US currency trades 15% above its Purchasing Power Parity equilibrium, the most among the major currencies (Chart I-13).4  The US balance of payments picture is becoming increasingly problematic for the dollar. After a surge this spring, US private-sector savings are set to decline. Low interest rates and asset bubbles will increasingly incentivize consumption, while rising capex intentions point to a drop in the corporate sector’s savings. Given that we anticipate the fiscal balance to remain negative in the coming years, the national savings rate will sag, which will worsen the US current account (Chart I-14).5 In other words, the US twin deficits will balloon as the recovery progresses. Despite our bearish view on the dollar, our base case still anticipates a short-term bounce in the USD. The US capital account will not offset the impact on the dollar of a wider current account deficit. US real interest rate differentials have collapsed and foreigners have shunned the Treasury market (Chart I-15, top panel). The Fed conducts the loosest monetary policy among the major economies, which is pushing the US shadow rate lower versus the euro area. Such a trend is euro bullish (dollar bearish) because it draws capital outside of the US economy (Chart I-15, middle panel). Additionally, the USD’s counter cyclicality will be its final undoing during the global economic recovery and will create another hurdle for the US capital account. Chart I-14A Dollar-Bearish Savings Backdrop A Dollar-Bearish Savings Backdrop A Dollar-Bearish Savings Backdrop Chart I-15No Love For The Greenback No Love For The Greenback No Love For The Greenback Chart I-16The Dollar Is Ripe For A Rebound The Dollar Is Ripe For A Rebound The Dollar Is Ripe For A Rebound Despite our bearish view on the dollar, our base case still anticipates a short-term bounce in the USD. Our dollar capitulation index is overextended and if stocks experience heightened volatility (see equities on page 32), then a safe-haven asset such as the greenback will catch a temporary bid (Chart I-16). A correction in the euro to 1.15-1.14 is a reasonable target. Government Bonds Our reluctance to overweight bonds or duration is intact. The BCA US 10-Year Government Bond Valuation index is consistent with higher yields in the next 12 months (Chart I-17). Moreover, bond prices are losing momentum, which creates a technical vulnerability for this asset class. The economy is the potential catalyst to expose the underlying valuation and technical risks of government bonds. Inflation is still a distant danger, but our BCA Pipeline Inflation indicator highlights that deflationary pressures are receding (Chart I-18, top panel). Likewise, our Nominal Cyclical Spending proxy already warns that yields have upside; and an expanding recovery implies that bond-bearish pressures will progress (Chart I-18, bottom panel). Chart I-17The Traitorous Treasury Market The Traitorous Treasury Market The Traitorous Treasury Market Chart I-18Problems For Treasurys Problems For Treasurys Problems For Treasurys   The Fed’s switch to an average inflation target is also consistent with higher long bond yields. The Fed’s newfound tolerance for loftier inflation should lift long-term inflation expectations and medium-term inflation uncertainty, especially given current fiscal trends. Higher long-term inflation expectations and inflation uncertainty have the potential to generate a broader range of policy-rate outcomes, therefore they will also normalize the extraordinarily depressed term premium and lead to a steeper yield curve (Chart I-19). Thus, 10- and 30-year yields have room to increase even if current short rates remain anchored near their lower bounds for the next three years. Over the next 12 months, 10- and 30-year Treasury yields will be capped at 1% and 2%, respectively. The expected yield upside will be limited in the next year. While investors should anticipate some curve steepening, the most violent selloffs only take hold of the Treasury market when the Fed generates hawkish surprises, which is very unlikely in 2021 (Chart I-20). Moreover, the stock market creates its own constraints. As our European Investment strategist has reasoned, higher yields will hurt growth stocks that derive a disproportionate share of their intrinsic value from long-term cash flows.6 If bond prices fall too quickly, then these growth stocks would plunge and drag down the equity market. In essence, elevated bond yields can generate a deflationary shock that undoes the primary reason why yields would rise. Therefore, over the next 12 months, 10- and 30-year Treasury yields will be capped at 1% and 2%, respectively. Chart I-19Average-Inflation Targeting Hurts Long-Dated Bonds Average-Inflation Targeting Hurts Long-Dated Bonds Average-Inflation Targeting Hurts Long-Dated Bonds Chart I-20Limited Upside For Yields Limited Upside For Yields Limited Upside For Yields   Equities Several factors underpin our positive stance on global equities in the next 12 months. The lack of investment alternatives or TINA (There Is No Alternative) is a crucial support under stock prices. As BCA Research’s Global Investment Strategy service recently discussed, the S&P 500’s dividend yield stands at around 100 basis points above 10-year Treasury yields.7 Conservatively assuming that dividends per share remain constant in the next 10 years and inflation averages 2%, the real value of the US equity benchmark must decline by 25% during that period before it underperforms Treasurys. Given that gaps between dividend yields and bond yields are even larger outside the US, many foreign bourses must experience deeper real depreciation before they underperform their respective bond markets (Chart I-21). Corporate pricing power is returning, which is positive for the earnings outlook. The ability of firms to boost prices will be enhanced by the combination of a weak dollar, declining deflationary forces, rebounding commodity prices and a surge in the sales-to-inventory ratio. The pickup in pricing power is broadly based; 59% of the S&P 500 groups analyzed by our US equity strategist are experiencing mounting prices.8 When higher pricing power meets mending sales volumes, operating leverage allows profit margins to expand, which lifts earnings per share and stock prices (Chart I-22). Chart I-21TINA Flatters Stocks TINA Flatters Stocks TINA Flatters Stocks Chart I-22Corporate Pricing Power Is Coming Back Corporate Pricing Power Is Coming Back Corporate Pricing Power Is Coming Back Chart I-23Liquidity Underpins This Rally Liquidity Underpins This Rally Liquidity Underpins This Rally The global monetary environment also supports stocks. The swell in our US Financial Liquidity index is consistent with additional equity gains because it forecasts stronger economic activity (Chart I-23). Expectations of an upswing in the business cycle let earnings forecasts climb and can also improve the anticipated growth rate of long-term earnings while encouraging risk-taking, which compresses the equity risk premium. Moreover, generous liquidity limits the upside to real yields, which further boosts equity multiples. Another consequence of ample liquidity is a marked increase in corporate actions. Firms engage in greater M&A activity, which can generate gains in accounting earnings while withdrawing equity from the market. Businesses around the world have tapped the corporate bond market at a record pace this year, creating both large war chests and the capacity to deploy funds for capex. Higher capex boosts demand and cyclical spending, which creates a positive environment for earnings. Our positive cyclical view on stocks does not preclude a period of heightened volatility and further downside risk in the coming three months. The US and G-10 economic surprise indices are elevated, but they are losing momentum. This deterioration in the second derivative of activity is problematic when there is a non-trivial chance of a policy error in Washington. Importantly, the upcoming US election will raise questions about the regulatory environment for the two market heavyweights: technology and healthcare stocks. As we wrote last month, a shift of leadership away from these sectors will translate into episodic corrections for stocks at large.9 Additionally, investors must price in the risk of gridlock in Washington. If Senate Republicans are reluctant to write a check while an unpopular President Trump faces an imminent election, then their willingness to expand spending if Biden clinches the White House will be nonexistent. A complete refusal to add fiscal stimulus would nearly guarantee a double-dip recession. Equities must embed a risk premium against this scenario ahead of the election. Therefore, the S&P 500 is likely to test 3000 in the coming weeks before rebounding. Our positive cyclical view on stocks does not preclude a period of heightened volatility and further downside risk in the coming three months. Sector Considerations We are positive on the medium-term outlook for value versus growth stocks. The cheapness of value versus growth makes the former attractive, but is not enough to allocate funds to it aggressively. Instead, our bias takes root in our economic view. The forward earnings of global value stocks are very depressed relative to growth stocks. However, the ratio of value EPS to growth EPS is extremely pro-cyclical. Thus, our positive stance on global growth is consistent with a rebound in relative profits that will help value equities (Chart I-24, top panel). Moreover, higher yields correlate with a re-rating of relative equity multiples in favor of value stocks, which are less sensitive to rising discount rates than their growth counterparts (Chart I-24, bottom panel). In this context, we continue to favor industrials and materials; consumer discretionary stocks are also appealing.10 Investors should underweight the US, especially in common currency terms. Gold mining equities remain attractive long-term investments. In the near term, as long as the dollar counter-trend bounce continues, gold will purge its excess froth (Chart I-25, top panel). Nonetheless, our trend indicator remains positive for gold (Chart I-25, bottom panel). Moreover, if real yields start to stagnate at their current low levels, then gold will lose a tailwind but it will not develop a new handicap. In this context, an increase in inflation expectations will elevate gold prices (Table I-1). Other bullish cyclical forces underpinning gold include the dollar’s long-term bear market, limited supply expansion and the diversification of EM central banks away from Treasurys into gold. This positive backdrop should allow the attractive relative valuation of global gold mining firms and their improving operating metric (courtesy of rigorous cash flow management and limited expansion plans) to blossom into more equity price outperformance over the next year or so. Chart I-24Long Growth vs Value: A Cyclical Trade Long Growth vs Value: A Cyclical Trade Long Growth vs Value: A Cyclical Trade Chart I-25A Shakeout For The Gold Bull Market A Shakeout For The Gold Bull Market A Shakeout For The Gold Bull Market Table I-1Gold's Response To Yields October 2020 October 2020 Finally, Japan has become our favorite equity market for the next 9 to 12 months. Japanese stocks possess the perfect equity exposure to play the themes we espouse because they greatly overweight industrials and traditional consumer discretionary stocks at the expense of tech and healthcare (Table I-2). Moreover, we like auto stocks, an industry well represented in the Japanese bourse, which will benefit from a weak trade-weighted yen.11 Lastly, Japanese stock prices incorporate a large margin of safety. Most sectors in Japan trade at a significant discount to their European and US counterparts (Chart I-26). Nevertheless, it is too early to make a structural bet on Japan because its productivity problems and persistent deflation generate a long-lasting drag on corporate profitability. Table I-2Japan Possesses An Attractive Sector Composition October 2020 October 2020 Chart I-26Japan Is A Cheap Recovery Bet October 2020 October 2020 Section II presents a thought experiment by our Chief US Equity Strategist, Anastasios Avgeriou, which details the feasibility of a doubling of the S&P 500 over the coming 8 years. I trust you will find this report based on historical evidences thought-provoking.   Mathieu Savary Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst September 24, 2020 Next Report: October 29, 2020   II. SPX 7000 We present a thought experiment for the next eight years. 7000 constitutes a reasonable long-term target for the S&P 500. A doubling of the S&P 500 over the coming eight years is in line with the historical experience. Monetary policy is unlikely to tighten meaningfully, which will allow multiples to remain elevated Earnings per share can rise to $310 by 2028. Market technicals are also consistent with significant long-term gains for stocks. Chart II-1Prolonged ZIRP Neither Eliminates Corrections... Prolonged ZIRP Neither Eliminates Corrections... Prolonged ZIRP Neither Eliminates Corrections... Our structural target is neither a joke nor a marketing ploy. And yes, it really does read SPX 7000! This is our S&P 500 target for the year 2028. A new business cycle has commenced and with it a fresh bull market. Our secular US equity market view is bullish. Our readers can fault us for our optimistic view on the world. But we live by the Buffett maxim that “there are no short sellers in the Forbes Billionaires list.” What gives us confidence in this prima facie hyperbolic market view? The Fed’s explicit acceptance that it is ready to incur inflation risk, cementing the fed funds rate near the zero-lower bound for as long as the eye see. In the last cycle, it took the Fed seven years to lift the fed funds rate from zero, a move that ended being judged as premature and forced the Yellen-led Fed to pause for another year (bottom panel, Chart II-1). Seven years. As such, there is a good chance the Fed will stay put until the year 2028, another election year. Even if it ultimately raises interest rates faster due to an overheated economy goosed up on the sweet nectar of fiscal largesse, it is highly likely to be behind the curve. Before we move on to justifying our target, some observations on ZIRP are in order. First, the Fed’s unorthodox monetary policy (QE and ZIRP) in the last cycle did not prevent stock market corrections, including a near 20% fall in 2011 (top panel, Chart II-1). In other words, we do not expect smooth sailing or a 45-degree angle line in the SPX heading to 2028. Rather, an era of volatility with a plethora of sizable corrections is upon us, but the path of least resistance will be higher. Make no mistake, we are in a “buy the dip” market now. Similar to 2008-2015, there will be a lot of fits and starts and a number of mini economic cycles will develop. Chart II-2 highlights that the ISM oscillated violently during the ZIRP years and so did equity momentum and the 10-year Treasury yield. Granted, the Fed managed to suppress economic volatility as real GDP averaged ~2%/annum in the aftermath of the GFC, but mini economic cycles and profit growth scares did not disappear (top panel, Chart II-3). Chart II-2...Nor Mini Economic Cycles ...Nor Mini Economic Cycles ...Nor Mini Economic Cycles Chart II-3"Lowflation"/Disinflation Has Been The Story Of The Past 30 Years "Lowflation"/Disinflation Has Been The Story Of The Past 30 Years "Lowflation"/Disinflation Has Been The Story Of The Past 30 Years   Importantly, while the 10-year Treasury yield moved with the ebbs and flows of the ISM manufacturing survey’s readings, it remained in a downtrend and every bond market selloff proved a buying opportunity in the era of ZIRP (third panel, Chart II-2). What the Fed failed to generate was inflation – of either the CPI or PCE deflator variety. In fact, the Fed has not seen core PCE price inflation overshoot 2.5% since the early 1990s (bottom panel, Chart II-3). Another feature of the ZIRP years in the last cycle was that early on easy monetary policy coincided with easy fiscal policy, as was warranted for the first few years post the GFC. Subsequently, fiscal thrust increased starting in 2016 counterbalancing the Fed’s interest rate hikes. Despite all that fiscal easing, real GDP growth peaked at 3% in 2018 before decelerating last year, raising a question mark about the long-term health of the US economy, a question to be answered in a future Special Report. Frequent readers of US Equity Strategy know our long-held view that the two primary equity market drivers have been easy fiscal and monetary policies since the March carnage. Looking ahead, the Fed has cemented the view that easy monetary policy will stay with us for quite some time. While the jury is still out on fiscal policy, it appears at the moment that profligacy has staying power as no party in Washington is campaigning on austerity or worrying about paying down the debt (save for the lone voice of the Kentucky Senator Rand Paul). The Buenos Aires Consensus is a paradigm shift, and the most important long-term consequence will be higher inflation. The US has abandoned the guardrails on populism established by the Washington Consensus – countercyclical fiscal policy, independent central banking, free trade, laissez-faire economic policy – and has adopted something… different. A new Consensus. These are extremely potent macro forces and given that there is a lag between the time both easy monetary and loose fiscal policies hit the economy, their effects will be long lasting. Especially given that they are now synchronized – unlike for large periods of the previous cycle – and undertaken at a much greater order of magnitude than after the GFC. Table II-1 October 2020 October 2020 With that macro backdrop in mind, let us circle back to our 7000 SPX target. A fresh bull market has commenced and we consider the breakout above the previous cycle’s highs as its starting point. In August, the SPX surpassed the February 19, 2020 highs, giving birth to the new bull market. Using empirical evidence since the late-1950s we conclude that, on average, the SPX doubles from its breakout point (Table II-1). This gives us the SPX 7000 reading before the new bull is slayed in the plaza de toros of economic cycles. While this qualitative analysis is enticing, ultimately earnings have to deliver in order to justify the equity market’s appreciation. Put differently, easy fiscal and monetary policies the world over will deliver EPS inflation. On the quantitative EPS front, we first turn to the reconstructed S&P 500 earnings back to the late-1920s. On average, EPS have grown by 7.5%/annum, effectively doubling every decade (Chart II-4). Chart II-4Average Annual EPS Growth Since 1920s = 7.5% Average Annual EPS Growth Since 1920s = 7.5% Average Annual EPS Growth Since 1920s = 7.5% More recently, using I/B/E/S data, there have been four distinct EPS growth periods over the past four decades with different durations. From trough-to-peak, EPS have enjoyed an average CAGR of over 10% (top panel, Chart II-5). Chart II-5EPS Can Double In Next Eight Years EPS Can Double In Next Eight Years EPS Can Double In Next Eight Years The current trough in forward EPS stands just shy of $140. Applying the average CAGR until 2028 results in a $310 EPS figure. This is our starting point of our EPS sensitivity analysis. Assigning the current forward multiple equates to an SPX terminal value of over 7000. Table II-2 showcases different EPS and forward P/E multiple permutations with the grey shaded area representing our tight range of peak cycle multiples and peak EPS estimates. Table II-2SPX EPS & Multiple Sensitivity October 2020 October 2020 With regard to what is currently priced in by sell side analysts, the 5-year forward EPS growth rate – the longest duration estimate available – is near a trough reading of 10%. The historical mean is 12% since 1985, with a range of 19% near the dotcom bubble peak and a trough of 9% at the depths of the 2016 manufacturing recession (bottom panel, Chart II-5). A few words on presidential cycles are relevant given our structural bullish equity market view. We first noticed Tables II-3 & II-4 in the WSJ in late-2016 and we have corrected some minor mistakes and updated them filling in the gaps. Drawdowns are frequent during term presidencies12 dating back to Hoover. Table II-3Every Presidency Experiences Drawdowns October 2020 October 2020 Table II-4S&P 500 Returns During Presidential Terms October 2020 October 2020 What is truly remarkable, however, is that since the late-1920s only three term presidencies ended up in the red. What the WSJ article did not mention was that in all three market declines GOP presidents were at the helm and had taken over at/or near all-time highs in the SPX! This represents a risk to our SPX 7000 view. If President Trump wins the upcoming election, given the recent modest recovery in the polling, he could meet the same fate as his Republican predecessors. Our sister Geopolitical Strategy service still assigns 35% probability for the incumbent to remain in office, a solid figure that suggests the race remains close. Importantly, while we believe a transition to a Democratic president will be tumultuous as we have been cautioning investors recently, a Biden presidency along with the possibility of a “Blue Wave” will bode well for the long-term prospects of the US equity market, if history at least rhymes. BCA’s Geopolitical strategist Matt Gertken assigns 65% odds to a Biden win and 55% to a Blue trifecta. Finally, on a technical note, the recent megaphone formation has stirred a lot of debate among technical analysts in the blogosphere and is eerily reminiscent of a similar formation that lasted from 1965 until 1975. Typically, these megaphone formations get resolved/completed by a diamond formation (Chart II-6). Chart II-6Of Megaphones And Diamonds Of Megaphones And Diamonds Of Megaphones And Diamonds Chart II-7Diamond Base Is Long Term Bullish Diamond Base Is Long Term Bullish Diamond Base Is Long Term Bullish While this points to a selloff in the broad equity market in the near-term, which is in accordance with our tactically cautious view (please see the last section of this Weekly Report), it is very bullish for the long-term, as equities catapult higher from such a diamond base formation (Chart II-7). In other words, odds are much higher that the SPX will hit 7000 first, before it ever revisits 2200. Adding it all up, we are introducing a structurally constructive US equity market view with an SPX 7000 target for year 2028 on the back of peak cycle EPS of $310 and peak cycle P/E multiple of 23. Anastasios Avgeriou US Equity Strategist III. Indicators And Reference Charts The stock market correction has begun in earnest. The S&P 500 is suffering as the economic surprise index deteriorates, the dollar rebounds and uncertainty surrounding fiscal policy takes center stage. The deteriorating performances of silver, investment grade bonds, small-cap stocks, EM currencies and the AUD/CHF cross confirm that the equity market will suffer more downside. Moreover, the number of NYSE stocks trading above their 10-week moving average is in free-fall but remain well above levels consistent with a bottom. Despite these short-term headwinds, the main pillar supporting the rally remains intact: global monetary conditions are highly accommodative. The shift to an average-inflation target by the Fed, which the ECB is also considering, buttresses this dovish stance further as inflation will have to rise even more than normally before the major global central banks tighten policy. Moreover, outside of the US, fiscal policy remains accommodative. Even in the US, we expect more stimulus to come through before the November election. Our cyclical indicators confirm the positive backdrop for stocks. Our Monetary Indicator has softened but it remains at the top of its pre-COVID-19 distribution, which balances the expensiveness of the market flashed by our Valuation Indicator. Putting those forces together, our Intermediate-Term Indicator and our Revealed Preference Indicator strongly argues in favor or staying invested in equities. When weighing the short-term negative forces against the cyclical positives, we expect the S&P 500 to find a floor around 3000. At this level, the froth highlighted by our Speculation Indicator will have dissipated. Despite the equity correction, bonds remain extremely unappealing. Our Bond Valuation Index shows Treasurys as prohibitively expensive and our Composite Technical Indicator continues to lose momentum. Moreover, our Cyclical Bond Indicator has turned higher and is now flashing an outright sell signal. In effect, with rates near their lower bound, the market understands that yields have little room to decline and thus bonds seems to be losing their ability to hedge equity risk. Thus, bonds yields are unlikely to rise as stocks correct, but their lack of downside right now suggests that when equities regain their footing, 10-year Treasury yields could quickly move higher toward 1%. The dollar countertrend rally that we expected last month has begun. So far, the dollar has still not purged its oversold conditions and the deterioration in risk sentiment around the world will likely result in additional upside for the greenback. Ultimately, this rally will be temporary. The global economic recovery has just begun, the US balance of payments picture is deteriorating and the USD trades at a large premium to its purchasing power parity equilibrium. Commodities remain in a bull market, but their current correction has further to run. As investors absorb the deterioration in economic surprises and risk sentiment declines, the overbought commodity complex will remain under downward pressure. The strength in the US dollar is creating an additional powerful headwind against commodities. Gold’s decline has been particularly noteworthy. Gold remains above its short-term fair value, hence its vulnerability to the dollar and to the decline in our Monetary Indicator is particularly pronounced. A stabilization in gold and silver prices is required before the rest of the commodity complex and stocks can find a firmer footing. Stronger precious metals would indicate that the deterioration in liquidity visible at the margin is ending. It is likely to be contemporary with the passage of a new fiscal stimulus bill in the US. 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  Emerging Markets Strategy "Charts That Matter," dated September 10, 2020, available at ems.bcaresearch.com 2 The Atlanta Fed GDPNow model already points to an annualized growth rate of 32% in Q3 in the US, but the New York Fed’s model pencils in a much more modest 5.3% expansion rate for Q4. 3 Please see  US Bond Strategy "More Stimulus Needed," dated September 15, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 4 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy "Revisiting Our High-Conviction Trades," dated September 11, 2020, available at fes.bcaresearch.com 5 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst "August 2020," dated July 30, 2020 and The Bank Credit Analyst "July 2020," dated June 25, 2020, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 6 Please see European Investment Strategy "The Puppet Master Is The 30-Year Bond," dated August 6, 2020, available at eis.bcaresearch.com 7 Please see Global Investment Strategy "Stock Prices And Interest Rates: Can We Trust TINA?," dated September 11, 2020, available at gis.bcaresearch.com 8 Please see US Equity Strategy "Pricing Power Update," dated September 14, 2020, available at uses.bcaresearch.com 9 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst "September 2020," dated August 27, 2020, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 10 However, in the US, investors must be careful as the sector is dominated by one firm: Amazon, which trades as a tech stock, not as a traditional consumer discretionary. 11 Please see Daily Insights "More Cars Please!" dated July 20, 2020, available at di.bcaresearch.com 12 By term presidencies we are referring to the different duration of Presidents staying in office.

Highlights Bank credit 6-month impulses are plunging, and the pandemic is resurging. Maintain an overweight to growth defensives (technology and healthcare). In the short term, profits will be more resilient in a resurgent pandemic. In the long term, profits are well set to grow in an increasingly online, decentralised, remote-working, health-conscious world. The European stock market’s massive underweighting to growth defensives will weigh on its relative performance. Go underweight China economy plays. Fractal trade: Fractal analysis confirms that basic resources are vulnerable to a reversal. Within value cyclicals, tactically overweight financials versus basic resources. Feature Chart of the WeekThe Greatest Ever Monetary Stimulus Is Over... For Now The Greatest Ever Monetary Stimulus Is Over... For Now The Greatest Ever Monetary Stimulus Is Over... For Now Monetary stimulus, as measured by the increase in banks’ six-month credit flows, reached an all-time high during the summer months. But now, the greatest ever monetary stimulus is fading (Chart of the Week). In the US and China, the increase in banks’ six-month credit flows peaked at $700 billion and $800 billion respectively during May. In the euro area, the increase peaked at over $1 trillion during July. The combination constituted the greatest ever global monetary stimulus, trumping even the stimulus that followed the 2008 financial crisis (Charts I-2 - I-4). Chart I-2US Monetary Stimulus Is Fading US Monetary Stimulus Is Fading US Monetary Stimulus Is Fading Chart I-3China Monetary Stimulus Is Fading China Monetary Stimulus Is Fading China Monetary Stimulus Is Fading Chart I-4Euro Area Monetary Stimulus To Fade Euro Area Monetary Stimulus To Fade Euro Area Monetary Stimulus To Fade However, the increase in six-month credit flows has recently slumped to around $200 billion in both the US and China. The euro area has yet to update its data beyond July, but we expect it to fade too. The upshot is that the greatest ever monetary stimulus is over… for now. Bond Yields Are No Longer Stimulating Our preferred metric for assessing the transmission of monetary stimulus on an economy is the increase in the banks’ six-month credit flows. In turn, this depends on the six-month deceleration in the bond yield – meaning, the bond yield decline in the most recent six months must be greater than the decline in the previous six months. At first glance, this seems counterintuitive. Why focus on the bond yield’s deceleration rather than its plain vanilla decline? Box 1 explains how it follows from a fundamental accounting identity of GDP statistics.   Box 1 Why The Bond Yield’s Deceleration Matters GDP is a flow statistic. It measures the flow of goods and services produced in a period. Hence, the GDP flow receives a contribution from the bank credit flow in that period. In turn, the bank credit flow is established by the decline in the bond yield (Chart I-5). Chart I-5The Decline In The Bond Yield Establishes The Bank Credit Flow The Decline In The Bond Yield Establishes The Bank Credit Flow The Decline In The Bond Yield Establishes The Bank Credit Flow It follows that GDP growth receives a contribution from bank credit flow growth. Which, in turn, receives a contribution from the bond yield deceleration. In other words, the bond yield decline in the most recent period must be greater than the decline in the previous period. Finally, our preferred period is six months because it empirically equals the time to fully spend a bank credit flow. A quarter is too short: a year is much too long.   Admittedly, during this year’s pandemic recession and rebound, the link between monetary stimulus and the real economy has weakened. Fiscal stimulus has played a more important role. Even when it comes to bank credit, much of the recent increase was not due to new loans. It was due to firms tapping pre-arranged credit lines, which they used to reinforce cash buffers, rather than to spend. Nevertheless, some impact of monetary stimulus will reach the real economy. This means that while this year’s earlier deceleration of bond yields was good news for the economy, the more recent acceleration of bond yields is bad news (Chart I-6). Chart I-6The Recent Acceleration Of Bond Yields Is Bad News The Recent Acceleration Of Bond Yields Is Bad News The Recent Acceleration Of Bond Yields Is Bad News Tactically Underweight China Plays Through the summer months, 10-year bond yields flipped from sharp six-month decelerations to sharp accelerations. But the reversals were much more extreme in China and the US than in the euro area. Seen in this light, it is hardly surprising that the increase in six-month bank credit flows has already slumped in China and the US, and could soon turn negative. If so, they would be a contractionary force on the economy. One tactical investment conclusion is to underweight China economy plays. Specifically, with China’s bank credit six-month impulse in freefall, the 40 percent outperformance of basic resources versus financials is vulnerable to a sharp reversal (Chart I-7). This is also confirmed by fractal analysis (see later section). Chart I-7With China's Bank Credit 6-Month Impulse In Freefall, Basic Resources Are Vulnerable With China's Bank Credit 6-Month Impulse In Freefall, Basic Resources Are Vulnerable With China's Bank Credit 6-Month Impulse In Freefall, Basic Resources Are Vulnerable Stay underweight cyclicals. But within cyclicals, tactically overweight financials versus basic resources. A Resurgent Pandemic Will Force People Back Into Their Shells A resurgence of the pandemic will create a further headwind to the economy, irrespective of whether governments impose fresh lockdowns or not. This is because most of us have an instinct for self-preservation as well as protecting our loved ones. In response to a resurgent pandemic, we will go back into our shells. Shunning public transport, shopping, and other crowded places, some might even think twice about letting their children go to school. But if this cautious behaviour is voluntary, then why do governments need to impose lockdowns? The answer is that while the majority behaves responsibly, a minority behaves irresponsibly. In the pandemic, this is critical because less than 10 percent of infected people are responsible for creating 90 percent of all Covid-19 infections. If this tiny minority of so-called ‘super-spreaders’ is left unchecked, then the pandemic will let rip. At first glance, it appears that the lockdown is causing the recession. In fact, this is a classic confusion between correlation and causation. The true cause of the recession is the pandemic, which forces people into their shells. But to the extent that severity of the lockdown correlates with the severity of the pandemic, many people confuse the correlated lockdown with the underlying cause, the pandemic. The ultimate proof comes from Scandinavia. Sweden imposed no lockdown, while its neighbour Denmark imposed the most extreme lockdown in Europe. If it was the lockdown that caused the recession, then the economy of no-lockdown Sweden should have fared much better than that of lockdown Denmark. In fact, the two Scandinavian economies suffered identical 9 percent recessions (Chart I-8). Chart I-8No-Lockdown Sweden Suffered An Identical Recession To Lockdown-Denmark No-Lockdown Sweden Suffered An Identical Recession To Lockdown-Denmark No-Lockdown Sweden Suffered An Identical Recession To Lockdown-Denmark Focus On Sectors That Can Thrive In The New World Tactically we have recommended an underweight to stocks versus bonds since July 9, and this tactical position is broadly flat. Stick with it for now.1 A crucial question is: can bond yields go significantly lower? It is a crucial question because it was the collapse in bond yields earlier this year that saved the aggregate stock market. As long-duration bond yields plunged by 1 percent, the forward earnings yield of long-duration technology and healthcare stocks also plunged by 1 percent (Chart I-9). This surge in the valuation of the growth defensive sectors compensated for the collapsed profits of the value cyclical sectors – banks, basic resources, and oil and gas (Chart I-10). A resurgent pandemic combined with the end of the greatest ever monetary stimulus means that this playbook may get a rerun in the coming months. Chart I-9The Collapsed Bond Yield Explains The Collapsed Earnings Yield (Surging Valuation) Of Tech And Healthcare The Collapsed Bond Yield Explains The Collapsed Earnings Yield (Surging Valuation) Of Tech And Healthcare The Collapsed Bond Yield Explains The Collapsed Earnings Yield (Surging Valuation) Of Tech And Healthcare Chart I-10Tech And Healthcare Saved The Aggregate Stock Market Tech And Healthcare Saved The Aggregate Stock Market Tech And Healthcare Saved The Aggregate Stock Market The worry is that, from current levels, long-duration bond yields will struggle to plunge by another 1 percent and provide the same boost to valuations that they did in the first wave of the pandemic. In which case, the outlook for stocks and sectors will hinge more on their profits. On this basis, we still favour the growth defensives – which we define as technology and healthcare – both for the short term and the long term. In the short term, their profits will be more resilient in a resurgent pandemic. In the long term, their profits are well set to grow in an increasingly online, decentralised, remote-working, health-conscious world. One unfortunate consequence is that the European stock market’s massive underweighting to the growth defensives sectors will weigh on its relative performance, both in the short term and in the long term. Fractal Trading System* Supporting the fundamental analysis in the main body of this report, fractal analysis confirms that basic resources are vulnerable to a reversal versus financials. Hence, this week’s recommended trade is to go long financials versus basic resources. One way of implementing this is: long XLF, short XLB. Set the profit target and symmetrical stop-loss at 3.5 percent. In other trades, long ZAR/CLP reached the end of its holding period flat, and is now closed. The rolling 1-year win ratio now stands at 58 percent. World: Basic Resources Vs. Financials World: Basic Resources Vs. Financials   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 Expressed as short DAX versus 10-year T-bond. 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 Bond Yields & Growth: Developed market bond yields have ignored improving cyclical economic data over the past few months, remaining stuck in narrow trading ranges at low levels. That broken correlation will persist until central banks become less concerned about supporting pandemic-ravaged economies and begin worrying more about rising inflation, financial stability or the size of their balance sheets. That shift will not happen anytime soon. Inflation-Linked Trades: Our models suggest US TIPS breakevens are now at fair value. We are taking profits on our tactical long US 10-year inflation breakevens trade for a return of 2.88%. Stay long 10-year breakevens in Italy and Canada until we see further shrinkage in the gap between inflation breakevens and model-implied fair value and watch for a selling opportunity in UK 10-year breakevens. Feature Do bond investors even care about economic growth anymore? This is a valid question to ask, given how government bond yields in the developed markets have stayed in very narrow trading ranges over the past few months, even as economic data has rebounded from the global COVID-19 recession in the first half of 2020. Investors should get used to the current backdrop of rock-bottom interest rates and bond yields, which is unlikely to change anytime soon.  Chart of the WeekBond Yields Are Responding To Inflation, Not Growth Bond Yields Are Responding To Inflation, Not Growth Bond Yields Are Responding To Inflation, Not Growth For example, the benchmark 10-year US Treasury yield has stayed between 0.65% and 0.75% since June 11, even though the US ISM Manufacturing index rose from 43 in May to 56 in August. Yields are also ignoring the ups and downs of the equity market. The 10-year Treasury yield now sits at 0.66% - the same level as on September 2 even though the NASDAQ equity index has fallen 12% from the all-time peak seen on that day. Our own Global Duration Indicator, comprised of cyclical measures like the global ZEW index and our global leading economic indicator, has surged to the highest level since 2008 (Chart of the Week). Given the usual lead time between broad turns in the Duration Indicator and the level of global bond yields (around 6-9 months), this suggests that yields have bottomed and should soon begin rising. Yet the reality is that the usual factors that typically drive yields higher during a cyclical upturn – namely, rising inflation expectations and a clearly understood signal from central banks that such a move would lead to tighter monetary policy – are not currently in place. Investors should get used to the current backdrop of rock-bottom interest rates and bond yields, which is unlikely to change anytime soon. Four Potential Triggers For A Rise In Bond Yields Chart 2A Breakdown Of The PMI/Yield correlation A Breakdown Of The PMI/Yield correlation A Breakdown Of The PMI/Yield correlation The breakdown of the positive correlation between growth and bond yields is not just visible in the US. For example, yields on German Bunds and UK Gilts also remain stuck at low levels despite sharp improvements in the German and UK manufacturing PMIs (Chart 2). Yet in China – where there is no zero interest rate policy (ZIRP) or large-scale quantitative easing (QE) programs - bond yields have steadily risen since the China manufacturing PMI bottomed back in April (bottom panel). What could change this backdrop? We see four potential catalysts, ranked below in our own subjective order of importance: Inflation Sustainably Returning Back To Central Bank Targets It may seem obvious, but it still needs to be said – dovish central bank policies are the biggest reason why developed market bond yields have de-linked from economic growth. That includes not only ZIRP or QE, but also forward guidance on future changes in interest rates. Central banks are telling markets they will not raise rates for a period measured in years, and will continue to expand their balance sheets to purchase assets and support bank lending, all in an effort to push undershooting inflation back to policy targets. This is a different message than bond investors have grown accustomed to hearing from central banks, most notably in the US. The Fed is trying to do something that it has never intentionally done before – erode some of its hard-earned inflation fighting credibility. The Fed is trying to do something that it has never intentionally done before – erode some of its hard-earned inflation fighting credibility. The recent shift by the Fed to an Average Inflation Targeting framework – where above-target inflation would be tolerated if inflation was below target for an extended period – is intended to change the perception that the Fed will hike rates preemptively based on a forecast of inflation, as they have done in the past. Chart 3Latest FOMC Projections Justify Years Of 0% Rates Latest FOMC Projections Justify Years Of 0% Rates Latest FOMC Projections Justify Years Of 0% Rates The latest set of Fed economic projections is consistent with this new framework (Chart 3): the unemployment rate is forecasted to fall back to the FOMC median estimate of full employment (4.1%) by 2023; headline PCE inflation is also projected to climb back to 2% by 2023; the fed funds rate is projected to stay unchanged near 0% until at least 2023. In many ways, the Fed is trying to atone for the mistakes made while normalizing policy after the extraordinary easing measures taken after the 2008 crisis. From signaling a slowing of QE bond purchases in 2013, to the 250bps of rate hikes and tapering of its balance sheet during 2016-18, the Fed moved aggressively relative to what was actually happening with US inflation. Core PCE inflation only inched above 2% for a few months in 2018 – towards the end of the normalization process - as did market-based inflation measures like TIPS breakevens (Chart 4). The Fed ended up raising the real fed funds rate during that tightening cycle to above its own estimate of neutral (r-star), even with inflation still not close to its target. Unsurprisingly, real US bond yields also rose during that same period, which tightened monetary conditions even further by boosting the value of the US dollar. No wonder US inflation could not stay at the 2% target for very long. This time around, the Fed is sending a much different signal to markets – that it wants to see inflation rise before raising rates, thus keeping real policy rates in negative territory for an extended period. If the Fed is looking for a real world case study of such an approach, it can look across the Atlantic to the Bank of England (BoE). On the surface, the BoE has been acting like a typical inflation-targeting central bank over the past several years, turning more hawkish in its commentary when the UK economy was improving and becoming more dovish when the economy was languishing. Yet since the 2008 crisis, the BoE has kept the Bank Rate in a range of 0.1% to 0.75%, well below realized UK inflation. While it has been difficult for the BoE to attempt to raise rates given the Brexit uncertainty since 2016 – which has also weakened the British pound, helping boost UK inflation - real UK policy rates have now been negative for 12 years (Chart 5). The result: steadily declining UK real bond yields with inflation expectations rising to levels well above the BoE 2% inflation target. Chart 4The Fed Is Trying To Erode Its Hard-Earned Credibility The Fed Is Trying To Erode Its Hard-Earned Credibility The Fed Is Trying To Erode Its Hard-Earned Credibility Chart 5Lessons From The BoE On How To Not Be Credible Lessons From The BoE On How To Not Be Credible Lessons From The BoE On How To Not Be Credible The experience of the ECB provides a cautionary tale for central banks not appearing dovish enough, even when policy settings are already extraordinarily accommodative. The message from central banks on future rate increases – namely, that there will not be any without sustainably higher inflation – must change before bond yields can have any hope of climbing higher. Chart 6Does The ECB Have Any Credibility Left? Does The ECB Have Any Credibility Left? Does The ECB Have Any Credibility Left? Inflation expectations have stayed below the ECB’s “just below 2%” target since 2013 (Chart 6), which forced the central bank into cutting nominal rates into negative territory while aggressively expanding its balance sheet through QE and long-term bank liquidity provision (i.e. LTROs). Yet the ECB has always put an expiration date on each of these programs, which sent a message to the markets that the central bank was not fully committed to keeping policy easy until inflation was back to target – however long that would take. In sum, the message from central banks on future rate increases – namely, that there will not be any without sustainably higher inflation – must change before bond yields can have any hope of climbing higher. A Shift From Central Banks To Concerns About Asset Price Bubbles Chart 7When Will CBs Start Worrying About Financial Market Valuations? When Will CBs Start Worrying About Financial Market Valuations? When Will CBs Start Worrying About Financial Market Valuations? Policymakers are paying lip service to the notion of the “financial stability” risks inherent in their new promises to keep rates low for a lot longer while intervening in financial markets more aggressively through asset purchase programs. Given the signs of froth in many important asset classes like US equities or global corporate debt, policymakers should at least be somewhat concerned that easy money policies are fueling asset bubbles (Chart 7). A big enough decline could erode confidence and spill over into the real economy, defeating the original purpose of easy money policies. However, given the still fragile state of much of the global economy that remains dependent on fiscal support amid ongoing COVID-19 restrictions, concerns over asset values will take a backseat to maintaining adequate monetary stimulus. Asset bubbles would have to become much larger before a central bank would even consider turning more hawkish to prick them through higher policy rates that would push up bond yields. The Announcement Of A Trustworthy COVID-19 Vaccine That Is Ready For Widespread Distribution Markets have already begun to worry about the “second wave” of the coronavirus that health officials had warned would happen in the cooler autumn months. The development of an effective, and safe, vaccine would thus be a game-changer for financial markets, particularly after the recent surge in new COVID-19 cases in Europe and the still elevated level of new cases in the US (Chart 8). Chart 8A Second Wave Of COVID-19 A Second Wave Of COVID-19 A Second Wave Of COVID-19 BCA Research’s Chief Global Strategist, Peter Berezin (a big fan of interesting data sets!), noted in his most recent report that, according to The Good Judgement Project, around 60% of “superforecasters” now expect a vaccine ready for mass distribution to be available by Q1/2021 (Chart 9).1 A vaccine appearing that rapidly – much faster than the usual multi-year process leading to a vaccine declared safe for use – would help boost business and consumer confidence and raise the odds of a return to pre-virus levels of economic activity. Bond yields would likely get a lift, as well, as markets would price in a shorter period of super low policy rates and a faster return of inflation to central bank targets. Yet even if a vaccine is presented to the world by next spring, there is no guarantee that a large enough share of the population will deem the vaccine safe enough to take to ensure “herd immunity”. A recent Economist/YouGuv survey noted that only 36% of American adults would choose to get vaccinated when a COVID-19 vaccine becomes available, 32% would not get vaccinated, while 32% were unsure (Chart 10). Thus, a vaccine would be a bond-bearish development only if it is trusted to be safe to use – the mere announcement of a vaccine will not be enough to declare an “end” to the pandemic. Chart 9High Odds Of A Vaccine In 6-To-12 Months What Would It Take To Get Bond Yields To Rise Again? What Would It Take To Get Bond Yields To Rise Again? Chart 10Will Enough People Take The Vaccine? What Would It Take To Get Bond Yields To Rise Again? What Would It Take To Get Bond Yields To Rise Again? Central Banks Slowing QE Purchases Relative To Increased Fiscal Issuance Chart 11Still Room For The Fed, ECB and BoE To Expand QE Still Room For The Fed, ECB and BoE To Expand QE Still Room For The Fed, ECB and BoE To Expand QE Right now, it is easy for the major central banks to aggressively expand their balance sheets and provide additional monetary stimulus through asset purchases. Yet there may come a point where a capacity constraint is reached on buying government bonds if it impairs market functionality. That is currently the case in Japan, where the Bank of Japan now owns 49% of the Japanese government bond (JGB) market after years of aggressive QE purchases of JGBs. This has damaged the day-to-day liquidity of JGBs, where there have been instances of days where no single JGB has traded in the secondary market. A move by central banks to buy fewer bonds because they own too many of them could potentially push bond yields higher by worsening the demand/supply balance for government bonds - assuming private investors do not pick up the slack and buy more bonds, of course. Currently, the Fed only owns 22% of the US Treasury market with little evidence suggesting that its purchases are impairing the trading of Treasuries (Chart 11). The BoE and ECB own much larger shares of the UK and euro area government bond markets – 37% and 38%, respectively – suggesting that those central banks are closer to a BoJ-like capacity constraint. However, given the rising budget deficits and surging government bond issuance seen in Europe (and the US) so far in 2020, the odds of a capacity constraint soon being reached that could result in slower QE purchases are low. Bottom Line: Developed market bond yields have ignored improving cyclical economic data over the past few months, remaining stuck in narrow trading ranges at low levels. That broken correlation will persist until central banks become less concerned about supporting pandemic-ravaged economies and begin worrying more about rising inflation, financial stability or the size of their balance sheets. That shift will not happen anytime soon. Reviewing Our Tactical Inflation Breakeven Trades Back in June, we initiated a series of recommended inflation-focused trades in our Tactical Overlay portfolio. Specifically, we went long 10-year inflation breakevens in the US, Italy, and Canada by buying on-the-run inflation-linked bonds and selling government bond futures.2 We chose those trades based on the output of our fundamental valuation models for 10-year inflation breakevens in eight inflation-linked bond (ILB) markets: the US, UK, France, Italy, Japan, Germany, Canada, and Australia. Our fair value models use two inputs for all regions: a) a long-run moving average of headline inflation, representing the medium-term trend that anchors inflation expectations; and b) the annual percentage change of the Brent oil price in local currency terms, which creates shorter-term deviations from the trend to account for moves in oil and currencies. There looks to be little remaining upside to our tactical long TIPS breakeven position. The past few months have seen a sharp rise in global inflation expectations, owing to the extraordinary monetary policy actions taken by the major developed market central banks and recovering growth prospects coming out of the COVID-19 recession. This has led to a convergence between 10-year inflation breakevens and their model-implied fair values in the aforementioned ILB markets (Chart 12). Most notably, breakevens in the US are now at fair value, while breakevens in the UK and Australia are trading above fair value. In the US, 10-year breakeven inflation rates are now back to the long-run average of realized headline inflation, while the -8% decline in the Brent oil price so far this month has lowered the model-implied fair value (Chart 13). Therefore, there looks to be little remaining upside to our tactical long TIPS breakeven position with most of the easy gains following the pandemic-induced collapse having already been realized. Chart 12Global Inflation Breakevens Have Moved Higher Global Inflation Breakevens Have Moved Higher Global Inflation Breakevens Have Moved Higher Our colleagues over at BCA Research US Bond Strategy have reached a similar conclusion, noting that the Fed’s Jackson Hole announcement of the move to Average Inflation Targeting supercharged the rising trend in TIPS breakevens.3 Chart 13US Breakevens Are At Fair Value US Breakevens Are At Fair Value US Breakevens Are At Fair Value Although they also note the likelihood of stronger US CPI prints over the next few months should keep US breakevens well supported heading into year-end. The time horizon for trades that enter our Tactical Overlay portfolio is limited to no longer than six months. Thus, with TIPS breakevens reverting back to fair value after just three months in the trade, we are choosing to take profits on our long 10-year US inflation breakeven trade for a total return of 2.88%. Chart 14UK Breakevens Are Above Fair Value UK Breakevens Are Above Fair Value UK Breakevens Are Above Fair Value In other ILB markets, UK breakevens are now an intriguing case, and not only for the monetary policy driven interplay between UK real yields and breakevens discussed earlier in this report. The overshoot of UK breakevens relative to our fair value model may be related to growing market speculation that the BoE will move to negative interest rates – an outcome we deem to be unlikely, as we discussed in a recent report.4 Alternatively, the higher breakevens may be a reflection of UK political uncertainty. The risk of a hard Brexit has resurfaced as UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s Conservatives have now backed a bill that includes powers for the government to override its withdrawal agreement with the European Union; understandably, this has caused a sell-off in the pound. Within our fundamental fair value framework, the UK 10-year breakeven inflation rate has overshot both the 3-year moving average of headline inflation and the growth of GBP-denominated oil prices, leaving breakevens 0.72 standard deviations expensive (Chart 14). One possible explanation is that markets are pricing in a significant further depreciation in the pound given this resurfacing of Brexit risk. Within our model, GBP/USD impacts the fair value of breakeven inflation via Brent oil prices, which are denominated in local currency terms. Thus, we can back out an implied change in GBP/USD that would make the model-derived fair value breakeven rate equal to the actual 10-year UK inflation breakeven rate, holding all other variables in the model constant. This does produce some extreme results during periods of very rapid moves in UK breakevens, but we can standardize the data to use as an indicator of ILB market-implied views on the currency (Chart 15). With that in mind, pound bearishness in ILB markets is nearing levels where it has historically troughed. A favorable development in Brexit negotiations could cause a reversal in this pound-bearish trend and a sharp downward correction in UK inflation breakevens. We see a potential opportunity to play for narrower UK breakevens if our view on Brexit and negative rates in the UK prove to be correct. On that front, BCA Research’s Chief Geopolitical Strategist, Matt Gertken, sees a no-deal Brexit by year-end as the less likely outcome, with odds of only 35%, given the political calculus that PM Johnson faces with the decision.5 Polls show that the UK public does not support a no-deal Brexit (Chart 16), which would severely hurt a UK economy that remains fragile due to the coronavirus, and would raise the odds of a new independence referendum in Scotland in 2021. Chart 15UK Breakevens Already Discount A Big Fall In GBP UK Breakevens Already Discount A Big Fall In GBP UK Breakevens Already Discount A Big Fall In GBP Chart 16Only 25% In The UK Think A No-Deal Brexit Is A Good Outcome What Would It Take To Get Bond Yields To Rise Again? What Would It Take To Get Bond Yields To Rise Again? We will monitor the situation closely in the coming weeks, but we see a potential opportunity to play for narrower UK breakevens if our view on Brexit and negative rates in the UK prove to be correct. Finally, although the majority of the gains from our long inflation breakeven trades in Canada and Italy have likely been realized, there are still some chips left on the table. Canadian breakeven inflation rates have risen in lockstep with Brent prices but have yet to converge with the long-run moving average of inflation (Chart 17). In Italy, the increases in oil prices in euro terms has outstripped the rise in breakevens, pushing up the model-implied fair value and leaving breakevens remain more than one standard deviation under fair value (Chart 18). We will look for the gap between breakevens and fair values to shrink further in these two countries before closing these trades, even though we are substantially in the green on both (see the Tactical Overlay table on page 19). Chart 17Canadian Breakevens Are Just Below Fair Value Canadian Breakevens Are Just Below Fair Value Canadian Breakevens Are Just Below Fair Value Chart 18Italian Breakevens Are Well Below Fair Value Italian Breakevens Are Well Below Fair Value Italian Breakevens Are Well Below Fair Value Bottom Line: Our models suggest US TIPS breakevens are now at fair value. We are taking profit on our tactical long US 10-year inflation breakeven trade for a return of 2.88%. Stay long 10-year breakevens in Italy and Canada until we see further shrinkage in the gap between inflation breakevens and model-implied fair value and watch for a selling opportunity in UK 10-year breakevens.   Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com   Shakti Sharma Research Associate ShaktiS@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see BCA Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Pivot To Value", dated September 18, 2020, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. You can also learn more about The Good Judgement Project here: https://goodjudgment.com/about/ 2 Please see BCA Research Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "How To Play The Revival Of Global Inflation Expectations", dated June 23, 2020, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Research US Bond Strategy Portfolio Allocation Summary, "The Fed’s New Framework Is Bond Bearish…But Not Yet", dated September 8, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see BCA Research Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "Assessing The Leading Candidates To Join The Negative Rate Club", dated August 26, 2020, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see BCA Research Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "The End-Game For Trump And Brexit", dated September 18, 2020, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. Recommendations The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index What Would It Take To Get Bond Yields To Rise Again? What Would It Take To Get Bond Yields To Rise Again? Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

Kenya: An Incomplete Adjustment The Kenyan shilling will depreciate by 15-20% in the next 12 months. The downward pressure on the currency stems from the country’s sizeable current account deficit. In addition, Kenya needs lower local interest rates and a weaker exchange rate to boost nominal growth and stabilize public debt dynamics.  Kenya has gone through an extensive macro adjustment since 2015 when the current account deficit was 10% of GDP and the primary fiscal deficit was 8% of GDP. Since then the current account deficit has narrowed to 6% of GDP as the private sector deleveraged and fiscal policy tightened substantially over the past 3-years (Chart I-1, top panel). Remarkably, the primary fiscal deficit has narrowed to a mere 0.4% of GDP as of June 2020 (Chart I-1, bottom panel). Yet, the macro adjustment is incomplete with a lingering current account deficit and public debt on an unsustainable path. Further, economic growth is extremely weak (Chart I-2). Crucially, core inflation is at 2% - an all-time low, suggesting that low inflation/deflationary pressures is the main problem in Kenya (Chart I-3). Chart I-1Kenya: The Twin Deficits Remains Large Kenya: The Twin Deficits Remains Large Kenya: The Twin Deficits Remains Large Chart I-2Kenya: Tame Domestic Growth Kenya: Tame Domestic Growth Kenya: Tame Domestic Growth   In this context, the optimal policy choice for Kenya is to reduce local interest rates, while allowing the currency to depreciate. This will reduce the interest burden on public debt, boost both economic activity (real growth) and inflation as well as make exports more competitive. Balance Of Payments Strains Persist Kenya’s balance of payments will weigh on the currency in the next 6-9 months. While improving, its exports will remain tame over the next 6-12 months. The volume of tea, horticulture and coffee exports, which account for about 50% of total Kenyan exports, has rebounded. Yet, their prices have failed to rebound meaningfully. Meanwhile, substantial fiscal tightening – an 11% drop in government non-interest nominal expenditures – has led to a collapse in imports (Chart I-4). If and when fiscal policy is relaxed, it will boost imports weighing on the trade balance. Chart I-3Kenya Suffers From Low Inflation Kenya Suffers From Low Inflation Kenya Suffers From Low Inflation Chart I-4Tight Fiscal Policy = Weak Domestic Demand Tight Fiscal Policy = Weak Domestic Demand Tight Fiscal Policy = Weak Domestic Demand Chart I-5Kenya Is Losing Market Share In Export Markets Kenya Is Losing Market Share In Export Markets Kenya Is Losing Market Share In Export Markets The biggest headwind to the balance of payments has been the drastic fall in both tourism revenues and remittances. Combined, they represent around $4 billion (4.2% of GDP). It is unlikely that international travel will resume in the next six months. Remittances will also remain subdued in the coming months as unemployment rates remain elevated worldwide. Kenya has been losing its export market share in neighboring countries such as Uganda and Tanzania (Chart I-5). Hence, this nation needs to improve its competitiveness via tolerating a cheaper currency and undertaking structural reforms to bolster productivity growth. FDI inflows have been subdued. In the near term, FDI inflows will be discouraged by very weak domestic demand. Critically, the outlook for Chinese FDI inflows into the country remains uncertain due to the debacle with previous China-financed projects in Kenya. In particular, Kenyan courts declared the construction contract awarded to the China Road and Bridge Corporation for the Nairobi-Mombasa railway illegal.1 This impasse between Kenyan courts and Chinese companies could for now dissuade financing and investment from China. In the medium term, international organizations such as the IMF and World Bank could step in to fill in for Chinese investments. As recent financing by the World Bank and IMF of $1.74 billion (1.9% of GDP) to Kenya suggest, the US might be enticed alongside European nations to step in to fill the vacuum left by the withdrawal of China’s financial backing. However, this might take some time and there will be shortage in foreign financing in the coming months. Chart I-6Kenya Lacks Foreign Exchange Reserves Kenya Lacks Foreign Exchange Reserves Kenya Lacks Foreign Exchange Reserves Finally, another risk is the considerable amount of foreign debt obligations (FDOs) and the lack of foreign currency reserves at the central bank to meet these obligations (Chart I-6). Kenya’s FDOs in the next 12 months are about $6 billion, while the central bank has only $8.8 billion of foreign exchange reserves. In this case, FDOs measure the sum of short-term claims, interest payments and amortization over the next 12 months. Bottom Line: The exchange rate will continue facing depreciation pressures. The optimal policy for the central bank will be to allow the currency to weaken meaningfully and to reduce interest rates rather than use high interest rates or deplete its foreign exchange reserves to defend the exchange rate. Public Debt Sustainability Despite substantial fiscal tightening, Kenya’s public debt trajectory remains worrisome. Two prerequisites for capping the rise in the public debt-to-GDP ratio are (1) running continuous primary fiscal surpluses and (2) for local government borrowing costs to be below nominal GDP growth. Neither of these two are presently satisfied in Kenya. Crucially, interest payments are taking up a quarter of overall government revenues (Chart I-7). This necessitates considerably lower domestic interest rates to reduce this ratio. In brief, public debt sustainability hinges on the central bank reducing local borrowing costs, which will both boost nominal growth/government revenues and lower interest costs of public debt. The government of President Uhuru Kenyatta announced a new budget in June (for the period of July 1, 2020 to June 30, 2021) with a projected primary deficit of -3% and -1.8% of GDP, for 2020/21 and 2021/22 respectively (Chart I-1, bottom panel on page 1). Meanwhile, the new budget’s nominal annual growth projections for 2020/21 and 2021/22 are 10.6% and 11.5%, respectively. Chart I-8presents both the government’s as well as our projections for public debt dynamics until the end of 2022 based on assumptions for nominal GDP, government expenditures and revenues for the next two fiscal years. The public debt-to-GDP ratio will reach 75% of GDP in our scenario and 66% in the government’s scenario. Chart I-7Public Debt Servicing Costs Are High Public Debt Servicing Costs Are High Public Debt Servicing Costs Are High Chart I-8Kenya: Public Debt Will Continue To Rise Kenya: Public Debt Will Continue To Rise Kenya: Public Debt Will Continue To Rise   The key difference between the two projections are expectations for nominal GDP and government revenue growth. If fiscal and monetary policy remain tight, nominal output growth will disappoint. Notably, broad money supply growth is tame (Chart I-9). Sluggish nominal growth risks derailing government revenue projections. Notably, recent comments by finance minister Ukur Yatani suggests that revenues have already begun underperforming government expectations in the first two months of the new fiscal year. On the whole, public debt will rise by more than what the government expects over the next two years as borrowing costs remain above nominal GDP growth (Chart I-10). Chart I-9Kenya: Weak Policy Response To Low Growth Kenya: Weak Policy Response To Low Growth Kenya: Weak Policy Response To Low Growth Chart I-10Kenya: Local Rates Are Above Nominal Growth Kenya: Local Rates Are Above Nominal Growth Kenya: Local Rates Are Above Nominal Growth   Faced with the prospect of rising public debt dynamics over the next two years, the economically less painful response for policymakers is for the central bank to lower interest rates and to instruct domestic commercial banks to buy government domestic debt. This will boost nominal GDP growth and push local interest rates below nominal GDP growth. There is scope for the central bank to cut interest rates and allow the currency to depreciate without feeding into runaway inflation. Notably, core consumer price inflation excluding fuel and food items is presently at an all-time low, running below the lower bound of the central bank’s inflation target (Chart I-2 on page 2). Higher inflation also feeds into higher nominal growth, which is good for public debt dynamics. A weaker currency will augment the cost of servicing foreign debt. The latter accounts for 52% of public debt and 32% of GDP. However, a large share (65%) of foreign debt is owed to bilateral and multilateral creditors. This debt can be renegotiated/restructured, which would in turn benefit private creditors. Bottom Line: To stabilize public debt dynamics, local interest rates should be lowered considerably. This will increase nominal GDP and government revenue growth as well as lower debt servicing costs. In this scenario, currency will depreciate a lot. Investment Implications Faced with very depressed economic growth, very low inflation, unsustainable public debt dynamics and a wide current account deficit, the optimal policy for Kenya is to ease monetary policy dramatically and tolerate material currency depreciation. So long as the central bank does not reduce interest rates, the economy will continue to underwhelm, public debt dynamics will be worrisome and share prices will stumble (Chart I-11). Critically, as the public debt-to-GDP ratio continues rising, sovereign credit will underperform (Chart I-12). Chart I-11Weak Domestic Dynamics = Lower Share Prices Weak Domestic Dynamics = Lower Share Prices Weak Domestic Dynamics = Lower Share Prices Chart I-12Rising Public Debt Burden = Sovereign Credit Underperformance Rising Public Debt Burden = Sovereign Credit Underperformance Rising Public Debt Burden = Sovereign Credit Underperformance   If and when the central bank brings interest rates down substantially, nominal growth will improve and share prices will fare well. Lower domestic borrowing costs and higher nominal GDP growth will help stabilize public debt dynamics. In such a scenario, EM sovereign credit portfolios should overweight the nation’s US dollar bonds. The Kenyan shilling also is set to depreciate materially. If the government embarks on this macro adjustment early, currency depreciation could be gradual. If the government delays this macro adjustment and resists currency weakness by tolerating high interest rates, the exchange rate depreciation could be delayed, but will be abrupt and disorderly. Andrija Vesic Associate Editor andrijav@bcaresearch.com Arthur Budaghyan Chief Emerging Markets Strategist arthurb@bcaresearch.com Nigeria: Devaluation As The Least-Worst Policy Choice Chart II-1Nigeria: Poor BoP Position Nigeria: Poor BoP Position Nigeria: Poor BoP Position The Nigerian naira is facing a considerable risk of major devaluation stemming from strains on its balance of payments (BoP). That said, the risk of a sovereign default is very low over the next 12-18 months. Nigeria suffers from large external imbalances in an environment of low oil prices and dreadful FDI inflows. The nation’s current account deficit is wide at 5% of GDP and its foreign currency (FX) reserves are low (Chart II-1). Importantly, oil prices have hit a critical technical resistance – their 200-day moving average – and have relapsed (Chart II-2). Global oil demand weakness stemming from some renewed tightening of lockdown measures will result in lower crude prices. We at BCA’s Emerging Markets Strategy team expect Brent prices to be in a trading range of $35-$45 over the next 12 months.2 An Optimal Macro Adjustment A low oil price environment creates a dillemma for Nigeria’s policymakers given their limited FX reserves. They can either (i) draw down FX reserves to support the exchange rate, or (ii) preserve FX reserves and allow a major currency devaluation. So far, Nigerian authorities have avoided these options by resorting to strict capital controls and limiting imports. Yet, capital controls are derailing much needed foreign capital inflows in general and FDIs in particular. These capital account controls are also restricting the ability of domestic firms to access US dollars to service their foreign debt payments, undermining the confidence of foreign investors and multilateral creditors. Allowing currency depreciation is the least-worst macro policy solution. Propping up the currency by administrative restrictions amid low oil prices will foster various imbalances impeding the nation’s structural adjustments and its potential growth rate. Remarkably, Nigeria’s current account excluding oil has been structurally wide, a sign of weak domestic productivity and a non-competitive currency (Chart II-3). Chart II-2A Relapse In Oil Prices Is Likely A Relapse In Oil Prices Is Likely A Relapse In Oil Prices Is Likely Chart II-3Nigeria Has A Current Account Deficit Ex-Oil Nigeria Has A Current Account Deficit Ex-Oil Nigeria Has A Current Account Deficit Ex-Oil   Bottom Line: Capital controls and import restrictions are impeding FDIs and productivity growth in this most populous African country (Chart II-4). While a steep devaluation will spur inflation in the short run, a cheapened currency and the abolishment of import and capital controls will help to attract foreign capital that the nation desperately needs. Running Out Of FX Reserves Critically, the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) is running out of FX reserves: Nigeria’s foreign exchange (FX) reserves are very low at $35.6 billion. That compares with foreign debt obligations (FDOs) of $28 billion in the next 12 months and foreign funding requirements of $47 billion in the next 12 months (Chart II-5). Chart II-4Nigeria: Weak FDI = Low Productivity Nigeria: Weak FDI = Low Productivity Nigeria: Weak FDI = Low Productivity Chart II-5Nigeria: Large Foreign Funding Required In Next 12 Months Nigeria: Large Foreign Funding Required In Next 12 Months Nigeria: Large Foreign Funding Required In Next 12 Months   FDOs measure the sum of short-term claims, interest payments and amortization over the next 12 months. Meanwhile, foreign funding requirements is the sum of the current account deficit and FDOs. FDI inflows were a mere $2.5 billion in 2019 compared with a $20 billion current account deficit. Along with foreign portfolio inflows, FDI inflows will remain depressed so long as capital controls persist. The FX reserves-to-broad money ratio currently stands at 0.4. A ratio below one indicates foreign currency reserves do not entirely cover currency in circulation and local currency deposits.  How much should the exchange rate be devalued versus the US dollar for this ratio to reach 1? For the broad money supply coverage ratio to be equal to 1, the currency must depreciate by 56% against the US dollar. Bottom Line: CBN’s FX reserves are insufficient to maintain the current de-facto crawling currency peg in the long run. No Worries About Sovereign Credit For Now Chart II-6Nigeria: Low Public Debt Burden Nigeria: Low Public Debt Burden Nigeria: Low Public Debt Burden While the Nigerian government is reeling from lower oil prices, the likelihood of a sovereign default is presently low. Public debt is low, currently standing at 22.5% of GDP. Notably, foreign debt represents nearly 30% of overall public debt or 6.5% of GDP. Moreover, only 40% of external debt (3% of GDP) is owned to private foreign investors (Chart II-6). The rest is split between bilateral and multilateral creditors. Foreign bilateral and multilateral debt is easier to renegotiate. While overall (domestic and foreign) debt servicing costs have risen to 55% of government revenues, foreign currency debt servicing costs only represent 2% of overall revenues. Provided foreign public debt servicing is minimal, even a large currency depreciation will not make public debt dynamics unsustainable. Crucially, a substantial currency devaluation will ameliorate the fiscal position. A large share (about 55%) of fiscal revenues come from oil, i.e., they are in US dollars. Conversely, expenditures are in local currency terms. As a result, currency depreciation will boost revenues but not expenditures, narrowing the budget deficit. According to the newly revised budget for the 2020 fiscal year, fiscal spending will grow by 8.7% in nominal terms but most likely contract in real terms (Chart II-7). Overall, the fiscal balance will widen to 3.65% of GDP in 2020 according to government projections. In nutshell, policymakers refrained from large fiscal stimulus amid lockdown measures earlier this year. This is bad for the economy but positive for the trajectory of public debt. Finally, public debt dynamics are presently not worrisome with nominal GDP growth above local interest rates (Chart II-8). Chart II-7Nigeria Will Run Tight Fiscal Policy Nigeria Will Run Tight Fiscal Policy Nigeria Will Run Tight Fiscal Policy Chart II-8Nigeria: No Public Debt Sustainability Problem Nigeria: No Public Debt Sustainability Problem Nigeria: No Public Debt Sustainability Problem   Bottom Line: The risk of a sovereign default is low in the coming years. The low starting points in both public debt levels and debt servicing costs will allow the government to boost fiscal spending to support the economy. Investment Implications Overall, a currency devaluation will help restore balance of payment dynamics without causing a major stress for sovereign credit. A 25-30% devaluation over the next 12 months will be the least-worst policy choice. Currency forwards are currently pricing a 20% depreciation in the naira versus the US dollar in next 12 months (Chart II-9). Yet, the average black market exchange rate, currently at around 470, implies almost a 25% discount from the current official rate. Sovereign credit spreads are presently tight (Chart II-10). Investors should consider buying Nigerian sovereign credit only after a substantial devaluation takes place. Chart II-9Naira Forwards Discount Will Widen With Lower Oil Prices Naira Forwards Discount Will Widen With Lower Oil Prices Naira Forwards Discount Will Widen With Lower Oil Prices Chart II-10Nigeria: Buy Sovereign Credit After Devaluation Nigeria: Buy Sovereign Credit After Devaluation Nigeria: Buy Sovereign Credit After Devaluation   Finally, equity investors should continue avoiding the local bourse. Due to capital controls, the latter is uninvestable for now. Andrija Vesic Associate Editor andrijav@bcaresearch.com Arthur Budaghyan Chief Emerging Markets Strategist arthurb@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1 The standard gauge railways project built between the port city of Mombasa and its capital Nairobi has been heavily scrutinized by Kenyan authorities. After only three years of operation, the Kenyan Railways Company (KRC) has already defaulted on its loan from Chinese lenders. Kenyan courts have been arguing that Kenyan government and state-owned enterprises are facing sovereign risk over Chinese debt overhang. More than half of Kenya’s loans from China are attached to the construction of the Mombasa-Nairobi railway project. 2 This differs from BCA Commodity and Energy Strategy service’s expectation that Brent prices will average $65 in 2021.

Highlights Monetary Policy: The Fed will keep rates at the zero bound at least until inflation is above 2% and it will maintain an accommodative policy stance until long-dated TIPS breakeven inflation rates move above 2.3%. Remain overweight spread product versus Treasuries and stay in nominal yield curve steepeners. Bond Yields & The Dollar: US dollar weakness will be bearish for bonds during the next 6-12 months. As long as the global economic recovery is maintained, the dollar will weaken further and bond yields have room to rise. EM Sovereigns: Remain underweight USD-denominated EM Sovereigns in a US bond portfolio, with the exception of Mexico. Economy: August’s poor retail sales figures strengthen our conviction that further fiscal stimulus is required to sustain the economic recovery. Our base case outlook is that Congress will deliver that stimulus in the coming weeks, and that yields will be higher in 6-12 months. But the risk of no deal is too great to ignore. Keep portfolio duration close to benchmark for now. Fed Adopts Explicit Forward Guidance, But Leaves Many Questions Unanswered Chart 1Fed And Markets Agree: No Rate Hike Until 2024 Fed And Markets Agree: No Rate Hike Until 2024 Fed And Markets Agree: No Rate Hike Until 2024 Following last month’s adoption of an average inflation targeting regime, the next logical step was for the Fed to translate its new policy framework into more explicit forward rate guidance.1 The Fed took that step at last week’s FOMC meeting by adding the following language to its post-meeting statement: The Committee decided to keep the target range for the federal funds rate at 0 to ¼ percent and expects it will be appropriate to maintain this target range until labor market conditions have reached levels consistent with the Committee’s assessments of maximum employment and inflation has risen to 2 percent and is on track to moderately exceed 2 percent for some time.2 Chart 2A Long Way From 2% A Long Way From 2% A Long Way From 2% The new guidance says that the funds rate will not rise off the zero bound until three criteria are met: The labor market must be at “maximum employment” Inflation must be at or above 2% Inflation must be “on track to moderately exceed 2%” Notice that the criteria of “maximum employment” and inflation that “moderately exceeds 2%” are quite vague. In fact, Fed Chair Powell stated in his post-meeting press conference that “maximum employment” refers to a range of different labor market indicators, not just the unemployment rate. He also refused to provide more detail on how much of an inflation overshoot would qualify as “moderate”. This means that, practically, the only actionable information that the Fed gave investors is the promise that the funds rate won’t rise at least until inflation is at or above 2%. This is important info that can be easily visualized on a chart (Chart 2). We can plainly see that core inflation has a long way to go before it reaches the Fed’s target, and also that the Fed will not be making the same hawkish policy mistake it made in 2015, when it lifted rates with year-over-year core PCE inflation at 1.2%. Monetary policy will remain accommodative and supportive for risk assets until TIPS breakeven inflation rates return to well-anchored levels. For their part, FOMC participants don’t expect inflation to reach the 2% target for quite a while. The median participant doesn’t see core inflation reaching 2% until sometime in 2023, and only 4 out of 17 participants expect to lift rates before 2024. This is consistent with market pricing. The overnight index swap curve doesn’t price-in a full 25 basis point rate hike until September 2024 (Chart 1). Investment Implications We know that the Fed wants inflation to overshoot 2% for some period of time. Now, based on last week’s new guidance, we also know that no rate hikes will occur until inflation is above 2%. However, we still don’t know how much or how long of an inflation overshoot the Fed is targeting. For this reason, we think investors would be wise to keep in mind that the goal of the Fed’s new framework is to ensure that inflation expectations return to well-anchored levels. Our sense is that “well anchored” can be defined as a range of 2.3% to 2.5% for long-maturity TIPS breakeven inflation rates (Chart 3). Chart 3Inflation Expectations: The Fed's Real Target Inflation Expectations: The Fed's Real Target Inflation Expectations: The Fed's Real Target We see monetary policy staying accommodative and supportive for risk assets until TIPS breakeven inflation rates reach those levels. This argues for maintaining an overweight 6-12 month allocation to spread product versus Treasuries. This also argues for staying overweight TIPS versus nominal Treasuries, and for positioning in nominal yield curve steepeners. The Fed will maintain its firm grip on the front-end of the curve for a long time yet, but the market will eventually start to price-in liftoff at the long end. A Weaker Dollar Will Be Bearish For Bonds, Bullish For EM Sovereign Spreads The broad trade-weighted US dollar is 8% off its 2020 peak, and the BCA house view is that the dollar will weaken further during the next 12 months. This section explores what that will mean for Treasury yields and for USD-denominated Emerging Market Sovereign debt. The Dollar And Treasury Yields Bond yields and the dollar are intimately related, but the relationship is more complex than a simple coincident correlation. We like to think of the relationship as a feedback loop between the exchange rate, bond yields and global economic growth (Chart 4). Chart 4The Dollar/Bond Feedback Loop Trading Bonds In A Dollar Bear Market Trading Bonds In A Dollar Bear Market Since the dollar is currently falling, let’s start at the left-hand side of the feedback loop shown in Chart 4. The dollar’s current weakness is both a reflection of improving global economic growth and a catalyst for even stronger global economic growth. It is reflective because, compared to the rest of the world, the US is a large and stable economy. Firms and investors will respond to a positive global growth environment by sending capital overseas in search of higher returns. This puts downward pressure on the dollar. Dollar weakness also boosts global economic growth by making US dollars cheaper to acquire in global markets. This is particularly important for emerging markets, where a weaker dollar gives policymakers leeway to boost domestic growth via easier monetary and fiscal policies, without sacrificing the purchasing power of their currencies. Higher yielding countries tend to have less economic slack than low yielders. Moving to the top of the loop, stronger global economic growth (aka global reflation) will obviously impart upward pressure to bond yields. What’s less obvious is that US yields will rise by more than yields in the rest of the world. Chart 5 shows 3-year trailing yield betas for several major developed bond markets. Notice that the highest-yielding countries (US and Canada) also have the highest yield betas. This means that their yields rise the most when global bond yields are rising and fall the most when global bond yields are falling. This pattern holds because higher yielding countries tend to have less economic slack than low yielders. In other words, the high yielders will be quicker to price-in eventual monetary tightening when global growth is on the upswing. The high yielders also have more room to fall when growth ebbs. Chart 5High Yielding Bond Markets Are The Most Cyclical High Yielding Bond Markets Are The Most Cyclical High Yielding Bond Markets Are The Most Cyclical Initially, global reflation sends US bond yields higher. But eventually, US yields will become too high relative to the rest of the world. At that point, the US dollar will respond to wide interest rate differentials and start to appreciate. This dollar appreciation will eventually lead to slower economic growth (“global deflation”), which will cause bond yields to decline. Finally, just as US bond yields rise more than non-US yields during the global growth upswing, they also fall more during the downswing. Eventually, the tightening rate differentials lead to US dollar depreciation and the cycle repeats. Where are we situated in the cycle right now? As of today, we contend that rate differentials between the US and the rest of the world have fallen a lot, and we are at the stage of the loop where the dollar is weakening in response (Chart 6). This means that dollar weakness has further to run, and we should expect that it will eventually lead to global reflation and higher US bond yields. In fact, Chart 7 shows that sentiment toward the dollar has already soured considerably, and that increasingly bearish dollar sentiment has a habit of leading to higher bond yields. Chart 6Rate Differentials Signal More Downside For Dollar Rate Differentials Signal More Downside For Dollar Rate Differentials Signal More Downside For Dollar Chart 7Bearish Dollar Sentiment Leads To Higher Bond Yields Bearish Dollar Sentiment Leads To Higher Bond Yields Bearish Dollar Sentiment Leads To Higher Bond Yields Eventually, US yields will rise too much compared to the rest of the world and the dollar’s depreciation will stop. But for now, dollar weakness is bearish for bonds. The Dollar And USD-Denominated EM Sovereign Spreads USD-denominated Emerging Market Sovereigns are an obvious sector that benefits from a weaker US dollar. Since the debt is denominated in US dollars but the country collects tax revenues in its local currency, any dollar weakness makes the issuer’s debt easier to service, and presumably leads to tighter sovereign spreads. Most of the dollar’s weakness this year has come against other developed market currencies, not against EMs. Despite this relationship, we are reluctant to advocate an overweight allocation to EM Sovereigns. First, most of the dollar’s weakness this year has come against other developed market currencies, not against EMs (Chart 8). Chart 8EM Currencies Have Lagged EM Currencies Have Lagged EM Currencies Have Lagged Second, an environment of US dollar depreciation and global reflation is also a good environment for US corporate bonds and, with a couple exceptions, US corporate spreads are more attractive than EM Sovereign spreads. The vertical axis of Chart 9 shows the spread differential between the USD-denominated bonds of several EMs relative to a position in US corporate bonds with identical duration and credit rating. After differences in duration and credit rating are considered, only Turkey, Colombia, South Africa, Mexico and Russia offer a spread advantage over US corporate credit. The horizontal axis of Chart 9 shows each country’s export coverage of its foreign debt obligations. Greater coverage should make that country’s currency less vulnerable to depreciation, and vice-versa. In our view, the Turkish, Colombian and South African currencies are simply too risky. But Mexico and Russia present more interesting opportunities. Chart 9EM Sovereign Spread Over US Credit Versus Currency Vulnerability Trading Bonds In A Dollar Bear Market Trading Bonds In A Dollar Bear Market We recommend an overweight allocation to Mexican Sovereigns because they offer a spread advantage relative to US corporates, and because the currency has been on an appreciating trend versus the dollar that still has further to run to get back to pre-COVID levels (Chart 8, panel 3). Despite the small spread pick-up, we would avoid Russian Sovereigns, at least until after the US election. The Ruble has been depreciating versus the dollar since mid-year (Chart 8, bottom panel) and a Democratic sweep in November will likely lead to the imposition of fresh US sanctions on Russia.3 Bottom Line: Remain underweight USD-denominated EM Sovereigns in a US bond portfolio. Despite the outlook for US dollar weakness, US corporate bonds offer more value and will deliver better returns. Mexican debt is the sole exception. Mexican spreads are attractive and the peso has room to appreciate. Economic Update: Signs Of Weakness In Consumer Spending  Chart 10A Warning From Retail Sales A Warning From Retail Sales A Warning From Retail Sales In last week’s report, we warned that without a fresh round of fiscal stimulus, the 12-month outlook for US consumer spending is dire.4 Then, last Wednesday, we received August’s retail sales figures – the first month of spending data since the expiry of the CARES act’s income support provisions – and learned that spending contracted on the month, after having rebounded sharply in May, June and July when the CARES act was in full force (Chart 10). There had been some hope that US consumers might be able to compensate for the lack of income by deploying some of the savings they had built up in the spring, thus keeping spending at decent levels for at least a few months. But August’s weak retail sales report challenges that narrative, as does the fact that consumer sentiment surveys have not improved very much since April (Chart 10, panel 3). Still low consumer sentiment suggests that households remain cautious and that they will be reluctant to spend with the same abandon they showed prior to COVID. We also note that, while weekly initial jobless claims continue to fall, the pace of improvement has significantly tapered off during the past few weeks and initial claims are still coming in about 4 times higher than they were last year (Chart 10, bottom panel). Bottom Line: While significant strides have been made, the US economy is not out of the woods. Our base case view is that Congress will deliver sufficient household income support in the coming weeks, allowing the economic recovery to continue. But the risk that they won’t is too great to ignore. Keep portfolio duration close to benchmark for now, and position for higher yields on a 6-12 month horizon via less risky duration-neutral yield curve steepeners. 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. Table 1Performance Since March 23 Announcement Of Emergency Fed Facilities Trading Bonds In A Dollar Bear Market Trading Bonds In A Dollar Bear Market ​​​​​​​   Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 For a more detailed examination of the Fed’s new average inflation targeting regime please see US Bond Strategy / Global Fixed Income Strategy Special Report, “A New Dawn For Monetary Policy”, dated September 1, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 https://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/files/monetary20200916a1.pdf 3 Please see Geopolitical Strategy / Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report, “US-Russia: No Reverse Kissinger (Yet)”, dated July 3, 2020, available at gps.bcaresearch.com 4 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “More Stimulus Needed”, dated September 15, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification

Feature In last week’s US Bond Strategy report, we presented the results of a scenario analysis on consumer spending.1 The goal of that analysis was to assess how much additional federal government income support is required to achieve consumer spending growth targets that won’t disappoint markets. The calculations regarding the amount of additional stimulus required to hit different spending targets are correct. However, a typo in our code (in fact, a missing letter “c”) caused us to specify the wrong targets. Last week, we targeted -3% 12-month over 12-month consumer spending growth for the period between March 2020 and February 2021. The rationale being that -3% was the worst spending growth seen during the 2008 Great Recession and would likely be the minimum that markets could tolerate this time around. As shown in the second panel of Chart 1, this number should have been -1.9%. Chart 1Consumer Spending Driven By Income & The Savings Rate Consumer Spending Driven By Income & The Savings Rate Consumer Spending Driven By Income & The Savings Rate We also considered spending growth targets for the 12-month period between August 2020 and July 2021. Last week we set our target range for that period at between 2% and 6%, the growth rates seen during the recovery years that followed the Great Recession. That range should have been set at 2.5% to 5%. We present revised results from our scenario analysis in Table 1 and Table 2. These tables are identical to the ones presented last week, except that they now have the correct consumer spending targets. Table 1Without More Stimulus COVID's Impact On Consumer Spending Will Be Worse Than The GFC A Correction To Last Week's Report A Correction To Last Week's Report Table 2At Least $600 Billion More Government Income Support Is Needed A Correction To Last Week's Report A Correction To Last Week's Report Our conclusion remains similar, though our corrected numbers suggest that more income support from the federal government will be required to hit reasonable spending targets. Last week, we concluded that extra income support on the order of $500 - $800 billion is the minimum that will be required. Our corrected numbers suggest that more stimulus will be necessary, on the order of $600 billion to $1 trillion.    Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1  Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “More Stimulus Needed”, dated September 15, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com

This report contains an error in the section related to consumer spending and fiscal policy. That error somewhat changes the conclusions from the report, and it particularly impacts Chart 3, Table 2 and Table 3. The attached note explains the mistake and includes corrected versions of Chart 3, Table 2 and Table 3. Highlights Duration: A re-rating of Tech stock valuations is likely not a near-term catalyst for significantly lower bond yields. Congress’ continued failure to pass a follow-up to the CARES act is a greater near-term risk for bond bears. We continue to recommend an “at benchmark” portfolio duration stance alongside duration-neutral yield curve steepeners. Fiscal Policy: Without additional household income support from Congress, at least on the order of $500 - $800 billion, consumer spending will massively disappoint expectations during the next 6-12 months. Inflation: Inflation will continue its rapid ascent between now and the end of the year, but it is likely to level-off in 2021. We recommend staying long TIPS versus nominal Treasuries for the time being, but we will be looking to take profits on that position later this year. Feature Bond Implications Of A Tech Stock Sell-Off Risk-off sentiment reigned in equity and credit markets during the past two weeks. The S&P 500 fell 7% between September 2nd and 8th and the average junk spread widened from 471 bps to 499 bps. This represents the largest sell-off since June when the equity market saw a similar 7% decline and the junk spread widened from 536 bps to 620 bps (Chart 1). Chart 1Two Equity Sell-Offs, Two Different Bond Market Reactions Two Equity Sell-Offs, Two Different Bond Market Reactions Two Equity Sell-Offs, Two Different Bond Market Reactions A comparison between the September and June episodes is particularly interesting for bond investors because Treasuries behaved very differently in each case. In June, bonds benefited from a flight to quality out of equities and the 10-year Treasury yield fell 22 bps. But this month, Treasuries actually delivered negative returns and the 10-year Treasury yield rose 3 bps (Chart 1, bottom panel). Table 1Selected Asset Class Performance During Last Two Equity Sell-Offs More Stimulus Needed More Stimulus Needed Why would Treasuries perform so well in June but fail in their role as a diversifier of equity risk in September? The answer lies in the underlying drivers of the stock market’s decline, which are easily identified when we look at the performance of different equity sectors. Table 1 shows the performance of different equity sectors in both the June and September sell-offs. In June, it was the cyclical equity sectors – Industrials, Energy and Materials – that led the decline. These sectors tend to be the most sensitive to global economic growth. This month’s equity drawdown was led by Tech stocks, while cyclical and defensive sectors saw much smaller drops. Table 1 also shows that a broad measure of commodity prices – the CRB Raw Industrials index – rose by 0.79% during the September equity sell-off, significantly outpacing gains in the gold price. In June, the CRB index still rose but it lagged gold by a wide margin. The underlying drivers of the stock market’s decline explain why Treasuries performed well in June and underperformed in September. We bring up the performance of different equity sectors, commodity prices and gold because bond yields correlate most strongly with: The performance of cyclical equities over defensive equities (Chart 2, top panel). The ratio of CRB Raw Industrials over gold (Chart 2, bottom panel). Chart 2High-Frequency Bond Indicators High-Frequency Bond Indicators High-Frequency Bond Indicators These correlations explain why bond yields fell a lot in June but not in September. June’s equity sell-off was more like a traditional risk-off event that saw investors questioning the sustainability of the global economic recovery. The cyclical equity sectors that are most exposed to the global economic cycle experienced the worst losses and demand for safe-haven gold far outpaced the demand for growth-sensitive industrial commodities. In contrast, this month’s sell-off was driven by a re-rating of Tech stock valuations, not so much expectations for a negative economic shock. Technology now makes up such a large portion of the equity index’s market cap that this sort of move can cause the entire stock market to fall, but the pass-through to bonds will be much smaller for any equity sell-off that isn’t prompted by a negative economic shock and led by cyclical equity sectors. Implications For Bond Investors Even after this month’s drop, there remains a legitimate concern about extreme Tech stock valuations. The fact that many of the larger Tech names, like Microsoft and Apple, have benefited from the pandemic only makes it more likely that their stock prices will suffer as the world slowly returns to normal. From a bond investor’s perspective, we doubt that even a large drop in Tech stock prices would lead to significantly lower bond yields, especially if that drop occurs in the context of an economy that continues to recover. Bond yields will only turn down if the market starts to question the sustainability of the economic recovery, an event that would be negative for cyclical equity sectors but much less so for the big Tech names. With that in mind, our base case outlook calls for continued economic recovery during the next 6-12 months, but we do see a significant risk that the failure to pass a follow-up to the CARES act will lead to just such a deflationary shock during the next couple of months. We therefore recommend keeping portfolio duration close to benchmark, while positioning for continued economic recovery via less risky duration-neutral yield curve steepeners. The Outlook For Consumer Spending And The Necessity Of Fiscal Stimulus After plunging during the lock-down months of March and April, consumer spending has rebounded strongly during the past few months. But can this strong rebound continue? Our view is that it cannot. That is, unless Congress delivers more income support to households. Even a large drop in Tech stock prices is unlikely to lead to significantly lower bond yields, especially if that drop occurs in the context of an economy that continues to recover. In this section we consider several different economic scenarios and estimate the amount of further income support that is necessary to sustain an adequate level of consumer spending. First off, to make forecasts for consumer spending we need to consider two main parameters: household income and the personal savings rate (Chart 3). More income leads to more spending in most cases. The only exception would be if cautious households decide to increase the amount they save relative to the amount they spend. Chart 3Consumer Spending Driven By Income & The Savings Rate Consumer Spending Driven By Income & The Savings Rate Consumer Spending Driven By Income & The Savings Rate We’ve actually seen that exception play out somewhat during the past five months. The CARES act provided households with an income windfall, but the savings rate also shot higher. This suggests that households had enough income to spend even more during the past few months but have been much more cautious than usual. We cannot overstate the role the CARES act has played in supporting household incomes since March. Disposable income has grown 7.4% during the past five months compared to the five months prior to COVID, and the CARES act’s provisions pressured income 10.3% higher during that period (Chart 4). The CARES act’s one-time $1200 stimulus checks and expanded $600 weekly unemployment benefits were the two most important provisions in this regard. Together, they pushed disposable income higher by 7.5%. Chart 4Disposable Personal Income Growth And Its Drivers More Stimulus Needed More Stimulus Needed This presents an obvious problem. The income support from the CARES act is now expired and Congress has yet to pass a follow-up stimulus bill. How vital is it that we get a new bill? And how large does it need to be? To answer these questions, we first need to set a target for adequate consumer spending growth. The second panel of Chart 3 shows 12-month over 12-month consumer spending growth. That is, it looks at total consumer spending during the last 12 months and shows how much it has increased (or decreased) compared to the previous 12 months. Notice that the worst 12-month period during the 2008 Great Financial Crisis (GFC) saw 12-month over 12-month consumer spending growth of -3%. During the economic recovery that followed, consumer spending growth fluctuated between +2% and +6%. Exercise 1: The March 2020 To February 2021 Period Chart 5Three Scenarios For Income And Savings Three Scenarios For Income And Savings Three Scenarios For Income And Savings In our first exercise, we consider the 12-month period starting at the very beginning of the COVID recession in March 2020 and ending in February 2021. As a bare minimum, we target consumer spending growth of -3% for this 12-month period on the presumption that 12-month spending growth equal to the worst 12 months seen during the GFC is the bare minimum that markets might tolerate. We also consider somewhat rosier scenarios of 0% and 2% spending growth. In addition to consumer spending targets, we also make assumptions for household income and the savings rate. We consider income coming from all sources including automatic government stabilizers, but without assuming any additional fiscal support from the government. We consider three scenarios (Chart 5): A pessimistic scenario where both income and the savings rate hold steady at current levels. An optimistic scenario where both income and the savings rate return to pre-COVID levels by February 2021. A “split the difference” scenario where both income and the savings rate get halfway back to pre-COVID levels by next February. Table 2 shows how much additional income support from the government is needed between now and February to achieve each of our consumer spending growth targets in each of our three scenarios. For example, in the optimistic scenario the government will need to provide $434 billion of additional income support between now and February for consumer spending to hit our minimum -3% threshold. In the more realistic “split the difference” scenario, households will require another $777 billion of stimulus. Table 2 also shows that stimulus on a monthly basis and compares the monthly rate of stimulus to the rate provided by the CARES act. For example, an additional $777 billion of income doled out between August and February works out to $111 billion per month, 61% of the amount of monthly stimulus provided by the CARES act between April and July. Table 2Without More Stimulus COVID's Impact On Consumer Spending Will Be Worse Than The GFC More Stimulus Needed More Stimulus Needed Two main conclusions jump out from this analysis. The first is that more income support from Congress is absolutely required. Otherwise, consumer spending will come in worse during the March 2020 to February 2021 period than it did during the worst 12 months of the GFC. Second, unless we assume a truly dire economic scenario, the follow-up stimulus does not need to be as large as the CARES act. In our most realistic “split the difference” scenario, that $777 billion of required stimulus is only 61% of what the CARES act doled out on a monthly basis. In that same scenario, a follow-up bill that delivered the same monthly stimulus as the CARES act would lead to positive 12-month consumer spending growth. Exercise 2: The August 2020 To July 2021 Period Chart 6One More Scenario One More Scenario One More Scenario One potential problem with our last exercise is that our target was for total consumer spending between March 2020 and February 2021. This period includes five months for which we already have data and the exercise is therefore partially backward-looking. A more relevant analysis might target consumer spending on a purely forward-looking basis from August 2020 to July 2021. We therefore perform our calculations again for the August 2020 to July 2021 period. This time, we consider only one economic scenario where income and the savings rate both return to pre-COVID levels by July 2021 (Chart 6). This scenario works out to be slightly more optimistic than the “split the difference” scenario we considered earlier. Also, since our target 12-month spending growth period no longer contains the downtrodden months of March and April, we require a more ambitious target than -3% growth. A return to the post-GFC range of 2% to 6% represents a target that is likely more representative of market expectations. Table 3 shows the results of this second analysis. Once again, we see that some additional government stimulus is necessary to meet our spending targets. Even to achieve 0% spending growth over the next 12 months will require another $249 billion from the government, and that outcome would almost certainly disappoint markets. We calculate that an additional $534 billion is required to achieve 2% spending growth during the August 2020 to July 2021 timeframe. This result is consistent with the $777 billion we calculated in Table 2, though it has come down a bit because we have made slightly more optimistic economic assumptions. Table 3At Least Half A Trillion More Government Income Support Is Needed More Stimulus Needed More Stimulus Needed Bottom Line: Our analysis suggests that further stimulus is needed to sustain the recovery in consumer spending. A new stimulus package doesn’t need to be as large as the CARES act on a monthly basis, but it should provide at least $500 - $800 billion of additional income support to households. With Congress still dithering on this issue, financial markets appear overly complacent in the near-term. While the economic constraints suggest that a deal should be reached soon, policymakers may need to see a spate of negative economic data and/or poor market performance before being spurred into action. In acknowledgement of this significant near-term risk to the economic outlook, bond investors should refrain from getting too bearish, and keep portfolio duration close to benchmark for the time being. Inflation’s Snapback Phase Chart 7Inflation Coming In Hot Inflation Coming In Hot Inflation Coming In Hot The core Consumer Price Index rose 0.4% in August, the third large monthly increase in a row (Chart 7). We see inflation continuing to come in hot between now and the end of the year, before tapering off in 2021. As of now, we would describe inflation as being in a snapback phase. That is, back in March and April, when lock-down measures were widespread across the country, the sectors that were most affected by the shutdowns experienced massive price declines. However, notice that core inflation fell by much more than median or trimmed mean inflation during this period (Chart 7, panels 2 & 3). The median sector’s price didn’t fall that much, but the overall inflation number moved down because of deeply negative prints in a few sectors. Now that the economy is re-opening, many of the sectors that were most beaten down in March and April are coming back to life. As a result, those massive price declines are turning into massive price increases. Once again, the median and trimmed mean inflation figures have been much more stable. This “snapback” dynamic is illustrated very clearly in Chart 8 which shows the distribution of monthly price changes for 41 different sectors in April and in August. Notice that while the middle of the distribution hasn’t changed that much, April’s massive left tail has morphed into August’s massive right tail. Chart 8Distribution Of CPI Expenditure Categories More Stimulus Needed More Stimulus Needed The continued wide divergence between core inflation and the median and trimmed mean measures suggests that this snapback phase has further to run. In other words, we will likely continue to see strong inflation prints for a few more months as the sectors that were most downbeat in March and April continue their rebounds. However, once core catches back up to the median and trimmed mean inflation measures, this snapback phase will come to an end and inflation’s uptrend will probably level-off. The continued wide divergence between core inflation and the median and trimmed mean measures suggests that this inflation’s snapback phase has further to run.  We recommend that bond investors continue to favor TIPS over nominal Treasuries during this snapback phase, but we will be looking for an opportunity to go underweight TIPS versus nominal Treasuries later this year, once core inflation moves closer to the median and trimmed mean measures and the snapback phase ends. 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.   Table 4Performance Since March 23 Announcement Of Emergency Fed Facilities More Stimulus Needed More Stimulus Needed Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification