Inflation/Deflation

Executive Summary Above Fair Value Above Fair Value Above Fair Value March’s CPI report will mark peak inflation for 2022. We recommend several ideas to profit from peak inflation. First, investors should keep portfolio duration close to benchmark. The bond market is fairly priced for the likely near-term pace of rate hikes, and long-dated forward yields are now above fair value. Second, investors should underweight TIPS versus nominal Treasuries. They should also favor inflation curve steepeners, real yield curve flatteners and outright short positions in 2-year TIPS. Third, investors should favor the 5-year nominal Treasury note relative to a duration-matched barbell consisting of the 2-year and 10-year notes. The Fed published its plan for shrinking its balance in the minutes from the last FOMC meeting. We estimate that the Fed will be able to shrink its balance sheet at its intended pace for at least the next two years before it is forced to stop. Bottom Line: Investors should position for peak inflation by keeping portfolio duration close to benchmark, by underweighting TIPS versus nominal Treasuries and by favoring the 5-year nominal Treasury note versus the 2-year and 10-year. Feature Chart 1Base Effects Kick In Next Month Base Effects Kick In Next Month Base Effects Kick In Next Month Last week’s March CPI report showed that 12-month core consumer price inflation came in at 6.44%, a level that will almost certainly mark the peak for the year. Several reasons justify our peak inflation call. First, base effects will send year-over-year core CPI sharply lower during the next three months (Chart 1). Monthly core CPI growth rates were 0.86%, 0.75% and 0.80% in April, May and June 2021 (Chart 1, bottom panel). These exceptionally high prints will roll out of the 12-month average during the next three months. Second, monthly core CPI grew 0.32% in March, a significant step down from the 0.5%-0.6% range that had been the norm since October. If monthly core CPI growth rates remain between 0.3% and 0.4% from now until the end of the year, then 12-month core CPI will fall to a range of 4.19% to 5.13%. We think that trends in the major components of core inflation make this outcome likely, and we could even see inflation falling to below that range. Chart 2 shows the contributions of shelter, goods and services (ex. shelter) to overall core CPI. Chart 2Monthly Core Inflation By Major Component Peak Inflation Peak Inflation Starting with core goods, we see that prices fell in March for the first time since February 2021. This represents an important inflection point. Core goods, particularly autos, have been the principal driver of current extremely high inflation rates (Chart 3), and these prices will continue to fall in the coming months as supply chain issues are resolved and as goods spending reverts to its pre-pandemic trend (Chart 3, bottom panel). Few dispute that core goods inflation will be weaker going forward. However, one critical question is whether the impact from falling goods prices will simply be offset by the rising cost of services. There was indeed some evidence for this in March. Core services (ex. shelter) prices rose 0.71% in March, up from 0.55% in February. While this is a strong print, it was not sufficient to prevent a drop in overall core inflation from 0.51% to 0.32%. What’s more, March’s core services print was heavily influenced by a surge in airfares that represents a rebound from steep declines seen near the end of last year. With airfares excluded, core services inflation would have only come in at 0.50% in March (Chart 4). Chart 3Goods Inflation Goods Inflation Goods Inflation Chart 4Services & Shelter Inflation Services & Shelter Inflation Services & Shelter Inflation Finally, we turn to the outlook for shelter inflation. Monthly shelter inflation has rebounded to above its pre-COVID levels, but its acceleration has abated during the past few months (Chart 4, bottom panel). Trends in home prices and some indicators of market rents suggest that shelter inflation has some further near-term upside.1 However, shelter inflation is also very sensitive to the economic cycle and the unemployment rate. With that in mind, rapid shelter inflation during the past 12 months is mostly explained by the fact that the unemployment rate fell by almost 2.5%! With the labor market already close to full employment, this sort of cyclical economic improvement will not be repeated during the next 12 months. All in all, we think monthly shelter inflation will average close to its current level during the next nine months. Bottom Line: March’s CPI report marked an inflection point for inflation. Year-over-year inflation will fall sharply during the next few months and will settle close to 4% by the end of the year. Profiting From Peak Inflation Portfolio Duration We have been recommending an “at benchmark” portfolio duration stance in US bond portfolios since mid-February, yet Treasury yields have continued their upward march during the past two months. Our sense is that bond yields now look somewhat too high, and some pullback is likely as inflation moves lower during the next few months. First, let’s consider that the bond market is priced for 262 bps of tightening during the next 12 months (Chart 5), the equivalent of more than ten 25 basis point rate hikes at the next eight FOMC meetings. Our view is that this pricing is close to fair. Chart 5Rate Expectations Rate Expectations Rate Expectations A 50 basis point rate hike at the May FOMC meeting is now a near certainty. The minutes from the last meeting revealed that “many” participants would have preferred a 50 bps increase in March, but uncertainty surrounding the war in Ukraine prevented that view from becoming consensus. The Treasury curve has also re-steepened significantly during the past few weeks, a development that will ease any concerns about near-term over-tightening. It’s also worth noting that the precedent for a 50 bps hike has now been set by the Reserve Bank of New Zealand and the Bank of Canada. Both central banks lifted their policy rates by 50 bps at their most recent meetings. Chart 6Above Fair Value Above Fair Value Above Fair Value Beyond May, we expect to see more 25 basis point rate hikes than 50 basis point hikes. Falling inflation will ease some of the Fed’s urgency and the Fed will continue to tighten policy with the goal of getting the fed funds rate close to estimates of the long-run neutral rate by the end of the year. A 25 basis point rate increase at every meeting after May would bring the fed funds rate to a range of 2.0% - 2.25% by the end of the year, just below the Fed’s median estimate of the long-run neutral rate (2.4%). One additional 50 bps hike would bring the funds rate right up to neutral, and such a path would still be consistent with what is currently priced in the curve. Meanwhile, bond pricing at the long end of the yield curve now looks a touch cheap. The 5-year/5-year forward Treasury yield – a market proxy for the long-run neutral rate – has moved up to 2.87%, significantly above survey estimates of the long-run neutral rate (Chart 6). Some pullback closer to survey levels is likely as inflation trends lower. Bottom Line: Keep portfolio duration close to benchmark. Front-end pricing looks fair and long-dated forward yields are somewhat too high. TIPS Perhaps the most obvious way to profit from peak inflation in 2022 is by shorting TIPS versus nominal Treasuries. The 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate has risen to 2.91%, well above the Fed’s target range of 2.3%-2.5% (Chart 7). The combination of Fed tightening and falling inflation will send this rate back toward the Fed’s target between now and the end of the year. However, the potential downside in the 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate is nothing compared to the 2-year rate. The 2-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate is 4.4% (Chart 7, panel 2) and this short-maturity rate is much more sensitive to the incoming inflation data. Finally, long-maturity TIPS breakeven inflation rates look elevated compared to survey estimates of long run inflation. The 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rate is currently 2.46%, above the range of estimates from the New York Fed’s Survey of Primary Dealers (Chart 7, bottom panel). In addition to underweight positions in TIPS versus nominal Treasuries, we continue to see the opportunity for an outright short position in 2-year TIPS. The 2-year TIPS yield has risen significantly since the end of last year, but this has been driven by a rising 2-year nominal yield (Chart 8). Going forward, the 2-year TIPS yield still has room to rise but it’s increase will be driven less by a rising nominal yield and more by a falling 2-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate. Chart 7Inflation Expectations Inflation Expectations Inflation Expectations Chart 8Sell 2-Year TIPS Sell 2-Year TIPS Sell 2-Year TIPS Consistent with our view that the cost of short-maturity inflation compensation has more downside than the cost of long-maturity inflation compensation, we view positions in 2-year/10-year inflation curve steepeners and 2-year/10-year TIPS curve flatteners as likely to profit during the next nine months (Chart 8, bottom panel). Bottom Line: Investors should underweight TIPS versus nominal Treasuries. They should also position in inflation curve steepeners and real yield curve flatteners and hold outright short positions in 2-year TIPS. Nominal Treasury Curve Chart 9Go Long 5yr Versus 2/10 Go Long 5yr Versus 2/10 Go Long 5yr Versus 2/10 One final idea is for investors to take a long position in the 5-year Treasury note versus a short position in a duration-matched barbell consisting of the 2-year and 10-year notes. This 5 over 2/10 trade currently offers an attractive 18 bps of yield pick-up, which is much higher than we normally see when the 2-year/10-year Treasury slope is this flat (Chart 9). In fact, a simple model of the 2/5/10 butterfly spread versus the 2-year/10-year slope shows the 5-year bullet to be very cheap relative to history (Chart 9, panel 2). This position will profit from continued 2-year/10-year curve steepening, or more likely, it will profit if the 2-year/10-year slope remains near its current level but the 2-year/5-year slope flattens as the Fed tightening cycle progresses (Chart 9, panel 3). Bottom Line: The recent steepening trend in the 2-year/10-year Treasury slope is likely exhausted, but the 5-year Treasury yield is too high relative to the current 2-year/10-year slope. Investors should go long the 5-year bullet versus a duration-matched 2-year/10-year barbell. The Fed’s Balance Sheet Plan The minutes from the March FOMC meeting revealed the Fed’s plan for shrinking its balance sheet. This plan will likely be put into action at either the May or June FOMC meeting. Specifically, the Fed intends to allow a maximum of $60 billion of Treasuries and $35 billion of MBS to passively run off its portfolio each month. The Fed also hinted that it may decide to start with lower caps and raise them up to the $60 billion and $35 billion targets over a period of three months. However, with the market already well positioned for Quantitative Tightening (QT), this phase-in period will probably not be deemed necessary. For its Treasury securities, the Fed intends to allow a maximum of $60 billion of coupon securities to run off its portfolio each month. If fewer than $60 billion of coupon securities are maturing that month, then the Fed will redeem T-bills to reach the $60 billion target. For MBS, the Fed’s $35 billion per month cap will probably not be binding. Given the slow pace of mortgage refinancings, which will only slow further as interest rates rise, it is unlikely that there will be many months with more than $35 billion of maturing MBS. In fact, some recent Fed research estimated that average MBS runoff will be closer to $25 billion per month going forward.2 Assuming the Fed’s plan starts in June and that MBS runoff averages $25 billion per month, we calculate that the Fed’s Treasury holdings and total assets will still be above pre-COVID levels in 2026 (Chart 10). More important than the Fed’s total assets, however, are the total reserves supplied to the banking system. It is the amount of reserves, after all, that determine whether the Fed can maintain adequate control over interest rates. If too few reserves are supplied, then the fed funds rate will threaten to break above the upper end of the Fed’s target band and the Fed will be forced to increase reserves by either re-starting purchases or engaging in repo transactions. This is exactly what happened when the Fed was forced to abandon its last QT effort in September 2019 (Chart 11). Chart 10Fed Asset Projections Fed Asset Projections Fed Asset Projections Chart 11Reserve Projections Reserve Projections Reserve Projections Making a few additional assumptions about the growth rate of currency-in-circulation and the size of the Treasury’s General Account, we are able to forecast the path for reserves going forward (Chart 11, top panel). We estimate that reserves will fall to roughly $2 trillion by the end of 2025, still slightly above the levels that caused problems in fall 2019. Ultimately, neither us nor the Fed knows exactly what level of reserves will be adequate to maintain control of interest rates going forward. The Fed will track usage of its new Standing Repo Facility as it shrinks its balance sheet. If usage of the repo facility increases, that will be the sign that the Fed has done enough QT and it is time to start slowly increasing the balance sheet once again. Given the recently published pace of runoff, we think this won’t be story for at least another two years.   Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 For more details please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “A Soft Landing Is Still Possible”, dated March 15, 2022. 2 https://www.newyorkfed.org/newsevents/speeches/2022/log220302 Recommended Portfolio Specification Peak Inflation Peak Inflation Other Recommendations Peak Inflation Peak Inflation Treasury Index Returns Spread Product Returns

Executive Summary We have been constructive-to-bullish on financial markets and the economy since policymakers marshaled the full force of their resources to protect the economy from the pandemic in the spring of 2020. The policymakers-versus-the-virus framework, and the view that policymakers would triumph, stood us in good stead across 2020 and 2021. Now, however, the Fed is shifting from countering COVID’s adverse economic effects to reinforcing them. The near-term silver lining is that monetary policy works with a lag, just like fiscal transfers that are saved for future use. Although the Fed is in the process of dialing back monetary stimulus, it will be a while before the fed funds rate reaches a level that restrains economic activity. In the meantime, the lagged effects of extraordinarily stimulative monetary and fiscal policy are likely to keep the economy growing above trend. Runaway inflation is the clear and present danger to our base-case view, and the war in Ukraine and a COVID outbreak in China could exacerbate inflationary pressures. We expect that equities and high-yield corporate bonds will outperform Treasuries and cash over the rest of the year, but inflation could spoil the party. It's Not A Spiral Yet It's Not A Spiral Yet It's Not A Spiral Yet Bottom Line: We remain constructive on the economy and financial markets over a six-to-twelve-month timeframe, though we have more conviction in our view at the near end of the range. We fully expect that the Fed will kill this expansion, but not before the middle of 2023 unless geopolitics and/or China’s COVID response accelerate the timetable. Feature Policymakers versus the virus, and our conviction that the Fed and Congress had the means and the will to do whatever it took to protect the economy from the ravages of COVID, proved to be the right macro template for making investment decisions in 2020 and 2021. Now a new battle has been joined – the Fed versus inflation – and we anticipate that it will end in a recession and an equity bear market. Before Russia invaded Ukraine, crimping global supplies of grains, base metals, crude oil, natural gas and coal, and China began experiencing its worst COVID outbreak, imperiling the nascent improvement in global supply chains, we were confident that the party wouldn’t break up before the second half of 2023 at the earliest. Although we remain constructive over a cyclical 3-to-12-month timeframe, we recognize that Eurasian developments may foreshorten the current expansion. The Global Unknowns The indirect effects of the war in Europe are readily apparent but it is difficult to predict if Russian actions will lead to more sanctions and/or extend hostilities to a wider theater, deepening the European slowdown, exerting additional upward pressure on commodity prices and casting a larger shadow over global activity. China’s confrontation with COVID is riddled with unknowns: How effective is its Sinopharm vaccine against the currently dominant strain of the virus, and how effective will it be against subsequent mutations? When will China abandon its zero-tolerance policy? How stringent will lockdowns be? Could they be localized, allowing most industrial activity to continue, or will they be more sweeping? Is there any chance that the country will license the proven mRNA vaccine technology or the Pfizer pills that neutralize the severity of the disease in those who have become infected? The Eurasian factors are important, albeit hard to forecast, and we will have to monitor them in real time to get the soonest possible jump on their impacts. Several threats closer to home keep surfacing in our ongoing conversations with investors, however, and the rest of this week’s report examines them in the context of our constructive base-case view. The Wage-Price Spiral Employment data have consistently pointed to an increasingly tight labor market. Job openings are at record levels and consumer and small business surveys indicate that it is unusually easy for job seekers to find a job, and unusually difficult for employers to attract workers. All else equal, the dearth of labor supply strengthens workers’ bargaining power and supports further wage growth acceleration. With the US labor market already so tight that it squeaks, many observers are convinced that a wage-price spiral is a foregone conclusion. They can cite various wage series as evidence that a spiral might already have begun. The Atlanta Fed Wage Tracker and comprehensive measure of the Employment Cost Index are growing by 6% and 4.4% year-on-year, respectively. As large as the nominal gains are, however, they’re lagging the increase in consumer prices. Despite the voracious demand for workers, wage growth adjusted for inflation has decelerated since the early days of the pandemic, when front-line workers received the equivalent of combat pay in bonuses and temporary hourly increases, and has mostly contracted since last spring (Chart 1). Chart 1They're Not Exactly Chasing Each Other Higher Now They're Not Exactly Chasing Each Other Higher Now They're Not Exactly Chasing Each Other Higher Now Amidst the disruptions of the pandemic, many workers left the labor force. Census Department surveys attributed many of the departures to a lack of childcare or fear of infection, while print media and the Internet were awash with stories of people who’d re-examined their lives and determined that their existing work was unfulfilling. Supported by generous fiscal transfers, the subjects of the stories regularly professed indifference about returning to work. The Great Resignation narrative gained currency as an explanation of declining labor force participation and suggested that the shortage of workers might endure until today’s high school and college students grew old enough to step in themselves. Recent evidence undermines the idea that the Great Resignation marked a structural change in labor force participation. It looks much more like the decline was cyclical, tied to the ups and downs of infection rates and fiscal appropriations. The prime-age (25-to-54-year-old) participation rate has recovered to within a percentage point of its pre-pandemic high and appears to have plenty of momentum (Chart 2). Workers in the 55-to-64 age group, fueling the Great Retirement unit of the Great Resignation battalion, have come back to the workforce in droves, with the 55-to-59 cohort setting a 10-year participation high (Chart 3, middle panel) and its 60-to-64 peer group nearing one (Chart 3, bottom panel). Workers over 65 may remain on the sidelines, but the early retirement thesis is faltering as well. Chart 2The Great Resignation Is Unwinding ... The Great Resignation Is Unwinding ... The Great Resignation Is Unwinding ... Chart 3... And So Is The Early Retirement Wave ... And So Is The Early Retirement Wave ... And So Is The Early Retirement Wave     Finally, a resumption of more normal immigration patterns may also boost labor supply. The Department of Homeland Security states that it granted 228,000 lawful permanent residencies in the first quarter of 2022, a 72% increase from one year ago.1 Widespread pandemic business closures led some immigrants to return home, while keeping others who may have emigrated from crossing the border. We have no illusions that immigration is on the cusp of a step-function increase, but any uptick will help at the margin, especially in low and unskilled jobs where supply is especially strained. The bottom line for investors is that the labor market is tight, but real declines in wages and further supply relief may keep a wage-price spiral from taking root. It is too soon to conclude that wages and prices will chase each other higher in a repeat of the bad old days of the seventies. Inflation And The US Consumer Chart 4An Unprecedented Divergence An Unprecedented Divergence An Unprecedented Divergence Consumer confidence has been flagging, especially in the University of Michigan survey, which is approaching all-time lows two standard deviations below its mean (Chart 4, top panel). Though the Conference Board’s measure has come off of its pandemic highs, it is considerably more optimistic and remains above its mean (Chart 4, bottom panel). The Michigan survey places much more emphasis on inflation, which may explain why the two series are sending such sharply divergent messages. The implication is that high and/or rising inflation dents households’ confidence as it erodes their purchasing power, posing a dual threat to consumption and overall economic growth. In our view, the lagged effects of emergency pandemic stimulus measures have fortified households with enough dry powder (via fiscal transfers) and provided a powerful enough financial conditions tailwind (via low interest rates and asset appreciation) to ensure that their spending will underpin potent 2022 growth. We estimate that US households in the aggregate have $2.2 trillion in excess pandemic savings2 (Table 1). They have begun to deploy those savings, fueling consumption above our estimate of no-pandemic baseline consumption by $30 billion in both January and February, and they have ample capacity to spend more. The excess savings derive nearly equally from increased income and foregone consumption and are predominantly held by households in the bottom seven deciles of the income distribution because they received nearly all of the fiscal transfers that drove income increases across 2020 and the first half of 2021. Table 1Tracking Excess Savings Risks To Our View Risks To Our View Those households have a higher marginal propensity to consume than the wealthiest households, but the wealthy have benefitted mightily from the surge in the value of equities and other financial instruments. Most of the stellar eight-quarter increase in real household net worth (Chart 5) has thus been reserved to households in the top deciles but the home-price-appreciation boom has helped the two-thirds of households across the income distribution who own their homes (Chart 6). The bottom line is that American consumers are flush and the entire cross-section of households has shared in the bounty. The gains are unprecedented, just like the fiscal and monetary stimulus packages that gave rise to them, and they provide a buffer of dry powder that can withstand some purchasing power erosion from the 5.2% annualized increase in consumer prices since February 2020. Chart 5Household Wealth Has Never Grown So Much, So Fast ... Household Wealth Has Never Grown So Much, So Fast ... Household Wealth Has Never Grown So Much, So Fast ... Chart 6... And Ordinary Joes Benefitted, Too ... And Ordinary Joes Benefitted, Too ... And Ordinary Joes Benefitted, Too Quantitative Tightening Clients ask about the potential adverse effects of quantitative tightening (QT) in nearly every meeting, regularly citing the way the stocks swooned at the end of 2018, about a year into the FOMC’s previous balance sheet reduction foray. QT was at the scene of the crime in December 2018 and may well have been an accessory to the near murder of the equity bull market, but we would argue that a too-high fed funds rate was the true culprit. Although most investors recollect that the Fed ceased QT when equities hit an air pocket, the balance sheet continued shrinking until the summer of 2019, when the Fed resumed cutting rates. After the stock swoon, the Fed only stopped hiking the fed funds rate (at 2.5%). Related Report  US Investment StrategyHawks, Houses And Harried Workers As we discussed last week, we don’t think changes in the size of the Fed’s balance sheet lead to much more than marginal changes in the level of long-term interest rates. They fall a little when a large, price-insensitive buyer enters the marketplace, and they rise a little when it exits. Ultimately, we think asset purchases (QE) have the most impact as a signaling device: they communicate to investors and economic actors that zero interest rate policy will remain in place as long as QE continues and for some period after it ends. QE is therefore a leading indicator, while QT is no more than a coincident indicator, playing a nearly undetectable supporting role. QT may contribute to volatility in the rates market, but investors shouldn’t let it take their focus from the Fed’s more powerful fed funds rate lever. The Vulnerable Housing Market We discussed our constructive take on the housing market and residential investment last week, noting that homes are still affordable and mortgage rates are still low from a historical perspective, while the single-family home market remains undersupplied. Talk of a housing bubble has died down, but we still hear occasional references to housing’s role in the financial crisis and concerns about the economy’s vulnerability to a rate-induced decline in home prices. In our view, those concerns can easily be put to rest. Investors should remember that the subprime bust was principally a story about prodigally extended credit; houses just happened to be the collateral against which the loans were made. Chart 7Flight To Quality Risks To Our View Risks To Our View Those loans, the worst of which exceeded underlying property values and were extended to buyers who were not even remotely creditworthy, were tantamount to a house of cards by 2007. From 2004 through 2007 (Chart 7), more than a fifth of all new home mortgage originations went to near-prime (credit score between 620 and 659) and subprime (less than 620) borrowers, while not much more than half were issued to super-prime (greater than 720). Since the pandemic, near-prime and subprime borrowers have been limited to an average 5% share of loans, while super-primes have accounted for 84% of them and the upper tier of super-primes, with credit scores of 760 and above, have accounted for 70%. The change in lending standards can also be seen from using the Fed’s household balance sheet data to calculate an aggregate loan-to-value ratio (LTV) for the entire stock of owner-occupied single-family homes. The aggregate LTV currently stands at 31%, in the middle of the tight range it observed in the seventies and eighties, before policymakers began actively encouraging banks to make mortgage loans available to an expanded pool of borrowers (Chart 8). LTV exploded higher from 2006 through 2009 as lending peaked in 2006-7 and home values subsequently fell faster than mortgage balances in the 2008-9 bust. The record LTV of the subprime crisis, ginned up by loans that matched or exceeded underlying home values, amplified the distress from a downturn in home prices; today’s ‘70s-style LTV will help to absorb them. Chart 8High Prices Weren't The Problem, High LTVs Were High Prices Weren't The Problem, High LTVs Were High Prices Weren't The Problem, High LTVs Were Portfolio Construction Takeaways Our Global Fixed Income and US Bond Strategy services have adjusted their recommended tactical positioning on Treasuries and spread product and we are adjusting our ETF portfolio to align with their view with a slight exception. Our in-house bond strategists recommend a modest tactical overweight in Treasuries and we are curing our Treasury underweight while maintaining benchmark duration. We are reducing our allocation to hybrid debt securities by halving our position in variable-rate preferreds (VRP) on the rationale that we have less need for credit exposure and duration protection over the immediate term. We are trimming our high yield overweight (JNK) to a mere 100 basis points and allocating our sales proceeds that aren’t going to Treasuries into mortgage-backed securities (MBB) to reduce that underweight by 140 basis points. We are parting company with our fixed income team by maintaining a small high yield overweight on the grounds that above-trend economic growth will hold down delinquencies and defaults until a recession is nearly at hand. The position is vulnerable to spread widening, but we expect the positive carry over duration-matched Treasuries will allow high yield to generate positive excess returns for the rest of the year. All of the changes are detailed in Table 2 and will be reflected on BCA’s website soon after today’s New York open. Doug Peta, CFA Chief US Investment Strategist dougp@bcaresearch.com Jennifer Lacombe Associate Editor JenniferL@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1     https://www.dhs.gov/immigration-statistics/special-reports/legal-immigr…, accessed April 12, 2022. Data obtained from Table 1A. 2     Table 1 calculates household excess savings by subtracting our estimate of baseline no-pandemic savings from actual savings as compiled by the Bureau of Economic Analysis in its monthly Personal Income report. Our baseline estimate assumes that personal income would have grown at an annualized 4% pace (2% real trend growth plus 2% inflation) and that the savings rate would have remained constant at its 8.3% February 2020 level.

Executive Summary Copper Will Remain Tight Even In Recession Copper Will Remain Tight Even In Recession Copper Will Remain Tight Even In Recession Supply-chain disruptions arising from Russia's invasion of Ukraine and demand hits from lockdowns in Shanghai are increasing the odds of a global recession, which can be seen in the WTO's latest economic forecast. Cyclical base-metals demand, particularly copper's, will slow in a recession. Still, markets will remain physically short and well bid, as incremental demand from the global renewable-energy and defense buildouts gathers strength. Global GDP growth will return to trend in 2024. Renewables and defense-related demand will continue to power ahead. Physical deficits will persist. Copper-supply growth increasingly is tied to local political risk – e.g., Chile's government sued miners over water-use disputes this month. Miners now are seeking assurances investment will be protected before committing to higher capex. The environmental stain arising from the global competition for metals will redound to the benefit oil and gas E+Ps involved in natural gas and hydrogen production. Bottom Line: A higher likelihood of a global recession will not diminish the drive to secure base metals critical to renewables and defense, particularly copper. This will keep metals bid and inventories strained. Stagflation likely ensues. We remain long commodity-index exposure expecting longer-term backwardation, and ETFs with exposures to the equity of miners. We continue to expect copper prices to average $5/lb on the COMEX this year, and $6/lb in 2023. Feature The World Trade Organization (WTO) released a sharply lower expectation for global growth this week – from a robust 5.7% rate in 2021 to 2.8% this year and 3.2% next year.1 This effectively translates into a global recession arriving this year. The WTO forecast also calls for global merchandise trade volume to grow 3.0% in 2022 and 3.4% in 2023, which also will dampen cyclical aluminium demand. Related Report  Commodity & Energy StrategyCopper Will Grind Higher The WTO's forecast is one of the first among major agencies to incorporate the impact of the Ukraine war and supply-chain disruptions arising from lockdowns in Shanghai. If the WTO's forecast is realized, cyclical copper and base metals demand will slow, but markets will remain physically short – i.e., in deficit – and well bid, in our view (Chart 1). Incremental demand from the global renewable-energy and defense buildouts in the Big 3 military-industrial blocs – the EU, US and China – will gather strength and keep metals markets tight over the course of this decade (Chart 2). Chart 1Copper Will Remain Tight Even In Recession Copper Will Remain Tight Even In Recession Copper Will Remain Tight Even In Recession Chart 2Copper Inventories Will Remain Tight Copper Demand Will Ignore Recession Copper Demand Will Ignore Recession Global refined copper demand is highly sensitive to GDP growth: While not exactly a 1-for-1 correspondence, a 1% increase in global GDP translates into a 0.76% increase in refined copper demand. A 1% increase in EM GDP translates into a 0.54% increase in refined copper demand in these economies (Chart 3). Interestingly, our modeling finds DM GDP growth has had little if any effect on global refined copper demand, most likely because, historically, DM economies were not building infrastructure to the extent EM economies, particularly China and the Asian Tigers, has been building over past decades. Chart 3World, EM GDP Drive Copper Demand World, EM GDP Drive Copper Demand World, EM GDP Drive Copper Demand Estimating New Incremental Copper Demand The DM base metals demand profile – particularly for copper – is set to change dramatically following the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Russian aggression prompted the EU to double-down on its renewable energy build-out, and to restore a credible military to protect its borders and the safety of its citizens. Both of these efforts will be funded by new bond-issuance programs from the EU. Practically, this means the EU will join the US and Chinese military-industrial complexes in the global competition for critical materials required for the renewable-energy and defense buildouts. The EU and China already were active on the renewables side; it is the US that will be joining that race on a larger scale following the passage of legislation by the Biden administration to fund and incentivize renewables.2 The US and China have been in an intense competition to build military capacities; now the EU joins that race. None of these military-industrial complexes will provide actual spending estimates for these buildouts, which means markets have to continually revise their supply-demand estimates for base metals as data becomes available. Copper markets provide the best data for such an exercise – it is the bellwether market for base metals, with useful data to estimate supply and demand. As a starting point for our estimation of copper balances going forward, we assume global cyclical demand will remain a function of global GDP; EM demand also can be modelled using EM GDP as an explanatory variable. We also assume that the 10 years ending in 2030 will require refined copper production to double in order to meet demand for renewable-energy and from the military-industrial complex globally. We make some reasonable first approximations of what this will look like initially, and then will iterate as actual data becomes available. Chart 1 shows the evolution we expect for global consumption as a function of cyclical and incremental demand. On the supply side, we use estimated annual production for refined copper production from the Australian government's Department of Industry, Science, Energy and Resources, and the World Bureau of Metals Statistics. We note there are a few noteworthy projects due to come on line – e.g., Canada (Kena Gold-Copper project; Blue Cove Copper Project); Congo (Kamoa-Kakula project ramping up); Peru (Quellaveco) and Chile (Pampa Norte). We again note that copper supply in critically important states accounting for huge shares of global production – e.g., Chile (30% of global mining output) and Peru (10%) – increasingly is vulnerable to local political risks.3 Chile, in particular, is facing environmental and political challenges on the mining side: It is in the 13th year of a drought, which forced the government to institute water rationing in the capital Santiago this week. In addition, last week the federal government sued major mining companies over water-rights disputes. Our price view will evolve as we get data on cyclical and incremental demand, and supply additions.We would note in this regard major miners already are sounding the alarm on how difficult it will be to lift supply over the next 10 years given the likely demand markets will be pricing in. For now, we are maintaining our expectation COMEX copper prices will average $5/lb this year and $6/lb next year, and that markets will remain backwardated with inventories remaining under pressure (Chart 2).4 Investment Implications Base metals markets – copper included – are facing a moment of reckoning in terms of being able to support the global push for renewable energy. While the odds of a global recession in the wake of Russia's invasion of Ukraine and China's lockdowns to address the COVID-19 outbreak in Shanghai are higher – which ordinarily would point to inventory accumulation, all else equal – we believe markets will remain tight. A recession will cause cyclical demand to soften, which, along with marginal new supply, will keep the COMEX forward curve relatively flat over the short term (3-9 months). However, over the next two years and beyond, supply will not be coming on fast enough to offset cyclical and incremental demand from the global renewables and defense buildouts (Chart 3). This will keep copper markets in physical-deficit conditions, and inventories will have to draw to meet demand (Chart 4). We expect this will translate into renewed backwardation in the COMEX forward curve. Chart 4Global Inventories Will Continue To Draw Copper Demand Will Ignore Recession Copper Demand Will Ignore Recession Chart 5Backwardation Will Re-emerge Backwardation Will Re-emerge Backwardation Will Re-emerge We remain bullish copper over the medium and longer terms, and remain long commodity index exposure expecting a return of backwardation in COMEX copper, and the XME ETF, which gives us exposure to base metals miners (Chart 5).   Robert P. Ryan Chief Commodity & Energy Strategist rryan@bcaresearch.com Ashwin Shyam Research Analyst Commodity & Energy Strategy ashwin.shyam@bcaresearch.com Paula Struk Research Associate Commodity & Energy Strategy paula.struk@bcaresearch.com   Commodity Round-Up Energy: Bullish US LNG exports hit record highs again in March, continuing a streak that began in December 2021. Exports averaged 11.9 Bcf/d for the month, on the back of new liquefaction capacity coming on line at the beginning of March. The US EIA is expecting LNG exports to average 12.2 Bcf/d this year, which would represent a 25% increase in shipments abroad. This US is accounting for the bulk of European LNG exports at present. European storage ended March at 26% of capacity, vs. a five-year average capacity of 34% at end-March. Separately, China became the largest importer of LNG in the world in 2021, displacing Japan for the top spot. According to the EIA, China’s LNG imports averaged 10.5 Bcf/d last year, which was close to 20% above 2020 levels. China's LNG imports exceeded Japan's , a 1.7 Bcf/d (19%) increase over its 2020 average, and 0.8 Bcf/d more than Japan’s imports. Base Metals: Bullish The Fraser Institute released a report assessing states’ and countries’ mining investment attractiveness for 2021. Investment attractiveness is measured by accounting for the mineral availability in the region and the effect of government policy on exploration investment. Western Australia topped the charts, while the copper-rich nations of Chile and Peru ranked 38th and 49th. This is telling of the policy adversity and uncertainty towards mining in these two countries and resonates with a BHP executive’s remarks a few weeks ago. Last week, the Chilean government sued mines operated by BHP, Albemarle, and Antofagasta over alleged environmental damage. One of the mines sued is BHP’s Escondida, the world’s largest copper mine. Precious Metals: Bullish According to Impala Platinum, palladium and rhodium prices are expected to rally for the next four-to-five years on tight market fundamentals. Low palladium supply coupled with an increase in the metal’s demand for catalytic converters, as pollution control regulations tighten, are causing the supply squeeze. On April 8 London’s Platinum and Palladium Market suspended Russian refiners from minting platinum and palladium for the London market, boosting the price of both metals (Charts 6 and 7). Russia supplies 10% and 40% of global mined platinum and palladium respectively. Depending on the period of the suspension, Europe may need to substitute Russian imports of the metals from South Africa. Chart 6 Copper Demand Will Ignore Recession Copper Demand Will Ignore Recession Chart 7 Copper Demand Will Ignore Recession Copper Demand Will Ignore Recession       Footnotes   1     Please see the WTO's "TRADE STATISTICS AND OUTLOOK: Russia-Ukraine conflict puts fragile global trade recovery at risk," released by the WTO on April 12, 2022. Revisions are subject to the evolution of the war in Ukraine following Russia's invasion in February 2022. 2     Worthwhile noting here the Biden Administration in the US invoked the Defense Production Act (DPA) to "to support the production and processing of minerals and materials used for large capacity batteries – such as lithium, nickel, cobalt, graphite, and manganese." In addition, the US Department of Defense will be tasked in implementing this authority. Lastly, the White House readout notes, "The President is also reviewing potential further uses of DPA – in addition to minerals and materials – to secure safer, cleaner, and more resilient energy for America." Practically, the US and China are treating access to critical materials as a defense issue. The EU likely joins this club in the very near future. 3    Please see our report from February 24, 2022 entitled Copper Will Grind Higher for additional discussion. It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 4    Please see, e.g., Bigger investment in mining needed to meet climate goals, says LGIM, published by ft.com on  April 5, 2022. The article summarizes a study done by Legal & General Investment and BHP, which notes that without a significant increase in mining activity – which is itself a hydrocarbon-intensive undertaking – there will not be sufficient supplies to achieve the IEA's 2050 net-zero goals.     Investment Views and Themes Strategic Recommendations Trades Closed in 2021 Image  

Executive Summary The structural downtrend in Chinese bond yields has a lot further to go, because it is helping to let the air out gently of stratospheric valuations in the real estate sector, and thereby preventing a hard landing for the Chinese economy. In the US, flagging mortgage and housing market activity is weighing on an already slowing economy. Buy US T-bonds. The long T-bond yield is close to a peak. Switch equity exposure into long-duration sectors such as healthcare and biotech. Go overweight US homebuilders versus US insurers. The peak in bond yields will also take pressure off US homebuilder shares whose recent collapse has been the mirror-image of the surge in the 30-year mortgage rate. Fractal trading watchlist: Basic resources; Switzerland versus Germany; and USD/EUR. The Collapse In US Homebuilder Shares Is The Mirror-Image Of The Surge In The Mortgage Rate The Collapse In US Homebuilder Shares Is The Mirror-Image Of The Surge In The Mortgage Rate The Collapse In US Homebuilder Shares Is The Mirror-Image Of The Surge In The Mortgage Rate Bottom Line: The global bond yield cannot rise much further before it destabilises the $350 trillion global real estate market and thereby destabilises the global economy. Feature Quietly and largely unnoticed, Chinese long-dated bond yields have been drifting lower (Chart I-1 and Chart I-2). At a time that surging bond yields elsewhere in the world have grabbed all the attention, the largely unnoticed contrarian move in Chinese bond yields through the past year is significant because of something else that has gone largely unnoticed: Chinese real estate has become by far the largest asset-class in the world, worth $100 trillion.1 Chart I-1The Contrarian Downdrift In The Chinese 30-Year Bond Yield The Contrarian Downdrift In The Chinese 30-Year Bond Yield The Contrarian Downdrift In The Chinese 30-Year Bond Yield Chart I-2The Contrarian Downdrift In The Chinese 10-Year Bond Yield The Contrarian Downdrift In The Chinese 10-Year Bond Yield The Contrarian Downdrift In The Chinese 10-Year Bond Yield Chinese Real Estate Is Trading On A Stratospheric Valuation The $100 trillion valuation of Chinese real estate market is greater than the $90 trillion global economy, is more than twice the size of the $45 trillion US real estate market and the $45 trillion US stock market, and dwarfs the $18 trillion Chinese economy. Suffice to say, Chinese real estate’s pre-eminence as the world’s largest asset-class is mostly due to its stratospheric valuation. Prime residential rental yields in Guangzhou, Shanghai, Hangzhou, Shenzhen and Beijing have collapsed to 1.5 percent, the lowest rental yields in the world and less than half the global average of 3 percent. Versus rents therefore, Chinese real estate is now twice as expensive as in the rest of the world (Chart I-3). Chart I-3Versus Rents, Chinese Real Estate Is The Most Expensive In The World $350 Trillion Of Global Real Estate Can’t Swallow Higher Bond Yields $350 Trillion Of Global Real Estate Can’t Swallow Higher Bond Yields To corroborate this point, while the US real asset market is worth around two times US annual GDP, the Chinese real estate market is worth more than five times China’s annual GDP! The structural downtrend in Chinese bond yields has a lot further to go. Crucially, the downward drift in Chinese bond yields is alleviating some of the pressure on the extremely highly valued Chinese real estate market – as it helps to let the air out gently of the stratospheric valuations, and thereby avoid a hard landing for the Chinese economy. Hence, the structural downtrend in Chinese bond yields has a lot further to go. The Surge In US Mortgage Rates Is Taking Its Toll Meanwhile, in the rest of the world, the surge in bond yields poses a major threat to the decade long housing boom. Versus rents, US house prices are the most expensive ever – more expensive even than during the early 2000s so-called ‘housing bubble’. For the first time since 2008, the US 30-year mortgage rate is higher than the prime residential rental yield. Until recently, the historically low rental yield on US real estate was justified by an extremely low bond yield. But the recent surge in the bond yield has changed all that. For the first time since 2008, the US 30-year mortgage rate is higher than the prime residential rental yield2 (Chart I-4). Chart I-4The US 30-Year Mortgage Rate Is Now Higher Than The Prime Residential Rental Yield The US 30-Year Mortgage Rate Is Now Higher Than The Prime Residential Rental Yield The US 30-Year Mortgage Rate Is Now Higher Than The Prime Residential Rental Yield The surge in US mortgage rates is taking its toll. Since the end of January, US mortgage applications for home purchase have fallen by almost a fifth (Chart I-5), and the lower demand for home purchase mortgages is starting to weigh on home construction (Chart I-6). Building permits for new private housing units were already falling in February, but a more up-to-date sign of the pain is the 35 percent collapse in US homebuilder shares. Chart I-5US Mortgage Applications For Home Purchase Have Fallen By Almost A Fifth US Mortgage Applications For Home Purchase Have Fallen By Almost A Fifth US Mortgage Applications For Home Purchase Have Fallen By Almost A Fifth Chart I-6The Lower Demand For Home Purchase Mortgages Is Starting To Weigh On Home Construction The Lower Demand For Home Purchase Mortgages Is Starting To Weigh On Home Construction The Lower Demand For Home Purchase Mortgages Is Starting To Weigh On Home Construction $350 Trillion Of Global Real Estate Can’t Swallow Higher Bond Yields Mortgage rates drive real estate rental yields because of the arbitrage between buying versus renting a similar home. Given a fixed annual budget for housing, I must choose between how much home I can buy – which depends on the mortgage rate, versus how much home I can rent – which depends on the rental yield. The arbitrage should make me indifferent between the two options. As a simple example of this arbitrage, let’s assume my annual budget for housing is $10k, and both the mortgage rate and rental yield are 4 percent. I will be indifferent between spending the $10k on interest on a $250k mortgage loan to buy the home, or spending the $10k to rent a similar $250k home. If the mortgage rate rises to 5 percent, then the maximum loan that my $10k of interest payment will afford me falls to $200k, reducing my maximum bid to buy the home. If I am the marginal bidder, then the home price will fall to $200k, so that the $10k rent on the similar valued home will also equate to a higher rental yield of 5 percent. In practice, the simple arbitrage described above is complicated by several factors: the maximum loan-to-value that a lender will offer on the home; the different transaction costs of buying versus renting; and the fact that people prefer to buy than to rent because buying a home is an investment which also provides a consumption service – shelter, whereas renting a home only provides the consumption service. Nevertheless, these complications do not diminish the overarching connection between mortgage rates and rental yields. The lion’s share of the real estate boom has come from a massive valuation uplift, which in turn has come from structurally lower bond yields. All of which brings us to the decade long global real estate boom that has doubled the value of global real estate market to an eye-watering $350 trillion, four times the size of the $90 trillion global economy. During this unprecedented boom, global rents have risen by 40 percent, tracking world nominal GDP, as they should. This means that the lion’s share of the real estate boom has come from a massive valuation uplift, which in turn has come from structurally lower bond yields (Chart I-7).    Chart I-7The Lion's Share Of The Global Real Estate Boom Has Come From A Massive Uplift In Valuations The Lion's Share Of The Global Real Estate Boom Has Come From A Massive Uplift In Valuations The Lion's Share Of The Global Real Estate Boom Has Come From A Massive Uplift In Valuations Since the global financial crisis, there has been an excellent empirical relationship between the global long-dated bond yield (US/China average) and the global rental yield. The important takeaway is that the global bond yield cannot rise much further before it destabilises the $350 trillion global real estate market and thereby destabilises the global economy (Chart I-8). Chart I-8The Global Bond Yield Cannot Rise Much Further Before It Destabilises The $350 Trillion Global Real Estate Market The Global Bond Yield Cannot Rise Much Further Before It Destabilises The $350 Trillion Global Real Estate Market The Global Bond Yield Cannot Rise Much Further Before It Destabilises The $350 Trillion Global Real Estate Market Some Investment Conclusions The good news is that the recent rise in the global bond yield has been limited by the downdrift in Chinese bond yields. Given the massive overvaluation of Chinese real estate, the structural downtrend in Chinese bond yields has a lot further to go. Meanwhile in the US, unless bond yields back down quickly, flagging mortgage and housing market activity will weigh on an already slowing economy. If US bond yields don’t back down quickly, the feedback from consequent slowdown in the economy will ultimately bring yields down anyway. As I explained last week in Fat-Tailed Inflation Signals A Peak In Bond Yields I do expect the long T-bond yield to back down relatively quickly. The sharp drop in US core inflation to just 0.3 percent month-on-month in March signals that inflation is peaking. Hence, medium to long term investors should be buying US T-bonds, and switching equity exposure into long-duration sectors such as healthcare and biotech. Finally, a peak in bond yields will also take pressure off US homebuilder shares whose recent collapse has been the mirror-image of the surge in the 30-year mortgage rate (Chart I-9). Hence, go overweight US homebuilders versus US insurers. Chart I-9The Collapse In US Homebuilder Shares Is The Mirror-Image Of The Surge In The Mortgage Rate The Collapse In US Homebuilder Shares Is The Mirror-Image Of The Surge In The Mortgage Rate The Collapse In US Homebuilder Shares Is The Mirror-Image Of The Surge In The Mortgage Rate Fractal Trading Watchlist Given that inflation hedging investment demand has driven at least part of the strong rally in basic resources, a peak in inflation and bond yields threatens to unwind the recent outperformance of basic resources shares. This is corroborated by the extremely fragile 130-day fractal structure (Chart I-10). Accordingly, the recommended trade is to short basic resources (GNR) versus the broad market, setting the profit target and symmetrical stop-loss at 11.5 percent. This week we are also adding to our watchlist: Switzerland versus Germany; and USD/EUR. The full list of 20 investments that are experiencing or approaching turning points is available on our website: cpt.bcaresearch.com  Chart I-10The Outperformance Of Basic Resources Is Vulnerable To Reversal The Outperformance Of Basic Resources Is Vulnerable To Reversal The Outperformance Of Basic Resources Is Vulnerable To Reversal Switzerland's Outperformance Vs. Germany Could End Switzerland's Outperformance Vs. Germany Could End Switzerland's Outperformance Vs. Germany Could End The Rally In USD/EUR Could End The Rally In USD/EUR Could End The Rally In USD/EUR Could End Chart 1The Strong Trend In The 18-Month-Out US Interest Rate Future Is Fragile The Strong Trend In The 18-Month-Out US Interest Rate Future Is Fragile The Strong Trend In The 18-Month-Out US Interest Rate Future Is Fragile Chart 2The Strong Trend In The 3 Year T-Bond Is Fragile The Strong Trend In The 3 Year T-Bond Is Fragile The Strong Trend In The 3 Year T-Bond Is Fragile Chart 3AUD/KRW Is Vulnerable To Reversal AUD/KRW Is Vulnerable To Reversal AUD/KRW Is Vulnerable To Reversal Chart 4Canada Versus Japan Is Vulnerable To Reversal Canada Versus Japan Is Vulnerable To Reversal Canada Versus Japan Is Vulnerable To Reversal Chart 5Canada's TSX-60's Outperformance Might Be Over Canada's TSX-60's Outperformance Might Be Over Canada's TSX-60's Outperformance Might Be Over Chart 6US Healthcare Providers Vs. Software At Risk of Reversal US Healthcare Providers Vs. Software At Risk of Reversal US Healthcare Providers Vs. Software At Risk of Reversal Chart 7Bitcoin's 65-Day Fractal Support Is Holding For Now Bitcoin's 65-Day Fractal Support Is Holding For Now Bitcoin's 65-Day Fractal Support Is Holding For Now Chart 8A Potential Switching Point From Tobacco Into Cannabis A Potential Switching Point From Tobacco Into Cannabis A Potential Switching Point From Tobacco Into Cannabis Chart 9Biotech Is A Major Buy Biotech Is A Major Buy Biotech Is A Major Buy Chart 10CAD/SEK Reversal Has Started CAD/SEK Reversal Has Started CAD/SEK Reversal Has Started Chart 11Financials Versus Industrials To Reverse Financials Versus Industrials To Reverse Financials Versus Industrials To Reverse Chart 12Norway's Outperformance Could End Norway's Outperformance Could End Norway's Outperformance Could End Chart 13Greece's Brief Outperformance To End Greece's Brief Outperformance To End Greece's Brief Outperformance To End Chart 14BRL/NZD At A Resistance Point BRL/NZD At A Resistance Point BRL/NZD At A Resistance Point Chart 15The Outperformance Of Resources Versus Healthcare Is Vulnerable To Reversal The Outperformance Of Resources Versus Healthcare Is Vulnerable To Reversal The Outperformance Of Resources Versus Healthcare Is Vulnerable To Reversal Chart 16The Outperformance Of Resources Versus Biotech Is Vulnerable To Reversal The Outperformance Of Resources Versus Biotech Is Vulnerable To Reversal The Outperformance Of Resources Versus Biotech Is Vulnerable To Reversal Chart 17Cotton's Outperformance Is Vulnerable To Reversal Cotton's Outperformance Is Vulnerable To Reversal Cotton's Outperformance Is Vulnerable To Reversal Chart 18US Homebuilders' Underperformance Is At A Potential Turning Point US Homebuilders' Underperformance Is At A Potential Turning Point US Homebuilders' Underperformance Is At A Potential Turning Point Chart 19Fractal Trading Watch List Fractal Trading Watch List Fractal Trading Watch List Chart 20Fractal Trading Watch List Fractal Trading Watch List Fractal Trading Watch List Dhaval Joshi Chief Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 We estimate the value of Chinese real estate at the end of 2021 to be $97 trillion, comprising residential $85 trillion, commercial $6 trillion, and agricultural $6 trillion. The source is: the Savills September 2021 report ‘The total value of global real estate’, which valued the global real estate market to the end of 2020; and the February 2022 report ‘Savills Prime Residential Index: World Cities’ which allowed us to update the valuations to the end of 2021. 2 The US prime residential rental yield is the simple average of the prime residential rental yields in New York, Miami, Los Angeles and San Francisco. Source: Savills. Fractal Trading System Fractal Trades $350 Trillion Of Global Real Estate Can’t Swallow Higher Bond Yields $350 Trillion Of Global Real Estate Can’t Swallow Higher Bond Yields $350 Trillion Of Global Real Estate Can’t Swallow Higher Bond Yields $350 Trillion Of Global Real Estate Can’t Swallow Higher Bond Yields 6-Month Recommendations Structural Recommendations Closed Fractal Trades 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-5Indicators 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 Indicators 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  

Executive Summary Fed officials maintained the drumbeat of hawkish commentary last week, reiterating their commitment to use the full might of their tools to bring inflation to heel. Stock and bond markets reacted adversely when dovish Governor Brainard joined the chorus, but no one should have been surprised. The FOMC is unanimous in its resolve to combat inflation before long-run expectations become unmoored. Markets may also have been discomfited by the coming shrinking of the Fed’s balance sheet. Though balance sheet runoff should exert some modest upward pressure on bond yields, we do not expect markets to dwell on it for long. Housing activity is squarely in the crosshairs of tighter monetary policy. Mortgage rates are extremely low relative to history, however, and homes remain quite affordable. We expect the housing market will weather the backup in rates. A plucky band of first-time organizers spurred workers in a New York City Amazon warehouse to vote to form a union. Labor advocates rejoiced, but it is premature to mark the event as a turning point for organized labor. What Goes Up Must Come Down What Goes Up Must Come Down What Goes Up Must Come Down Bottom Line: Last week’s Fed “news” was not particularly newsworthy. The FOMC will prioritize its inflation mandate over its full employment mandate until further notice, but the economy is well suited to withstand higher rates and even the housing market won’t buckle in the face of them. Feature Just when you thought it was safe to go back in the water, Fed speakers roiled rates markets again last week, pushing the 10-year Treasury yield over 2.6% for the first time in three years. Although Fed Governor Brainard was simply lining up behind every other governor and district president who’s been in range of a microphone over the last several weeks, her tough talk on inflation in a Tuesday morning speech jolted the 10-year yield 10 basis points (bps) higher, from 2.45% to 2.55%, and it tacked on another 10 bps overnight, hitting 2.65% as New York-based fixed income traders switched on their terminals Wednesday morning. Stocks tumbled after Brainard’s remarks, as well, with the S&P 500 shedding 1% in back-to-back sessions. Both markets got a respite after the March FOMC meeting minutes contained no further revelations but the 10-year yield marched to 2.70% on Friday. The market action demonstrated that investors remain on edge, despite the S&P 500’s 10% bounce. From our perspective, there was nothing too notable in Brainard’s comments. She may be seen as one of the more reliably dovish members of the FOMC, but Chair Powell has been at pains to stress that the entire committee is “determin[ed],” as the minutes put it, “to take the measures necessary to restore price stability.” With inflation readings persisting well above the FOMC’s target level, one participant after another has hammered home the message in speeches and interviews that the committee is unanimously resolved to wield its tools to bring it to heel. Related Report  US Investment StrategyIt All Depends On Whom You Ask Hiking the fed funds rate is the committee’s foremost weapon in the fight against inflation, and it has guided investors to discount a more rapid pace of 2022 increases and a modestly higher end point for this tightening cycle. We think the fixed income market is underestimating the terminal, or peak, rate but expect that it will require hard evidence before it reassesses its conviction that the economy cannot withstand a fed funds rate above 2.5%. It will take time to gather that evidence, as it won’t be available until the funds rate is at least 2%, so we expect that the 10-year yield will soon peak in tandem with inflation, but investors are especially uncertain and volatile financial markets reflect it. The FOMC can also adjust the size of its balance sheet to regulate the stimulus it’s providing to the economy. This tool pales in importance relative to the funds rate and despite Ben Bernanke’s smug remark at BCA’s 2015 conference that “quantitative easing works in practice but not in theory,” definitive evidence of its effects remains elusive. We therefore do not expect that curtailing reinvestment of principal repayments from the Fed’s stockpile of securities holdings will have a meaningful direct effect on the economy. Last week’s guidance that the runoff will be faster than it was in 2018-19 makes sense, given that the Fed’s securities holdings are twice as large (Chart 1), and that flush households and businesses are in markedly better shape than they were in the aftermath of the crisis. Chart 1The Funds Rate Matters More Than The Size Of The Balance Sheet The Funds Rate Matters More Than The Size Of The Balance Sheet The Funds Rate Matters More Than The Size Of The Balance Sheet There is no settled consensus on what the Fed’s balance sheet reduction will mean for the economy and markets. The US Investment Strategy view is that asset purchases are mainly a signaling device; they let economic participants and investors know that zero interest rate policy will remain in place until some period after they end. Balance sheet runoff doesn’t provide any similar information about the future; it simply indicates that the FOMC will be pursuing a supplemental stimulus reduction measure alongside its far more influential increases in short rates. Removing a price-insensitive buyer from the marketplace should put modest upward pressure on interest rates because they should have to rise, all else equal, to induce other buyers to step in to replace it. We expect, therefore, that the runoff will tighten financial conditions at the margin and exert a modest drag on economic activity. Some of that marginal tightening must have already occurred, as the Fed has taken pains to telegraph the balance sheet runoff, but it will likely contribute to volatility as markets try to settle on the proper outcome to discount. What About Housing? Interest rates affect the entire economy, but housing is the most rate-sensitive industry. Houses are the ultimate big-ticket items – they are the most expensive purchase most households will make and nearly all of them are financed via mortgages. Demand for single-family housing, away from the post-GFC phenomenon of investment buyers paying cash, is acutely sensitive to interest rates. The tide of available buyers ebbs and flows as monthly mortgage payments rise and fall. The housing market therefore finds itself in the crosshairs of the Fed’s tough talk about inflation and the homebuilder stocks have been demolished so far this year, losing a third of their value to lag every other subindustry group in the S&P 500 except closely related home furnishings (Chart 2). The stock rout contrasts with the upbeat housing market outlook we offered two months ago. Though we acknowledge that housing’s prospects have dimmed somewhat since mid-to-late February, we remain more optimistic than the consensus and are confident that a pronounced slowdown is not in store. Chart 2A Brutal Selloff ... A Brutal Selloff ... A Brutal Selloff ... The subsequent 75-bps surge in Freddie Mac’s national 30-year fixed-rate mortgage proxy (Chart 3, middle panel) has made homes less affordable for the median buyer (Chart 3, top panel). The drop in affordability has been modest, however, as it has been cushioned by a narrowing of the gap between median income and median home prices (Chart 3, bottom panel). Despite the last two months’ dip, homes remain quite affordable relative to history. Chart 3... Despite Solid Affordability ... Despite Solid Affordability ... Despite Solid Affordability ​​​​​ Since its predecessor index began in 1971, affordability had only ever surpassed the 140 level that has marked the bottom of the post-crisis range for a brief period in the early seventies (Chart 4, top panel). While mortgage rates are clearly moving in the wrong direction, they remain extremely low. One must squint to register their current advance in the context of the series’ entire history (Chart 4, third panel). Despite rising rates, median income gains have kept the mortgage servicing burden steady – and historically light – for several months (Chart 4, second panel). Though we expect that mortgage rates will stop vaulting upward and possibly even retrace some of their advance as inflation peaks, their recent move has been unfriendly to the housing market. Viewed from the perspective of the National Association of Realtors’ affordability index, however, their level remains quite favorable, and we do not worry that great swaths of would-be buyers are going to be shut out of the market. The respondents to the NAHB’s homebuilder sentiment survey agree. While the forward sales component swooned by ten points from January to February (Chart 5, bottom panel), current sales largely kept pace (Chart 5, second panel) and potential buyer traffic rose (Chart 5, third panel). The overall index slipped a bit since January but – stop us if you’ve heard this before – remains very strong relative to history (Chart 5, top panel). Chart 4The American Dream Is Not Out Of Reach The American Dream Is Not Out Of Reach The American Dream Is Not Out Of Reach ​​​​​​ Chart 5Homebuilders See Clear Skies Ahead ... Homebuilders See Clear Skies Ahead ... Homebuilders See Clear Skies Ahead ... ​​​​​ Though demand has surely waned, as rising rates sideline some marginal buyers, we expect it will remain robust, especially as the sizzling rental market offers little relief. Supplies of new and existing homes remain constrained. Restrictive zoning laws, sporadically soaring input costs, supply chain issues and difficulty finding skilled workers have hampered new home construction. Inventories of existing homes remain historically depleted (Chart 6, middle panel) and the share of homes that are vacant remains at all-time lows (Chart 6, bottom panel). Chart 6... As Their Product Is In Short Supply ... As Their Product Is In Short Supply ... As Their Product Is In Short Supply ​​​​​​ Chart 7Real Mortgage Rates Are Not A Problem Real Mortgage Rates Are Not A Problem Real Mortgage Rates Are Not A Problem ​​​​​​ The bottom line is that the housing picture has worsened somewhat but we still believe conditions are better than the gloomy consensus perception. Construction and sales activity will surprise to the upside over the rest of the year and residential investment will augment economic activity, not detract from it. Although the ITB homebuilder ETF has been a drag on performance since we added it to our cyclical ETF portfolio last month, we will continue to hold it as a pure play on the resilience of domestic demand. It is hard to see demand evaporating in the fashion implied by the homebuilders’ skid when real mortgage rates are at such extreme lows, no matter how they are adjusted for inflation (Chart 7). David Wins A Round Against Goliath Workers at a fulfillment center in Staten Island voted two weeks ago to become the first domestic Amazon employees to form a union. The vote, along with a concurrent re-vote at a Bessemer, Alabama warehouse that union organizers lost, was closely watched by labor relations experts. Amazon is the second-largest private employer in the US, with more than a million employees, and its size and reputedly trying working conditions make it an especially appealing target for unions. Labor advocates were quick to characterize the vote as a watershed moment, but it is far too early to call an inflection point. The outcome of the Amazon vote was front-page news because it was so improbable. Despite a cyclically favorable labor market, wage earners trying to unionize confront a gaping structural resource disparity with multinational companies. The fledgling Amazon Labor Union’s (ALU) victory in Staten Island was startling but it still faces an arduous climb to bring Amazon to the negotiating table and work out a contract agreement. Amazon will be able to introduce delays at every step of the process, eroding ALU’s meager resources while pursuing a strategy of running out the clock on the current labor-friendly administration. One of the key takeaways from our January-February 2020 Special Reports on US labor relations history was that employees are only to achieve gains when the government – courts, legislatures and the executive branch – does not favor employers. The series of reports were meant to alert investors to the possibility that Democratic wins in the 2020 election could send the pendulum swinging back in employees’ favor after 40 years of tilting toward employers, carrying important implications for corporate profit margins and inflation. Chart 8The Tortoise And The Hare The Tortoise And The Hare The Tortoise And The Hare The election did mark a change in the White House’s attitude toward labor, installing the self-declared “most pro-union president leading the most pro-union administration in American history.1” Since President Biden took office, the National Labor Relations Board has forcefully asserted itself in its role as the official referee of union elections to the point that Amazon has accused it of taking the unions’ side instead of serving as a neutral arbiter. The president himself would seem to have been taking sides last week when he took the rare step of calling out Amazon by name during remarks to a group of unionized workers. “The choice to join a union belongs to workers alone,” he said. “By the way, Amazon, here we come. Watch.” The White House press secretary quickly walked back the comments, placing them in the context of the president’s established support for unionization and collective bargaining. “What he was not doing is sending a message that he or the U.S. government would be directly involved in any of these efforts or take any direct action.2” Regardless of whether President Biden was attempting to send a message or had ventured off-topic as is his wont, it is unclear how much his administration can do to tilt the scales in workers’ favor. New Deal-era laws endowed workers with the right to organize and employers are not allowed to obstruct their efforts to do so. There are multiple gray areas in union election campaigns, however, and employers regularly deploy a wide range of actions that are not explicitly prohibited to keep unions out of their workplace. Most importantly, this administration may only be in charge until January 2025. It can use the NLRB, OSHA, the Department of Labor and the Department of Justice to try to advance workers’ cause for four years but labor has been on the back foot for four decades. It is likely to lose its legislative majorities in November’s midterms, the federal bench is populated by a majority of judges disposed to see things from employers’ point of view and many state legislatures are markedly anti-union. Without another term, the jury is out on the administration’s ability to effect durable change. The takeaway for investors is that a wage-price spiral has not yet taken hold and our bet is that it won’t. The tight labor market has endowed workers with more leverage than they’ve had in many cycles, but structurally the labor relations landscape bears more characteristics of the Reagan Era (1980-2020) than the New Deal Era (1933-1980). Real average hourly earnings have risen since the pandemic arrived in the US (Chart 8, top panel), but we find it telling that all of the real wage growth occurred in the first year of the pandemic. Across Year 2, nominal wages have failed to keep up with consumer price inflation (Chart 8, bottom panel), despite White House support in the midst of a labor market so tight that it squeaks.   Doug Peta, CFA Chief US Investment Strategist dougp@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1      Remarks by President Biden in Honor of Labor Unions | The White House Accessed April 7, 2022. 2     Biden Appears to Show Support for Amazon Workers Who Voted to Unionize - The New York Times (nytimes.com) Accessed April 7, 2022.

Executive Summary The Ukraine war reinforces our key view that commodity producers will use their geopolitical leverage this year. The market is growing complacent again about Russian risks. Iran is part of the same dynamic. If US-Iran talks fail, as we expect, the Middle East will destabilize and add another energy supply risk on top of the Russian risk. The Ukraine war also interacts with our other two key views for 2022: China’s reversion to autocracy and the US’s policy insularity. Both add policy uncertainty and weigh on risk sentiment. The war also reinforces our strategic themes for the 2020s: Great Power Rivalry, Hypo-Globalization, and Populism/Nationalism. Stagflation Cometh Stagflation Cometh Stagflation Cometh Trade Recommendation Inception Date Return Cyclically Long Global Defensives Versus Cyclicals 2022-01-20 10.8% Bottom Line: Tactically stay long global defensives and large caps. Cyclically stay long gold, US equities, aerospace/defense, and cyber security. Feature In our annual outlook, “The Gathering Storm,” we argued that the post-pandemic world economy would destabilize due to intensifying rivalry among the leading nations. We argued that China’s reversion to autocracy, US domestic divisions, and Russia’s commodity leverage would produce a toxic brew for global investors in 2022. By January 27 it was clear to us that Russia would invade Ukraine, so the storm was arriving sooner than we thought, and we doubled down on our defensive and risk-averse market positioning. We derived these three key views from new cyclical trends and the way they interact with our underlying strategic themes – Great Power Rivalry, Hypo-Globalization, and Populism/Nationalism (Table 1). These themes are mutually reinforcing, rooted in solid evidence over many years, and will not change easily. Table 1Three Geopolitical Strategic Themes Second Quarter Outlook 2022: When It Rains, It Pours Second Quarter Outlook 2022: When It Rains, It Pours Related Report  Geopolitical Strategy2022 Key Views: The Gathering Storm The Ukraine war reinforces them: Russia took military action to increase its security relative to the US and NATO; the West imposed sanctions that reduce globalization with Russia and potentially other states; Russian aggression stemmed from nationalism and caused a spike in global prices that will spur more nationalism and populism going forward. In this report we examine how these trends will develop in the second quarter and beyond. We see stagflation taking shape and recommend investors prepare for it by continuing to favor defensive sectors, commodities, and value plays. Checking Up On Our Russia View For 2022 Our third key view for 2022 – that oil producers like Russia and Iran possessed immense geopolitical leverage and would most likely use it – is clearly the dominant geopolitical trend of the year, as manifested in the Russian invasion of Ukraine.1 Russia first invaded Ukraine in 2014 and curtailed operations after commodity prices crashed. It launched a new and larger invasion in 2022 when a new commodity cycle began (Chart 1). Facing tactical setbacks, Russia has begun withdrawing forces from around the Ukrainian capital Kyiv. But it will redouble its efforts to conquer the eastern Donbas region and the southern coastline. The coast is the most strategic territory at stake (Map 1). Chart 1Russia's Commodity-Enabled Aggression Russia's Commodity-Enabled Aggression Russia's Commodity-Enabled Aggression Map 1Russian Invasion Of Ukraine, 2022 Second Quarter Outlook 2022: When It Rains, It Pours Second Quarter Outlook 2022: When It Rains, It Pours The most decisive limitation on Russia’s military effort would come from a collapse of commodity exports or prices, which has not happened yet. Europe continues to buy Russian oil and natural gas, although it is debating a ban on the $4.4 billion worth of coal that it imports. With high energy prices making up for a drop in export volumes, Russian armed forces can still attempt a summer and fall campaign (Chart 2). The aim would be to conquer remaining portions of Donetsk and Luhansk, the “land bridge” to Crimea, and potentially the stretch of land between the Dnieper river and eastern Moldova, where Russian troops are already stationed. Chart 2Russia’s War Financing Second Quarter Outlook 2022: When It Rains, It Pours Second Quarter Outlook 2022: When It Rains, It Pours Ukraine’s military neutrality is the core Russian objective. Ukraine is offering neutrality in exchange for security guarantees in the current ceasefire talks. Hence a durable ceasefire is possible if the details of neutrality are agreed – Ukraine forswears joining NATO and hosting foreign military infrastructure while accepting limitations on military exercises and defense systems. The security guarantees that Ukraine demands are mostly symbolic, as the western powers that would be credible guarantors are already unwilling to use military force against Russia (e.g. the US, UK, NATO members). However, Russia’s withdrawal from Kyiv will embolden the Ukrainians, so we do not expect a durable ceasefire in the second quarter. Global investors will be mistaken if they ignore Ukraine in the second quarter, at least until core problems are resolved. What matters most is whether the war expands beyond Ukraine: The likelihood of a broader war is low but not negligible. So far the Russian regime is behaving somewhat rationally: Moscow attacked a non-NATO member to prevent it from joining NATO; it limited the size of the military commitment; and it is now accepting reality and withdrawing from Kyiv while negotiating on Ukrainian neutrality. But a major problem emerges if Russia’s military fails in the Donbas while Ukraine reneges on offers of neutrality. Any ceasefire could fall apart and the war could re-escalate. Russia could redouble its attacks on the country or conduct a limited attack outside of Ukraine to trigger a crisis in the western alliance. Moreover, if sanctions keep rising until Russia’s economy collapses, Moscow could become less rational. Finland and Sweden have seen a shift of public opinion in favor of joining NATO. Any intention to do so would trigger a belligerent reaction from Russia. These governments are well aware of the precarious balance that must be maintained to prevent war, so war is unlikely. But if their stance changes then Russia will threaten to attack. Russia would threaten to bomb these states since it cannot now credibly threaten invasion by land (Charts 3A & 3B). Chart 3ANordic States Joining NATO Would Trigger Larger War Second Quarter Outlook 2022: When It Rains, It Pours Second Quarter Outlook 2022: When It Rains, It Pours ​​​​​ Chart 3BNordic States Joining NATO Would Trigger Larger War Second Quarter Outlook 2022: When It Rains, It Pours Second Quarter Outlook 2022: When It Rains, It Pours ​​​​​​ The Black Sea is vulnerable to “Black Swan” events or military spillovers. Russia is re-concentrating its military efforts in the Donbas and land bridge to Crimea. Russia could expand its offensive to Odessa and the Moldovan border. Or Russia could attempt to create a new norm of naval dominance in the Black Sea. Or ships from third countries could hit mines or become casualties of war. For these and other reasons, investors should not take on additional risk in their portfolios on the basis that a durable ceasefire will be concluded quickly. Russia’s position is far too vulnerable to encourage risk-taking. Moscow could escalate tensions to try to save face. It is also critical to ensure that Russia and Europe maintain their energy trade: Neither side has an interest in total energy cutoff. Russia needs the revenue to finance its war and needs to discourage Europe from fulfilling its pledges to transition rapidly to other sources and substitutes. Europe needs the energy to avoid recession, maintain some tie with Russia, and enable its energy diversification strategy. So far natural gas flows are continuing (Chart 4). Chart 4Natural Gas Flows Continuing (So Far) Natural Gas Flows Continuing (So Far) Natural Gas Flows Continuing (So Far) ​​​​​​ Chart 5Global Oil Supply/Demand Balance Global Oil Supply/Demand Balance Global Oil Supply/Demand Balance ​​​​​​ However, risks to energy trade are rising. Russia is threatening to cut off energy exports if not paid in rubles, while the EU is beginning to entertain sanctions on energy. Russia can reduce oil or gas flows incrementally to keep prices high and prevent Europe from rebuilding stockpiles for fall and winter. Partial energy cutoff is possible. Europe’s diversification makes Russia’s predicament dire. Substantial sanction relief is highly unlikely, as western powers will want to prevent Russia from rebuilding its economy and military. Russia could try to impose significant pain on Europe to try to force a more favorable diplomatic solution. A third factor that matters is whether the US will expand its sanction enforcement to demand strict compliance from other nations, at pain of secondary sanctions: Secondary sanctions are likely in the case of China and other nations that stand at odds with the US and help Russia circumvent sanctions. In China’s case, the US is already interested in imposing sanctions on the financial or technology sector as part of its long-term containment strategy. While the Biden administration’s preference is to control the pace of escalation with China, and thus not to slap sanctions immediately, nevertheless substantial sanctions cannot be ruled out in the second quarter. Secondary sanctions will be limited in the case of US allies and partners, such as EU members, Turkey, and India. Countries that do business with Russia but are critical to US strategy will be given waivers or special treatment. Russia is not the only commodity producer that enjoys outsized geopolitical leverage amid a global commodity squeeze. Iran is the next most critical producer. Iran is also critical for the stability of the Middle East. In particular, the consequential US-Iran talks over whether to rejoin the 2015 nuclear deal are likely to come to a decision in the second quarter. Chart 6Failure Of US-Iran Talks Jeopardizes Middle East Oil Supply Failure Of US-Iran Talks Jeopardizes Middle East Oil Supply Failure Of US-Iran Talks Jeopardizes Middle East Oil Supply If the US and Iran agree to a strategic détente, then regional tensions will briefly subside, reducing global oil disruption risks and supply pressures. Iran could bring 1.3 million barrels per day of oil back online, adding to President Biden’s 1 million per day release of strategic petroleum reserves. The combination would amount to 2.3% of global demand and more than cover the projected quarterly average supply deficit, which ranges from 400k to 900k barrels per day for the rest of 2022 (Chart 5). If the US and Iran fail to agree, then the Middle East will suffer another round of instability, adding a Middle Eastern energy shock on top of the Russian shock. Not only would Iran’s 1.3 million barrels per day be jeopardized but so would Iraq’s 4.4 million, Saudi Arabia’s 10.3 million, the UAE’s 3.0 million, or the Strait of Hormuz’s combined 24 million per day (Chart 6). This gives Iran leverage to pursue nuclear weaponization prior to any change in US government that would strengthen Israel’s ability to stop Iran. We would not bet on an agreement – but we cannot rule it out. The Biden administration can reduce sanctions via executive action to prevent a greater oil shock, while the Iranians can accept sanction relief in exchange for easily reversible moves toward compliance with the 2015 nuclear deal. But this would be a short-term, stop-gap measure, not a long-term strategic détente. Conflict between Iran and its neighbors will revive sooner than expected after the deal is agreed, as Iran’s nuclear ambitions will persist. OPEC states are already producing more oil rapidly, suggesting no quick fix if the US-Iran deal falls apart. While core OPEC states have 3.5 million barrels per day in spare capacity to bring to bear, a serious escalation of tensions with Iran would jeopardize this solution. Finally, if commodity producers have geopolitical leverage, then commodity consumers are lacking in leverage. This is clear from Europe’s inability to prevent Russia’s attack or ban Russian energy. It is clear from the US’s apparent unwillingness to give up on a short-term deal with Iran. It is clear from China’s inability to provide sufficient monetary and fiscal stimulus as it struggles with Covid-19. Turkey, Egypt, and Pakistan are geopolitically significant importers of Russian and Ukrainian grain that are likely to face food insecurity and social unrest. We will address this issue below under our Populism/Nationalism theme. Bottom Line: Investors should not be complacent. Russia’s military standing in Ukraine is weak, but its ability to finance the war has not yet collapsed, which means that it will escalate the conflict to save face. What About Our Other Key Views For 2022? Our other two key views for 2022 are even more relevant in the wake of the Ukraine re-invasion. China’s reversion to autocracy is a factor in China’s domestic and foreign policy: Domestically China needs economic and social stability in the advance of the twentieth national party congress, when President Xi Jinping hopes to clinch 10 more years in power. In pursuit of this goal China is easing monetary and fiscal policy. However, with depressed animal spirits, a weakening property sector, and high debt levels, monetary policy is proving insufficient. Fiscal policy will have to step up. But even here, inflation is likely to impose a limitation on how much stimulus the authorities can utilize (Chart 7). Chart 7China Stimulus Impaired By Inflation China Stimulus Impaired By Inflation China Stimulus Impaired By Inflation ​​​​​​ Chart 8Chinese Supply Kinks To Persist Due To Covid-19 Chinese Supply Kinks To Persist Due To Covid-19 Chinese Supply Kinks To Persist Due To Covid-19 China is also trying but failing to maintain a “Covid Zero” policy. The more contagious Omicron variant of the virus is breaking out and slipping beyond the authorities’ ability to suppress cases of the virus to zero. Shanghai is on lockdown and other cities will follow suit. China will attempt to redouble its containment efforts before it will accept the reality that the virus cannot be contained. Chinese production and shipping will become delayed and obstructed as a result, putting another round of upward pressure on global prices (Chart 8). Stringent pandemic restrictions could trigger social unrest. China is ripe for social unrest, which is why it launched the “Common Prosperity” program last year to convince citizens that quality of life will improve. But this program is a long-term program that will not bring immediate relief. On the contrary, the economy is still suffering and the virus will spread more widely, as well as draconian social restrictions. The result is that the lead up to the national party congress will not be as smooth as the Xi administration had hoped. Global investors will remain pessimistic toward Chinese stocks. In foreign affairs, China’s reversion to autocracy is reinforced by Russia’s clash with the West and the need to coordinate more closely. Xi hosted Putin in Beijing on February 4, prior to the invasion, and the two declared that their strategic partnership ushers in a “new era” of “multipolarity” and that their cooperation has “no limits,” which really means that military cooperation is not forbidden. China agreed to purchase an additional 10 billion cubic meters of Russian natural gas over 30-years. While this amount would only replace 3% of Russian natural gas exports to Europe, it would mark a 26% increase in Russian exports to China. More importantly it acts as a symbol of Chinese willingness to substitute for Europe over time. There is a long way to go for China to replace Europe as a customer (Chart 9). But China knows it needs to convert its US dollar foreign exchange reserves, vulnerable to US sanctions, into hard investments in supply security within the Eurasian continent. Chart 9Long Way To Go For China NatGas Imports To Replace EU Second Quarter Outlook 2022: When It Rains, It Pours Second Quarter Outlook 2022: When It Rains, It Pours China is helping Russia circumvent sanctions. China’s chief interest is to minimize the shock to its domestic economy. This means keeping Russian energy and commodities flowing. China could also offer military equipment for Russia. The US has expressly warned China against taking such an action. China could mitigate the blowback by stipulating that the assistance cannot be used in Ukraine. This would be unenforceable but would provide diplomatic cover. While China is uncomfortable with the disturbance of the Ukraine war – it does not want foreign affairs to cause even larger supply shocks. At the same time, China does not want Russia to lose the war or Putin’s regime to fall from power. If Russia loses, Taiwan and its western allies would be emboldened, while Russia could pursue a détente with the West, leaving China isolated. Since China faces US containment policy regardless of what happens in Russia, it is better for China to have Putin making an example out of Ukraine and keeping the Americans and Europeans preoccupied. Chart 10China Strives To Preserve EU Trade Ties China Strives To Preserve EU Trade Ties China Strives To Preserve EU Trade Ties China must also preserve ties with Europe. Diplomacy will likely succeed in the short run since Europe has no interest or desire to expand sanctions to China. The Biden administration will defer to Europe on the pace of sanctions – it is not willing or able to force Europe to break with China suddenly. Eventually Europe and China may sever relations but not yet – China has a powerful incentive to preserve them (Chart 10). China will also court India and other powers in an attempt to hedge its bets on Russia while weakening any American containment. Beyond the party congress, China will be focused on securing the economic recovery and implementing the common prosperity agenda. The first step is to maintain easy monetary and fiscal policy. The second step is to “let 100 flowers bloom,” i.e. relaxing social and regulatory controls to try to revive entrepreneurship and animal spirits, which are heavily depressed. Xi will have the ability to do this after re-consolidating power. The third step will be to try to stabilize economic relations with Europe and others (conceivably even the US temporarily, though no serious détente is likely). The remaining key view for 2022 is that the Biden administration’s domestic focus will be defensive and will invite foreign policy challenges. The Ukraine war vindicates this view but the question now is whether Biden has or will change tack: The Biden administration is focused on the midterm elections and the huge risk to the Democratic Party’s standing. Biden has not received a boost in opinion polls from the war. He is polling even worse when it comes to handling of the economy (Chart 11). While he should be able to repackage his budget reconciliation bill as an energy security bill, his thin majorities in both houses make passage difficult. Chart 11Biden And Democrats Face Shellacking In Midterm Election Second Quarter Outlook 2022: When It Rains, It Pours Second Quarter Outlook 2022: When It Rains, It Pours Biden’s weak standing – with or without a midterm shellacking – raises the prospect that Republicans could take back the White House in 2024, which discourages foreign nations from making any significant concessions to the United States in their negotiations. They must assume that partisanship will continue to contaminate foreign policy and lead to abrupt policy reversals. In foreign policy, the US remains reactive in the face of Russian aggression. If Russia signs a ceasefire, the US will not sabotage it to prolong Russian difficulties. Moreover Biden continues to exempt Europe and other allies and partners from enforcing the US’s most severe sanctions for fear of a larger energy shock. Europe’s avoidance of an energy ban is critical and any change in US policy to try to force the EU to cut off Russian energy is unlikely. China will not agree to structural reform or deep concessions in its trade negotiations, knowing that former President Trump could come back. The Biden administration’s own trade policy toward China is limited in scope, as the US Trade Representative Katherine Tai admitted when she said that the US could no longer aim to change China’s behavior via trade talks. Biden’s only proactive foreign policy initiative, Iran, will not bring him public kudos if it is achieved. But American inconstancy is one of the reasons that Iran may walk away from the 2015 nuclear deal. Why should Iran’s hawkish leaders be expected to constrain their nuclear program and expose their economy to future US sanctions if they can circumvent US sanctions anyway, and Republicans have a fair chance of coming back into power as early as January 2025? Biden’s unprecedented release of strategic petroleum reserves will not be able to prevent gasoline prices from staying high given the underlying supply pressures at home and abroad. This is especially true if the Iran talks fail as we expect. Even if inflation abates before the election, it is unlikely to abate enough to save his party from a shellacking. That in turn will weaken the global impression of his administration’s staying power. Hence Biden will focus on maintaining US alliances, which means allowing Europe, India, and others to proceed at a more pragmatic and dovish pace in their relations with Russia and China. Bottom Line: China’s reversion to autocracy and America’s policy insularity suggest that global investors face considerable policy uncertainty this year even aside from the war in Europe. Checking Up On Our Strategic Themes For The 2020s Russia’s invasion strongly confirmed our three strategic themes of Great Power Rivalry, Hypo-Globalization, and Populism/Nationalism. These themes are mutually reinforcing: insecurity among the leading nation-states encourages regionalization rather than globalization, while populism and nationalism encourage nations to pursue economic and security interests at the expense of their neighbors. First, the Ukraine war confirms and exacerbates Great Power Rivalry: Chart 12China And Russia Both Need To Balance Against US Preponderance Second Quarter Outlook 2022: When It Rains, It Pours Second Quarter Outlook 2022: When It Rains, It Pours Russia’s action vindicates the “realist” school of international relations (in which we count ourselves) by forcing the world to wake up to the fact that nations still care primarily about national security defined in material ways, such as armies, resources, and territories. The paradox of realism is that if at least one of the great nations pursues its national self-interest and engages in competition for security, then all other nations will be forced to do the same. If a nation neglects its national security interests in pursuit of global economic engagement and cooperation, then it will suffer, since other nations will take advantage of it to enhance their security. Hence, as a result of Ukraine, nations will give a higher weight to national security relative to economic efficiency. The result will be an acceleration of decisions to use fiscal funds and guide the private economy in pursuit of national interests – i.e. the Return of Big Government. Since actions to increase deterrence will provoke counteractions for the same reason, overall insecurity will rise. For example, the US and China will take extra precautions in case of future sanctions and war. But these precautions will reduce trust and cooperation and increase the probability of war over the long run. For the same reason, China cannot reject Russia’s strategic overture – it cannot afford to alienate and isolate Russia. China and Russia have a shared interest in countering the United States because it is the only nation that could conceivably impose a global empire over all nations (Chart 12). The US could deprive Beijing and Moscow of the regional spheres of influence that they each need to improve their national security. This is true not only in Ukraine and Taiwan but in other peripheral areas such as Belarus, the Caucasus, Central Asia, and Southeast Asia. China has much to gain from Russia. Russia is offering China privileged overland access to Russian, Central Asian, and Middle Eastern resources and markets. This resource base is vital to China’s strategic needs, given its import dependency and vulnerability to US maritime power (Chart 13). Chart 13China’s Maritime Vulnerability Forces Eurasian Strategy, Russian Alliance Second Quarter Outlook 2022: When It Rains, It Pours Second Quarter Outlook 2022: When It Rains, It Pours Investors should understand Great Power Rivalry in a multipolar rather than bipolar sense. As Russia breaks from the West, investors are quick to move rapidly to the bipolar Cold War analogy because that is what they are familiar with. But the world today has multiple poles of political power, as it did for centuries prior to the twentieth. While the US is the preponderant power, it is not hegemonic. It faces not one but two revisionist challengers – Russia and China. Meanwhile Europe and India are independent poles of power that are not exclusively aligned with the US or China. For example, China and the EU need to maintain economic ties with each other for the sake of stability, and neither the US nor Russia can prevent them from doing so. The same goes for India and Russia. China will embrace Russia and Europe at the same time, while hardening its economy against US punitive measures. India will preserve ties with Russia and China, while avoiding conflict with the US and its allies (the maritime powers), whom it needs for its long-term strategic security in the Indian Ocean basin. Ultimately bipolarity may be the end-game – e.g. if China takes aggressive action to revise the global order like Russia has done – but the persistence of Sino-European ties and Russo-Indian ties suggest we are not there yet. Second, the Ukraine war reinforces Hypo-Globalization: Since the pandemic we have argued that trade would revive on the global economic snapback but that globalization – the deepening of trade integration – would ultimately fall short of its pre-2020 and pre-2008 trajectory. Instead we would inhabit a new world of “hypo-globalization,” in which trade flows fell short of potential. So far the data support this view (Chart 14). Chart 14Globalization Falling Short Of Potential Second Quarter Outlook 2022: When It Rains, It Pours Second Quarter Outlook 2022: When It Rains, It Pours The Ukraine war has strengthened this thesis not only by concretely reducing Russia’s trajectory of trade with the West – reversing decades of integration since the fall of the Soviet Union – but also by increasing the need for nations to guard against a future Chinese confrontation with the Western world. Trust between China and the West will further erode. China will need to guard against any future sanctions, and thus diversify away from the US dollar and assets, while the US will need to do a better job of deterring China against aggression in Asia, and will thus have to diversify away from Chinese manufacturing and critical resources like rare earths. While China and Europe need each other now, the US and China are firmly set on a long-term path of security competition in East Asia. Eventually either the US or China will take a more aggressive stance and Europe will be forced to react. Since Europe will still need US support against a decaying and aggressive Russia, it will likely be dragged into assisting the US against China. Third, the Ukraine war reflects and amplifies Populism/Nationalism: Populism and nationalism are not the same thing but they both stem from the slowing trend of global income growth, the rise of inequality, the corruption of the elite political establishments, and now the rise in inflation. Nations have to devote more resources to pacifying an angry populace, or distracting that populace through foreign adventures, or both. The Ukraine war reflects the rise in nationalism. First, the collapse of the Soviet Union ushered in a period in which Moscow lost control of its periphery, while the diverse peoples could pursue national self-determination and statehood. The independence and success of the Baltic states depended on economic and military cooperation with the West, which eroded Russian national security and provoked a nationalist backlash in the form of President Putin’s regime. Ukraine became the epicenter of this conflict. Ukraine’s successful military resistance is likely to provoke a dangerous backlash from Moscow until either policy changes or the regime changes. American nationalism has flared repeatedly since the fall of the Soviet Union, namely in the Iraq war. The American state has suffered economically and politically for that imperial overreach. But American nationalism is still a potent force and could trigger a more aggressive shift in US foreign policy in 2024 or beyond. European states have kept nationalism in check and tried to subsume their various nationalist sentiments into a liberal and internationalist project, the European Union. The wave of nationalist forces in the wake of the European debt crisis has subsided, with the exception of the United Kingdom, where it flowered in Brexit. The French election in the second quarter will likely continue this trend with the re-election of President Emmanuel Macron, but even if he should suffer a surprise upset to nationalist Marine Le Pen, Europe’s centripetal forces will prevent her from taking France out of the EU or euro or NATO (Chart 15). Over the coming decade, nationalist forces will revive and will present a new challenge to Europe’s ruling elites – but global great power competition strongly supports the EU’s continued evolution into a single geopolitical entity, since the independent states are extremely vulnerable to Russia, China, and even the US unless they unite and strengthen their superstructure. Chart 15Macron Favored, Le Pen Would Be Ineffective Macron Favored, Le Pen Would Be Ineffective Macron Favored, Le Pen Would Be Ineffective In fact the true base of global nationalism is migrating to Asia. Chinese and Indian nationalism are very potent forces under President Xi Jinping and Prime Minister Narendra Modi. Xi is on the verge of clinching another ten years in power while Modi is still favored for re-election in 2024, so there is no reason to anticipate a change anytime soon. The effects are various but what is most important for investors is to recognize that as China’s potential GDP has fallen over the past decade, the Communist Party has begun to utilize nationalism as a new source of legitimacy, and this is expressed through a more assertive foreign policy. President Xi is the emblem of this shift and it will not change, even if China pursues a lower profile over certain periods to avoid provoking the US and its allies into a more effective coalition to contain China. Chart 16Food Insecurity Will Promote Global Unrest, Populism Food Insecurity Will Promote Global Unrest, Populism Food Insecurity Will Promote Global Unrest, Populism The surge in global prices will destabilize regimes that lack food security and contribute to new bouts of populism and nationalism. Turkey is the most vulnerable due to a confluence of political, economic, and military risks that will unsettle the state. But Egypt is vulnerable to an Arab Spring 2.0 that would have negative security implications for Israel and add powder to the Middle Eastern powder keg. Pakistan is already witnessing political turmoil. Investors may overlook any Indonesian unrest due to its attractiveness in a world where Russia and China are scaring away western investment (Chart 16). All three of these strategic themes are mutually reinforcing – and they tend to be inflationary over the long run. Great powers that redouble the pursuit of national interest – through defense spending and energy security investments – while simultaneously being forced to expand their social safety nets to appease popular discontent, will drive up budget deficits, consume a lot of natural resources, and purchase a lot of capital equipment. They will also more frequently engage in economic or military conflicts that constrain supply (Chart 17). Chart 17War And Preparation For War Are Inflationary War And Preparation For War Are Inflationary War And Preparation For War Are Inflationary Bottom Line: The Ukraine war is a powerful confirmation of our three strategic themes. It is also a confirmation that these themes have inflationary macroeconomic implications. Investment Takeaways Chart 18Global Investors Still Flee To US For Safety Global Investors Still Flee To US For Safety Global Investors Still Flee To US For Safety Now that great power rivalry is intensifying immediately and rapidly, and yet China’s and Europe’s economies are encountering greater difficulties, we expect stagflation to arrive sooner rather than later. High headline and core inflation, the Ukraine war, tacit Chinese support for Russia, persistent Chinese supply kinks, US and EU sanctions, US midterm elections, and a potential US-Iran diplomatic breakdown will all weigh on risk sentiment in the second quarter. In Ukraine, Russia’s position is too weak to give comfort for investors, who should continue to favor defensive over cyclical equities and US stocks over global stocks. Russia’s break with the West, and the West’s use of sanctions to prevent Russia from accessing its foreign exchange reserves, has raised new questions about the global currency reserve system and the dollar’s status within that system. Over the coming years China will redouble the efforts it began in the wake of the Great Recession to reduce its dependency on US dollar assets within its reserve basket, while also recycling new current account surpluses into non-dollar assets. However, the evidence does not suggest that King Dollar will suffer a structural breakdown. First, the world lacks alternative safe-haven assets to US Treasuries – and net foreign purchases of US bonds rose in the face of the Ukraine war (Chart 18). Second, the return of war to Europe will weaken the perceived long-term security of European currency and government bonds relative to US counterparts. Even if the Ukraine war is contained in the short run, as we expect, Russia is in structural decline and will remain a disruptive player for some time. We are not at all bearish on the euro or European bonds but we do not see the Ukraine war as increasing their value proposition, to put it lightly. The same logic extends to Japanese bonds, since China, like Russia, is an autocratic and revisionist state that threatens to shake up the security order in its neighborhood. Japan is relatively secure as a nation and we are bullish on the yen, but China’s de facto alliance with Russia weakens Japan’s security outlook over the very long run, especially relative to the United States. Thus, on a cyclical basis the dollar can depreciate, but on a structural basis the US dollar will remain the dominant reserve currency. The US is not only the wealthiest and most secure country in the world but also the largest oil producer. Meanwhile Chinese potential growth, domestic political stability, and foreign relations are all worsening. The US-Iran talks are the most critical geopolitical dynamic in the second quarter aside from Russia’s clash with the West. The fate of the 2015 nuclear deal will be decided soon and will determine whether an even bigger energy shock begins to emanate from the Middle East. We would not bet on a new US-Iran deal but we cannot rule it out. Any deal would be a short-term, stop-gap deal but would prevent an immediate destabilization of the Middle East this year. As such it would reduce the risk of stagflation. Since we expect the deal to fail, we expect a new energy shock to emerge. We see stagflation as more likely than the BCA House View. It will be difficult to lift productivity in an environment of geopolitical and political uncertainty combined with slowing global growth, rising interest rates, and a worsening commodity shock (Chart 19). We will gladly revise this stance if Biden clinches an Iran deal, China relaxes its Covid Zero policy and stabilizes domestic demand, Russia and Europe maintain energy trade, and commodity prices fall to more sustainable levels for global demand. Chart 19Stagflation Cometh Stagflation Cometh Stagflation Cometh Strategically we remain long gold, overweight US equities, overweight UK equities, long British pound and Japanese yen, long aerospace/defense stocks and cyber security stocks. We remain short Chinese renminbi and Taiwanese dollar and short emerging European assets. Our short Chinese renminbi trade and our short Taiwanese versus Korean equity trade are our worst-performing recommendations. However, the above analysis should highlight – and the Ukraine war should underscore – that these two economies face a fundamentally negative geopolitical dynamic. Both Chinese and Taiwanese stocks have been underperforming global peers since 2021 and our short TWD-USD trade is in the money. While we do not expect war to break out in Taiwan this year, we do expect various crisis events to occur, particularly in the lead up to the crucial Taiwanese and American 2022 midterms and 2024 presidential election. We also expect China to depreciate the renminbi when inflation peaks and commodity prices subside. Cyclically we remain long North American and Latin American oil producers and short Middle Eastern producers, based on our pessimistic read of the Iran situation. The Americas are fundamentally better protected from geopolitical risks than other regions, although they continue to suffer from domestic political risks on a country-by-country basis. Cyclically we continue to take a defensive positioning, overweighting defensive sectors and large cap equities.   Matt Gertken Chief Geopolitical Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1      That the Russian threat fell under our third key view for 2022 implies that we did not get our priorities straight. However, consider the timing: shortly after publishing our annual outlook on December 15, the Russians issued an ultimatum to the western powers demanding that NATO stop expanding toward Russia. Diplomats from Russia and the West met on January 12-13 but Russia’s demands were not met. We upgraded the odds that Russia would invade Ukraine from 50% to 75% on January 27. Shuttle diplomacy ensued but failed. Russia invaded on February 24. Strategic Themes Open Tactical Positions (0-6 Months) Open Cyclical Recommendations (6-18 Months) Regional Geopolitical Risk Matrix "Batting Average": Geopolitical Strategy Trades () Section II: Special (EDIT this Header) Section III: Geopolitical Calendar

Executive Summary Fed policy and the US stock market are on a collision course. US core inflation will not fall below 3.5% unless the economy slows considerably below its potential for a few quarters. As long as US share prices do not fall considerably, i.e., financial conditions do not tighten substantially, the Fed has no reason to halt its tightening and revert its hawkish posture. Odds are that US profit margins and equity multiples will compress, leading to lower share prices in the coming months. In China, monetary and fiscal stimulus have so far been insufficient to produce an economic recovery given the headwinds from the property sector and the rolling lockdowns. A broad-based EM rally will occur only when a commodity bull market is demand driven. The recent spike in commodity prices has been due to supply curtailment. Unit Labor Costs Are The Key To Core Inflation Unit Labor Costs Are The Key To Core Inflation Unit Labor Costs Are The Key To Core Inflation Bottom Line: Maintain an underweight position in EM equities and credit in global equity and credit portfolios, respectively. EM local currency bonds are becoming attractive. We are waiting to buy EM local bonds later this year using the potential weakness in their currencies.     After a two-year hiatus, I traveled to the US last week for in-person meetings with clients. This report summarizes the key questions and points of discussion that emerged during these exchanges. Question: What are the key risks to EM markets at the moment? Answer: First, Fed policy and the US stock market are on a collision course. This is in fact a threat to global risk assets – not just US ones. Second, rolling lockdowns in China and the property market slump will delay the recovery of the mainland economy. Third, after the latest rebound in risk assets, geopolitical risks are underestimated. Before the situation in Ukraine stabilizes, President Putin will likely escalate the conflict to obtain a better negotiating position. The combination of these three risks warrants a cautious stance on EM assets. Chart 1The 1960s: US Inflation Outbreak And Negative Stock Price-To-Bond Yield Correlation The 1960s: US Inflation Outbreak And Negative Stock Price-To-Bond Yield Correlation The 1960s: US Inflation Outbreak And Negative Stock Price-To-Bond Yield Correlation Question: Let’s start with the Fed. Why do you think US share prices and the Fed are on a collision course? Historically, there were episodes during which the S&P 500 rallied even though the Fed was hiking rates. Why is this time different? Answer: Extremely elevated US core inflation, rising inflation expectations as well as very expensive equity valuations make this current episode different from those periods in the 1990s, 2000s and even 2010s when US equities advanced amid Fed tightening.  In fact, share prices and bond yields were negatively correlated for 30 years between 1966 and 1997. The current episode is reminiscent of the late 1960s when core inflation spiked, and equity prices became negatively correlated with Treasury yields (Chart 1). As to the interaction between the Fed and financial markets, our reasoning is as follows: As long as US share prices do not fall and US credit spreads do not widen considerably, i.e., financial conditions do not tighten substantially, then the Fed has no reason to halt its tightening and revert its hawkish posture. The basis is that US core inflation is well above target, and inflation expectations are ratcheting up and could become entrenched. Question: Do you expect US inflation to moderate and in turn allow the Fed to go on hold? Answer: Investors and policymakers should differentiate between the annual inflation rate (a statistical measure) and a genuine inflation outbreak. The annual inflation rate is too high, and will likely drop in H2 this year. Chart 2Super Core US Consumer Inflation Is At 5% Super Core US Consumer Inflation Is At 5% Super Core US Consumer Inflation Is At 5% However, US inflationary pressures are genuine and broad-based. If these pressures are not contained, they will spiral out of control. Our measure of US average core inflation is currently around 5% (Chart 2). This series is an average of seven measures of core consumer price inflation from the Fed: core CPI and PCE, median CPI, market-based core PCE, trimmed-mean CPI and PCE, and sticky core CPI. Hence, this measure is not influenced by price movements of individual components. The annual rate of core CPI will drop in the US but we do not expect core CPI and PCE to fall below 3.5% unless the economy slows considerably below its potential for a few quarters, and labor market conditions deteriorate leading to lower wage growth. The reasoning is that underlying inflationary pressures have spilled over into the labor market, and the wage-price spiral has probably unraveled. Therefore, inflation cannot be contained without bringing economic growth down below potential growth and weakening the labor market.  Chart 3US Wage Growth Is Between 4.3% and 7.7% US Wage Growth Is Between 4.3% and 7.7% US Wage Growth Is Between 4.3% and 7.7% The labor market is presently very tight, and wage growth will continue accelerating. Given that real wages have shrunk dramatically in the past 12 months, labor will be demanding wage increases that are on par or above the inflation rate. With sales still strong, companies will have to pay higher wages to maintain and attract skilled employees. US nominal wage growth is presently ranging between 4.3-7.7%, depending on the measure (Chart 3). With US underlying productivity growth unlikely to be more than 2% at best, unit labor costs are therefore rising at a rate of 2.5-5.5% and will accelerate further. Chart 4 illustrates that unit labor costs have been a major driver of core consumer price inflation in the US over the past 60 years. If unit labor costs accelerate, core inflation will not drop much from its current elevated levels. As core inflation proves to be sticky and does not fall rapidly below 3.5%, the Fed will have no choice but to keep raising interest rates… until something breaks. Chart 4Unit Labor Costs Are The Key To Core Inflation Unit Labor Costs Are The Key To Core Inflation Unit Labor Costs Are The Key To Core Inflation Question: What will be the first thing to break? Do you think Fed rate hikes will push the US economy into recession? Answer: Equity markets will be the first to break. It is hard to make a judgement about whether US real GDP will contract, but odds are high that US/global share prices will drop as the Fed tightens. The S&P 500 can drop 20-25% from its early January high without a recession in the American economy. Drivers of this selloff will be compressing equity multiples and shrinking profit margins. Chart 5Rising Rates = Lower Equity Multiples Rising Rates = Lower Equity Multiples Rising Rates = Lower Equity Multiples First, there are three drivers of equity returns – the top line, profit margins and valuation multiples. We believe that two of these three – profit margins and multiples – will be negative for the US market in the coming months. Valuation multiples will compress as US interest rates rise further (Chart 5).  Profit margins will shrink as wage growth accelerates well above productivity gains, i.e., unit labor costs spike. Even if corporates’ top-line growth stays robust, the negative impact of compressing valuation multiples and lower profit margins will be overwhelming for equities. Hence, corporate profits could shrink mildly and share prices would drop materially even as real GDP does not contract. Second, it is important to mention that equity returns could be negative outside reccessions. Let’s recall what happened in 2000-2001 in the US. Nominal growth was robust, real GDP contracted only slightly, household spending in real terms did not contract at all, and the housing market was booming (Chart 6, top panel). Yet, the S&P 500 EPS plunged by 30% and the stock index was down by 50% (Chart 6, bottom two panels). We do not mean that US profits are about to crash by 30% and share prices will plunge by 50% like they did in the bear market of 2000-2002. The point is that profits could experience a mild contraction despite solid consumer spending. Chart 6S&P 500 EPS Can Shrink Even If Nominal GDP Growth Is Solid, As Happened In 2001 S&P 500 EPS Can Shrink Even If Nominal GDP Growth Is Solid, As Happened In 2001 S&P 500 EPS Can Shrink Even If Nominal GDP Growth Is Solid, As Happened In 2001 Chart 7US Real Consumption Of Goods: A Mean Reversion Ahead? US Real Consumption Of Goods: A Mean Reversion Ahead? US Real Consumption Of Goods: A Mean Reversion Ahead? Third, there is chance of a stagflation scare. US purchases of goods ex-autos have been extremely strong due to generous fiscal transfers to households and pandemic dynamics that discouraged service spending and boosted goods purchases. Americans’ real spending on goods ex-autos has been running well above its pre-pandemic trend and is likely to experience some sort of mean reversion (Chart 7).  A shift in consumption away from goods ex-autos will weigh down on goods producers globally. Notably, manufacturers rather than service providers dominate equity markets outside the US. Hence, a period when US inflation is sticky, and the Fed is tightening while the global manufacturing cycle is slowing is a possibility. This will upset investors and lead them to pare back their equity holdings. Question: As we all know, the US dollar is very important for EM economies and financial markets. So, what is the outlook for the greenback? Answer: As long as the Fed sounds hawkish and continues tightening, the US dollar will strengthen. The motive is that when the central bank is willing to tighten and the economy does not collapse, the currency tends to appreciate. Even as the S&P 500 sells off, the risk-off phase is also positive for the US currency. The trade-weighted dollar will put a major top and will start depreciating only when the Fed does a dovish tilt. Odds are that this will take place later this year when the S&P 500 is down 25% or so. Yet, US inflation will still be entrenched. In other words, the Fed will fall behind the inflation curve. A central bank falling behind the inflation curve is bearish for the currency. Chart 8Mainstream EM Currencies: An Air Pocket? Mainstream EM Currencies: An Air Pocket? Mainstream EM Currencies: An Air Pocket? Concerning mainstream EM (excluding China, Korea and Taiwan) currencies, the total return index (including carry) versus the US dollar has hit a technical resistance (Chart 8). We expect a near-term relapse in EM exchange rates as a mirror image of US dollar strength and the risk-off trade in global markets. However, a major buying opportunity in EM currencies and fixed-income markets as well as EM equity markets will transpire later this year when the US dollar peaks. Question: Let’s turn to China. Growth continues to be disappointing. The COVID-related lockdowns are depressing economic activity. Have authorities stimulated enough for the business cycle to recover soon? Answer: We believe that monetary and fiscal stimulus have so far been insufficient to produce a major economic recovery given the headwinds from the property sector and the harsh lockdowns. The enacted fiscal stimulus is sizable (Chart 9), but it has not yet fully entered the economy. On the monetary front, the credit impulse – excluding local government bond issuance (which is counted in our fiscal spending impulse) – has not yet bottomed (Chart 10). Chart 9China's Fiscal Stimulus Is In The Pipeline China's Fiscal Stimulus Is In The Pipeline China's Fiscal Stimulus Is In The Pipeline Chart 10China: Corporate and Household Credit Impulse Has Not Bottomed Yet China: Corporate and Household Credit Impulse Has Not Bottomed Yet China: Corporate and Household Credit Impulse Has Not Bottomed Yet With rolling lockdowns impairing service employment and, hence, denting household income, and without sizable fiscal transfers to consumers, the economy will struggle to recover. Local government finances are squeezed by lack of revenues from land sales and their borrowing is limited by quotas set by the central government. So, only the central government is in a position to provide meaningful fiscal support to households, but it has not yet done so. Question: You mentioned that the current geopolitical climate remains a risk to financial markets as Putin will likely escalate before de-escalating. Is this not bullish for commodities? Also, you have argued over the years that commodity prices positively correlate with EM equity performance. Yet, there has been a major decoupling between commodity prices and EM equity absolute and relative performance (Chart 11). How do you explain this phenomenon? Chart 11Decoupling Between EM Stocks And Commodity Prices Decoupling Between EM Stocks And Commodity Prices Decoupling Between EM Stocks And Commodity Prices Answer: Re-escalation on the part of the Kremlin will be bullish for commodities in the short run. In the medium term however, as we argued in a report in early March, commodity prices will be very volatile, with upside risks for some (like wheat) but not for all of them. It all depends on how much of its resource exports Russia can sell/ship abroad. It is hard to forecast this in view of sanctions by Western governments and their private sectors, as well as the breakdown in existing market infrastructures (such as payment systems, freight, insurance, etc.). The breakdown between commodity prices and EM absolute and relative share prices is due to the following: When commodity prices rise due to demand from the real economy, EM stocks tend to rally and outperform. This is especially true when it is China’s demand that is driving commodity prices higher. The reason is that China is important for overall EM economies, and robust demand growth in China is bullish for EM assets. In such a scenario (a demand-driven commodity bull market), not only do commodity producers rally (Latin America) but also commodity consumers (Asia) perform well in absolute terms. The recent spike in commodity prices has been due to supply curtailment rather than demand strength. That has benefited commodity producers (Latin America) but not commodity consumers (Asia). Finally, TMT stocks have come to make up a large share of EM markets in recent years. So wild swings in their performance have distorted the correlation between the EM equity index and commodity prices. Question: Will equity and currency markets of commodity producers continue rallying? Answer: The key signals to monitor are the trend in the US dollar and the global risk-on/risk-off environment. If a risk-off move transpires and the US dollar firms (as we expect), share prices and currencies in commodity-producing countries will relapse in absolute terms. Also, Chart 12 illustrates net long positions in ZAR, BRL and MXN among asset managers and leveraged funds are elevated. In short, investors are already very long, and these currencies could correct. Finally, the prices of some commodities for which Russia and Ukraine are not major producers, like platinum, have already been relapsing. In fact, platinum prices correlate well with EM non-TMT share prices in US dollar terms and are currently pointing to downside risks (Chart 13). Chart 12Investors Are Very Long EM Commodity Currencies Investors Are Very Long EM Commodity Currencies Investors Are Very Long EM Commodity Currencies Chart 13Not All Commodity Prices Are Rising Not All Commodity Prices Are Rising Not All Commodity Prices Are Rising Question: Could high food and energy prices heighten political risks in some developing countries? How serious is this risk? Answer: This risk has already manifested itself in some countries, with protests in Peru and the 15% devaluation in Egypt. More countries could experience public demonstrations and political turbulence. An overarching theme for many developing nations will be a drag on growth from high food and energy prices. Unlike the US, wages in emerging economies are not rising fast, and labor markets are not tight. As a result, employees have no bargaining power, and their wages will shrink in real terms (adjusted for headline inflation). Given that food and energy make up a larger share of the consumer basket in emerging economies, high energy and food prices will meaningfully reduce household income available for discretionary spending. Consequently, EM household spending will disappoint. In light of lackluster consumer demand, business investment will not pick up much either. Finally, monetary and fiscal policies in EM are reasonably tight. In Latin America, the credit and fiscal spending and monetary impulses are pointing to economic weakness ahead (Chart 14).  Overall, potential political volatility and disappointing domestic demand are risks to EM financial markets. Chart 14Latin American Economies Will Decelerate Latin American Economies Will Decelerate Latin American Economies Will Decelerate Chart 15A Buying Opportunity in EM Domestic Bonds Will Occur Later This Year A Buying Opportunity in EM Domestic Bonds Will Occur Later This Year A Buying Opportunity in EM Domestic Bonds Will Occur Later This Year Question: What is your recommended investment strategy for EM overall and country allocation? Answer: We continue recommending an underweight position in EM equities and credit in global equity and credit portfolios, respectively. EM local currency bonds are becoming attractive as their yields have spiked (Chart 15). We are waiting to buy EM local bonds later this year using the potential weakness in their currencies. For now, we have the following positions in individual local rates: long 10-year Brazilian bonds, currency unhedged; receiving 10-year swap rates in China and Malaysia; betting on yield curve flattening in Mexico; receiving 10-year Czech / paying 10-year Polish swap rates. The list of country allocation for EM equity, credit and domestic bond portfolios is presented in Table 1. Table 1Our Country Allocation Across Asset Classes What Are Clients Asking? What Are Clients Asking? ​​​​​​​   Arthur Budaghyan Chief Emerging Markets Strategist arthurb@bcaresearch.com     What Are Clients Asking? What Are Clients Asking? What Are Clients Asking? What Are Clients Asking?

Executive Summary To understand the economy and the market we must think of them as non-linear systems which experience sudden phase-shifts. The pandemic introduced phase-shifts in our lives, which led to phase-shifts in our goods demand, which led to phase-shifts in monthly core inflation. As our lives phase-shift back to normality, goods demand will phase-shift back to low growth, and monthly core inflation prints will phase-shift from ‘high phase’ to ‘low phase’. With the 12-month core US inflation rate likely to peak by June at the latest, the long bond yield is likely to peak at some point in April/May, justifying a cyclical overweight position in T-bonds. Go overweight healthcare and biotech versus resources and financials. The leadership of the equity market will once more flip from short-duration sectors to long-duration sectors. Fractal trading watchlist additions: JPY/CHF, non-life insurance versus homebuilders, US homebuilders (XHB), cotton versus platinum, healthcare versus resources, and biotech versus resources. The Bond Yield Turns About 2-3 Months Before Core Inflation The Bond Yield Turns About 2-3 Months Before Core Inflation Bottom Line: With the 12-month core US inflation rate likely to peak by June at the latest, the long bond yield is likely to peak at some point in April/May, and the leadership of the equity market will flip back to long-duration sectors such as healthcare and biotech. Feature Inflation is a non-linear system, meaning that you cannot just dial it up or down gradually like the volume on your music system. Instead of gradual changes, non-linear systems suddenly phase-shift from quiet to loud, from cold to hot, from solid to liquid, or from stability to instability (Box I-1). Box 1: A Classic Non-Linear System – A Brick On An Elastic Band To experience the sudden phase-shift in a non-linear system, attach an elastic band to a brick and try pulling it across a table. As you start to pull, the brick doesn’t move because of the friction with the table. But as you increase your pull there comes a tipping point, at which the brick does move and the friction simultaneously decreases, self-reinforcing the brick’s acceleration. Meanwhile, your pull on the elastic continues to increase as you react with a time-lag. The result is that this non-linear system suddenly phase-shifts from stability – the brick doesn’t move – to instability – the brick hits you in the face! Try as hard as you might, it is impossible to pull the brick across the table smoothly. In this non-linear system, the choice is either stability or instability. Back in 2017, in Mission Impossible: 2% Inflation – An Update, I posed a crucial question: “Given that price stability could phase-shift to instability, when should we worry about it?” I answered that “the risk remains low until the next severe downturn – when policymakers may be forced into desperate measures for a desperate situation.” The words proved prescient. Three years later, the desperate situation was a global pandemic, and the desperate measures were economic shutdowns combined with fiscal stimuluses of unprecedented scope and size.   A Phase-Shift In Our Lives Produced A Phase-Shift In Inflation Developed economy inflation has just experienced a stark non-linearity. Since 2007, the US core month-on-month inflation rate remained consistently below 3.5 percent.1 Then came the pandemic’s shutdowns combined with policymakers’ massive response, and month-on-month inflation didn’t just rise to above 3.5 percent, it phase-shifted to well over 6 percent. Developed economy inflation has just experienced a stark non-linearity. The remarkable fact is that since 2007, there have been over a hundred monthly core inflation prints below 4 percent, and nine prints above 6 percent, but just one solitary print between 4 and 6 percent! In other words, monthly core inflation shows the classic hallmark of a non-linear system. It can be cold or hot, but not warm (Chart I-1).       Chart I-1Monthly Core Inflation Shows The Classic Hallmark Of A Non-Linear System Monthly Core Inflation Shows The Classic Hallmark Of A Non-Linear System Monthly Core Inflation Shows The Classic Hallmark Of A Non-Linear System So, what caused the phase-shift in core inflation? The simple answer is a phase-shift in durable goods spending, which itself was caused by the pandemic’s shutdown of services combined with massive fiscal stimulus. Again, this is supported by a remarkable fact. Since 2007, the monthly increase in US (real) spending on durables remained consistently below 3.5 percent. Then came the pandemic’s shutdowns and stimulus checks, and the growth in durables demand didn’t just rise to above 3.5 percent, it phase-shifted to well over 8 percent.  In other words, the growth in durable goods demand also shows the classic hallmark of a non-linear system. It can be cold or hot, but not warm (Chart I-2). Chart I-2Goods Demand Shows The Classic Hallmark Of A Non-Linear System Goods Demand Shows The Classic Hallmark Of A Non-Linear System Goods Demand Shows The Classic Hallmark Of A Non-Linear System The connection between the phase-shifts in goods demand and the phase-shifts in core inflation is staring us in the face – because the three separate phase-shifts in inflation have each been associated with a preceding or contemporaneous phase-shift in goods demand, which themselves have been associated with the separate waves of the pandemic (Chart I-3). Chart I-3Phase-Shifts In Core Inflation Have Been Associated With Phase-Shifts In Goods Demand Phase-Shifts In Core Inflation Have Been Associated With Phase-Shifts In Goods Demand Phase-Shifts In Core Inflation Have Been Associated With Phase-Shifts In Goods Demand Pulling all of this together, the pandemic introduced phase-shifts in our lives – lockdown or freedom. Which led to phase-shifts in our goods demand – above 8 percent or below 3.5 percent. Which led to phase-shifts in monthly core inflation – above 6 percent or below 4 percent. The key question is, what happens next? Bond Yields Are Close To A Peak As we learn to live with the pandemic, and assuming no imminent ‘super variant’ of the virus, our lives are phase-shifting back to a semblance of normality. Which means that our spending on goods is phase-shifting back to low growth. If anything, the recent overspend on goods implies an imminent corrective underspend. At the same time, it will be difficult to compensate a phase-shift down on goods spending with a phase-shift up on services spending. This is because the consumption of services is constrained by time and biology. There is a limit to how often you can eat out, go to the theatre, or even go on vacation. The upshot is that monthly core inflation prints are likely to phase-shift from ‘high phase’ to ‘low phase’ – even if the monthly headline inflation prints are kept up longer by the commodity price spikes that result from the Ukraine crisis. Monthly core inflation prints are likely to phase-shift from ‘high phase’ to ‘low phase’. Meanwhile central banks and markets focus on the 12-month core inflation rate – which, as an arithmetic identity, is the sum of the last twelve month-on-month inflation rates.2  To establish the 12-month core inflation rate, the crucial question is: how many of the last twelve month-on-month inflation prints will be high phase versus low phase? As just discussed, the new month-on-month core inflation prints are likely to phase-shift to low phase. At the same time, the historic high phase prints will disappear from the last twelve month window. Specifically, by June 2022, the three high phase prints of April, May, and June 2021 – 10 percent, 9 percent, and 10 percent respectively – will no longer be included in the 12-month core inflation rate, with the arithmetic impact of pulling it down sharply (Chart I-4). Chart I-4The High Phase Monthly Inflation Prints Of April, May, And June 2021 Will Disappear From The 12-Month Core US Inflation Rate, Thereby Pulling It Down. The High Phase Monthly Inflation Prints Of April, May, And June 2021 Will Disappear From The 12-Month Core US Inflation Rate, Thereby Pulling It Down. The High Phase Monthly Inflation Prints Of April, May, And June 2021 Will Disappear From The 12-Month Core US Inflation Rate, Thereby Pulling It Down. Clearly, the bond market anticipates some of this ‘base effect’ on 12-month inflation. This explains why turning points in the bond yield have led by 2-3 months the turning points in the 12-month core inflation rate (Chart I-5). With the 12-month core inflation rate likely to peak by June at the latest, this suggests that – absent some new shock – the long bond yield is likely to peak at some point in April/May. Reinforcing our cyclical overweight position in T-bonds. Chart I-5The Bond Yield Turns About 2-3 Months Before Core Inflation The Bond Yield Turns About 2-3 Months Before Core Inflation The Bond Yield Turns About 2-3 Months Before Core Inflation This also carries important implications for equity investors. Rising bond yields favour short-duration equity sectors such as resources and financials versus long-duration equity sectors such as healthcare and biotech. And vice-versa. Indeed, the recent performance of resources versus healthcare and financials versus healthcare is indistinguishable from the bond yield (Chart I-6 and Chart I-7). Chart I-6The Performance of Resources Versus Healthcare Is Indistinguishable From The Bond Yield The Performance of Resources Versus Healthcare Is Indistinguishable From The Bond Yield The Performance of Resources Versus Healthcare Is Indistinguishable From The Bond Yield Chart I-7The Performance of Financials Versus Healthcare Is Indistinguishable From The Bond Yield The Performance of Financials Versus Healthcare Is Indistinguishable From The Bond Yield The Performance of Financials Versus Healthcare Is Indistinguishable From The Bond Yield With bond yields likely to peak soon, the leadership of the equity market will once more flip from short-duration sectors to long-duration sectors. Go overweight healthcare and biotech versus resources and financials. Fractal Trading Watchlist Reinforcing the fundamental analysis in the previous section, the 130-day outperformance of resources versus healthcare and biotech has reached the point of fractal fragility that has marked previous trend exhaustions, suggesting that the recent outperformance of resources is nearing an end. Also new on our watchlist is a commodity pair, cotton versus platinum, whose strong outperformance is vulnerable to reversal. And US homebuilders (XHB), whose recent underperformance is at a potential turning point. There are two new trade recommendations. First, the massive outperformance of world non-life insurance versus homebuilders is at the point of fractal fragility that has consistently marked previous turning points (Chart I-8). Hence, go short non-life insurance versus homebuilders, setting a profit target and symmetrical stop-loss at 14 percent. Second, the strong underperformance of the Japanese yen is also at the point of fractal fragility that has marked several previous turning points (Chart I-9). Accordingly, go long JPY/CHF, setting a profit target and symmetrical stop-loss at 4 percent. Please note that our full watchlist of 19 investments that are experiencing or approaching turning points is now available on our website: cpt.bcaresearch.com Chart I-8The Massive Outperformance Of Non-Life Insurance Is Vulnerable To Reversal The Massive Outperformance Of Non-Life Insurance Is Vulnerable To Reversal The Massive Outperformance Of Non-Life Insurance Is Vulnerable To Reversal Chart I-9Go Long JPY/CHF Go Long JPY/CHF Go Long JPY/CHF The Outperformance Of Resources Versus Healthcare Is Vulnerable To Reversal The Outperformance Of Resources Versus Healthcare Is Vulnerable To Reversal The Outperformance Of Resources Versus Healthcare Is Vulnerable To Reversal The Outperformance Of Resources Versus Biotech Is Vulnerable To Reversal The Outperformance Of Resources Versus Biotech Is Vulnerable To Reversal The Outperformance Of Resources Versus Biotech Is Vulnerable To Reversal Cotton’s Outperformance Is Vulnerable To Reversal Cotton's Outperformance Is Vulnerable To Reversal Cotton's Outperformance Is Vulnerable To Reversal US Homebuilders’ Underperformance Is At A Potential Turning Point US Homebuilders' Underperformance Is At A Potential Turning Point US Homebuilders' Underperformance Is At A Potential Turning Point Dhaval Joshi Chief Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Annualized month-on-month inflation rate. 2 Strictly speaking, the 12-month inflation rate is the geometric product of the last 12 month-on-month inflation rates. Chart I-1The Strong Trend In The 18-Month-Out US Interest Rate Future Is Fragile The Strong Trend In The 18-Month-Out US Interest Rate Future Is Fragile The Strong Trend In The 18-Month-Out US Interest Rate Future Is Fragile Chart I-2The Strong Trend In The 3 Year T-Bond Is Fragile The Strong Trend In The 3 Year T-Bond Is Fragile The Strong Trend In The 3 Year T-Bond Is Fragile Chart I-3AUD/KRW Is Vulnerable To Reversal AUD/KRW Is Vulnerable To Reversal AUD/KRW Is Vulnerable To Reversal Chart I-4Canada Versus Japan Is Vulnerable To Reversal Canada Versus Japan Is Vulnerable To Reversal Canada Versus Japan Is Vulnerable To Reversal Chart I-5Canada's TSX-60's Outperformance Might Be Over Canada's TSX-60's Outperformance Might Be Over Canada's TSX-60's Outperformance Might Be Over Chart I-6US Healthcare Providers Vs. Software Approaching A Reversal US Healthcare Providers Vs. Software Approaching A Reversal US Healthcare Providers Vs. Software Approaching A Reversal Chart I-7The Euro's Underperformance Could Be Approaching a Resistance Level The Euro's Underperformance Could Be Approaching a Resistance Level The Euro's Underperformance Could Be Approaching a Resistance Level Chart I-8A Potential Switching Point From Tobacco Into Cannabis A Potential Switching Point From Tobacco Into Cannabis A Potential Switching Point From Tobacco Into Cannabis Chart I-9Bitcoin's 65-Day Fractal Support Is Holding For Now Bitcoin's 65-Day Fractal Support Is Holding For Now Bitcoin's 65-Day Fractal Support Is Holding For Now Chart I-10Biotech Approaching A Major Buy Biotech Approaching A Major Buy Biotech Approaching A Major Buy Chart I-11CAD/SEK Reversal Has Started CAD/SEK Reversal Has Started CAD/SEK Reversal Has Started Chart I-12Financials Versus Industrials Is Reversing Financials Versus Industrials Is Reversing Financials Versus Industrials Is Reversing Chart I-13Norway's Outperformance Could End Norway's Outperformance Could End Norway's Outperformance Could End Chart I-14Greece's Brief Outperformance Has Ended Greece's Brief Outperformance Has Ended Greece's Brief Outperformance Has Ended Chart I-15BRL/NZD At A Resistance Point BRL/NZD At A Resistance Point BRL/NZD At A Resistance Point Chart I-16The Outperformance Of Resources Versus Healthcare Is Vulnerable To Reversal The Outperformance Of Resources Versus Healthcare Is Vulnerable To Reversal The Outperformance Of Resources Versus Healthcare Is Vulnerable To Reversal Chart I-17The Outperformance Of Resources Versus Biotech Is Vulnerable To Reversal The Outperformance Of Resources Versus Biotech Is Vulnerable To Reversal The Outperformance Of Resources Versus Biotech Is Vulnerable To Reversal Chart I-18Cotton's Outperformance Is Vulnerable To Reversal Cotton's Outperformance Is Vulnerable To Reversal Cotton's Outperformance Is Vulnerable To Reversal Chart I-19US Homebuilders' Underperformance Is At A Potential Turning Point US Homebuilders' Underperformance Is At A Potential Turning Point US Homebuilders' Underperformance Is At A Potential Turning Point   Fractal Trading System   Fractal Trades Fat-Tailed Inflation Signals A Peak In Bond Yields Fat-Tailed Inflation Signals A Peak In Bond Yields Fat-Tailed Inflation Signals A Peak In Bond Yields Fat-Tailed Inflation Signals A Peak In Bond Yields 6-Month Recommendations Structural Recommendations Closed Fractal Trades 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  

Executive Summary Our recommended model bond portfolio outperformed its custom index by a robust +48bps in Q1/2022 – an impressive performance given the significant uncertainties stemming from the Ukraine war, surging commodity prices and hawkish central banks. This outperformance came entirely from the rates side of the portfolio (+52bps) as global government bond yields surged, driven by a large underweight to US Treasuries. The credit side of the portfolio was largely unchanged versus the benchmark (-4bps). Looking ahead, we see global bond yields as being more rangebound over the next six months. A lot of rate hikes in 2022 are already discounted (most notably in the US) and global inflation is likely to decelerate in Q2 & Q3. As the global monetary tightening cycle evolves, positioning more defensively in global credit, rather than duration management, will provide the better opportunity to generate alpha in bond portfolios. GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Recommended Positioning For The Next Six Months GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q1/2022 Review & Outlook: Trading The Consolidation Phase GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q1/2022 Review & Outlook: Trading The Consolidation Phase Bottom Line: In our model bond portfolio, we are downgrading US investment grade corporates to underweight, and reducing high-yield exposure in the US and Europe to neutral. We are also reducing inflation-linked bond allocations in the US and euro area to underweight versus nominals. Feature The first three months were horrific for global bond markets. The Bloomberg Global Aggregate index delivered a total return of -6.2%, the second worst quarter since 1990. No sector, from government bonds to corporate debt to emerging market spread product, was immune to the pressures from soaring energy prices, war-driven uncertainty and hawkish central bankers belated responding to the worst bout of global inflation since the 1970s. Related Report  Global Fixed Income StrategyOur Model Bond Portfolio Strategy To Begin 2022: Choosing Our Battles Wisely That toxic cocktail for bond returns may lose some potency in the coming months if a de-escalation of the Ukraine tensions can be reached. However, the bigger drivers of bond market volatility – high global inflation and the monetary tightening necessary to combat it – are more likely to linger for longer than expected. Government bond yields are unlikely to fall much in this environment. Increasingly, global credit spreads, especially for corporate debt in the US, will face intensifying widening pressure as central banks rapidly dial back pandemic-era monetary accommodation, led by the US Federal Reserve. With that in mind, we present our quarterly review of the BCA Research Global Fixed Income Strategy (GFIS) model bond portfolio for the first quarter of 2022. We also present our recommended positioning for the portfolio for the next six months, as well as portfolio return expectations for our base case and alternative investment scenarios. As a reminder to existing readers (and to new clients), the model portfolio is a part of our service that complements the usual macro analysis of global fixed income markets. The portfolio is how we communicate our opinion on the relative attractiveness between government bond and spread product sectors. We do this by applying actual percentage weightings to each of our recommendations within a fully invested hypothetical bond portfolio. Q1/2022 Model Bond Portfolio Performance: Regional Allocation Drives Outperformance Chart 1Q1/2022 Performance: Big Gains From Rising Bond Yields Q1/2022 Performance: Big Gains From Rising Bond Yields Q1/2022 Performance: Big Gains From Rising Bond Yields The total return for the GFIS model portfolio (hedged into US dollars) in the third quarter was -4.6%, outperforming the custom benchmark index by +48bps (Chart 1).1 In terms of the specific breakdown between the government bond and spread product allocations in our model portfolio, the former generated +52bps of outperformance versus our custom benchmark index while the latter underperformed by -4bps. In an extremely negative quarter for fixed income both in terms of the breadth and depth of losses, our regional allocation choices helped us continue generating outperformance after we transitioned to a neutral overall portfolio duration stance in mid-February. Throughout the quarter, we maintained a significant underweight on US Treasuries in the portfolio, even after we tactically upgraded our duration tilt. We expected US government debt to still underperform that of other developed markets, even in an environment where the rise in global bond yields was due for a breather. Our rationale worked – admittedly helped by the inflationary shock of the Russian invasion of Ukraine - with the US Treasury part of our portfolio generating a whopping +63bps of outperformance (Table 1). Table 1GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q1/2022 Overall Return Attribution GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q1/2022 Review & Outlook: Trading The Consolidation Phase GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q1/2022 Review & Outlook: Trading The Consolidation Phase Meanwhile, our biggest government bond overweights were in Europe, a market we expected to perform defensively in a portfolio context. We were obviously caught offside on this call as energy prices and inflation expectations in Europe surged in response to the Ukraine conflict. In total, our portfolio lost -30bps in active return terms in euro area government bonds, with the losses spread evenly between the core and periphery. We did staunch the bleeding somewhat by reducing our allocation to the periphery in the last two weeks of the quarter and using the proceeds to fund an increased allocation to European investment grade corporates. The European corporate index spread has tightened -23bps since that switch. Turning to the credit side of the portfolio, the most successful position was our underweight tilt on emerging market (EM) USD-denominated corporates (+10bps) and sovereigns (+9bps) during a catastrophic quarter for EM risky assets driven by the conflict as well as weakness in the Chinese economy. We sustained losses from our overweight on US CMBS (-11bps) which was broadly offset by gains from our underweight on US MBS (+10bps). Lastly, while we were hurt by the sell-off in euro area high-yield (-13bps), where we were overweight to start 2022, we did scale back some of that exposure towards the end of the quarter when markets started to discount the risk of a “worst case” scenario of direct NATO intervention in Ukraine. The bar charts showing the total and relative returns for each individual government bond market and spread product sector in our model portfolio are presented in Charts 2 & 3. Chart 2GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q1/2022 Government Bond Performance Attribution GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q1/2022 Review & Outlook: Trading The Consolidation Phase GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q1/2022 Review & Outlook: Trading The Consolidation Phase Chart 3GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q1/2022 Spread Product Performance Attribution By Sector GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q1/2022 Review & Outlook: Trading The Consolidation Phase GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q1/2022 Review & Outlook: Trading The Consolidation Phase Biggest Outperformers: Underweight US Treasuries with a maturity greater than 10 years (+23bps) Underweight UK Gilts with a maturity greater than 10 years (+14bps) Underweight US treasuries with a maturity between 3 and 5 years (+12bps) Biggest Underperformers: Overweight euro area high-yield corporates (-13bps) Overweight US CMBS (-11bps) Overweight Spanish Bonos (-5bps) Chart 4 presents the ranked benchmark index returns of the individual countries and spread product sectors in the GFIS model bond portfolio for Q1/2022. Returns are hedged into US dollars (we do not take active currency risk in this portfolio) and adjusted to reflect duration differences between each country/sector and the overall custom benchmark index for the model portfolio. We have also color coded the bars in each chart to reflect our recommended investment stance for each market during Q1 (red for underweight, dark green for overweight, gray for neutral). Chart 4Ranking The Winners & Losers From The GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Universe In Q1/2022 GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q1/2022 Review & Outlook: Trading The Consolidation Phase GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q1/2022 Review & Outlook: Trading The Consolidation Phase Ideally, we would look to see more green bars on the left side of the chart where market returns are highest, and more red bars on the right side of the chart were returns are lowest. That pattern largely held true in Q1/2022, especially at the tail ends of the chart. During a quarter where all the major asset classes in our portfolio lost money on a hedged and duration-matched basis, we outperformed by selectively underweighting the worst performers. Notably, we were underweight UK Gilts (-1280bps) and EM Sovereigns (-1103bps) on the extreme right side of the chart. We were also underweight US Treasuries (-531bps) which, despite being in the middle of Chart 4, contributed hugely to our portfolio outperformance due to their large market cap weighting in the benchmark index. Broadly, this means that, except for Europe and Australia, our highest conviction calls worked in our favor during the quarter. Bottom Line: Our model bond portfolio outperformed its benchmark index in the third quarter of the year by +48bps – a positive result coming largely from underweight positions in US Treasuries, UK Gilts, and EM credit. Changes To Our Model Bond Portfolio Allocations The uncertainty stemming from the Russia/Ukraine conflict led us to temporarily neutralize many of the recommended exposures in the model bond portfolio. We not only moved to neutral on overall portfolio duration, we also neutralized individual country yield curve tilts and inflation-linked bond allocations. While the situation remains fluid, the worst-case scenarios of the conflict expanding beyond the borders of Ukraine appear to have been avoided. This leads us to reconsider where to once again take active risks on the rates side of the portfolio. Chart 5Our Duration Indicator Calling For Slowing Global Yield Momentum Our Duration Indicator Calling For Slowing Global Yield Momentum Our Duration Indicator Calling For Slowing Global Yield Momentum Duration On overall portfolio duration, we are maintaining a neutral (“at benchmark”) stance in the portfolio. Our Global Duration Indicator is currently signaling that the strong upward momentum of global bond yields should fade over the next few months (Chart 5). Slowing global growth expectations – a trend that was already in place prior to the Ukraine conflict - are the major reason why our Duration Indicator has turned lower. The war-fueled surge in energy prices has helped push global bond yields higher through rising inflation breakevens, which also prompted central banks – most notably the Fed and the Bank of England (BoE)- to signal a need for a faster pace of interest rate hikes in 2022 despite softening growth momentum. Looking ahead, that strong link between oil prices and bond yields will not be broken until there is some sort of de-escalation of the Ukraine conflict, which does not appear imminent. This supports a near-term neutral overall duration stance. Yield Curve Allocations In terms of yield curve exposure, we see some opportunities to adjust allocations (Chart 6). US curves have inverted and UK curves are flirting with inversion as markets are pricing in more Fed/BoE tightening, while curves in Germany and France have bear-steepened with longer-term inflation expectations going up faster than shorter-term interest rate expectations. In the US and UK, the yield curve flattening also reflects the “front loading” of Fed/BoE rate hike expectations. Overnight index swap (OIS) curves are pricing in 190bps of rate hikes in the US, and 134bps in the UK, by the end of 2022. This is followed quickly by rate cuts discounted in H2/2023 and 2024 in both countries. We see it as more likely that both central banks will deliver fewer hikes than discounted in 2022 and but will push rates to higher levels than priced by the end of 2024. That leads us to add a mild steepening bias into our US and UK government bond allocations in the model bond portfolio. We offset that by inserting a flattening bias in the German and French yield curve allocations to keep the overall portfolio duration at 7.5 years, matching that of the custom benchmark index (Chart 7). Chart 6Curve Flattening In The US & UK Is Overdone Curve Flattening In The US & UK Is Overdone Curve Flattening In The US & UK Is Overdone ​​​​​ Chart 7Overall Portfolio Duration: Stay Neutral Overall Portfolio Duration: Stay Neutral Overall Portfolio Duration: Stay Neutral ​​​​​ Chart 8No Change To Our Country Allocations To Begin Q2/22 No Change To Our Country Allocations To Begin Q2/22 No Change To Our Country Allocations To Begin Q2/22 Country Allocations Turning to our country allocations, we see no need to make major changes right now (Chart 8). We still prefer to maintain an underweight stance on countries that are more likely to see multiple central bank rate hikes in 2022 (the US, UK, Canada) versus those that are less likely (Germany, France, Japan, Australia). We are also staying neutral on Italian and Spanish government bonds with the ECB set to taper the pace of its asset purchases in Q2. Less ECB buying raises the risk that higher yields will be required to entice private sector buyers to buy Italian and Spanish debt with a smaller central bank backstop. Inflation-Linked Bonds Our Comprehensive Breakeven Inflation (CBI) indicators assess the potential for a significant move in 10-year breakeven inflation rates, based on deviations from variables that typically correlate with breakevens like oil prices or survey-based measures of inflation expectations. At the moment, none of the CBIs for the eight countries in our model bond portfolio are below zero (Chart 9), which would be a signal that breakevens are too low and can move higher. Chart 9Inflation-Linked Bond Exposure: Reduce Europe & The US, Increase Canada GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q1/2022 Review & Outlook: Trading The Consolidation Phase GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q1/2022 Review & Outlook: Trading The Consolidation Phase Canada has the lowest CBI, and last week, we added a tactical trade to go long 10-year Canadian inflation breakevens. We will add that position to our model bond portfolio this week, moving the Canadian “linkers” allocation to overweight versus nominal Canadian government bonds (within an overall underweight allocation to Canada in the model bond portfolio). On the other side of our CBI rankings are countries where the CBIs are well above zero and breakevens are more stretched: Germany, Italy, France and the US. We are currently neutral inflation-linked bonds in those four countries, but strictly as a hedge against the war-fueled risks of further increases in oil prices. Now, however, 10-year breakevens have widened to levels that already factor in more expensive oil, even with oil prices struggling to break out to new highs. As a result, we are downgrading the allocation to linkers in Germany, Italy, France and the US to underweight within the model bond portfolio (Chart 10). Corporate Bonds The most meaningful changes we are making to our model bond portfolio, and in our strategic investment recommendations, are to our corporate bond allocations: We are downgrading US investment grade corporate bond exposure from neutral to underweight (2 out of 5) We are downgrading US high-yield corporate bond exposure from overweight to neutral (3 out of 5) We are also downgrading euro area high-yield exposure from overweight to neutral (3 out of 5) Credit spreads across the developed market and EM space have fully unwound the surge seen after Russia invaded Ukraine on February 24 (Chart 11). We had turned more cautious on global spread product exposure in early March because of the war-fueled shock to energy prices and investor sentiment. We viewed this as a bigger issue for European and EM credit, with Europe heavily reliant on Russian energy supplies and EM market liquidity impacted by bans on trading of Russian assets. We therefore reduced exposures to European high-yield and EM hard currency debt in the model bond portfolio. Chart 10Our Inflation-Linked Bond Country Allocations Our Inflation-Linked Bond Country Allocations Our Inflation-Linked Bond Country Allocations Now, while markets have become more sanguine about the prospects of a long war that can more directly draw in Western forces, a bigger threat to financial market stability has emerged – more aggressive tightening of global monetary policy led by the Fed. Chart 11Global Credit Spreads Have Returned To Pre-Invasion Levels Global Credit Spreads Have Returned To Pre-Invasion Levels Global Credit Spreads Have Returned To Pre-Invasion Levels ​​​​​​ Chart 12Global Monetary Backdrop Turning More Negative For Credit Global Monetary Backdrop Turning More Negative For Credit Global Monetary Backdrop Turning More Negative For Credit Already, the move away from quantitative easing by the Fed, ECB and BoE has led to a negative impulse for global credit returns (Chart 12). Excess returns for the Bloomberg Global Corporate and High-Yield indices are now essentially flat on a year-over-year basis, and the riskiest credit tiers of both indices are seeing the greater spread widening (bottom panel). Another indicator of tightening monetary policy, the flat US Treasury curve, is also signaling a poor environment for US credit market returns. Our colleagues at our sister service, BCA Research US Bond Strategy, have noted that when the 2-year/10-year US Treasury curve flattens below +25bps, the odds of US investment grade credit outperforming duration-matched Treasuries decline sharply. Dating back to 1973, the average excess return (over Treasuries) for the Bloomberg US investment grade index over the twelve months after the 2/10 curve flattens below +25bps is -0.56%. The 2/10 US Treasury curve is now inverted at -3bps, even with the Fed having only delivered a single +25bp rate hike so far in the current cycle. This is a highly unusual occurrence, as the Treasury curve typically inverts after the Fed has delivered multiple rate hikes in a tightening cycle. Bond investors are clearly “front-running” the Fed in discounting aggressive rate hikes in 2022 in response to US inflation near 8%. We think the Fed will deliver fewer hikes than markets are discounting this year, but will do more in 2023 and 2024. Yet the message from the now-inverted yield curve, and what it means for corporate bond performance, is too powerful to ignore. This underpins our decision to downgrade our recommended allocation to US investment grade to underweight. We do not, however, see a need to move the allocations for other corporate bond markets as aggressively. The credit spread widening seen so far in 2022 in the US and Europe – a trend that was already in place before the start of the Ukraine war – has restored more value to European corporate spreads compared to US equivalents. That can be seen when looking at our preferred measure of spread valuations, 12-month breakeven spreads.2 The historical percentile ranking of the 12-month breakeven spread is 63% for euro area investment grade and a much lower 23% for US investment grade (Chart 13). The absolute level of the euro area ranking justifies maintaining an overweight stance on euro area investment grade, both in absolute terms and relative to US investment grade. A smaller gap exists for high-yield, where the euro area 12-month breakeven spread percentile ranking is 50% versus 33% in the US. Those lower percentile rankings justify no higher than a neutral allocation to high-yield on either side of the Atlantic. On the surface, maintaining a higher allocation to US high-yield over US investment grade does appear counter-intuitive in an environment where the US Treasury curve is inverted and investors are growing increasingly worried that the Fed will need to engineer a major growth slowdown to cool inflation. However, that same high inflation helps to maintain a fast enough pace of nominal economic growth to limit the default risk for riskier borrowers. Moody’s estimates that the default rate for high-yield corporates will reach 3.1% in the US and 2.6% in Europe by year-end. Using those estimates, we can calculate a default-adjusted spread, or the current high-yield spread minus one-year-ahead expected default losses. That spread is currently 134bps in the US and 206bps in Europe, both well above the low end of the long-run range and closer to the long-run average (Chart 14). Those are levels that are consistent with a neutral allocation to high-yield in both regions, as current spreads offer a decent cushion in an environment of relatively low default risk. Chart 13More Attractive Spread Levels In Europe Vs. US More Attractive Spread Levels In Europe Vs. US More Attractive Spread Levels In Europe Vs. US ​​​​​​ Chart 14Low Default Risk Helps Support High-Yield Valuations Low Default Risk Helps Support High-Yield Valuations Low Default Risk Helps Support High-Yield Valuations ​​​​​​ Chart 15Persistent Headwinds To EM Credit Performance Persistent Headwinds To EM Credit Performance Persistent Headwinds To EM Credit Performance Emerging Markets Finally, we continue to see more reasons to be cautious on EM USD-denominated credit, given the lack of support from typical fundamental drivers (Chart 15). Weak Chinese growth, slowing commodity price momentum (on a year-over-year basis), and a firm US dollar are all factors that weigh on EM economic growth and the ability to service hard-currency debt. We are maintaining an underweight allocation to EM USD-denominated sovereign and corporate debt in our model bond portfolio. Indications that China is ready to introduce more fiscal and monetary stimulus, and/or if the Fed’s messaging turned less hawkish – and less US dollar bullish – would be the signals necessary for us to consider an EM upgrade. Summing It All Up The full list of our recommended portfolio allocations after making all of the above changes can be seen in Table 2. The changes leave the portfolio with the following high-level characteristics: Table 2GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Recommended Positioning For The Next Six Months GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q1/2022 Review & Outlook: Trading The Consolidation Phase GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q1/2022 Review & Outlook: Trading The Consolidation Phase Chart 16Overall Portfolio Allocation: Underweight Spread Product Vs Governments GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q1/2022 Review & Outlook: Trading The Consolidation Phase GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q1/2022 Review & Outlook: Trading The Consolidation Phase the overall duration exposure remains at-benchmark (i.e. neutral) the portfolio has now flipped to an underweight stance on the exposure of spread product to government bonds, equal to four percentage points of the portfolio (Chart 16) the tracking error of the portfolio, or its expected volatility in excess of that of the benchmark, is 80bps – a level similar to that before the changes were made and still well below our self-imposed 100bps tracking error limit (Chart 17) the portfolio now has a yield below that of the custom benchmark index, equal to 2.51% (Chart 18). Chart 17Overall Portfolio Risk: Moderate Overall Portfolio Risk: Moderate Overall Portfolio Risk: Moderate ​​​​​​ Chart 18Overall Portfolio Yield: Below-Benchmark Overall Portfolio Yield: Below-Benchmark Overall Portfolio Yield: Below-Benchmark ​​​​​​ The changes leave the portfolio much more exposed to a widening of global credit spreads than a rise in government bond yields – a desired outcome with bond yields already discounting a lot of tightening but credit spreads still at historically tight levels. Bottom Line: As the global monetary tightening cycle evolves, positioning more defensively in global credit, rather than duration management, will provide the better opportunity to generate alpha in bond portfolios. We are expressing that by cutting the exposure to corporate bonds in our model bond portfolio. Portfolio Scenario Analysis For The Next Six Months After making all the specific changes to our model portfolio weightings, which can be seen in the tables on pages 23-25, we now turn to our regular quarterly scenario analysis to determine the return expectations for the portfolio for the next six months. On the credit side of the portfolio, we use risk-factor-based regression models to forecast future yield changes for global spread product sectors as a function of four major factors - the VIX, oil prices, the US dollar and the fed funds rate (Table 3A). For the government bond side of the portfolio, we avoid using regression models and instead use a yield-beta driven framework, taking forecasts for changes in US Treasury yields and translating those in changes in non-US bond yields by applying a historical yield beta (Table 3B). Table 3AFactor Regressions Used To Estimate Spread Product Yield Changes GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q1/2022 Review & Outlook: Trading The Consolidation Phase GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q1/2022 Review & Outlook: Trading The Consolidation Phase Table 3BEstimated Government Bond Yield Betas To US Treasuries GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q1/2022 Review & Outlook: Trading The Consolidation Phase GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q1/2022 Review & Outlook: Trading The Consolidation Phase For our scenario analysis over the next six months, we use a base case scenario plus two alternate “tail risk” scenarios. In the current environment, our scenarios center around developments in the Ukraine/Russia conflict and the impacts on uncertainty and commodity-fueled inflation. Base Case There is no further escalation of the Ukraine/Russia conflict, possibly resulting in a temporary ceasefire. Oil prices pull back on a lower war risk premium, helping lower inflation expectations. Global realized inflation peaks during Q2/2022, alongside some moderation of global growth in lagged response to high energy prices. Within that slower pace of global growth, the US outperforms Europe while Chinese growth remains weak because of COVID lockdowns (although that will eventually lead to more stimulus from Chinese policymakers). The Fed delivers 100bps of rate hikes by July, starting with a 50bp increase at the May meeting, before pausing at the September meeting in response to slowing US inflation and growth. There is a mild bear flattening of the US Treasury curve, but yields remain broadly unchanged over the full six month scenario period with the Fed not hiking by more than currently discounted. The Brent oil price retreats by -10%, the US dollar modestly appreciates by 2%, the VIX stays close to current levels at 20 and the fed funds rate reaches 1.5%. Escalation Scenario The is no reduction in Ukraine war tensions, with increased Russian aggression resulting in greater NATO military involvement. The risk premium in oil prices increases, delaying the expected peak in global inflation until the second half of 2022. Inflation expectations remain elevated. Global growth weakens more than in the base case scenario because of higher energy prices, but with US growth still outperforming Europe. China’s economy remains weighed down by COVID lockdowns and an inadequate fiscal/monetary/credit policy response. The Fed is forced to be more aggressive because of high inflation expectations, delivering 150bps of hikes by September. The US Treasury curve bear-flattens, but with Treasury yields rising across the curve through wider TIPS breakevens and greater-than-expected rate hikes keeping real yields stable. The Brent oil price rises +25%, the VIX index climbs to 30, the US dollar appreciates by +5% thanks to slowing global growth and a more aggressive move by the Fed to push the funds rate to 2%. De-Escalation Scenario There is a full and lasting ceasefire between Russia and Ukraine. The war risk premium in oil prices collapses, allowing global inflation to peak in Q2 and then decline rapidly. Global growth sentiment improves because of lower energy prices and diminished worries about a wider world war. European growth outperforms US growth (relative to expectations) as European natural gas prices decline. China responds faster than expected to the latest COVID wave with more aggressive policy stimulus. Lower inflation allows the Fed to be more patient on rate hikes, delivering only 75bps of hikes by July before pausing. The Treasury curve moderately bull-steepens, although the absolute decline in nominal Treasury yields is fairly small as lower TIPS breakevens are partially offset by higher real yields (as growth sentiment improves). The Brent oil price falls -20%, the VIX index drifts down to 18, and the US dollar depreciates by -3% as global growth improves and the Fed pushes the funds rate to a less-than-expected 1.25% by July. The excess return scenarios for the model bond portfolio, using the above inputs in our simple quantitative return forecast framework, are shown in Table 4A. The US Treasury yield assumptions are shown in Table 4B. For the more visually inclined, we present charts showing the model inputs and Treasury yield projections in Chart 19 and Chart 20, respectively. Table 4AGFIS Model Bond Portfolio Scenario Analysis For The Next Six Months GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q1/2022 Review & Outlook: Trading The Consolidation Phase GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q1/2022 Review & Outlook: Trading The Consolidation Phase Table 4BUS Treasury Yield Assumptions For The 6-Month Forward Scenario Analysis GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q1/2022 Review & Outlook: Trading The Consolidation Phase GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q1/2022 Review & Outlook: Trading The Consolidation Phase Chart 19Risk Factor Assumptions For The Scenario Analysis Risk Factor Assumptions For The Scenario Analysis Risk Factor Assumptions For The Scenario Analysis ​​​​​​ Chart 20US Treasury Yield Assumptions For The Scenario Analysis US Treasury Yield Assumptions For The Scenario Analysis US Treasury Yield Assumptions For The Scenario Analysis ​​​​​​ Given our neutral overall portfolio duration stance, and the mild changes in nominal bond yields implied by our forecasts, it should not be surprising that the rates side of the portfolio is expected to not contribute any excess return in Q2 and Q3. However, Fed rate hikes – which push up yields on spread product in the forecasting regressions – result in negative credit returns in all scenarios (especially in the cases where the VIX is expected to rise). Thus, the return on the credit side of the model portfolio, where we are now underweight credit risk, will be the main driver of performance, delivering a range of excess return outcomes between +29bps and +53bps. Bottom Line: The next six months will be about locking in the significant gains in our model bond portfolio performance from rising bond yields, and transitioning to outperforming via wider credit spreads in US investment grade and EM hard currency debt.   Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com Shakti Sharma Senior Analyst ShaktiS@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1      The GFIS model bond portfolio custom benchmark index is the Bloomberg Barclays Global Aggregate Index, but with allocations to global high-yield corporate debt replacing very high-quality spread product (i.e. AA-rated). We believe this to be more indicative of the typical internal benchmark used by global multi-sector fixed income managers. 2     12-month breakeven spreads compare the option-adjusted spread (OAS) of a credit market or sector to its duration, using Bloomberg bond index data. The breakeven spread is the amount of spread widening that must occur over a one-year horizon to make the total return of a credit instrument equal to that of duration-matched risk-free government debt. GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Recommended Positioning     Active Duration Contribution: GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. Custom Performance Benchmark GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q1/2022 Review & Outlook: Trading The Consolidation Phase GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q1/2022 Review & Outlook: Trading The Consolidation Phase The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Global Fixed Income - Strategic Recommendations* Cyclical Recommendations (6-18 Months) GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q1/2022 Review & Outlook: Trading The Consolidation Phase GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q1/2022 Review & Outlook: Trading The Consolidation Phase  

Executive Summary US inflation is running at its highest level in over four decades. Although we expect it will soon peak, it appears certain to remain above the Fed’s 2% target level for an extended period. The war in Ukraine and COVID’s assault on China could give rise to a new round of supply disruptions that keep inflation at very high levels even after the initial wave of bottlenecks is cleared. Long-term price stability may best position an economy to achieve its potential, but real S&P 500 earnings have grown twice as fast when CPI inflation is above its mean than they have when it is below its mean. Historically, inflation has only begun to squeeze nominal earnings growth at two-standard-deviation extremes. Meaningful equity de-rating has been a feature when inflation exceeds its mean, however, and investors will have to be alert for any signs that TINA might be losing its grip on financial markets. We do not think that low-to-no-yield Treasuries or cash yet offer an appealing alternative, but animal spirits are always subject to change. Bumping Up Against Tactical Limits Bumping Up Against Tactical Limits Bumping Up Against Tactical Limits Bottom Line: The question of how to navigate an inflationary environment is likely to be with investors across 2022 and beyond. We continue to recommend overweighting equities over our cyclical 6-12-month timeframe, but risks are heightened and we will change course if conditions dictate. Feature With consumer prices rising at a clip not seen in over 40 years, inflation is a hot-button topic for anyone with even a passing interest in the US economy. The relentless series of upside inflation surprises have investors preoccupied with finding havens. To help get a handle on where to invest against varying inflation backdrops, we divided inflation into five regimes since the consumer price index (CPI) was launched in 1947: extreme inflation (an annualized quarter-over-quarter rate more than two standard deviations above its mean), high inflation (more than one but less than or equal to two standard deviations above the mean), moderate inflation (up to one standard deviation above the mean), moderately low inflation (one standard deviation below the mean up to the mean) and deflation (two standard deviations below the mean up to one standard deviation below the mean). Related Report  US Investment StrategyThe Last Line Of Inflation Defense (Is Holding Fast) We reviewed the performance of S&P 500 operating earnings, earnings multiples and returns in each CPI regime to see how equities have responded to inflation over the last 75 years. We then reviewed the available total return data for Treasuries, investment-grade corporate bonds and high-yield corporate bonds and analyzed them alongside equity total returns. The empirical record enhances our confidence in earnings growth, but the S&P 500 currently trades at nearly 20 times forward four-quarter earnings, and it is especially vulnerable to de-rating, given that contracting valuations have been the driver of underperformance when inflation exceeds its mean. We find it hard to contemplate overweighting fixed income over the next year when nominal yields are so far below the rate of inflation. It may require a modest leap of faith to believe that equity multiples can maintain their cruising altitude, but the odds are very long that a 10-year Treasury note yielding 2.4% will protect its owner’s purchasing power when prices might rise by 3.5% to 4.5% over the next year. The positive real returns that Treasuries have delivered in high-inflation environments since 1984 were achieved over a lengthy stretch in which inflation compensation at the date of purchase repeatedly topped actual inflation to maturity. Today it appears as if ex-ante inflation compensation is likely to prove woefully inadequate and we are skeptical that bonds can live up to their historical return patterns. 75 Years Of Inflation Data Chart 1 shows 299 quarters of annualized inflation data in standard deviation increments since the CPI was constructed in 1947. The shape of the distribution bears out the notion that prices are sticky to the downside; the population mean is well above the median as the high-inflation right tail is longer and fatter than the deflationary left tail. Across the CPI’s entire history, inflation has averaged 3.52% on an annualized quarter-over-quarter basis with a standard deviation (“sigma”) of 3.55%. Based on those parameters, we define extremely high inflation as CPI increases above 10.62% (17 instances), high inflation as 7.08% to 10.62% (22 instances), moderately high inflation as 3.53% to 7.07% (82 instances), moderately low inflation as -0.02% to 3.52% (155 instances), disinflation as -3.57% to -0.03% (21 instances) and deflation as less than -3.57% (2 instances). Chart 1The Complete Annualized CPI Distribution Inflation And Investing Inflation And Investing Inflation And Equities We examined movements in operating earnings, trailing multiples and closing prices for the S&P 500 in each of the six inflation regimes, though we discarded the outlier deflation bucket for insufficient data. In the extreme (greater-than-two-sigma) inflation scenario, S&P 500 earnings initially surged amidst the early postwar period’s pent-up demand explosion before going backwards in the Korean War inflation, the sharp 1973-75 recession and the Volcker double dip (Chart 2, dark solid line). An expanding P/E multiple (dashed line) helped to mitigate the blow from shrinking earnings, but equity investors endured sharp real declines (bottom panel, light solid line). Chart 2Extreme Inflation Squashes Earnings Extreme Inflation Squashes Earnings Extreme Inflation Squashes Earnings The one-to-two-sigma high-inflation scenario is a mirror image of the extreme inflation scenario. Nominal earnings growth surged (Chart 3, top panel) and managed to hold up well in real terms (Chart 3, bottom panel), but the index’s multiple de-rated at a vicious 15.5% annualized rate, sticking investors with double-digit real losses. 70% of this regime played out from 1973 to 1982 and it also spanned some of 1990-91 and great recessions. The last two data points occurred in 2021, when flat multiples allowed equities to benefit from robust earnings growth, but previously melting multiples illustrate the peril for equities if monetary tightening induces a hard landing. Chart 3High Inflation: Surging Nominal Earnings, Fierce De-Rating High Inflation: Surging Nominal Earnings, Fierce De-Rating High Inflation: Surging Nominal Earnings, Fierce De-Rating The zero-to-one-sigma moderate-inflation scenario has fostered such robust earnings growth that even a steady de-rating headwind cannot hold back equity returns (Chart 4). Despite spanning the entire 1973-74 recession and the early stages of the global financial crisis, the moderate-inflation regime has been solidly conducive to growth. Chart 4Moderate Inflation Is Great For Growth Moderate Inflation Is Great For Growth Moderate Inflation Is Great For Growth Just over half of the quarters have met our minus-one-to-zero-sigma moderately low inflation standard. They have featured subpar nominal earnings growth, but a benign inflation backdrop has helped them close the gap with mean real growth and a re-rating tailwind has pushed real annualized S&P 500 price returns above 7% (Chart 5). Most of the post-crisis period has unfolded against a moderately low inflation backdrop, which has been good for equity investors even as concerns about tepid growth lingered. Chart 5Moderately Low Inflation Is The Enduring Equity Sweet Spot Moderately Low Inflation Is The Enduring Equity Sweet Spot Moderately Low Inflation Is The Enduring Equity Sweet Spot The minus-two-to-minus-one-sigma deflationary backdrop in which the price level contracts has featured even weaker aggregate growth, but a 10% annualized re-rating boost has allowed equities to deliver double-digit returns (Chart 6). One would expect growth to wither when the price level is deflating but ex-1Q20, when the pandemic halted activity in its tracks, growth in this phase has topped growth in every other phase. That counterintuitive result illustrates that inflation is a lagging indicator that exerts a heavy influence on monetary policy, which impacts the economy with a lag, while markets are forward looking. The ends of the inflation distribution are likely to mark inflection points where momentum reverses. Chart 6Once Prices Deflate, The Danger Has Already Passed Once Prices Deflate, The Danger Has Already Passed Once Prices Deflate, The Danger Has Already Passed Our survey of equity performance across inflation regimes has shown that inflation is much better for earnings growth than disinflation/deflation until it reaches extreme levels. Nominal earnings have grown three times as fast and real earnings have grown twice as fast when inflation is above its 3.52% mean than when it’s below it (Table 1). The fundamental tailwind that comes with perky inflation is almost entirely offset by multiple contraction, however, just as the growth drag from low inflation is offset by multiple expansion. We don’t think investors should be unduly worried that inflation will squash growth this year, but they do need to be alert to anything that might presage de-rating. Table 1Inflation And Earnings, Multiples, And Returns Inflation And Investing Inflation And Investing Inflation And Bonds To fill out the asset allocation picture, we also reviewed the performance of the Bloomberg US Treasury, US Corporate and US High Yield Total Return Indices. Table 2 tracks annual nominal and real total returns for all three indices, along with the S&P 500, since the second half of 1983, when the high-yield index was launched. The distribution of CPI changes from 1983 forward is more concentrated about the mean than the entire population distribution beginning in 1947 and nearly 80% of observations fall within one standard deviation of the mean, so the tail distributions have comparatively few observations. Table 2Inflation, Treasuries And Spread Product Inflation And Investing Inflation And Investing Nonetheless, the extant tail observations suggest that high yield’s positive carry failed to generate positive excess returns over Treasuries in high-inflation environments while spread widening and increased defaults caused them to lag Treasuries amidst extreme deflation. Investment grade also lagged Treasuries in the tails, albeit by a smaller margin than high yield. High yield comfortably outperformed within the core minus-one-to-plus-one-sigma range, when equities also shined. The bottom line is that Treasuries have provided welcome ballast to multi-asset portfolios in both high-inflation and deflationary episodes over the last 40 years. They were even bigger winners from late 1972, when the Treasury and corporate indexes began, through late 1983, sporting annualized real returns that beat those of high-grade corporates and the S&P 500 by five and eight percentage points, respectively, when inflation exceeded its mean. We question the applicability of the empirical record in the current environment, however, as ex-ante inflation compensation routinely outstripped ex-post inflation over the four-plus decades that it was compiled. Even as the 10-year yield has recently flirted with 2.5%, we expect that the inflation compensation embedded in long-duration bonds will prove inadequate to preserve bondholders’ purchasing power over the bonds’ remaining life. Portfolio Construction The findings from our inflation review do not spur us to make any changes to the ETF portfolio. We continue to believe that the near-term foundations of the US economy are strong and will support above-trend growth over our six- to twelve-month investment timeframe. US growth is at risk from the war in Ukraine and the ongoing COVID-19 revival and aggressive Fed tightening could stifle the effects of past fiscal and monetary stimulus measures that have not yet been felt. We are actively monitoring global geopolitical and public health developments, along with the Fed, though we think it will be difficult for Chair Powell and company to surprise hawkishly over the rest of this year. We believe the moves we made four weeks ago, when we temporarily closed out our equity overweight, reduced our cyclicals-over-defensives positioning, dialed back our value and small-cap overweights, initiated direct exposure to the metals and mining space via the XME ETF and trimmed our Treasury underweight, will protect the portfolio adequately against ongoing inflationary surges and sporadic growth headwinds. The direct homebuilder exposure we took on via the ITB ETF at that time has weighed on performance, but we are sticking with it as we believe the widespread pessimism about the industry’s prospects has gotten way overdone. The labor market remains robust, as the March employment report and the February JOLTS release reiterated last week, less pecunious households are flush with excess pandemic savings and the wealthy are reveling in an unprecedented surge in household net worth. The global situation merits tactical caution, and it looks as if the S&P 500 has hit the top of its near-term range (Chart 7, top panel) while the VIX may have reached a near-term bottom (Chart 7, bottom panel), but our sanguine cyclical view remains intact. Chart 7Equities May Have Reached Another Short-Term Turning Point Equities May Have Reached Another Short-Term Turning Point Equities May Have Reached Another Short-Term Turning Point ETF Portfolio Review - March The cyclical ETF portfolio returned 1.26% in March (Appendix Table), outperforming its benchmark by a modest 8 basis points (“bps”). Our bond underweight was auspicious as yields rose across all maturities last month. Overweighting the riskier segments of the fixed-income market – junk bonds and preferred stocks via the VRP ETF – generated 14 bps of relative performance. However, our equity positioning chipped away at those gains. We underweighted Utilities, March’s top performing sector, and overweighted value, which lagged. Our large Energy overweight mitigated those drags, leaving us with positive net alpha. Since inception two months ago, the portfolio’s value-added stands at 18 bps.   Doug Peta, CFA Chief US Investment Strategist dougp@bcaresearch.com Jennifer Lacombe Associate Editor JenniferL@bcaresearch.com Cyclical ETF Portfolio Inflation And Investing Inflation And Investing