Gov Sovereigns/Treasurys

  Highlights Chart 1Bond Yields Still Track The "Re-Opening" Trade Bond Yields Still Track The "Re-Opening" Trade Bond Yields Still Track The "Re-Opening" Trade Bond yields rose notably in September, with the bulk of the move coming in the days after the Fed teased an upcoming tapering of its asset purchases and revealed slightly hawkish revisions to its interest rate projections. Interestingly, some of the details of the bond market move don’t mesh nicely with the mildly hawkish policy surprise that the Fed delivered. For example, the Treasury curve steepened on the month and long-maturity TIPS breakeven inflation rates rose. Our sense is that September’s market moves were less driven by the Fed and more by a revival of the reflation (or re-opening) trade from earlier this year. The daily new US COVID case count ticked down and, while overall S&P 500 returns were negative on the month, a basket of equities designed to profit from the end of the pandemic soundly beat a basket of “COVID winners” (Chart 1). With the delta COVID wave receding, we remain confident that economic growth will be sufficiently strong for the Fed to launch a new rate hike cycle in December 2022. The Treasury curve will bear-flatten as that outcome gets priced in.   Feature Table 1Recommended Portfolio Specification A Bout Of Reflation A Bout Of Reflation Table 2Fixed Income Sector Performance A Bout Of Reflation A Bout Of Reflation Investment Grade: Neutral Chart 2Investment Grade Market Overview Investment Grade Market Overview Investment Grade Market Overview Investment grade corporate bonds outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 26 basis points in September, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +193 bps. The combination of above-trend economic growth and accommodative monetary policy supports continued positive excess returns for spread product versus Treasuries. At 99 bps, the 3-year/10-year Treasury slope remains steep. This is a strong signal that monetary conditions are accommodative. But despite the positive macro back-drop, investment grade valuations are extremely tight (Chart 2). A recent report presented the results of a scenario analysis for investment grade corporate bond returns during the next 12 months.1 We concluded that investment grade corporate bond total returns will be close to zero or negative during the next 12 months and that excess returns versus duration-matched Treasuries are capped at 85 bps. With that in mind, we advise investors to seek out higher returns in junk bonds, municipal bonds and USD-denominated Emerging Market sovereign and corporate bonds. We also recommend favoring long-maturity corporate bonds and those corporate sectors with elevated Duration-Times-Spread.2 Table 3ACorporate Sector Relative Valuation And Recommended Allocation* A Bout Of Reflation A Bout Of Reflation Table 3BCorporate Sector Risk Vs. Reward* A Bout Of Reflation A Bout Of Reflation High-Yield: Overweight Chart 3High-Yield Market Overview High-Yield Market Overview High-Yield Market Overview High-Yield outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 53 basis points in September, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to 558 bps. A recent report looked at the default expectations that are currently priced into the junk index and considered whether they are likely to be met.3 If we demand an excess spread of 100 bps and assume a 40% recovery rate on defaulted debt, then the High-Yield index embeds an expected default rate of 3.2% (Chart 3). Using a model of the 12-month trailing speculative grade default rate that is based on gross corporate leverage (pre-tax profits over total debt) and C&I lending standards, we estimate that the 12-month default rate will fall to between 2.3% and 2.8%, below what the market currently discounts. Notably, the corporate default rate is tracking at an annualized rate of roughly 1.7% through the first eight months of the year, well below the estimate generated by our macro model. Another recent report considered different plausible scenarios for junk bond returns during the next 12 months.4 We concluded that junk bond total returns will fall into a range of -0.29% to +1.80% during the next 12 months and that excess returns versus duration-matched Treasuries will be between +0.94% and +1.84%. MBS: Underweight Chart 4MBS Market Overview MBS Market Overview MBS Market Overview Mortgage-Backed Securities outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 24 basis points in September, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to -43 bps. The nominal spread between conventional 30-year MBS and equivalent-duration Treasuries tightened 19 bps in September. The spread is wide compared to recent history, but it remains tight compared to the recent pace of mortgage refinancings (Chart 4). The conventional 30-year MBS option-adjusted spread (OAS) tightened 6 bps in September to reach 31 bps (panel 3). This is above the 22 bps offered by Aaa-rated consumer ABS but below the 52 bps offered by Aa-rated corporate bonds and the 33 bps offered by Agency CMBS. In a recent report we looked at MBS performance and valuation across the coupon stack.5 We noted that the higher convexity of high-coupon MBS makes them likely to outperform lower-coupon MBS in a rising yield environment. Higher coupon MBS also have greater OAS than lower coupons. This makes the high-coupon MBS more likely to outperform in a flat bond yield environment as well. Given our view that bond yields will be higher in 6-12 months, we recommend favoring high coupons (4%, 4.5%) over low coupons (2%, 2.5%, 3%) within an overall underweight allocation to Agency MBS. Government-Related: Neutral Chart 5Government-Related Market Overview Government-Related Market Overview Government-Related Market Overview The Government-Related index underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 15 basis points in September, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to +69 bps (Chart 5). Sovereign debt underperformed duration-equivalent Treasuries by 95 bps in September, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to -87 bps. Foreign Agencies outperformed the Treasury benchmark by 5 bps on the month, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +49 bps. Local Authority bonds outperformed by 24 bps in September, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +406 bps. Domestic Agency bonds underperformed by 7 bps, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to +24 bps. Supranationals underperformed by 4 bps, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to +27 bps. Last week’s report looked at performance and valuation trends for Emerging Market sovereign and corporate bonds relative to US corporates.6 The recent underperformance of EM bonds versus US corporates has led to attractive relative valuations in the sector. We see investment grade EM sovereign and corporate bonds both outperforming investment grade US corporates during the next 12 months. The outperformance will be the result of better starting valuations and an acceleration of EM growth in 2022. The bonds of Colombia, Russia, Mexico, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, UAE and Qatar look particularly attractive within the USD-denominated EM sovereign space. Municipal Bonds: Overweight Chart 6Municipal Market Overview Municipal Market Overview Municipal Market Overview Municipal bonds outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 29 basis points in September, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +292 bps (before adjusting for the tax advantage). The economic and policy back-drop remains favorable for municipal bond performance. Trailing 4-quarter net state & local government savings were already positive through the end of Q1 2021 and they received another significant boost in Q2 as funds from the American Rescue Plan were doled out (Chart 6). With state & local government balance sheets in such good shape, we are comfortable moving down in quality within municipal bonds. A move down in quality is especially compelling because of tight Aaa muni valuations relative to Treasuries (top panel). Valuation is more compelling in the lower investment grade credit tiers, especially at the long-end of the curve.7 Both General Obligation (GO) and Revenue munis in the 12-17 year maturity bucket offer a before-tax yield pick-up versus corporate bonds with the same credit rating and duration (panel 2). Finally, high-yield muni spreads are reasonably attractive relative to high-yield corporates, offering a breakeven tax rate of 25% (panel 4). But despite the attractive spread, we recommend only a neutral allocation to high-yield munis versus high-yield corporates as the deep negative convexity of high-yield munis makes them susceptible to extension risk if bond yields rise. Treasury Curve: Buy 2/10 Barbell Versus 5-Year Bullet Chart 7Treasury Yield Curve Overview Treasury Yield Curve Overview Treasury Yield Curve Overview The Treasury curve bear-steepened in September, with yields moving sharply higher – especially in the 5-10 year maturity space. The 2-year/10-year Treasury slope steepened 14 bps to end the month at 124 bps. The 5-year/30-year slope flattened 5 bps to end the month at 110 bps. We expect bond yields to be higher in 6-12 months, but we also anticipate that the next significant move higher in bond yields will coincide with curve flattening, not steepening. At 2.08%, the 5-year/5-year forward Treasury yield is already within our target fair value range of 2% - 2.25%. In a recent report, we demonstrated that yield curve steepening only occurs when either the Fed is cutting rates or the 5-year/5-year forward yield rises.8 This means that the 2/10 Treasury curve is more likely to flatten than steepen during the next 6-12 months, even as bond yields move higher. Similarly, we observe that the overnight index swap (OIS) curve is priced for the fed funds rate to be 0.30% in one year’s time and 1.62% in five years (Chart 7). The latter rate has 131 bps of upside if it converges all the way back to its 2018 high, but this pales in comparison to the 256 bps of upside in the 12-month forward rate. The yield curve will flatten as the 12-month forward OIS rate converges with the 5-year forward rate (panel 3). Investors should position in yield curve flatteners on a 6-12 month horizon. Specifically, we recommend shorting the 5-year bullet versus a duration-matched 2/10 barbell. TIPS: Neutral Chart 8TIPS Market Overview TIPS Market Overview TIPS Market Overview TIPS outperformed the duration-equivalent nominal Treasury index by 47 basis points in September, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +627 bps. The 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate rose 3 bps on the month, while the 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rate rose 5 bps. At 2.41%, the 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate is near the middle of the 2.3% to 2.5% range that is consistent with inflation expectations being well anchored around the Fed’s target (Chart 8). Meanwhile, at 2.26%, the 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rate is only just below target (panel 3). With long-dated inflation expectations close to the Fed’s target levels, we see limited upside on a 6-12 month horizon. We also see the cost of short-maturity inflation protection falling during the next few months as realized inflation moderates from its extremely high level. This will lead to a steepening of the inflation curve (bottom panel). We recommend that investors position for a steeper 2/10 inflation curve, or alternatively for a flatter 2/10 real Treasury curve. We noted in last week’s report that the combination of nominal curve flattening and inflation curve steepening will lead to a large flattening of the 2/10 real curve during the next 6-12 months.9The 2-year TIPS yield, in particular, has a lot of upside.                         ABS: Overweight Chart 9ABS Market Overview ABS Market Overview ABS Market Overview Asset-Backed Securities outperformed the duration-equivalent nominal Treasury index by 3 basis points in September, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +43 bps. Aaa-rated ABS outperformed by 2 bps on the month, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +32 bps. Non-Aaa ABS outperformed by 7 bps, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +99 bps. The stimulus from last year’s CARES Act led to a significant increase in household savings when individual checks were mailed in April 2020. That excess savings has still not been spent and the most recent round of stimulus checks has only added to the stockpile (Chart 9). The extraordinarily large stock of household savings means that the collateral quality of consumer ABS is also extraordinarily high. Indeed, many households have been using their windfalls to pay down consumer debt (bottom panel). Investors should remain overweight consumer ABS and should also take advantage of the high quality of household balance sheets by moving down the quality spectrum.     Non-Agency CMBS: Neutral Chart 10CMBS Market Overview CMBS Market Overview CMBS Market Overview Non-Agency Commercial Mortgage-Backed Securities outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 2 basis points in September, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +195 bps. Aaa Non-Agency CMBS outperformed Treasuries by 4 bps in September, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +96 bps. Non-Aaa Non-Agency CMBS underperformed Treasuries by 4 bps on the month, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to +525 bps (Chart 10). Though returns have been strong and spreads remain attractive, particularly for lower-rated CMBS, we continue to recommend only a neutral allocation to the sector because of the structurally challenging environment for commercial real estate. Agency CMBS: Overweight Agency CMBS outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 3 basis points in September, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +94 bps. The average index option-adjusted spread tightened 1 bp on the month. It currently sits at 33 bps (bottom panel). Though Agency CMBS spreads have recovered to well below pre-COVID levels, they still look attractive compared to other similarly risky spread products. Stay overweight.   Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Appendix A: Butterfly Strategy Valuations The following tables present the current read-outs from our butterfly spread models. We use these models to identify opportunities to take duration-neutral positions across the Treasury curve. The following two Special Reports explain the models in more detail: US Bond Strategy Special Report, “Bullets, Barbells And Butterflies”, dated July 25, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com US Bond Strategy Special Report, “More Bullets, Barbells And Butterflies”, dated May 15, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Table 4 shows the raw residuals from each model. A positive value indicates that the bullet is cheap relative to the duration-matched barbell. A negative value indicates that the barbell is cheap relative to the bullet. Table 4Butterfly Strategy Valuation: Raw Residuals In Basis Points (As Of September 30th, 2021) A Bout Of Reflation A Bout Of Reflation Table 5 scales the raw residuals in Table 4 by their historical means and standard deviations. This facilitates comparison between the different butterfly spreads. Table 5Butterfly Strategy Valuation: Standardized Residuals (As Of September 30th, 2021) A Bout Of Reflation A Bout Of Reflation Table 6 flips the models on their heads. It shows the change in the slope between the two barbell maturities that must be realized during the next six months to make returns between the bullet and barbell equal. For example, a reading of -17 bps in the 5 over 2/10 cell means that we would expect the 5-year to outperform the 2/10 if the 2/10 flattens by less than 17 bps during the next six months. Otherwise, we would expect the 2/10 barbell to outperform the 5-year bullet. Table 6Discounted Slope Change During Next 6 Months (BPs) A Bout Of Reflation A Bout Of Reflation Appendix B: Excess Return Bond Map The Excess Return Bond Map is used to assess the relative risk/reward trade-off between different sectors of the US bond market. It is a purely computational exercise and does not impose any macroeconomic view. The Map’s vertical axis shows 12-month expected excess returns. These are proxied by each sector’s option-adjusted spread. Sectors plotting further toward the top of the Map have higher expected returns and vice-versa. Our novel risk measure called the “Risk Of Losing 100 bps” is shown on the Map’s horizontal axis. To calculate it, we first compute the spread widening required on a 12-month horizon for each sector to lose 100 bps or more relative to a duration-matched position in Treasury securities. Then, we divide that amount of spread widening by each sector’s historical spread volatility. The end result is the number of standard deviations of 12-month spread widening required for each sector to lose 100 bps or more versus a position in Treasuries. Lower risk sectors plot further to the right of the Map, and higher risk sectors plot further to the left. Chart 11Excess Return Bond Map (As Of September 30th, 2021) A Bout Of Reflation A Bout Of Reflation Footnotes 1  Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Expected Returns In Corporate Bonds”, dated September 21, 2021. 2  Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The Collapsing Credit Risk Premium”, dated July 20, 2021. 3  Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The Post-FOMC Credit Environment”, dated June 29, 2021. 4  Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Expected Returns In Corporate Bonds”, dated September 21, 2021. 5  Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “A New Conundrum”, dated April 20, 2021. 6  Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Damage Assessment”, dated September 28, 2021. 7  Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The Collapsing Credit Risk Premium”, dated July 20, 2021. 8  Please see US Bond Strategy / Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, “A Bump On The Road To Recovery”, dated July 27, 2021. 9  Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Damage Assessment”, dated September 28, 2021.

Highlights The global fight against the Delta variant of COVID-19 continued to show progress in the month of September, but not without cost. Growth in services activity slowed meaningfully, which has likely delayed the return to potential output in the US until March of next year (at the earliest). However, even with this revised timeline, maximum employment remains a very possible outcome by next summer, barring a further extension of the pandemic in advanced economies. In this regard, the Fed’s likely decision at its next meeting to taper the rate of its asset purchases makes sense and is consistent with a first rate hike in the second half of 2022. The rise in long-maturity bond yields following this month’s Fed meeting is consistent with the view that 10-year Treasurys are overvalued and that yields will trend higher over the coming year. Fixed-income investors should stay short duration. The degree to which global shipping costs are being driven by the forces of supply versus demand will affect the Fed's criteria for liftoff next year, via changes in goods prices as well as consumer expectations for inflation. In our view, a detailed examination of shipping prices over the past 18 months points to a future pace of inflation that is not dangerously above-target, but does meet the Fed’s liftoff criteria. A mix-shift in consumer spending, away from goods and toward services, is not a threat to economic activity or S&P 500 earnings – so long as the decline in the former is not outsized relative to the rise in the latter. It will, however, disproportionately impact China, and could be the trigger for meaningful further easing by Chinese policymakers. In the interim, a catalyst for EM stocks may remain elusive. We continue to recommend an overweight stance toward value versus growth stocks and global ex-US versus the US, particularly in favor of developed markets ex-US. Investors should remain cyclically overweight stocks versus bonds, although it is possible that both assets will post negative returns for a short period at some point over the coming 12 months in response to higher long-maturity bond yields. Still, we expect both stock prices and the stock-to-bond ratio to be higher a year from today. Feature The global fight against the Delta variant of COVID-19 continued to show progress in the month of September. Chart I-1 highlights that an estimate of the reproduction rate of the disease in developed economies has fallen below one, and the weekly change in hospitalizations in both the US and UK – the two countries at the epicenter of the Delta wave that have not reintroduced widespread COVID-19 control measures – have fallen back into negative territory. In addition, we estimate that approximately 6% of the world’s population received vaccines against COVID-19 in September, with now 45% of the globe having received a first dose and 33% now fully vaccinated. Pfizer’s announcement last week that it has found a “favorable safety profile and robust neutralizing antibody responses” from its vaccine trial in children five to eleven years of age suggests that the FDA may grant emergency use authorization within weeks, which would likely raise the vaccination rate in the US (and ultimately other advanced economies) by at least 5 percentage points in fairly short order. This would also further reduce the impact of school/classroom closures on the labor market, via both an increased participation rate and increased hiring in the education sector. This fight, however, has not been without cost. US jobs growth slowed significantly in August, manufacturing and services PMIs continued to slow in September, and, as Chart I-2 highlights, the normalization in transportation use that was well underway in the first half of the year has clearly inflected in both the US and UK in response to the spread of Delta. Consensus market expectations for Q3 growth have been cut in the US, and to a lesser extent in the euro area, and the Fed reduced its forecast for 2021 real GDP growth from 7% to 5.9% following the September FOMC meeting. Chart I-1The Delta Wave Continues To Abate... The Delta Wave Continues To Abate... The Delta Wave Continues To Abate... Chart I-2...But At A Cost To Economic Activity ...But At A Cost To Economic Activity ...But At A Cost To Economic Activity   The Path Toward Eventually Tighter Monetary Policy It has been surprising to some investors that the Fed has moved forward with their plans to taper the rate of its asset purchases against this backdrop of slowing near-term growth – an event that now seems likely to occur at its next meeting barring a disastrous September payroll report. In our view, this is not especially surprising, given that the Fed has expressed a desire for net purchases to reach zero before they raise interest rates for the first time. Chair Powell noted during last week’s press conference that FOMC participants felt a “gradual tapering process that concludes around the middle of next year is likely to be appropriate”, underscoring that the Fed wants the flexibility to raise interest rates in the second half of next year. The timing of the first Fed rate hike is entirely subject to the evolution of the economic data over the next year, and is not, in any way, calendar-based. But we presented in last month's Special Report why the Fed’s maximum employment criteria may be met as early as next summer,1 and the Fed’s projections for the pace of tapering are consistent with our analysis. Chart I-3Maximum Employment Remains A Very Possible Outcome By Next Summer Maximum Employment Remains A Very Possible Outcome By Next Summer Maximum Employment Remains A Very Possible Outcome By Next Summer The Fed’s most recent Summary of Economic Projections (“SEP”) also seemingly confirmed Fed Vice Chair Richard Clarida’s view that a 3.8% unemployment rate is consistent with maximum employment, barring any issues with the “breadth and inclusivity” of the labor market recovery. We noted in last month’s report that these issues are unlikely in a scenario where jobs growth is sufficiently high to bring down the unemployment rate below 4%. Chart I-3 highlights that both the Fed’s forecast and Bloomberg consensus expectations imply a closed output gap by March, even after factoring in the near-term impact of the Delta variant. Consequently, maximum employment remains a very possible outcome by next summer, barring a further extension of the pandemic in advanced economies. Long-maturity bond yields rose following the Fed meeting, which is also not especially surprising given how low yields have fallen relative to the fair value implied by the Fed’s SEP forecasts even assuming a December 2022 initial rate hike. Chart I-4 highlights that the fair value of the 10-year Treasury yield today is roughly 2% using this approach, rising to 2.15% by next summer. Ironically, the September SEP update modestly lowered the fair value shown in Chart I-4 relative to what would otherwise have been the case, as it implied that the Fed is expecting to raise interest rates at a pace of approximately three hikes per year – rather than the four that prevailed prior to the pandemic. Investors should also note that the fair value for the 10-year yield is nontrivially lower based on market participant and primary dealer estimates of the terminal Fed funds rate (also shown in Chart I-4), although they still imply that long-maturity yields should trend higher over the coming year. Global Trade, Inflation, And The Fed A return to maximum employment will likely signal the onset of monetary policy tightening, as long as the Fed's inflation criteria for liftoff have been met. For now, inflation is signaling a green light for hikes next year, even after excluding the prices of COVID-impacted services and cars (Chart I-5). In fact, more recently, CPI ex-direct COVID effects has been pointing in the “non-transitory” direction, which continues to prompt questions from investors about whether the Fed will be forced to hike earlier than it currently expects for reasons other than a return to maximum employment. Chart I-4US Long-Maturity Bond Yields Are Set To Move Higher Over The Coming Year US Long-Maturity Bond Yields Are Set To Move Higher Over The Coming Year US Long-Maturity Bond Yields Are Set To Move Higher Over The Coming Year Chart I-5For Now, Inflation Is Signaling A Green Light For Hikes Next Year For Now, Inflation Is Signaling A Green Light For Hikes Next Year For Now, Inflation Is Signaling A Green Light For Hikes Next Year   At least some portion of the current pace of increase in consumer goods prices is tied to surging import costs, which have run well in-excess of what would be predicted by the relationship with the US dollar (Chart I-6). This, in turn, is being driven by an explosion in shipping costs that has occurred since the onset of the pandemic, which is being driven both by demand and supply-side factors (Chart I-7). Chart I-6US CPI Is Being Affected By Surging Import Prices... US CPI Is Being Affected By Surging Import Prices... US CPI Is Being Affected By Surging Import Prices... Chart I-7...Which Are Being Driven By An Explosion In Shipping Costs ...Which Are Being Driven By An Explosion In Shipping Costs ...Which Are Being Driven By An Explosion In Shipping Costs   The degree to which global shipping costs are being driven by the forces of supply versus demand will affect the Fed's criteria for liftoff next year, via changes in goods prices as well as consumer expectations for inflation. To the extent that demand side factors are mostly responsible, investors should have higher confidence that the recent surge in consumer prices is transitory, because a shift away from above-trend goods spending and toward below-trend services spending is likely over the coming year. If supply-side factors are mostly responsible, then it is conceivable that the global supply chain impact on consumer goods prices will persist for longer than would otherwise be the case, potentially raising the odds of a larger or more sustained rise in inflation expectations. In our view, a detailed examination of shipping prices over the past 18 months points to a mix of both demand and supply effects, even since the beginning of 2021. However, as we highlight below, several facts point toward the view that supply-side factors will be the dominant driver over the coming year, and that they are more likely to exert a disinflationary/deflationary rather than inflationary effect: Chart I-8 breaks down the cumulative change in the overall Freightos Baltic Index by route since December 2019. The chart makes it clear that shipping costs from China/East Asia to the West Coast of the US have risen far more than any other route, underscoring that US demand for goods has been an important part of the rise in shipping costs. Chart I-8US Demand For Goods Is An Important Part Of The Shipping Cost Story October 2021 October 2021 Chart I-9US Goods Spending Has Clearly Been Boosted By US Fiscal Policy US Goods Spending Has Clearly Been Boosted By US Fiscal Policy US Goods Spending Has Clearly Been Boosted By US Fiscal Policy Chart I-9 shows the level of real US personal consumption expenditures on goods relative to its pre-pandemic trendline, underscoring both that goods spending is currently well-above trend, and that there have been two distinct phases of rising goods spending: from May to October 2020 following the passage of the CARES act, and from January to March 2021 following the December 2020 extension of UI benefits and in anticipation of the passage of the American Rescue Plan. Since March, US real goods spending has trended lower, a pattern that we expect will continue over the coming year. Chart I-10 highlights that while the global supply chain struggled heavily last year in response to surging demand and the lagging effects of labor shortages and factory shutdowns during the earliest phase of the pandemic, there were some signs of supply-side normalization in the first half of 2021. The chart highlights that the number of ships at anchor at the Los Angeles and Long Beach ports declined meaningfully from February to June, and global shipping schedule reliability tentatively improved in March. The chart also shows that shipping costs from China/East Asia to the West Coast of the US continued to rise in Q2 seemingly as a lagged response to the Jan-Mar rise in goods spending, but they were still low at the end of June compared to today’s levels. Chart I-10Supply-Side Factors Seem To Have Driven A Majority Of This Year's Increase In Shipping Costs Supply-Side Factors Seem To Have Driven A Majority Of This Year's Increase In Shipping Costs Supply-Side Factors Seem To Have Driven A Majority Of This Year's Increase In Shipping Costs In Q3, circumstances drastically changed. Shipping costs between China/East Asia to the West Coast of the US rapidly doubled, and the number of ships at anchor at the LA/LB ports exploded well past its peak in early February. This rise in China/US shipping costs since late-June has accounted for nearly 60% of the cumulative rise since the pandemic began, and cannot be attributed to increased demand. Instead, the increase in prices and the surge in port congestion in Q3 appears to have been caused by the one-month closure of the Port of Yantian that began in late-May, in response to an outbreak of COVID-19 in Guangdong province. Yantian is the fourth largest port in the world and exports a sizeable majority of global electronics given its close proximity to Shenzhen, underscoring the impact that its closure likely had on an already bottlenecked logistical system. There are two key points emanating from our analysis of global shipping costs. First, demand has been an important effect driving costs higher, but it does not appear to have driven most of the increase in shipping costs this year. Still, over the coming year, goods demand in advanced economies is likely to wane as consumer spending shifts from goods to services spending, which will help ease clogged global trade channels and lower shipping costs. Second, the (brief) evidence of supply-side normalization in the first half of 2021, when consumer demand was actually strengthening, suggests that the supply-side of the global trade system will turn disinflationary over the coming year if further COVID-related labor market shocks can be avoided. What does this mean for the Fed and the prospect of monetary policy tightening next year? In our view, the combination of a positive output gap, stable but normalized inflation expectations, and disinflation (or outright deflation) in COVID-related goods and services (including import prices) is likely to lead to a pace of inflation that meets the Fed’s liftoff criteria. Chart I-11 highlights that important longer-term inflation expectations measures have recently been well-behaved, despite a surge in actual inflation and shorter-term expectations for inflation. Aided by disinflation/deflation in certain high-profile COVID-related goods and services prices, this argues against meaningful upside risks to inflation. However, the current level of long-term expectations and the fact that the output gap is set to turn positive in the first half of next year argues against the notion that inflation will fall below target outside of COVID-related effects. As such, we continue to expect that the Fed will raise interest rates next year, potentially as early as next summer, driven by the progress towards maximum employment. Spending Shifts And The Equity Market We noted above, and in previous reports, that consumer spending in advanced economies is likely to continue to shift away from goods and toward services over the coming year. This raises the question of whether a contraction in goods spending will weigh disproportionately on the economy and equity earnings, given the close historical correlation between manufacturing activity and the business cycle. Chart I-12 illustrates this risk: in a hypothetical scenario in which real goods spending were to return to the trendline shown in Chart I-9 by March of next year, it would contract on the order of 10% on a year-over-year basis, on par with what occurred last year and vastly in excess of what even normally occurs during a recession. Chart I-11Longer-Term Inflation Expectations Remain Well-Behaved Longer-Term Inflation Expectations Remain Well-Behaved Longer-Term Inflation Expectations Remain Well-Behaved Chart I-12A Contraction In Goods Spending Is Likely Over The Coming Year A Contraction In Goods Spending Is Likely Over The Coming Year A Contraction In Goods Spending Is Likely Over The Coming Year   Chart I-12 is a hypothetical scenario and not a forecast, as there is some evidence that consumers are currently deferring durable goods purchases on the expectation that prices will become more favorable. In addition, a positive output gap next year implies that goods spending may settle above its pre-pandemic trendline. Nevertheless, the prospect of a potentially significant slowdown in goods spending has unnerved some investors, even given the prospect of improved services spending. Chart I-13highlights that this fear is understandable given how the US economy normally behaves. The top panel of the chart shows the year-over-year contribution to real GDP growth from real goods and services spending, and the bottom panel shows these contributions in absolute terms to better illustrate their relative magnitudes. The chart makes it clear that goods spending is normally a more forceful driver of economic activity than is the case for services spending, which ostensibly supports concerns that a significant slowdown in the former may be destabilizing for overall activity. Chart I-13Normally, Goods Spending Predominantly Drives Activity. Not This Cycle. Normally, Goods Spending Predominantly Drives Activity. Not This Cycle. Normally, Goods Spending Predominantly Drives Activity. Not This Cycle. However, Chart I-13 also highlights that the magnitude of the recent contribution to growth from services spending has been absolutely unprecedented in the post-WWII economic environment. This is not surprising given the nature of the COVID-19 pandemic, but it is important because it underscores that investors should not rely excessively on typical rules of thumb about how modern economies tend to function over the course of the business cycle. In terms of the impact on overall economic activity, investors should focus on the net impact of goods plus services spending. It is certainly possible that the former will slow at a pace that is not fully compensated by the latter, but our sense is that this is not likely to occur barring a further extension of the pandemic in advanced economies. Chart I-14Over The Past 5 Years, S&P 500 Sales Have Been More Correlated With Services Than Goods Spending Over The Past 5 Years, S&P 500 Sales Have Been More Correlated With Services Than Goods Spending Over The Past 5 Years, S&P 500 Sales Have Been More Correlated With Services Than Goods Spending Chart I-14 presents a similar conclusion for the US equity market. The chart highlights the historical five-year correlation between the quarterly growth of nominal spending and S&P 500 sales per share. The chart shows that S&P 500 revenue was more sensitive to goods versus services spending prior to the 1990s, when the US was more manufacturing-oriented and goods were more likely to be produced domestically than is the case today. Another gap in the correlation emerged following the global financial crisis when the US household sector underwent several years of deleveraging. But over the past five years, Chart I-14 highlights that S&P 500 revenue growth has actually been more strongly correlated with US services spending than goods spending. Some of this increased correlation might reflect technology-related services spending which could suffer in a post-pandemic environment, but the bottom line from Chart I-14 is that there is not much empirical support for the view that US equity fundamentals will be disproportionately impacted by a slowdown in goods spending, so long as services spending rises in lockstep. China: Exacerbating An Underlying Trend Chart I-15China Will Be Disproportionately Affected By Slowing DM Goods Spending China Will Be Disproportionately Affected By Slowing DM Goods Spending China Will Be Disproportionately Affected By Slowing DM Goods Spending China, on the other hand, will be disproportionately affected by slower goods spending in advanced economies, because its exports have disproportionately benefited from the surge in spending on goods over the past year. Chart I-15 highlights that Chinese export volume growth has exploded this year, and that current export growth is running at a pace of 10% in volume terms – significantly higher than has been the case on average over the past decade. Several problems in China have been in the headlines over the past few months: a regulatory crackdown by Chinese authorities on new economy companies, the situation with Evergrande and, more recently, power shortages that have forced factories in several key manufacturing hubs to curtail production as a result of China’s ban on coal imports from Australia (Chart I-16). However, the key point for investors is that these are not truly new risks to China’s growth outlook; rather, they are developments that have the potential to magnify the impact of an already established trend: the ongoing slowdown in China’s economy that has clearly been caused by a decline in its credit impulse (Chart I-17). In turn, China’s decelerating credit impulse has been caused by tighter regulatory and monetary policy. Chart I-16Power Outages: The Latest Negative Headline From China Power Outages: The Latest Negative Headline From China Power Outages: The Latest Negative Headline From China Chart I-17China Is Slowing Because Policymakers Have Tightened China Is Slowing Because Policymakers Have Tightened China Is Slowing Because Policymakers Have Tightened   BCA’s China Investment Strategy service has provided a detailed analysis of the ongoing Evergrande saga.2 In short, our view is that the government will likely restructure Evergrande’s debt to prevent the company’s crisis from evolving into a systemic financial risk. As such, Beijing may rescue the stakeholders of Evergrande, but likely not its shareholders. However, in terms of stimulating the broader economy, it is still not clear that Chinese policymakers are willing to engage in more than gradual or piecemeal stimulus, given a higher pain threshold for a slower economy and a lower appetite for leverage. This may change once Chinese export growth slows in response to a shift in DM spending from goods to services, as policymakers will no longer be able to rely on the external sector for support. This potentially offsetting nature of eventual Chinese stimulus and global goods spending underscores both the importance of a normalization in DM services spending as an impulse for global growth, as well as the fact that a catalyst for EM stocks may remain elusive over the tactical horizon. Investment Conclusions In Section 2 of this month’s report, we explain why the performance of US stocks may be flat versus their global peers over a structural time horizon. We also highlighted that US stocks are likely to earn low annualized total returns over the coming 10 years (between 1.8 - 4.7%), which would fall well short of the absolute return goals of many investors. Chart I-18Losses From Both Stocks And Bonds Are Rare, But Are Linked To Higher Rates Losses From Both Stocks And Bonds Are Rare, But Are Linked To Higher Rates Losses From Both Stocks And Bonds Are Rare, But Are Linked To Higher Rates Over the coming 6-12 month time horizon, we continue to recommend an overweight stance towards value vs. growth stocks and global ex-US vs. US, particularly in favor of developed markets ex-US. The relative performance of value vs. growth stocks is likely to benefit from the transition to a post-pandemic state and a rise in long-maturity bond yields, as monetary policy shifts towards the point of tightening. Regional equity trends have been closely correlated with style over the past two years, and the underperformance of growth strongly implies US equity underperformance. From an asset allocation perspective, investors should remain overweight stocks versus bonds over the coming year, although it is possible that both assets will post negative returns for a short period at some point over the coming 12 months. Chart I-18 highlights that outside of the context of recessions, months with negative returns from both stocks and long-maturity bonds are quite rare, but they tend to be associated with periods of monetary policy tightening (or in anticipation of such periods). Fundamentally, we do not see a rise in bond yields to any of the levels shown in Chart I-4 as being threatening to economic growth or necessarily implying lower equity market multiples. But the speed of adjustment in bond yields could unnerve equity investors, and there are open questions as to how far the equity risk premium can fall before T.I.N.A. – “There Is No Alternative” – becomes a less persuasive argument. As such, we would not rule out a brief correction in stocks at some point over the coming several months, but we expect both stock prices and the stock-to-bond ratio to be higher a year from today. Jonathan LaBerge, CFA Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst September 30, 2021 Next Report: October 28, 2021 II. The “Invincible” US Equity Market: The Longer-Term Outlook For US Stocks In Relative And Absolute Terms Since 2008, US equity outperformance versus global ex-US stocks has not been driven by stronger top-line growth. Instead, it has been caused by a narrowly-based increase in profit margins, the accretive impact of share buybacks on the EPS of US growth stocks, and an outsized expansion in equity multiples. To a lesser extent, the dollar has also boosted common currency relative performance. There are significant secular risks to these sources of US equity outperformance over the past 14 years. Elevated tech sector profit margins are likely to lead to increased competition and higher odds of regulatory action, leveraging has reduced the ability of US companies to continue to accrete EPS through changes to capital structure, relative multiples are not justified by relative ROE, and the US dollar is expensive and is likely to fall over a multi-year horizon. In absolute terms, we forecast that US stocks will earn annualized nominal total returns of between 1.8 - 4.7% over the coming decade, assuming 4-5% annual revenue growth, flat profit margins, a constant 2% dividend yield, and a constant equity risk premium. Long-maturity bond yields are below their equilibrium levels and are likely to rise in real terms over time, which will weigh on elevated equity multiples. Over the coming 6-12 months, our view that US 10-Year Treasury yields are likely to rise argues for an underweight stance toward growth versus value stocks. In turn, this implies that US stocks will underperform global stocks, especially versus developed markets ex-US. The risks that we have highlighted to the sources of US outperformance suggest that US stocks may be flat versus their global peers over the long-term, arguing for a neutral strategic allocation. It also suggests that investors should be prepared to accept more volatility in order to reduce the gap between expected and desired returns, and should look towards riskier investments and asset classes (such as real estate and alternative investments) as potential portfolio return enhancements. Chart II-1The US Has Massively Outperformed Other Equity Markets Since The Global Financial Crisis The US Has Massively Outperformed Other Equity Markets Since The Global Financial Crisis The US Has Massively Outperformed Other Equity Markets Since The Global Financial Crisis The US equity market has vastly outperformed its peers since the 2008/2009 global financial crisis. Chart II-1 highlights that an investment in US stocks at the end of 2007 is now worth over 4 times the invested amount, versus approximately 1.6 times for global ex-US stocks (when measured in US dollar terms). The chart also shows that USD-denominated total returns have been roughly the same for developed markets ex-US as they have been for emerging markets, highlighting the exceptional nature of US equities. In this report we provide a deep examination of the sources of US equity performance, their likely sustainability, and what this implies for long-term investor return expectations. US stocks have not outperformed because of stronger top-line (i.e. revenue) growth, and instead have benefitted from a narrowly-based increase in profit margins, active changes to capital structure that have benefitted stockholders, an outsized expansion in equity multiples relative to global stocks, and a structural appreciation in the US dollar. We conclude that there are significant risks to all of these sources of outperformance, and that a neutral strategic allocation to US equities is now likely warranted. We also highlight that, while a strategic overweight stance is still warranted toward stocks versus bonds, investors should no longer count on US stocks to deliver returns that are in line with or above commonly-cited absolute return expectations. This argues for a greater tolerance of volatility, and the pursuit of riskier investments and asset classes (such as real estate and alternative investments) as potential portfolio return enhancements. A Deep Examination Of US Outperformance Since 2008 Breaking down historical total return performance is the first step in judging whether US equities are likely to outperform their global ex-US peers on a structural basis. Below we deconstruct US and global total return performance over the past 14 years into six different components, and analyze the impact of some of these components on a sector-by-sector basis. The six components presented are: Total revenue growth for each equity market, in local currency terms The change in profit margins The impact of changes in capital structure and index composition The change in the trailing P/E ratio The income return from dividends The impact of changes in foreign exchange The sum of the first three factors explains the total growth in earnings per share over the period, and the addition of the fourth factor explains each market’s local currency price return. Income returns are added to explain total return over the period, with the sixth factor then explaining common currency total return performance. The FX effect for US stocks is zero by construction, given that we measure common currency performance in US$ terms. Chart II-2Strong US Returns Have Not Been Due To Strong Top Line Growth October 2021 October 2021 Chart II-2 presents the annualized absolute impact of these factors for the MSCI US index since 2008. The chart highlights that U.S. stock prices have earned roughly 11% per year in total return terms over the past 14 years, with significant contributions from revenue growth, multiple expansion, margins, and the return from dividends. Interestingly, however, Chart II-3 highlights that US equities have not significantly outperformed on the basis of the first factor, total local currency revenue growth, at least relative to overall global ex-US stocks (see Box II-1 for more details). DM ex-US stocks have experienced very weak revenue growth since 2008, but this has been compensated for by outsized EM revenue growth. It is also notable that US revenue growth has actually underperformed US GDP growth over the period, dispelling the notion that US equity outperformance has been due to strong top-line effects. Chart II-3The US Has Outperformed Due To Margins, Capital Structure, Multiples, And The Dollar October 2021 October 2021 Box II-1 Proxying The Impact Of Changes In Shares Outstanding We proxy the impact of changes in shares outstanding (and thus the impact of equity dilution / accretion) by dividing each index’s market capitalization by its stock price. This measure is not a perfect proxy, as changes in index composition (such as the addition/deletion of index constituents) will change the index’s market capitalization but not its stock price. We also calculate total revenue for each market by multiplying local currency sales per share by the market cap / stock price ratio, meaning that the total revenue growth figures shown in Chart II-3 should best be viewed as estimates that in some cases reflect index composition effects. However, Chart II-B1 highlights that adjusting the market cap / stock price ratio for the number of firms in the index does not meaningfully change our overall conclusions. This approach would imply a larger dilution effect for DM ex-US than suggested in Chart II-3, and a smaller effect for emerging markets (due to a significant rise in the number of EM index constituents since 2008). In addition, global ex-US revenue growth is modestly lower than US revenue growth when using this approach. But this gap would account for a fraction of US equity outperformance over the period, underscoring that the US has massively outperformed global ex-US stocks due to margin, capital structure, and multiple expansion effects. Chart II-B1The US Has Not Meaningfully Outperformed Due To Revenue Growth, No Matter How You Slice It October 2021 October 2021 Chart II-3 also highlights that global ex-US stocks have modestly outperformed the US in terms of the fifth factor, the income return from dividends. This has almost offset the negative FX return (the sixth factor) from a net rise in the US dollar over the period. What is clear from the chart is that the second, third, and fourth factors explain almost all of the difference in total return between US and global ex-US stocks since 2008. The US experienced a significant increase in profit margins versus a modest contraction for global ex-US, a modest fillip from changes in capital structure and index composition versus a substantial drag for ex-US stocks, and a sizable rise in equity multiples that has outpaced what has occurred around the globe in response to structurally lower interest rates. Chart II-4US Margin Outperformance Has Been Narrowly-Based October 2021 October 2021 The significant rise in aggregate US profit margins over the past 14 years has often been attributed to the strong competitiveness of US companies, but Chart II-4 highlights that the aggregate change mostly reflects a narrow sector composition effect. The chart shows the change in US and global ex-US profit margins by level 1 GICS sector since 2008, and underscores that overall profit margins outside of the US have fallen mostly due to lower oil prices. Conversely, in the US, profit margins have substantially risen in only three out of ten sectors: health care, information technology, and communication services. Chart II-5 highlights that global ex-US equity multiples have risen in a majority of sectors since 2008, but not by the same magnitude as what has occurred in the US. De-rating in the resource sector partially explains the gap, but stronger US multiple expansion in the heavily-weighted consumer discretionary, information technology, and communication services sectors appears to explain most of the gap in multiple expansion. Chart II-5Multiples Have Risen Globally, But More So For Broadly-Defined US Tech Stocks October 2021 October 2021 Finally, Charts II-6 & II-7 highlights that there has been a strong growth versus value dimension to the impact of changes in capital structure and index composition on regional equity performance. The charts show that equity dilution and other changes to index composition have caused a similar drag on the returns from value stocks in the US and outside the US. However, the charts also highlight that the more important effect has been the accretive impact of share buybacks on the EPS of US growth stocks, which has not been matched by growth stocks outside of the US. As noted in Box II-1, part of this gap may be explained by an increase in the number of companies included in the MSCI Emerging Markets index, but Chart II-8 highlights that the global ex-US ratio of market capitalization to stock price has still risen significantly over the past 14 years, in contrast to that of the US even after controlling for the number of index components. Chart II-6There Has Been A Strong Style Dimension… There Has Been A Strong Style Dimension... There Has Been A Strong Style Dimension... Chart II-7…To The Impact Of Changes In Capital Structure And Index Composition ...To The Impact Of Changes In Capital Structure And Index Composition ...To The Impact Of Changes In Capital Structure And Index Composition Chart II-8The Accretive Impact Of US Growth Stock Buybacks Has Not Been Matched Globally The Accretive Impact Of US Growth Stock Buybacks Has Not Been Matched Globally The Accretive Impact Of US Growth Stock Buybacks Has Not Been Matched Globally The bottom line for investors is that there have been multiple factors contributing to US equity outperformance since 2008, but aggregate top-line growth has not been one of them. Broadly-defined technology companies (including media & entertainment and internet retail firms) have been responsible for nearly all of the relative rise in profit margins and most of the relative expansion in multiples over the past 14 years, and US growth stocks have benefitted from the accretive impact of share buybacks to a larger degree than what has occurred globally. The Relative Secular Return Outlook For US Stocks We present below several structural risks to the continued outperformance of US equities for the factors that have been most responsible for this performance over the past 14 years. In some cases, these risks speak to the potential for US outperformance to end, not necessarily that the US will underperform. But even the cessation of US outperformance along one or more of these factors would be significant, as it would imply a potential inflection point in the most consequential trend in regional equity performance since the 2008/2009 global financial crisis. Profit Margins Chart II-9 presents the 12-month trailing combined profit margin for the US consumer discretionary, information technology, and communication services sector versus that of the remaining sectors. The chart underscores the points made by Chart II-4 in time series form, namely that the net increase in overall US profit margins since 2008 has been narrowly based. Chart II-9The US Profit Margin Expansion Has Been Driven By Broadly-Defined Tech Stocks The US Profit Margin Expansion Has Been Driven By Broadly-Defined Tech Stocks The US Profit Margin Expansion Has Been Driven By Broadly-Defined Tech Stocks Over a 6-12 month time horizon, the clear risk to US profit margins is an end to the COVID-19 pandemic. The profitability of broadly-defined tech stocks has surged during the pandemic, in response to a significant shift toward online goods purchases and elevated spending on tech equipment. A durable end to the pandemic is likely to reverse some of these spending patterns, which will likely weigh on margins for broadly-defined tech stocks. Chart II-10The Regulatory Risks Facing Big Tech Are Real October 2021 October 2021 Over the longer term, the risk is that extremely elevated profit margins are likely to increase the odds of regulatory action from Washington and invite competition. On the former point, our US Political Strategy service has highlighted that a bipartisan consensus in public opinion holds that Big Tech needs tougher regulation (Chart II-10), and this consensus grew substantially over the controversial 2020 political cycle.3 This regulatory pressure is currently best described as a “slow boil,” as not all surveys show strong majorities in favor of regulation, and Republicans and Democrats disagree on the aims of regulation. But the bottom line is that Big Tech is likely to remain in the hot seat after the various controversies of the pandemic and 2016-2020 elections, just as big banks faced tougher regulation in the wake of the subprime mortgage crisis. This underscores that a “slow boil” may turn into a faster one at some point over the secular horizon, which would very likely weigh on profit margins. Elevated tech sector profit margins makes regulatory action more likely because policymakers will perceive a stronger ability for these firms to weather a “regulatory shock.” On the latter point about competition, it is true that broadly-defined tech stocks follow a “platform” business model that will be difficult to supplant. These companies benefit from powerful network effects that have taken years to accrue, suggesting that they will not be rapidly replaced by competitors. Still, the experience of Microsoft in the years following its meteoric rise in the second half of the 1990s provides a cautionary tale for broadly-defined tech stocks today. In the late-1990s, it was difficult for investors to envision how Microsoft’s near-total product dominance of the PC ecosystem could ever be displaced, but it eventually lost market share due to the rise of mobile devices and their competing operating systems. In addition, Microsoft’s fundamental performance suffered even before the rise of the modern-day smartphone & mobile device market. Chart II-11 highlights the annualized components of Microsoft’s price return from 1999-2007 versus the late-1990s period, which underscores that changes in margins, changes in multiples, and stock price returns may be persistently negative in a scenario in which revenue growth slows (even if revenue growth itself remains positive). Chart II-11Microsoft Offers A Cautionary Tale For Dominant Business Models October 2021 October 2021 Some of the reversal of Microsoft’s fortunes during this period were self-inflicted, and the firm also suffered from an economy-wide slowdown in tech equipment spending as a result of the 2001 recession that persisted into the early years of the subsequent recovery. But the key point for investors is that company and sector dominance may wane, and the fact that broadly-defined tech sector profit margins are extremely elevated raises the risk that further increases may not materialize. Capital Structure And Index Composition As noted above, the beneficial impact from changes in capital structure and index composition for US equities has occurred due to the accretive impact of share buybacks on the EPS of US growth stocks, which has not been matched by growth stocks outside of the US. In our view, this accretive impact has occurred for two reasons. First, US growth stocks have taken advantage of historically low interest rates and leverage to shift their capital structure to be more debt-focused over the past 14 years. Second, this shift has been aided by the fact that US growth stocks have experienced stronger cash flows than their global peers, which have been used to service higher debt payments. However, Charts II-12 and II-13 suggest that this process may be in its late innings. Chart II-12 highlights that the US nonfinancial corporate sector debt service ratio (DSR) did indeed fall below that of the euro area following the global financial crisis, but that this reversed in 2016. At the onset of the pandemic, the US nonfinancial corporate sector DSR was rising sharply, and was approaching its early-2000 highs. During the pandemic, the corporate sector DSR has continued to rise in both regions, but this almost exclusively reflects a (temporary) decline in operating income, not a surge in corporate sector debt or a rise in interest rates. Not all of the pre-pandemic rise in the US corporate sector DSR was concentrated in broadly-defined tech stocks, but some of it likely was. The key point for investors is that the US nonfinancial corporate sector had a lower capacity to leverage itself relative to companies in the euro area at the onset of the pandemic, which implies a less accretive impact on relative earnings per share in the future. Chart II-13 reinforces this point by highlighting that the uptrend in relative cash flow for US growth stocks, versus global ex-US, appears to have ended in 2015. The uptrend has continued in per share terms, but this appears to be flattered by the impact of buybacks itself. Chart II-12Can The US Continue To Accrete EPS Through Stock Buybacks? Can The US Continue To Accrete EPS Through Stock Buybacks? Can The US Continue To Accrete EPS Through Stock Buybacks? Chart II-13US Growth Companies Are No Longer Generating More Cash Than Their Global Peers US Growth Companies Are No Longer Generating More Cash Than Their Global Peers US Growth Companies Are No Longer Generating More Cash Than Their Global Peers   Admittedly, we see no basis to conclude that the persistent earnings dilution that has occurred in emerging markets over the past 14 years will end, or even slow, over the secular horizon. This underscores that emerging markets will need to generate stronger revenue growth to prevent the dilution effect from acting as a continued drag on EM vs. US equity performance, and it is an open question as to whether this will occur. Thus, for now, we have more conviction in the view that capital structure and index composition changes may contribute less to US equity outperformance versus developed markets ex-US over the coming several years. Equity Multiples There are three arguments against the idea that US equity multiples will continue to expand relative to those of global ex-US stocks. First, Chart II-14 highlights a point that we have made in previous Bank Credit Analyst reports, which is that aggressive multiple expansion in the US has now rendered US stocks to be the most dependent on low long-maturity bond yields than at any point since the global financial crisis. Chart II-14US Stocks Are The Most Dependent On Low Bond Yields In Over A Decade US Stocks Are The Most Dependent On Low Bond Yields In Over A Decade US Stocks Are The Most Dependent On Low Bond Yields In Over A Decade Over the coming 6- to 12-months, we strongly doubt that US 10-year Treasury yields will rise outside of the range that would be consistent with the US equity risk premium from 2002 to 2007 (discussed in further detail in the next section). But the chart also shows that this range is now clearly below trend nominal GDP growth, suggesting that higher interest rates on a structural basis may cause outright multiple contraction for US stocks. This is particularly true for growth stocks, which have been responsible for a significant portion of US equity outperformance, given their comparatively long earnings duration. Chart II-15US Multiples Are Not Justified By Higher Return On Equity US Multiples Are Not Justified By Higher Return On Equity US Multiples Are Not Justified By Higher Return On Equity Second, it has been often argued by some investors that a premium is warranted for US stocks given their comparatively high return on equity, but Chart II-15 highlights that this is not the case. The chart shows the relative price-to-book ratio for the US versus global and developed markets ex-US compared with regression-based predicted values based on relative return on equity. The chart clearly highlights that the US price-to-book ratio is meaningfully higher than it should be relative to global stocks, especially when compared to other developed markets. Versus DM ex-US, the only comparable period that saw a relative P/B – relative ROE deviation of this magnitude occurred in the late-1980s, when US stocks were meaningfully less expensive than relative ROE would have suggested. This relationship completely normalized in the years that followed, which would imply a substantial relative multiple contraction for US stocks over the coming several years were the gap shown in Chart II-15 to close. Third, Chart II-16 presents the share of US stock market capitalization accounted for by the largest 10% of stocks by size. The chart highlights that the concentration of US market capitalization has risen to an extreme level that has only been reached in two other cases over the past century. Historically, prior stock market concentration has been associated with future increases in the equity risk premium, underscoring that broadly-defined US tech sector concentration bodes poorly for future returns. Chart II-16The US Stock Market Is Now Extremely Concentrated The US Stock Market Is Now Extremely Concentrated The US Stock Market Is Now Extremely Concentrated The Foreign Exchange Effect As a final point, Chart II-17 illustrates the degree to which US relative performance has meaningfully benefitted from a rise in the US dollar since 2008. The chart highlights that an equity market-weighted dollar index has risen 20% from its late-2007 level, which has boosted US common currency relative performance. The US dollar was arguably modestly undervalued just prior to the 2008/2009 global financial crisis, but Chart II-18 highlights that it is now meaningfully overvalued versus other major currencies. Over a multi-year horizon, this argues against further relative common currency gains for US stocks from the foreign exchange effect. Chart II-17The US Dollar Has Helped US Common Currency Performance... The US Dollar Has Helped US Common Currency Performance... The US Dollar Has Helped US Common Currency Performance... Chart II-18…And Is Now Expensive October 2021 October 2021   The Absolute Secular Return Outlook For US Stocks Over a secular horizon, the most common method for forecasting equity returns is to predict whether earnings are likely to grow faster or slower than nominal potential GDP growth, and whether equity multiples are likely to rise or fall. For the reasons described above, we have no plausible basis on which to forecast that US profit margins are inclined to rise further over time given how extended they have become. This suggests that a reasonable long-term earnings forecast should be closely linked to one’s forecast for revenue growth. Chart II-19S&P 500 Revenue Is Low Relative To US GDP, And May Rise Over The Next Decade S&P 500 Revenue Is Low Relative To US GDP, And May Rise Over The Next Decade S&P 500 Revenue Is Low Relative To US GDP, And May Rise Over The Next Decade Chart II-19 presents S&P 500 revenue as a percent of nominal GDP, and underscores a fact that we noted above: revenue growth for US equities has underperformed US GDP since the global financial crisis. This undoubtedly has been linked to the fallout from the crisis and other exogenous shocks like the massive decline in energy prices in 2014/2015, which are unlikely to be repeated. Over the next ten years, the US Congressional Budget Office is forecasting nominal potential growth of roughly 4%; allowing for a potential rise in US equity revenue to GDP suggests that investors should expect earnings growth on the order of 4-5% per year over the coming decade, if extremely elevated profit margins are sustained. Chart II-20Multiples Seem To Predict Future Returns Well… October 2021 October 2021 Unfortunately for equity investors, there are slim odds that US equity multiples will continue to rise or even stay at their current level. Equity valuation has been shown to have nearly zero ability to predict stock returns over a 6-12 month time horizon or even over the following 3-5 years, but 10-year regressions relating current valuations on future 10-year compound returns tend to be highly predictive (Chart II-20). Utilizing this approach, today’s 12-month forward P/E ratio would imply a 10-year future total return of just 2.9% (Chart II-21). That, in turn, would imply a annual drag of 3-4% from multiple contraction over the coming decade, given our 4-5% earnings growth forecast and a historically average dividend yield of roughly 2%. One problem with the method shown in Charts II-20 and II-21 is the fact that the relationship between today’s P/E ratio and 10-year future returns captures more than the impact of potentially mean-reverting multiples. It also includes any correlation between the starting point of valuation and subsequent earnings growth, which is likely to be spurious. This effect turns out to be important: we can see in Chart II-21 that the strong fit of the relationship is influenced by the fact that the global financial crisis occurred roughly 10-years after the equity market bubble of the late-1990s. Chart II-21...But That Depends Heavily On The Tech Bubble / GFC Relationship ...But That Depends Heavily On The Tech Bubble / GFC Relationship ...But That Depends Heavily On The Tech Bubble / GFC Relationship Astute investors may infer a legitimate causal link between these two events, via too-easy monetary policy. But from the perspective of forecasting, predicting future returns based on prevailing equity multiples confusingly mixes together three effects: the relative timing of business cycles, the impact of changes in interest rates, and the potential mean-reverting nature of the equity risk premium. In order to disentangle these effects for the purposes of forecasting, we present a long-history estimate of the US equity risk premium based on Robert Shiller’s Irrational Exuberance dataset (Chart II-22). We define the equity risk premium as earnings per share (as reported) as a percent of the S&P 500, minus the real long-maturity interest rate. We calculate the real rate by subtracting the BCA adaptive inflation expectations model – essentially an exponentially smoothed version of actual inflation – from the nominal long-term bond yield. Chart II-22The US ERP Seems Normal Based On A Very Long Term History... The US ERP Seems Normal Based On A Very Long Term History... The US ERP Seems Normal Based On A Very Long Term History... The chart highlights that this estimate of the ERP is currently exactly in line with its median value since 1872. Chart II-23 presents essentially the same conclusion, based on data since 1979, using the forward operating P/E ratio for the S&P 500 and the same definition for real bond yields. This implies that, if interest rates were at equilibrium levels, investors would have a reasonable basis to conclude that equity multiples would be unchanged over a secular investment horizon. However, as we have highlighted several times in previous reports, long-maturity government bond yields are likely well below equilibrium levels. Chart II-24 highlights that long-maturity US government bond yields have not been this low relative to trend growth since the late-1970s. Chart II-23...And Based On The Forward Earnings Yield Over The Past Four Decades ...And Based On The Forward Earnings Yield Over The Past Four Decades ...And Based On The Forward Earnings Yield Over The Past Four Decades Chart II-24Interest Rates Are Well Below Equilibrium, And Are Likely To Rise Over Time Interest Rates Are Well Below Equilibrium, And Are Likely To Rise Over Time Interest Rates Are Well Below Equilibrium, And Are Likely To Rise Over Time   We presented in an April report why a gap between interest rates and trend rates of growth was indeed justified for a few years following the global financial crisis, but that a decline in the equilibrium real rate of interest (“r-star”) only appeared to be permanent due to persistent, non-monetary policy shocks to aggregate demand that occurred over the course of the last economic cycle.4 In a scenario where the US output gap turns positive, inflation rises modestly above target, and where permanent damage to the labor market from the pandemic is relatively limited over the coming 6-18 months, it seems reasonable to conclude that the narrative of secular stagnation may ultimately be challenged and that investor expectations for the neutral rate may converge toward trend rates of economic growth. This would weigh on equity multiples, and thus lower equity total returns from the 6-7% implied by our earnings forecast and income return assumption. Chart II-25US Stocks Are Likely To Earn Annual Total Returns Between 1.8-4.7% Over The Next Decade October 2021 October 2021 Were real long-maturity bond yields to rise by 100-200bps over the coming decade, this would imply annualized total returns of between 1.8 - 4.7% from US stocks, assuming 4-5% annual revenue growth, flat profit margins, a constant 2% dividend yield, and a constant ERP (Chart II-25). While this would beat the returns offered by bonds, implying that investors should still be structurally overweight equities versus fixed-income assets, it would also fall meaningfully short of the average pension fund return objective (Chart II-26), as well as the absolute return goals of many investors. Chart II-26Future Returns From US Stocks Will Greatly Disappoint Investors Future Returns From US Stocks Will Greatly Disappoint Investors Future Returns From US Stocks Will Greatly Disappoint Investors Investment Conclusions Chart II-27Over The Coming Year, Favor Value And Global Ex-US Stocks Over The Coming Year, Favor Value And Global Ex-US Stocks Over The Coming Year, Favor Value And Global Ex-US Stocks Over the coming 6-12 months, our view that 10-year US Treasury yields are likely to rise supports an overweight stance toward value versus growth stocks. Chart II-27 highlights that the underperformance of growth argues for an underweight stance toward US stocks within a global equity portfolio, especially versus developed markets ex-US. Over a longer-term horizon, there are two key investment implications from our research. First, the risks that we have highlighted to the sources of US outperformance over the past 14 years suggests that investors should not bank on a continuation of this trend over the next decade. We have not made the case in this report for the outperformance of global ex-US stocks, merely that the continued outperformance of US stocks now rests on an unreliable foundation. This may suggest that US relative performance will be flat over the structural horizon, arguing for a neutral strategic allocation. But even the cessation of US outperformance would be a significant development, as it would end the most consequential trend in regional equity performance in the post-GFC era. Second, investors should expect meaningfully lower absolute returns from US stocks over the next decade than what they have earned since 2008/2009, barring a continued rise in the already stretched profit margins of broadly-defined tech stocks. A structurally overweight stance is still warranted toward equities versus fixed-income, but even a 100% equity allocation is unlikely to meet investor return expectations in the high single-digits. As a consequence, global investors should be prepared to accept more volatility in order to reduce the gap between expected and desired returns, and should look towards riskier investments and asset classes (such as real estate and alternative investments) as potential portfolio return enhancements. Jonathan LaBerge, CFA Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst III. Indicators And Reference Charts BCA’s equity indicators highlight that the “easy” money from expectations of an eventual end to the pandemic have already been made. Our technical, valuation, and sentiment indicators remain very extended, highlighting that investors should expect positive but modest returns from stocks over the coming 6-12 months. Our monetary indicator has retreated below the boom/bust line, although this mostly reflects the use of producer prices to deflate money growth. In nominal terms, the supply of money continues to grow. Still, the retreat in the indicator highlights that the monetary policy stance is likely to shift in a tighter direction over the coming year. Forward equity earnings are pricing in a substantial further rise in earnings per share, and there is no meaningful sign of waning forward earnings momentum as net revisions and positive earnings surprises remain near record highs. Bottom-up analyst earning expectations are now almost certainly too high, but stocks are likely to be supported by robust revenue growth over the coming year. Within a global equity portfolio, global ex-US equities have underperformed alongside cyclical sectors, banks, and value stocks more generally. On a 12-month time horizon, we would recommend that investors position for the underperformance of financial assets that are negatively correlated with long-maturity government bond yields. The US 10-Year Treasury yield has broken above its 200-day moving average, beginning its recovery after falling sharply since mid-March. After a decline initially caused by waning growth momentum and the impact of the Delta variant of SARS-COV-2, long-maturity bond yields appear to be responding to the interest rate guidance that the Fed has been providing. 10-Year Treasury Yields remain below the fair value implied by a late-2022 rate hike scenario, underscoring that 10-Year Yields are set to trend higher over the coming year. The extreme rise in some commodity prices over the past several months has eased. Lumber prices have almost fully normalized, whereas the pace of advance in industrial metals prices has eased. Global shipping costs have exploded due to supply-side constraints, but are likely to ease over the coming year if further COVID-related labor market shocks can be avoided. US and global LEIs remain very elevated but have started to roll over. Our global LEI diffusion index has declined very significantly, but this likely reflects the outsized impact of a few emerging market countries (whose vaccination progress is still lagging). Still-strong leading and coincident indicators underscore that the global demand for goods is robust, and that output is below pre-pandemic levels in most economies because of very weak services spending. The latter will recover significantly at some point over the coming year, as social distancing and other pandemic control measures disappear. 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-4US Stock Market Breadth US Stock Market Breadth US Stock Market Breadth 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   Jonathan LaBerge, CFA Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst Footnotes 1  Please see The Bank Credit Analyst "The Return To Maximum Employment: It May Be Faster Than You Think," dated August 26, 2021, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 2  Please see China Investment Strategy "A Quick Take On Embattled Evergrande," dated September 21, 2021, and China Investment Strategy "The Evergrande Saga Continues," dated September 29, 2021, available at cis.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see US Political Strategy "Forget Biden's Budget," dated June 2, 2021, available at usps.bcaresearch.com 4     Please see The Bank Credit Analyst “R-star, And The Structural Risk To Stocks,” dated March 31, 2021, available at bca.bcaresearch.com

Highlights Monetary Policy: Last week’s numerous central bank meetings across the world confirmed that the overall direction for global monetary policy is shifting in a more hawkish direction. The main reason: growing fears that elevated inflation will persist for much longer than expected, even with global growth having lost some momentum. Country Allocation: The relative degrees of central banker hawkishness support our current government bond country allocation strategy. Stay underweight the US, UK, Canada, New Zealand and Norway where markets are discounting a path for future policy rates over the next two years that is too flat. Remain overweight countries where there is less need for a more aggressive tightening response: the euro area (both the core and periphery), Australia, Sweden and Japan. Still The Only Game In Town Last week was a busy one for global bond markets, with no fewer than 14 central banks within both the developed markets (DM) and emerging markets (EM) holding policy meetings. The results were eventful: Within EM, Brazil and Hungary lifted policy rates. Norway followed suit to become the first G-10 central bank to hike during the COVID era. The Fed teed up a formal announcement on tapering asset purchases at the next FOMC meeting in November. The Bank of England (BoE) gave strong hints that rate hikes could come sooner than expected, perhaps even before year-end. Chart of the WeekMonetary Policy Backdrop Turning More Bond-Bearish Monetary Policy Backdrop Turning More Bond-Bearish Monetary Policy Backdrop Turning More Bond-Bearish Global bond yields in the developed markets took notice of the change in central bank guidance, especially from the Fed and BoE. The benchmark 10-year US Treasury yield rose from a pre-FOMC low of 1.30% to an intraday high of 1.57% yesterday – a level last seen late June. Longer-dated yields in the UK also rose significantly, with the 30-year Gilt yield rising from a pre-BoE meeting low of 1.11% to an intraday high of 1.40% yesterday – also the highest level since June. The pull on yields extended to other countries, as well, with 10-year yields in Germany, Canada and Australia climbing to three-month highs. The overall message from all of those policy meetings was one of an incremental shift toward less accommodative policies, even as the pace of global economic growth has slowed in recent months. Policymakers are growing more concerned that higher inflation could linger for longer (Chart of the Week). At the same time, loose policy settings have fueled a boom in asset markets that supports growth through easy financial conditions, but also raises future stability risks that worry the central banks. The number of countries seeing actual rate hikes is growing. Our Global Monetary Policy Tightening Indicator shows that just over one-quarter of G-10 and EM central banks have lifted rates over the past three months (Chart 2). All but one (Norway) are in EM, where policymakers have had to act more mechanistically in response to high inflation, even with softening economic growth momentum. While the slower pace of growth is more visible in EM relative to DM, when looking at cyclical indicators like manufacturing PMIs, inflation rates are simply too high around the world for inflation-targeting central banks to ignore (Chart 3). Chart 2Our Global Monetary Policy Indicator Shows A More Hawkish Turn Our Global Monetary Policy Indicator Shows A More Hawkish Turn Our Global Monetary Policy Indicator Shows A More Hawkish Turn Chart 3Global CBs Growing More Worried About Inflation Risks Global CBs Growing More Worried About Inflation Risks Global CBs Growing More Worried About Inflation Risks Within the major DM countries, there has been a notable shift in interest rate expectations in a more hawkish direction. Interest rate markets are, for the most part, still underestimating the potential for tighter monetary policies over the next couple of years. This is the main reason why we continue to recommend an overall below-benchmark strategic stance on global duration exposure. However, the relative expected pace of rate hikes also informs our views on country allocation. In Table 1, we show expectations for the timing of the next rate hike, as well as the cumulative amount of rate increases to the end of 2024, that are currently discounted in DM overnight index swap (OIS) curves. We present the latest level for both, as well as the reading from earlier this month to see how expectations have changed. Table 1Markets Still Pricing Very Modest Tightening Cycles Marking-To-Market Our Bond Calls After "Central Bank Week" Marking-To-Market Our Bond Calls After "Central Bank Week" The so-called “liftoff date” for the first rate hike has been most notably pulled forward in the UK from January 2023 to May 2022, while other countries have seen more modest shifts in the timing of the next rate increase. More importantly, the discounted pace of rate hikes to end-2024 for all countries shown in the table has increased since early September (including Norway, factoring in last week’s tightening move by the Norges Bank). In our view, the biggest driver of relative government bond market yield movements and returns over the next 6-12 months will be the relative adjustments in the expected pace of rate hikes. On that front, the biggest shift higher in cumulative tightening has occurred in countries where we are more pessimistic on government bond performance on a relative basis to the global benchmark: the US, Canada, the UK and Norway. The smaller increases in the pace of hikes have occurred in our more preferred markets – Australia, Sweden, the euro area, and Japan. Assessing Our Two Biggest Government Bond Underweights: The US & UK For last week’s Fed meeting, a new set of economic and interest rate projections from the FOMC members (“the dots”) were presented (Chart 4). Compared to the forecasts from the June meeting, US real GDP growth expectations for 2021 were revised down (5.9% vs 7.6%) but were boosted for 2022 (3.8% vs 3.3%) and 2023 (2.5% vs 2.4%). A new forecast for 2024 was added, coming in at 2.0%. Importantly, none of those growth forecasts was below the median FOMC estimate of the longer-run real GDP growth rate of 1.8% (top panel). In other words, the Fed is not anticipating below-trend growth anytime in the next three years. Chart 4The Fed’s Rate Projections Look Too Low Marking-To-Market Our Bond Calls After "Central Bank Week" Marking-To-Market Our Bond Calls After "Central Bank Week" The same conclusion goes for the US unemployment rate (second panel), with the median FOMC projection for 2022 (3.8%), 2023 (3.5%) and 2024 (3.5%) all below the median longer-run “full employment” estimate of 4.0%. The forecasts for US inflation (third panel) reflect that persistent low level of unemployment. Headline PCE inflation is expected to end 2021 at 4.2%, to be followed by a somewhat slower pace – but still above the 2% Fed inflation target – in 2022 (2.2%), 2023 (2.2%) and 2024 (2.1%). Yet despite these forecasts that show US growth and inflation exceeding its longer-run estimates for the next few years, the FOMC is projecting a relatively slow upward path for interest rates. The median dot now calls for the Fed to hike the funds rate once in 2022 and three more times in both 2023 and 2024. This would bring the funds rate to 1.75% by the end of 2024 – still 75bps below the Fed’s estimate of the longer-run “neutral” funds rate of 2.5% (bottom panel). That projected path for the funds rate is higher than the June dots, which only called for 75bps of cumulative hikes to the end of 2023. There is a wide divergence of opinions on the future path of rates within the FOMC, but the hawks appear to be winning the internal battle (Chart 5). There is now a 9-9 split of FOMC members who are calling for a rate hike in 2022, compared to a 7-11 split back in June, while the number of those projecting a funds rate above 1% in 2023 rose from 5 to 9. Chart 5A Wide Dispersion Of FOMC Interest Rate Views For 2023/24 A Wide Dispersion Of FOMC Interest Rate Views For 2023/24 A Wide Dispersion Of FOMC Interest Rate Views For 2023/24 One area where there does appear to be a consensus is on the timing and pace of tapering. Fed Chair Powell noted at his post-FOMC press conference that an announcement on the reduction of Fed asset purchases could come as soon as the next FOMC meeting on November 6. Powell also signaled that there was general agreement on the FOMC that the taper should end by mid-2022, barring any economic setbacks. That would likely open the door to a rate hike in the latter half of next year, given the Fed’s longstanding view that lifting the funds rate should only occur after tapering is complete, to avoid sending conflicting signals about the Fed’s policy bias. It is clear that the Fed’s policy guidance has shifted incrementally in a more hawkish direction, and confirms our long-held expectation that tapering would be announced by year-end, with rate hikes to begin in late 2022. This dovetails with our recommended investment positioning in the US Treasury market for the next 12-18 months. Maintain a below-benchmark US duration exposure, with a curve-flattening bias, while staying underweight US Treasuries in global (USD-hedged) fixed income portfolios (Chart 6). Our other high-conviction underweight government bond call is in the UK. The BoE’s recent messaging has turned more hawkish in a very short period of time, justifying our decision to downgrade our recommended UK Gilt exposure to underweight last month.1 The BoE Monetary Policy Committee had already sharply upgraded its inflation forecast for the end of 2021 to just above 4% at the last policy meeting in August. That was categorized as just a temporary surge due to rising energy prices and goods prices elevated by shorter-term global supply chain bottlenecks. At last week’s meeting, however, the MPC noted that +4% UK inflation could persist into Q2 2022 because of the current surge in wholesale natural gas prices that has driven many UK gas suppliers out of business (Chart 7). Chart 6Our Recommended Strategy For US Treasuries Our Recommended Strategy For US Treasuries Our Recommended Strategy For US Treasuries Chart 7BoE Growing More Worried About Inflation BoE Growing More Worried About Inflation BoE Growing More Worried About Inflation Chart 8Our Recommended Strategy For UK Gilts Our Recommended Strategy For UK Gilts Our Recommended Strategy For UK Gilts The official view of the BoE has been like that of other central banks, that much of the current high inflation is supply driven and, hence, will not last. Yet within the MPC, there is clearly some growing nervousness about high realized inflation becoming more embedded in longer-term inflation expectations, which are moving higher. BoE Governor Andrew Bailey has noted in recent speeches that there was a growing case for interest rate hikes because of stubbornly higher inflation. Two members of the MPC even voted last week to reduce the size of the BoE’s QE program that is already set to end in just three months. The markets have begun to heed the more hawkish signals from the BoE. Our 24-month UK discounter, measuring the amount of rate hikes priced into the UK OIS curve, has jumped 24bps since September 7 (Chart 8). Over that same period, UK Gilts have underperformed the Bloomberg Barclays Global Treasury index by 108bps (on a USD-hedged and duration-matched basis). We are sticking with our underweight recommendation on UK Gilts, as there are still too few rate hikes priced into the UK curve relative to the BoE’s guidance and upside inflation risks. What About The BoJ? Same Old, Same Old Chart 9Reasons Why JGBs Will Outperform Reasons Why JGBs Will Outperform Reasons Why JGBs Will Outperform Lost amid the hawkish din from the Fed and BoE meetings last week was the Bank of Japan (BoJ) meeting. The message from policymakers in Tokyo was predictably dovish, as Japan has not seen anything resembling the high inflation that has pushed central bankers elsewhere in a more hawkish direction. Japanese growth has also not seen the same magnitude of recovery from the pandemic shock as the other major developed markets, despite suffering comparable losses during the 2020 recession (Chart 9). One of the main reasons has been that Japan’s vaccine rollouts were much slower than those of other major countries. This forced an extension of emergency lockdowns and other economic restrictions that depressed domestic demand and delayed a return to normal economic activity (second panel). COVID outbreaks even cost Japan the one-time economic windfall from hosting an Olympics, with the Tokyo Games first delayed by a year and then taking place with no fans. Japan has also not suffered any of the higher inflation rates witnessed elsewhere over the past year, despite presumably facing many of the same inflationary forces from global supply chain disruption (third panel). Both headline and core CPI inflation are now in deflation. Governor Haruhiko Kuroda stated last week that it will take longer for Japan to see inflation return back to its 2% target than other developed countries, with the official BoJ forecast calling for that level to be reached by 2023 – a forecast that appears too optimistic. We continue to view Japanese government bonds (JGBs) as a relative safe haven during the period of rising global bond yields that we expect over the next 6-12 months. The BoJ is nowhere close to seeing the conditions necessary to begin exiting its Yield Curve Control and negative interest rate policies, both of which have crushed JGB volatility and kept longer-term bond yields hovering near 0%. We continue to recommend a moderate overweight stance on Japan in global government bond portfolios, particularly on a USD-hedged basis to make the yields more attractive. The Scandinavian Policy Divergence Last week, the Norges Bank raised its benchmark interest rate from 0% to 0.25% (Chart 10), stating that a normalizing economy requires a gradual normalization in monetary policy. The bank’s decision reflects idiosyncratic factors unique to the Norwegian economy, but also some of the same broader themes that are forcing other central banks in a more hawkish direction.   As a small economy driven heavily by oil exports, both the Norwegian krone and the price of oil weigh heavily on the policy decisions of the Norges Bank. On that front, the rise in energy prices since the crisis has outpaced the appreciation in the krone (Chart 10, top panel). With this relative weakness in the krone comes higher import price inflation and increased export competitiveness, both of which mean that the Norges Bank must pull forward its path of rate hikes to compensate. As opposed to other G10 central banks, the Norges Bank clearly believes a pre-emptive move on rates is necessary to nip future inflation risk in the bud. The bank expects that increased capacity utilization and wage growth will help push up underlying inflation to approximately 1.9% by the end of 2024, with the ongoing supply chain disruptions creating additional upside risk to that forecast. Like other G10 banks, however, the Norges Bank is concerned about increasing financial imbalances. The Norwegian house price-to-disposable income ratio is now at all-time highs and the Norges Bank expects it to remain elevated to the end of its forecast horizon (Chart 10, bottom panel). With the growth in house prices substantially outpacing income growth during the pandemic, housing market vulnerabilities have increased as households have taken on greater leverage to enter the market. In contrast to the Norges Bank, the other major Scandinavian central bank, Sweden’s Riksbank, has hewed more closely to the prevailing global monetary policy orthodoxy – avoiding pre-emptive policy tightening in order to boost inflation. The central bank chose to hold its repo rate at 0% at last week’s policy meeting, even with a Swedish economy that has recovered the 2020 pandemic losses and is projected to return to pre-COVID growth rates in 2022 (Chart 11). In its decision, the Riksbank mirrored rhetoric from the Fed and ECB, citing that high inflation was driven by rising energy prices and supply logjams, both factors which are expected to subside over the coming year (Chart 11, middle panel). Both headline and core versions of the bank’s favored CPI-F (CPI with Fixed Interest Rate) measure are projected by the Riksbank to remain below target in 2022, reaching 2% only in 2024. Chart 10The Norges Bank Isn't Waiting Around... The Norges Bank Isn't Waiting Around... The Norges Bank Isn't Waiting Around... Chart 11...But The Riksbank Will Remain Patient ...But The Riksbank Will Remain Patient ...But The Riksbank Will Remain Patient Chart 12The Central Bank Story Will Further Widen The Norway-Sweden Spread The Central Bank Story Will Further Widen The Norway-Sweden Spread The Central Bank Story Will Further Widen The Norway-Sweden Spread The Riksbank is less willing than the Norges Bank to respond to temporarily higher inflation because of the former’s growing reluctance to return to negative nominal interest rates in response to an economic shock. The Riksbank would likely be more comfortable in lifting nominal rates only when real rates were significantly lower than current levels, which requires higher inflation. In contrast to the neighboring Norges Bank, the Riksbank has an additional tool which it can use to express shifts in monetary policy—the size of its balance sheet. The bank forecasts that holdings of securities will remain unchanged in 2022 (Chart 11, bottom panel), implying that purchases, net of redemptions, will be drawn down roughly to zero. However, the bank does believe that the existing stock of purchases will continue to support financial conditions. Chart 12 shows the impact of the Norges Bank’s relatively hawkish reaction function. Despite relatively similar underlying growth and inflation profiles, sovereign debt from Norway has markedly underperformed Swedish counterparts, a dynamic that has been even more obvious since the pandemic. On the currency side, the NOK/SEK cross has recovered much of the losses from 2020, and will likely rally further as Norway-Sweden rate differentials will turn even more favorable for the NOK. Relative to the global benchmark on a currency-hedged and duration-matched basis, Norwegian government debt has underperformed much more than Sweden following the pandemic. We see these tends continuing over the next 6-12 months, with the Norges Bank likely to remain far more hawkish than the Riksbank. Our bias is to favor Swedish sovereign debt over Norwegian government bonds.   Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com Shakti Sharma Senior Analyst ShaktiS@bcaresearch.com Ray Park, CFA Research Analyst ray@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see BCA Research Global Fixed Income Strategy/European Investment Strategy Report, "The UK Leads The Way", dated August 11, 2021, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. Recommendations The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Marking-To-Market Our Bond Calls After "Central Bank Week" Marking-To-Market Our Bond Calls After "Central Bank Week" Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

Highlights Monetary Policy: It’s all but certain that tapering will begin next month and conclude by the middle of next year, but the FOMC is currently split right down the middle on whether it will be appropriate to lift rates in H2 2022. We present five factors to track to decide when the Fed will hike rates. Yield Curve: A bear-flattening of the nominal yield curve remains the most likely scenario for the next 6-12 months. Maintain a position short the 5-year bullet versus a duration-matched 2/10 barbell. TIPS: Investors should enter 2/10 steepeners on the inflation compensation curve and/or 2/10 flatteners on the real (TIPS) curve. The 2-year real yield, in particular, has a lot of upside during the next 6-12 months. EM Bonds: US bond investors should shift some allocation out of expensive US investment grade corporate bonds and into USD-denominated investment grade EM Sovereigns and Corporates where valuation is more compelling. Feature This past week was quite eventful for US bond investors. First, the Fed presented its September update on Wednesday, offering some hints about the timing and pace of asset purchase tapering alongside its updated economic and interest rate forecasts. Then, bonds sold off sharply on Thursday, Friday and Monday with the 10-year Treasury yield rising all the way to 1.49%. The first section of this week’s report looks at what we learned from last week’s FOMC meeting and opines on some monetary policy questions that remain unanswered. The second section updates our views on portfolio duration, the yield curve and TIPS in light of last week’s large market moves. Finally, we conclude with an update on the outlook for USD-denominated Emerging Market bonds. Powell Answers Some Small Questions, Avoids The Big One The Small Questions The start date for asset purchase tapering is the first small question that the Fed answered last week. A new sentence was added to the post-meeting statement saying that “a moderation in the pace of asset purchases may soon be warranted” and, in his press conference, Chair Powell clarified that the purpose of the new language is “to put notice out there that [tapering] could come as soon as the next meeting”. After this statement from the Fed, we expect asset purchase tapering to be announced at the next FOMC meeting on November 3rd. A delay until December is possible if September’s employment report is a massive disappointment, but the bar for delaying tapering beyond November appears high. Chair Powell also shed some light on a second small question related to the Fed’s balance sheet. Specifically, the pace of asset purchase tapering. In his press conference the Chair said that “participants generally view that, so long as the recovery remains on track, a gradual tapering process that concludes around the middle of next year is likely to be appropriate.” The information about the pace of tapering is slightly more interesting than the start date, if only because Fed policymakers have expressed a desire for net purchases to reach zero before the first interest rate increase. The fact that the Fed is planning to reach net zero purchases by the middle of next year suggests that it wants to leave the door open for a possible rate hike in the second half of 2022. This message was confirmed by the Fed’s updated interest rate projections (Chart 1). The projections revealed an even split (9 vs. 9) on the Committee between those that expect at least one 25 basis point rate increase before the end of 2022 and those that do not expect to lift rates next year. It’s also notable that, out of the 9 participants that don’t expect a rate hike in 2022, 8 anticipate lifting rates in 2023. Chart 1Rate Expectations Rate Expectations Rate Expectations Of course, as Chair Powell often points out, the Fed’s interest rate projections are contingent on the future state of the economy and will almost certainly be revised as the outlook evolves. What’s more important from a forecasting perspective is knowing how the Fed will react to different economic conditions. The Big Question With that in mind, we know that the Fed has promised not to lift rates until the labor market reaches “maximum employment”. However, as we noted in a recent report, the Fed hasn’t provided much detail on what “maximum employment” actually means.1 Powell’s comments last week didn’t add much clarity, but we can hunt for clues in the Summary of Economic Projections (SEP). In the SEP, we first notice that 13 FOMC participants expect the unemployment rate to be 3.8% - 3.9% or lower by the end of 2022 (Chart 2A). It is logical to assume that this group includes the 9 participants who expect to lift rates in 2022 and 4 additional ones. We also observe that 17 out of 18 participants anticipate an unemployment rate of 3.8% - 3.9% or lower by the end of 2023 (Chart 2B), exactly matching the number of participants who expect to lift rates by then. We can therefore infer that the Fed views an unemployment rate of roughly 3.8% as consistent with “maximum employment”. That is, FOMC participants tend to have rate hikes penciled into their forecasts once the unemployment rate is below 3.8%. Chart 2AFOMC 2022 Unemployment Rate Projection Distribution Damage Assessment Damage Assessment Chart 2BFOMC 2023 Unemployment Rate Projection Distribution Damage Assessment Damage Assessment The SEP’s inflation forecasts are less illuminating than the unemployment ones. All but 4 participants expect core PCE inflation to be above the Fed’s 2% target at the end of 2022 (Chart 3A) and no FOMC participant is forecasting below-2% core PCE at the end of 2023 (Chart 3B).2 The most we can take away from these forecasts is that 14 FOMC participants expect inflation to be above target in 2022, but five of those participants don’t see the labor market as being tight enough to lift rates by then. Chart 3AFOMC 2022 Core PCE Inflation Rate Projection Distribution Damage Assessment Damage Assessment Chart 3BFOMC 2023 Core PCE Inflation Rate Projection Distribution Damage Assessment Damage Assessment The revelation that FOMC participants view a 3.8% unemployment rate as consistent with “maximum employment” is illuminating, but it doesn’t tell the entire story. We don’t know, for example, what assumptions about labor force participation the different Fed officials are using. Our sense is that the following five criteria will ultimately determine when the Fed starts to lift interest rates: An unemployment rate in the neighborhood of 3.8%. Prime-age (25-54) labor force participation close to its pre-pandemic level (Chart 4, top panel). Accelerating wage growth (Chart 4, bottom 2 panels). Long-dated inflation expectations at or above target levels (Chart 5, top 2 panels). Non-transitory inflation at or above target levels (Chart 5, bottom panel). Bottom Line: The FOMC is currently split right down the middle on whether it will be appropriate to lift rates in 2022, but these forecasts aren’t set in stone and next year’s economic data – particularly the five factors listed above – will determine which group is correct. Chart 4Part Rate & Wage Growth Part Rate & Wage Growth Part Rate & Wage Growth Chart 5Inflation & Inflation Expectations Inflation & Inflation Expectations Inflation & Inflation Expectations Our own view is that the labor market will be sufficiently tight for the Fed to deliver its first rate hike in December 2022, and that rate hikes will proceed more quickly than what is currently priced in the yield curve. US bond investors should maintain below-benchmark portfolio duration. The Fallout In Bond Markets Bonds sold off sharply last Thursday and again yesterday morning. At the time of publication, the 30-year Treasury yield had risen from 1.81% on Wednesday to 2.02% (Chart 6). The 10-year Treasury yield had risen from 1.30% to 1.49% (Chart 6, panel 2). The 5-year yield is up to 0.98% from 0.85% on Wednesday (Chart 6, panel 3), and the 2-year yield is up to 0.28% from 0.24% (Chart 6, panel 4). The yield curve has also steepened since Wednesday, though the 2/10 slope remains well below its March peak (Chart 7). The trend during the past few months has been one of curve steepening out to the 5-year maturity point (Chart 7, panel 2) and flattening beyond that point (Chart 7, bottom 2 panels). Recent market action has led to some steepening beyond the 5-year maturity, but so far that steepening is minor compared to the flattening move we’ve witnessed since the spring. Chart 6Treasury Yield Trends Treasury Yield Trends Treasury Yield Trends Chart 7Treasury Curve Trends Treasury Curve Trends Treasury Curve Trends Nominal Curve We have been recommending a position short the 5-year bullet and long a duration-matched barbell consisting of the 2-year and 10-year notes, and we think this trade will continue to outperform. First, the 5-year/5-year forward Treasury yield is back above 2%, consistent with median estimates of the long-run neutral fed funds rate from the New York Fed’s Surveys of Market Participants (2%) and Primary Dealers (2.25%) (Chart 6, bottom panel). We think it will be difficult for the 5-year/5-year forward yield to rise much above these levels, which makes curve flattening more likely than steepening going forward.3 Second, we updated our work on yield curve scenarios to incorporate recent market action and some new information gleaned from last week’s SEP. In this analysis we estimate fair value levels for different parts of the yield curve as of the end of 2022 based on a scenario for the path of the fed funds rate. For example, if we assume that Fed liftoff occurs in December 2022 and rate hikes proceed at a pace of 75 bps per year (the median pace in the SEP) until the fed funds rate levels-off at 2.08% (consistent with a 2%-2.25% range for the long-run neutral fed funds rate), we calculate that the 2-year yield has 74 bps of upside between now and the end of 2022. This is slightly more than the 65 bps of upside in the 5-year yield and much more than the 37 bps of upside in the 10-year yield (Table 1). Comparing this expected change to what is already discounted in the forward curve, we see that both the 2-year and 10-year yields are expected to exceed their forwards by 6 bps. The 5-year yield is expected to exceed its forward by 16 bps. Table 1Treasury Curve Scenario Analysis Damage Assessment Damage Assessment To us, the message is clear. We want to remain short the 5-year note versus a duration-matched 2/10 barbell. Real & Inflation Curves Chart 8Real & Inflation Curves Real & Inflation Curves Real & Inflation Curves The increase in the 10-year nominal yield since last Wednesday was roughly evenly split between the real and inflation compensation components. Interestingly, inflation drove a greater proportion of the increase at the front-end of the curve, and the 2-year real yield actually fell. We maintain a neutral recommendation on TIPS versus nominal Treasuries, but this week we recommend taking advantage of recent market action by implementing some curve trades across the real and inflation curves. Specifically, we note that the cost of short-maturity inflation compensation remains well above the cost of long-maturity inflation compensation (Chart 8). Going forward, the cost of front-end inflation compensation will fall as inflation moderates from its current extremely high level. Meanwhile, the cost of long-maturity inflation compensation will remain sticky near the Fed’s target levels. This will lead to a steepening of the inflation curve (Chart 8, panel 2). The combination of a steeper inflation curve and a flatter nominal curve will lead to a much flatter real yield curve (Chart 8, bottom 2 panels). The 2-year real yield, in particular, has a lot of upside if inflation moderates, as we expect, and the 2-year nominal yield rises in line with the projections shown in Table 1. Bottom Line: Investors should remain short the 5-year bullet versus a duration-matched 2/10 barbell on the nominal Treasury curve. Investors should also enter 2/10 steepeners on the inflation compensation curve and/or 2/10 flatteners on the real (TIPS) curve. A Quick Update On Emerging Market Bonds The collapse of Chinese real estate behemoth Evergrande dominated headlines for most of the past week, though so far there has been little contagion into USD-denominated credit markets. Unsurprisingly, the spread on Chinese corporate and quasi-sovereign bonds has widened, and there has been some passthrough into both the High-Yield EM USD Corporate & Quasi-Sovereign Index and the High-Yield EM USD Sovereign Index (Chart 9). However, investment grade EM credit spreads have been relatively unaffected by the turmoil, as have US corporate bond spreads (both IG and HY) (Chart 9, bottom 2 panels). While the Evergrande drama – and weakening Chinese economic growth in general – could weigh on USD-denominated EM bond performance in the near-term, we see an excellent buying opportunity in investment grade EM bonds on a 6-12 month horizon. Investment grade EM Sovereigns outperformed credit rating and duration-matched US corporate bonds in the early months of the recovery but have lagged during the past few months (Chart 10). The same is true for the investment grade EM Corporate and Quasi-Sovereign index (Chart 10, panel 3). This is not to say that EM bond performance has been poor – the EM Sovereign index is still up 97 bps versus duration-matched Treasuries on the year – it has simply failed to keep pace with the stellar performance of US corporate bonds. Chart 9No Contagion No Contagion No Contagion Chart 10EM Bonds Versus US Corporates EM Bonds Versus US Corporates EM Bonds Versus US Corporates But that recent stellar performance of US investment grade corporate bonds has left spreads in the sector near historically tight levels. In last week’s report we ran some scenarios for US investment grade corporate bond returns during the next 12 months and concluded that excess returns versus Treasuries are probably capped at 85 bps.4 This makes the current spread advantage in EM Sovereigns (Chart 10, panel 2) and EM Corporates & Quasi-Sovereigns (Chart 10, bottom panel) very compelling. This will be especially true if Emerging Market growth accelerates in 2022 on the back of increased Chinese stimulus and a COVID vaccination campaign that is already picking up steam.5 Bottom Line: US bond investors should shift some allocation out of expensive US investment grade corporate bonds and into USD-denominated investment grade EM Sovereigns and Corporates where valuation is more compelling.   Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “2022 Will Be All About Inflation”, dated September 14, 2021. 2 Chart 3B shows that 4 participants expect core PCE inflation of 1.9%-2.0% in 2023, but the SEP also reveals that the minimum forecast for core PCE in 2023 is 2.0%. In other words, all 4 participants in that range are forecasting 2.0%, not 1.9%. 3 For more details on the relationship between our 5-year/5-year forward yield target and the yield curve please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “A Bump On The Road To Recovery”, dated July 27, 2021. 4  Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Expected Returns In Corporate Bonds”, dated September 21, 2021. 5 For a recent debate about the outlook for Emerging Market assets please see last Friday’s Webcast: https://www.bcaresearch.com/webcasts/detail/458 Recommended Portfolio Specification Other Recommendations Treasury Index Returns Spread Product Returns

Highlights Global Inflation: Most central banks, led by the Fed, have stuck to the narrative that surging inflation is a temporary phenomenon that will not require an aggressive monetary policy response. However, global supply chain disruptions are lasting for much longer than originally expected, while faster realized global inflation is feeding through into higher longer-term consumer inflation expectations, most notably in the US. This raises the risk that the 2021 inflation pickup will prove to be longer lasting, leading to higher global bond yields. Real Bond Yields: Global bond markets have made a collective bet on the “transitory” inflation narrative by driving yields on government bonds, and even the riskier parts of the corporate credit universe like US and European high-yield, below actual inflation. Markets will have to reprice those negative real bond yields higher if inflation proves to be more persistent than expected - particularly with central banks likely to respond with faster tapering and, in some cases, eventual rate hikes. Feature The month of September has often not been kind to financial markets and September 2021 is already providing many reasons for investors to be nervous. Slowing global growth momentum, uncertainty over the Delta variant, yet another US Debt Ceiling debate in D.C. and worries about excessive Chinese corporate leverage and contagion risks from the looming Evergrande default are all valid reasons for market participants to become more risk averse. On top of that, the monetary policy backdrop is threatening to become less overwhelmingly supportive for markets with the Fed set to begin tapering its asset purchases. Chart of the WeekInflation Expected To Slow But Remain Above Bond Yields Inflation Expected To Slow But Remain Above Bond Yields Inflation Expected To Slow But Remain Above Bond Yields One other source of angst that markets seem less concerned about is inflation. Markets have generally come around to the view of most major central banks, led by the Fed, that the surge in inflation seen this year has been all pandemic related - base effect comparisons to 2020 and temporary supply chain squeezes – and will not last into 2022. Yet we have seen very strong realized global inflation readings in the August data, beyond the point of maximum base effect comparisons versus a year ago, while supply squeezes and soaring shipping costs are showing no signs of slowing as we approach the fourth quarter. Global bond markets have made a collective bet that current high rates of inflation will prove to be temporary. Developed market bond yields are all trading well below actual inflation, as are riskier fixed income asset classes like US and European high-yield (Chart of the Week). While consensus expectations are calling for some rise in government bond yields in 2022, yields are expected to remain below inflation. Those persistent negative real yield expectations remain the biggest source of vulnerability for global bond markets. If inflation turns out to be “less transitory” than expected, nominal bond yields will need to move higher to reprice both real yields and the risk of more hawkish central bank responses to sustained high inflation. A Persistent Inflation Threat From Supply Chain Disruptions Chart 2A Broad-Based Surge In Global Inflation A Broad-Based Surge In Global Inflation A Broad-Based Surge In Global Inflation Our base-case view remains that global inflation will slow in 2022, but not by enough to prevent the major developed market central banks from tapering asset purchases. We expect the Fed to begin buying fewer bonds in January. Central banks that have already begun to slow the pace of quantitative easing (QE) like the Bank of Canada and Bank of England will likely continue to taper as fast, if not even faster, than the Fed. Even the ECB will likely not roll the full amount of the expiring Pandemic Emergency Purchase Program (PEPP) into the existing pre-COVID asset purchase programs, resulting in a mild form of tapering next year. Our view on global inflation has been predicated on an expected shift away from more externally-driven inflation towards more sustainable domestic price pressures stemming from tightening labor markets and the closing of pandemic output gaps (Chart 2). So the mix of inflation in most developed market countries will be more “core” and less “non-core” inflation driven by higher commodity prices and global supply chain disruptions. Yet there is little sign that those non-core inflation pressures are slowing, particular in price gauges most exposed to supply chains like producer price indices (PPI). US PPI inflation climbed to 15-year high of 8.3% on a year-over-year basis in August, while annual growth in the euro area PPI hit 12.1% in July – the fastest pace in the 30-year history of that data series (Chart 3). Surging PPI inflation reflects global price pressures, with import prices expanding at double-digit rates in both the US and Europe. Some of that more externally driven price pressure stems from commodity markets. While the prices for some notable commodities like lumber and iron ore have seen significant retracements from pandemic-era highs over the past several months, more economically sensitive commodities like aluminum and natural gas have all seen very strong price increases (Chart 4). Copper and oil prices are also holding firm, although both are off 2021 highs. Chart 3No Sign Of Slowing Global Inflation At The Producer Level No Sign Of Slowing Global Inflation At The Producer Level No Sign Of Slowing Global Inflation At The Producer Level The price momentum of overall commodity price indices like the CRB Raw Industrials has clearly rolled over, but has held up much better than would be expected given signs of slowing global growth. Chart 4Commodity Markets Still More Inflationary Than Disinflationary Commodity Markets Still More Inflationary Than Disinflationary Commodity Markets Still More Inflationary Than Disinflationary The current depressed level of the China credit impulse, and the flat year-over-year change of the global PMI, would typically be associated with flat commodity prices rather than the current 34% annual growth rate (Chart 5). A lack of sustained upward pressure on the US dollar is likely helping keep commodity prices, which are priced in dollars, more elevated than expected. Even more important, however, are the low inventories for many commodities relative to firm demand (which largely explains the current surge in aluminum and natural gas prices). This mirrors a broader global economic trend towards companies running lower inventories relative to sales, which has been exacerbated by the economic uncertainties of the COVID-19 pandemic. The US overall business inventory-to-sales ratio is now at the lowest level in the history of the series (Chart 6). Chart 5Commodity Price Inflation Peaking, But Not Slowing Much Commodity Price Inflation Peaking, But Not Slowing Much Commodity Price Inflation Peaking, But Not Slowing Much Chart 6Supply Squeezes Are Likely To Persist Supply Squeezes Are Likely To Persist Supply Squeezes Are Likely To Persist Before the pandemic, firms have gotten away with running very lean inventories because of globalized supply chains that allow firms to maintain the minimum amount of inventory to meet demand. Yet “just-in-time” inventory management only works when suppliers can deliver raw materials or finished goods in a timely fashion at low cost. The pandemic has blown up that model, making it much harder to deliver products and materials from critical countries like China. Global shipping costs have exploded higher and are showing no signs of slowing (bottom panel), while supplier delivery times remain well above historical averages according to measures like the US ISM index. Those higher costs are feeding through into overall inflation measures, particularly for the components most exposed to supply chain disruption. In Chart 7, we show a breakdown of the overall CPI inflation data for the US, euro area, UK and Canada. The groupings shown in the chart are based on an analysis done by the Bank of Canada back in August to measure pandemic impacts on Canadian inflation.1 The top panel of the chart shows the contribution to overall inflation for elements most exposed to supply constraints (like autos and durable goods). The second panel of the chart shows the contribution from sectors more exposed to increased demand as economies reopen from pandemic restrictions, like dining at restaurants and travel. The remaining panels of the chart show the contributions from energy prices and all other components not covered in the top three panels. Chart 7Fed's Transitory Narrative At Risk From Lingering Supply Chain Disruption Fed's Transitory Narrative At Risk From Lingering Supply Chain Disruption Fed's Transitory Narrative At Risk From Lingering Supply Chain Disruption Chart 8High US Inflation May Not Prove To Be So Transitory High US Inflation May Not Prove To Be So Transitory High US Inflation May Not Prove To Be So Transitory The conclusion from our chart is that supply disruptions have added more to US and Canadian inflation so far in 2021, while reopening demand has been more meaningful for UK and US inflation. The pickup in euro area inflation has been mostly an energy price story, although reopening demand has started to contribute to the rising trend of overall inflation. The implication from this analysis is that persistent supply chain disruptions could become a bigger issue for future inflation – and monetary policy decisions – in the US and Canada. The acceleration of US realized inflation in 2021 has already begun to broaden out from the most volatile components, according to measures like the Dallas Fed Trimmed Mean PCE (Chart 8). Faster inflation is also feeding through into higher US consumer inflation expectations according to surveys from the New York Fed and the University of Michigan. Those increases are not deemed to be temporary, with longer-term inflation expectations now moving higher. The New York Fed’s survey shows that inflation is expected to be 4% over the next three years, two full percentage points above the Fed’s target, which must be ringing some alarm bells on the FOMC. Chart 9European Consumers Are Waking Up To Higher Inflation European Consumers Are Waking Up To Higher Inflation European Consumers Are Waking Up To Higher Inflation Consumer inflation expectations are also starting to perk up outside the US. The YouGov/Citigroup survey shows an expectation of UK inflation over the next 5-10 years of 3.5%, while the Bank of England/Kantar survey is at 3% over the next five years (Chart 9, top panel). Both are above the Bank of England’s 2% inflation target. The European Commission confidence surveys have shown a sharp increase in the net share of respondents expecting higher inflation in the coming months (bottom panel), while the Bundesbank’s August consumer survey shows that Germans now expect 3.5% inflation over the next 12 months, up from 2% back in March. Bottom Line: Supply chain disruptions are lasting for much longer than originally expected, while faster realized global inflation is feeding through into higher longer-term consumer inflation expectations, most notably in the US. This raises the risk that the 2021 inflation pickup will last much longer than expected and force a bond-bearish repricing of future interest rate expectations. Negative Real Yields – The Achilles Heel For Bond Markets It is clear that supply chain disruptions are having a more lasting effect on global inflation than investors, and policymakers, expected earlier this year. Yet while both market-based and survey-based measures of inflation expectations are moving higher, interest rate markets are still pricing in a very dovish future path for policy rates of the major developed market central banks. For example, our 24-month discounters, which measure the change in interest rates over the next two years discounted in overnight index swap (OIS) curves, show that only 71bps, 61bps and 13bps of rate hikes are expected in the US, UK and euro area, respectively, by September 2023 (Chart 10). This continues a trend that we have highlighted in recent reports – the persistence of negative real interest rate expectations in the developed markets that is also keeping real bond yields in sub-0% territory. In the US, the OIS forward curve shows that the first Fed rate hike is expected in early 2023 with a very slow pace of rate increases over the following 2-3 years (Chart 11). The funds rate is expected to level off at 1.75% and stay there through 2030. At the same time, the CPI swap forward curve has inflation falling steadily over the next couple of years, but leveling off around 2.35% for the rest of the upcoming decade. Combining those two forward projections comes up with an implied path for the real fed funds rate that is persistently negative for the next ten years, “settling” at -0.6% by the end of the decade. Chart 10Bond Markets Exposed To More Hawkish Central Banks Bond Markets Exposed To More Hawkish Central Banks Bond Markets Exposed To More Hawkish Central Banks Chart 11US Real Yields Priced For Extended Fed Dovishness US Real Yields Priced For Extended Fed Dovishness US Real Yields Priced For Extended Fed Dovishness An even more deeply negative real rate path is discounted in the euro area forward curves. The ECB is expected to begin lifting rates in 2023, eventually moving out of negative (nominal) territory in 2026 before climbing to +0.5% by 2030 (Chart 12). Euro area CPI swaps are priced for a fall in inflation back below 2% over the next two years, eventually stabilizing at 1.75% over the latter half of the next decade. The real ECB policy rate is therefore expected to settle at -1.25% by 2030. In the UK, markets are discounting much of what has been seen in the years since the 2008 financial crisis – a Bank of England that does very little with interest rates. The central bank is expected to begin lifting rates in 2023, but only a handful of rate hikes are expected in the following years with Bank Rate only climbing to 1% and settling there for most of the upcoming decade. The UK CPI swap curve is discounting relatively high inflation over the next decade, settling at 3.6% in 2030. Thus, the market is discounting a long-run real Bank of England policy rate of -2.6%. This pricing of negative real policy rates so far into the future goes a long way to explain why longer-term real government bond yields have also been consistently negative in the US, Germany, UK and elsewhere in the developed markets. That can be seen in Charts 11, 12 and 13, where we have added the 10-year inflation-linked (real) bond yield for US TIPS, French OATis and UK index-linked Gilts. In all three cases, the 10-year real yield has “gravitated” towards the realized path of the real policy rate – the nominal rate minus headline CPI inflation – over the past two decades. Chart 12Negative Real Rates Forever In Europe? Negative Real Rates Forever In Europe? Negative Real Rates Forever In Europe? Chart 13BoE Not Expected To Do Much Over The Next Decade BoE Not Expected To Do Much Over The Next Decade BoE Not Expected To Do Much Over The Next Decade Chart 14Nominal Yields Will Move Higher If Negative Real Yields Persist Nominal Yields Will Move Higher If Negative Real Yields Persist Nominal Yields Will Move Higher If Negative Real Yields Persist Persistent low government bond yields, both in nominal and inflation-adjusted terms, have resulted in lower yields across the global fixed income markets as investors have been forced to take on more risk to find acceptable yields. This has resulted in a situation where nominal yields on riskier assets like US high-yield corporate bonds and Italian government debt are trading below prevailing headline inflation rates in the US and Europe (Chart 14). Bond investors would likely only be comfortable accepting such negative real yields on the riskier parts of the fixed income universe if a) inflation was expected to decline, and/or b) real yields on risk-free government bonds were expected to stay negative for longer as central banks stay dovish. In either case, the “bet” made by investors is that the inflation surge seen this year will indeed prove to be transitory, as central banks are forecasting. If that benign outlook proves to be incorrect and inflation stays resilient for longer – potentially because of the risk of lingering supply chain disruptions described earlier in this report - nominal bond yields will have to reprice higher to account for faster realized inflation (and, most likely, rising inflation expectations). This process will start in government bond markets, as global central banks will be forced to respond to stubbornly high inflation by turning more hawkish, first with faster tapering of QE bond buying and, later, with interest rate hikes. We continue to see persistent negative real yields as the biggest source of risk in developed economy bond markets over the next couple of years. Those yields discount a benign path for both inflation and future monetary policy that is looking increasingly less likely – especially with tightening labor markets and rising consumer inflation expectations already forcing central banks, led by the Fed, to move incrementally towards less accommodative policy settings. Bottom Line: Global bond markets have made a collective bet on the “transitory” inflation narrative by driving yields on government bonds, and even the riskier parts of the corporate credit universe like US and European high-yield, below actual inflation. Markets will have to reprice those negative real bond yields higher if inflation proves to be more persistent than expected - particularly with central banks likely to respond with faster tapering and, in some cases, eventual rate hikes. Stay below-benchmark on overall global duration exposure in fixed income portfolios.   Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 We have attempted to match the groupings shown in the Bank of Canada analysis as much as possible for the other countries, although there are some minor differences based on how each country’s consumer price index sub-indices are defined. Recommendations The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index What If Higher Inflation Is Not Transitory? What If Higher Inflation Is Not Transitory? Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

Highlights Evergrande is just a canary in the coalmine warning of the vulnerability of global real estate, which is now trading on its highest valuation ever. US house prices are now more extended versus rents than at the peak of the credit boom. US bond yields cannot move up very far before severely choking mortgage demand and hence the housing market (not to mention the stock market). We reiterate our structural recommendation to own the US 30-year T-bond, whose ultimate low in yield will come in the next deflationary shock. New structural recommendation: buy the China 30-year government bond Stay structurally long real estate. Even though valuations are high, they will get even higher when 30-year bond yields reach their ultimate low.  Fractal analysis: Uranium and Palm Oil. Feature Chart of the WeekThe $300 Trillion Global Real Estate Market Dwarfs The $90 Trillion Global Economy The $300 Trillion Global Real Estate Market Dwarfs The $90 Trillion Global Economy The $300 Trillion Global Real Estate Market Dwarfs The $90 Trillion Global Economy The recent woes of China’s systemically important real estate developer Evergrande confirm the concern we voiced in our October 29, 2020 Special Report: The Real Risk Is Real Estate. To be clear, we do not expect any Evergrande default to topple the global financial dominoes á la 2008. The Chinese government is able and almost certainly willing to prevent its own Lehman moment. A more realistic concern is that the rich valuation of real estate, both in China and globally, is vulnerable to the slightest of shocks, and Evergrande is just a canary in the coalmine. Even A 10 Percent Decline In Chinese House Prices Would Constitute A Major Shock According to global real estate specialist Savills, four of the top six world cities for real estate inflation in 2021 are in China. Through just the first half of the year, prime real estate prices have surged by 14 percent in Shanghai, 13 percent in Hangzhou, 9 percent in Shenzhen, and 8 percent in Guangzhou.1 This surge in Chinese property prices has lifted Chinese valuations to nosebleed levels. Today, prime real estate yields in China’s major cities are barely above 1 percent, just a third of the global average of 3 percent. From such nosebleed valuations, a fire sale of Evergrande’s inventory – as creditors tried to recover debts – could weigh down real estate prices. And the repercussions would extend beyond China’s property sector. Prime real estate yields in China’s major cities are barely above 1 percent, just a third of the global average of 3 percent. Without a social safety net and with limited places to park their money, Chinese savers have for years been encouraged to buy homes, in the widespread belief that property is the safest investment, whose price is only supposed to go up. With the bulk of people’s wealth in property acting as a perceived economic safety net, even a 10 percent decline in house prices would constitute a major shock to the household sector’s hopes and expectations of what property is (Chart I-2). Chart I-2Even A 10 Percent Decline In Chinese House Prices Would Constitute A Major Shock Even A 10 Percent Decline In Chinese House Prices Would Constitute A Major Shock Even A 10 Percent Decline In Chinese House Prices Would Constitute A Major Shock In turn, the ensuing ‘negative wealth effect’ would unleash a major headwind to household spending in the world’s second largest economy. Nosebleed Property Valuations Everywhere The precarious valuation of real estate is not just a Chinese concern. US house prices are now more extended versus rents than at the peak of the credit boom (Chart I-3). Chart I-3US House Prices Are Now More Extended Versus Rents Than At The Peak Of The Credit Boom US House Prices Are Now More Extended Versus Rents Than At The Peak Of The Credit Boom US House Prices Are Now More Extended Versus Rents Than At The Peak Of The Credit Boom Yet the phenomenon extends globally. Through the past ten years, world prime residential prices are up by 70 percent while rents are up by just 25 percent.2 As a mathematical identity, this means that the bulk of the increase in global real estate prices is due to valuation expansion (Chart I-4). Savills confirms this by pointing out that its global prime residential yield has fallen below 3 percent for the first time, and constitutes the lowest global rental yield since the firm began tracking the data in 2005. Chart I-4The Bulk Of The Increase In Global Real Estate Prices Is Due To Valuation Expansion The Bulk Of The Increase In Global Real Estate Prices Is Due To Valuation Expansion The Bulk Of The Increase In Global Real Estate Prices Is Due To Valuation Expansion The culprit for the richest ever valuation of global real estate is the structural collapse in global bond yields. And the culprit for the structural collapse in bond yields is persistently ultra-low policy interest rates combined with trillions of dollars of quantitative easing (Chart I-5). Chart I-5The Culprit For The Richest Ever Valuation Of Global Real Estate Is The Structural Collapse In Global Bond Yields The Culprit For The Richest Ever Valuation Of Global Real Estate Is The Structural Collapse In Global Bond Yields The Culprit For The Richest Ever Valuation Of Global Real Estate Is The Structural Collapse In Global Bond Yields But now, policy makers risk being hoisted by their own petard. The tight relationship between bond yields and real estate yields means that bond yields have very limited scope to rise before pulling the bottom out of the $300 trillion global real estate market. Given that this dwarfs the $90 trillion global economy, even a 10 percent correction amounting to $30 trillion would constitute a devastating negative wealth effect (Chart of the Week). Nosebleed Property Valuations Reinforce The Structural Case For 30-Year Bonds Some people counter that in an inflationary shock, property – as the ultimate real asset – ought to perform well even as bond yields rise. However, when valuations start off in nosebleed territory as now, the initial intense headwind from deflating valuations obliterates the tailwind from inflating incomes. An easy way to understand this intense headwind is through the concept of affordability. In the US the 15-year mortgage rate tracks the 10-year T-bond yield plus a usually consistent spread of around 1 percent. Hence, if the 10-year T-bond yield rose from 1.3 to 2 percent, the mortgage rate would rise from 2.3 to 3 percent, a proportionate increase of 30 percent. For the marginal buyer using an interest-only mortgage, this means that already stretched affordability versus income would worsen by 30 percent.3 Therefore, for the marginal buyer to keep his bid on the property the same, his income would have to inflate by 30 percent. But in an inflationary shock that pushed up the bond yield by 0.7 percent, it is implausible that wages would rise by 30 percent. Let’s say, at a push, that wages rose by 10 percent. To keep affordability and mortgage demand the same, property prices would have to plunge by 20 percent. In fact, earlier this year we saw the extreme vulnerability of US mortgage demand to higher bond yields. When the bond yield collapsed at the start of the pandemic in 2020, the mortgage rate declined more sedately. Hence, in the early stage of bond yield rebound, the US mortgage rate did not increase (Chart I-6). Chart I-6In 2020, The US Mortgage Rate Briefly Decoupled From Its Usual Relationship With The Bond Yield In 2020, The US Mortgage Rate Briefly Decoupled From Its Usual Relationship With The Bond Yield In 2020, The US Mortgage Rate Briefly Decoupled From Its Usual Relationship With The Bond Yield But by early 2021, the mortgage rate had normalised its relationship with the bond yield, so the snap-up in yields earlier this year lifted mortgage rates point for point. The worrying result was that US mortgage applications for house purchases collapsed by one third (Chart I-7). Chart I-7As Bond Yields Rose Earlier This Year, US Mortgage Applications Collapsed By One Third As Bond Yields Rose Earlier This Year, US Mortgage Applications Collapsed By One Third As Bond Yields Rose Earlier This Year, US Mortgage Applications Collapsed By One Third Fortunately, the negative feedback from markets and the economy meant that the snap-up in bond yields was brief. As yields have subsequently fallen back, mortgage demand has stabilised. Yet the crucial lesson is that US bond yields cannot move up very far before severely choking mortgage demand and hence the housing market (not to mention the stock market). To repeat, US house prices are more stretched versus rents than at the peak of the credit boom in 2007. With this precarious dynamic, we reiterate our structural recommendation to own the US 30-year T-bond, whose ultimate low in yield will come in the next deflationary shock. As bond yields rose earlier this year, US mortgage applications collapsed by one third. But today we are adding a new structural recommendation. Given that Chinese real estate valuations are even more precariously balanced than those in the US, and that purchases have been lending-fuelled, Chinese long-dated bonds are an excellent structural investment for those investors who can accept the capital control risks. As a structural holding, buy the China 30-year government bond (Chart I-8). Chart I-8The Ultimate Low In The US And China 30-Year Bond Yield Is Still To Come The Ultimate Low In The US And China 30-Year Bond Yield Is Still To Come The Ultimate Low In The US And China 30-Year Bond Yield Is Still To Come As for the highly-valued real estate asset-class, the paradox is that valuations will reach their ultimate high when 30-year bond yields reach their ultimate low. Until then, stay structurally long real estate. Uranium Is The Latest ‘Meme Theme’ The recent near-vertical ascent in uranium plays have left many investors scratching their heads and wondering: what’s going on? The answer, in large part, is that uranium plays have become the latest ‘meme theme’. On Reddit’s Wall Street Bets forum, the Canadian uranium miner Cameco has become the second most discussed stock, with one post likening the current opportunity to that in Gamestop, the original meme stock. Of course, as in all meme themes, there must be a loose narrative to latch on to. In this case, it is that as a zero carbon-emitting source of energy, uranium demand should rise while supply remains tight. Still, fractal analysis suggests that meme investors have moved prices too far too fast. Elsewhere, fractal analysis suggests that the spectacular rally in palm oil is also susceptible to a reversal. In this case, the rally has been due to supply bottlenecks in Indonesia and Malaysia, which we expect ultimately to ease (Chart I-9) Chart I-9The Spectacular Rally In Palm Oil Is Susceptible To Reversal The Spectacular Rally In Palm Oil Is Susceptible To Reversal The Spectacular Rally In Palm Oil Is Susceptible To Reversal Nevertheless, this week our favoured trade is to short the meme theme rally in uranium plays (Chart I-10). A good expression is to short the UK stock Yellow Cake, setting the profit target and symmetrical stop-loss at 13 percent. Chart I-10Short The Meme Theme Rally In Uranium Plays Short The Meme Theme Rally In Uranium Plays Short The Meme Theme Rally In Uranium Plays   Dhaval Joshi Chief Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 The other two cities in the top six are Los Angeles and Miami. 2 Based on Savills Prime Index: World Cities – Capital Values, and World Cities – Rents and Yields, June 2011 through June 2021. 3 This calculation assumes an interest only mortgage. The increase would be less for a capital repayment mortgage, but it would still be substantial. Fractal Trading System Fractal Trades 6-Month Recommendations Structural Recommendations Closed Fractal Trades Closed Trades Asset Performance Equity Market Performance   Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Euro Area Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Euro Area Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Euro Area Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Europe Ex Euro Area Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Europe Ex Euro Area Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Europe Ex Euro Area Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Asia Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Asia Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Asia Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Other Developed Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Other Developed Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Other Developed   Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-5Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations