Labor Market

Highlights Inflation: Additional fiscal stimulus will lead to higher inflation in the goods sector, where bottlenecks are already forming. But stronger services inflation is required (particularly in shelter) before broad price pressures emerge. Some leading indicators of shelter inflation suggest that a bottom may be near. Fed: The Fed will not lift rates or taper asset purchases until the unemployment rate is close to 4.5% and 12-month PCE inflation is firmly above 2%. This could occur in late-2021 if economic growth is very strong, but 2022 is more likely. Investment Strategy: Maintain below-benchmark portfolio duration and stay overweight TIPS versus nominal Treasuries. Nominal curve steepeners, real curve steepeners and inflation curve flatteners all continue to make sense. Feature Biden Goes Big Joe Biden unveiled his economic plan last week and, as expected, the incoming President is setting his sights high. First on the agenda is the American Rescue Plan, a $1.9 trillion package that contains $410 billion for fighting the coronavirus, $1 trillion of income support for households and $440 billion in direct aid to state & local governments. Biden will seek enough Republican support in the Senate to pass this legislation without using the budget reconciliation process. If that can be achieved, Democrats will still have two opportunities to pass reconciliation bills in 2021. Those bills will focus on other priorities such as infrastructure investment and expanding the Affordable Care Act. With households already flush with cash, an influx of new stimulus risks an earlier return of inflation than was previously anticipated. Biden’s announcement was in line with what our political strategists anticipated, and the federal deficit is on track to fall somewhere between the “Democratic Status Quo” and “Democratic High” scenarios shown in Chart 1. This means that the deficit will peak at between 22% and 25% of GDP in fiscal year 2021 before gradually converging back to the baseline. To put this number in context, the federal deficit peaked at just below 10% of GDP at the height of the Great Financial Crisis in 2009. The US economy is now on the cusp of receiving a much greater fiscal injection at a time when nominal GDP is only 2.7% off its prior peak. Chart 1Massive Fiscal Stimulus Is On The Way Trust The Fed's Forward Guidance Trust The Fed's Forward Guidance As mentioned above, the American Rescue Plan contains $1 trillion of income support for households, delivered in the form of one-time $1400 checks and an expansion of unemployment insurance benefits. This is a lot of stimulus, and it looks like even more when you consider the significant income boost that households have already received. Chart 2 shows nominal personal income relative to a pre-COVID trend. Income has been significantly above trend since last spring’s passage of the CARES act, and with fewer spending opportunities than usual, households have been building up a significant buffer of excess savings. Chart 2A Mountain Of Excess Savings A Mountain Of Excess Savings A Mountain Of Excess Savings The risk here is quite clear. With households already flush with cash, an influx of new stimulus risks an earlier return of inflation than was previously anticipated. The remainder of this report considers the likelihood of this risk materializing and what it might mean for Fed policy and our TIPS and portfolio duration recommendations. Inflation Outlook & TIPS Strategy One complication brought on by the pandemic is the stark divergence between goods and services sectors. The large fiscal response means that households have ample cash to deploy towards consumer goods, but service sectors remain shuttered. This divergence is reflected in the inflation data where price pressures are already emerging in the core goods space but services inflation (excluding shelter and medical care) remains below recent historical levels (Chart 3). Manufacturing indicators, such as the ISM Prices Paid survey and commodity prices, provide further evidence of a bottleneck in manufactured goods (Chart 4). Capacity utilization remains low, but it is rising quickly (Chart 4, bottom panel). Chart 3Goods Vs. Services Inflation Goods Vs. Services Inflation Goods Vs. Services Inflation Chart 4A Bottleneck In Manufacturing A Bottleneck In Manufacturing A Bottleneck In Manufacturing The split between goods and services inflation will persist until vaccination efforts gain enough traction for services to re-open, and it will only be exacerbated as more fiscal stimulus is rolled out. Households will continue to dump cash into goods, but service sector participation is likely needed before broad upward pressure on overall inflation emerges. Specifically, broad upward pressure on overall inflation will not be possible until we see a turnaround in shelter (roughly 40% of core CPI). Shelter inflation plummeted during the past year (Chart 5), but some tentative signals are emerging that suggest a bottom may occur within the next 3-6 months. Shelter inflation tends to fall when the unemployment rate is high and rise as labor slack dissipates. Shelter inflation is highly sensitive to the economic cycle. That is, it tends to fall when the unemployment rate is high and rise as labor slack dissipates. Abstracting from large swings in temporary unemployment, the permanent unemployment rate finally ticked down in December (Chart 6). If this marks an inflection point, then shelter inflation is likely close to its trough. The National Multi Housing Council’s Apartment Market Tightness Index is another excellent indicator of shelter inflation. It remains below 50, consistent with downward pressure on shelter inflation, but the tightly-linked Sales Volume Index recently jumped into “more volume” territory (Chart 6, bottom panel). Sales volume led the Market Tightness Index coming out of the last recession. If that happens again, we could soon see shelter inflation creep up Chart 5Shelter Inflation Near ##br##A Trough? Shelter Inflation Near A Trough? Shelter Inflation Near A Trough? Chart 6Shelter Inflation Is Highly Sensitive To The Economic Cycle Shelter Inflation Is Highly Sensitive To The Economic Cycle Shelter Inflation Is Highly Sensitive To The Economic Cycle It is still too soon to call a bottom in shelter inflation. However, if the permanent unemployment rate continues to fall and the Apartment Market Tightness Index follows sales volume higher, then a bottom in shelter could emerge within the next 3-6 months. TIPS Strategy Chart 7Base Effects Will Push Inflation Higher Base Effects Will Push Inflation Higher Base Effects Will Push Inflation Higher Our strategy has been to position for higher TIPS breakeven inflation rates by going long TIPS versus nominal Treasuries, with a plan to tactically reverse this position for a time once the inflation narrative reaches a fever pitch in Q1 of this year. One reason for the inflation narrative to take hold is that base effects will naturally lead to a jump in year-over-year inflation rates during the next few months as the March and April 2020 datapoints fall out of the rolling 12-month average. Chart 7 shows that both 12-month core PCE and core CPI will soon spike above 2%, even if a modest 0.15% monthly growth rate is achieved. Our expectation is that inflation pressures will wane after April of this year, potentially giving us an opportunity to position for a drop in TIPS breakeven inflation rates. However, if shelter inflation does indeed reverse course, as leading indicators suggest it might, that opportunity may not present itself. Bottom Line: Stay positioned long TIPS / short duration-equivalent nominal Treasuries and watch for further evidence of a bottom in shelter inflation within the next 3-6 months. The Fed Has Already Told Us What It Will Do It is certainly possible (even likely) that large-scale fiscal stimulus will cause inflation pressures to emerge earlier than would have otherwise been the case. However, any meaningful monetary tightening in 2021 still seems like a long shot. The potential for Fed tightening in 2021 became a hot topic last week when Atlanta Fed President Raphael Bostic said he’s open to the possibility of tapering asset purchases in late-2021, assuming economic growth turns out to be stronger than anticipated. Fed Chair Powell downplayed the odds of a 2021 taper in his remarks later in the week, causing bond prices to regain some lost ground. Year-over-year inflation will peak in April. Our advice is to not get caught up in the different tones of Fed speakers. The Fed has already been very explicit about the economic criteria that will cause it to tighten policy. Any evaluation of when tightening will occur should be based on an assessment of the economic data relative to these criteria, not on whether certain Fed officials sound more or less optimistic about the future. Tapering & The Timing Of Liftoff Chart 8No Liftoff Until We Reach Full Employment No Liftoff Until We Reach Full Employment No Liftoff Until We Reach Full Employment Our “Fed In 2021” Special Report laid out the three criteria that must be met before the Fed will consider lifting the funds rate.1  Fed Vice-Chair Richard Clarida reiterated this checklist in a recent speech.2 Before lifting rates: 12-month PCE inflation must be 2% or higher Labor market conditions must have reached levels consistent with the Fed’s assessment of maximum employment PCE inflation must be on track to moderately exceed 2% for some time 12-month core PCE inflation is currently 1.38%. As we already noted, it will likely jump above 2% by April but Fed officials will not view that increase as sustainable. The elevated unemployment rate is a big reason why. At 6.7%, the unemployment rate remains well above the range of 3.5% to 4.5% that Fed officials view as consistent with full employment (Chart 8). In his speech, Vice-Chair Clarida said that when “labor market indicators return to a range that, in the Committee’s judgment, is broadly consistent with its maximum-employment mandate, it will be data on inflation itself that policy will react to.” In other words, liftoff will not occur until the unemployment rate is between 3.5% and 4.5%, no matter what happens with inflation. Then, even when the “full employment” criterion has been met, 12-month PCE inflation must still rise above 2% before a rate hike will be considered. The guidance around the tapering of asset purchases is vaguer than the guidance around liftoff. All we know is that the Fed intends to start tapering asset purchases before it lifts the funds rate. Since Fed officials know that a tapering announcement will send a signal that liftoff is imminent, it is highly likely that tapering will occur only a few months before the Fed expects to raise rates. In all likelihood, the unemployment rate will be close to 4.5% before tapering is considered. This could happen by late-2021 if economic growth is very strong, as President Bostic suggested, but a 2022 tapering seems like a safer bet. The Pace Of Rate Hikes Once liftoff occurs, Vice-Chair Clarida has been very clear that inflation expectations will be the principal factor guiding the pace of policy tightening. Specifically, if long-maturity TIPS breakeven inflation rates are below the 2.3 to 2.5 percent range that has historically been consistent with “well anchored” inflation expectations, policy tightening will proceed more slowly than if breakevens are threatening to break above 2.5% (Chart 9). Other measures of inflation expectations based on surveys and inflation’s long-run trend will also be considered (Chart 10). Chart 9TIPS ##br##Breakevens TIPS Breakevens TIPS Breakevens Chart 10Inflation Expectations: Survey And Trend Measures Inflation Expectations: Survey And Trend Measures Inflation Expectations: Survey And Trend Measures The indicators of inflation expectations shown in Charts 9 & 10 are currently below “well-anchored” levels. However, this may not be the case when the Fed is finally ready to raise rates off the zero bound. In fact, when we look at the amount of policy tightening currently priced into the yield curve, we see a good chance that it will be exceeded. The market is currently priced for liftoff to occur in mid-2023, followed by only two more 25 basis point rate hikes over the subsequent 18 months (Chart 11). Chart 11Market Priced For Mid-2023 Liftoff Market Priced For Mid-2023 Liftoff Market Priced For Mid-2023 Liftoff With all the fiscal stimulus coming down the pipe, we can easily envision liftoff occurring sometime in 2022, followed by a somewhat quicker pace of tightening. With that forecast in mind, investors should maintain below-benchmark portfolio duration.   Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see US Bond Strategy Special Report, “The Fed In 2021”, dated December 22, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/clarida20210113a.htm Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification

Highlights Even though bonds have cheapened relative to stocks, the equity risk premium remains elevated. The end of the pandemic and supportive fiscal and monetary policies should buoy economic activity in the second half of the year, lifting corporate earnings in the process. Some critics charge that low interest rates and QE have exacerbated wealth and income inequality. The evidence suggests the opposite: Rising inequality since the early 1980s has depressed aggregate demand, forcing central banks to loosen monetary policy. The tide of inequality may be turning, however. Ongoing fiscal and monetary stimulus, increasingly aggressive income distribution policies, heightened anti-trust enforcement, and waning globalization could all shift the balance of power from capital back to labor. Investors should overweight global equities for now but prepare for a more stagflationary environment later this decade. Market Overview We continue to favor global equities over bonds on a 12-month horizon. While bonds have cheapened relative to stocks, the global equity risk premium is still quite wide by historic standards (Chart 1). The distribution of vaccines over the coming months should pave the way for a strong rebound in economic activity in the second half of 2021. This will lift corporate earnings. The macro policy mix will also remain supportive. Thanks to the combination of increased fiscal transfers and subdued spending last year, US households have accumulated $1.5 trillion in savings – equivalent to 10% of annual consumption – over and above the pre-pandemic trend (Chart 2). Chart 1Equity Risk Premia Remain Elevated Equity Risk Premia Remain Elevated Equity Risk Premia Remain Elevated Chart 2Households Have Accumulated Lots Of Savings, Which Should Help Propel Future Spending Households Have Accumulated Lots Of Savings, Which Should Help Propel Future Spending Households Have Accumulated Lots Of Savings, Which Should Help Propel Future Spending   US household balance sheets are set to improve further. Congress passed a $900 billion stimulus bill in December, which provides direct support to households, unemployed workers, and small businesses. On Thursday, President-elect Joe Biden unveiled an additional $1.9 trillion relief package. Biden’s plan calls for making direct payments of $1400 to most Americans, bringing the total to $2000 after the $600 in direct payments in December’s deal is included. President Trump had earlier called for stimulus payments of $2000 per person, a number the Democrats quickly seized on. Biden’s plan would also extend emergency unemployment benefits to the end of September, boost funding for schools, raise the child tax credit, and increase spending on Covid testing and the vaccine rollout. Unlike the December deal, it would also provide $350 billion in assistance to state and local governments. We expect at least $1 trillion of Biden’s proposal to be enacted into law. A trillion here, a trillion there, and pretty soon you are talking big money. Admittedly, taxes are also likely to rise. During the election campaign, Joe Biden pledged to lift the corporate income tax rate from 21% to 28%, bringing it halfway back to the 35% rate that prevailed in 2017. He also promised to introduce a minimum 15% tax on the income that companies report in their financial statements to shareholders, raise taxes on overseas profits, and boost payroll taxes on households with annual earnings in excess of $400,000. If carried out, these measures would reduce S&P 500 earnings-per-share by 9%-to-10%. Given the slim majority that Democrats maintain in the Senate, it is unlikely that taxes will rise as much as Joe Biden’s tax plan calls for. Nevertheless, a tax hit to EPS of around 5% starting in 2022 looks probable. On the positive side, the additional spending will goose the economy, so that the net effect of the tax increase on corporate profits should be fairly small. Meanwhile, monetary policy will remain exceptionally accommodative. The Fed is unlikely to hike rates until late 2023 or early 2024. It will take even longer for policy rates to rise in the other major economies. Our bond strategists think that the Fed will start tapering QE only about six months before the first rate hike. Hence, for the time being, ongoing bond buying will limit the upside to yields. We see the US 10-year Treasury yield rising to 1.5% by the end of this year, only modestly higher than market expectations of 1.36%. Rising Inequality: The Dark Side Of QE? Chart 3Inequality Has Risen Across Major Developed Economies Inequality Has Risen Across Major Developed Economies Inequality Has Risen Across Major Developed Economies One often-heard objection to QE is that it has exacerbated inequality by pushing up equity prices without doing much to help the real economy. Some even contend that QE has hurt the middle class by depriving savers of a critical source of interest income. It is certainly true that inequality has risen sharply over the past 40 years, especially in the US (Chart 3). It is also true that the bulk of equity wealth is held by the very rich. According to Fed data, the wealthiest top 1% own half of all stocks (Chart 4). However, QE has pushed up not only equity prices. Falling bond yields have also pushed up home prices. Unlike stocks, housing wealth is broadly held across the population. Moreover, monetary policy operates through other channels. Lower interest rates tend to weaken a country’s currency, boosting competitiveness in the process. Lower rates also encourage investment. Again, real estate figures heavily here. Chart 5 shows that there is a very strong correlation between mortgage yields and housing starts. And while lower interest rates do penalize savers, the middle class is not the main victim. Interest receipts represent a much larger share of total income for ultra-wealthy individuals than for everyone else (Chart 6).   Chart 4The Rich Hold The Bulk Of Equities Inequality Led To QE, Not The Other Way Around Inequality Led To QE, Not The Other Way Around Chart 5Strong Correlation Between Mortgage Rates And Housing Activity Strong Correlation Between Mortgage Rates And Housing Activity Strong Correlation Between Mortgage Rates And Housing Activity Chart 6Interest Represents A Bigger Share Of Overall Income At The Top Of The Income Distribution Inequality Led To QE, Not The Other Way Around Inequality Led To QE, Not The Other Way Around Far from exacerbating income inequality, a recent IMF research paper argued that easier monetary policy may dampen inequality by boosting employment and wage growth. Chart 7 shows that labor’s share of GDP has tended to rise whenever the labor market tightened.   Chart 7Rising Labor Share Of Income Occurring Alongside Labor Market Tightening Rising Labor Share Of Income Occurring Alongside Labor Market Tightening Rising Labor Share Of Income Occurring Alongside Labor Market Tightening Inequality Paved The Way To QE Chart 8The Rich Save More Than The Poor Inequality Led To QE, Not The Other Way Around Inequality Led To QE, Not The Other Way Around Rather than QE exacerbating inequality, a more plausible story is that rising inequality led to QE. The rich tend to save more than the poor (Chart 8). Consistent with estimates by the IMF, we find that the shift in income towards the rich has depressed US aggregate demand by about 3% of GDP since the late 1970s (Chart 9). A standard Taylor Rule equation suggests that real interest rates would need to be 1.5-to-3 percentage points lower to offset a 3% loss in demand.1 That’s a lot! Thus, not only have the rich benefited directly from receiving a bigger share of the economic pie, they have also benefited indirectly from the fact that falling interest rates have pushed up the value of their assets.   Chart 9Rising Inequality Has Depressed Consumption By 3% Of GDP Since The Early 1980s Rising Inequality Has Depressed Consumption By 3% Of GDP Since The Early 1980s Rising Inequality Has Depressed Consumption By 3% Of GDP Since The Early 1980s For a while, lower rates allowed poorer households to take on more debt, thus masking the impact of rising income inequality on consumption. However, after the housing bubble burst, households were forced to retrench and start living within their means. The resulting collapse in spending pushed interest rates towards zero and forced the Fed to undertake one QE program after another. It Is Not About Education Many of the popular explanations for rising inequality have focused on the widening gap between well-educated and less well-educated workers. While there is evidence that the demand for skilled workers increased in the 1980s and 1990s, Beaudry, Green, and Sand have shown that it has declined since then. Together with a rising supply of college-educated workers, softer demand for skilled workers compressed the so-called “skill premium.” So why has inequality increased? One can get a sense of the answer by looking at Chart 10. It shows that almost all the increase in US real incomes has occurred not just near the top of the income distribution, but at the very very top – people in the highest 0.1% of income earners. These are not university professors. These are hedge fund managers and corporate chieftains, with a sprinkling of celebrities (Chart 11). Chart 10The (Really) Rich Got Richer Inequality Led To QE, Not The Other Way Around Inequality Led To QE, Not The Other Way Around Chart 11Who Are The Top Income Earners? Inequality Led To QE, Not The Other Way Around Inequality Led To QE, Not The Other Way Around Superstars In his seminal paper entitled “The Economics of Superstars,” Sherwin Rosen argued that technological trends have facilitated the rise of winner-take-all markets. The classic example is that of stage actors. A century ago, tens of thousands of actors could eke out a living performing at the local theater. Today, a small number of superstars dominate the entertainment industry, while countless others work odd jobs, waiting in vain for their chance for stardom. A similar argument applies to professional athletes. The applicability of the superstar model to other classes of workers is more debatable. How much of the income of star hedge fund managers reflects their unique skills and how much of it reflects a “heads I win, tails you lose” approach to investing client money? Similarly, do CEOs get paid what they do because there is no one else who can do the same job with less pay? Or is it because CEOs can effectively set their own compensation, subject to an “outrage constraint” from shareholders and the broader public — a constraint that has loosened in recent decades due to rising stock prices and a shift in public attention away from class issues towards the debilitating distraction of identity politics? The Rise Of Monopoly Capitalism Where the superstar model may be more relevant is at the firm level. Standard economics textbooks treat profit as a return on capital. This implies that when the after-tax rate of return on capital goes up, firms should respond by increasing investment spending in order to further boost profits. In practice, this has not occurred. For example, the Trump Administration promised that corporate tax cuts would produce an investment boom. Yet, outside of the energy sector – which benefited from an unrelated recovery in crude oil prices – US corporate capex grew more slowly between Q4 of 2016 and Q4 of 2019 than it did over the preceding three years (Chart 12). Why did the textbook economic relationship between investment and the rate of return on capital break down? The answer is that the textbook approach ignores what has become an increasingly important source of corporate profits: monopoly power. Chart 12No Evidence That Trump Corporate Tax Cuts Boosted Investment Inequality Led To QE, Not The Other Way Around Inequality Led To QE, Not The Other Way Around   Chart 13A Winner-Take-All Economy A Winner-Take-All Economy A Winner-Take-All Economy A recent study by Grullon, Larkin, and Michaely finds that market concentration has increased in 75% of all US industries since 1997. Furman and Orszag have shown that the dispersion in the rate of return on capital across firms has widened sharply since the early 1990s. In the last year of their analysis, firms at the 90th percentile of profitability had a rate of return on capital that was five times higher than the median firm, a massive increase from the historic average of two times (Chart 13).   The rise of monopoly power has been most evident in the tech sector. Over the past 25 years, rising tech profit margins have contributed more to tech share outperformance than rising sales (Chart 14). Chart 14Decomposing Tech Outperformance Decomposing Tech Outperformance Decomposing Tech Outperformance Tech companies are particularly susceptible to network effects: The more people who use a particular tech platform, the more attractive it is for others to use it. Facebook is a classic example. Tech companies also benefit significantly from scale economies. Once a piece of software has been written, creating additional copies costs almost nothing. Even in the hardware realm, the marginal cost of producing an additional chip is tiny compared to the fixed cost of designing it. All of this creates a winner-take-all environment where success begets further success. Monopolies And The Neutral Rate Unlike firms in a perfectly competitive industry, monopolistic firms have to contend with the fact that higher output tends to depress selling prices, thus leading to lower profit margins. As such, rising market power may simultaneously increase profits while reducing investment spending. This may be deflationary in two ways: First, lower investment will reduce aggregate demand. Second, greater market power will shift income towards wealthy owners of capital, who tend to save more than regular workers. An increase in savings relative to investment, in turn, will depress the neutral rate of interest. An Inflection Point For Inequality? After rising for the past four decades, inequality may be set to decline. Central banks are keen to allow economies to overheat. A feedback loop could emerge where overheated economies push up labor’s share of income, leading to more spending and even higher wages. Fiscal policy is likely to amplify this feedback loop. As we discussed last week, loose monetary policy is allowing governments to pursue expansionary fiscal policies. Fiscal stimulus raises the neutral rate of interest, making it easier for central banks to keep policy rates below their equilibrium level. Government policy is also moving in a more redistributive direction. Tax rates on high-income earnings will rise over the next few years, which will support new spending initiatives. Minimum wages are also heading higher. It is worth noting that Florida voters, despite handing the state to President Trump in November, voted 61%-to-39% to raise the state minimum wage from $8.56 an hour to $15 by 2026. Joe Biden also reaffirmed today his pledge to hike the federal minimum wage to $15 from its current level of $7.25. In addition, there is bipartisan support for strengthening anti-trust policies. On the left, Senator Elizabeth Warren has stated that “Today’s big tech companies have too much power – too much power over our economy, our society, and our democracy.” Increasingly, Republicans agree with this sentiment. According to a Pew Research study conducted last June, more than half of conservative Republicans favor increasing government regulation of tech companies (Chart 15). This number has probably gone up following last week’s coordinated effort by the largest tech companies to banish Parler, a Twitter-style app popular with conservatives, from the internet. Chart 15Conservatives Favor Increased Government Regulation Of Big Tech Companies Inequality Led To QE, Not The Other Way Around Inequality Led To QE, Not The Other Way Around Meanwhile, globalization is on the back foot. After rising significantly, the ratio of global trade-to-output has been flat for over a decade (Chart 16). As competition from foreign workers abates, working-class wages in advanced economies could rise. Chart 16Globalization Plateaued More Than A Decade Ago Globalization Plateaued More Than A Decade Ago Globalization Plateaued More Than A Decade Ago Long-Term Investment Implications What is good for Main Street is usually good for Wall Street. For the past 70 years, the S&P 500 has generally moved in sync with the ISM manufacturing index (Chart 17). The same pattern holds globally. Chart 18 shows that the stock-to-bond ratio has correlated closely with the global manufacturing PMI. Chart 17Strong Correlation Between Economic Growth And Stocks Strong Correlation Between Economic Growth And Stocks Strong Correlation Between Economic Growth And Stocks Cyclical fluctuations can disguise important structural trends, however. US productivity has doubled since 1980, but real median wages have increased by only 20% (Chart 19). The bulk of productivity gains have flowed to upper-income earners and owners of capital. Hence, corporate profits rose, while inflation and interest rates declined. Chart 18Stocks Rarely Underperform Bonds When The Global Economy Is Strengthening Stocks Rarely Underperform Bonds When The Global Economy Is Strengthening Stocks Rarely Underperform Bonds When The Global Economy Is Strengthening Chart 19Real Median Wages Failed To Keep Up With Productivity Real Median Wages Failed To Keep Up With Productivity Real Median Wages Failed To Keep Up With Productivity   If we are approaching an inflection point for inequality, we may also be approaching an inflection point for profit margins and bond yields. To be sure, with unemployment still elevated, wage growth and inflation are not about to take off anytime soon. However, investors should prepare for a more inflationary – and ultimately, stagflationary – environment in the second half of the decade. This calls for reducing duration risk in fixed-income portfolios, favoring TIPS over nominal bonds, and owning inflation hedges such as gold and farmland. It also calls for maintaining a bias towards value over growth stocks, as the former usually outperform when inflation and commodity prices are on the upswing (Chart 20). Peter Berezin Chief Global Strategist peterb@bcaresearch.com Chart 20Value Stocks Usually Outperform When Commodity Prices Are On The Upswing Value Stocks Usually Outperform When Commodity Prices Are On The Upswing Value Stocks Usually Outperform When Commodity Prices Are On The Upswing   Footnotes 1 One can specify different parameters to weight the inflation and capacity utilization segments of a Taylor rule equation so that they are equally-weighted, meaning there is a coefficient of 0.5 on the gap between the year-over-year percent change in headline PCE and the Fed's 2% target and a coefficient of 0.5 on the output gap term. Previous Fed Chair and incoming Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen preferred an alternative specification where there was a coefficient of 1 on the output gap term so that the equation is as follows: RT= 2 + PT + 0.5(PT- 2) + 1.0YT, where R is the federal funds rate; P is headline PCE as expressed as a year-over-year percent change; and Y is the output gap (as approximated using the unemployment gap and Okun's law). For further discussion, please see Janet L. Yellen, "The Economic Outlook and Monetary Policy," April 11, 2012. Global Investment Strategy View Matrix Inequality Led To QE, Not The Other Way Around Inequality Led To QE, Not The Other Way Around Special Trade Recommendations Inequality Led To QE, Not The Other Way Around Inequality Led To QE, Not The Other Way Around Current MacroQuant Model Scores Inequality Led To QE, Not The Other Way Around Inequality Led To QE, Not The Other Way Around

Many investors feel that the Phillips Curve has failed to predict weak inflation over the past decade. But this perception is due to a singular focus on the economic slack component of the modern-day version of the curve to the exclusion of inflation expectations, and a failure to fully consider the lasting impact of sustained periods of a negative output gap on those expectations. In addition, many investors tend to downplay the long-term balance sheet impact of two episodes of excesses and savings/capital misallocations on the relationship between the stance of monetary policy and the output gap, via a persistently negative shock to aggregate demand and a reduced sensitivity of economic activity to interest rates. The COVID-19 pandemic was certainly a major economic shock. But for now, it seems like this was a sharp income statement recession, not a balance-sheet recession. This fact, along with lower odds of negative supply-side shocks and several structural factors, suggest that inflation will be higher over the next ten years than it has over the past decade. Investors looking to protect against potentially higher inflation should look primarily to commodities, cyclical stocks, and US farmland. Gold is likely to remain well supported over the coming few years, but rich valuation suggests the long-term outlook for the yellow metal is poor. A hybrid TIPS/currency portfolio has historically been strongly correlated with the price of gold, and may provide investors with long-term protection against inflation – at a better price. Introduction Chart II-1A Surge In Long-Dated Inflation Expectations A Surge In Long-Dated Inflation Expectations A Surge In Long-Dated Inflation Expectations The pandemic, and the corresponding fiscal and monetary response is challenging the low-inflation outlook of many market participants. Chart II-1 highlights that long-dated market-based inflation expectations have surged past their pre-COVID levels after collapsing to the lowest-ever level in March. The shift in thinking about inflation has partly been a response to an extraordinary rise in government spending in many countries. But Chart II-1 shows that long-dated expectations in the US were mostly trendless from April to June as Federal support was distributed, and instead rose sharply in July and August in the lead-up to the Fed’s official shift to an average inflation targeting regime. This new dawn for US monetary policy has been prompted not just by the pandemic, but also by the extended period of below-target inflation over the past decade. In this report, we review how the past ten-year episode of low inflation can be successfully explained through the lens of the expectations-augmented (i.e. “modern-day”) Phillips Curve. Many investors fail to fully appreciate the impact that inflation expectations have on driving actual inflation, as well as the cumulative impact of two major capital and savings misallocations over the past 25 years on the responsiveness of demand to interest rates and on the level of inflation expectations. Using the modern-day Phillips Curve as a guide, we present several reasons in favor of the view that inflation will be higher over the next decade than over the past ten years. Finally, we conclude with an assessment of several ways for investors to protect their portfolios from rising inflation. Revisiting The “Modern-Day” Phillips Curve The original Phillips Curve, as formulated by New Zealand economist William Phillips in the late 1950s, described a negative relationship between the unemployment rate and the pace of wage growth. Given the close correlation between wage and overall price growth at the time, the Phillips Curve was soon extended and generalized to describe an inverse relationship between labor market slack and overall price inflation. Chart II-2Rising Unemployment And Inflation Challenged The Original Phillips Curve Rising Unemployment And Inflation Challenged The Original Phillips Curve Rising Unemployment And Inflation Challenged The Original Phillips Curve However, the experience of rising inflation alongside high unemployment from the late 1960s to the late 1970s underscored that prices are also importantly determined by inflation expectations and shocks to the supply-side of the economy (Chart II-2). In the 1980s and 1990s, the Federal Reserve’s success at reigning in inflation was achieved not only by raising interest rates to punishingly high levels, but also by sharply altering consumer, business, and investor expectations about future prices. The experience of the late 1960s and 1970s led to a revised form of the Phillips Curve, dubbed the “expectations-augmented” or “modern” version. As an equation, the modern Phillips Curve is described today by Fed officials, in terms of core inflation, as follows: πct = β1πet + β2πct-1 + β3πct-2 - β4SLACKt + β5IMPt + εt where: πct = Core inflation today πet = Expectations of inflation πct-n = Lagged core inflation SLACKt = Slack in the economy IMPt = Imported goods prices εt = Other shocks to prices Described verbally, this framework suggests that “economic slack, changes in imported goods prices, and idiosyncratic shocks all cause core inflation to deviate from its longer-term trend that is ultimately determined by long-run inflation expectations.1” This framework can easily be extended to headline inflation by adding changes in food and energy prices. In most formal models of the economy in use today, the modern Phillips Curve is combined with the New Keynesian demand function to describe business cycles: Yt = Y*t – β(r-r*) + εt where: Yt = Real GDP Y*t = Real potential GDP r = The real interest rate r* = The neutral rate of interest εt = Other shocks to output This equation posits that differences in the real interest rate from its neutral level, along with idiosyncratic shocks to demand, cause real GDP to deviate from potential output. Abstracting from import prices and idiosyncratic shocks, these two equations tell a simple and intuitive story of how the economy generally works: The stance of monetary policy determines the output gap and, The output gap, along with inflation expectations, determine inflation. The Modern-Day Phillips Curve: The Pre-2000 Experience This above view of inflation and demand was strongly accepted by investors before the 2008 global financial crisis, but the decade-long period of generally below-target inflation has caused a crisis of faith in the idea of the Phillips Curve. Charts II-3 and II-4 show the historical record of the New Keynesian demand function and the modern-day Phillips Curve, using five-year averages of the data in question to smooth out the impact of short-term and idiosyncratic effects. We use nominal GDP growth as our long-run proxy for the neutral rate of interest,2 the US Congressional Budget Office’s (CBO) estimate of potential GDP to determine the output gap, and a proprietary measure of inflation expectations based on an adaptive expectations framework3 (Chart II-5). Chart II-3With Just Two Exceptions, Monetary Policy Strongly Explained Demand Before 2000 With Just Two Exceptions, Monetary Policy Strongly Explained Demand Before 2000 With Just Two Exceptions, Monetary Policy Strongly Explained Demand Before 2000 Chart II-4Similarly, Pre-2000 The Output Gap Generally Explained Unexpected Inflation Similarly, Pre-2000 The Output Gap Generally Explained Unexpected Inflation Similarly, Pre-2000 The Output Gap Generally Explained Unexpected Inflation Chart II-3 shows that until 1999, the stance of monetary policy was highly predictive of the output gap over a five-year period, with just two exceptions where major structural forces were at play: the late 1970s, and the second half of the 1990s. In the case of the former, the disruptive effect of persistently high inflation negatively impacted output growth despite easy monetary policy, and in the latter case, economic activity was modestly stronger than what interest rates would have implied due to the beneficial impact of the technologically-driven productivity boom of that decade. Similarly, Chart II-4 shows that until 1999 there was a good relationship between the output gap and the deviation in inflation from expectations, again with the late 1970s and late 1990s as exceptions. Along with the beneficial supply-side effects of the disinflationary tech boom, persistent import price weakness (via dollar strength) seems to have also played a role in suppressing inflation in the late 1990s (Chart II-6). Chart II-5The Expectations Component Of The Modern Phillips Curve, Visualized The Expectations Component Of The Modern Phillips Curve, Visualized The Expectations Component Of The Modern Phillips Curve, Visualized Chart II-6A Strong Dollar Also Played A Role In Suppressing Inflation During The 1990s A Strong Dollar Also Played A Role In Suppressing Inflation During The 1990s A Strong Dollar Also Played A Role In Suppressing Inflation During The 1990s   The Modern-Day Phillips Curve Post-2000 Following 2000, deviations between the monetary policy stance, the output gap, and inflation become more prominent, particularly after 2008. As we will illustrate below, these deviations are more apparent on the demand side. In the case of inflation, the question should be why inflation was not even lower in the years immediately following the global financial crisis. On both the demand and inflation side, these deviations are explainable, and in a way that helps us determine future inflation. Charts II-7 and II-8 show the same series as in Charts II-3 and II-4, but focused on the post-2000 period. From 2000-2007, Chart II-8 shows that the relationship between the output gap and the deviation in inflation from expectations was not particularly anomalous. The output gap was negative from the end of the 2001 recession until the beginning of 2006, and inflation was correspondingly below expectations on average for the cycle. Chart II-7Post-2000, The Output Gap Decoupled From The Monetary Policy Stance Post-2000, The Output Gap Decoupled From The Monetary Policy Stance Post-2000, The Output Gap Decoupled From The Monetary Policy Stance Chart II-8Since The GFC, The Real Mystery Is Why Inflation Has Been So Strong Since The GFC, The Real Mystery Is Why Inflation Has Been So Strong Since The GFC, The Real Mystery Is Why Inflation Has Been So Strong   Chart II-7 shows that the anomaly during that cycle was in the relationship between the output gap and the stance of monetary policy. Monetary policy was the easiest it had been in two decades, yet the output gap was negative for several years following the recession. Larry Summers pointedly cited this divergence in his revival of the secular stagnation theory in November 2013, arguing that it was strong evidence that excess savings were depressing aggregate demand via a lower neutral rate of interest and that this effect pre-dated the financial crisis. Why was demand so weak during that period? Chart II-9 compares the annualized per capita growth in the expenditure components of GDP during the 2001-2007 expansion to the 1991-2001 period. The chart shows that all components of GDP were lower than during the 1991-2001 period, with investment – the most interest rate sensitive component of GDP – showing up as particularly weak. On the surface, this supports the idea of structural factors weighing heavily on the neutral rate, rendering monetary policy less easy than investors would otherwise expect. But Chart II-9 treats the 2001-2007 years as one period, ignoring what happened over the course of the expansion. Chart II-10 repeats the exercise shown in Chart II-9 from Q1 2001 to Q3 2005, and highlights that the annualized growth in per capita residential investment was much stronger than it was during the 1991-2001 period – and nonresidential fixed investment was much weaker. Spending on goods was roughly the same, which is impressive considering that the late 1990s experienced a productivity boom and robust wage growth. All the negative contribution to growth from residential investment during the 2001-2007 expansion came after Q3 2005, as the housing market bubble burst in response to rising interest rates. In short, Chart II-10 highlights that there was a strong relationship between easy monetary policy and the demand for housing, but that this was not true for the corporate sector. Chart II-9Looking At The Whole 2001-2007 Period, Investment Was Extremely Weak January 2021 January 2021 Chart II-10Housing Absolutely Responded To Easy Monetary Policy January 2021 January 2021   Explaining Weak CAPEX Growth In The Early 2000s This leads us to ask why CAPEX was so weak during the 2001-2007 period. In addition to changes in interest rates, business investment is strongly influenced by expectations of consumer demand and corporate profitability. Chart II-11 shows that real nonresidential fixed investment and as-reported earnings moved in lockstep during the period, and that this delayed corporate-sector recovery also impacted the pace of hiring. Weak expectations for consumer spending do not appear to be the culprit. Chart II-12 highlights that while real personal consumption expenditure growth fell during the recession, spending did not contract (as it had done during the previous recession) and capital expenditures fell much more than what real PCE would have implied. Chart II-11Post-2001, Persistently Weak Profits Led To Weak Investment And Jobs Growth Post-2001, Persistently Weak Profits Led To Weak Investment And Jobs Growth Post-2001, Persistently Weak Profits Led To Weak Investment And Jobs Growth Chart II-12CAPEX Was Much Weaker In 2002 Than Justified By Consumer Spending CAPEX Was Much Weaker In 2002 Than Justified By Consumer Spending CAPEX Was Much Weaker In 2002 Than Justified By Consumer Spending   Instead, persistently weak CAPEX in the early 2000s appears to be best explained by the damaging impact of corporate excesses that built up during the dot-com bubble. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 was passed in response to a series of corporate accounting frauds that came to light in the wake of the bubble, but in many cases had been occurring for several years. Chart II-13 highlights that widespread write-offs badly impacted earnings quality and the growth in the asset value of equipment and intellectual property products (IPP), both of which only began to improve again in early 2003. This occurred alongside an outright contraction in real investment in IPP as investors lost faith in company financial statements and heavily scrutinized corporate spending. Chart II-14highlights that a contraction in IP spending was a huge change from the double-digit pace of growth that occurred in the late 1990s. Chart II-13The Damaging Impact Of Corporate Excesses The Damaging Impact Of Corporate Excesses The Damaging Impact Of Corporate Excesses Chart II-14A Near-Unprecedented Collapse In IPP Investment Followed The Tech Bubble A Near-Unprecedented Collapse In IPP Investment Followed The Tech Bubble A Near-Unprecedented Collapse In IPP Investment Followed The Tech Bubble   In addition, corporate sector indebtedness also appears to have played a role in driving weak investment in the early 2000s. While the interest burden of nonfinancial corporate debt was not as high in 2000 as it was in the early 1990s, Chart II-15 highlights that debt to operating income surged in the late 1990s – which likely caused investors already skeptical about company financial statements to impose a period of elevated capital discipline on corporate managers following the recession. Chart II-16 shows that while the peak in the 12-month trailing corporate bond default rate in January 2002 was similar to that of the early 90s, it was meaningfully higher on average in the lead-up to and following the recession. Chart II-15The Late-1990s Saw A Major Increase In Corporate Debt The Late-1990s Saw A Major Increase In Corporate Debt The Late-1990s Saw A Major Increase In Corporate Debt Chart II-16Above-Average Corporate Defaults Before And After The 2001 Recession Above-Average Corporate Defaults Before And After The 2001 Recession Above-Average Corporate Defaults Before And After The 2001 Recession   To summarize, Charts II-10-16 underscore that management excesses, governance failures, and elevated debt in the corporate sector in the 1990s were the root cause of the seeming divergence between monetary policy and the output gap from 2001 to 2007. This was, unfortunately, the first of two major savings/capital misallocations that have occurred in the US over the past 25 years. Explaining The Post-GFC Experience In the early 2000s, the Federal Reserve was faced with a decision between two monetary policy paths: one that was appropriate for the corporate sector, and one that was appropriate for the household sector. The Fed chose the former, and it inadvertently contributed to the second major savings/capital misallocation to occur over the past 25 years: the enormous debt-driven bubble in US housing that culminated into the global financial crisis (GFC) of 2007-2009. Chart II-17It Is No Mystery Why Demand And Inflation Were Weak Last Cycle It Is No Mystery Why Demand And Inflation Were Weak Last Cycle It Is No Mystery Why Demand And Inflation Were Weak Last Cycle As a result, 2007 to 2013/2014 was a mirror image of the early 2000s. Unlike previous post-war downturns, the GFC precipitated a balance-sheet recession that deeply affected homeowners and the financial system. This lasting damage led to a multi-year household deleveraging process, which substantially lowered the responsiveness of the economy to stimulative monetary policy. On a year-over-year basis, Chart II-17 shows that total nominal household mortgage credit growth was continuously negative for six and a half years, from Q4 2008 until Q2 2015, underscoring that the large divergence during this period between the stance of monetary policy and the output gap should not, in any way, be surprising to investors. And this is even before accounting for the negative impact of the euro area sovereign debt crisis and double-dip recession, or the persistent fiscal drag in nearly every advanced economy last cycle. What is surprising about the post-GFC experience is that inflation was not substantially weaker than it was, which is ironic considering that the secular stagnation narrative was revived to help explain below-target inflation. Chart II-8 showed that actual inflation steadily improved versus expected inflation alongside the closing of the output gap and the decline in the unemployment rate, but that it was much stronger than the output gap would have implied – particularly during the early phase of the economic recovery. It is still an open question as to why this occurred. A weak dollar and a strong recovery in oil prices likely helped support consumer prices, but we doubt that these two factors alone explain the discrepancy. A more credible answer is that expectations stayed very well anchored due to the Fed’s strong record of maintaining low and stable inflation (thus preventing a disinflationary spiral). In addition, the fact that the Fed actively communicated to the public during the early recovery years that a large part of its objective was to prevent deflation may have helped support prices. For example, in a CBS interview following the Fed’s November 2010 decision to engage in a second round of quantitative easing (“QE2”), then-Chair Bernanke prominently tied the decision to the fact that “inflation is very, very low.” When asked whether additional rounds of easing might be required, Bernanke responded that it was “certainly possible” and again cited inflation as a core consideration. Chart II-18Rising US Oil Production Caused The Massive 2014 Oil Price Shock Rising US Oil Production Caused The Massive 2014 Oil Price Shock Rising US Oil Production Caused The Massive 2014 Oil Price Shock While inflation did not ultimately fall relative to expectations post-GFC as much as the output gap would have implied, the long-lasting weakness in demand left expectations vulnerable to exogenous shocks. In 2014, such a shock occurred: oil prices collapsed almost exactly at the point that US tight oil production crossed the four-million-barrels-per-day mark (Chart II-18), a level of output that many experts had previously believed would not be attainable (or would roughly mark the peak in production). We view this event as a truly exogenous shock to prices, given that research & development of shale technology had been ongoing since the late 1970s and only happened to finally gain traction around 2010. Chart II-19 shows that the 2014 oil price collapse caused a clear break lower in our measure of inflation expectations, to the lowest value recorded since the 1940s. This break also occurred in market-based expectations of inflation, such as long-dated CPI swap rates and TIPS breakeven inflation rates, and surveys of consumer inflation expectations (Chart II-20). This decline in inflation expectations meant that the output gap needed to be above zero in order for the Fed to hit its 2% target (absent any upwards shock to prices), and that the meaningful acceleration of inflation from 2016 to 2018 should actually be viewed as inflation “outperformance” because its long-term trend had been lowered by the earlier downward shift in expectations. Chart II-19The 2014 Oil Price Shock Collapsed Inflation Expectations... The 2014 Oil Price Shock Collapsed Inflation Expectations... The 2014 Oil Price Shock Collapsed Inflation Expectations... Chart II-20...No Matter What Inflation Expectations Measure Is Used ...No Matter What Inflation Expectations Measure Is Used ...No Matter What Inflation Expectations Measure Is Used   The Modern-Day Phillips Curve: Key Takeaways Based on the evidence presented above, we see the perceived “failure” of the Phillips Curve to predict weak inflation over the past decade as being due to: A singular focus on the output gap/slack component of the modern Phillips Curve, to the exclusion of expectations A failure to fully consider the lasting impact of sustained periods of a negative output gap on expectations Downplaying the long-term balance-sheet impact of two episodes of excesses and savings/capital misallocations on the relationship between the stance of monetary policy and the output gap, via a persistently negative shock to aggregate demand and a reduced sensitivity of economic activity to interest rates. One crucial takeaway from the modern-day Phillips Curve equation presented above is that if inflation expectations are largely formed based on the experience of past inflation, then inflation is ultimately determined by three dimensions of the output gap: whether it is rising or falling, whether it is above or below zero, and how long it has been above or below zero. The extended period of below-potential output over the past two decades, accelerated recently by a major negative shock to energy prices, has now lowered inflation expectations to a point that merely reaching the Fed’s target constitutes inflation “outperformance.” This realization, made even more urgent by the COVID-19 pandemic, has strongly motivated the Fed’s official shift to an average inflation targeting regime. That shift does not suggest that the Fed is moving away from the modern-day Phillips Curve framework; rather, the Fed’s new policy is aimed at closing the output gap as quickly as possible in order to prevent a renewed decline in inflation expectations (and thus inflation itself) from another long period of activity running below its potential. The Outlook For Inflation While the Fed has shifted its policy to prefer higher inflation, that does not necessarily mean it will get it. Why is it likely to happen this time, if the last economic cycle featured such a large divergence between monetary policy and the output gap? Chart II-21Above-Target Inflation Is Not Imminent Above-Target Inflation Is Not Imminent Above-Target Inflation Is Not Imminent First, to clarify, we do not believe that above-target inflation is imminent. The COVID-19 pandemic was an extreme event, and even given the very substantial recovery in the labor market, the unemployment rate remains almost 2½ percentage points above the Congressional Budget long-run estimate of NAIRU (Chart II-21). But based on our analysis of the modern-day Phillips Curve presented above, there are at least four main reasons to expect that inflation may be higher on average over the next ten years than over the past decade. Reason #1: This Appears To Be A Sharp Income Statement Recession, Not A Balance-Sheet Recession We highlighted above the importance of savings/capital misallocations in driving a gap between monetary policy and the output gap over the past two decades, but this recession was obviously not sparked by such an event. The onset of the pandemic came following a long period of US household sector deleveraging which, while painful, helped restore consumer balance sheets. Chart II-22 highlights that household debt to disposable income had fallen back to 2001 levels at the onset of the pandemic, and the interest burden of debt servicing had fallen to a 40-year low. From a wealth perspective, Chart II-23 highlights that total household liabilities to net worth have fallen below where they were at the peak of the housing market boom in 2005 for almost all income groups, and that a decline in leverage has been particularly noteworthy for the lowest income group since mid-2016. Chart II-22Households Have Repaired Their Balance Sheets... Households Have Repaired Their Balance Sheets... Households Have Repaired Their Balance Sheets... Chart II-23...Across Almost All Income Brackets ...Across Almost All Income Brackets ...Across Almost All Income Brackets   Total credit to the nonfinancial corporate sector rose significantly relative to GDP over the course of the last cycle, but subpar growth in real nonresidential fixed investment and a rise in share buybacks highlight that this debt went largely to fund changes in capital structure rather than increased productive capacity. Chart II-24 highlights that corporate sector interest payments as a percentage of operating income are low relative to history, and they do not seem to be necessarily dependent on extremely low government bond yields.4 Finally, the corporate bond default rate may have already peaked (Chart II-25) and the percentage of jobs permanently lost looks more like 2001 than 2007 (Chart II-26), signaling that a prolonged balance-sheet recession is unlikely. Chart II-24Corporate Sector Debt Is Currently High, But Affordable Corporate Sector Debt Is Currently High, But Affordable Corporate Sector Debt Is Currently High, But Affordable Chart II-25Corporate Defaults Have Already Peaked Corporate Defaults Have Already Peaked Corporate Defaults Have Already Peaked Chart II-26So Far, Permanent Job Losses Look Like The 2001 Recession, Not 2007/2008 So Far, Permanent Job Losses Look Like The 2001 Recession, Not 2007/2008 So Far, Permanent Job Losses Look Like The 2001 Recession, Not 2007/2008 The bottom line is that while the pandemic has not yet been resolved and that major and permanent economic damage cannot be ruled out, the absence of “balance-sheet dynamics” is likely to eventually lead to a stronger responsiveness of demand for goods and services to what is set to be an extraordinarily easy monetary policy stance for at least another two years. Reason #2: The Fed May Be Able To Jawbone Inflation Higher The Fed’s public commitment to set interest rates in a way that will generate moderately above-target inflation is highly reminiscent of its defense of quantitative easing in the early phase of the last economic expansion, and (in the opposite fashion) of Paul Volker’s campaign in the 1980s against the “self-fulfilling prophecy” of inflation. From 2008-2014, the Fed explicitly linked the odds of future bond buying to the pace of actual inflation in its public statements. On its own, this was not enough to cause inflation to rise, but we highlighted above that it may have contributed to the fact that inflation expectations did not collapse. Chart II-1 on page 12 showed that long-dated market-based expectations for inflation have already been impacted by the Fed’s regime shift, suggesting decent odds that Fed policy will contribute to self-fulfilling price increases if the US economy does indeed avoid “balance-sheet dynamics” as a result of the pandemic. Reason #3: The Odds Of Negative Supply Shocks Are Lower Than In The Past We noted above the impact that energy price shocks and large typically exchange-rate driven changes in import prices can have on inflation, with the 2014 oil price collapse serving as the most vivid recent example. On both fronts, a value perspective suggests that the odds of negative shocks to inflation over the coming few years from oil and the dollar are lower than they have been in the past. Chart II-27 shows that the cost of global energy consumption as a share of GDP has fallen below its median since 1970, and Chart II-28 highlights that the US dollar is comparatively expensive relative to other currencies – which raises the bar for further gains. Stable-to-higher oil prices alongside a flat-to-weak dollar implies reflationary rather than disinflationary pressure. Chart II-27Massive, Downward Shocks To Oil Prices Are Now Less Likely Massive, Downward Shocks To Oil Prices Are Now Less Likely Massive, Downward Shocks To Oil Prices Are Now Less Likely Chart II-28Valuation Favors A Declining Dollar, Which Is Inflationary January 2021 January 2021   Reason #4: Structural Factors In addition to the cyclical arguments noted above, my colleague Peter Berezin, BCA’s Chief Global Strategist, has also highlighted several structural arguments in favor of higher inflation. Chart II-29 highlights that the world support ratio, calculated as the number of workers relative to the number of consumers, peaked early last decade after rising for nearly 40 years. This suggests that output will fall relative to spending the coming several years, which should have the effect of boosting prices. Chart II-30 also highlights that globalization is on the back foot, with the ratio of trade-to-output having moved sideways for more than a decade. Since the early 1990s, rising global trade intensity has corresponded with very low goods prices in many countries, and the end of this trend reduces the impact of a factor that has been weighing on consumer prices globally over the past two decades. Chart II-29Less Production Relative To Consumption Is Inflationary Less Production Relative To Consumption Is Inflationary Less Production Relative To Consumption Is Inflationary Chart II-30Trade Is Not Suppressing Prices As Much As It Used To Trade Is Not Suppressing Prices As Much As It Used To Trade Is Not Suppressing Prices As Much As It Used To   Positioning For Eventually Higher Inflation Below we present an assessment of several potential candidates across the major asset classes that investors can use to protect their portfolios from rising inflation once it emerges. We conclude with a new trade idea that may provide investors with inflation protection at a better valuation profile than more traditional inflation hedges. Fixed-Income Within fixed-income, inflation-linked bonds and derivatives (such as CPI swaps) are the obvious choice for investors seeking inflation protection. Inflation-linked bonds are much better played relative to nominal equivalents, as inflation expectations make up the difference between nominal and inflation-linked yields. But Table II-1 shows that 5-10 year TIPS are also likely to provide positive absolute returns over the coming year even in a scenario where 10-year Treasury yields are rising, so long as real yields do not account for the vast majority of the increase. Barring a major and positive change in the long-term economic outlook over the coming year, our sense is that the Fed would act to cap any outsized increase in real yields and that TIPS remain an attractive long-only option until the Fed becomes sufficiently comfortable with the inflation outlook. Table II-1TIPS Will Earn Positive Absolute Returns Next Year Barring A Surge In Real Yields January 2021 January 2021 Commodities Commodities are arguably the most traditional inflation hedge, and are likely to provide investors with superior risk-adjusted returns in an environment where inflation expectations are rising. Our Commodity & Energy Strategy service is positive on gold, and recently argued that Brent crude prices are likely to average between $65-$70/barrel between 2021-2025.5 Chart II-31Gold Is Expensive And Long-Term Returns May Be Poor Gold Is Expensive And Long-Term Returns May Be Poor Gold Is Expensive And Long-Term Returns May Be Poor One caveat about gold is that, unlike oil prices, it appears to be quite expensive relative to its history. Since gold does not provide investors with a cash flow, over time real (or inflation-adjusted) prices should ultimately be mean-reverting unless real production costs steadily trend higher. Chart II-31 highlights that the real price of gold is already sky-high and well above its historical average. Over a ten-year time horizon, gold prices fell meaningfully following the last two occasions where real gold prices reached current levels, suggesting that the long-term outlook for gold returns is poor. However, over the coming few years, gold prices are likely to remain well supported given our economic outlook, the Fed’s new monetary policy regime, and the consistently negative correlation between real yields and the US dollar and gold prices. As such, we would recommend gold as a hedge against the fear of inflation, which is likely to increase over the cyclical horizon. Equities We provide two perspectives on how equity investors may be able to protect themselves against rising inflation. The first is simply to favor cyclical versus defensive sectors. The former is likely to continue to benefit next year in response to a strengthening economy as COVID-19 vaccines are progressively distributed, and historically cyclical sectors have tended to outperform during periods of rising inflation. In addition, my colleague Anastasios Avgeriou, BCA’s Equity Strategist, presented Table II-2 in a June Special Report,6 and it highlights that cyclical sectors (plus health care) have enjoyed positive relative returns on average during periods of rising inflation. Table II-2S&P 500 Sector Performance During Inflationary Periods January 2021 January 2021 The second strategy is to favor companies that are more likely to successfully pass on increasing prices to their customers (i.e., firms with “pricing power”). Pricing power is a difficult attribute to identify, but one possible approach is to select industries that have experienced above-average sales per share growth over the past decade. While it is true that the past ten years have seen low rather than high inflation, it has also seen firms in general struggle to achieve robust top-line growth. Industries that have succeeded in this environment may thus be able to pass on higher costs to their customers without disproportionately suffering from lower sales. Chart II-32Last Decade's Revenue Winners: Potential Pricing Power Candidates Last Decade's Revenue Winners: Potential Pricing Power Candidates Last Decade's Revenue Winners: Potential Pricing Power Candidates Chart II-32 presents the historical relative performance of these industries in the US plus the materials and energy sector, equally-weighted and compared to an equally-weighted industry group portfolio (level 2 GICS). The chart shows that the portfolio has outperformed steadily over the past decade, although admittedly at a slower pace since 2018. An interesting feature of this approach is that, in addition to including industries within the industrials, consumer discretionary, and health care sectors (along with the food & staples retailing component of the consumer staples sector), tech stocks show up prominently due to their outstanding revenue performance over the past decade. Table II-2 above highlighted that tech stocks have historically performed poorly during periods of rising inflation, although it is unclear whether this is due to increasing prices or expectations of rising interest rates. Tech stocks are typically long-duration assets, meaning that they are very sensitive to the discount rate, but the Fed’s new monetary policy regime all but guarantees that investors will see a gap between inflation and rates for a time. It is thus an open question how tech stocks would perform in the future in response to rising inflation, and we plan to revisit this topic in a future report. Chart II-33Owners Of Existing Infrastructure Assets Are Primarily Utilities And Telecom Companies Owners Of Existing Infrastructure Assets Are Primarily Utilities And Telecom Companies Owners Of Existing Infrastructure Assets Are Primarily Utilities And Telecom Companies As a final point within the stock market, we would caution against equity portfolios favoring companies that are owners or operators of infrastructure assets. While increased infrastructure spending may indeed occur in the US over the coming several years, indexes focused on companies with sizeable existing infrastructure assets tend to be highly concentrated in the utilities and telecommunications sectors. Chart II-33 shows that the relative performance of the MSCI ACWI Infrastructure Index is nearly identical to that of a 50/50 utilities/telecom services portfolio, two sectors that are defensive rather than pro-cyclical and that have historically performed poorly during periods of rising inflation. Direct Real Estate Alongside commodities, direct real estate investment is also typically viewed as a traditional inflation hedge. For now, however, the outlook for important segments of the commercial real estate market is sufficiently cloudy that it is difficult to form a high conviction view in favor of the asset class. CMBS delinquency rates on office properties have remained low during the pandemic, but those of retail and accommodation have soared and the long-term outlook for all three may have permanently shifted due to the impact of the pandemic. By contrast, industrial and medical properties are likely to do well, with the former likely to be increasingly negatively correlated with the performance of retail properties in the coming few years (i.e., “warehouses versus malls”). I noted my colleague Peter Berezin’s structural arguments for inflation above, and Peter has also highlighted farmland as a real asset that is likely to do well in an environment of rising inflation.7 Chart II-34 further supports the argument: the chart shows that despite a significant increase in real farm real estate values over the past 20 years, returns to operators as a % of farmland values are not unattractive. In addition, USDA forecasts for 2020 suggest that operator returns will be the highest in a decade relative to current 10-year Treasury yields, underscoring both the capital appreciation and relative yield potential of US farmland. A Hybrid TIPS/Currency Inflation-Hedged Portfolio Finally, as we highlighted in Section 1, in a world of extremely low government bond yields, global ex-US investors have the advantage of being able to hedge against deflationary risks in a long-only portfolio by employing the US dollar as a diversifying asset. The dollar is consistently negatively correlated with global stock prices, and this relationship tends to strengthen during crisis periods. The flip side is that US-based investors have the advantage of being able to hedge against inflationary risks in a long-only portfolio by buying global currencies. Chart II-35 presents a 50/50 portfolio of US TIPS and an equally-weighted basket of six major DM currencies against the US dollar. The chart highlights that the portfolio is strongly positively correlated with gold prices, but with a better valuation profile. We already showed in Chart II-28 on page 28 that global currencies are undervalued versus the US dollar. TIPS valuation is not as attractive given that real yields are at record low levels, but the 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate currently sits at its 40th percentile historically (and thus has room to move higher). Chart II-34Farmland: Protection Again Inflation, At A Decent Yield Farmland: Protection Again Inflation, At A Decent Yield Farmland: Protection Again Inflation, At A Decent Yield Chart II-35A Hybrid TIPS/Currency Portfolio: Liquid, And Cheaper Than Gold A Hybrid TIPS/Currency Portfolio: Liquid, And Cheaper Than Gold A Hybrid TIPS/Currency Portfolio: Liquid, And Cheaper Than Gold   As such, while gold prices are likely to remain supported over the cyclical horizon, a hybrid TIPS/currency portfolio may also provide investors with long-term protection against inflation – at a better price. Jonathan LaBerge, CFA Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst Footnotes 1 “Inflation Dynamics and Monetary Policy,” Janet Yellen, Speech at the Philip Gamble Memorial Lecture, University of Massachusetts - Amherst, Amherst, Massachusetts, September 24, 2015. 2 The use of nominal GDP growth as our proxy for the neutral rate of interest is based on the idea that borrowing costs are stimulative if they are below that of income growth. 3 An adaptive expectations framework suggests that expectations for future inflation are largely determined by what has occurred in the past. Our proxy for inflation expectations is thus calculated using simple exponential smoothing of the actual PCE deflator, which provides us with a long and consistent time series for expectations. 4 The second debt service ratio shown in Chart II-24 would only rise to its 68th historical percentile if the 10-year Treasury yield were to rise to 3%, or the 75th with a 10-year yield at 4%. This would be elevated relative to history, but not extreme. 5 Please see Commodity & Energy Strategy Report “BCA’s 2021-25 Brent Forecast: $65-$70/bbl,” dated November 12, 2020, available at ces.bcaresearch.com 6 Please see US Equity Strategy Special Report “Revisiting Equity Sector Winners And Losers When Inflation Climbs,” dated June 1, 2020, available at uses.bcaresearch.com 7 Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report “Will There Be A Fiscal Hangover?” dated May 29, 2020, available at gis.bcaresearch.com

Dear Client, Instead of our regular report next week, we will be sending you BCA Research’s Annual Outlook, featuring long-time BCA client Mr. X, who visits towards the end of each year to discuss the economic and financial market outlook for the year ahead. We will be back the week after with the GIS quarterly Strategy Outlook, where we will explore the major investment themes and views we see playing out in 2021. Best regards, Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Highlights While a vaccine, ironically, could dampen economic activity in the near term, it will pave the way for faster growth in the medium-to-long term. Inflation is unlikely to rise much over the next two-to-three years. However, it could gallop higher later this decade as unemployment falls below pre-pandemic levels and policymakers keep both monetary and fiscal policy accommodative. Many of the structural factors that have depressed inflation are going into reverse: Baby boomers are leaving the labor force, globalization is on the back foot, and social cohesion is fraying. The lackluster pace of productivity growth suggests that innovation is not occurring as fast as many people think. Rather, what seems to be happening is that the nature of innovation is changing in ways that are a lot more favorable to Wall Street than Main Street. Monopoly power has grown, especially in the tech sector. This has had a deflationary effect in the past but could take a more inflationary tone in the future. Investors should remain overweight stocks for the next 12 months, while shifting equity allocation away from growth companies towards value companies and away from the US towards the rest of the world. The Waiting Game This week brought some further good news on the pandemic front. The number of reported daily cases continues to trend lower in Europe. The 7-day average has now fallen by 30% from its November 8th peak (Chart 1). In the US, there are faint indications that the number of new cases is stabilizing, especially in the hard-hit Midwest (Chart 2). Chart 1Covid Cases In Europe: Past The Worst Inflation, Innovation, And The Value/Growth Debate Inflation, Innovation, And The Value/Growth Debate Chart 2Covid Cases In The US: Approaching The Peak Of The Third Wave? Inflation, Innovation, And The Value/Growth Debate Inflation, Innovation, And The Value/Growth Debate Nevertheless, it is too early to breathe a sigh of relief. As with other coronaviruses, SARS-CoV-2 spreads more easily in colder temperatures. Moreover, this week is Thanksgiving in the US, and with the holiday season approaching in the wider world, there will be more opportunities for the virus to propagate. Chart 3The US May Have To Follow Europe In Tightening Lockdown Measures Inflation, Innovation, And The Value/Growth Debate Inflation, Innovation, And The Value/Growth Debate Despite the cresting in new cases, the absolute number of confirmed daily infections remains extremely high. The 7-day average currently stands at about 175,000 in the US. Adjusting for the typical three-week lag between new cases and deaths, the case-fatality rate is approximately 1.8%. The CDC estimates the “true” fatality rate is 0.7%.1 This implies that for every one person who tests positive for Covid-19, 1.5 people go undetected. Thus, around 450,000 Americans are catching Covid every day. That is 3.2 million per week or about 1% of the US population. Other estimates from the CDC suggest that the true number of new infections may now be even greater, perhaps as high as 11 million per week.2 Unlike in Europe, where governments have implemented a series of stringent lockdown measures, the US has taken a more relaxed approach (Chart 3). If the number of new infections fails to fall much from current levels, more US states will have to tighten social distancing rules. The availability of vaccines will pave the way for stronger growth in the medium-to-long term. Ironically however, as we pointed out two weeks ago, vaccine optimism could dampen economic activity in the near term. With the light clearly visible at the end of the tunnel, more people may choose to hunker down to avoid being infected. After all, how frustrating would it be to contract the virus just a few months before one can be vaccinated? It is like being the last guy shot on the battlefield in a war that is drawing to an end. The Outlook For Inflation Could inflation make a comeback once a vaccine is widely available? The pandemic put significant downward pressure on prices in a number of areas, particularly air transport, accommodation, apparel, and gasoline. While prices in some categories, such as used cars, meats and eggs, and certain toiletries did rise briskly, the net effect was still a substantial decline in overall inflation (Chart 4). Chart 4The Impact Of Covid On US Inflation Inflation, Innovation, And The Value/Growth Debate Inflation, Innovation, And The Value/Growth Debate Core PCE inflation stood at 1.4% in October, well below the Fed’s target. As Chart 5 illustrates, core inflation is below central bank targets in most other economies as well. A bounce back in prices in the most pandemic-afflicted sectors should lift inflation over the next six months. Our US bond strategists expect core PCE inflation to peak at 2¼% in the second quarter of next year, before falling back below 2% by the end of 2021. Chart 5Core Inflation Below Central Bank Targets Core Inflation Below Central Bank Targets Core Inflation Below Central Bank Targets Chart 6Unemployment Rate Is Projected To Decline Towards Pre-Covid Lows In The Coming Years Inflation, Innovation, And The Value/Growth Debate Inflation, Innovation, And The Value/Growth Debate Ignoring the temporary oscillations in inflation due to base effects, a more sustained increase in inflation would require that labor market slack be fully absorbed. In its October 2020 World Economic Outlook, the IMF projected that the unemployment rate in the major economies would fall back to its full employment level by around 2025 (Chart 6). While a vaccine will expedite the healing of labor markets, it is probable that unemployment will remain too high to generate an overheated economy for the next three years. What about beyond then? The fact that long-term bond yields are so low today implies that most investors think that inflation will remain subdued for many years to come (Chart 7). This is confirmed by CPI swaps, which in some countries go out as far as 50 years. For the most part, they are all trading at levels below official central bank inflation targets (Chart 8). Chart 7Long-Term Bond Yields Are Depressed... Long-Term Bond Yields Are Depressed... Long-Term Bond Yields Are Depressed... Chart 8… As Are Long-Term Inflation Expectations Inflation, Innovation, And The Value/Growth Debate Inflation, Innovation, And The Value/Growth Debate Heading Towards The Kink Is inflation really dead, or is it just dormant? We think it is the latter. Contrary to the claim that the Phillips curve has become defunct, Chart 9 shows that the wage version of the Phillips curve – which compares wage growth with the unemployment rate – is very much alive and well. What is true is that rising wage growth has failed to translate into higher price inflation in most economies since the early 1980s. However, this may have simply been due to happenstance: Every time the global economy was starting to heat up to the point that a price-wage spiral could develop, something would happen to break it. In 2019, the unemployment rate in the G7 hit a 46-year low. Perhaps inflation would have accelerated this year had it not been for the pandemic? Likewise, inflation might have risen in 2008 had it not been for the financial crisis, and in 2001 had it not been for the dotcom bust. Chart 9Is The Phillips Curve Really Dead? Is The Phillips Curve Really Dead? Is The Phillips Curve Really Dead? Chart 10Inflation Reached The ''Kink'' In 1966 Inflation, Innovation, And The Value/Growth Debate Inflation, Innovation, And The Value/Growth Debate Rather than being defunct, the price-version of the Phillips curve may turn out to be kinked at a very low level of the unemployment rate. Such was the case during the 1960s (Chart 10). US core inflation remained steady at around 1.5% in the first half of that decade, even as the unemployment rate drifted lower and lower. In 1966, with the unemployment rate nearly two percentage points below NAIRU, inflation blasted off, doubling to more than 3% within a span of six months. Core inflation would go on to increase to 6% by 1969, setting the stage for the stagflationary 1970s. A Less Deflationary Structural Backdrop Many pundits argue that the structural backdrop for inflation is vastly different today than it was during the 1960s, making any comparison with that decade next to worthless. They point out that unions had a lot more power back then, global supply chains were underdeveloped, and rapid population growth was creating more demand for goods and services than the economy could supply. We have addressed these arguments in the past and will not belabor the point this week other than to note that all three of these structural forces are now in retreat.3 Chart 11The Heyday Of Globalization Is Behind Us The Heyday Of Globalization Is Behind Us The Heyday Of Globalization Is Behind Us Granted, unions are not as powerful as they were in the 1960s. However, public policy is still moving in a more worker-friendly direction. Witness the fact that Florida voters, despite handing the state to President Trump, voted 61%-to-39% to raise the state minimum wage in increments from $8.56 an hour to $15 by 2026. Joe Biden has also pledged to hike the federal minimum wage to $15 from its current level of $7.25. Meanwhile, globalization is on the back foot, with the ratio of trade-to-output moving sideways for more than a decade (Chart 11). At the same time, baby boomers are departing the labor force en masse. Rather than remaining net savers, these retiring workers will become dissavers. This means that the global savings glut, which has suppressed interest rates and inflation, could begin to dry up. Perhaps most ominously, social stability is at risk of breaking down. Homicides in the US have risen by nearly 30% so far this year compared to the same period a year ago.4 Historically, the institutionalization rate has tracked the homicide rate quite closely (Chart 12). As was the case in the 1960s, a lot of the well-meaning discussion about criminal justice reform today could turn out to be counterproductive. Perhaps it was just a coincidence, but it is worth remembering that inflation exploded in the 1960s at exactly the same time that the murder rate shot up (Chart 13). Chart 12Dramatic Drop In Institutionalization Rate During The 1960s Corresponded With A Sharp Increase In The Homicide Rate Inflation, Innovation, And The Value/Growth Debate Inflation, Innovation, And The Value/Growth Debate Chart 13Social Unrest Can Fuel Inflation Social Unrest Can Fuel Inflation Social Unrest Can Fuel Inflation The Role Of Innovation Technological innovation has been routinely cited as a driver of falling inflation. In many ways, this is rather odd. Economic theory states that faster innovation should lead to higher real income. It does not say whether the increase in real income should come via rising nominal income or falling inflation. Indeed, to the extent that faster innovation leads to higher potential GDP growth, it could fuel inflation. This is because stronger trend growth will tend to raise the neutral rate of interest, implying that monetary policy will become more stimulative for any given policy rate. Moreover, the fixation on technology as a deflationary force is a bit strange considering that measured productivity growth has been exceptionally weak in most advanced economies over the past 15 years – weaker, in fact, than it was in the 1970s (Chart 14). Chart 14US Productivity Has Been Exceptionally Weak Over The Past Ten Years US Productivity Has Been Exceptionally Weak Over The Past Ten Years US Productivity Has Been Exceptionally Weak Over The Past Ten Years How, then, does one explain why tech stocks have fared so well? One often-heard answer is that productivity growth is mismeasured. We examined this argument carefully in our report entitled Weak Productivity Growth: Don't Blame The Statisticians, concluding that this does not appear to be the case. A more plausible answer is that while the pace of innovation has not sped up, the nature of innovation has changed dramatically in ways that have helped Wall Street a lot more than Main Street. The True Nature Of Corporate Profits Standard economics textbooks regard profit as a return on capital. This implies that if the price of capital goes down, firms should respond by increasing investment spending in order to further boost profits. In practice, that has not occurred. For example, the Trump Administration promised that corporate tax cuts would produce an investment boom. While business investment did rise in 2018, this was all due to a rebound in energy spending. Outside of the oil and mining sector, business investment grew more slowly between Q4 of 2016 and Q4 of 2019 than it did over the preceding three years (Chart 15). Likewise, neither falling interest rates nor rising stock prices – two factors that should produce a lower cost of capital – have done much to buoy investment spending in recent years. Chart 15Overall Capex In 2017-2019 Was Boosted By The Oil And Mining Sector Inflation, Innovation, And The Value/Growth Debate Inflation, Innovation, And The Value/Growth Debate Chart 16A Winner-Takes-All Economy Inflation, Innovation, And The Value/Growth Debate Inflation, Innovation, And The Value/Growth Debate   Why did the standard economic relationship between investment and the cost of capital break down? The answer is that the traditional approach does not take into account what has become an increasingly important driver of corporate profits: monopoly power. A recent study by Grullon, Larkin, and Michaely found that market concentration has increased in 75% of all US industries since 1997.5 Furman and Orszag have shown that the dispersion in the rate of return on capital across firms has widened sharply since the early 1990s. In the last year of their analysis, firms at the 90th percentile of profitability had a rate of return on capital that was five times that of the median firm, a massive increase from the historic average of two times (Chart 16). The dispersion in performance has been particularly stark within the tech sector. According to BCA Research’s proprietary Equity Analyzer, the shares of “value tech” companies – that is, companies trading in the bottom quartile of price-to-earnings, price-to-operating cash flow, price-to-free cash flow, price-to-book, and price-to-sales – have not only lagged the shares of other tech companies, but they have also lagged the shares of similarly valued financial companies (Chart 17). This underscores the point that the outperformance of growth stocks over the past 12 years has not just been a story about technology. Rather, it has primarily been a story about some tech companies doing much better than other tech companies. Chart 17Value Tech Lagged Value Financials Inflation, Innovation, And The Value/Growth Debate Inflation, Innovation, And The Value/Growth Debate The Winner-Take-All Economy What explains the bifurcation in performance within the tech sector? Two reasons come to mind. First, tech companies are particularly susceptible to network effects: The more people who use a particular tech platform, the more attractive it is for others to use it. Facebook is a classic example. Second, tech companies benefit significantly from scale economies. Once a piece of software has been written, creating additional copies costs almost nothing. Even in the hardware realm, the marginal cost of producing an additional chip is tiny compared to the fixed cost of designing it. All of this creates a winner take-all environment where success begets further success. The role played by winner-take-all markets explains how a handful of companies were able to become mega-cap tech titans. Chart 18 and Chart 19 show that increased monopoly power, as reflected in rising profit margins and higher relative P/E ratios, has played a greater role in driving tech share outperformance since the mid-1990s than faster revenue growth. Chart 18Decomposing Tech Outperformance (I) Decomposing Tech Outperformance (I) Decomposing Tech Outperformance (I) Chart 19Decomposing Tech Outperformance (II) Inflation, Innovation, And The Value/Growth Debate Inflation, Innovation, And The Value/Growth Debate Reaching Adulthood History suggests that monopolists tend to experience an initial rapid growth phase in which they capture ever-more market share, followed by a mature phase where they effectively function as utilities – cranking out stable cash flows to shareholders without experiencing much further growth. While it is impossible to say how far along most of today’s tech leaders are in this cycle, it does appear that the period of rapid growth for many of them may be drawing to a close. As it is, close to three-quarters of US households already have an Amazon Prime account. Slightly over half have a Netflix account. Nearly 70% have a Facebook account. Google commands 92% of the internet search market. The shift away from “growth status” towards “utility status” for some tech monopolists could prompt investors to trim the valuation premium they assign to these stocks. In addition, it could lead to increased regulation by governments to ensure that monopoly power is not abused. This could further depress valuations. Monopolies And Inflation What about the implications for inflation? Unlike firms in a perfectly competitive industry, monopolistic firms have to contend with the fact that higher output could depress selling prices, thus leading to lower profit margins. As my colleague Mathieu Savary has emphasized,6 this implies that rising market power could simultaneously increase profits while reducing investment in new capacity. At least initially, this could be deflationary in two ways: First, lower investment spending will reduce aggregate demand. Second, greater market power will shift income towards wealthy owners of capital, who tend to save more than regular workers. This helps explain why falling real interest rates and rising profits have failed to trigger an investment boom. Further down the road, the impact of monopoly power on inflation could turn on its head. Less investment spending will curb potential GDP growth, making it easier for economies to run up against capacity constraints. Low real interest rates could also induce governments to run larger budget deficits, boosting aggregate demand in the process. Finally, an economy where monopoly power runs unchecked will eventually spur a populist backlash, leading to reflationary policies that favor workers over business oligarchs. Investment Conclusions Equities have run up a lot since the start of November. Bullish sentiment has surged in the American Association of Individual Investors weekly bull-bear poll, while the put-to-call ratio has fallen to multi-year lows (Chart 20). Given the likelihood that economic growth could surprise on the downside in the near term, equities are vulnerable to a short-term correction. Nevertheless, rising odds of an effective vaccine and continued easy monetary policy keep us bullish on stocks over a 12-month horizon. Chart 20A Lot Of Bullishness A Lot Of Bullishness A Lot Of Bullishness Chart 21European Banks: A Low Bar For Success European Banks: A Low Bar For Success European Banks: A Low Bar For Success   Equity investors should shift their allocation away from growth stocks towards value stocks and away from the US towards the rest of the world. We like European banks in particular. They currently trade at 0.6-times tangible book value and 7.2-times 2019 earnings. Earnings estimates for 2021 have been slashed but should rebound on the expectation of a vaccine-driven growth recovery later next year (Chart 21). Faster growth should produce a modest steepening in yield curves, boosting net interest margins in the process. Faster growth should also lead to stronger credit demand while reducing bad loans. Looking further out, this week’s report argues that inflation could accelerate meaningfully once unemployment returns to pre-pandemic levels in about two-to-three years. The departure of baby boomers from the labor market, sluggish productivity growth, fraying social cohesion, and a backlash against monopoly power could all push up inflation. These forces could also create a more challenging environment for stocks, particularly today’s mega-cap tech names.   Peter Berezin Chief Global Strategist peterb@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1 A recent systematic review of literature found that the Covid-19 infection fatality rate (IFR) stood at 0.7%. Similarly, in September, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) published age-specific IFRs in its Covid-19 Planning Scenarios. The population-weighted average of the CDC’s “best estimate” suggests a 0.7% IFR. Please see “COVID-19 Pandemic Planning Scenarios,” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, updated September 10, 2020; and Gideon Meyerowitz-Katz, and Lea Merone, “A systematic review and meta-analysis of published research data on COVID-19 infection fatality rates,” International Journal of Infectious Diseases, September 29, 2020. 2 Please see “Covid live updates: CDC estimates only eighth of infections counted,” NBC News Live Blog, November 25, 2020; and “The Latest: South Korea has most daily cases in 8 months,” Associated Press, November 26, 2020. 3 Please see Global Investment Strategy Special Report, “Is The Entire World Heading For Negative Rates?” October 25, 2019; Special Reports “1970s-Style Inflation: Could It Happen Again? (Part 1),” and “1970s-Style Inflation: Could It Happen Again? (Part 2),”dated August 10 and 24, 2018; and Weekly Report, “Is The Phillips Curve Dead Or Dormant?” dated September 22, 2017. 4 Please see this Twitter thread on the latest data from the 100 largest US cities by Patrick Sharkey, Professor of Sociology and Public Affairs at Princeton University. 5 Gustavo Grullon, Yelena Larkin, and Roni Michaely, “Are US Industries Becoming More Concentrated?” Oxford Academic, Review of Finance (23:4), July 2019. 6 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst Special Report, “The Productivity Puzzle: Competition Is The Missing Ingredient,” dated June 27, 2019. Global Investment Strategy View Matrix Inflation, Innovation, And The Value/Growth Debate Inflation, Innovation, And The Value/Growth Debate Current MacroQuant Model Scores Inflation, Innovation, And The Value/Growth Debate Inflation, Innovation, And The Value/Growth Debate

Highlights Stocks jumped earlier this week on encouraging news on the vaccine front. While we remain positive on equities over a 12-month horizon, we would stress five vaccine-related risks that stock market investors should be cognizant of. First, immunizing most of the world’s population could prove logistically challenging, especially in light of widespread skepticism about the safety of the vaccine. Second, the virus could mutate in a way that undercuts the efficacy of the vaccine, as recent unsettling news from Denmark demonstrates. Third, vaccine optimism could, ironically, lead to weaker economic growth in the near term, even if it does lead to stronger growth in the medium and longer term. Fourth, improved prospects for a vaccine could reduce urgency around extending fiscal support. Fifth, bond yields could rise further in anticipation of an earlier return to full employment. This could pose a headwind for equities – especially growth stocks. V Is For Vaccine Stocks rallied this week on news that Pfizer’s trial of its Covid-19 vaccine had apparently immunized more than 90% of test participants. Such a high efficacy rate is on par with that of the childhood measles and smallpox vaccines, and well above the typical 30%-to-50% success rate for the seasonal flu (Chart 1). Chart 1Efficacy Rates Of Seasonal Flu Vaccines Are Not Exceptionally High Light At The End Of The Tunnel Light At The End Of The Tunnel Pfizer’s vaccine leverages messenger RNA (mRNA) technology developed by its German partner, BioNTech. The new technology is similar to the one being deployed by US-based Moderna. It uses synthetic genetic material to coax the body into producing antibodies, thus bypassing the time-consuming process of formulating a vaccine using dead or weakened forms of the actual pathogen. Pfizer began manufacturing the vaccine well before it knew it would work. It expects to ask the US Food and Drug Administration for emergency authorization to begin distribution by the end of November. If all goes well, the company will have 15-to-20 million doses available by the end of this year and enough to inoculate the entire US population by mid-2021. Ten other vaccines are in late-stage trials. It is widely expected that most of them will prove to be safe and effective (Chart 2). Chart 2When Will A Vaccine Become Available? Light At The End Of The Tunnel Light At The End Of The Tunnel Five Risks This week’s vaccine news is certainly encouraging, and it does pave the way for a rapid rebound in economic activity next year. Thus, we remain bullish on stocks over a 12-month horizon. Nevertheless, investors should be cognizant of five vaccine-related risks: Table 1Skepticism Over Vaccines Has Been Growing Over The Past Two Decades Light At The End Of The Tunnel Light At The End Of The Tunnel Risk #1: Immunizing most of the world’s population is likely to prove logistically challenging, especially in light of widespread public skepticism about the safety of the vaccine Pfizer’s version of the vaccine needs to be refrigerated at -70°C, making it difficult to store and transport. It will also need to be administered twice over the course of 21 days (Merck is the only company working on a single-dose vaccine). All this will require health care providers to keep track of who received which dose of the vaccine and at which time. There is also considerable uncertainty about how long immunity from the vaccine will last. Pfizer is cautiously optimistic that it will be over a year, but the truth is that no one really knows. Vaccinating most of the global population repeatedly year in, year out could prove to be challenging. In addition, the rollout of the vaccine could face widespread public skepticism. Even before the pandemic struck, confidence in the safety of vaccines was waning in the United States. A Gallup study published on January 14th of this year revealed that the share of Americans who thought it was important to get their children vaccinated fell from 94% in 2001 to 84% in 2019. The drop was particularly steep among Americans with children under the age of 18 (Table 1).1 Ten percent of Americans believed the thoroughly debunked claim that vaccines cause autism, while 46% were “unsure.”2  Things do not appear to have improved since then. According to a recent Pew Research Center survey conducted in September, only 51% of Americans said they would probably or definitely take the vaccine, down from 72% in May (Chart 3). The most common reason given for refusing to take it was “concern about side effects.” Chart 3Many Americans Are Wary Of A Covid-19 Vaccine Light At The End Of The Tunnel Light At The End Of The Tunnel The fact that all the Covid-19 vaccines under development do seem to produce worse side effects than the typical flu vaccine could amplify fears that “the cure is worse than the disease.” We could end up in a “You first; oh no you first; I insist you first” predicament where most people try to avoid being first in line to receive a vaccine. Still, it is important to keep in mind that not everyone has to be vaccinated for the virus to be eradicated. Suppose that 70% of the population needs to be inoculated to simulate herd immunity. If the vaccine works nine out of ten times, then 0.7/0.9 or 78% of the population would have to receive the vaccine. The true number could end up being less than that because some people who survived Covid will have antibodies for a while even if they remain unvaccinated. There is also tentative evidence that a few lucky souls may be naturally immune to the disease, perhaps by having contracted seasonal coronavirus colds in the past.3 Furthermore, both government and corporate policy are likely to push people to get vaccinated. For better or for worse, governments may require that children present vaccination certificates before being admitted to school. Airlines could also demand such certificates before one is allowed to travel. Insurance companies could cut off coverage for those who fail to get vaccinated. At any rate, it is difficult to see governments pursuing lockdown measures after a vaccine is widely available. The prevailing view will be that anyone who voluntarily chooses to remain unvaccinated cannot hold others hostage. Risk #2: The virus could mutate in a way that undercuts the efficacy of the vaccine Unlike most RNA-based viruses, coronaviruses carry an error-correction mechanism in their genomes. While this confers certain advantages to this family of viruses, it also means that they tend to mutate more slowly than notorious shape-shifters like the common flu. Nevertheless, there is plenty of evidence that SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes Covid-19, has mutated since it first emerged in China.4 Viruses tend to become less lethal but more contagious over time. This is not surprising. A virus that kills its host will also kill itself. The speed at which a virus mutates is partly a function of how much of it is in circulation. The more copies of the virus there are, the larger the number of adaptive mutations there are likely to be. The fact that SARS-CoV-2 has spread to virtually every corner of the earth raises the risk that it will readily produce strains that the current batch of vaccines is not equipped to target. Unfortunately, this may not just be an idle threat. In Denmark, 12 people have already been infected with a novel strain of the virus that first emerged from mink farms. Although the data is still sketchy, the virus seemingly jumped from humans to minks early on in the pandemic, mutated within the mink population, and then jumped back to humans. The mutation appears to have altered the virus’s spike proteins. These are the proteins that the virus uses to gain entry into human cells. They are also the proteins that Pfizer’s vaccine is targeting. It is still not clear if the mutated strain will be vaccine-resistant, but governments are not taking any chances. The UK barred entry to travelers from Denmark on November 5th. Other countries may follow suit. Risk #3: Vaccine optimism could lead to weaker economic growth in the near term The release of the results of Pfizer’s vaccine trial comes at a time when the number of new confirmed global cases has reached record highs (Chart 4). The latest wave of the pandemic has hit Europe especially hard. European governments have responded by tightening lockdown measures (Chart 5). Euro area GDP is likely to contract in the fourth quarter. Chart 4The Number Of New Cases Continues To Rise Globally Light At The End Of The Tunnel Light At The End Of The Tunnel Chart 5Some Lockdown Measures Have Been Reintroduced Light At The End Of The Tunnel Light At The End Of The Tunnel While the development of a vaccine is good news for the economy in the medium-to-long term, it is not clear if it will help growth in the near term. On the one hand, vaccine optimism could cause firms to invest more, while curbing household precautionary savings. This would boost aggregate demand. On the other hand, vaccine optimism could prompt people to make even more effort to avoid getting sick. If you take shelter under a tree during an unforeseen rainstorm, you’re better off staying put until the storm passes... provided, of course, that the rainfall does not last too long. But what if you check your phone and see that the rain is supposed to fall uninterrupted for the next three days? That is a long time to spend under a tree. At that point, you are better off proceeding ahead. After all, you are going to get wet in any case. Chart 6Commercial Bankruptcy Filings Remain In Check Light At The End Of The Tunnel Light At The End Of The Tunnel The same logic applies to the pandemic. If you can avoid getting sick by hunkering down for a few more months until a vaccine becomes available, it is well worth doing so. However, if the prospects for a vaccine or effective treatment are poor, it makes less sense to hide from the rest of the world. Chances are you are going to get sick anyway. Risk #4: Improved prospects for a vaccine could reduce urgency around extending fiscal support So far, the pandemic has left only limited scarring on the global economy. For example, according to the American Bankruptcy Institute, corporate bankruptcies are lower now than they were this time last year (Chart 6). The same is true for delinquency rates on most consumer loans (Table 2).   Table 2A Snapshot Of Consumer Delinquencies Light At The End Of The Tunnel Light At The End Of The Tunnel Many economies have displayed resilience so far thanks to ample fiscal and monetary support. In Europe and Japan, the combination of wage subsidies and job retention programs has kept unemployment from rising significantly (Chart 7). The unemployment rate rose rapidly in the US, Canada, and Australia early on in the pandemic, but has since declined. In the US, there are now fewer than two unemployed workers per job opening (Chart 8). It took the US over five years to reach that point following the Global Financial Crisis. Chart 7Ample Fiscal Policy Has Helped Shield The Labor Market From The Pandemic Ample Fiscal Policy Has Helped Shield The Labor Market From The Pandemic Ample Fiscal Policy Has Helped Shield The Labor Market From The Pandemic Chart 8The Labor Market Is In A Better Place Now Compared To The Great Recession The Labor Market Is In A Better Place Now Compared To The Great Recession The Labor Market Is In A Better Place Now Compared To The Great Recession   The risk is that fiscal policy support will be withdrawn before lockdown measures can be lifted. While such a risk cannot be ignored, two things should help mitigate it. First, fiscal hawks are more likely to support a temporary stimulus package that lasts a few months rather than an open-ended support scheme that may be needed indefinitely. Second, public opinion still very much favors maintaining stimulus. According to a recent NY Times/Siena College poll, 72% of voters support a hypothetical $2 trillion stimulus package that extends emergency unemployment insurance benefits, distributes direct cash payments to households, and provides financial support to state and local governments (Table 3). Such a package is basically what the Democrats are proposing. Strikingly, when this package is described in non-partisan terms, even the majority of Republicans are in favor of it. Risk #5: Bond yields could rise further in anticipation of an earlier return to full employment If a premature tightening of fiscal policy is unlikely to sink the stock market, could higher bond yields do the trick? Central banks will not raise interest rates for the next few years. However, rate expectations could still rise further along the forward curve if investors believe that a vaccine will allow the output gap to close earlier than previously anticipated. Chart 9Policy Rate Expectations Remain Below Pre-Pandemic Levels Policy Rate Expectations Remain Below Pre-Pandemic Levels Policy Rate Expectations Remain Below Pre-Pandemic Levels Investors expect US short-term rates to average only 1.25% in 2027-28. While this is higher than prior to the vaccine announcement, it is still well below where rate expectations were at the start of the year. Long-dated rate expectations are similarly below pre-pandemic levels in most other economies (Chart 9). Upward revisions to where policy rates will be later this decade could lift long-term bond yields. Higher yields, in turn, could raise the discount rate that stock market investors use to calculate the present value of future cash flows. This might lead to lower equity prices. The valuation of growth companies, whose earnings may not be realized for many years to come, is especially vulnerable to changes in discount rates. Despite the threat posed from rising bond yields, we suspect that the actual impact on equity prices will be fairly modest. There are three reasons for this. First, any increase in bond yields will probably occur alongside rising inflation expectations. As such, real yields may not increase that much. Conceptually, it is real yields, rather than nominal yields, that matter for equity valuations. Second, provided that higher yields are reflective of stronger growth, earnings estimates are likely to drift up. Rising profits will dampen the impact of higher bond yields on equity valuations. Third, central banks have both the tools, and just as importantly, the inclination to keep bond yields from spiking as they did during the 2013 “taper tantrum.” These tools include QE, aggressive forward guidance, and if necessary, yield curve control strategies. Investment Conclusions The path to ending the pandemic is likely to be a bumpy one. Nevertheless, the balance between risk and reward still favors overweighting equities versus bonds over the next 12 months. Within the equity portion of a portfolio, investors should reallocate funds from US stocks to overseas markets and from growth stocks to value stocks. Growth stocks benefited from the pandemic and from falling bond yields, but will suffer as yields rise modestly from current levels and investors shift exposure to stocks that will benefit from the reopening of economies. Chart 10Stronger Global Growth Tends To Be A Headwind For The Dollar... While Dollar Weakness Usually Bodes Well For Non-US Stocks Stronger Global Growth Tends To Be A Headwind For The Dollar... While Dollar Weakness Usually Bodes Well For Non-US Stocks Stronger Global Growth Tends To Be A Headwind For The Dollar... While Dollar Weakness Usually Bodes Well For Non-US Stocks Chart 11EM Stocks Are Cheap Light At The End Of The Tunnel Light At The End Of The Tunnel As a countercyclical currency, the trade-weighted US dollar is likely to weaken further in 2021. Non-US stocks typically outperform their US peers when the dollar depreciates (Chart 10). A weaker dollar will provide an additional boost to emerging market equities, given that many EMs have a lot of dollar-denominated debt. Assuming Joe Biden becomes president, a de-escalation of the trade war would also help emerging markets, particularly China. Lastly, EM equities are still quite cheap based on cyclically-adjusted earnings (Chart 11). Peter Berezin Chief Global Strategist peterb@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1 Attitudes towards vaccines have shifted notably over the past two decades. The following survey captures the erosion of trust towards vaccines: RJ Reinhart, “Fewer in U.S. Continue to See Vaccines as Important,” Gallup, January 14, 2020. 2 One of the most widely known parental concerns about the safety of vaccines is linked to the hypothesis that the measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine causes autism. Since this hypothesis was published more than three decades ago, dozens of researchers have presented studies showing that the original claims are critically flawed. The evidence provided by the scientific community dismisses the link between vaccines and autism. Please see Jeffrey S. Gerber and Paul A. Offit, “Vaccines and Autism: A Tale of Shifting Hypotheses,” National Center for Biotechnology Information; and “Vaccines and Autism,” Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, May 7, 2018. 3 There has been much debate over why some people are affected more than others by Covid-19. While much attention is given to personal characteristics (such as age, weight, or the presence of chronic illnesses), researchers have also investigated the possibility that prior exposure to coronaviruses have helped some to obtain a certain degree of natural immunity to Covid-19. Please see Yaqinuddin, Ahmed, “Cross-immunity between respiratory coronaviruses may limit COVID-19 fatalities,” Medical hypotheses, vol. 144 110049, (30 June, 2020). 4 One of the latent fears since the emergence of Covid-19 has been the possibility that it will mutate as it spreads. The following study suggests that different strains of the virus have been evolving on different continents, although it is not clear to what extend these mutations could affect treatment and immunization efforts. Please see Pachetti, M., Marini, B., Benedetti, F. et al., “Emerging SARS-CoV-2 mutation hot spots include a novel RNA-dependent-RNA polymerase variant,” Journal of Translational Medicine, 18:179 (2020). Global Investment Strategy View Matrix Light At The End Of The Tunnel Light At The End Of The Tunnel Current MacroQuant Model Scores Light At The End Of The Tunnel Light At The End Of The Tunnel

Your feedback is important to us. Please take our client survey today. Highlights For now, there is little evidence that the pandemic has adversely affected the global economy’s long-run growth potential. Even if one counts those who will be unable to work due to long-term health complications from the virus, the pandemic will probably reduce the global labor force by only 0.1%-to-0.15%. Labor markets have healed more quickly over the past few months than after the Great Recession. In the US, the ratio of unemployed workers-to-job openings has recovered most of its lost ground. Thanks in part to generous government support for businesses and the broader economy, commercial bankruptcy filings remain near historic lows. Meanwhile, new US business formation has surged to record highs. The combination of a vaccine and a decline in rents in city centres should persuade some people who were thinking of fleeing to the suburbs to stay put. This will ensure that most urban commercial and residential real estate remains productively engaged. Judging from corporate surveys, capital spending on equipment and intellectual property should continue to rebound. While the pandemic has caused numerous economic dislocations, it has also opened the door to a variety of productivity-enhancing innovations. An open question is whether all the debt that governments have taken on to alleviate the economic damage from the pandemic could in and of itself cause damage down the road. As long as interest rates stay low, this is not a major risk. However, today’s high government debt levels could become a problem if the pool of global savings dries up. Investors should continue to overweight stocks for the time being, while shifting their equity exposure from “pandemic plays” to “reopening plays.” A more cautious stance towards stocks may be appropriate later this decade.  The Pandemic’s Potentially Long Shadow In its latest World Economic Outlook, the IMF revised up its growth estimates for this year. Rather than contracting by 4.9%, as it expected in June, the Fund now sees the global economy shrinking by 4.4%. That said, the IMF’s estimates still leave global GDP in 2020 7.5% below where it projected it to be in January. Perhaps even more worrying, the IMF expects the global economy to suffer permanent damage from the pandemic (Chart 1 and Chart 2). It projects that real global GDP will be 5.3% lower in 2024 compared to what it expected last year. In the G7, real GDP is projected to be nearly 3% lower, with most of the shortfall resulting from a downward revision to the level of potential GDP (Chart 3). Chart 1Covid-19: The IMF Expects The Global Economy To Suffer Permanent Damage (Part I) How Much Permanent Economic Damage Will The Pandemic Cause? How Much Permanent Economic Damage Will The Pandemic Cause? Chart 2Covid-19: The IMF Expects The Global Economy To Suffer Permanent Damage (Part II) How Much Permanent Economic Damage Will The Pandemic Cause? How Much Permanent Economic Damage Will The Pandemic Cause?     The Congressional Budget Office is no less gloomy in its forecast. The CBO expects US real GDP to be 3.7% lower in 2024 than it projected last August. By 2029, it sees US GDP as being 1.8% below what it had expected prior to the pandemic, almost entirely due to slower potential GDP growth (Chart 4). Chart 3G7 Real GDP Growth Projections Have Been Revised Sharply Lower Due To The Pandemic How Much Permanent Economic Damage Will The Pandemic Cause? How Much Permanent Economic Damage Will The Pandemic Cause? Chart 4A Gloomy Forecast For The US Thanks To Covid-19 How Much Permanent Economic Damage Will The Pandemic Cause? How Much Permanent Economic Damage Will The Pandemic Cause? The worry that the pandemic will lead to a major permanent loss in output is understandable. That is precisely what happened after the Global Financial Crisis. Nevertheless, as we discuss below, there are good reasons to think that the damage will not be as pervasive as widely believed. The Drivers Of Potential GDP An economy’s potential output is a function of three variables: 1) the number of workers available; 2) the amount of capital those workers have at their disposal; and 3) the efficiency with which this labor and capital can be transformed into output, a concept economists call “total factor productivity.” Let us consider how the pandemic has affected all three variables. The Impact Of The Pandemic On The Labor Market At last count, the pandemic has killed over 1.1 million people worldwide, 222,000 in the US. While the human cost of the virus is immense, the economic cost has been mitigated by the fact that about four-fifths of fatalities have been among those over the age of 65 (Table 1). In the US, less than 7% of the labor force is older than 65. A reasonable estimate is that Covid deaths have reduced the US labor force by 55,000.1 Table 1Pandemic-Related Deaths Are Tilted Towards The Elderly, Who Are The Least Active Participants Of The Labor Force How Much Permanent Economic Damage Will The Pandemic Cause? How Much Permanent Economic Damage Will The Pandemic Cause? Chart 5The Number Of New Cases Continues To Increase Globally How Much Permanent Economic Damage Will The Pandemic Cause? How Much Permanent Economic Damage Will The Pandemic Cause? Granted, mortality is not the only way that the disease can impair one’s ability to work. As David Cutler and Larry Summers point out in a recent study, for every single person who dies from Covid-19, seven people will survive but not before manifesting severe or critical symptoms of the disease.2 Based on the experience from past coronavirus epidemics, Ahmed, Patel, Greenwood et al. estimate that about one-third of these survivors will suffer long-term health complications.3 If one assumes that half of these chronically ill survivors are unable to work, this would reduce the US labor force by an additional 65,000.4 Of course, the pandemic is not yet over. The number of new cases continues to rise in the US and globally (Chart 5). The only saving grace is that mortality and morbidity rates are lower than they were earlier this year. Nevertheless, many more people are likely to die or suffer debilitating long-term consequences before a vaccine becomes widely available. Using the US as an example, if the total number of people who end up dying or getting so sick that they are unable to work ends up being twice what it is so far, the pandemic will reduce the labor force by about 240,000. This is not a small number in absolute terms. However, it is less than 0.15% of the overall size of the US labor force, which stood at 164 million on the eve of the pandemic. The impact of the pandemic on the labor forces of other major economies such as Europe, China, and Japan will be even smaller. Labor Market Hysteresis People can drop out of the labor force even if they do not get sick. In fact, 4.4 million have left the US labor force since February, bringing the participation rate down from 63.4% to 61.4%. How great is the risk of “hysteresis,” a situation where the skills of laid-off workers atrophy so much that they become unwilling or unable to rejoin the labor force? At least so far, hysteresis has been limited. According to surveys conducted by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, most US workers who have dropped out of the labor force still want a job. The pandemic has made it more difficult for people to work even when they wanted to. During the spring, more than four times as many employees were absent from work due to childcare requirements than at the same time last year. Now that schools are reopening, it will be easier for parents to go back to work. Admittedly, not everyone will have a job to return to. While about a third of US unemployed workers are still on temporary layoff, the number of workers who have suffered permanent job losses has been steadily rising (Chart 6). The good news is that job openings have recovered most of their decline since the start of the year. Unlike in mid-2009, when there were 6.5 unemployed workers for every one job vacancy, today there are only two (Chart 7). Chart 6US: Permanent Job Losses Have Been Rising Steadily... US: Permanent Job Losses Have Been Rising Steadily... US: Permanent Job Losses Have Been Rising Steadily... Chart 7...But Job Openings Have Recovered Most Of Their Decline Since The Start Of The Year ...But Job Openings Have Recovered Most Of Their Decline Since The Start Of The Year ...But Job Openings Have Recovered Most Of Their Decline Since The Start Of The Year It is also worth noting that the vast majority of job losses during the pandemic has been among lower-income workers, especially in the retail and hospitality sectors. Most of these jobs do not require highly specialized sector-specific skills. Thus, as long as there is enough demand throughout the economy, unemployed workers will be able to find jobs in other industries. Wither The Capital Stock? The pandemic may end up reducing the value of the capital stock in two ways. First, it could render a portion of the existing capital stock unusable. Second, the pandemic could reduce the pace of new investment, leading to a smaller future capital stock than would otherwise have been the case. Let us explore both possibilities. On the first point, it is certainly true that the pandemic has left a lot of the capital stock idle, ranging from office buildings to shopping malls. However, this could turn out to be a temporary effect. Consider, for example, the case of China. After the pandemic began in Wuhan, China first shut down much of its domestic economy and then implemented an effective mass testing and contact tracing system. The strategy worked insofar as China is now nearly free of the virus. Today, few Chinese wear masks, the restaurants are full again, and domestic air travel is back to last year’s level. Even movie theatre revenue has rebounded. The rest of the world may not be able to replicate China’s success in combating the virus, but then again it won’t need to if an effective vaccine becomes available. Chart 8US Housing Is In A Good Place US Housing Is In A Good Place US Housing Is In A Good Place Even if the pandemic ends up leading to deep and lasting changes in the way people live, work, and shop, the market mechanism will ensure that all but the least desirable parts of the capital stock remain productively employed. As first year economics students learn, if the supply curve is vertical and the demand curve shifts inward, the result will be lower prices rather than diminished output. By the same token, if more companies and workers decide to relocate to the suburbs, urban rents will fall until enough people decide that they are better off staying put. An economy’s productive capacity does not change just because rents go down. What falling demand for urban real estate and increased interest in working from home will do is encourage people to buy larger homes in suburban areas. We have already seen this play out this year. Despite flagging commercial real estate construction in the US, residential construction has boomed. Single-family housing starts were up 24% year-over-year in September. Building permits and home sales have reached new cycle highs. Homebuilder confidence hit a new record in October (Chart 8). The Service Sector Is Not Particularly Capital Intensive Most recessions take a greater toll on the goods-producing sectors of the economy than the service sector. The pandemic, in contrast, has mainly afflicted services. The service sector is the least capital-intensive sector of the economy. This is especially the case when it comes to spending on capital equipment and investment in intellectual property (Chart 9). Chart 9Capex-Intensive Industries Have Let Go Of Less Workers During The Pandemic How Much Permanent Economic Damage Will The Pandemic Cause? How Much Permanent Economic Damage Will The Pandemic Cause? Chart 10Capex Intentions Have Bounced Back Capex Intentions Have Bounced Back Capex Intentions Have Bounced Back As such, it is not surprising that investment in equipment and IP fell less during this recession than one would have expected based on the historic relationship between investment and GDP growth. According to the Atlanta Fed’s GDPNow model, investment in equipment and IP is set to increase by 23% in the third quarter. The snapback in the Fed’s capex intention surveys suggests that investment spending should continue to rise in the fourth quarter and into next year (Chart 10). Productivity And The Pandemic Just as the impact of the pandemic on the labor supply and the capital stock is likely to be limited, the same is true for the efficiency with which capital and labor is transformed into output. For every person whose productivity is hampered by having to work from home, there is another person who feels liberated from the need to spend an hour commuting to work only to attend a series of pointless meetings. In fact, it is quite possible that the pandemic will nudge society from various “low productivity” equilibria to “high productivity” equilibria. For example, greater use of video conferencing could negate the need to take redeye flights to attend business meetings in person. Remote learning could enhance educational opportunities. More widespread use of telemedicine could eliminate the need to waste time waiting in a doctor’s office. Who knows, the pandemic could even fulfill my life-long mission to replace the unhygienic handshake with the much more elegant Thai wai. Granted, disruptive shifts could produce unintended consequences. There is a fine line between creative destruction and uncreative obliteration. If the pandemic forces otherwise viable businesses to close, this could adversely affect resource allocation. Chart 11New Business Applications Have Surged To Record Highs New Business Applications Have Surged To Record Highs New Business Applications Have Surged To Record Highs Chart 12Commercial Bankruptcy Filings Remain In Check How Much Permanent Economic Damage Will The Pandemic Cause? How Much Permanent Economic Damage Will The Pandemic Cause? Fortunately, at least so far, this does not seem to be happening on a large scale. After dropping by 25%, the number of active US small businesses has rebounded to last year’s levels. New business applications have surged to record highs (Chart 11). According to the American Bankruptcy Institute, commercial bankruptcy filings remain near historic lows. While Bloomberg’s count of large-company bankruptcies did spike earlier this year, it has been coming down more recently (Chart 12). Fiscal Stimulus To The Rescue Chart 13Personal Income Jumped Early On In The Pandemic Personal Income Jumped Early On In The Pandemic Personal Income Jumped Early On In The Pandemic How did so many households and businesses manage to avoid the financial suffering that usually goes along with deep recessions? The answer is that governments provided them with ample income support. In the US, real personal income rose by 11% in the first few months of the pandemic (Chart 13). Small businesses also benefited from the Paycheck Protection Program, which doled out low-cost loans to businesses which they will be able to convert into grants upon confirmation that the money was used to preserve jobs. Similar schemes, such as Germany’s Corona-Schutzschild, Canada’s Emergency Business Account program, and the UK’s Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme were launched elsewhere. The failure of the US Congress to pass a new stimulus bill could undermine the sanguine narrative presented above. Small businesses, in particular, are facing a one-two punch from the expiration of the Paycheck Protection Program and tighter bank lending standards. Ultimately, we think the US Congress will pass a new pandemic relief bill. However, the size of the bill could depend on the outcome of the election. In a blue sweep scenario, the Biden administration will push through a $2.5-to-$3.5 trillion stimulus package early next year, while laying the groundwork for a further 3% of GDP increase in government spending on infrastructure, health care, education, housing, and the environment. A fairly large stimulus bill could also emerge if President Trump manages to hang on to the White House, while the Democrats take control of the Senate. Unlike some Republican senators, Donald Trump is not averse to big increases in government spending. A continuation of the current political configuration in Washington would result in the smallest increase in spending. Nevertheless, some sort of deal is likely to emerge after the election. Even most Republican voters favor a large stimulus bill (Table 2). Table 2Strong Support For Stimulus How Much Permanent Economic Damage Will The Pandemic Cause? How Much Permanent Economic Damage Will The Pandemic Cause? A Double-Edged Sword? Bountiful fiscal support has undoubtedly lessened the economic scarring from the pandemic. However, could the resulting increase in government debt lead to supply-side problems down the road? The answer depends on what happens to interest rates. As long as interest rates stay below the growth rate of the economy, governments will not need to raise taxes to pay for pandemic relief. In fact, in such a setting, the public debt-to-GDP ratio will return to its original level with absolutely no change in the structural budget deficit (Chart 14). GDP growth in most developed economies has exceeded government borrowing rates for much of the post-war era (Chart 15). Thus, a free lunch scenario where governments never have to pay back the additional debt they incurred for pandemic relief cannot be ruled out. That said, it would not be prudent to bank on such an outcome. If the excess private-sector savings that have kept down borrowing costs run out, interest rates could rise. In a world awash in debt, this could lead to major problems. Thus, while the structural damage to the global economy from the pandemic appears to be limited for now, that could change in the future. Chart 14A Fiscal Free Lunch When r Is Less Than g How Much Permanent Economic Damage Will The Pandemic Cause? How Much Permanent Economic Damage Will The Pandemic Cause? Chart 15The Rate Of Economic Growth Has Usually Been Higher Than Interest Rates How Much Permanent Economic Damage Will The Pandemic Cause? How Much Permanent Economic Damage Will The Pandemic Cause?     Investors should continue to overweight equities for the time being. With a vaccine on the horizon, it makes sense to shift from favoring “pandemic plays” such as tech and health care stocks to favoring “reopening plays” such as deep cyclicals and banks. A more cautious stance towards stocks will be appropriate later this decade if, as flagged above, a stagflationary environment leads to higher interest rates and slower growth.   Peter Berezin Chief Global Strategist peterb@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 To estimate the direct impact of Covid-19 on the labor force, we calculate the decline in the labor force by age cohorts using Covid-19 death statistics and labor participation rates. 2 David M. Cutler, and Lawrence H. Summers, “The COVID-19 Pandemic and the $16 Trillion Virus,” JAMA Network, October 12, 2020. 3 Hassaan Ahmed, Kajal Patel, Darren Greenwood, Stephen Halpin, Penny Lewthwaite, Abayomi Salawu, Lorna Eyre, Andrew Breen, Rory O’Connor, Anthony Jones, and Manoj Sivan. “Long-Term Clinical Outcomes In Survivors Of Coronavirus Outbreaks After Hospitalisation Or ICU Admission: A Systematic Review And Meta-Analysis Of Follow-Up Studies,” medRxiv, April 22, 2020. 4 Calculated as 0.5 x (decline in labor force due to Covid-19 deaths) x 7 x (1/3).   Global Investment Strategy View Matrix How Much Permanent Economic Damage Will The Pandemic Cause? How Much Permanent Economic Damage Will The Pandemic Cause? Current MacroQuant Model Scores How Much Permanent Economic Damage Will The Pandemic Cause? How Much Permanent Economic Damage Will The Pandemic Cause?

Highlights Duration: Prospects for more pre-election fiscal stimulus are slim. But with the Democrats gaining ground in the polls, the bond market will stay focused on rising odds of a blue sweep election and greater fiscal stimulus in early 2021. Municipal Bonds: Municipal bonds offer exceptional value relative to both US Treasuries and corporate credit. Not only that, but rising odds of a blue sweep election make state & local government fiscal relief increasingly likely. Investors should overweight municipal bonds in US fixed income portfolios. Economy: The economic recovery continues to roll on, but it will be some time before the output gap is closed and inflation starts to rise. Slow consumer and corporate credit growth suggest that animal spirits have not yet taken hold. Meanwhile, the falling unemployment rate masks a persistent uptrend in the number of permanently unemployed. Feature Chart 1Breakout Breakout Breakout After having been lulled to sleep by several months of stagnant yields, bond investors experienced a minor shockwave in early October. The 10-year Treasury yield and 2/10 slope both broke out of well-established trading ranges and implied interest rate volatility bounced off all-time lows to reach its highest level since June (Chart 1). We suspect this might turn out to be just the first small tremor in a tumultuous month leading up to the US election. Specifically, there are two main political risks that will be resolved within the next month. Both have major implications for the bond market. Bond-Bullish Risk: No More Stimulus Before The Election  The first risk is the possibility that the current Congress will not deliver any more fiscal stimulus. This increasingly looks like less of a possibility and more of a likelihood, especially after the president tweeted that he is halting negotiations with House Democrats. While he partially walked those comments back the next day, the fact remains that there is very little time between now and November 3rd, and the two sides remain at loggerheads. We have argued that more household income support from Congress is necessary. Otherwise, consumer spending will massively disappoint during the next year.1 However, it could take a few more months before this becomes apparent in the consumer spending data. Real consumer spending still rose in August, though much less quickly than it did in June and July (Chart 2). Meanwhile, August disposable income remained above pre-COVID levels, as it continued to receive a boost from facilities related to the CARES act (Chart 2, bottom panel). This boost will fade as the CARES act’s money is doled out, pushing spending lower. That is, unless Congress enacts a follow-up bill. There are two main political risks that will be resolved within the next month and both have major implications for the bond market. It looks less and less likely that a bill will be passed this month but, depending on the election outcome, a follow-up stimulus bill could become more likely in January. If consumer spending can hang in for the next couple of months, then the bond market might look past Congress’ near-term failure. This appears to be what is happening so far. The stock market fell 1.4% last Tuesday after Trump tweeted about halting negotiations. The 10-year Treasury yield, however, dropped only 2 bps on the day. More generally, long-dated bond yields rose during the past month, even as stocks sold off and prospects for immediate fiscal relief dimmed (Chart 3). Chart 2September's Consumer Spending Report Is Critical September's Consumer Spending Report Is Critical September's Consumer Spending Report Is Critical Chart 3Bonds Ignore Stock ##br##Market... Bonds Ignore Stock Market... Bonds Ignore Stock Market... With all that in mind, we think September’s consumer spending data – the last month of data we will see before the election – are very important. If spending collapses, it might re-focus the market’s attention on Congress’ failure, sending bond yields down. However, we think the market would see through a modest drop in spending, especially if the election looks poised to bring us a larger bill in 2021. Bond-Bearish Risk: A Blue Sweep Election Chart 4...Take Cues From Election Odds ...Take Cues From Election Odds ...Take Cues From Election Odds This brings us to the second big political risk that could influence bond yields during the next month: The possibility of a “blue sweep” election where the Democrats win control of the House, Senate and White House. This would clearly be a bearish outcome for bonds, as an unimpeded Democratic party would enact a large stimulus package – likely worth $2.5 to $3.5 trillion – shortly after inauguration. It appears that the bond market is already tentatively pricing-in this outcome. While the recent increase in bond yields is hard to square with weak equity prices and souring expectations for immediate stimulus, it is consistent with rising betting market odds of a blue sweep election (Chart 4). To underscore the bond bearishness of this potential election outcome, consider that not only would a unified Congress be able to quickly deliver another fiscal relief bill, but Joe Biden’s platform calls for even more spending on infrastructure, healthcare, education and other Democratic priorities. In total, Biden is proposing new spending of around 3% of GDP, only about half of which will be offset by tax increases (Table 1). Table 1ABiden Would Raise $4 Trillion In Revenue Over Ten Years Political Risk Will Dominate In A Pivotal Month For The Bond Market Political Risk Will Dominate In A Pivotal Month For The Bond Market Table 1BBiden Would Spend $7 Trillion In Programs Over Ten Years Political Risk Will Dominate In A Pivotal Month For The Bond Market Political Risk Will Dominate In A Pivotal Month For The Bond Market How likely is a “blue sweep” election? It is our Geopolitical Strategy service’s base case.2 Also, fivethirtyeight.com’s poll-based forecasting model sees a 68% chance that Democrats win the Senate, a 94% chance that they win the House and an 85% chance that Joe Biden wins the presidency. Investment Strategy These two political risks appear to put bond investors in a bit of a conundrum. On the one hand, if no stimulus bill is passed this month and September’s consumer spending data are weak, then bond yields could fall in the near-term. However, we are inclined to think that if all that occurs against the back-drop of rising odds of a blue sweep election outcome, the bond market will look beyond the near-term and yields will move higher on expectations of larger stimulus coming in January. As such, we retain our relatively pro-reflation investment stance. We recommend owning nominal and real yield curve steepeners, inflation curve flatteners and maintaining an overweight position in TIPS versus nominal Treasuries. All these positions are designed to profit from a rising yield environment.3 Municipal bonds look extremely cheap compared to other US fixed income sectors. We retain an “at benchmark” portfolio duration stance for now, for two reasons. First, while a blue sweep election outcome looks like the most likely scenario, it is not a guarantee. Second, even against the backdrop of greater government stimulus and continued economic recovery, the US economy will still be dealing with a large output gap next year that will temper inflationary pressures. This will keep the Fed on hold, limiting the upside in bond yields. That being said, the odds of another significant downleg in bond yields look increasingly slim. We will likely shift to a more aggressive “below-benchmark” duration stance this month, if our conviction in a blue sweep election outcome continues to rise. A Rare Buying Opportunity In Municipal Bonds No matter how you slice it, municipal bonds look extremely cheap compared to other US fixed income sectors. First, we can look at the spread between Aaa-rated munis and maturity-matched US Treasury yields (Chart 5). When we do this, we find that 2-year and 5-year municipal bonds trade at about the same yields as their Treasury counterparts. This is despite municipal debt’s tax-exempt status. Munis look even more attractive further out the curve, with 10-year and 30-year bonds trading at a before-tax premium relative to Treasuries. Chart 5Aaa Munis Versus ##br##Treasuries Aaa Munis Versus Treasuries Aaa Munis Versus Treasuries Table 2Muni/Corporate Breakeven Effective Tax Rates (%) Political Risk Will Dominate In A Pivotal Month For The Bond Market Political Risk Will Dominate In A Pivotal Month For The Bond Market Next, we can look at how municipal bonds stack up compared to corporates. We do this in a couple different ways. In Table 2, we start with the Bloomberg Barclays Investment Grade Corporate Index split by credit tier. We then find the General Obligation (GO) municipal bond that matches each corporate index’s credit rating and maturity and calculate the breakeven effective tax rate between the two yields. The breakeven effective tax rate is the effective tax rate that would make an investor indifferent between owning the municipal bond and the corporate bond. For example, if an investor faces an effective tax rate of 7%, they will observe the same after-tax yield in a 12-year A-rated GO municipal bond as they do in a 12-year A-rated corporate bond. If their effective tax rate is more than 7%, the muni offers an after-tax yield advantage. Alternatively, we can look at the relative value between munis and credit using the Bloomberg Barclays Municipal Indexes. In Chart 6A, we start with the average yield on the Bloomberg Barclays General Obligation indexes by maturity. We then find the US Credit index that matches the credit rating and duration of the municipal index and calculate the yield differential.4 We find that in all cases, for GO bonds ranging from 6 years to maturity and higher, the muni offers a before-tax yield advantage compared to the Credit Index. This is also true when we perform the same exercise using municipal revenue bonds instead of GOs (Chart 6B). Chart 6AGO Munis Versus Credit GO Munis Versus Credit GO Munis Versus Credit Chart 6BRevenue Munis Versus Credit Revenue Munis Versus Credit Revenue Munis Versus Credit You may notice that municipal bonds trade at a before-tax premium to credit in Charts 6A and 6B, but at a discount in Table 2. This is because we compare bonds by maturity in Table 2 and by duration in Charts 6A and 6B. Unlike investment grade corporates, municipal bonds often carry call options making them negatively convex and giving them a duration that is much shorter than their maturity. Cheap For A Reason, Or Just Plain Cheap? Chart 7State & Local Balance Sheets Will Weather The Storm State & Local Balance Sheets Will Weather The Storm State & Local Balance Sheets Will Weather The Storm We have effectively demonstrated that municipal bonds offer value relative to both Treasuries and corporate credit. But attractive value is not enough to warrant an overweight allocation. Ideally, we would also like some degree of confidence that wide spreads won’t eventually be justified by a wave of downgrades and defaults. While state & local government balance sheets are certainly stressed, we see strong odds that the muni market will emerge from the COVID recession relatively unscathed. For starters, state & local governments were experiencing strong revenue growth prior to the pandemic (Chart 7, top panel). This allowed them to build rainy day funds up to all-time highs (Chart 7, panel 4). Second, income support for households from the CARES act helped prop up state & local income tax revenues in the second quarter (Chart 7, panel 2), though sales tax revenues took a significant hit (Chart 7, panel 3). Going forward, a blue sweep election scenario would not only provide more income support for households – helping income tax revenues – but a Democratic controlled Congress would also quickly deliver fiscal aid directly to state & local governments. In fact, it is this aid for state & local governments that is currently the key sticking point in fiscal negotiations. In the meantime, state & local governments will continue to clamp down on spending. This can already be seen in the massive drop in state & local government employment (Chart 7, bottom panel). This is obviously a drag on economic growth, but the combination of austerity measures and high rainy day fund balances will help municipal bonds avoid downgrades and defaults, at least until a fiscal relief bill is passed next year. While state & local government balance sheets are certainly stressed, we see strong odds that the muni market will emerge from the COVID recession relatively unscathed. Bottom Line: Municipal bonds offer exceptional value relative to both US Treasuries and corporate credit. Not only that, but rising odds of a blue sweep election make state & local government fiscal relief increasingly likely. Investors should overweight municipal bonds in US fixed income portfolios. Economy: Credit Growth & The Labor Market Credit Growth Slowing Chart 8No Animal Spirits No Animal Spirits No Animal Spirits Of notable economic data releases during the past two weeks, we find it particularly interesting that both consumer credit and Commercial & Industrial (C&I) bank lending continue to slow (Chart 8). On the consumer side, massive income support from the CARES act and few spending opportunities caused households to pay down debt this spring. Then, after two months of modest gains, consumer credit fell again in August (Chart 8, top panel). This strongly suggests that, even as lockdown restrictions have eased, consumers aren’t yet ready to open up the spending taps. On the corporate side, firms received much less of a direct cash injection from Congress and were forced to take on massive amounts of debt to get through the spring and early summer months. But as of the second quarter, we recently observed that nonfinancial corporate retained earnings now exceed capital expenditures.5 This strongly suggests that firms have taken out enough new debt and that C&I bank lending will remain slow in the coming months. Cracks Showing In The Labor Market Chart 9Far From Full Employment Far From Full Employment Far From Full Employment Finally, we should mention September’s employment report that was released two weeks ago (Chart 9). It is certainly positive that the unemployment rate continues to fall, but the main takeaway for bond investors should be that the US economy remains far from full employment, and therefore far away from generating meaningful inflationary pressure. While the unemployment rate fell for the fifth consecutive month, it is now dropping much less quickly than it did early in the summer (Chart 9, panel 2). Also, we continue to note that labor market gains are entirely concentrated in temporarily unemployed people returning to work. The number of permanently unemployed continues to rise (Chart 9, bottom panel). Bottom Line: The economic recovery continues to roll on, but it will be some time before the output gap is closed and inflation starts to rise. Slow consumer and corporate credit growth suggest that animal spirits have not yet taken hold. Meanwhile, the falling unemployment rate masks a persistent uptrend in the number of permanently unemployed. Appendix The Fed rolled out a number of aggressive lending facilities on March 23. These facilities focused on different specific sectors of the US bond market. The fact that the Fed has decided to support some parts of the market and not others has caused some traditional bond market correlations to break down. It has also led us to adopt of a strategy of “Buy What The Fed Is Buying”. That is, we favor those sectors that offer attractive spreads and that benefit from Fed support. The below Table tracks the performance of different bond sectors since the March 23 announcement. We will use this to monitor bond market correlations and evaluate our strategy’s success. Table 3Performance Since March 23 Announcement Of Emergency Fed Facilities Political Risk Will Dominate In A Pivotal Month For The Bond Market Political Risk Will Dominate In A Pivotal Month For The Bond Market Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “More Stimulus Needed”, dated September 15, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, “It Ain’t Over Till It’s Over”, dated October 9, 2020, available at gps.bcaresearch.com 3 For more details on these recommended positions please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Positioning For Reflation And Avoiding Deflation”, dated August 11, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 4 Note that we use the US Credit Index in Charts 6A and 6B. This index includes the entire US corporate bond index but also some non-corporate credit sectors like Sovereigns and Foreign Agency bonds. 5 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Out Of Bullets”, dated September 29, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification

Highlights Treasuries: Bond yields held steady in September, even as the stock market sold off sharply. This leads us to conclude that long-maturity Treasury yields have room to fall in the near-term if progress towards a fiscal stimulus package moves too slowly. We continue to recommend keeping portfolio duration close to benchmark on a 6-12 month horizon. Corporates: Corporate spreads widened significantly in September, but they still embed a relatively optimistic default outlook. While corporate leverage has peaked, some labor market indicators have stalled. This makes us question whether defaults can improve enough to meet lofty market expectations. Continue to overweight investment grade corporates and Ba-rated junk on a 6-12 month horizon, while avoiding junk bonds rated B and lower. A Fed-Driven Sell-Off? Chart 1Treasuries A Poor Hedge In September Treasuries A Poor Hedge In September Treasuries A Poor Hedge In September It might seem odd to think of this month’s market weakness as a reaction to an overly hawkish Fed. With the funds rate pinned at its effective lower bound and no rate hikes expected until 2024 (at least), monetary conditions have never been more accommodative. However, the relative performance of different asset classes in September leads us to only one conclusion. Financial markets had been priced for even more central bank dovishness this month, and came away disappointed. Equity Sectors Responded To Monetary Tightness, Not Weaker Growth First, consider the simple observation that risk assets (equities and credit) have sold off sharply since September 2nd but the Bloomberg Barclays Treasury Index actually underperformed a position in cash (Chart 1). Investors have seen none of the usual hedging benefits from bonds. Some of this can be chalked up to the relative performance of different equity sectors (Table 1). Tech stock underperformance was responsible for the bulk of September’s market weakness, particularly early in the month. Meanwhile, the most cyclical (or growth-sensitive) sectors – Industrials, Energy and Materials – performed only slightly worse than traditionally defensive sectors. Typically, cyclical sectors perform worst when the stock market is responding to a negative re-rating of economic growth expectations. The fact that cyclicals weren’t the worst performers this month suggests that the sell-off had a different catalyst. Table 1Equity & Treasury Returns: September 2nd To September 25th Out Of Bullets Out Of Bullets The sector composition of the sell-off has important implications for bond yields because the relative performance between cyclical and defensive equity sectors explains more of the variation in the 10-year Treasury yield than the overall performance of the stock market (Chart 2). Chart 2Relative Sector Performance Matters For Bond Yields Relative Sector Performance Matters For Bond Yields Relative Sector Performance Matters For Bond Yields Commodities Suggest A Hawkish Policy Surprise … Table 2Commodities & Bond Yields: September 2nd To September 25th Out Of Bullets Out Of Bullets Second, consider the performance of industrial commodities and gold (Table 2). Growth-sensitive industrial commodities held up pretty well this month, but gold fared poorly. The relatively strong performance of industrial commodities suggests that markets were not pricing-in a significant shock to global growth expectations. Weakness in gold suggests that investors started to price-in less long-run inflation risk. This is the exact sort of performance you would expect if the central bank delivered an unexpected dose of monetary tightening. Along with the relative performance of equity sectors, the relative performance between industrial commodities and gold also helps explain why Treasury yields remained stable. The ratio between the CRB Raw Industrials Index and gold is tightly correlated with the 10-year Treasury yield (Chart 3). Chart 3Bond Yields Track The CRB/Gold Ratio Bond Yields Track The CRB/Gold Ratio Bond Yields Track The CRB/Gold Ratio … As Do Inflation-Linked Bonds Third, we can look at relative movements in nominal yields, real yields and inflation breakevens. Recall that we like to think of nominal yields as being driven by fed funds rate expectations and of inflation breakevens as being driven by inflation expectations. Real yields have no independent driver, but can be calculated using the Fisher Equation:1 Real Yield = Nominal Yield – Inflation Expectations With that in mind, look at how yields have moved since the stock market’s September 2nd peak (Table 2). The 10-year TIPS breakevens rate is down sharply but the 10-year nominal yield is unchanged. This suggests that the market moved to price-in less long-run inflation risk alongside an unchanged path for the policy rate. The result of the interaction between those two drivers is a sharp move up in the 10-year real yield. Credit Performance Also Looks Policy Driven Table 3Corporate Bond Excess Returns*: September 2nd To September 25th Out Of Bullets Out Of Bullets Finally, we can look at the relative performance of different corporate bond credit tiers (Table 3). In a typical risk-off market driven by greater pessimism about the outlook for economic growth, we would expect to see the bulk of underperformance concentrated in the lowest credit tiers where bonds are most likely to default. However, since September 2nd, Ba-rated issuers have underperformed all lower-rated credit tiers, even distressed Ca/C-rated issuers. One possible explanation is that Ba-rated and higher corporate bonds generally benefit from the Fed’s emergency lending facilities while B-rated and lower credits are mostly locked out. It could be that September’s market moves reflect some increased pessimism about the Fed’s ability or willingness to stick with its emergency facilities. Or more likely, there had been some hopes that the Fed would somehow expand its current emergency lending facilities. Hopes that were dashed when Chair Powell testified to Congress last week and seemed to suggest that the Fed has already done all it can in this regard. Investment Implications For us, this is the main takeaway from September’s strange market moves: Fed policy is certainly in no rush to tighten, but equally, the Fed can’t deliver any further easing on its own. All it can do is continue to support credit markets with its current emergency facilities and refrain from lifting rates even if inflation starts to rise. Those looking for an additional dose of economic adrenaline should look to fiscal policymakers, not the Fed. With regards to markets, since September’s moves don’t appear to reflect expectations for weaker economic growth, we fret that such a shock could still emerge. The most likely near-term catalyst would be the failure of Congress to pass a new stimulus package. We have previously written that consumer spending will not be able to sustain a decent growth rate without additional income support from Congress.2 If it looks like a deal is not forthcoming or we see some negative consumer spending data, there is room for cyclical equity sectors and bond yields to move lower. We view this as a material near-term risk. September’s junk bond weakness was unusual in that higher-rated credits performed worse than lower-rated ones. Beyond the near-term, on a 6-12 month horizon, we continue to believe that the economic recovery will continue. Congress will ultimately deliver sufficient stimulus, though it may not come in time to prevent a near-term market reaction. The conflict between these near-term and medium-term views leads us to maintain our cautious cyclical investment stance. We recommend keeping portfolio duration close to benchmark while holding duration-neutral yield curve steepeners that are designed to profit from higher yields on a 6-12 month horizon.3 More specifically, we advise medium- and long-run investors who are already exposed to curve steepeners to stay the course. But if you aren’t yet exposed, it is a good idea to wait until a follow-up stimulus bill is announced before moving in. An Update On Corporate Sector Health And The Default Rate As noted above, September’s junk bond weakness was unusual in that higher-rated credits performed worse than lower-rated ones. As with our Treasury call, the fact that markets appeared to react to a policy shock and not a growth shock makes us nervous that a near-term growth shock is still not in the price. We see low-rated junk bonds as looking particularly complacent, especially when you consider that spreads continue to embed a relatively optimistic default outlook. Calculating The Spread-Implied Default Rate Our workhorse valuation tool for junk bonds is the Default-Adjusted Spread. This is the average index option-adjusted spread less default losses observed over the subsequent 12-month period. For example, the Default-Adjusted Spread came in at -301 basis points for the 12-month period ending August 2020. This is equal to the August 2019 index spread of 393 bps less realized default losses of 694 bps that occurred between August 2019 and August 2020. Over time, we have found that the Default-Adjusted Spread does a good job of explaining excess junk returns and that, typically, a Default-Adjusted Spread of at least 150 bps is required for high-yield to outperform duration-matched Treasuries on a 12-month investment horizon (Chart 4).4 Chart 4Calculating The Spread-Implied Default Rate Calculating The Spread-Implied Default Rate Calculating The Spread-Implied Default Rate With that knowledge, we can set a target Default-Adjusted Spread of 150 bps and calculate the default rate that would have to occur during the next 12 months to hit that target. We call this the Spread-Implied Default Rate, and it is presented in the bottom panel of Chart 4. As of today, the Spread-Implied Default Rate is 5.1%. This means that if the speculative grade default rate comes in below 5.1% during the next 12 months, then our Default-Adjusted Spread will be above 150 bps and junk bonds will likely outperform Treasuries. If the default rate turns out to be above 5.1%, then the prospects for junk bond outperformance look dimmer. Can The Default Rate Fall To 5%? The logical question then becomes whether it’s possible for the default rate to fall to 5% during the next 12 months. This would certainly be a rapid improvement from its current level of 8.7%, but not one that is without historical precedent. In fact, the default rate tends to fall very quickly when the economy is coming out of recession and, already, August saw only six default events. This is down from above 20 in May, June and July (Chart 5). Chart 5Only Six Defaults In August Only Six Defaults In August Only Six Defaults In August Obviously, whether August’s gains can be maintained depends on the speed of economic recovery. In particular, we focus on nonfinancial corporate sector gross leverage – the ratio between total debt and pre-tax profits – and job cut announcements (Chart 6). Chart 6Default Rate Drivers Default Rate Drivers Default Rate Drivers Looking first at leverage, corporate profits plunged in the second quarter but that will probably represent the cyclical trough (Chart 7, top panel). Already, we see that analysts are revising up their earnings expectations (Chart 7, panel 2). Typically, positive net earnings revisions coincide with positive profit growth. On the debt side, firms issued massive amounts of debt in the first and second quarters (Chart 7, panel 3), but that process is also over. We note that the Financing Gap – the difference between capital expenditures and retained earnings – dipped into negative territory in Q2 (Chart 7, bottom panel). This means that firms retained more earnings than they needed to cover capital expenditures and suggests that further debt issuance is not necessary. When the Financing Gap moved below zero in 2009, it ushered in a lengthy period of corporate deleveraging. Chart 7Firms Have Enough Retained Earnings To Cover Capex Firms Have Enough Retained Earnings To Cover Capex Firms Have Enough Retained Earnings To Cover Capex It is therefore quite likely that both corporate sector leverage and the default rate have already peaked. The question is whether both can fall quickly enough to meet market expectations. Of this, we are less certain. When the Financing Gap moved below zero in 2009, it ushered in a lengthy period of corporate deleveraging. Job Cut Announcements – another predictor of corporate defaults – have also improved markedly since April, but they remain well above pre-COVID levels (Chart 8). Further, an array of other employment indicators suggest that labor market improvement has stalled during the past few weeks. Initial unemployment claims have flattened off and remain well above pre-COVID levels (Chart 8, panel 2). What’s more, high frequency data from scheduling firm Homebase show that the total number of employees working for companies using the Homebase software is no longer rising and is far below its pre-COVID level (Chart 8, bottom panel). It’s important to note that the Homebase data are biased toward small businesses, mostly in the restaurant, food & beverage, retail and services sectors. Those sectors have obviously been hit the hardest by COVID, but those are also the sectors where we are likely to see the bulk of corporate defaults. Chart 8Labor Market Indicators Labor Market Indicators Labor Market Indicators Investment Conclusions We are confident that the default rate has peaked, but we aren’t yet confident enough to recommend owning B-rated and below junk bonds. To make that recommendation we would need to have confidence that the default rate will move to 5% or lower during the next 12 months. The default rate was already 4.5% in the 12 months prior to COVID, and it now appears that most labor market data are stalling at worse than pre-COVID levels. An array of employment indicators suggest that labor market improvement has stalled during the past few weeks. We reiterate our recommendation to overweight investment grade and Ba-rated corporate bonds, while avoiding high-yield bonds rated B and lower. We will consider adding exposure to low-rated junk bonds if spreads rise to more attractive levels in the near-term and/or if Congress announces a significant stimulus package that looks poised to boost the economic recovery and labor market. Appendix A: Buy What The Fed Is Buying The Fed rolled out a number of aggressive lending facilities on March 23. These facilities focused on different specific sectors of the US bond market. The fact that the Fed has decided to support some parts of the market and not others has caused some traditional bond market correlations to break down. It has also led us to adopt of a strategy of “Buy What The Fed Is Buying”. That is, we favor those sectors that offer attractive spreads and that benefit from Fed support. The below Table tracks the performance of different bond sectors since the March 23 announcement. We will use this to monitor bond market correlations and evaluate our strategy’s success. Table 4Performance Since March 23 Announcement Of Emergency Fed Facilities Out Of Bullets Out Of Bullets   Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 For more details on this forecasting framework please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Negative Oil, The Zero Lower Bound And The Fisher Equation”, dated April 28, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “More Stimulus Needed”, dated September 15, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 3 For more details on our yield curve recommendations please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Positioning For Reflation And Avoiding Deflation”, dated August 11, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 4 To calculate the Spread-Implied Default Rate we also need to estimate the 12-month recovery rate. We assume a recovery rate of 25%, slightly better than the 20% recovery rate seen during the past 12 months. Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification

Highlights Bygones will no longer be bygones for the Fed when it comes to inflation, … : It has yet to define the parameters of its new approach, but the Fed is promising a sizable break with the past by adopting an average inflation target. … and it’s getting out of the business of pre-emptively tightening in response to a too-tight labor market: The Fed will still intervene to combat the effects of underemployment, but it’s done with trying to cool off a labor market that appears to be too strong. The dovish bias should be good for equities … : Over the last 60 years, large-cap US equities have performed considerably better when monetary policy is easy than they have when it is tight. … and it just might help workers: Tightening to prevent hot labor markets from getting too hot had the effect of making labor market strength self-limiting, circumscribing unions’ bargaining power. If the Fed follows its new plans, workers might benefit at bondholders’ expense. Feature At the Kansas City Fed’s annual Jackson Hole conference at the end of last month, Chair Powell took the opportunity to highlight the results of the Fed’s extended policy review. Though the announcement was short on details, the adjustments to the Fed’s longer-run aims should translate into a more accommodative monetary policy stance over the next several years. Promises made when inflation is moribund may be hard to keep when it begins to perk up, so it’s not written in stone that the Fed will stick to its guns when the backdrop changes, but the shifts in its approach could have meaningful impacts for investors and workers. For nearly five years, it's been the Fed's policy to lament past inflation shortfalls; ... From Inflation Targeting To Average Inflation Targeting1 The Fed may be approaching its 107th birthday, but it is still a relatively new institution practicing a relatively new discipline, and its policy goals and the ways it attempts to carry them out regularly shift. Congress gave the Fed its “dual mandate” in 1977 in a bill that spelled out three aims, “maximum employment, stable prices, and moderate long-term interest rates,” though the third has receded to the point of disappearing amidst a four-decade bond bull market. The dual mandate only entered common parlance in the mid-‘90s and the Federal Reserve Board did not explicitly mention “maximum employment” in its policy directives until 2010, after the FOMC first cited it in a post-meeting statement (itself a fairly new invention).2 ... going forward, it's pledging to do something to make up for them. The Fed only introduced an explicit inflation target in January 2012, a concept pioneered by the Reserve Bank of New Zealand in 1990. (It did so in its inaugural statement of longer-run goals and policy strategy, which it has since reviewed annually and adjusted as necessary.)3 When it first introduced an inflation target, the Fed said it was doing so to “help keep longer-term inflation expectations firmly anchored, thereby fostering price stability ... and enhancing [its] ability to promote maximum employment.” Long-run inflation expectations have fallen well below the bottom end of the 2.3-2.5% range consistent with the Fed’s 2% target (Chart 1). Describing its target as “symmetric,” which it began doing in January 2016 to make it clear that persistent shortfalls would be as unwelcome as persistent overshoots, has not helped. Inflation expectations ground higher for the first two symmetric years but ultimately backslid below their January 2016 level as measured inflation showed no signs of recovering. Chart 1Falling Short Falling Short Falling Short   The Fed is therefore upping the ante, going beyond expressing its concern about inflation shortfalls to pledging that they will be made up for in the future under a new strategy that condones corrective overshoots. It expressed its new intentions as follows: In order to anchor longer-term inflation expectations at [2 percent], the Committee seeks to achieve inflation that averages 2 percent over time, and therefore judges that, following periods when inflation has been running persistently below 2 percent, appropriate monetary policy will likely aim to achieve inflation moderately above 2 percent for some time.4 [Emphasis added] In other words, the Fed’s inflation target will no longer be fixed at 2%, and it will no longer be set in a purely forward-looking vacuum. Its target could now float above 2% for lengthy periods, depending on the recent history of realized inflation data. In meeting the price stability element of its mandate going forward, the Fed will be managing to something much more like a price level target than an annual inflation target. The upshot is that bygones will no longer be bygones when it comes to inflation undershoots; instead of forgetting past shortfalls, the Fed will actively seek to remediate them. The remediation aspect is a profound change, and it will presumably lead to greater policy accommodation over periods that have been preceded by inflation shortfalls. The Fed has apparently made this change to provoke a resetting of inflation expectations more in line with its aims, but long-run inflation expectations are principally a function of long-run trends in realized inflation. The 5-year/5-year forward CPI swap rate correlates much more closely with the 8-year rate of change in CPI inflation (Chart 2, top panel) than it does with the 1-year rate of change (Chart 2, bottom panel). Headline year-over-year inflation readings will therefore most likely have to exceed 2% for an extended stretch before long-term TIPS breakevens sustainably return to the target range our fixed income strategists judge to be compatible with an annualized 2% target. Chart 2Long-Run Inflation Expectations Are A Function Of Actual Long-Run Inflation Long-Run Inflation Expectations Are A Function Of Actual Long-Run Inflation Long-Run Inflation Expectations Are A Function Of Actual Long-Run Inflation A New Take On The Full Employment Mandate The Fed also put some distance from the Phillips Curve framework that many investors had come to view with outright disdain.5 The Phillips Curve’s initial assertion that the unemployment rate and inflation were inversely related was debunked in the stagflationary ‘70s, but the view that too-low unemployment could presage inflation remains embedded in mainstream economic models. Chair Powell has repeatedly questioned that premise, as inflation remained persistently below target even after the unemployment rate had fallen a full percentage point below estimates of its natural rate. The Fed’s new statement formally swears off it, saying that policy will seek “to mitigate shortfalls of employment from [its] assessment of its maximum level,” where it previously aimed to mitigate all deviations from its estimated maximum level [Emphasis added]. The wording change suggests that the Fed has caught up to investors when it comes to being fed up with the Phillips Curve’s false signals. As our fixed income colleagues put it, the Fed had previously viewed a negative unemployment gap (unemployment below its estimate of NAIRU)6 as a signal that inflation was poised to accelerate. That view often led to premature tightening, contributing to the pattern of inflation target shortfalls. The Fed now says it will no longer overreact to signs of labor market overheating, waiting instead for potential wage pressure to show up in the actual inflation data before removing monetary accommodation. Its new one-sided employment reaction function (ease if the labor market is soft, stand pat if it seems to be tight) reinforces the idea that the Fed will have an accommodative bias well into the intermediate term. Equity Market Implications Monetary policy is hardly the only influence on equity prices, and it is not possible to assess its state precisely in real time. It would certainly appear to be easy now that the Fed returned to ZIRP in the blink of an eye after the pandemic spread to the US, but no one can always say with certainty in real time that policy is easy, tight or neutral because no one knows exactly what the neutral rate is at any moment. Using our own in-house estimate of the equilibrium rate (the fed funds rate that neither encourages nor discourages economic activity) to divide the monetary policy cycle into four phases based on the fed funds rate’s level and direction (Chart 3), however, the S&P 500 has exhibited a robust and enduring performance pattern. Chart 3The Fed Funds Rate Cycle The Fed’s New Game Plan The Fed’s New Game Plan Over the 60 years covered by our equilibrium rate estimate, large-cap US equities have surged when policy was easy and run in place when it was tight (Table 1). Adjusted for inflation, they have posted juicy real returns when policy was easy but sapped investors’ wealth when policy was tight (Table 2). The significant return spread across easy and tight settings suggests that the state of monetary policy is an important contributor to equity returns and that our equilibrium estimate must be in the ballpark. Our practical takeaway is that investors should have a bias to overweight stocks in balanced portfolios when Fed policy is accommodative. That bias can be overridden by other factors, but we have found it to be a reliable starting point. The Fed's new one-sided employment reaction function (ease when employment falls below its estimated maximum level, but do nothing when it exceeds it) reinforces the accommodative leanings of average inflation targeting. Table 1A 9-Percentage-Point Nominal Return Gap ... The Fed’s New Game Plan The Fed’s New Game Plan Table 2... And An 11-Percentage-Point Real Return Gap The Fed’s New Game Plan The Fed’s New Game Plan Labor Market Implications To translate the natural-rate-of-unemployment concept into a graph-friendly format, let the unemployment gap equal the quantity (u – u*), where u is the reported unemployment rate and u* is NAIRU, as estimated by the Congressional Budget Office. When the unemployment gap is negative (u < u*), employment exceeds its maximum level and the labor market is tight. When the unemployment gap is positive (u > u*), employment falls short of its maximum level and the supply of labor exceeds the demand for it. An emphasis on promoting full employment over price stability favors labor over fixed income investors.  The Phillips Curve’s shortcomings and the difficulty of accurately estimating the natural rate of unemployment in real time notwithstanding, wage growth is stronger when the labor market is tight and the unemployment gap is a good general proxy for the balance between labor supply and demand. Nominal and real earnings have grown faster when the unemployment rate has broken through NAIRU since the average hourly earnings series began to be compiled in 1964 (Chart 4). Broadly speaking, a negative unemployment gap is good for labor while a positive gap is bad for it. Chart 4Wages Rise More In Tight Labor Markets Wages Rise More In Tight Labor Markets Wages Rise More In Tight Labor Markets From the perspective of the Fed’s dual mandate, then, labor benefits when the Fed places greater emphasis on promoting full employment and suffers it emphasizes price stability. Many factors have been cited as contributors to unions’ struggles over the last four decades,7 but monetary policy is not typically one of them. We would argue that it has played an underappreciated role, as unions’ golden years of the ‘50s, ‘60s and ‘70s coincided with the Fed’s hands-off approach to tight labor markets and their demise coincided with the Fed’s shift to leaning against them (Chart 5). From 1950 until Paul Volcker became Fed chair, the unemployment gap was negative in two out of every three quarters; since Volcker took over, it’s been negative in just one of three (Table 3). Chart 540 Years Of Removing The Punch Bowl Before Labor's Party Gets Going 40 Years Of Removing The Punch Bowl Before Labor's Party Gets Going 40 Years Of Removing The Punch Bowl Before Labor's Party Gets Going Table 3The Volcker Divide The Fed’s New Game Plan The Fed’s New Game Plan When it comes to a hot labor market, workers’ gains are bond owners’ losses. Prioritizing full employment over price stability works to the benefit of labor and debtors and to the detriment of capital and creditors. We can’t know the strength of the Fed’s new employment commitment until it’s tested by events, but if we take it at its word, four decades of policy that have favored bond owners are at risk of reversing. We reiterate our fixed income underweight over the tactical and cyclical timeframes. The equity impact is more nuanced. Compensation is far and away the largest component of corporate expenses and a policy to intervene only to mitigate employment shortfalls will compress profit margins. Tighter margins, however, should be offset by increased revenues as consumers have more money to spend. The shift in the Fed’s strategy is broadly labor-positive and capital-negative, but the ill effects for capital will be mostly borne by creditors and easy monetary policy has historically given equities a sizable boost. We reiterate our tactical equity equalweight and cyclical overweight.   Doug Peta, CFA Chief US Investment Strategist dougp@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 The discussion of the Fed’s revised approach to achieving its price stability mandate, and the following section’s discussion of its full employment mandate, borrow heavily from our Global Fixed Income and US Bond Strategy colleagues’ joint September 1, 2020 Special Report, "A New Dawn For US Monetary Policy," available at usbs.bcaresearch.com. Those interested in a fuller discussion of the policy changes, and their implications for the bond market, are encouraged to review the original report. 2 Steelman, Aaron, "The Federal Reserve’s ‘Dual Mandate’: The Evolution of an Idea." Richmond Fed Economic Brief, December 2011, No. 11-12. Accessed September 1, 2020. 3 "Federal Reserve issues FOMC statement of longer-run goals and policy strategy," January 25, 2012. 4https://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/guide-to-changes-in-statement-on-longer-run-goals-monetary-policy-strategy.htm 5 Please see the February 26, 2019 US Investment Strategy Special Report, "The Phillips Curve: Science Or Superstition?," available at usis.bcaresearch.com. 6 NAIRU stands for non-accelerating inflation rate of unemployment, also known as the natural rate of unemployment. 7 Our Labor Strikes Back series of Special Reports, January 13, 2020 "Labor Strikes Back, Part 1: An Investor’s Guide To US Labor History", January 20, 2020 "Labor Strikes Back, Part 2: Where Strikes Come From And Who Wins Them", and February 3, 2020 "Labor Strikes Back, Part 3: The Public-Approval Contest", discuss them in full. All available at usis.bcaresearch.com.

Highlights Stocks, particularly tech stocks, are technically overbought and highly vulnerable to a further correction. Nevertheless, investors should continue to overweight global equities relative to bonds on a 12-month horizon, while rotating equity allocations into cheaper sectors and regions. What should policymakers do if they wish to maximize growth and restore full employment? In the feature section of this report, we argue that the optimal course of action for most countries is to loosen fiscal policy until labor slack has been eliminated and the central bank’s inflation target has been met. Once this has been achieved, governments should trim the budget deficit to keep inflation from accelerating too much. What will policymakers actually do? While today’s budget deficits are smaller than what most economies need, they will ultimately prove to be too big once private sector demand recovers. The upshot is that inflation will increase by the middle of the decade, first in the US and then everywhere else. The secular bull market in equities will end only when central banks are forced to scramble to contain inflation. Fortunately, that day of reckoning is at least a few years away. Feature Apparently, Stocks Don’t Always Go Up After a relentless rally, stocks buckled under the pressure on Thursday. The MSCI All-Country World index lost 3%, the S&P 500 shed 3.5%, and the tech-heavy Nasdaq Composite plunged 5%. Two weeks ago, in a report titled “The Return Of Nasdog,” we argued that the leadership role was set to pivot away from tech and health care, as pandemic angst subsided and investors began to price in a recovery in the sectors of the stock market that had been crushed by lockdown measures. Chart 1A Weaker Dollar Is Generally Associated With Non-US Equity Outperformance, But Not Since The Covid Crash A Weaker Dollar Is Generally Associated With Non-US Equity Outperformance, But Not Since The Covid Crash A Weaker Dollar Is Generally Associated With Non-US Equity Outperformance, But Not Since The Covid Crash Historically, non-US equities have outperformed their US peers when the dollar has weakened (Chart 1). This relationship broke down this year because of the outsized weight that tech and health care command in US indices. If the relative performance of tech and health care stocks peaks over the coming weeks, this should translate into a clear outperformance for non-US stock markets. Value stocks should also start outperforming growth stocks. Stock market leadership changes often occur within the context of broad-based equity corrections. Our near-term view on stocks, as illustrated in the view matrix at the end of this report, is more cautious than our 12-month view. Thus, we would not be surprised if the major indices sell off over the coming weeks, with tech stocks leading the way down. The same sort of technical factors that amplified the move up in stocks over the past few weeks could exacerbate the move down. Most notably, so-called delta hedge option strategies, in which an investor sells calls and hedges the risk by purchasing the underlying stock, can create a self-reinforcing feedback loop where rising call prices force investors to buy more shares, leading to even higher call prices. Once the stock market starts falling, the process goes into reverse. Nevertheless, we do not expect tech stocks to suffer the sort of crash they experienced in 2000. Tech valuations are not as stretched as they were back then, earnings growth is stronger, and balance sheets are much healthier. Moreover, unlike in 2000, when the Fed lifted rates to as high as 6.5% in May, monetary policy is at no risk of turning hawkish. All this suggests that tech stocks are more likely to go sideways than down over a 12-month horizon (albeit in a fairly volatile manner). Investors should continue to overweight global equities relative to bonds on a 12-month horizon, while tilting equity allocations towards cheaper sectors and regions. Feature: Should Versus Will Investors want to know what the future will bring. As such, our primary interest at BCA Research is in predicting what policymakers will do rather than what they should do. Sometimes, however, it is useful to ask the “should” question since the answer may shape one’s view on the “will” question. This is especially the case when a particular set of goals is aligned with both the incentives and constraints that policymakers face. With that in mind, let us ask what the optimal mix of monetary and fiscal policy should be, assuming that policymakers have the goal of maximizing growth and moving the economy towards full employment. As we argue below, this is a relevant question to ask not because we necessarily share this goal – our personal value judgments are besides the point here – but because most policymakers think this is the correct goal. Propping Up Demand Chart 2Labor Markets In Developed Economies Have Rarely Overheated Over The Past Few Decades Labor Markets In Developed Economies Have Rarely Overheated Over The Past Few Decades Labor Markets In Developed Economies Have Rarely Overheated Over The Past Few Decades Maintaining full employment requires that spending match the economy’s productive capacity. In theory, this should not be a difficult objective to achieve. After all, people like to spend. Increasing demand should be easy. The hard part should be raising supply. In practice, it has not worked out that way. Even before the pandemic, unemployment rates rarely fell below their full employment level across the G7 economies (Chart 2). High Unemployment: Cyclical Or Structural? Some will argue that surplus unemployment is necessary to shift workers from sectors of the economy where they are not needed to sectors where they are. The failure to facilitate such resource reallocation could, it is alleged, stymie long-term growth. This is largely a spurious claim. As Chart 3 shows, there is always a huge amount of churn in the labor market. In 2019, a year in which total employment rose by 2.1 million, a total of 70 million people were hired in the US compared to 64 million who quit or lost their jobs. In fact, labor market churn tends to decrease during recessions as workers become reluctant to quit their jobs. Chart 3Labor Market Turnover Tends To Increase During Expansions Labor Market Turnover Tends To Increase During Expansions Labor Market Turnover Tends To Increase During Expansions Chart 4Residential Construction Accounted For Less Than 20% Of The Job Losses During The Great Recession The Outlook For Monetary And Fiscal Policy: What Should Be Done Vs. What Will Be Done The Outlook For Monetary And Fiscal Policy: What Should Be Done Vs. What Will Be Done Far from reflecting structural factors, the vast majority of the rise in joblessness during economic downturns is gratuitous in nature. For example, more than 80% of the jobs lost during the Great Recession were outside the residential real estate sector (Chart 4). Moreover, employment growth is highly correlated with investment spending (Chart 5). The easiest way to induce firms to boost capex – and, in the process, augment the economy’s productive capacity – is to adopt policies that raise overall employment. A stronger labor market will generate more demand for goods and services. It will also make labor more expensive in relation to capital, thereby incentivizing labor-saving capital investment. Chart 5Employment Growth And Investment Spending Go Hand-In-Hand Employment Growth And Investment Spending Go Hand-In-Hand Employment Growth And Investment Spending Go Hand-In-Hand Today, unemployment is elevated once again. As was the case during prior recessions, some workers will need to transition from sectors of the economy that will be slow to recover (retail, travel, and hospitality, for example) to sectors where jobs will be more plentiful. The risk is that there will not be enough job vacancies in the latter sectors to compensate for job losses in the former. The fact that permanent job losses have been creeping higher in the US over the past few months, even as temporary layoffs have come down, is evidence that such an outcome is a clear and present danger (Chart 6). Chart 6Many Are Returning To Work, But The Number Of Permanent Layoffs Is Slowly Increasing As Well Many Are Returning To Work, But The Number Of Permanent Layoffs Is Slowly Increasing As Well Many Are Returning To Work, But The Number Of Permanent Layoffs Is Slowly Increasing As Well Central Banks Can’t Do It All One does not need to refill a leaky bucket through the same hole the water escaped. As long as there is enough demand throughout the economy, workers who lose their jobs in declining sectors will eventually find new jobs in other sectors. So why has the bucket seemed chronically short of water in recent years? The answer is that monetary policy has been tasked to do more than it is realistically capable of achieving. Monetary policy operates with “long and variable lags.” When unemployment rises, the best that central banks can do is cut interest rates and hope that the more interest-rate sensitive parts of the economy eventually perk up. If the interest-rate sensitive sectors of the economy are tapped out, just as housing was following the financial crisis, or policy rates are near their lower bound, as they are now, monetary policy will be even less potent than usual. The Role Of Fiscal Policy This is where fiscal policy ought to fill the void. Even if monetary policy is exhausted, governments can cut taxes, raise transfers to households and businesses, or increase direct spending on goods and services. The extent to which fiscal policy is loosened should not be preordained. Rather, it should simply reflect the state of the economy. There is no limit to how much money governments can transfer to the public. In fact, one can easily imagine a system where governments cut taxes and increase transfer payments whenever unemployment moves up. Such a powerful system of automatic stabilizers would go a long way towards keeping the economy on an even keel. Why have governments been reluctant to embrace such a system? One key reason is that such a system would produce open-ended budget deficits. That would not be much of a problem if the red ink lasted just a few years, but what if the need for large budget deficits did not go away? The Japanese Example Consider the case of Japan. Starting in the early 1990s, Japan’s private sector became a chronic net saver, as demand for credit evaporated amid savage deleveraging (Chart 7). In order to keep the economy from falling into a full-blown depression, the government started to run continual budget deficits. Effectively, the government had to soak up persistent private savings with its own dissavings. As a result, the debt-to-GDP ratio ballooned from 64% in 1991 to 237% by 2019 and is set to rise further this year. Many people predicted a debt crisis would engulf Japan. Takeshi Fujimaki, a former banker turned politician, has been forecasting a debt crisis for more than two decades.In 2010, financial pundit John Mauldin described Japan as a “bug in search of a windshield.” He reckoned that the country would “implode within the next two-to-three years,” with the yen falling to 300 against the dollar. Kyle Bass has made similarly dire predictions.1 How was Japan able to escape what seemed like certain doom? The answer is that the same factor that necessitated persistent budget deficits, namely excess private-sector savings, also allowed interest rates to fall. Despite a rising debt-to-GDP ratio, government interest payments have been trending lower over time (Chart 8). Today, the government actually earns more interest than it pays because two-thirds of all Japanese debt bears negative yields. Chart 7The Japanese Government Runs Persistent Budget Deficits Amid The Private Sector's Desire To Save The Japanese Government Runs Persistent Budget Deficits Amid The Private Sector's Desire To Save The Japanese Government Runs Persistent Budget Deficits Amid The Private Sector's Desire To Save Chart 8Japan: Ballooning Debt And Declining Interest Payments Japan: Ballooning Debt And Declining Interest Payments Japan: Ballooning Debt And Declining Interest Payments If anything, Japan erred in not easing fiscal policy by enough. Had Japan run even larger budget deficits, deflationary pressures would have been less acute, and as a result, real interest rates would have fallen even more than they actually did (Chart 9). Chart 9Japanese Real Yields Are Higher Than In Many Other Major Economies Japanese Real Yields Are Higher Than In Many Other Major Economies Japanese Real Yields Are Higher Than In Many Other Major Economies A Fiscal Free Lunch? The standard equation for public debt sustainability says that as long as the government’s borrowing rate is below the growth rate of the economy, the debt-to-GDP ratio will converge to a stable level no matter how large the fiscal deficit happens to be (See Box 1 for details). The caveat is that this “stable” debt-to-GDP ratio could turn out to be quite high. For example, if the government wants to run a primary budget deficit of 10% of GDP indefinitely, and GDP growth exceeds the real interest rate by two percentage points, the debt-to-GDP ratio will eventually converge to 500%. If interest rates were guaranteed to stay at zero forever, even a debt-to-GDP ratio of 500% would be no cause for alarm. But, of course, there is no such guarantee. For a country such as Italy, letting debt levels soar into the stratosphere would be highly risky. Countries that do not possess a central bank capable of acting as a lender of last resort could find themselves in a vicious spiral where rising bond yields raise the probability of default, leading to even higher bond yields (Chart 10). Chart 10Multiple Equilibria In The Debt Market Are Possible Without A Lender Of Last Resort The Outlook For Monetary And Fiscal Policy: What Should Be Done Vs. What Will Be Done The Outlook For Monetary And Fiscal Policy: What Should Be Done Vs. What Will Be Done For countries that do issue debt in their own currencies, default risk is less of a problem since their central banks can set short-term rates at any level they want and, if necessary, target long-term rates with yield curve control strategies. Nevertheless, even these countries would face difficult choices if the excess savings that permitted interest rates to stay low disappeared. A decline in national savings would raise the neutral rate of interest (the rate which equalizes aggregate demand with aggregate supply). If policy rates remained unchanged, the neutral rate of interest would end up being higher than policy rates, which would eventually cause the economy to overheat. At that point, policymakers would have two options: First, they could simply let the economy overheat such that inflation rises. If inflation is very low to begin with, modestly higher inflation would be welcome, as it would make the zero lower bound constraint less of a problem.2 Higher inflation would also speed up the pace of nominal income growth, leading to a lower debt-to-GDP ratio. That said, if inflation were to rise too much, it could have destabilizing effects on the economy. Second, they could tighten fiscal policy. A smaller budget deficit would add to national savings, while giving the government more resources to pay back debt. Tighter fiscal policy would also subtract from aggregate demand, thus reducing the neutral rate of interest. This would diminish the need for central banks to raise rates in the first place. Putting it all together, the optimal course of action, at least for countries that can issue debt in their own currencies, is to loosen fiscal policy until full employment has been restored and the central bank’s inflation target has been met. Once this has been achieved, the government should trim the budget deficit to keep inflation from getting out of hand. What Will Be Done Okay, so much for the idealized strategy. What will actually happen? As was the case following the Great Recession, there is a risk that some countries will tighten fiscal policy prematurely, causing the economic recovery from the pandemic to be slower than it would otherwise be. In the US, this is already happening. Federal emergency unemployment benefits under the CARES Act expired at the end of July; funding for the small business paycheck protection program has run out; and state and local governments are facing a severe cash crunch. BCA Research’s Geopolitical Strategy team, led by Matt Gertken, expects the logjam in Washington to be resolved in September. Most voters, including the majority of Republicans, want emergency unemployment benefits to be restored (Table 1). Additional fiscal stimulus would cushion the economy in the lead up to the November election, which would arguably benefit President Trump and the Republican party. Hence, there is a good chance that Congressional Republicans will accede to a fairly generous fiscal package. Table 1The Majority Continues To Support Expanded Unemployment Insurance The Outlook For Monetary And Fiscal Policy: What Should Be Done Vs. What Will Be Done The Outlook For Monetary And Fiscal Policy: What Should Be Done Vs. What Will Be Done Globally, the prevalence of negative real rates (and in some cases, negative nominal rates) should incentivize governments to run larger budget deficits than they have in the past. Increasing political populism will amplify this trend. Thus, despite some near-term hiccups, fiscal policy will remain highly stimulative. The Inflation End Game Chart 11The Ratio Of Workers-To-Consumers Is Now Falling The Ratio Of Workers-To-Consumers Is Now Falling The Ratio Of Workers-To-Consumers Is Now Falling What will happen when unemployment rates return to their pre-pandemic level in three or four years? Will governments tighten fiscal policy to prevent overheating or will they let inflation run loose? Our guess is that they will let inflation rise. National savings can shrink either because the private sector is spending more or because the private sector is earning less. Looking out beyond the next few years, the latter is more likely than the former. This is because the ratio of workers-to-consumers globally will decline sharply over the coming decade as more baby boomers exit the labor force (Chart 11). Spending will decelerate, but output and income will decelerate even more by virtue of this demographic reality. It is difficult to boost tax revenue in an environment of slowing real income growth. If output falls in relation to spending, inflation will rise. At least initially, central banks will welcome the burst of inflation. They have been trying to push up inflation for years. Past inflation undershoots will be used to justify future inflation overshoots, a doctrine the Fed officially blessed at the virtual Jackson Hole symposium last week. Other central banks will be loath to raise rates if the Fed stands pat for fear that their own currencies will surge against the US dollar. The end result is that inflation will increase, first in the US and then everywhere else. A quick glance at long-term inflation expectations suggests that markets do not discount this risk at all (Chart 12). What does all this mean for investors? For the next few years, the combination of ample fiscal stimulus and easy monetary policy will foster a supportive backdrop for global equities. Despite the rally in stocks since March, the global equity risk premium remains quite elevated, especially outside the US (Chart 13). Investors should remain overweight global stocks versus bonds on a 12-month horizon. Chart 12Investors Believe Inflation Will Stay Muted In The Long Term Investors Believe Inflation Will Stay Muted In The Long Term Investors Believe Inflation Will Stay Muted In The Long Term Chart 13Non-US Stocks Look Cheaper Than Their US Peers In Both Absolute Terms And In Relation To Bond Yields Non-US Stocks Look Cheaper Than Their US Peers In Both Absolute Terms And In Relation To Bond Yields Non-US Stocks Look Cheaper Than Their US Peers In Both Absolute Terms And In Relation To Bond Yields Looking further out, the secular bull market in equities will end only when central banks are forced to scramble to contain inflation. Fortunately, that day of reckoning is at least a few years away.   Peter Berezin Chief Global Strategist peterb@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Ben McLannahan, “Japanese Bonds Defy the Debt Doomsters,” Financial Times, dated August 8, 2012; Mariko Ishikawa, Kenneth Kohn and Yumi Ikeda, “Soros Adviser Turned Lawmaker Sees Crisis by 2020,” Bloomberg News, dated September 27, 2013; and Dan McCrum, “Kyle Bass bets on full-blown Japan crisis,” Financial Times, May 21, 2013. 2 For example, if inflation is 3%, a central bank could produce a real rate of -3% by bringing policy rates down to zero. In contrast, if inflation is only 1%, the lowest that real rates could fall is -1%, which may not be stimulative enough for the economy.   Box 1The Arithmetic Of Debt Sustainability The Outlook For Monetary And Fiscal Policy: What Should Be Done Vs. What Will Be Done The Outlook For Monetary And Fiscal Policy: What Should Be Done Vs. What Will Be Done   Global Investment Strategy View Matrix The Outlook For Monetary And Fiscal Policy: What Should Be Done Vs. What Will Be Done The Outlook For Monetary And Fiscal Policy: What Should Be Done Vs. What Will Be Done Current MacroQuant Model Scores The Outlook For Monetary And Fiscal Policy: What Should Be Done Vs. What Will Be Done The Outlook For Monetary And Fiscal Policy: What Should Be Done Vs. What Will Be Done