Labor Market

Bank Credit Analyst

HighlightsThe current surge in US measured productivity looks very unlike what occurred in the mid-to-late 1990s. A detailed breakdown of labor productivity growth points to atypical labor market compositional effects – namely a significant decline in services employment – as being responsible for the apparent rise in productivity. In addition, technological disinflation, a major ingredient of the late 1990s “disinflationary boom”, is absent today.A cross-country comparison of the growth in output per worker during the pandemic can be mostly explained by differences in the fiscal response to the crisis. US output per worker surged compared to other countries, but the US fiscal response also generated a significant amount of excess income to support economic activity – unlike in the euro area, UK, and Japan.Micro-level arguments and some academic studies argue against the idea that work from home arrangements will ultimately be productivity-enhancing. Remote work makes it more difficult for firms to train the next generation of senior employees, which will raise the staffing risks for many businesses.While the long-term outlook for technologically-driven productivity growth is positive, projected commercialization timelines for several well-known technologies under development do not point to an imminent, inflation-offsetting boom in potential output.If inflation remains significantly above target after the pandemic is over, the Fed’s long-term interest rate projections may rise. US stocks would suffer potentially large losses in a scenario where 10-year US Treasury yields rise towards the potential growth rate of the economy. Investors should consider reducing their equity exposure if 5-year, 5-year forward US Treasury yields break above 2.5%. We do not expect that to occur this year, which for now justifies an overweight stance towards risky assets.Feature Chart II-1A Pandemic-Driven Productivity Surge? The behavior of US labor productivity during the COVID-19 pandemic has raised several questions among investors. As defined by output per hour worked, US productivity accelerated significantly over the first six quarters of the COVID-19 pandemic, but then fell sharply in Q3 2021 (Chart II-1). While some market participants have questioned the cause of the recent decline, investors have generally been more interested in the question of whether the US is in the middle of a long-lasting productivity surge that will help alleviate inflationary pressure – akin to what occurred in the second half of the 1990s.In this report, we review the recent surge in US labor productivity in contrast to what occurred in the late-1990s, and then compare it with what has occurred globally. While we are not pessimistic about the pace of technological advancement and its potential to drive long-run productivity, we conclude that the US is not likely experiencing a sustained productivity boom driven by technological adoption during the pandemic. This underscores why investors should not expect a significant increase in potential output owing to the pandemic or its effects. It also highlights that, if elevated inflation in response to strongly positive output gaps were to occur over the coming few years, it would likely be met by significantly tighter fiscal or monetary policy.Today Versus The 1990s: Total Factor Productivity Versus Capital Intensity Chart II-2The Technologically-Driven US Productivity Surge In The 1990s Was A Major Macro Event A technologically-driven surge in productivity growth in the second half of the 1990s was a highly significant macroeconomic event. Chart II-2 highlights that US labor productivity surged to over 3% from 1995 to 2000, alongside a significant deceleration in core PCE inflation and a sizeable acceleration in potential GDP growth.Given the acceleration in measured productivity during the pandemic, and the accompanying rapid adoption (or broader use) of technology, it is easy to see why some investors have questioned whether a 1990s-style productivity boom is underway. However, a detailed breakdown of the 2020 rise in labor productivity growth highlights substantial differences between the current environment and that of the late 1990s, which points instead to compositional effects as the main driver.Improvements in labor productivity can come from smarter workers, an increase in the amount of capital employed per worker, or from technological innovations and better working practices. The US Bureau of Labor Statistics provides a breakdown of the annual change in labor productivity that attempts to capture these three components:The contribution from shifts in labor composition: This measures the productivity impact of changes in the age, education, and gender structure of the labor force.The contribution from capital intensity: This measures the productivity impact of shifts in the amount of capital equipment available per worker.Total factor (or “multifactor”) productivity: This measures the changes in output per hour that cannot be accounted for by the above two factors. Thus, it includes the effects of technological changes, returns to scale, shifts in the allocation of resources, and other changes in operating procedures.Examining the 2020 rise in labor productivity growth along these three factors underscores key differences between the current environment and that of the late 1990s.The first point for investors to note is that the acceleration in labor productivity in 2020 occurred alongside a contraction in total factor productivity (TFP) growth, in contrast to the 1990s when TFP drove labor productivity (Chart II-3). The fact that TFP growth fell in 2020 means that the increase in labor productivity must have occurred either because of labor composition or capital intensity effects.In 2020, labor composition contributed somewhat to accelerating labor productivity, but that most of the increase was caused by a sharp increase in capital intensity. Some of the increase in overall capital intensity occurred because of an increase in the intensity of information processing equipment and intellectual property products (supporting the idea of an increase in pandemic-driven capital deployment), but this was outstripped by the contribution of “other” capital services (Chart II-4). Chart II-3Total Factor Productivity Collapsed In 2020, Unlike In The 1990s  Chart II-4The Surge In US Capital Intensity Reflects A Rapid Compositional Shift In The Labor Market The concept of capital intensity refers to the amount of capital available per worker, but in practice it is measured as the ratio of the amount of capital used relative to the amount of labor hours used to produce output. Thus, a surge in capital intensity that is not accounted for by an increase in the amount of tech-related capital available to workers points to a rapid compositional shift in the economy from relatively low capital-intensive industries to relatively high-intensive industries.Under less extreme economic circumstances we would be more inclined to search for other potential causes of a rapid increase in measured capital intensity, but a shift in employment from less to more capital-intensive industries is exactly what has occurred during the pandemic. Services jobs tend to be much more labor-intensive than goods-producing jobs; Chart II-5 highlights that the former fell far more than the latter during the pandemic, in sharp contrast to what normally occurs during a recession (Chart II-6). This phenomenon is also reflected in a highly unusual decline in services spending compared with very strong goods spending relative to their pre-pandemic trend. Chart II-5Employment In Low Capital Intensity Services-Producing Industries Fell Far More Than Goods-Producing  Chart II-6The Sharp Decline In Services Jobs During The Pandemic Was Unprecedented The takeaway for investors is that the nature of the pandemic and its unique impact on the economy has created the appearance of an acceleration in productivity, when in reality true productivity has fallen and the standard measure of productivity is being flattered by enormous changes in the composition of the labor market.Today Versus The 1990s: IT Investment, And Technological DisinflationThe trends in IT investment and prices highlight another major difference between the current environment and that of the late 1990s. Charts II-7 and II-8 highlight recent trends in comparison to those of the 1990s, with the following notable points: Chart II-7There Are Major Differences Between IT Investment And Prices Today Versus The 1990s  Chart II-8A One-Off Move The recent pace of real investment in total IT does not point to the pandemic as a sustained source of productivity growth. Real investment in IT has already slowed significantly, in contrast to the 1990s when it accelerated on a sustained basis for years.IT investment as a % of GDP and of total plant and equipment spending has already stopped rising (or is now falling), exhibiting clear signs of a one-off shift and thus undermining the view that IT investment has significantly raised potential output.In pronounced contrast to the mid-1990s when IT equipment prices were collapsing, computing equipment inflation has recently risen into positive territory – to the highest levels recorded since the data became available in 1959.Higher prices for IT equipment clearly reflect, at least in part, pandemic-driven pressure on global supply chains and the production of semiconductors. So we do not expect sustained increases in the price of computing equipment. But the key point for investors is that a major ingredient of the late 1990s “disinflationary boom” is missing today.The US Versus The WorldWe have presented Chart II-9 in previous reports to highlight that there is certainly no evidence of a global productivity surge, using output per worker as a proxy for the standard measure of labor productivity (output per hour worked). Some investors have countered that the US is a more dynamic economy, and that a sustained productivity boom would be more apparent in the US prior to its emergence in other countries. Or simply that the US alone is experiencing a productivity boom that will help reduce very elevated US inflation, with strong implications for Fed policy. Chart II-9During The Pandemic, Cross-Country Changes In Real Output Per Worker…  Chart II-10…Are Mostly Explained By Different Fiscal Responses  Chart II-11High US Real Output Per Worker Also Reflects A Lagging Jobs Recovery Relative To Pre-Pandemic Levels Charts II-10 and II-11 present a different cross-country comparison that reinforces the view that the US is not likely experiencing a long-lasting productivity surge that will help reduce inflation. Chart II-10 highlights that in the face of a significant decline in employment, US output was supported by a substantial amount of “excess income” – the cumulative amount of household disposable income earned over the course of the pandemic in excess of what would have been predicted based on the pre-pandemic trend.Other major DM economies (such as the UK and euro area) either saw negative excess income or a modestly positive amount (Japan), underscoring that the fiscal response to the pandemic in most advanced economies was aimed at stabilizing income rather than raising it. In combination with Chart II-11 – which highlights that the US labor market recovery has significantly lagged behind the European and Canadian economies in terms of returning to the pre-pandemic employment trend – this would appear to explain why the US has experienced stronger real output per worker than other countries. Chart II-12Given A Similar Fiscal Response, Would The US Have Canada's Job Recovery If It Had Less COVID Cases? Canada stands out as the outlier compared with the US, in the sense that it’s growth in real output per worker has been much lower but Canadian fiscal policy created a similar amount of excess income. However, it may be the case that the Canadian experience highlights that the US labor market recovery is the outlier, which could imply that the surge in US labor productivity may in fact have inflationary rather than disinflationary consequences at the margin.We discussed the factors that we believe are driving the slow recovery in the US working-age population in our 2022 annual outlook report, and how they are strongly linked to the pandemic. However, Canada has also clearly been affected by COVID-19, and yet it has experienced a more significant recovery in jobs.Chart II-12 highlights that there has been one major difference between the US and Canada during the pandemic: a substantial gap in the burden of disease from COVID-19. This raises the question of whether Canada has outperformed the US in terms of its labor market recovery, despite a similarly impactful fiscal response, because of a smaller labor shortage stemming from long-term COVID symptoms.Over the past two years, there have been many reports about people who have recovered from COVID but who continue to experience some symptoms of the disease. The medical community has labeled this condition as post-acute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection (PASC), colloquially referred to as “long COVID.” Chart II-13Long-COVID Might Help Explain The US’ Lagged Return To Pre-Pandemic Employment The medical community’s understanding of long COVID is currently poor, and doctors do not know why some people get the condition or what treatment options are likely to be the most effective. Given this, it is possible that some reports of long COVID are, in fact, related to other conditions.But a recent research report from Brookings estimated that the US labor market may be missing 1.6 million workers because of long COVID’s effects (Chart II-13), which alone would account for 1 percentage point (or roughly 1/4th) of the growth in US real output per worker since the pandemic began. This circumstance would be inflationary rather than disinflationary on the margin, as it would imply that accelerating first and second quartile US wage growth may be sticky even as the pandemic recedes.Is Working From Home Positive For Productivity?We have noted above that the macro data argues against the idea of a sustained rise in US productivity stemming from the pandemic. A more micro-level perspective, one that examines the working-from-home (WFH) experience, also appears to support our case.It is true that surveys of employees highlight that their experience of WFH has been significantly better on average than workers expected and report their being more productive while working from home during the pandemic. Chart II-14 emphasizes that, based on the running surveys from Barrero, Bloom, and Davis (“BBD”), 60% of workers have conveyed better WFH outcomes relative to expectations, versus just 14% reporting worse outcomes. In addition, Chart II-15 clearly highlights that workers prefer at least some form of hybrid WFH arrangement, with just 22% of survey respondents reporting the desire to work from home either rarely or never. Chart II-14Remote Workers Have Reported Better Work-From-Home Outcomes Than What Was Expected  Chart II-15Remote Workers Clearly Prefer A Hybrid Work Model However, worker preferences do not necessarily correlate with productivity gains, at least not to the same degree. Chart II-16 from the BBD surveys highlights that the share of workers reporting more efficiency while working from home is not as large as those reporting better outcomes relative to expectations, suggesting that employees are considering whether WFH arrangements are benefiting them personally when responding to their desired post-pandemic level of remote work. Chart II-17 also shows that employees working from home only spend a third of the time ordinarily allocated to commuting to working on their primary job; the rest is spent on childcare, leisure, home improvement, or working on a second job (which may or may not be a sustainable source of income). Chart II-16Less Than Half Of Workers Report Being More Efficient While Working Remotely  Chart II-17Only 1/3rd Of Time Saved Commuting Is Spent On Primary Employment There is also some evidence from academic studies that indicates productivity fell during the pandemic for some remote workers. Michael Gibbs, Friederike Mengel, and Christoph Siemroth (2021) surveyed 10,000 professionals at a large Asian IT services company, and found that productivity declined because of a slight decline in average output and a rise in hours worked.1 Admittedly, elements of the study did point to some factors potentially impacting this decline in productivity that were more prominent in the earlier phase of the pandemic, specifically the issue of childcare (which would not likely be a drag on remote worker productivity in a post-pandemic environment).But it also noted that employees with a longer company tenure fared better, which in our view is an often overlooked element of remote work that points to less future productivity gains from WFH arrangements than may be recognized by investors. The outperformance of senior staff in a WFH environment is not particularly surprising: once employees have accrued significant experience, they spend less of their working time learning and more (or all) of their working time “doing.” It makes sense that employees who predominantly “platform” their existing experience may fare the same or better in a WFH arrangement, but it is highly questionable whether it is sustainable, because it makes it much more difficult for businesses to train the next generation of senior employees.The Gibbs, Mengel, and Siemroth study noted that higher communication and coordination costs featured prominently in their findings of reduced remote worker productivity. Importantly, they found that employees communicated with fewer individuals and business units, both inside and outside the firm, and received less coaching and one-to-one meetings with supervisors. While some firms may be able to mitigate these risks to the advancement and development of more junior staff while maintaining a hybrid on-site / WFH model, we suspect that many firms will fail to do so fully.Future Productivity: Pessimism Unwarranted, But No Inflation SalvationThe fact that the US is not likely in the middle of a pandemic-driven productivity boom does not mean that the outlook for productivity is poor. In fact, we would point to two factors that lead us to believe that productivity growth will be better in the future than it has been over the past decade:The pronounced consumer deleveraging phase that existed for several years following the global financial crisis is over, andThere are several identifiable technologies currently under development that are likely to have legitimate commercial applications and productivity-enhancing benefits in the futureOn the first point, we have contended in previous reports that the weak productivity growth observed during the first half of the last economic expansion was because of demand rather than supply-side factors. This notion is jarring for many investors, who are accustomed to think of productivity trends as being exclusively driven by supply-side phenomena. This is typically correct, in that the cyclical impact of fluctuating aggregate demand on measured productivity – particularly during and immediately after recessions – is usually temporary in nature.However, the 2008/2009 recession was highly atypical, in the sense that it was a household “balance sheet” recession rather than a normal “income” recession. This led to a prolonged period of US household deleveraging, below-average corporate sales growth, and poor growth in output per hour worked. In effect, the post-2008 deleveraging phase created a long-lasting, multi-year cyclical effect on measured productivity growth.In early-2009, pessimistic investors held to an understandable reason for why they doubted the sustainability of the economic recovery: there could be no meaningful labor market recovery if businesses expected several years of weak demand because of the likelihood of consumer deleveraging. In this respect, the post-2008 period served as an important natural experiment for macroeconomists and investors: we have learned that the response of firms to a durable but shallow economic recovery is, on the one hand, to hire additional workers, but, on the other hand, also to control wage and salary costs aggressively. Chart II-18Slow Productivity Growth Last Cycle Was A Demand Story, Not A Supply Story Chart II-18 encapsulates the point that weak productivity during the last economic cycle was closely tied to US household deleveraging. The chart highlights that the decline in total factor productivity due to goods-producing industries – heavily concentrated in manufacturing – was much larger than for private services from 2007 to 2019. Since there was no technological slowdown that disproportionally impacted the manufacturing industry during the period, this clearly points to demand-side rather than supply-side factors as the main driver of the post-GFC productivity slowdown.On the second point about future productivity growth, Table II-1 outlines five well-known technologies that are in various stages of development and are likely to lead to significant applications at some point in the future: artificial intelligence, automated driving (a specific application of AI), quantum computing, augmented/virtual reality and human-machine interface, and CRISPR/gene editing. The table outlines the nature of potential future applications, as well as projections from McKinsey Global Institute about the most likely commercialization timeline. Table II-1Technological Advancement Is Ongoing. It Won’t Likely Help Fight Inflation Over The Next Few Years A detailed analysis of each of these technologies is beyond the scope of this report, but Table II-1 underscores two key points for investors. The first is that further, technologically-driven productivity growth is not just possible, it is likely. It is clear what advancements will probably drive these productivity gains, and Table II-1 highlights only the most well-known technologies to which experts in the field would point to.The second point is that most major changes from these technologies are projected to occur beyond 2025, and, in many cases, beyond this decade. In the case of quantum computing, while it could potentially lead to an explosion of algorithmic power that would almost certainly have major commercial implications, it is even possible that this technology will initially subtract from total factor productivity growth before contributing positively. This is because of its potential to render much of the existing global internet security and privacy infrastructure useless, as highlighted by a NIST Cybersecurity White Paper last April:“Continued progress in the development of quantum computing foreshadows a particularly disruptive cryptographic transition. All widely used public-key cryptographic algorithms are theoretically vulnerable to attacks based on Shor’s algorithm, but the algorithm depends upon operations that can only be achieved by a large-scale quantum computer. Practical quantum computing, when available to cyber adversaries, will break the security of nearly all modern public-key cryptographic systems.”2Some experts believe that the preparation required to avoid this outcome may dwarf that of the millennium bug (“Y2K”) problem of the late-1990s,3 which cost roughly 1% of GDP to fix – and thus was clearly not productivity-enhancing.The bottom line for investors is that while the long-term outlook for technologically-driven productivity growth is bright, it is unlikely to save the US and/or global economies from elevated inflation over the next several years if output gaps in advanced economies rise to strongly positive levels in the wake of the pandemic.Investment ConclusionsOur analysis above has highlighted that the current surge in measured productivity looks very unlike what occurred in the mid-to-late 1990s, and that very atypical labor market compositional effects are likely responsible for the apparent rise in labor productivity. We have also highlighted that a cross-country comparison of the growth in output per worker during the pandemic can be mostly explained by differences in the fiscal response to the pandemic, and that there are micro-level arguments against the idea that work from home arrangements are productivity-enhancing. Finally, while the long-term outlook for technologically-driven productivity growth is positive, projected commercialization timelines for several well-known technologies under development do not point to an imminent, inflation-offsetting boom in potential output.While we believe that the COVID-19 pandemic will recede in importance this year, it is not yet over. As such, investors do not yet know how strong the output gap in the US and other advanced economies will be on average over the coming two to three years, or what the pace of consumer price inflation will look like in the face of strong aggregate demand but substantially lower (or no) pressure from the supply-side of the economy (as we expect). Chart II-19There Is A Lot Of Downside For Stocks If Bond Yields Rise To Potential Growth Rates In a scenario in which aggregate demand remains strong next year and inflation remains above-target, even in the face of Fed tightening and a normalization in services/goods spending, we would expect to see significantly tighter fiscal or monetary policy. This is a scenario in which the secular stagnation narrative, which underpins the Fed’s low long-term interest rate projection, would likely be aggressively challenged by investors. Chart II-19 highlights that US equities would potentially suffer a 24% contraction in the forward P/E in a scenario in which the equity risk premium is in line with its historical average and 10-year US Treasury yields rise to the potential growth rate of the economy.We do not yet believe that a significant rise in long-term interest rate expectations will occur this year, meaning that investors should still be overweight stocks versus government bonds over the coming 6-12 months. But as we noted in last month’s report, we may recommend that investors reduce their equity exposure if 5-year, 5-year forward Treasury yields break above 2.5% (the FOMC’s long-run Fed funds rate projection), which we noted in Section 1 of our report is 50 basis points above current levels.Jonathan LaBerge, CFAVice PresidentThe Bank Credit AnalystFootnotes1 Michael Gibbs, Friederike Mengel, and Christoph Siemroth. “Work from Home & Productivity: Evidence from Personnel & Analytics Data.” Working Paper No. 2021-56. July 13, 2021. Pp. 1-30.2 William Barker, William Polk, and Murugiah Souppaya. “Getting Ready for Post-Quantum Cryptography: Exploring Challenges Associated with Adopting and Using Post-Quantum Cryptographic Algorithms.” National Institute of Standards and Technology, US Department of Commerce. April 28, 2021. Pp. 1-7.3 Jonathan Ruane, Andrew McAfee, and William Oliver. “Quantum Computing for Business Leaders.” Harvard Business Review, January-February 2022.

Bank Credit Analyst

Highlights The combination of a temporarily negative domestic demand effect and a lingering domestic labor and global supply chain effect from the Omicron variant has increased the urgency for the Fed to raise interest rates. The central bank’s credibility has been significantly challenged over the past year by the extent of the rise in consumer prices, and it will move forward with a rate hike at its March meeting. We expect that the Fed funds rate will rise to 1% by the end of this year. The Fed’s asset purchase reductions will not have a direct impact on economic activity, but they could have an indirect effect by prompting a faster rise in US Treasury yields towards their fair value levels. The US 10-year yield could potentially rise to 2.3-2.4% at some point in the first half of the year, rather than by the end of 2022 as we previously expected. Part of the generalized rise in risk premia this month relates to the potential Russian invasion of Ukraine, but the sell-off in equity prices also appears to reflect an overall level of investor discomfort with rising interest rates. Rising long-maturity bond yields are being driven by the short end of the curve, which we see as a sign that the generalized selloff in the US equity market is uncalled for. Investors should buy the US stock market at current levels on a 6-12 month time horizon. It is too early to position aggressively towards China-sensitive commodities and global ex-US stocks, despite the recent pickup in our market-based growth indicator for China. We are more comfortable with a bullish view toward industrial metals in the latter half of 2022, and recommend that investors buy metals on any dips in prices. A Russian invasion of Ukraine has become a likely event, suggesting that investors need to decide now whether to reduce risky asset exposure. The invasion has not yet occurred as we go to press, but could happen at any moment. All told, we doubt that a minor invasion will have a lasting, full-year impact on financial markets, but investors should gird for a risk-off reaction over shorter-term time horizons. Omicron, The Supply-Side, And The Fed January was a poor month for the global equity market, which sold off 10% from its high at the beginning of the year. Chart I-1 highlights that in the US, the S&P 500 has now fallen below its 200-day moving average, in contrast to global ex-US stocks which have fared somewhat better in US$ terms. Equities have declined this month because of a combination of imminent Fed tightening and a geopolitical crisis, both of which we will discuss in detail below. On the pandemic front, the number of confirmed cases of COVID-19 has surged globally (Chart I-2), which is likely an underestimation of the total number of infections given capacity limits on testing in many countries. Panel 2 highlights that services PMIs fell sharply in January in several economies because of the Omicron wave, reflecting both renewed pandemic control measures in some countries as well as precautionary changes in behavior amongst consumers in countries where widespread “non-pharmaceutical interventions” (“NPIs”) were not reintroduced. Manufacturing PMIs, on the other hand, held up quite well, even in Europe where natural gas prices remain high. Chart I-1A Significant Correction In US Stock Prices Chart I-2Omicron Is Impacting Services, Not Manufacturing   Some positive signs have emerged from the hospitalization data in advanced economies, as they appear to be pointing to a cresting wave of patients with COVID-19 both in hospitals overall and specifically in intensive care units (Chart I-3). The evolution of the pandemic remains highly uncertain, and the development of new variants continues to remain a risk. But incoming data on hospitalizations, the rapid increase in the number of vaccine booster doses administered in many advanced economies, and the sheer speed at which the disease has recently been spreading all point to a possible imminent peak in the impact of the Omicron variant on the demand side of the economy – at least in the developed world. However, Chart I-4 highlights that there is no sign yet of a waning impact of the pandemic on the supply side of the economy. The chart shows that rising European natural gas prices are having less of an impact on our supply-side pressure indicator, but that the indicator remains flat excluding this effect. We noted in last month’s report that the Omicron variant posed a significant risk of more frequent or longer lockdowns in China, because of the country’s zero-tolerance COVID policy and the inability of the Sinovac vaccine to provide any protection against contracting Omicron. Panel 2 of Chart I-4 highlights that shipping costs between China/East Asia and the west coast of the US have started to tick higher again, suggesting that the impact of ongoing lockdowns as well as mandatory quarantines and testing in key areas such as Shenzhen, Tianjin, Ningbo, and Xi’an may already be having an effect. Chart I-3Hospitalizations From Omicron Appear To Be Peaking Chart I-4Pandemic-Related Supply-Side Pressures Remain Severe   From the Fed’s perspective, a combination of a temporarily negative domestic demand effect and a lingering domestic labor and global supply chain effect from the Omicron variant has increased the urgency to raise interest rates. The Fed’s credibility has been significantly challenged over the past year by the extent of the rise in consumer prices, which is being partially driven by demand (even if supply-chain factors are also materially boosting global goods prices). Chart I-5The Odds Of Extreme US Inflation Are Falling, But Inflation Will Still Be High This Year Chart I-5 shows that our inflation momentum model is signaling falling odds of 4% or higher core PCE inflation, but the model’s probability remains above the 50% mark. Thus, while it is possible that US inflation will soon peak in year-over-year terms, the Fed will move forward with a rate hike at its March meeting. For now, we believe that the Fed will move at a pace of four quarter-point rate hikes per year (regardless of how they are sequenced), suggesting that the effective Fed funds rate will rise to 1% by the end of this year. Quantitative Tightening And Financial Markets Investors continue to wrestle with the Fed’s recent hawkish shift and the implications that it may have for economic activity and financial markets. Investors are not just concerned about the pace and magnitude of Fed rate hikes, but also the potential impact of quantitative tightening as the Fed moves to slow the pace of its asset purchases over the coming few months. Chart I-6The Correlation Between The Fed's Balance Sheet And The Equity Market Is Mostly A Spurious one In our view, investors should be more concerned with the former rather than the latter. Chart I-6 highlights the reason that investors were so focused on the magnitude of the Fed’s balance sheet during the first half of the last economic expansion. Panel 1 of the chart shows that the level of the S&P 500 correlated almost perfectly with the Fed’s total holdings of securities from 2008 to 2015. However, panel 2 highlights that this relationship broke down from 2016 to early 2020, only to correlate positively again as the Fed’s holdings of securities surged higher during the pandemic. To us, the experience of the past decade highlights that the correlation between the Fed’s balance sheet and the equity market is mostly a spurious one. The two are indirectly related; periods when the Fed’s security holdings increase reflect periods of monetary easing, which is typically positive for risky asset prices. But we do not agree that the impact of asset purchases on long-maturity bond yields can be effectively separated from the direct impact of changes in short-term interest rates, which are typically falling as the Fed’s balance sheet rises. In addition, asset purchases signal important information by the Fed about the future path of short-term interest rates when it changes the pace of its purchases. And finally, the 2016-2019 period strongly underscores that there is no direct link between Fed asset purchases and the stock market. It is possible that periods of rising Fed asset purchases are associated with a low government bond term premium or more dovish investor sentiment about the future path of interest rates than is projected by the Fed. If so, that could imply that the Fed’s asset purchase reductions will have some impact on financial markets over the coming months. Chart I-7 suggests that the term premium on 10-year Treasurys is no longer low, but these series are based on surveys of primary dealers and fixed-income market participants, and thus may not reflect the aggregate views of investors. Chart I-8 highlights that 10-year government bond yields are 40 basis points below the fair value implied by the Fed’s interest rate projections, and panel 2 highlights a similar conclusion based on a regression of the 10-year yield on the 2-year yield and 5-year/5-year forward CPI swap rates. Thus, it is possible that the Fed’s rapid reduction in the pace of its asset purchases will cause bond yields to converge quickly with these estimates of fair value, implying that the US 10-year yield could potentially rise to 2.3-2.4% at some point in the first half of the year rather than by the end of 2022, as we previously expected. Chart I-7Surveys Suggest The Term Premium Is No Longer Deeply Negative... Chart I-8...But 10-Year Treasury Yields Are Lower Than They Should Be The Stock Market, Interest Rates, And Value Versus Growth Chart I-9The US Equity Market Selloff Has Been Driven By Tech Stocks The fact that the global equity selloff had been concentrated in the US prior to the escalation in tensions over Ukraine reveals the root cause of the decline. Chart I-9 highlights that the Nasdaq has fallen more than the S&P 500, as have US growth stocks compared with value stocks. As such, the recent selloff in the stock market reflects some of the major themes that we presented in our 2022 annual outlook. We highlighted in our outlook, as well as several previous reports, that the relative performance of global growth versus value since the pandemic has been driven primarily by changes in valuation that could reverse if bond yields rose. Chart I-10 highlights that this is exactly what has occurred over the past month, which also explains the underperformance of US equities given how heavily-weighted the US market is toward broadly-defined technology stocks. However, the underperformance of US growth stocks has occurred within the context of a nontrivial decline in the overall US market, which was somewhat beyond our expectation. We anticipated a period of elevated financial market volatility in advance of the Fed’s first rate hike, and we warned investors that 2022 was likely to be a year of meaningfully lower total returns (mid-to-high single digits) compared with the past two years. The fact that equity multiples for growth stocks are falling in response to higher long-maturity bond yields is not surprising to us. But investors have punished both growth and value stocks as bond yields have risen, behavior that we do not think is justified given the large difference in valuation between the two. Chart I-11 highlights that our (standardized) proxy for the equity risk premium (ERP) is above its 2003-2021 average for value stocks, whereas it is quite low for growth stocks. Had the ERP for value stocks fallen to its historical average this month value stocks would have risen between 1-4% in January despite rising real 10-year government bond yields. And the historically average levels shown in Chart I-11 might themselves be too high, given that other ERP estimates like the ones we showed in our annual outlook highlight that the 2003-2021 period was one in which the US ERP was historically elevated. Chart I-10Value Is Outperforming Growth As Bond Yields Rise, As We Predicted In Our Annual Outlook Chart I-11The ERP For Value Stocks Does Not Need To Rise Chart I-12The Market Is Not Yet Pricing An End To Secular Stagnation, Which Is Good For Stocks As noted, part of a generalized rise in the ERP this month relates to the potential Russian invasion of Ukraine, an event that we now see as likely (discussed below). But the sell-off in equity prices also appears to reflect an overall level of investor discomfort with rising interest rates, particularly given the (mistaken) perception amongst investors that Fed hawkishness is entirely driven by elevated inflation. We acknowledge that the Fed’s hawkish shift has been a rapid one, and that this has led US government bond yields to rise quickly. Both the level and change in interest rates matter for economic activity and financial market sentiment, but our view is that the former is more important. Changes in interest rates are mainly significant because they create uncertainty about where rates will ultimately settle, and whether that level would be sustainable for economic activity and the valuation of financial assets. In this respect, Chart I-12 should be encouraging for investors. The chart shows that the 10-year Treasury yield recently reached a new pandemic high, but that this rise was driven by yields on shorter-maturity bonds. 5-year/5-year forward Treasury yields remain 50 basis points below the Fed’s long-term Fed funds rate projection (2.5%), suggesting that the rapid move in US Treasury yields simply reflects a revised pace of rate hikes – not ultimately a higher level. This underscores that the generalized selloff in the US equity market is uncalled for, and that investors should buy the US stock market at current levels. Chart I-13Recession Fears May Rise Early Next Year Chart I-13 highlights that an accelerated pace of rate hikes will likely cause the yield curve to be flatter at the end of the year than would have otherwise been the case, which may eventually be interpreted by investors as a sign that a recession is drawing nearer (potentially implicating both value and growth stocks). We discussed this risk in last month’s report, but for now we maintain the view that this is more likely to occur in 2023 rather than this year. The chart highlights that the S&P 500 did not sell off in response to growth/recession concerns in 2018 before the 2/10 yield curve had flattened to 20-30 basis points, which isn’t likely to occur until 1H 2023 according to fair value calculations derived from the FOMC’s rate projections. The Dollar, Chinese Policy, Commodities, And Global Ex-US Stocks Chart I-14Until This Week, The Dollar Had Been Trending Lower Despite Ostensibly Bullish Dollar Factors Despite the recent surge in US interest rate expectations, and up until last week, the US dollar had behaved in a somewhat strange fashion since late November– even as the Omicron variant spread rapidly around the globe. Chart I-14 highlights that the dollar had traded counter to both relative interest rate differentials and the intensity of the pandemic, both of which appear to have strongly explained the dollar’s trend in the first three quarters of 2021. As we go to press, the US dollar is rallying again, although at least some of the rise is being driven by the prospect of imminent war in Ukraine. We argued in our annual outlook that the dollar was likely to fall this year, and that it was both technically stretched and expensive according to our PPP models. Chart I-15 highlights that the prior weakness in the dollar may also be explained by slowing net foreign purchases of US equities, as the impact of global equity investors flocking to the tech-heavy US market during the pandemic begins to wane. However, we suspect that two additional factors may have been impacting the broad dollar trend before this week’s surge in geopolitical risk. The first is a possible reversal in the correlation between the number of COVID-19 cases and the dollar (from positive to negative). For most of the pandemic, investors have treated new waves of the pandemic as an indication that global growth will slow, which certainly occurred in the services sector this month. But the sheer speed at which the Omicron variant is spreading, in combination with the fact that it causes less severe disease than previous variants, has likely prompted some investors to expect that Omicron has shortened the amount of time to COVID-19 endemicity. An endemic disease, while still a public health issue, would imply less transmission and much less COVID-19-related hospitalization and death. Correspondingly, it would also likely be associated with a significant increase in services spending alongside stronger international travel, which would be positive for global growth (and thus negative for the dollar). Second, it is apparent that China-related assets have caught a bid, as illustrated by our market-based China growth indicator and its accompanying diffusion index (Chart I-16). While the indicators shown in Chart I-16 remain below the boom/bust line, they are rising quickly, and in a manner that suggests investors are reacting to new information. Chart I-15Portfolio Flows Have Likely Put Pressure On The Dollar Over The Past Few Months Chart I-16Since November, Optimism Towards China Has Also Likely Weakened The Dollar Chart I-17China Bulls Are Probably A Bit Too Early We doubt that investors would be upgrading their outlook for Chinese economic growth based on expectations of COVID-19 endemicity, given the country’s zero-tolerance COVID policy and the inability of the Sinovac vaccine to prevent transmission of Omicron. Therefore, we conclude that investors have become more optimistic about the pace of easing from Chinese policymakers, potentially sparked by a recent pickup in the pace of special purpose local government bond issuance (Chart I-17). We agree with investors that Chinese monetary policy is becoming easier at the margin. For example, the PBoC recently reduced its one-year loan prime rate (LPR) by 10 bps and five-year rate by 5 bps, following last week’s 10bps cut in the 7-day reverse repo and the 1-year Medium-term Lending Facility (MLF) rate. This is on top of December’s 50 bps drop in the reserve requirement ratio (RRR). But we do not think that China’s credit data is yet heralding a meaningfully stronger growth impulse. Panel 2 of Chart I-17 presents the 12-month flow of China’s ex-equity total social financing as a share of nominal GDP, both including and excluding local government bond issuance. The chart highlights that the significant pickup in local government bond issuance has led to only a slight uptick in China’s overall credit impulse. Excluding local government bonds, China’s credit impulse continues to decline, reflecting an impaired monetary policy transmission mechanism and slowing bank loan growth. The implication is that it is too early to position aggressively towards China-sensitive commodities and global ex-US stocks, despite the recent pickup in our market-based growth indicator for China. At least some of the pickup in our market-based indicator reflects passive outperformance of some China-sensitive assets; Chart I-18 highlights that global ex-stocks and industrial metals prices have risen relative to US stock prices over the past month, but mostly because US stocks sold off in reaction to Fed hawkishness. Chart I-19 highlights that industrial metals prices continue to advance in a fashion that is not explained by the pace of China’s credit growth (as has generally been the case over the past decade), suggesting that metals are being somewhat supported by investment demand that is likely being driven by inflation hedging. We noted in our November Special Report that industrial commodities performed well during the stagflationary period of the 1970s,1 and over the past 40 years during months in which stock and bond returns are both negative. This makes metals an ideal portfolio hedge in the current environment, and we suspect that this factor – in addition to global inventory drawdowns last year – have kept prices elevated. Chart I-18Some Of The Rise In Our Market-Based China Growth Indicator Reflects Passive Outperformance Chart I-19Metals Prices Are Higher Than What Chinese Economic Growth Would Imply However, this also implies that metals prices could sell off at some point over the coming few months if US inflation fears begin to peak and Chinese monetary policy has not yet turned decisively reflationary. We are more comfortable with a bullish view toward industrial metals in the latter half of 2022, and recommend that investors buy metals on any dips in prices. Similarly, while we believe that investors should maintain global ex-US stocks on upgrade watch, we would prefer to see more evidence of a likely acceleration in Chinese economic activity before upgrading. In addition, we would also recommend that investors wait for the Ukrainian situation to play out, given the recent selloff in European stocks in response to the deepening crisis. A Likely War In Ukraine Last week, US President Joe Biden publicly predicted that Russia would likely invade parts of Ukraine, and implied that the sanction response from Western countries might be muted if the invasion were “minor”. Biden’s remarks have since been described as a gaffe, but in our view they were likely accurate. When combined with reports that the White House is warning domestic chipmakers of potential export restrictions to Russia in the event of an invasion, Biden’s remarks suggest that the US government does not believe that a diplomatic solution is likely and that Russia will probably send troops into Ukrainian territory. A full-scale invasion of Ukraine is very unlikely, as it would unite the Western world in delivering crippling economic sanctions towards Russia. The question for investors is whether the economic consequences of a minor incursion have significant enough implications to change one’s 12-month asset allocation stance. The extent of the rise in energy prices following a minor Russian incursion into Ukraine would be the key determinant of the impact that Russian military action would have on financial markets. Russia could withhold natural gas or oil exports to punish Europe if the Nord Stream II pipeline were cancelled. Oil prices would likely rise, even if retaliatory action was limited to the natural gas market, because oil consumption would rise as a substitute. This would further exacerbate the European energy crisis, although as we noted above, the PMI data continues to point to COVID as a more serious near-term threat to European economic activity than energy prices. Our geopolitical strategy team recently upgraded the odds of Russia invading Ukraine from 50% to 75%, suggesting that investors need to decide now whether to reduce risky asset exposure. The invasion has not yet occurred as we go to press, but could happen at any moment. All told, we doubt that a minor invasion will have a lasting, full-year impact on financial markets, but it is likely to have a near-term impact on the performance of some assets. While some of the risk of this event has already been priced in, on a 0-3 month time horizon, the US dollar would likely rally even further in response to an invasion and we suspect that the recent outperformance of global ex-US stocks would reverse (with the US outperforming). Our sense is that global equities may underperform government bonds for a short period following a minor incursion, but that a more aggressive Russian invasion would likely be needed to cause a persistent rise in the US dollar, US equity outperformance, and stocks to underperform bonds on a 12-month time horizon. Investment Conclusions Chart I-20We Expect Further Outperformance Of Value, Within The Context Of A Rising Stock-To-Bond Ratio Relative to the investment positions that we presented in our annual outlook report, we see no compelling reason to alter any of our recommendations on a 6-12 month time horizon. Over the nearer-term, a minor Russian incursion of Ukraine is now likely, and may further roil financial markets for a period of time. But the bar for the Ukrainian situation to durably impact returns on a 12-month time horizon is high, and implies a degree of conflict that we do not currently expect. US equities have sold off because of a rise in the discount rate and in the equity risk premium. We do not believe the latter is justified for the market as a whole. Our view that US equities have overreacted to the Fed’s hawkish shift and that long-maturity US bond yields have roughly another 50 basis points of upside this year strongly point to an overweight stance towards stocks versus bonds and a short-duration stance as still justified. We continue to expect that growth stocks will underperform value stocks over the coming year, but in the context of a rising rather than falling overall market (Chart I-20). It is too early to position aggressively toward China-sensitive commodities and global ex-US stocks, but investors should maintain these assets on upgrade watch. The US dollar may continue to reverse some of its recent decline over the coming 3 months in response to military conflict in Ukraine or if investors dial back their expectations for Chinese economic growth, but we expect a lower dollar in a year’s time. Jonathan LaBerge, CFA Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst January 28, 2022 Next Report: February 24, 2022 II. The US Productivity Surge: Less Than Meets The Eye The current surge in US measured productivity looks very unlike what occurred in the mid-to-late 1990s. A detailed breakdown of labor productivity growth points to atypical labor market compositional effects – namely a significant decline in services employment – as being responsible for the apparent rise in productivity. In addition, technological disinflation, a major ingredient of the late 1990s “disinflationary boom”, is absent today. A cross-country comparison of the growth in output per worker during the pandemic can be mostly explained by differences in the fiscal response to the crisis. US output per worker surged compared to other countries, but the US fiscal response also generated a significant amount of excess income to support economic activity – unlike in the euro area, UK, and Japan. Micro-level arguments and some academic studies argue against the idea that work from home arrangements will ultimately be productivity-enhancing. Remote work makes it more difficult for firms to train the next generation of senior employees, which will raise the staffing risks for many businesses. While the long-term outlook for technologically-driven productivity growth is positive, projected commercialization timelines for several well-known technologies under development do not point to an imminent, inflation-offsetting boom in potential output. If inflation remains significantly above target after the pandemic is over, the Fed’s long-term interest rate projections may rise. US stocks would suffer potentially large losses in a scenario where 10-year US Treasury yields rise towards the potential growth rate of the economy. Investors should consider reducing their equity exposure if 5-year, 5-year forward US Treasury yields break above 2.5%. We do not expect that to occur this year, which for now justifies an overweight stance towards risky assets. Chart II-1A Pandemic-Driven Productivity Surge? The behavior of US labor productivity during the COVID-19 pandemic has raised several questions among investors. As defined by output per hour worked, US productivity accelerated significantly over the first six quarters of the COVID-19 pandemic, but then fell sharply in Q3 2021 (Chart II-1). While some market participants have questioned the cause of the recent decline, investors have generally been more interested in the question of whether the US is in the middle of a long-lasting productivity surge that will help alleviate inflationary pressure – akin to what occurred in the second half of the 1990s. In this report, we review the recent surge in US labor productivity in contrast to what occurred in the late-1990s, and then compare it with what has occurred globally. While we are not pessimistic about the pace of technological advancement and its potential to drive long-run productivity, we conclude that the US is not likely experiencing a sustained productivity boom driven by technological adoption during the pandemic. This underscores why investors should not expect a significant increase in potential output owing to the pandemic or its effects. It also highlights that, if elevated inflation in response to strongly positive output gaps were to occur over the coming few years, it would likely be met by significantly tighter fiscal or monetary policy. Today Versus The 1990s: Total Factor Productivity Versus Capital Intensity Chart II-2The Technologically-Driven US Productivity Surge In The 1990s Was A Major Macro Event A technologically-driven surge in productivity growth in the second half of the 1990s was a highly significant macroeconomic event. Chart II-2 highlights that US labor productivity surged to over 3% from 1995 to 2000, alongside a significant deceleration in core PCE inflation and a sizeable acceleration in potential GDP growth. Given the acceleration in measured productivity during the pandemic, and the accompanying rapid adoption (or broader use) of technology, it is easy to see why some investors have questioned whether a 1990s-style productivity boom is underway. However, a detailed breakdown of the 2020 rise in labor productivity growth highlights substantial differences between the current environment and that of the late 1990s, which points instead to compositional effects as the main driver. Improvements in labor productivity can come from smarter workers, an increase in the amount of capital employed per worker, or from technological innovations and better working practices. The US Bureau of Labor Statistics provides a breakdown of the annual change in labor productivity that attempts to capture these three components: The contribution from shifts in labor composition: This measures the productivity impact of changes in the age, education, and gender structure of the labor force. The contribution from capital intensity: This measures the productivity impact of shifts in the amount of capital equipment available per worker. Total factor (or “multifactor”) productivity: This measures the changes in output per hour that cannot be accounted for by the above two factors. Thus, it includes the effects of technological changes, returns to scale, shifts in the allocation of resources, and other changes in operating procedures. Examining the 2020 rise in labor productivity growth along these three factors underscores key differences between the current environment and that of the late 1990s. The first point for investors to note is that the acceleration in labor productivity in 2020 occurred alongside a contraction in total factor productivity (TFP) growth, in contrast to the 1990s when TFP drove labor productivity (Chart II-3). The fact that TFP growth fell in 2020 means that the increase in labor productivity must have occurred either because of labor composition or capital intensity effects. In 2020, labor composition contributed somewhat to accelerating labor productivity, but that most of the increase was caused by a sharp increase in capital intensity. Some of the increase in overall capital intensity occurred because of an increase in the intensity of information processing equipment and intellectual property products (supporting the idea of an increase in pandemic-driven capital deployment), but this was outstripped by the contribution of “other” capital services (Chart II-4). Chart II-3Total Factor Productivity Collapsed In 2020, Unlike In The 1990s Chart II-4The Surge In US Capital Intensity Reflects A Rapid Compositional Shift In The Labor Market The concept of capital intensity refers to the amount of capital available per worker, but in practice it is measured as the ratio of the amount of capital used relative to the amount of labor hours used to produce output. Thus, a surge in capital intensity that is not accounted for by an increase in the amount of tech-related capital available to workers points to a rapid compositional shift in the economy from relatively low capital-intensive industries to relatively high-intensive industries. Under less extreme economic circumstances we would be more inclined to search for other potential causes of a rapid increase in measured capital intensity, but a shift in employment from less to more capital-intensive industries is exactly what has occurred during the pandemic. Services jobs tend to be much more labor-intensive than goods-producing jobs; Chart II-5 highlights that the former fell far more than the latter during the pandemic, in sharp contrast to what normally occurs during a recession (Chart II-6). This phenomenon is also reflected in a highly unusual decline in services spending compared with very strong goods spending relative to their pre-pandemic trend. Chart II-5Employment In Low Capital Intensity Services-Producing Industries Fell Far More Than Goods-Producing Chart II-6The Sharp Decline In Services Jobs During The Pandemic Was Unprecedented The takeaway for investors is that the nature of the pandemic and its unique impact on the economy has created the appearance of an acceleration in productivity, when in reality true productivity has fallen and the standard measure of productivity is being flattered by enormous changes in the composition of the labor market. Today Versus The 1990s: IT Investment, And Technological Disinflation The trends in IT investment and prices highlight another major difference between the current environment and that of the late 1990s. Charts II-7 and II-8 highlight recent trends in comparison to those of the 1990s, with the following notable points: Chart II-7There Are Major Differences Between IT Investment And Prices Today Versus The 1990s Chart II-8A One-Off Move The recent pace of real investment in total IT does not point to the pandemic as a sustained source of productivity growth. Real investment in IT has already slowed significantly, in contrast to the 1990s when it accelerated on a sustained basis for years. IT investment as a % of GDP and of total plant and equipment spending has already stopped rising (or is now falling), exhibiting clear signs of a one-off shift and thus undermining the view that IT investment has significantly raised potential output. In pronounced contrast to the mid-1990s when IT equipment prices were collapsing, computing equipment inflation has recently risen into positive territory – to the highest levels recorded since the data became available in 1959. Higher prices for IT equipment clearly reflect, at least in part, pandemic-driven pressure on global supply chains and the production of semiconductors. So we do not expect sustained increases in the price of computing equipment. But the key point for investors is that a major ingredient of the late 1990s “disinflationary boom” is missing today. The US Versus The World We have presented Chart II-9 in previous reports to highlight that there is certainly no evidence of a global productivity surge, using output per worker as a proxy for the standard measure of labor productivity (output per hour worked). Some investors have countered that the US is a more dynamic economy, and that a sustained productivity boom would be more apparent in the US prior to its emergence in other countries. Or simply that the US alone is experiencing a productivity boom that will help reduce very elevated US inflation, with strong implications for Fed policy. Chart II-9During The Pandemic, Cross-Country Changes In Real Output Per Worker… Chart II-10…Are Mostly Explained By Different Fiscal Responses Chart II-11High US Real Output Per Worker Also Reflects A Lagging Jobs Recovery Relative To Pre-Pandemic Levels Charts II-10 and II-11 present a different cross-country comparison that reinforces the view that the US is not likely experiencing a long-lasting productivity surge that will help reduce inflation. Chart II-10 highlights that in the face of a significant decline in employment, US output was supported by a substantial amount of “excess income” – the cumulative amount of household disposable income earned over the course of the pandemic in excess of what would have been predicted based on the pre-pandemic trend. Other major DM economies (such as the UK and euro area) either saw negative excess income or a modestly positive amount (Japan), underscoring that the fiscal response to the pandemic in most advanced economies was aimed at stabilizing income rather than raising it. In combination with Chart II-11 – which highlights that the US labor market recovery has significantly lagged behind the European and Canadian economies in terms of returning to the pre-pandemic employment trend – this would appear to explain why the US has experienced stronger real output per worker than other countries. Chart II-12Given A Similar Fiscal Response, Would The US Have Canada's Job Recovery If It Had Less COVID Cases? Canada stands out as the outlier compared with the US, in the sense that it’s growth in real output per worker has been much lower but Canadian fiscal policy created a similar amount of excess income. However, it may be the case that the Canadian experience highlights that the US labor market recovery is the outlier, which could imply that the surge in US labor productivity may in fact have inflationary rather than disinflationary consequences at the margin. We discussed the factors that we believe are driving the slow recovery in the US working-age population in our 2022 annual outlook report, and how they are strongly linked to the pandemic. However, Canada has also clearly been affected by COVID-19, and yet it has experienced a more significant recovery in jobs. Chart II-12 highlights that there has been one major difference between the US and Canada during the pandemic: a substantial gap in the burden of disease from COVID-19. This raises the question of whether Canada has outperformed the US in terms of its labor market recovery, despite a similarly impactful fiscal response, because of a smaller labor shortage stemming from long-term COVID symptoms. Over the past two years, there have been many reports about people who have recovered from COVID but who continue to experience some symptoms of the disease. The medical community has labeled this condition as post-acute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection (PASC), colloquially referred to as “long COVID.” Chart II-13Long-COVID Might Help Explain The US’ Lagged Return To Pre-Pandemic Employment The medical community’s understanding of long COVID is currently poor, and doctors do not know why some people get the condition or what treatment options are likely to be the most effective. Given this, it is possible that some reports of long COVID are, in fact, related to other conditions. But a recent research report from Brookings estimated that the US labor market may be missing 1.6 million workers because of long COVID’s effects (Chart II-13), which alone would account for 1 percentage point (or roughly 1/4th) of the growth in US real output per worker since the pandemic began. This circumstance would be inflationary rather than disinflationary on the margin, as it would imply that accelerating first and second quartile US wage growth may be sticky even as the pandemic recedes. Is Working From Home Positive For Productivity? We have noted above that the macro data argues against the idea of a sustained rise in US productivity stemming from the pandemic. A more micro-level perspective, one that examines the working-from-home (WFH) experience, also appears to support our case. It is true that surveys of employees highlight that their experience of WFH has been significantly better on average than workers expected and report their being more productive while working from home during the pandemic. Chart II-14 emphasizes that, based on the running surveys from Barrero, Bloom, and Davis (“BBD”), 60% of workers have conveyed better WFH outcomes relative to expectations, versus just 14% reporting worse outcomes. In addition, Chart II-15 clearly highlights that workers prefer at least some form of hybrid WFH arrangement, with just 22% of survey respondents reporting the desire to work from home either rarely or never. Chart II-14Remote Workers Have Reported Better Work-From-Home Outcomes Than What Was Expected Chart II-15Remote Workers Clearly Prefer A Hybrid Work Model However, worker preferences do not necessarily correlate with productivity gains, at least not to the same degree. Chart II-16 from the BBD surveys highlights that the share of workers reporting more efficiency while working from home is not as large as those reporting better outcomes relative to expectations, suggesting that employees are considering whether WFH arrangements are benefiting them personally when responding to their desired post-pandemic level of remote work. Chart II-17 also shows that employees working from home only spend a third of the time ordinarily allocated to commuting to working on their primary job; the rest is spent on childcare, leisure, home improvement, or working on a second job (which may or may not be a sustainable source of income). Chart II-16Less Than Half Of Workers Report Being More Efficient While Working Remotely Chart II-17Only 1/3rd Of Time Saved Commuting Is Spent On Primary Employment There is also some evidence from academic studies that indicates productivity fell during the pandemic for some remote workers. Michael Gibbs, Friederike Mengel, and Christoph Siemroth (2021) surveyed 10,000 professionals at a large Asian IT services company, and found that productivity declined because of a slight decline in average output and a rise in hours worked.2 Admittedly, elements of the study did point to some factors potentially impacting this decline in productivity that were more prominent in the earlier phase of the pandemic, specifically the issue of childcare (which would not likely be a drag on remote worker productivity in a post-pandemic environment). But it also noted that employees with a longer company tenure fared better, which in our view is an often overlooked element of remote work that points to less future productivity gains from WFH arrangements than may be recognized by investors. The outperformance of senior staff in a WFH environment is not particularly surprising: once employees have accrued significant experience, they spend less of their working time learning and more (or all) of their working time “doing.” It makes sense that employees who predominantly “platform” their existing experience may fare the same or better in a WFH arrangement, but it is highly questionable whether it is sustainable, because it makes it much more difficult for businesses to train the next generation of senior employees. The Gibbs, Mengel, and Siemroth study noted that higher communication and coordination costs featured prominently in their findings of reduced remote worker productivity. Importantly, they found that employees communicated with fewer individuals and business units, both inside and outside the firm, and received less coaching and one-to-one meetings with supervisors. While some firms may be able to mitigate these risks to the advancement and development of more junior staff while maintaining a hybrid on-site / WFH model, we suspect that many firms will fail to do so fully. Future Productivity: Pessimism Unwarranted, But No Inflation Salvation The fact that the US is not likely in the middle of a pandemic-driven productivity boom does not mean that the outlook for productivity is poor. In fact, we would point to two factors that lead us to believe that productivity growth will be better in the future than it has been over the past decade: The pronounced consumer deleveraging phase that existed for several years following the global financial crisis is over, and There are several identifiable technologies currently under development that are likely to have legitimate commercial applications and productivity-enhancing benefits in the future On the first point, we have contended in previous reports that the weak productivity growth observed during the first half of the last economic expansion was because of demand rather than supply-side factors. This notion is jarring for many investors, who are accustomed to think of productivity trends as being exclusively driven by supply-side phenomena. This is typically correct, in that the cyclical impact of fluctuating aggregate demand on measured productivity – particularly during and immediately after recessions – is usually temporary in nature. However, the 2008/2009 recession was highly atypical, in the sense that it was a household “balance sheet” recession rather than a normal “income” recession. This led to a prolonged period of US household deleveraging, below-average corporate sales growth, and poor growth in output per hour worked. In effect, the post-2008 deleveraging phase created a long-lasting, multi-year cyclical effect on measured productivity growth. In early-2009, pessimistic investors held to an understandable reason for why they doubted the sustainability of the economic recovery: there could be no meaningful labor market recovery if businesses expected several years of weak demand because of the likelihood of consumer deleveraging. In this respect, the post-2008 period served as an important natural experiment for macroeconomists and investors: we have learned that the response of firms to a durable but shallow economic recovery is, on the one hand, to hire additional workers, but, on the other hand, also to control wage and salary costs aggressively. Chart II-18Slow Productivity Growth Last Cycle Was A Demand Story, Not A Supply Story Chart II-18 encapsulates the point that weak productivity during the last economic cycle was closely tied to US household deleveraging. The chart highlights that the decline in total factor productivity due to goods-producing industries – heavily concentrated in manufacturing – was much larger than for private services from 2007 to 2019. Since there was no technological slowdown that disproportionally impacted the manufacturing industry during the period, this clearly points to demand-side rather than supply-side factors as the main driver of the post-GFC productivity slowdown. On the second point about future productivity growth, Table II-1 outlines five well-known technologies that are in various stages of development and are likely to lead to significant applications at some point in the future: artificial intelligence, automated driving (a specific application of AI), quantum computing, augmented/virtual reality and human-machine interface, and CRISPR/gene editing. The table outlines the nature of potential future applications, as well as projections from McKinsey Global Institute about the most likely commercialization timeline. Table II-1Technological Advancement Is Ongoing. It Won’t Likely Help Fight Inflation Over The Next Few Years A detailed analysis of each of these technologies is beyond the scope of this report, but Table II-1 underscores two key points for investors. The first is that further, technologically-driven productivity growth is not just possible, it is likely. It is clear what advancements will probably drive these productivity gains, and Table II-1 highlights only the most well-known technologies to which experts in the field would point to. The second point is that most major changes from these technologies are projected to occur beyond 2025, and, in many cases, beyond this decade. In the case of quantum computing, while it could potentially lead to an explosion of algorithmic power that would almost certainly have major commercial implications, it is even possible that this technology will initially subtract from total factor productivity growth before contributing positively. This is because of its potential to render much of the existing global internet security and privacy infrastructure useless, as highlighted by a NIST Cybersecurity White Paper last April: “Continued progress in the development of quantum computing foreshadows a particularly disruptive cryptographic transition. All widely used public-key cryptographic algorithms are theoretically vulnerable to attacks based on Shor’s algorithm, but the algorithm depends upon operations that can only be achieved by a large-scale quantum computer. Practical quantum computing, when available to cyber adversaries, will break the security of nearly all modern public-key cryptographic systems.”3 Some experts believe that the preparation required to avoid this outcome may dwarf that of the millennium bug (“Y2K”) problem of the late-1990s,4 which cost roughly 1% of GDP to fix – and thus was clearly not productivity-enhancing. The bottom line for investors is that while the long-term outlook for technologically-driven productivity growth is bright, it is unlikely to save the US and/or global economies from elevated inflation over the next several years if output gaps in advanced economies rise to strongly positive levels in the wake of the pandemic. Investment Conclusions Our analysis above has highlighted that the current surge in measured productivity looks very unlike what occurred in the mid-to-late 1990s, and that very atypical labor market compositional effects are likely responsible for the apparent rise in labor productivity. We have also highlighted that a cross-country comparison of the growth in output per worker during the pandemic can be mostly explained by differences in the fiscal response to the pandemic, and that there are micro-level arguments against the idea that work from home arrangements are productivity-enhancing. Finally, while the long-term outlook for technologically-driven productivity growth is positive, projected commercialization timelines for several well-known technologies under development do not point to an imminent, inflation-offsetting boom in potential output. While we believe that the COVID-19 pandemic will recede in importance this year, it is not yet over. As such, investors do not yet know how strong the output gap in the US and other advanced economies will be on average over the coming two to three years, or what the pace of consumer price inflation will look like in the face of strong aggregate demand but substantially lower (or no) pressure from the supply-side of the economy (as we expect). Chart II-19There Is A Lot Of Downside For Stocks If Bond Yields Rise To Potential Growth Rates In a scenario in which aggregate demand remains strong next year and inflation remains above-target, even in the face of Fed tightening and a normalization in services/goods spending, we would expect to see significantly tighter fiscal or monetary policy. This is a scenario in which the secular stagnation narrative, which underpins the Fed’s low long-term interest rate projection, would likely be aggressively challenged by investors. Chart II-19 highlights that US equities would potentially suffer a 24% contraction in the forward P/E in a scenario in which the equity risk premium is in line with its historical average and 10-year US Treasury yields rise to the potential growth rate of the economy. We do not yet believe that a significant rise in long-term interest rate expectations will occur this year, meaning that investors should still be overweight stocks versus government bonds over the coming 6-12 months. But as we noted in last month’s report, we may recommend that investors reduce their equity exposure if 5-year, 5-year forward Treasury yields break above 2.5% (the FOMC’s long-run Fed funds rate projection), which we noted in Section 1 of our report is 50 basis points above current levels. Jonathan LaBerge, CFA Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst III. Indicators And Reference Charts BCA’s equity indicators highlight that the “easy” money from expectations of an eventual end to the pandemic have already been made. Our valuation, and sentiment indicators remain very extended, highlighting that investors should expect positive but relatively modest returns from stocks over the coming 6-12 months. Our technical indicator has declined from extremely overbought levels in response to January’s US equity sell-off, but it has not yet reached oversold territory. Still, we believe that the equity market’s reaction to rising bond yields is overdone, especially for value stocks. Forward equity earnings are pricing in a substantial further rise in earnings per share. Net earnings revisions and net positive earnings surprises have rolled over, but from extremely elevated levels and there is no meaningful sign yet of a decline in the level of forward earnings. Bottom-up analyst earning expectations remain too high, but stocks are still likely to be supported by robust revenue growth over the coming year. Within a global equity portfolio, we continue to recommend that investors position for the underperformance of financial assets that are negatively correlated with long-maturity government bond yields (such as growth stocks). The 10-Year Treasury Yield has broken convincingly above its 200-day moving average following the Fed’s hawkish shift, but remains below the fair value implied by our bond valuation index and the FOMC-implied fair value in a March 2022 rate hike scenario. We continue to expect that long-maturity bond yields will move higher over the coming year. Commodity prices remain elevated, and our composite technical indicator highlights that they remain overbought. An eventual slowdown in US goods spending, coupled with eventual supply-chain normalization, could weigh on commodity prices at some point over the coming 6-12 months. We are more comfortable with a bullish view towards industrial metals in the latter half of 2022. US and global LEIs have rolled over from very elevated levels. Our global LEI diffusion index has declined very significantly, but this likely reflects the outsized impact of a few emerging market countries (whose vaccination progress is still lagging). Still-strong leading and coincident indicators underscore that the global demand for goods is robust, and that output gaps are negative in many advanced economies because of very weak services spending. The latter will recover significantly at some point over the coming year, as the severity of the pandemic wanes. EQUITIES: Chart III-1US Equity Indicators Chart III-2Willingness To Pay For Risk Chart III-3US Equity Sentiment Indicators Chart III-4US Stock Market Breadth Chart III-5US Stock Market Valuation Chart III-6US Earnings Chart III-7Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Chart III-8Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance FIXED INCOME: Chart III-9US Treasurys And Valuations Chart III-10Yield Curve Slopes Chart III-11Selected US Bond Yields Chart III-1210-Year Treasury Yield ComponentsChart III-13US Corporate Bonds And Health Monitor Chart III-14Global Bonds: Developed Markets Chart III-15Global Bonds: Emerging Markets CURRENCIES: Chart III-16US Dollar And PPP Chart III-17US Dollar And Indicator Chart III-18US Dollar Fundamentals Chart III-19Japanese Yen Technicals Chart III-20Euro Technicals Chart III-21Euro/Yen Technicals Chart III-22Euro/Pound Technicals COMMODITIES: Chart III-23Broad Commodity Indicators Chart III-24Commodity Prices Chart III-25Commodity Prices Chart III-26Commodity Sentiment Chart III-27Speculative Positioning ECONOMY: Chart III-28US And Global Macro Backdrop Chart III-29US Macro Snapshot Chart III-30US Growth Outlook Chart III-31US Cyclical Spending Chart III-32US Labor Market Chart III-33US Consumption Content Chart III-34US Housing Chart III-35US Debt And Deleveraging Chart III-36US Financial Conditions Chart III-37Global Economic Snapshot: Europe Chart III-38Global Economic Snapshot: China Jonathan LaBerge, CFA Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst   Footnotes 1     Please see The Bank Credit Analyst "Gauging The Risk Of Stagflation," dated October 29, 2021, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 2     Michael Gibbs, Friederike Mengel, and Christoph Siemroth. “Work from Home & Productivity: Evidence from Personnel & Analytics Data.” Working Paper No. 2021-56. July 13, 2021. Pp. 1-30. 3    William Barker, William Polk, and Murugiah Souppaya. “Getting Ready for Post-Quantum Cryptography: Exploring Challenges Associated with Adopting and Using Post-Quantum Cryptographic Algorithms.” National Institute of Standards and Technology, US Department of Commerce. April 28, 2021. Pp. 1-7. 4    Jonathan Ruane, Andrew McAfee, and William Oliver. “Quantum Computing for Business Leaders.” Harvard Business Review, January-February 2022.

Feature Chart 1Weak Economic Fundamentals Undermine Stock Performance Monetary policy easing has intensified in the past two months. The PBoC reduced one-year loan prime rate (LPR) by 10 bps and five-year by 5 bps following last week’s 10bps cut in policy rates1 and December’s 50 bps drop in the reserve requirement rate (RRR). Nonetheless, the onshore financial market’s response to the monetary policy actions has been muted. China’s A-share market price index fell by 3% in the past month. Credit growth has bottomed, but there is no sign of a strong rebound despite recent rate decreases (Chart 1, top panel). The impaired monetary policy transmission mechanism will likely delay China’s economic recovery, which normally lags the credit cycle by six to nine months. Moreover, the marginal propensity to spend among both corporates and households continues to decline, highlighting a lack of confidence among real economy participants, and will in turn dampen the positive effects of policy stimulus (Chart 2).  The poor performance of Chinese onshore stocks (in absolute terms) is due to a muted improvement in credit growth and deteriorating economic fundamentals (Chart 1, bottom panel). Our model shows that China’s corporate profits are set to contract in next six months, implying that the risk-reward profile of Chinese stocks in absolute terms is not yet attractive (Chart 3). Therefore, investors should maintain an underweight allocation to Chinese equities for the time being. Chart 2Lack Of Confidence Dampens Corporate Earnings Outlook Chart 3China's Corporate Profits Set To Contract In Next Six Months   Qingyun Xu, CFA Associate Editor qingyunx@bcaresearch.com Improving Liquidity, Weakening Credit Demand The modest uptick in December’s total social financing (TSF) growth largely reflects a significant increase in government bond issuance, while bank loan growth continued on a downward trend (Chart 4). Corporate loan demand remained sluggish, which dragged down aggregate bank credit growth (Chart 5). Downbeat business confidence suggests that corporate demand for credit will take longer to turn around, and therefore will reduce the effectiveness of current easing measures. Chart 4Monetary Easing Since Q3 Has Failed To Boost Credit Growth So Far Chart 5Corporate Demand For Loans Weaker Than Suggested By Headline Data Meanwhile, corporate bill financing has risen rapidly in recent months and now accounts for almost 40% of new bank loans, the highest level since 2010 (Chart 5, bottom panel). The high share of short-term lending to the corporate sector highlights the underlying weakness in both loan supply and demand.  Banks are risk averse and reluctant to approve longer-term credit to the corporate sector, while corporates are unwilling to take on more debt.  As a result, banks have had to issue short-term bills in order to meet their lending quota. Proactive Fiscal Policy Will Have A Limited Impact On Infrastructure Investments Chart 6Local Government SPBs Will Be Frontloaded In 2022 Fiscal policy will likely be frontloaded in Q1 this year, but the impact of a proactive fiscal policy on boosting infrastructural investment may be limited. According to a statement by the Ministry of Finance last December, around RMB1.46 trillion in the quota for local government special purpose bonds (SPBs) has been frontloaded for 2022. If we assume that all of the SPBs will be issued in Q1, the amount will be higher than SPBs issued during the same period in 2019, 2020 and 2021 (Chart 6). We expect a total SPBs quota of RMB 3.5 trillion for 2022, roughly the same as 2021.  This implies a zero fiscal impulse on SPBs in 2022 compared with 2021. However, there were an estimated 1.2 trillion in SPB proceeds in 2021 that local governments failed to invest and this amount could be deployed in 2022. If we add last year’s SPB carryover to this year’s quota, there may be a 30% increase in the available funds to invest in infrastructure projects in 2022. Chart 7Higher LG Bond Issuance Does Not Mean Substantial Boost In Infrastructure Spending However, a 30% jump in SPB proceeds does not suggest an equal boost in infrastructure spending this year (Chart 7). As noted in previous reports, SPBs issued by local governments only account for around 15% of total funding for infrastructure spending. Bank loans, which remain in the doldrums, are a much more significant driver in supporting the sector’s investment.  Secondly, infrastructure spending has structurally downshifted since 2017 due to a sweeping financial deleveraging campaign to rein in shadow banking activity by local government financing vehicles (LGFVs). Shadow banking activity, which is highly correlated with infrastructure investment growth, is stuck in a deep contraction with no signs of an imminent turnaround (Chart 7, bottom panel). Thirdly, land sales play a prominent role in local government financing, accounting for more than 40% of local government aggregate revenues2 compared with about 15% from SPBs (Chart 8). Local government fiscal spending power will be constrained due to a significant and ongoing slowdown in land sales and regulatory pressures on LGFVs (Chart 8, bottom panel).    Therefore, we expect that infrastructure spending will only moderately rebound in 2022. At best, it will return to its pre-pandemic rate of around 4% (year-over-year) in 2022 (Chart 9, top panel). Notably, onshore infrastructure stocks have priced in the recent favorable news about proactive fiscal policy support in 2022 (Chart 9, bottom panel). Given that infrastructure investment will likely only improve modestly this year, on a cyclical basis the sector’s stock performance upside will be capped and renewed weakness is likely. Chart 8Government Funds Face Headwinds From Falling Land Sales Chart 9Infrastructure Investment Will Likely Recover To Its Pre-Pandemic Growth Rate More Policy Fine-Tuning Is Underway, But Housing Policy Reversal Remains Doubtful Last week’s 5bp reduction in the 5-year LPR, which serves as a benchmark for mortgage loans, was positive for the housing market. However, the cut is insufficient to revive the demand for housing. Moreover, the asymmetrical rate reductions - a 10bps drop in the 1-year LPR versus a 5bps reduction in the 5-year - signals that the authorities are reluctant to decisively reverse housing policies. Sentiment in the housing sector remains downbeat. A survey conducted by the PBoC shows that the willingness to buy a home has plunged to the lowest level since 2017 (Chart 10). Medium- to long-term household loan growth, which is highly correlated with home sales, decelerated further in December (Chart 10, bottom panel). Given that home prices continue to decline, buyers may be expecting more price discounts and refrain from making purchases despite slightly cheaper mortgage rates. Although there was a modest pickup in medium- to long-term consumer loan growth in November, it was mainly driven by pent-up mortgage applications delayed by the banks in Q3. Moreover, advance payments for real estate developers remained in contraction through end-2021. The prolonged weakness in the demand for mortgages and homes highlights our view that it will take more than a minor mortgage rate cut to revive sentiment (Chart 11). Chart 10Sentiment In Housing Market Has Plummeted To A Multi-Year Low Chart 11Funding Among Real Estate Developers Has Not Improved Without a decisive improvement in home sales, real estate developers will continue to face funding constraints, which will weigh on new investment and housing projects (Chart 12). We expect the contraction in real estate investment and housing starts to be sustained through at least 1H22 (Chart 13). Chart 12Policymakers Will Have To Allow Significant Re-leveraging To Revive Housing Demand Chart 13Real Estate Investment And Housing Starts Will Remain In Contraction Through 1H22 Chinese Export Growth Will Converge To Long-Term Growth Chart 14Vigorous Exports Provided Crucial Support To China's Economy In 2021 China’s exports grew vigorously in 2021, providing critical support to the economy.  Net exports contributed 1.7 percentage points to the 8.1% rate of real GDP growth in 2021, the highest growth contribution since 2006. China’s share of global exports expanded to more than 15%, about 2 percentage points higher than the pre-pandemic average from 2015 to 2019 (Chart 14). The export sector probably will not repeat last year’s strong performance. The widening divergence of exports in value and in volume suggests that the solid aggregate value of exports has been mainly buttressed by soaring export prices since July 2021 (Chart 15). The price effect will likely gradually abate in 2022 due to easing global supply chain constraints, softer global economic growth and a high base factor from 2021. Indeed, export prices from China and other industrialized countries may have already peaked (Chart 16). Chart 15Robust Exports Growth Since 2H21 Driven By Soaring Export Prices Chart 16Export Prices May Have Peaked Services spending worldwide will likely normalize and lead global demand growth in 2022. Meanwhile, goods spending will moderate, implying weaker demand for China’s manufactured goods (Chart 17). Furthermore, China’s strong exports to emerging markets (EM) since Q2 2021 reflected supply shortages due to production interruptions in the EMs (Chart 18). We expect supply chain disruptions in these economies to ease in 2H22 when Omicron-induced infections subside and antiviral treatments become available worldwide. As such, China’s exports to those regions may gradually return to pre-pandemic levels. Chart 17US Household Consumption Will Likely Rotate From Goods To Services In 2022 Chart 18Rising Exports To EMs In 2021 May Not Continue Into 2022 China’s manufacturing utilization capacity reached a historical high in 2021, supported by hardy external demand for goods. However, profit margins in the manufacturing sector have been squeezed due to surging input costs (Chart 19). Manufacturing investment growth has been falling, reflecting the reluctance by manufacturers to expand their business operations amid narrowing profit margins (Chart 20). The profit outlook for the manufacturing sector will be at risk of deterioration when the growth in both export volumes and prices moderate in 2022.  Chart 19Manufacturing Sector's Profit Margins Have Been Squeezed Chart 20Manufacturing Investment Growth And Output Volume Both Rolled Over Rising Import Prices Mask The Weakness In Chinese Domestic Demand Chinese import growth in value remained resilient through December, but has increasingly been driven by rising import prices. Import growth in volume, which is a truer picture of China’s domestic demand, decelerated at a faster rate in 2H21 (Chart 21). Credit impulse, which normally leads import growth by around six months, only ticked up slightly. The minor improvement in the rate of Chinese credit expansion will provide limited support to the country’s imports in 1H 2022 (Chart 22).  Chart 21Rising Import Prices Masked The Weakness In China's Domestic Demand   Chart 22Modest Rebound In Credit Impulse Will Provide Limited Support To Chinese Imports Chart 23Chinese Imports Of Key Commodities Rebounded Aimed Easing In Production Constraints The volume of Chinese-imported key commodities, such as iron ore and steel, rebounded in the past three months, but its growth remains in contraction on a year-on-year basis (Chart 23). The improvement in Chinese commodity imports, in our view, reflects an easing in production constraints rather than escalating demand. Recently released economic data, ranging from manufacturing PMI, industrial production, fixed-asset investment and construction activity, all point to an imbalanced supply-demand picture in China’s economy (discussed in the next section).    Sluggish Quarterly Economic Growth At End Of 2021 China’s economy expanded by 8.1% in 2021 or at a 5.1% average annual rate in the past two years.  However, quarterly GDP growth on a year-over-year basis slowed further to 4% in Q4 from 4.9% in the previous quarter. On a sequential basis, seasonally adjusted GDP growth in Q4 was 1.6 percentage points above that of Q3, but slightly below its historical mean (Chart 24). Chart 24Subdued GDP Growth In Q4 Chart 25Investment And Consumption Have Been Poor Economic Links Chart 26Softness In Investment And Consumption More Than Offset Robust Exports Although industrial production accelerated somewhat in December, it reflects a catch-up phase following a period of constrained output amid last fall’s energy crisis (Chart 25). On the other hand, lackluster domestic demand and a further slowdown in the housing market significantly dragged down China’s economic expansion in Q4. Both fixed-asset investment and consumption decelerated significantly in 2021 Q4, more than offsetting an improvement in net exports (Chart 26, top panel). Notably, year-over-year growth rates in construction and real estate components of real GDP fell below zero in Q4 (Chart 26, bottom panel). In light of the subdued credit growth through end-2021, China’s economic activity will not regain its footing until mid-2022.  Slow Recovery In Household Consumption Likely Through 1H22 The household consumption recovery was sluggish in 2021 and it will face strong headwinds at least through 1H22. China’s consumption recovery has been hindered by a worsening labor market situation, depressed household sentiment and renewed threats from flareups in domestic COVID-19 cases. China’s labor market situation shows a mixed picture. The urban unemployment rate has dropped to pre-pandemic levels and stabilized at 5.1% in December. It remains well within the government’s 2021 unemployment target of “around 5.5%”. However, urban new job creations plunged sharply and the number of migrant workers returning to the cities remains far below the pre-pandemic trend (Chart 27). China’s imbalanced economic recovery in the past two years led to a substantially slower pace of job creation in labor-intensive service sectors (Chart 28). Moreover, wages have been cut and the unemployment rate among younger workers have climbed rapidly in sectors suffering from last year’s regulatory crackdowns in real estate, education and internet platforms. Even though policies have recently eased at margin, it will take time for labor market dynamics (a lagging indicator) to improve. Chart 27Labor Market Situation Is Worsening Chart 28Imbalanced Economic Recovery Led To A Mixed Picture In The Labor Market Chinese household expenditures have lagged disposable incomes since the outbreak of the pandemic (Chart 29). The propensity to consume has declined since 2018 and the downward trend has been exacerbated by the pandemic since early 2020 along with a soaring preference to save (Chart 30). Chart 29Chinese Household Expenditures Have Lagged Disposable Income Growth Chart 30Poor Sentiment On Future Income Contributes To Consumers' Unwillingness To Spend Household consumption also faces renewed threats from increases in domestic COVID-19 cases. Since Q3 last year, more frequent city-wide lockdowns and inter-regional travel bans have had profound negative effects on the country’s service sector and retail sales (Chart 31 & 32). Omicron has also spread to China, triggering new waves of stringent countermeasures. China will not abandon its zero-tolerance policy towards COVID anytime soon, thus we expect the stop-and-go economic reopening to continue to weigh on the country’s service sector activity and consumption at least through 1H22. Chart 32Service Sector Activities Struggle To Return To Pre-Pandemic Trends Chart 31China's Stringent COVID Countermeasures Will Curb Service Sector Recovery In 2022   Table 1China Macro Data Summary Table 2China Financial Market Performance Summary   Footnotes 1     The 7-day reverse repo and the 1-year Medium-term Lending Facility (MLF) rates. 2     Including local government budgetary and managed funds revenues.   Strategic View Cyclical Recommendations Tactical Recommendations

Highlights The most important question is whether the Fed will hike interest rates by more than what is currently discounted in markets, or less. More hikes will trigger a set of cascading reactions. US bond yields will initially jump, boosting the dollar. But this process could also undermine growth stocks, and the US equity market leadership. Equity portfolio flows have been more important in financing the US trade deficit, than Treasury purchases, since 2020. Hence, a reversal in these flows will undermine a key pillar of support for the dollar. On the flip side, less rate hikes will severely unwind higher interest rate expectations in the US vis-a-vis other developed markets, especially in the euro area and Japan. This means we could be witnessing a shift in the dollar, where upside is capped, and downside is substantial. Feature Chart 1The Dollar In 2021 The two most important drivers of the dollar over the last few months have been the spread between US interest rates and other developed markets, as well as the relative performance of US equities (Chart 1). Rising interest rate expectations in the US have led to substantial speculative flows into the US dollar. The outperformance of the US equity market has also coincided with notable portfolio inflows into US equities in 2021. This cocktail of macro drivers has pinned the US dollar in a quandary. If rates rise substantially in the US, and that undermines the US equity market leadership, the dollar could suffer. If US rates rise by less than what the market expects, record high speculative positioning in the dollar will surely reverse. The Dollar And The Equity Market The traditional relationship between the dollar and the equity market was negative for most of the first half of the pandemic. Monetary easing by the Federal Reserve stimulated global financial conditions setting the stage for an epic bull market. The correlation between the S&P 500 and the DXY index was a near perfect inverse correlation for much of 2020 (Chart 2). Chart 3US Equity Portfolio Inflows Have Been Substantial Since 2020 Chart 2The Dollar In ##br##2020 The big change in 2021 is that this correlation has shifted, as the Fed has pivoted on monetary policy. This means that investors have been betting on higher stock prices in the US, as well as higher interest rates. In short, portfolio flows into US equities have surged (Chart 3). For the long-duration US equity market, higher interest rates could push it to a tipping point, where it starts to underperform other developed market bourses. This will reverse these equity portfolio flows, hurting the dollar in the process. Profits, Interest Rates And The Dollar The key driver of equity markets is profits in the short run, with valuation starting to matter over the longer run. This in turn becomes the key driver of cross-border equity flows. These flows help dictate currency movements. For much of the previous decade, US profits did much better than overseas earnings. For this reason, the US equity market outperformed, pulling the dollar up, as foreign equity purchases accelerated (Chart 4). The post-pandemic era has seen inflation rising across the world, changing the paradigm for US profits. High inflation, and consequently, higher bond yields, have been synonymous with an underperformance of US profits (Chart 5). Banks profit from higher rates, as they benefit from rising net interest margins. Materials, energy, and industrial stocks, benefit from higher inflation via rising commodity prices that boost their pricing power. In a nutshell, rising inflation tends to be better for value stocks and cyclicals, sectors that are underrepresented in the US. This means portfolio flows into US equities, one of the key drivers of the capital account surplus, could be on the cusp of a substantial reversal. Chart 4The Dollar And Relative Profits Chart 5Bond Yields And Relative Profits Second, valuation in the US has become extended as interest rates have fallen. More importantly, US valuations have been more sensitive to changes in interest rates, compared to other developed markets (Chart 6). This is because the US stock market has become increasingly overweight long duration sectors, like technology and healthcare. Higher rates will undermine the valuation premium these sectors command. This will cause the US equity market to derate relative to other cyclical bourses. Chart 6Relative Multiples And Bond Yields The key point is that the US equity market has been the darling of the last decade, and leadership is at risk from higher rates, via a reset in both relative valuation and relative profits. So, while the US market could perform well in 2022, higher rates could undermine its relative performance to overseas bourses. This will curtail equity portfolio inflows, as capital tends to gravitate to markets with higher expected returns. The Dollar And Relative Interest Rates Over the long term, bond flows are the overarching driver of the currency market. Most market participants expect the Fed to be among the most hawkish in 2022. This is clear in the pricing of the Eurodollar versus Euribor December 2022 contract, or just the relative path of two-year US bond yields versus other markets. This in turn has helped drive speculative positioning in the US dollar towards record highs (Chart 7). Correspondingly, US Treasury inflows have accelerated in recent months, even though real interest rates have not risen that much (Chart 8). In level terms, the trade deficit (that hit a record low of -US$80bn in November) is being helped financed by renewed foreign interest in US Treasurys. Chart 8Interest Rates And Treasury Flows Chart 7Record Dollar Speculative Positions We see two major contradictions in the pricing of US interest rates, relative to other developed markets. First, rising inflation is a global phenomenon and not specific to the US. If inflation proves sticky, other central banks will turn a tad more hawkish to defend their policy mandates. If inflation subsides, the Fed might not be as aggressive in tightening policy as the market expects. This will unwind speculative long positions in the dollar. It will also slow portfolio inflows into US Treasuries. Second, the reality is that outside the ECB and the BoJ, most other developed market central banks have already tightened monetary policy ahead of the Fed. The ability of any central bank to tighten policy will depend on the health of the labor market, and the potential for a wage inflation spiral. One data point that has caught our attention is the participation rate across G10 economies - it is notable that the US has one of the lowest participation rates (Chart 9A). Given that many countries have seen their participation rate recover to pre-pandemic levels, it suggests upside in the US rate. This will be especially the case if fiscal stimulus, which could wane, has been a key reason why the US participation rate has stayed low. In a nutshell, the low participation rate in the US could be a reason the Fed lags market expectations for aggressive rate increases this year. On the flip side, a higher participation rate in places like Canada, Norway, and Australia, could allow their central banks to normalize policy faster than the market expects. There has been a loose correlation between relative changes in the participation rate, and relative changes in inflation across G10 economies (Chart 9B).  Chart 9BThe US Relative Participation Rate And Relative Inflation Chart 9AUS Labor Force Participation Is Low, But Improving Finally, relative monetary policy tends to be driven by relative growth. US growth remains robust but has been rolling over relative to other developed markets (Chart 10). This is occurring at a time when China is easing monetary policy, which tends to buffet non-US growth. Higher non-US growth could also tip the bond and currency market narrative that the Fed will tighten much faster than other G10 central banks. Chart 10Non-US Growth Is Improving, Relative To US Growth Conclusion The above analysis suggests we could be entering a paradigm shift in the dollar, where any response by the Fed could eventually trigger the same outcome. Higher rates than the market expects will initially boost the US dollar. But this process will also undermine the US equity market leadership, reversing substantial portfolio inflows in recent years. On the flip side, fewer rate hikes will severely unwind higher rate expectations in the US vis-a-vis other developed markets. Our concluding thoughts from our 2022 outlook, which are consistent with our views herein, were as follows: The DXY could touch 98 in the near term but will break below 90 over the next 12-18 months. An attractiveness ranking reveals the most appealing currencies are JPY, SEK, and NOK, while the least attractive are USD and NZD. Policy convergence will be a key theme at the onset of 2022. Stay long EUR/GBP and AUD/NZD as a play on this theme. Look to buy a currency basket of oil producers versus consumers. We went long the AUD at 70 cents. Terms of trade are likely to remain a tailwind for the Australian dollar. The AUD will benefit specifically in a green revolution.   Chester Ntonifor Foreign Exchange Strategist chestern@bcaresearch.com Trades & Forecasts Strategic View Tactical Holdings (0-6 months) Forecast Summary

Highlights The neutral rate of interest in the US is 3%-to-4% in nominal terms or 1%-to-2% in real terms, which is substantially higher than the Fed believes and the market is discounting. The end of the household deleveraging cycle, rising wealth, stronger capital spending and homebuilding, and a structurally looser fiscal stance have all increased aggregate demand. In addition, deglobalization and population aging are depleting global savings, raising the neutral rate in the process. A higher neutral rate implies that monetary policy is currently more stimulative than widely perceived. This is good news for stocks, as it reduces the near-term odds of a recession. The longer-term risk is that monetary policy will stay too loose for too long, causing the US economy to overheat. This could prompt the Fed to raise rates well above neutral, an outcome that would certainly spell the end of the secular equity bull market. Investors should overweight stocks in 2022 but look to turn more defensive in late 2023. We are taking partial profits on our long December-2022 Brent futures trade, which is up 17.3% since inception. We are also closing our short meme stocks trade. AMC and GME are down 53% and 47%, respectively, since we initiated it.  The Neutral Rate Matters At first glance, the neutral rate of interest – the interest rate consistent with full employment and stable inflation – seems like a concept only an egghead economist would care about. After all, unlike actual interest rates, the neutral rate cannot be observed in real time. The best one can do is deduce it after the fact, something that does not seem very relevant for investment decisions. While this perspective is understandable, it is misguided. The yield on a long-term bond is largely a function of what investors expect short-term rates to be over the life of the bond. Today, investors expect the Fed to raise rates to only 1.75% during this tightening cycle, a far cry from previous peaks in interest rates (Chart 1). Chart 2Investor Worries That The Fed Will Tighten Too Much Has Led To A Flattening Of The Yield Curve Chart 1Expected Rate Hikes Are A Far Cry From Previous Peaks In Interest Rates     Far from worrying that the Fed will keep rates too low for too long in the face of high inflation, investors are worried that the Fed will tighten too much. This is the main reason why the yield curve has flattened over the past three months and the 20-year/30-year portion of the yield curve has inverted (Chart 2). Secular Stagnation Remains The Consensus View Why are so many investors convinced that the Fed will be unable to raise rates all that much over the next few years? The answer is that most investors have bought into the secular stagnation thesis, which posits that the neutral rate of interest has fallen dramatically over time. The secular stagnation thesis comes in two versions: The first or “strong form” describes an economy that needs a deeply negative – and hence unattainable – nominal interest rate to reach full employment. Japan comes to mind as an example. The country has had near-zero interest rates since the mid-1990s; and yet it continues to suffer from deflation. The second or "weak form" describes the case where a country needs a low, but still positive, interest rate to reach full employment. Such an interest rate is attainable by the central bank, and hence creates a goldilocks outlook for investors where profits return to normal, but asset prices continue to get propped up by an ultra-low discount rate. The “weak form” version of the secular stagnation thesis arguably describes the United States. Post-GFC Deleveraging Pushed Down The Neutral Rate One can think of the neutral rate as the interest rate that equates aggregate demand with aggregate supply at full employment. If something causes the aggregate demand curve to shift inwards, a lower real interest rate would be required to bring demand back up (Chart 3). Like many other countries, the US experienced a prolonged deleveraging cycle following the Global Financial Crisis. The ratio of household debt-to-GDP has declined by 23 percentage points since 2008. The need for households to repair their balance sheets weighed on spending, thus necessitating a lower interest rate. Admittedly, corporate debt has risen over the past decade, with the result that overall private debt has remained broadly stable as a share of GDP (Chart 4). However, the drag on aggregate demand from declining household debt was not offset by the boost to demand from rising corporate debt. Whereas falling household debt curbed consumer spending, rising corporate debt did little to boost investment spending. This is because most of the additional corporate debt went into financial engineering – including share buybacks and M&A activity – rather than capex. In fact, the average age of the private-sector capital stock has increased from 21 years in 2010 to 23.4 years at present (Chart 5). Chart 4Household Debt Has Fallen From Its Highs, While Corporate Debt Has Risen Since The GFC Chart 5The Average Age Of Capital Stock Has Been Increasing Buoyant Consumer And Business Spending Will Prop Up The Neutral Rate Today, the US economy finds itself in a far different spot than 12 years ago. Households are borrowing again. Consumer credit rose by $40 billion in November, the largest monthly increase on record, and double the consensus estimate (Chart 6). Banks are easing lending standards across all consumer loan categories (Chart 7). Chart 6Big Jump In Consumer Credit Chart 7Banks Are Easing Lending Standards For All Consumer Loans Chart 8Net Worth Has Soared Over The Past Two Years Meanwhile, years of easy money have pushed up asset prices, a dynamic that was only supercharged by the pandemic. We estimate that household wealth rose by 145% of GDP between the end of 2019 and the end of 2021 – the largest two-year increase on record (Chart 8). A back-of-the-envelope calculation suggests that this increase in wealth could boost aggregate demand by 5%.1 Reacting to the prospect of stronger final demand, businesses are ramping up capex (Chart 9). After moving sideways for two decades, capital goods orders have soared. Surveys of capex intentions remain at elevated levels. Against the backdrop of empty shelves and warehouses, inventory investment should also remain robust. Residential investment will increase (Chart 10). The homeowner vacancy rate has dropped to a record low, as have inventories of new and existing homes for sale. Homebuilder sentiment rose to a 10-month high in December. Building permits are 11% above pre-pandemic levels. Amazingly, homebuilders are trading at only 7-times forward earnings. We recommend owning the sector. Chart 9Investment Spending Will Stay Strong Chart 10US Housing Will Remain Well Supported Fiscal Policy: Tighter But Not Tight Chart 11Chinese Credit Impulse Seems To Be Bottoming As in most other countries, the US budget deficit will decline over the next few years, as pandemic-related measures roll off and tax receipts increase on the back of a strengthening economy. Nevertheless, we expect the structural budget deficit to remain 1%-to-2% of GDP larger in the post-pandemic period, following the passage of the infrastructure bill last November and what is likely to be a slimmed down social spending package focusing on green energy, universal pre-kindergarten, and health insurance subsidies. The shift towards structurally more accommodative fiscal policies will play out in most other major economies. In the euro area, spending under the Next Generation EU recovery fund will accelerate later this year, with southern Europe being the primary beneficiary. In Japan, the government has approved a US$315 billion supplementary budget. Matt Gertken, BCA’s Chief Geopolitical Strategist, expects Prime Minister Kishida to pursue a quasi-populist agenda ahead of the upper house election on July 25th.  China is also set to loosen policy. The Ministry of Finance has indicated that it intends to “proactively” support growth in 2022. For its part, the PBoC cut the reserve requirement ratio by 50 basis points on December 6th. The 6-month credit impulse has already turned up (Chart 11). More Than The Sum Of Their Parts Chart 12The Labor Share Typically Rises When Unemployment Falls As discussed above, the end of the deleveraging cycle, rising household wealth, stronger capital spending and homebuilding, and a structurally looser fiscal stance have all increased aggregate demand in the US. While each of these factors have independently raised the neutral rate of interest, taken together, the impact has been even greater. For example, stronger consumption has undoubtedly incentivized greater investment by firms eager to expand capacity. Strong GDP growth, in turn, has pushed up asset prices, leading to even more spending. Furthermore, a tighter labor market has propped up wage growth, especially among low-wage workers. Historically, labor’s share of overall national income has increased when unemployment has fallen (Chart 12). To the extent that workers spend more of their income than capital owners, a higher labor share raises aggregate demand, thus putting upward pressure on the neutral rate. The Retreat From Globalization Will Push Up The Neutral Rate… Chart 13The Ratio Of Global Trade-To-Output Has Been Flat For Over A Decade Globalization lowered the neutral rate of interest both because it shifted the balance of power from workers to businesses; and also because it allowed countries such as the US, which run chronic current account deficits, to import foreign capital rather than relying exclusively on domestic savings.  The era of hyperglobalization has ended, however. The ratio of global trade-to-manufacturing output has been flat for over a decade (Chart 13). Looking out, the ratio could decline as geopolitical tensions between China and the rest of the world continue to simmer, and more companies shift production back home in order to gain greater control over the supply chains of essential goods. … As Will Population Aging Chart 14Most Of The Deceleration In US Potential Real GDP Growth Has Already Taken Place Aging populations can affect the neutral rate either by dragging down investment demand or by reducing savings. The former would lead to a lower neutral rate, while the latter would lead to a higher rate. As Chart 14 shows, most of the decline in US potential GDP growth has already occurred. According to the Congressional Budget Office, real potential GDP growth fell from over 3% in the early 1980s to about 1.9% today, mainly due to slower labor force growth. The CBO expects potential growth to edge down to 1.7% over the next few decades. In contrast, the depletion of national savings from an aging population is just beginning. Baby boomers are leaving the labor force en masse. They hold over half of US household wealth, considerably more than younger generations (Chart 15). As baby boomers transition from net savers to net dissavers, national savings will fall, leading to a higher neutral rate. The pandemic has accelerated this trend insomuch as it has caused about 1.2 million workers to retire earlier than they would have otherwise (Chart 16). Chart 16Number Of Retired People Jumped During The Pandemic To What Extent Are Higher Rates Self-Limiting? Some commentators contend that any effort by central banks to bring policy rates towards neutral would reduce aggregate demand by so much that it would undermine the rationale for why the neutral rate had increased in the first place. In particular, they argue that higher rates would drag down asset prices, thus curbing the magnitude of the wealth effect. While there is some truth to this argument, its proponents overstate their case. History suggests that stocks tend to brush off rising bond yields, provided that yields do not rise to prohibitively high levels (Table 1). Table 1As Long As Bond Yields Don’t Rise Into Restrictive Territory, Stocks Will Recover Chart 17The Equity Risk Premium Remains High The last five weeks are a case in point. Both 10-year and 30-year Treasury yields have risen nearly 40 bps since December 3rd. Yet, the S&P 500 has gained 2.7% since then. Keep in mind that the forward earnings yield for US stocks still exceeds the real bond yield by 552 bps, which is quite high by historic standards. The gap between earnings yields and real bond yields is even greater abroad (Chart 17). Thus, stocks have scope to absorb an increase in bond yields without a significant PE multiple contraction. Investment Implications Our analysis suggests that the neutral rate of interest in the US is substantially higher than widely believed. How much higher is difficult to gauge, but our guess is that in real terms, it is between 1% and 2%. This is substantially higher than survey measures of the neutral rate, which peg it at close to 0% in real terms (Chart 18). It is also significantly higher than 10-year and 30-year TIPS yields, which stand at -0.73% and -0.17%, respectively (Chart 19). The neutral rate has also increased in other economies, although not as much as in the US. Chart 18Both The Fed And Investors Have Lowered Their Estimate Of The Neutral Rate Chart 19Long-Term Real Rates Remain Depressed If the neutral rate turns out to be higher than the consensus view, then monetary policy is currently more stimulative than widely perceived. That is good news for stocks, as it would reduce the near-term odds of a recession. Hence, we remain positive on stocks over a 12-month horizon, with a preference for non-US equities. In terms of sector preferences, we maintain our bias for banks over tech. The longer-term risk is that monetary policy will stay too easy, causing the economy to overheat. This could prompt the Fed to raise rates well above neutral, an outcome that would certainly spell the end of the secular equity bull market. Such a day of reckoning could be reached by late 2023. Two Trade Updates We are taking partial profits on our long December-2022 Brent futures trade by cutting our position by 50%. The trade is up 17.3% since inception. Bob Ryan, BCA’s Chief Commodity Strategist, still sees upside for oil prices, so we are keeping the other half of our position for the time being. We are also closing our short meme stocks trade. AMC and GME are down 53% and 47%, respectively, since we initiated it. While the outlook for both companies remains challenging, there is an outside chance that they will find a way to leverage their meme status to create profitable businesses. This makes us inclined to move to the sidelines.   Peter Berezin Chief Global Strategist peterb@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 In line with published estimates, we assume that households spend 5 cents of every one dollar increase in housing wealth, 2 cents of every dollar increase in equity wealth, 10 cents out of bank deposits, and 2 cents out of other assets. Of the 145% of GDP in increased household net worth between the end of 2019 and the end of 2021, 19% stemmed from higher housing wealth, 52% from higher equity wealth, 12% from higher bank deposits, and 17% from other categories.    View Matrix Special Trade Recommendations Current MacroQuant Model Scores

Highlights The bull run in Vietnamese stocks is due for a pause as the weakness in overall EM markets spreads to this bourse.  Household consumption will stay constrained as new COVID-19 cases remain high and fiscal and monetary stimulus remain absent. Social distancing measures and related supply disruptions have hobbled labor-intensive manufacturing and exports thereof. Vietnam is facing saturation or stagnation in two of its major exports: electronics and phones. The country needs to find a new high value-added export sector to which to transition to maintain large trade surpluses. Vietnam’s longer-term structural outlook remains bright. The country is set to gain further global export market share due to strong productivity gains and competitive unit labor costs.  Absolute-return investors should book profits on their Vietnamese holdings for now and wait for a better entry point. Asset allocators, however, should continue to overweight this bourse in overall EM, emerging Asia or frontier market equity portfolios. Feature Vietnamese stocks have surged to new highs in absolute terms and have outperformed their frontier and emerging market peers since spring 2020 (Chart 1). Can the bull run continue into the new year? We advise caution. Vietnamese stocks may be in for a period of weakness in absolute terms. The reason is a negative outlook on EM markets: a drop in EM stock prices is typically followed by one in Vietnamese stock prices (Chart 2).   Chart 2Weakness In EM Markets Typically Spreads To Vietnamese Stocks Too Chart 1The Bull Run In Vietnamese Stocks May Be Due For A Pause   In addition, Vietnam’s exports, the mainstay of this market, are likely to face some headwinds in the months ahead. Absolute-return investors therefore would do well to book profits now and wait for a better entry point to this bourse later in the year. That said, the longer-term outlook of this economy remains bright, and that will help boost this market beyond any near-term jitters. Robust fundamentals should also ensure continued outperformance relative to overall EM stocks. We recommend that investors stay overweight Vietnam in EM and emerging Asian equity portfolios. Battered Consumption The surge in daily new cases since August last year forced Vietnam to implement stringent lockdowns and social distancing measures. A consequence of these measures was a free fall in Vietnam’s household consumption. Both retail sales and car sales plummeted to levels not seen since 2016 before recovering recently (Chart 3). This caused the economy to shrink by over 6% in real terms in the third quarter last year – the first-ever contraction in decades. Now, with the new, highly infectious Omicron variant spreading fast, the number of daily new cases and deaths remains stubbornly high – despite many of the lockdown measures still in place (Chart 4). It is therefore far from clear when normal economic activity will resume. Incidentally, 57% of Vietnamese people have been fully vaccinated so far. Chart 4Rising Omicron Cases May Hobble Economic Activity Again Chart 3The Surge In The Delta Variant Last Year Severely Hurt Vietnamese Household Consumption   Notably, despite the weak economy, there has not been any meaningful policy stimulus in recent months. Fiscal policy has remained very tight. Government spending, excluding interest and principal payments, has contracted by 4.5%. The 2022 budget proposals envisage only a 2% rise in total nominal fiscal expenditure. The central bank, for its part, has also not announced any new easing measures in the recent past. Lacking fiscal and monetary support, domestic consumption and therefore overall growth will remain somewhat constrained going forward. Supply Disruptions While domestic consumption is a concern, a more investor-relevant issue in Vietnam is the pandemic’s negative impact on the country’s manufacturing/export sector. This is because, unlike household consumption, manufacturing activity and manufacturing exports have a strong bearing on the country’s stock prices. The reason is that developing market stocks in general are driven by global trade cycles. And since Vietnam’s total trade amounts to almost twice as much as the country’s GDP, the ebbs and flows in the former have an outsized impact on the domestic economy, and by extension, on the stock market (Chart 5). The surge in new cases since August created severe hindrances in the manufacturing/export sector supply chains and labor availability. In the clothing and textile industry, almost a third of the sector’s three million employees quit jobs, or stayed away from work with or without pay, as per Vietnam Textile & Apparel Association, an industry body.1The lack of labor coupled with bottlenecks in logistics have led to a sharp drop in Vietnam’s textile and garment exports (Chart 6, top panel).  Chart 6Garment Exports Are Badly Hit, While Phone Exports Are Facing Stagnation Chart 5Vietnamese Stocks Are Highly Leveraged To Export Growth   Due to hobbled production, manufacturing inventories have piled up (Chart 7). It is estimated that most of this large inventory is comprised of raw materials and intermediate goods. If so, that will discourage local raw material/intermediate goods production in the months to come. Chart 7The Pandemic Is Hampering Shipments While Inventories Are Piling Up In sum, it’s far from clear that a rapid revival in manufacturing production and exports is in the cards amid the ongoing Omicron surge. This will remain a headwind for Vietnamese stock prices. Exports Outlook Despite the setback in the textile sector, the country’s overall exports held up quite well last year. That’s because the slack was more than made up by the booming computer and electronics exports. This is thanks to the massive demand surge in those goods in past two years due to the global work-from-home phenomenon (Chart 6, top panel). However, going forward, odds are that global demand for these items will abate as saturation sets in. This will slow the growth rate in Vietnam’s computer and electronic exports. Incidentally, Vietnam’s single largest export items, phones and spare parts, are also showing signs of stagnation. In absolute dollar terms, they have been flattish since early 2018. Phone production volumes have remained at the same level as in 2015 (Chart 6, bottom panel). With mobile phone penetration in all major economies is already quite high, phone exports certainly cannot propel Vietnam’s exports as strongly as in the past decade. If this is the case, it can have a meaningful negative impact not only on Vietnam’s exports, but also on its trade balance, and by extension, its current account balance. The reason for this is that phones and spare parts have probably been the most value-added item among Vietnamese exports. The difference between the export revenues they earned and the import cost of the components has been much higher and has risen more sharply than in any other major export items (Chart 8, top and middle panels). This helped the country rack up rising trade surpluses. In the absence of net export revenues from phones and spare parts, Vietnam’s trade and current account balance would be deeply negative (Chart 8, bottom panel). Given that phones are no longer the sunrise sector worldwide, the country needs to find and move to some other high value-added sector to maintain its wide trade surplus. As of now, it’s not clear that this is happening. In the past two years, the number of newly approved manufacturing FDI projects have fallen to decade-low levels. The dollar value of approved manufacturing FDI projects has also fallen in tandem (Chart 9, top panel). In fact, overall FDI approvals have also fallen – suggesting actual FDI inflows might weaken in the months ahead (Chart 9, bottom panel). Chart 8Net Phone Exports Had Been Crucial To Vietnam's Large Trade Surpluses Chart 9FDI Inflows Into Vietnam Might Recede In The Coming Months   Until Vietnam finds a new high value-added export sector to which to transition, its stagnating phone and electronics exports mean that overall export growth is set to take a breather. Finally, one external tailwind for Vietnam since 2018 has been the trade war between the US and China. Because the two largest economies put various tariff and non-tariff barriers on each other, it allowed Vietnam to double its share of imports to the US in just three years (Chart 10). Vietnamese exports also clearly benefit when the dong weakens vis-à-vis the Chinese yuan. The fact that the Chinese authorities have allowed the yuan to be one of the strongest currencies over the past year has helped Vietnamese exports. In the future, however, decelerating growth in China may prompt the PBOC to seek a weaker yuan. If so, that could be another headwind to Vietnamese exports (Chart 11).       Chart 11The Tailwind From A Weak Dong Versus The Chinese Yuan May Diminish This Year, Hurting Exports Chart 10Vietnamese Exports Benefitted Immensely From The US-China Trade War   In sum, Vietnamese exports could well see a period of weakness in the coming months. That is usually a harbinger of weaker Vietnamese stock prices in absolute terms (Chart 5, above). Structurally Sound Despite our near-term cautious outlook on Vietnamese stocks, we have a positive view on the country’s structural prospects. The country’s fundamentals remain robust and that will help propel this market beyond any near-term weakness: Vietnam has boosted capital spending in the past few years to reach an impressive 32% of GDP, among the highest in the developing world (Chart 12, top panel). This has helped raise the economy’s productive capacity. Consistently, Vietnam’s labor productivity gains have been superior to most developing countries (Chart 12, bottom panel). The country’s wage growth has been relatively lower than those of China and Bangladesh, its two main export competitors (Chart 13, top panel). Chart 12Vietnam's Capital Spending And Labor Productivity Remains Among The Highest In EM Chart 13Competitive Unit Labor Costs Are Helping Vietnam Rapidly Grab Global Market Share Stronger productivity gains coupled with relatively muted wage growth is helping keep Vietnamese unit labor costs lower than its competitors. This is boosting its competitiveness; and not only helping grab an ever higher global market share, but also doing so at a faster clip than even China and Bangladesh (Chart 13, bottom panel). The country is also well placed to take advantage of its competitive unit labor costs. It has entered into a number of free trade agreements (FTA) with many countries and regions, the latest of which is the RCEP agreement – comprising ASEAN, China, Japan, South Korea, Australia, and New Zealand – which kicked in this January. These FTAs have eliminated export import tariffs for hundreds of items. Vietnam is likely to be a major beneficiary of these treaties in the medium to long term, given its rising competitiveness.  Given the already available infrastructure and labor and its competitive edge in manufacturing, Vietnam is also set to be the major recipient of the firms relocating away from China. This will further boost its longer-term prospects as exports will continue to generate solid income growth. Overall, real income per capita in Vietnam will continue rising at a rapid rate, outpacing that of most emerging economies. Investment Conclusions Chart 14Vietnamese Stock Valuations Are Not Attractive Now Since the country’s exports will likely decelerate in the coming months, its share prices will also likely correct. In addition, the ongoing sell-off in EM risk assets has further to run, as explained in our last report, EM: A Perfect Storm. This is a harbinger of weaker Vietnamese stock prices. What’s more, a sell-off in EM risk assets is often associated with a considerable decline in capital inflows into Vietnam – as was the case in 2015 and 2018. Those periods were negative for Vietnamese stocks as well.  Finally, valuations are not attractive either. Trailing P/E and P/Book ratios of Vietnamese stocks are much higher (21 and 3.6, respectively) compared to those of EM (14 and 1.9) and frontier market (15.5 and 2.3) stocks (Chart 14). Putting it all together, absolute-return investors should book profits on their Vietnam holdings and wait for a better entry point. Asset allocators, however, should continue to maintain their overweight positions on Vietnamese stocks, in EM, emerging Asia or frontier market equity portfolios. Rajeeb Pramanik Senior EM Strategist rajeeb.pramanik@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1     Please refer to “Vietnam garment exports hit hard by labor shortage, disrupted supply chains, and swelled freight fares” on Textile Today Bangladesh.

Bank Credit Analyst

As 2021 draws to a close, we thank you for your ongoing readership and support. We wish you and your loved ones a happy holiday season and all the best for a healthy and prosperous 2022. Highlights Over the coming three months, the odds are high that the Omicron variant of COVID-19 will disrupt economic activity in advanced economies, but the magnitude of the disruption will be heavily determined by the variant’s capacity to produce severe illness. For now, we remain of the view that the pandemic will recede in importance over the course of the next year. Relative to the assessment that we published in our 2022 Outlook report, the Omicron variant of COVID-19 has modestly raised the odds of a stagflationary outcome next year. Our base case view of above-trend growth and above-target inflation remains the most likely scenario for 2022. We do not think that the actual risk of a recession has risen significantly since we published our annual outlook, but we can envision a scenario in which Fed tightening causes investors to become fearful of a recession. The true risk of a monetary policy-induced recession over the coming 12-18 months will only rise if long-dated inflation expectations break above the range that prevailed prior to the Global Financial Crisis. Beyond 2022, the main risk to financial markets is that investors raise their longer-term interest rate expectations closer to the trend rate of economic growth. This would not be bad news for real economic activity, but it would imply meaningfully lower prices for financial assets that have benefited from low interest rates. We continue to advise that investors position themselves in line with the investment recommendations that we presented in our Outlook report. Over the coming year, investors should watch for the following when deciding whether to reduce exposure to risky assets: a breakout in long-dated inflation expectations, a significant flattening in the yield curve, or a rise in 5-year, 5-year forward US Treasury yields above 2.5%. Feature Our recently published 2022 Outlook report laid out the main macroeconomic themes that we see driving markets next year, as well as our cyclical investment recommendations.1 In this month’s report, we discuss the most relevant risks to our base case view in more depth, and update our fixed-income view in the wake of the December FOMC meeting. The Near-Term Risks Chart I-1DM Policymakers Are Afraid That Omicron Will Overwhelm The Medical System Over the coming 0-3 months, the greatest risks to economic growth stem from the likely impact of the Omicron variant of COVID-19 on the medical system and the evolution of Europe’s energy crisis. News about the Omicron variant emerged just a few days prior to the publication of our annual outlook, and considerable uncertainty remains about its impact. Some early evidence suggests that the variant causes less severe disease, with a recent press release from South Africa’s largest private health insurance administrator suggesting that the risk of hospital admission was 29 percent lower for adults with the Omicron variant after adjusting for age, sex, underlying health conditions, and vaccine status. More recent studies from South Africa have suggested a much larger reduction in the severity of disease,2 but it is not yet clear whether these findings are applicable to advanced economies,given South Africa’s more recent vaccination campaign and higher proportion of a previously infected population. If Omicron turns out to result in 30 percent less hospitalizations, that only reduces the net impact on the medical system if the Omicron variant is no more than 1.5x as transmissible as the Delta variant. The sheer speed at which Omicron is spreading suggests it is far more contagious than this, the result in part to its ability to evade two-dose immunity. The potential for Omicron to quickly overwhelm available health system resources has alarmed authorities in several advanced economies, especially given that cases and hospitalizations have already trended higher in several countries even while Delta remained the dominant variant (Chart I-1). Additional restrictions on economic activity in the DM world appear to be likely over the coming weeks, and may be in effect until booster doses have been fully administered and/or Pfizer’s drug Paxlovid becomes widely available. For Europe, a worsening of the COVID situation has the potential to exacerbate the economic impact of the region’s ongoing energy crisis. Chart I-2 highlights that European natural gas prices have again exploded, reaching a new high that is fourteen times its pre-pandemic level. We noted in our Outlook report that European natural gas in storage is well below that of previous years, and Chart I-3 highlights that the gap in stored gas relative to previous years persists. This is occurring despite roughly average temperatures in central Europe over the past month (Chart I-4), underscoring that, barring atypically warmer temperatures, European natural gas prices are likely to remain elevated throughout the winter. Chart I-2Another Explosion In European Natural Gas Prices Chart I-5For Europe, COVID Is More Of A Problem Than Natural Gas Prices   For now, it appears that the rise in COVID cases is having a more pronounced effect on the European economy than the energy price situation. Chart I-5 highlights that the flash December euro area manufacturing PMI fell only modestly, and that Germany’s manufacturing PMI actually rose in December. By contrast, the euro area services PMI fell over two points, reflecting the toll that recent pandemic control measures have taken on non-goods producing activity. Over the coming three months, the odds are high that the Omicron variant will disrupt economic activity in advanced economies to some degree, but the magnitude of the disruption will be heavily determined by the variant’s capacity to produce severe illness. Investors will have more information on hand in a few weeks by which to judge the extent of this risk. We will provide an update to our own assessment in our February report. Risks Over The Next Year In our Outlook report, we assigned a 60% chance to an above-trend growth and above-target inflation scenario next year, a 30% chance to a “stagflation-lite” scenario of growth at or below potential and inflation well above target, and a 10% chance of a recession. We present below our assessment of the risk that one of the latter two scenarios occurs in 2022. The Risk Of “Stagflation-Lite” Chart I-6Aside From Europe's Energy Crisis, Supply-Side Constraints Are Slowly Easing The Omicron variant of COVID-19 has modestly raised the odds of a stagflationary outcome next year. Over the past few months, supply-side pressures have been modestly improving outside of Europe. Chart I-6 presents our new BCA Supply-Side Pressure Indicator, which measures the impact of supply-side restrictions across four categories: energy prices, shipping costs, the semiconductor shortage impact on automobile production, and labor availability. When we include all eleven components, the index has been trending higher of late, but trending flat-to-down after excluding European natural gas prices. While Omicron has the potential to reduce energy price pressure outside of Europe, it has the strong potential to cause a further increase in global shipping costs and postpone US labor market normalization. On the shipping cost front, we noted in our Outlook report that supply-side effects have been a significant driver of higher costs this year. The large rise in China/US shipping costs since late-June has been seemingly caused by the one-month closure of the Port of Yantian that began in late-May. While China has made enormous progress in vaccinating its population over the course of the year, and has prioritized the vaccination of workers in key industries, recent reports suggest that the Sinovac vaccine provides essentially no protection against contracting the Omicron variant of COVID-19. It is possible that Sinovac will offer protection against severe illness, but in terms of preventing transmission of the disease, Omicron has essentially returned China’s vaccination campaign back to square one. Chart I-7Further Price Increases May Seriously Slow Goods Spending That fact alone makes it almost certain that China will maintain its zero-tolerance COVID policy for most of 2022, which significantly raises the risk of additional factory and port shutdowns – and thus even higher shipping costs and imported goods prices. One optimistic point is that these shutdowns are more likely to occur in mainland China than in Taiwan Province or Malaysia, two key semiconductor exporters. This is because these two regions have distributed doses of Pfizer’s vaccine, and thus presumably have the ability to provide three-dose mRNA protection to workers in crucial exporting industries (should policymakers choose to do so). Still, US consumer goods prices would clearly be impacted by even higher shipping costs, which would likely have the combined effect of slowing growth and raising prices. Chart I-7 highlights that the recent sharp deterioration in US households’ willingness to buy durable goods has been closely linked to higher goods prices, arguing that goods spending may slow meaningfully if prices rise further alongside renewed weakness in services spending. Omicron’s contagiousness may also exacerbate the ongoing US labor shortage. The shortage has occurred because of a surge in the number of retirees, difficult working conditions in several industries, and increased childcare requirements during the pandemic. The increase in the number of retirees has not happened for structural reasons; it has been driven by a sharp slowdown in the number of older Americans shifting from “retired” to “in the labor force”, which has occurred because of health concerns. None of these factors are likely to improve meaningfully while Omicron is raging, suggesting that services prices are likely to remain elevated or accelerate further even if services spending falls anew. To conclude on this point, we estimate that the odds of a stagflation-lite scenario have risen to 35% (from 30%), and the odds of our base-case scenario of above-trend growth and above-target inflation have fallen to 55% (Chart I-8). Still, our base-case view remains the most probable outcome, given that we do not believe the odds of a recession next year have risen. The Risk Of Recession We do not think that the actual risk of a recession has risen significantly since we published our annual outlook, but we can envision a scenario in which Fed tightening causes investors to become fearful of a recession. Such a scenario would have a material impact on cyclical investment strategy, and thus warrants a discussion. Following the December FOMC meeting, BCA’s baseline expectation is that a first Fed hike will occur in June 2022 and that rate increases will proceed at a pace of 25 basis points per quarter through the end of the year. BCA’s house view on this question is now in line with the view of The Bank Credit Analyst service, which published in a September Special Report that the Fed could hit its maximum employment objective as early as next summer.3 The Fed’s shift implies that the 2-year yield should rise to 1.85%, and the 10-year yield to 2.35%, by the end of next year (Chart I-9).  Chart I-9A More Hawkish Fed Means A 2.35% 10-Year Yield Next Year We doubt that US monetary policy will become economically restrictive next year. If the Omicron variant of COVID-19 causes a serious slowdown in economic activity, the Fed will ramp down its expectations for rate hikes. And if the Fed meets our baseline expectations for hikes next year in the context of above-trend economic growth, we do not believe that a 2.35% 10-year Treasury yield will be, in any way, limiting for economic activity. However, investors do not agree with our view about the boundary between easy and tight monetary policy, and may begin to fear a recession in response to Fed tightening next year. We noted in our Outlook report that we believe the neutral rate of interest (“R-star”) is likely higher that investors believe, but the fact remains that the Fed and market participants have judged, with deep conviction, that the neutral rate remains very low relative to the potential growth rate of the economy. Chart I-10 presents the fair value path of the 2-year Treasury yield based on our expectations for the Fed funds rate, alongside the actual 10-year Treasury yield. The chart highlights that the 2/10 yield curve could flatten significantly or even invert in the second half of 2022 if long-maturity yields rise only modestly in response to Fed tightening, which could occur if investors focus on the view that the neutral rate of interest is low and that Fed rate hikes will not prove to be sustainable. Based on two different measures of the yield curve, fixed-income investors believe that the current economic expansion is already 50-60% complete (Chart I-11), implying a recession at some point in the first half of 2023. Chart I-10The US Yield Curve Could Invert Next Year If Long-Maturity Yields Rise Only Marginally Chart I-11More Than Half Of The Economic Expansion Has Already Occurred, According To The Yield Curve Chart I-12A Serious Flattening In The Yield Curve Could Unnerve Stocks If the yield curve were to flirt with inversion and investors began to price in the potential for a recession, it would cause significant financial market turmoil regardless of whether the risk of recession is real or not. Chart I-12 highlights that the S&P 500 fell 20% in late 2018 as the 2/10 yield curve flattened towards 20 basis points, in response to the economic impact of the China-US Trade War and the global impact of US tariffs on the auto industry. So it is possible that a “recessionary narrative” negatively impacts risky asset prices in the second half of 2022, even if an actual recession is ultimately avoided. Based on this, we would be much more inclined to reduce our recommended exposure to equities if the US 2/10 yield curve were to flatten below 30 basis points next year. In our view, the risk of a monetary policy-induced recession over the coming 12-18 months will only legitimately rise if long-dated inflation expectations break above the range that prevailed prior to the Global Financial Crisis. We noted in our Outlook report that this has not yet occurred for either household or market-based expectations, although it is a risk that cannot be ruled out. The odds of a breakout in long-dated inflation expectations will rise the longer that actual inflation remains elevated, and our inflation probability model suggests that core PCE inflation will remain well above 3% next year and potentially above 4% – although Chart I-13 highlights that the odds of the latter are falling. Chart I-13US Core Inflation Will Remain Well Above Target Next Year A dangerous breakout in inflation expectations would raise the risk of a recession because of the Fed’s awareness of the “sacrifice ratio”, a very important economic concept that has been mostly irrelevant for the past 25 years. The sacrifice ratio is an estimate of the amount of output or employment that must be given up in order to reduce inflation by one percentage point. Table I-1 highlights some academic estimates of the sacrifice ratio, which have typically varied between 2-4% in output terms. For comparison purposes, real GDP has typically fallen no more than 2% on a year-over-year basis during most post-war US recessions. Real GDP growth fell 4% year-over-year in 2009, highlighting that the cost of reducing the rate of inflation by 1 percentage point is effectively a severe recession. In his Senate testimony in late-November, Fed Chair Jay Powell noted that persistently high inflation threatens the economic recovery. He also implied that to reach its maximum employment goal, the Fed may need to act pre-emptively to tame inflation. This was implicit recognition of the sacrifice ratio, and should be seen as an expression of the Fed’s desire to avoid a scenario in which persistently high inflation causes inflation expectations to become unanchored (to the upside), as it would force the Fed to sacrifice economic activity in order to ensure price stability. By acting earlier to normalize monetary policy, the Fed hopes to keep inflation expectations well contained. Chart I-14Long-Dated Market-Based Inflation Expectations Are Not Out Of Control For now, we see no signs that the Fed will fail to keep inflation expectations from rising dangerously. Chart I-14 highlights that long-dated market expectations for inflation have been falling over the past two months, and are essentially at the same level that they were on average in 2018. Given this, we maintain the 10% odds of recession that we presented in our Outlook report, although investors will need to monitor inflation expectations closely over the coming year to judge whether the risks of a monetary policy-induced recession are indeed rising. Risks Beyond The Next Year Beyond 2022, the main risk to risky asset prices is probably not overly tight monetary policy. Instead, the risk is that investors will come to the conclusion that the Fed funds rate will ultimately end up rising above what the Fed is currently projecting, and that the economy will be capable of tolerating interest rates that are closer to the prevailing rate of economic growth. This would not be bad news for real economic activity, but it would imply meaningfully lower prices for financial assets that have benefited from low interest rates. Chart I-15US Stocks Would Suffer Significant Losses If Interest Rates Rise Towards Potential Growth Chart I-15 drives the point home by comparing the current S&P 500 forward P/E ratio to a “justified” P/E. Here, we calculate the justified P/E using the average ex-ante equity risk premium (ERP) since 1980, and real potential GDP growth as a stand-in for the real risk-free rate of interest. The chart highlights that US stocks would experience a 30% contraction in equity multiples should real long-maturity bond yields approach 2%. A decline in the ERP could potentially reduce losses for equity holders in a higher interest rate scenario, but it is very likely that the net effect would still be negative for stocks. We detailed in our Outlook report why we believe that the neutral rate of interest is higher than most acknowledge. We agree that R-star fell in the US for a time following the Global Financial Crisis (GFC), but we strongly question that it is as low as the Fed and investors believe. The neutral rate of interest fell during the first half of the last economic cycle because of a persistent period of household deleveraging and balance-sheet repair, which was a multi-year consequence of the financial crisis and the insufficient fiscal response to the 2008-09 recession. We highlighted in our Outlook report that US household balance sheets have been repaired, and that the household debt service ratio has fallen to mid-1960s levels. However, Chart I-16 highlights that even the corporate sector, which has leveraged itself significantly over the past decade, has seen its debt service ratio plummet. In a scenario in which long-maturity Treasury yields were to rise to 4%, we estimate that the debt service burden of the nonfinancial corporate sector would rise to its 70th-80th percentile historically. Chart I-16The US Corporate Sector Debt Service Burden Has Room To Rise That would be a meaningful increase from current levels, but it would not be unprecedented, and thus would not render a 4% 10-year Treasury yield to be economically unsustainable. In addition, we strongly suspect that corporations would reduce their interest burden in such a scenario by issuing equity to retire debt. That would lower firms’ debt burden and reduce the economic impact of higher interest rates, although it would be additionally negative for equity investors given that this would dilute earnings per share. We argued in our Outlook report that a shift in investor expectations about the neutral rate of interest is unlikely to occur before the Fed begins to normalize monetary policy. Ryan Swift, BCA’s US Bond Strategist, presented further evidence of this perspective in a Special Report earlier this week.4 Ryan highlighted results from a recent academic paper, which showed that the entire decline in the 10-year Treasury yield since 1990 has occurred during three-day windows centered around FOMC meetings (Chart I-17). Ryan argued that this suggests investors change their neutral rate expectations in response to Fed interest rate decisions, rather than in response to independent macroeconomic factors that are distinct from monetary policy action. This argues that a shift in neutral rate expectations is unlikely before the Fed begins to lift interest rates in the middle of the year, and probably not until the Fed has raised rates a few times. We are thus unlikely to recommend that investors reduce their equity exposure in response to this risk until 5-year, 5-year forward Treasury yields break above 2.5% (the Fed’s long-run Fed funds rate projection), which is 80 basis points above current levels (Chart I-18). Chart I-17Fed Rate Decisions Drive Long-Maturity Bond Yields Chart I-18We Will Consider Selling Stocks If Market-Based Neutral Rate Estimates Exceed 2.5%   Investment Conclusions We continue to advise that investors position themselves in line with the investment recommendations that we presented in our Outlook report. Over the following 12-months, we expect the following: Global stocks to outperform bonds Short-duration fixed-income positions to outperform long High-yield corporate bonds to outperform within fixed-income portfolios Value stocks to outperform growth Non-resource cyclicals to outperform defensives Small caps to outperform large A modest rise in commodity prices led by oil A decline in the US dollar However, our discussion of the risks to our views has highlighted three things for investors to monitor next year when deciding whether to reduce exposure to stocks (and risky assets more generally): A breakout in long-dated inflation expectations, as that would likely cause the Fed to raise interest rates more aggressively than it currently projects. A significant flattening in the yield curve, as that would indicate that investors ultimately expect existing Fed rate hike projections to prove recessionary. A rise in 5-year, 5-year forward US Treasury yields above 2.5%, as that would indicate that investors may be upwardly shifting their expectations for the neutral rate of interest. Over the shorter-term, our discussion also underscored that the Omicron variant will likely disrupt economic activity to some degree over the coming three months, and that the risks of a stagflation-lite scenario next year have modestly increased because of the likely maintenance of China’s zero-tolerance COVID policy. We continue to expect that the widespread rollout of booster doses, as well as the progressive availability of effective and safe antiviral drugs, will limit Omicron’s impact on economic activity to the first half of 2022, and that the pandemic will recede in importance next year on average in comparison to 2021. As noted above, this assessment will be monitored continually in response to the release of new information, and we will provide an update in our February report. Jonathan LaBerge, CFA Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst December 23, 2021 Next Report: January 27, 2022 II. Stock Buybacks – Much Ado About Nothing Dear Client, This month’s Special Report is a guest piece by Doug Peta, BCA Research’s Chief US Investment Strategist. Doug’s report examines the impact of US stock buybacks using a median bottom-up approach, and presents a different perspective of the value vs. growth distribution of buybacks than we did in our October Section 2. I trust you will find his report interesting and insightful. Jonathan LaBerge, CFA The Bank Credit Analyst Elected officials’ antipathy for buybacks is unfounded, … : For the companies that are the primary drivers of buyback activity, returning cash to shareholders is more likely to have a positive impact on employment and investment than retaining it.  and the idea that they boost stock returns may be, as well, … : Over the last ten years, a cap-weighted bucket of large-cap stocks that most reduced their share counts underperformed the bucket that most increased their share counts by 2% annually.  especially within the Tech sector, which has most enthusiastically executed them: Despite the success of Apple, which has seen its market cap soar since embarking on a deliberate strategy to shrink its shares outstanding, a strategy buying Tech’s biggest net reducers and selling its biggest net issuers would have generated sizable negative alpha over the last ten years. The problem is the relative profile of net buyers and net issuers: In general, companies that consistently buy back their own stock are mature companies that cannot earn an accretive return by redeploying the capital their incumbent business generates. Net issuers, on the other hand, are often young companies seeking fresh capital to realize their abundant growth opportunities. The next year is likely to see a pickup of share buybacks nonetheless, … : Our US Equity Strategy service’s Cash Yield Prediction Model points to increased buyback activity in 2022. … as management teams are wedded to them and buying back stock is the best use of capital for the mature companies executing them: Better to return cash to shareholders than to enter new business lines beyond the company’s area of expertise or embark on dubious acquisitions, even in the face of a potential 1% surtax. In Capitol Hill’s current polarized state, stock buybacks are in select company with the tech giants and China as issues that unite solons on both sides of the aisle. They are also a hot-button issue for some investors, who see them as telltale signs of a market kept aloft by sleight of hand. Although we do not think they’re worth getting worked up over – they do not promote the misallocation of capital and they may not actually boost stock prices – they come up repeatedly in client discussions and are likely to remain a feature of the landscape even if they are eventually subjected to a modest federal surtax. We have therefore joined with the BCA Equity Analyzer team to pore over its bottom-up database for insights into the buyback phenomenon. After ranking nearly 600 stocks in our large-cap universe in order of their rolling 12-month percentage change in shares outstanding across the last ten years, we were surprised to discover that the companies that most reduced their share count underperformed the companies that most grew it. We were also surprised to find that Tech was by far the worst performer among the six sectors with negative net issuance. Ultimately, the performance story seemed to boil down to Growth stocks’ extended recent edge over Value stocks. We present the data, our interpretation of it, and some future investment implications in this Special Report. Buybacks’ Bad Rap From Capitol Hill to the White House, prominent Washington voices bemoan buybacks. In a February 2019 New York Times opinion piece,5 Senators Sanders (I-VT) and Schumer (D-NY) argued that equity buybacks divert resources from productive investment in the narrow interest of boosting share prices for the benefit of shareholders and corporate executives. To counter the increasing popularity of buybacks, they proposed legislation that would permit buybacks only after several preconditions for investing in workers and communities had been met. Echoing their concerns, the White House's framework for the Build Back Better bill included a 1% surcharge on stock buybacks, “which corporate executives too often use to enrich themselves rather than investing in workers and growing the economy.” Chart II-1The Smallest Companies Sell Stock; The Largest Buy It Back Buybacks’ opponents may mean well, but they seem to be missing an essential point: by and large, the companies that buy back their own stock lack enough attractive investment opportunities to absorb the cash their operations generate. Companies with more opportunities than cash don’t buy back stock; they issue it (and/or borrow) to get the capital to pursue them. The simple generalization that large, mature companies buy back shares while small, growing companies issue new ones is borne out by rolling 12-month percentage changes in shares outstanding by large-cap and small-cap companies (Chart II-1). On an equal-weighted basis, large-cap companies’ rolling share count was flat to modestly down for ten years before the pandemic drove net issuance. Adjusting for market cap, rolling net issuance has been uninterruptedly negative, shrinking by more than 2% per year, on average. The equally weighted small-cap population has been a net issuer to the tune of about 4% annually, with the biggest small-caps issuing even more, pushing the cap-weighted annual average to north of 6%. The bottom line is that large-cap companies in the aggregate have been modestly trimming their share counts, with the biggest companies retiring more than 2% of their shares each year, while small-cap companies are serial issuers, led by their largest (and presumably most bankable) constituents. We are investors serving investors, not policymakers, academics or editorial columnists charged with developing and evaluating public policy. Our mandate is bullish or bearish, not good or bad. We point out the flaws in the prevailing criticism of buybacks simply to make the point that buybacks are not an impediment to productive investment and that no one should therefore expect that productivity and income will rise if legislators or regulators restrict them. On the contrary, since we believe that buybacks represent an efficient allocation of capital, we would expect that successful attempts to limit them will hold back growth at the margin. The Buyback Calculus A company that buys back more of its shares than it issues reduces its share count. All else equal, a company with fewer shares outstanding will report greater earnings per share and a higher return on equity. Increased earnings per share (EPS) does not necessarily ensure a higher share price; if a company’s P/E multiple declines by more than EPS rises, its price will fall. Distributing retained earnings to shareholders reduces a company’s capital buffer against shocks and limits its ability to fund investment internally, but companies that embark on the most ambitious buyback campaigns likely face limited investment opportunities and have much more of a buffer than they could conceivably require. Revealed preferences suggest that management teams like buybacks. They have every interest in getting share prices higher to maximize the value of their own compensation, which typically contains an equity component that accounts for an increasing share of total compensation the more they rise in the company’s hierarchy. It is unclear, however, just how much their attachment to buybacks is founded on an expectation that buying back stock will boost its price. The opportunity to extend their tenure by pursuing a shareholder-friendly policy may well offer a stronger incentive. Do Buybacks Boost Share Prices? Returning cash to shareholders is widely perceived as good corporate governance. It increases the effective near-term yield on an equity investment and denies management the cash to pursue dubious expansion schemes or squander capital on lavish perquisites. It facilitates the reallocation of capital away from cash cows to more productive uses. Buybacks are squarely beneficial in theory, but are they good for investors in practice? (Please see the Box II-1 for a description of the methodology we followed to answer the empirical question.) Box II-1 Performance Calculation Methodology After separating stocks into large- and small-cap categories based on Standard & Poor’s market cap parameters for inclusion in the S&P 500 and the SmallCap 600 indexes, we ranked the constituents in each category in reverse order of their rolling 12-month percentage change in shares outstanding at the end of each month from 2011 through 2021. We then placed the top three deciles (the biggest reducers of their share counts) into the High Buybacks bucket and the bottom three deciles (the biggest net issuers) into the Low Buybacks bucket. We used the buckets to backtest a zero-net-exposure strategy of buying the stocks in the High bucket with the proceeds from shorting the stocks in the Low bucket, calling it the High-Minus-Low (“HML”) strategy. We computed two sets of HML results for the large-cap and small-cap universes. The first populated the buckets without regard for sector representation (“sector-agnostic”) and the second populated the buckets in line with the sector composition of the S&P 500 and SmallCap 600 Indexes (“sector-neutral”). We also track equal-weighted and cap-weighted versions of each HML bucket to gain a sense of performance differences between constituents by size. The experience of the last ten years fails to support the widely held view that stock buybacks boost share prices. Following a zero-net-exposure strategy of owning the top three deciles of large-cap companies ranked by the rolling 12-month percentage reduction of shares outstanding and shorting the bottom three deciles generated a modest positive annual return above 1% (Chart II-2). Small caps merely broke even, largely because their biggest share reducers sharply underperformed in Year 1 of the pandemic. On a cap-weighted basis, however, the large-cap strategy generated a negative annual return a little over 1% during the period, indicating that the largest companies pursuing buyback programs lagged their net issuer counterparts. For small caps, the cap-weighted strategy also lagged the equal-weighted strategy, albeit by a smaller margin. On a sector-neutral basis, the large-cap HML strategy roundly disappointed. The equal-weighted version was never able to do much more than break even, slipping into the red when COVID arrived, while the cap-weighted version continuously lagged it, shedding about 1.5% annually (Chart II-3). Though it was hit hard by the pandemic, the equal-weighted small-cap HML strategy managed to generate about 1% annually, and boasted a 3.5% annualized return for the eight years through 2019. Chart II-2Buybacks May Help A Company's Stock Price At The Margin ... Chart II-3... But They Are Not An Exploitable Factor   Drilling down to the sector level offers some additional insights. While changes in shares outstanding vary across large-cap sectors, with six sectors reducing their shares outstanding and five expanding them, every small-cap sector has been a net issuer in every single year, ex-Discretionaries and Industrials in 2019 (Chart II-4). Relative sector capital needs are largely consistent regardless of market cap, however, with REITs, which distribute all their income to preserve their tax-free status, unable to expand without raising cash in the capital markets, and Utilities, Energy and traditional Telecom Services being capital-intensive industries (Table II-1). Many Tech niches are capital-light, and established Industrials and Consumer businesses often throw off cash. There is less large- and small-cap commonality in HML relative sector performance than in relative sector issuance. Away from Real Estate, Tech and Discretionaries, small-cap HML sector strategies generated aggregate positive returns, led by Communication Services and Energy (Chart II-5). For the large caps, most HML sector strategies produced negative alpha, though the four winners and the one modest loser (Financials) are among the six sectors that have net retired shares outstanding since 2012. Tech is the conspicuous exception, with its HML strategy yielding annualized losses exceeding 3%, contrasting with the sector’s enthusiastic buyback embrace. The Corporate Life Cycle Surprising as they may be on their face, negative cap-weighted ten-year HML returns do not mean that buybacks are counterproductive. We simply think they illustrate that net issuance activity follows from a company’s position in the corporate life cycle (Figure II-1). Investors have prized growth in the aftermath of the global financial crisis, and the companies with the best growth prospects are often younger companies just beginning to tap their addressable markets. They have a long pathway of market share capture ahead of them and need to raise capital to begin traveling it. Many of these strong growers populate the Low basket, especially in the Tech sector. Companies that return cash to their owners via share repurchases are often more mature. Their operations are comfortably profitable and generate more than enough cash to sustain them. They have already captured all the market share they’re likely to gain in their primary business and may not have an outlet for its proceeds in a space in which they have a plausible competitive advantage. Lacking a clear path to bettering the returns from their main operations, they have been steadily accumulating cash for a long time. Through the lens of the Boston Consulting Group’s (BCG) growth share matrix,6 a successful business in the Maturity stage of the business life cycle is known as a Cash Cow. Cash Cows have gained considerable market share in their industry, affording them a competitive advantage based on scale, brand and experience, but little scope for growth because they have saturated a market that is itself mature (Figure II-2). BCG advises management teams with a portfolio of business lines to milk Cash Cows for capital to reinvest in high-share, high-growth-potential Stars or low-share, high-growth-potential Question Marks that could be developed into Stars. In the public markets, a mature large-cap company that retains its excess capital impedes its owners’ ability to redeploy that capital to faster growing investments, subverting the overall economy’s ability to redirect capital to its best uses. Walmart, Twentieth-Century Growth Darling Chart II-6From Young Turk To Respected Elder Walmart fits the business life cycle framework to a T and has evolved into a textbook Cash Cow. It is a dominant player that executed its initial strategy so well that it has maxed out its share in the declining/stagnating brick-and-mortar retail industry. Its international attempts to replicate its domestic success have uniformly failed to gain traction, and it currently operates in fewer major countries than it's exited. Given Walmart’s star-crossed international experience and the dismal history of large corporate combinations, returning cash may be the optimal use of shareholder capital. Walmart began life as a public company in fiscal 1971 squarely in the Growth phase. It was profitable from the start and grew annual revenues by at least 25% for every one of its first 23 years of public ownership (Chart II-6, top panel). It was a modest issuer of shares during its Growth phase, conducting just one secondary common stock offering 12 years after its IPO and otherwise limiting growth in shares outstanding to acquisitions, management incentive awards and debt and preferred stock conversions. Once its revenue growth slipped into the low double-digits in the late nineties, it began retiring its shares at a deliberate pace (Table II-2). That retirement inaugurated a ramping up of Walmart’s annual payout ratio (Chart II-6, bottom panel) and cash yield (dividend yield plus buyback yield), underlining its transition from Growth to Maturity. Walmart’s 2010 admission into the S&P 500 Pure Value Index marked its ripening into full maturity, and it has been a Pure Value fixture since 2013. Today’s stolid icon is a far cry from the ambitious disruptor on display in its 1980 Annual Report: Subsequent to year end, your Company’s directors authorized [a one-third] increase in the annual dividend[.] This continues your Company’s approach of distributing a portion of profits to our shareholders and utilizing the balance to fund our aggressive expansion program. [T]he decade of the ’70’s … has been a tremendous growth period for your Company. In January 1970, we … had 32 stores …, comprising less than a million square feet of retail space. In the next ten years, we added 258 … stores, … constructed and opened three new distribution facilities, and increased our retail space to 12.6 million square feet. During that same period of time, we increased our sales and earnings at an annual compounded rate well in excess of 40 percent. Reflecting upon the progress we have made in the ‘70’s makes it apparent that there is even more opportunity in the ‘80’s for your Company, and we are better positioned to maximize our opportunities … than ever before. The Exception That Proves The Rule Apple has shined so far in the twenty-first century much like Walmart did in the latter stages of the twentieth, growing its revenues and net income at compound annual rates exceeding 20% and 25%, respectively. Unlike Walmart, however, Apple hasn’t required a steady stream of capital to grow. While Walmart had to plow its earnings right back into the business to fund the acquisition and buildout of property to create stores, warehouses and distribution centers, Apple has simply had to make incremental improvements to its music players, phones and tablets while shoring up the moats around its virtual app and music marketplaces. As a result, cash and retained earnings began silting up on Apple’s balance sheet, lying fallow in short-term marketable securities and crimping a range of return metrics. Beginning in its 2013 fiscal year, Apple embarked on a lengthy strategy of returning that cash to shareholders, buying back stock at a rate that has allowed it to reduce its shares outstanding by 37.5% in the space of nine years (Table II-3). It has reduced its retained earnings by more than $90 billion over that span and is on course to wipe them out completely in the fiscal year ending next September. Equity issuance in the form of incentive compensation augments Apple’s capital by about $5 billion per year, but if it continues to distribute more than 100% of its annual earnings in the form of dividends and repurchases, it could wipe out the rest of its recorded equity capital as well. Does this mean Apple is in danger of sliding into insolvency? Not in the least. The value of its assets dramatically exceeds the value of its liabilities, as evidenced by its nearly $3 trillion market cap and the top AAA credit rating Moody’s awarded it this week. Its reported book value is artificially suppressed by generally accepted accounting principles’ inability to value organically developed intellectual property (IP). Apple’s book value and that of other companies that generate similar IP, or benefit from internally generated moats, are dramatically undervalued. Takeaways For now, Apple is an anomaly when it comes to aggressively returning cash to shareholders while it is still in the Growth stage of its life cycle. Returning cash is typically the province of mature companies with steady operations that are unlikely to grow. It is generally good for the economy when those companies return excess cash to shareholders, freeing it up for more productive uses. If lawmakers or regulators manage to restrict the flow of capital from cash-cow companies to potential stars, we should expect activity to slow at the margin, not quicken. The experience of the last ten years suggests that companies that shrink their share counts do not outperform their counterparts that expand them. The trading strategy of shorting the biggest net share issuers to purchase the biggest net share reducers has produced negative returns. It is unclear if shareholders of companies who cannot redeploy their internally generated capital to augment the returns from their primary operations would be better served if their manager-agents retained the capital, though we suspect they would not. It seems inevitable that manager-agents with access to too much capital will eventually get into mischief. If buying back stock represents good corporate stewardship at mature companies, their shareholders should someday be rewarded for it. Given that the companies most suited to buying back stock tend to fit in the Value style box, the zero-net-exposure HML strategy may continue to accrue losses. Apple remains an outlier among Growth companies as an avid buyer of its stock; much more common are the S&P 500 Life and Multi-Line Insurer sub-industry groups, without which the S&P 500 Pure Value Index would have a hard time reaching a quorum (Table II-4). Their constituents have assiduously bought back their stock over the last ten years, albeit to no relative avail (Chart II-7). However, they should be better positioned once Value returns to favor and rising interest rates make investing their cash flow a more attractive proposition. Chart II-7... But No One Else Seems To Want To   Doug Peta, CFA Chief US Investment Strategist III. Indicators And Reference Charts BCA’s equity indicators highlight that the “easy” money from expectations of an eventual end to the pandemic have already been made. Our technical, valuation, and sentiment indicators remain very extended, highlighting that investors should expect positive but modest returns from stocks over the coming 6-12 months. Our monetary indicator has retreated below the boom/bust line, although this mostly reflects the use of producer prices to deflate money growth. In nominal terms, the supply of money continues to grow. Still, the retreat in the indicator over the past year highlights that the monetary policy stance is likely to move in a tighter direction over the coming year, which is in line with the Fed’s recent hawkish shift. Forward equity earnings are pricing in a substantial further rise in earnings per share. Net earnings revisions and net positive earnings surprises are rolling over, but there is no meaningful sign of waning forward earnings momentum. Bottom-up analyst earning expectations remain too high, but stocks are likely to be supported by robust revenue growth over the coming year. Within a global equity portfolio, we continue to recommend that investors position for the underperformance of financial assets that are negatively correlated with long-maturity government bond yields. The US 10-Year Treasury Yield remains well below the fair value implied by a mid-2022 rate hike scenario, underscoring that a move higher over the coming year is quite likely. Commodity prices remain elevated, and our composite technical indicator highlights that they remain overbought. An eventual slowdown in US goods spending, coupled with eventual supply-chain normalization and the absence of a significant reflationary impulse from Chinese policy, could weigh on commodity prices at some point over the coming 6 months. We expect stronger metals prices in the back half of 2022. US and global LEIs remain very elevated but have started to roll over. Our global LEI diffusion index has declined very significantly, but this likely reflects the outsized impact of a few emerging market countries (whose vaccination progress is still lagging). Still-strong leading and coincident indicators underscore that the global demand for goods is robust, and that output is below pre-pandemic levels in most economies because of very weak services spending. The latter will recover significantly at some point over the coming year, as the severity of the pandemic wanes. EQUITIES: Chart III-1US Equity Indicators Chart III-2Willingness To Pay For Risk Chart III-3US Equity Sentiment Indicators Chart III-4US Stock Market Breadth Chart III-5US Stock Market Valuation Chart III-6US Earnings Chart III-7Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Chart III-8Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance FIXED INCOME: Chart III-9US Treasurys And Valuations Chart III-10Yield Curve Slopes Chart III-11Selected US Bond Yields Chart III-1210-Year Treasury Yield ComponentsChart III-13US Corporate Bonds And Health Monitor Chart III-14Global Bonds: Developed Markets Chart III-15Global Bonds: Emerging Markets CURRENCIES: Chart III-16US Dollar And PPP Chart III-17US Dollar And Indicator Chart III-18US Dollar Fundamentals Chart III-19Japanese Yen Technicals Chart III-20Euro Technicals Chart III-21Euro/Yen Technicals Chart III-22Euro/Pound Technicals COMMODITIES: Chart III-23Broad Commodity Indicators Chart III-24Commodity Prices Chart III-25Commodity Prices Chart III-26Commodity Sentiment Chart III-27Speculative Positioning ECONOMY: Chart III-28US And Global Macro Backdrop Chart III-29US Macro Snapshot Chart III-30US Growth Outlook Chart III-31US Cyclical Spending Chart III-32US Labor Market Chart III-33US Consumption Chart III-34US Housing Chart III-35US Debt And Deleveraging Chart III-36US Financial Conditions Chart III-37Global Economic Snapshot: Europe Chart III-38Global Economic Snapshot: China Jonathan LaBerge, CFA Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst Footnotes 1  Please see The Bank Credit Analyst "OUTLOOK 2022: Peak Inflation – Or Just Getting Started?", dated December 1, 2021, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 2   Early assessment of the clinical severity of the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant in South Africa by Wolter et al., medRxiv preprint, December 21, 2021. 3  Please see The Bank Credit Analyst “The Return To Maximum Employment: It May Be Faster Than You Think”, dated August 26, 2021, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 4  Please see US Bond Strategy “The Fed In 2022”, dated December 21, 2021, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 5   Opinion | Schumer and Sanders: Limit Corporate Stock Buybacks - The New York Times (nytimes.com) Accessed December 17, 2021. 6   https://www.bcg.com/about/overview/our-history/growth-share-matrix Accessed December 19, 2021. EQUITIES:FIXED INCOME:CURRENCIES:COMMODITIES:ECONOMY:

Highlights Global growth will remain above-trend in 2022, although with more divergence between regions than at any time during the pandemic (US strong, Europe steady, China slowing). Global inflation will transition from being driven by supply squeezes towards more sustainable inflation fueled by tightening labor markets - a shift leading to tighter monetary policies that are not adequately discounted in the current low level of bond yields, most notably in the US. Maintain below-benchmark overall global duration exposure. Diverging growth and inflation trends will lead to a varying pace of monetary policy tightening between countries, resulting in greater opportunities to benefit from relative bond market performance and cross-country yield spread moves. Underweight government bonds in countries where central banks are more likely to hike rates in 2022 (the US, the UK, Canada) versus overweights where monetary policy is more likely to remain unchanged (Germany, France, Italy, Australia, Japan). Deeply negative real bond yields reflect an implied path of nominal interest rates that is too low relative to inflation expectations in the majority of developed countries. Real bond yields will adjust higher in countries where rate hikes are more likely, resulting in more stable inflation breakevens compared to 2021. Stay neutral global inflation-linked bonds versus nominal government debt. A tightening global monetary policy backdrop and rising real interest rates will weigh on returns in global credit markets, even as strong nominal economic growth minimizes downgrade and default risks. Like government bonds, global growth and policy divergences will create relative investment opportunities between countries, especially later in 2022 when the Fed begins to hike rates and China begins to ease macro policies. Overweight euro area high-yield and investment grade corporates versus US equivalents. Limit exposure to EM hard-currency debt until there are clear signals of China policy stimulus and upside momentum on the US dollar fades. Feature Dear Client, This report, detailing our global fixed income investment outlook for next year, will be our last for 2021. We wish you a very safe, happy and prosperous 2022. We look forward to continuing our conversation in the new year. Rob Robis, Chief Global Fixed Income Strategist BCA Research’s Outlook 2022 report, “Peak Inflation – Or Just Getting Started?”, outlining the main investment themes for the upcoming year based on the collective wisdom of our strategists, was sent to all clients in late November. In this report, we discuss the broad implications of those themes for the direction of global fixed income markets, along with our main investment recommendations for 2022. A Brief Summary Of The 2022 BCA Outlook The tone of the 2022 Outlook report was quite positive on the prospects for global growth, even with the recent development of the rapid spread of the Omicron COVID-19 variant. It remains to be seen how severe this new variant will be in terms of hospitalizations and deaths compared to previous COVID waves. We assume that any negative economic impacts from Omicron in the developed economies will be contained to the first half of 2022, however, given more widespread vaccination rates (including booster shots) and greater access to anti-viral treatments. The baseline economic scenario in 2022 is one of persistent above-trend growth in the developed world (Chart 1) with a closing of output gaps in the US and euro area. The mix of spending in those economies will shift away from goods towards services, although Omicron may delay that transition until later in 2022. Chart 1Another Year Of Above Trend Growth Expected In 2022​​​​​ Chart 2Strong Fundamental Support For US Growth​​​​​ Chart 3China In 2022: Deceleration Leading To Policy Easing The US looks particularly well supported to maintain a solid pace of economic activity. The US labor market is very strong. Monetary policy remains accommodative (although that is slowly changing). Financial conditions are still easy, with the lagged impact of elevated equity and housing values providing a robust tailwind to consumer spending that is already well supported by excess savings resulting from the pandemic (Chart 2). China starts the year as a “one-legged” economy supported only by external demand, and policy stimulus later in the year will eventually be needed for the Chinese government to reach its growth targets (Chart 3).That policy shift will have significant implications for the outlook of many financial assets as 2022 evolves, including emerging market (EM) fixed income, industrial commodity prices and the US dollar (as we discuss later in this report). Global inflation will recede from the overheated pace of 2021 as supply chain bottlenecks become less acute. Inflationary pressures in 2022 will come from more “normal” sources like tightening labor markets, rising wage growth and higher housing costs (rents). This constellation of lower unemployment with still-elevated underlying inflation will look most acute in the US, leading the Fed to begin a tightening cycle that is not fully discounted in US Treasury yields. The broad investment conclusions of the BCA 2022 Outlook are more positive for global equity markets relative to bond markets, although with elevated uncertainty stemming from Omicron and future China stimulus. The views are more nuanced for other assets, like the US dollar (stronger to start the year, weaker later) and oil prices (essentially flat from pre-Omicron levels). Our Four Key Views For Global Fixed Income Markets In 2022 The following are the main implications for global fixed income investment strategy based off the conclusions from the 2022 BCA Outlook. Key View #1: Maintain below-benchmark overall global duration exposure. As we have noted in the title of our report, the investment outlook for 2022 is more complicated for investors to navigate than the relatively straightforward story from this time a year ago. Then, the development of COVID-19 vaccines led to optimism on reopening from 2020 lockdowns, but with no threat of the early removal of pandemic monetary and fiscal policy stimulus. The fixed income investment implications at the time were obvious, in the majority of developed countries - expect higher government bond yields, steeper yield curves, wider inflation breakevens and tighter corporate credit spreads. Today, the story is more complicated, but is still one that points to higher global bond yields. Take, for example, global fiscal policy. According to the IMF, the US is expected to see no fiscal drag in 2022 thanks to the Biden Administration’s spending initiatives, while Europe and EM will see significant fiscal drag (Chart 4). However, in the case of Europe, this should not be viewed negatively as it is the result of expiring pandemic era employment and income support programs that are no longer needed after economies emerged from wholesale lockdowns. So less fiscal stimulus is a sign of a healthier European economy that is more likely to put upward pressure on global bond yields, on the margin. The outlook for global consumer spending is also a bit more complicated, but still one that points to higher bond yields. Consumer confidence was declining over the final months of 2021 in the US, Europe, the UK, Canada and most other developed countries. This occurred despite falling unemployment rates and very strong labor demand, which would typically be associated with consumer optimism (Chart 5). High global inflation, which has outstripped wage gains and reduced real purchasing power, is why consumers have become gloomier in the face of healthy job markets. Chart 4Global Fiscal Policy Divergence In 2022​​​​​​ Chart 5Lower Inflation Will Help Boost Consumer Confidence​​​​​​ The implication is that the expectation of lower inflation outlined in the 2022 BCA Outlook, which sounds bond-bullish on the surface, could actually prove to be bond-bearish if it makes consumers more confident and willing to spend. On that note, there are already signs that the some of the sources of the global inflation surge of 2021 are fading in potency. Commodity price inflation has rolled over, in line with slowing momentum in manufacturing activity and a firmer US dollar (Chart 6). Measures of global shipping costs, while still elevated, have stopped accelerating. The spread of the Omicron variant may delay a further easing of supply chain disruptions in the short-term, but on a rate of change basis, the upward pressure on global inflation from supply squeezes will diminish in 2022. The inflation story will also be more complicated next year. While there will be less inflation from the prices of commodities and durable goods, there will be more inflation from the elimination of output gaps, tightening labor markets and an overall dearth of global spare capacity. Put another way, expect the gap between global headline and core inflation rates to narrow in most countries, but with domestically generated core inflation rates remaining elevated (Chart 7). Chart 6Some Relief On Supply-Driven Inflation On The Way​​​​​​ Chart 7Global Inflation Will Be Lower, But More Sustainable, In 2022 The more complicated investment story for 2022 extends to global bond yields themselves. Longer-maturity government bond yields remain far too low given the mix of very high inflation and very low unemployment in many countries. Chart 8Bond Markets Vulnerable To More Hawkish Repricing Even as major central banks like the Fed are tapering bond purchases and signaling more rate hikes in 2022, and others like the Bank of England (BoE) have actually raised rates, bond yields remain low. The reason for this is that markets are discounting very low terminal rates – the peak level of policy rates to be reached in the next monetary tightening cycle. We proxy this by looking at 5-year overnight index swap (OIS) rates, 5-years forward. A GDP-weighted aggregate of those forward OIS rates for the major developed economies (the US, Germany, the UK, Japan, Canada and Australia) is currently 0.9%. This compares to GDP-weighted 10-year government bond yield of 0.8% (Chart 8). Forward OIS rates and 10-year bond yields are typically closely linked, which suggests upward scope for longer-maturity bond yields as markets begin to discount a higher trajectory for policy rates. We see this as the primary driver of higher bond yields in 2022 – an upward adjustment of interest rate expectations as central banks like the Fed, BoE and Bank of Canada (BoC) promise, and eventually deliver, more rate hikes than markets currently expect. We therefore recommend maintaining a below-benchmark stance on overall interest rate (duration) exposure in global bond portfolios in 2022. Government bond yield curves will eventually see more flattening pressure as central banks tighten, most notably in the US, but not before longer-term yields rise to levels more consistent with the most likely peak levels of central bank policy rates. Key View #2: Underweight government bonds in countries where central banks are more likely to hike rates in 2022 (the US, the UK, Canada) versus overweights where monetary policy is more likely to remain unchanged (Germany, France, Italy, Australia, Japan). The more complicated fixed income investing story for 2022 also extends to country allocation decisions, with more opportunities to take advantage of diverging bond market performance and cross-country spread moves. Current pricing in OIS curves shows a very modest expected path for interest rates in the major developed economies (Chart 9). Some central banks, like the BoE, BoC and the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (RBNZ) are expected to be more aggressive with rate hikes in 2022 compared to the Fed. Yet there are not many rate hikes discounted beyond 2022, even in the US (Table 1). Chart 9Markets Are Pricing Short, Shallow Hiking Cycles Table 1Only Modest Tightening Expected Over The Next Three Years The US OIS curve is currently priced for an expectation that the Fed will struggle to hike the fed funds rate beyond 1.25% by the end of 2024, even with the latest set of FOMC rate forecasts calling for 75bps of rate hikes in 2022 alone. In the case of the UK, markets are pricing in lower rates in 2024 after multiple rate hikes in 2022/23, indicative of an expectation of a policy error of BoE “overtightening” even with the BoE Bank Rate expected to peak just above 1% The relative performance of government bond markets is typically correlated to changes in relative interest rate expectations. That was once again evident in 2021, where the UK, Canada and Australia significantly underperformed the Bloomberg Global Treasury aggregate in the third quarter as markets moved to rapidly price in multiple rate hikes (Chart 10). That volatility of bond market performance was particularly unusual Down Under, as the Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) did not signal any desire to begin hiking rates in 2022, unlike the BoE and BoC. As rate expectations in those three countries stabilized in the fourth quarter, their government bonds began to outperform. On the other hand, relative government bond performance was more stable in the euro area, Japan and the US for most of 2021 (Chart 11). In the case of the US, rate hike expectations only began to move higher in September after the Fed signaled that tapering of bond purchases was imminent. Even then, markets have moved slowly to discount 2022 rate hikes. Now, the pricing in the US OIS curve is more in line with the median interest rate “dot” from the latest FOMC projections, calling for three rate hikes next year starting in June. Chart 10Rate Hike Expectations Driving Relative Bond Returns​​​​​​ Chart 11Stay Underweight US Interest Rate Exposure​​​​​​ Looking ahead to next year, we see the widening divergences on growth, inflation and monetary policies between countries leading to the following investible opportunities on country allocation in global bond portfolios. Underweight US Treasuries Chart 12Cyclical Upside Risk To Longer-Dated UST Yields The Fed has already begun to taper its bond buying, which is set to end by March 2022. As shown in Table 1, 79bps of rate hikes are discounted in the US by the end 2022, but only another 41bps are priced over the subsequent two years. Survey-based measures of interest rate expectations are similarly dovish, even with the US unemployment rate now at 4.2% - within the FOMC’s range of full employment (NAIRU) estimates between 3.5-4.5% - and wage inflation accelerating (Chart 12). Markets are underestimating how much the funds rate will have to rise over the next 2-3 years as the Fed belated catches up to a very tight US labor market and inflation persistently above the Fed’s 2% target. Stay below-benchmark on US interest rate risk, through both reduced duration exposure and lower portfolio allocations to Treasuries. Overweight Core Europe While interest rate markets are underestimating how much monetary tightening the Fed will deliver, the opposite is true in Europe. The EUR OIS curve is discounting 39bps of rate hikes to the end of 2024, even with cyclical growth indicators like the manufacturing PMI and ZEW expectations survey well off the 2021 highs (Chart 13). At the same time, there is little evidence to date indicating that the surge in European inflation this year, which has been narrowly concentrated in energy prices and durable goods prices, is feeding through into broader inflation pressures or faster wage growth. We recommend maintaining an overweight allocation to core European government bond markets (Germany, France), particularly versus underweights in US Treasuries. Our expectation of a wider 10-year US Treasury-German bund spread is one of our highest conviction views for 2022, playing on our theme of widening growth, inflation and monetary policy divergences (Chart 14). Chart 13Stay Overweight European Interest Rate Exposure​​​​​​ Chart 14Expect More US-Europe Spread Widening In 2022​​​​​​ Overweight European Peripherals Chart 15Stay O/W European Peripheral Exposure To Begin 2022 The ECB will be allowing its Pandemic Emergency Purchase Program, or PEPP, to expire at the end of March 2022. Beyond that, the ECB has announced that the pace of buying in the existing pre-pandemic Asset Purchase Program (APP) will be upsized from €20bn per month to between €30-40bn until at least the third quarter of 2022. This represents a meaningful slowing of the pace of ECB bond purchases, which were nearly €90bn per month under PEPP. Nonetheless, unlike most other developed economy central banks that are ending pandemic-era quantitative easing (QE) programs, the ECB will still be buying bonds on a net basis and expanding its balance sheet in 2022 (Chart 15). The central bank has taken great care in signaling that no rate hikes should be expected in 2022, likely to avoid any unwanted surges in Peripheral European bond yields or the euro. A continuation of asset purchases reinforces that message, leaving us comfortable in maintaining an overweight recommendation on Italian and Spanish government bonds for 2022. Underweight the UK and Canada Chart 16Stay U/W UK & Canadian Interest Rate Exposure A combination of rapidly tightening labor markets and soaring inflation is almost impossible for any inflation-targeting central bank to ignore. That is certainly the case in the UK, where the unemployment rate is 4.2% with two job vacancies available for every unemployed person – a series high for that ratio (Chart 16, top panel). UK headline CPI inflation is at a 10-year high of 5.2% and the BoE expects inflation to peak around 6% in April 2022. Medium-term inflation expectations, both market based and survey based, are also elevated and well above the BoE’s 2% inflation target. The BoE surprised markets a couple of times at the end of 2021, not delivering on an expected hike in November and actually lifting rates in December in the midst of the intense UK Omicron wave. We see the latter decision as indicative of the central bank’s growing concern over high UK inflation becoming embedded in inflation expectation. The BoE will likely have to eventually raise rates to a level higher than the 2023 peak of 1.1% currently discounted in the GBP OIS curve. That justifies an underweight stance on UK interest rate exposure (both duration and country allocation) in 2022. A similar argument applies to Canada. The Canadian unemployment rate now sits at 6.0%, closing in on the February 2020 pre-COVID low of 5.7%. The BoC’s Q3/2021 Business Outlook Survey showed a net 64% of respondents reporting intensifying labor shortages (the highest level in the 20-year history of the survey). Wage growth is accelerating, headline CPI inflation is running at 4.7% and underlying inflation (trimmed mean CPI) is now at 3.4% - the latter two are well above the BoC inflation target range of 1-3%. The CAD OIS curve currently discounts 147bps of rate hikes in 2022, which is aggressively hawkish, but very little is priced beyond that in 2023 (another 19bp hike) and 2024 (a rate cut of 24bps). The BoC estimates that the neutral interest rate in Canada is between 1.75% and 2.75%. Thus, markets do not expect the BoC to lift rates to even the low end of that range over the next three years, despite a very tight labor market and an inflation overshoot. We see this as justifying a continued underweight stance on Canadian interest rate exposure (both duration and country allocation) in 2022, even with markets already discounting significant monetary tightening next year. Overweight Australia and Japan Outside of Europe, we recommend overweights on Australian and Japanese government bonds entering 2022 (Chart 17). The RBA has been quite clear in what needs to happen before it will begin to lift rates. Australian wage growth must climb into the 3-4% range that has coincided with underlying Australian inflation sustainably staying in the RBA’s 2-3% target range. Wage growth and trimmed mean CPI inflation only reached 2.2% and 2.1%, respectively, for the latest available data from Q3/2021. As Australian wage and inflation data is only released on a quarterly basis, the RBA will not be able to assess whether wage dynamics are consistent with reaching its inflation target until the latter half of 2022. The AUD OIS curve is currently discounting 119bps of rate hikes in 2022 and an additional 86bps of hikes in 2023. Those are both far too aggressive for a central bank that is unlikely to begin lifting rates until the end of 2022, at the very earliest. Thus, we recommend an overweight stance on Australian bond exposure in global bond portfolios in 2022. The case for overweighting Japanese government bonds is a simple one. There are none of the inflation or labor market pressures seen in other countries to justify a hawkish turn by the Bank of Japan (bottom panel). Japanese core CPI is shockingly in deflation (-0.7%), bucking the trend seen in other countries and showing no pass-through from rising energy prices of global supply chain disruptions. This makes Japan a good defensive “safe haven” bond market against the backdrop of rising global bond yields that we expect in 2022. Chart 17Stay O/W Australian & Japanese Interest Rate Exposure​​​​​​ Chart 18Our Recommended DM Government Bond Country Allocations​​​​​​ In summary, our government allocations reflect the growing gap between expected monetary policy changes in 2022. This gives us a bias to favor lower-yielding markets, with Australia being the notable exception (Chart 18). However, in an environment where global bond volatility is expected to increase as multiple central banks exit QE and begin rate hiking cycles, carry/yield considerations play a secondary role in determining optimal country allocations. Key View #3: Stay neutral global inflation-linked bonds versus nominal government debt Another part of the global fixed income universe where the investment story has become more complicated is inflation-linked bonds. Overweighting inflation-linked bonds versus nominal government debt was the right strategy for bond investors as economies reopened from 2020 COVID lockdowns and global growth recovered. Booming commodity prices and supply chain squeezes added to the positive backdrop for linkers in 2021, as realized inflation soared to levels not seen in over a generation in many countries. Yet now, there is much less upside potential for inflation breakevens from current levels. Our Comprehensive Breakeven Indicators (CBI) are one of our preferred tools to assess the attractiveness of inflation-linked bonds versus nominals within the developed markets. For each country, the CBI reflects the distance of 10-year inflation breakevens from three different measures – the fair value from our breakeven spread model, medium-term survey-based inflation expectations and the central bank inflation target. The further breakevens are from these three measures, the less scope there is for additional increases in breakevens. As can be seen in Chart 19, there is limited upside potential for breakevens in almost all countries. Only Canada has a CBI below zero, with the CBIs for the UK, US, Germany and Italy well above zero. With central banks belated starting to respond to high realized inflation with tapering and rate hikes, it is still too soon to move to a full-blown underweight stance on global inflation-linked bond exposure versus nominal government debt. Instead, we recommend no more than a neutral exposure in countries where our CBIs are relatively lower – Canada, Australia, Japan – and underweight allocations where the CBIs are relatively higher – the UK, Germany, Italy and France (Chart 20). One country where we are deviating from our CBI signal is the US. We are keeping the recommended US TIPS exposure at neutral to begin 2022, but we anticipate downgrading TIPS later in 2022 if the Fed begins to lift rates sooner and more aggressively than expected. We do recommend positioning within that neutral overall TIPS allocation by underweighting shorter maturities versus longer-dated TIPS, A more hawkish Fed and some likely deceleration of realized US inflation should result in a steeper TIPS breakeven curve and a flatter TIPS real yield curve. Beyond looking at inflation breakevens, the outlook for real bond yields may be THE most complicated part of the 2022 investment story. Perhaps no single topic generates a greater debate among BCA’s strategists than real bond yields, which remain negative across the developed world (Chart 21). Determining why real yields are negative is critical for making calls across other asset classes beyond just government bonds. Valuations for equities and corporate credit have become more closely correlated with real yields in recent years. Real yield differentials are also an important factor driving currency levels. Chart 20Our Recommended Inflation-Linked Bond Allocations We see negative real yields as a reflection of persistent central bank policy dovishness that looks increasingly unrealistic. Chart 22 should look familiar to regular readers of Global Fixed Income Strategy. We show real central bank policy rates (adjusted for realized inflation) and the market-implied expectations for those real rates derived from the forward curves for OIS rates and CPI swap rates. Chart 21Negative Real Yields: Global Bonds' Biggest Vulnerability​​​​​​ In the US, UK and Europe, markets are pricing a future path for nominal short-term interest rates that is consistently lower than the expected path of inflation. If markets believe that central banks will be unwilling (or unable) to ever lift policy rates above inflation, or that neutral medium-term real interest rates are in fact negative in most developed countries, then it should come as no surprise that longer-maturity real bond yields should also be negative. We do not subscribe to the view that neutral real rates are negative across the developed world, especially in the US. Even if we did, however, such a view is already reflected in the future pricing of bond yields and interest rates. As outlined earlier, OIS curves in many countries are underestimating how high nominal policy rates will go in the next 2-3 years. The potential for a “real rate shock”, where central banks tighten policy at a faster pace than markets expect, is a significant risk for global financial markets in the coming years. We see this as more of a risk for markets in 2023, with the Fed likely to become more aggressive on rate hikes and even the ECB likely to begin considering an interest rate adjustment. For 2022, however, we do expect global real yields to stabilize and likely begin to turn less negative as central banks continue to tighten policy. Key View #4: Overweight euro area high-yield and investment grade corporates versus US equivalents. Limit exposure to EM hard-currency debt until there are clear signals of China policy stimulus and upside momentum on the US dollar fades. The outlook for global credit markets in 2022 has also become more complicated, particularly for corporate bonds and EM hard currency debt. On the one hand, the levels of index yields (Chart 23) and spreads (Chart 24) for investment grade and high-yield corporate debt in the US, euro area and UK have clearly bottomed. The Omicron threat to global growth may be playing a role in the recent increases, but the more likely culprit is growing central bank hawkishness and fears of tighter monetary policy. Chart 23Global Corporate Bond Yields Have Reached A Cyclical Bottom​​​​​​ Chart 24Global Corporate Bond Spreads Have Reached A Cyclical Bottom​​​​​​ On the other hand, the fundamental backdrop for corporate debt is not conducive to major spread widening. As outlined at the start of this report, nominal economic growth in the major developed economies remains solid, which supports the expansion corporate revenues. Combined with still-low borrowing rates, this creates a relatively positive backdrop that limits risks from downgrades and defaults. Chart 25Monetary Policy Backdrop Turning More Negative For Credit Markets Corporate bond performance, both absolute returns and excess returns versus government debt, has worsened on a year-over-year basis for the latter half of 2021 (Chart 25). That has coincided with slowing growth in the balance sheets of the Fed and other major central banks and, more recently, the flattening trend of government bond yield curves as markets have discounted 2022 rate hikes. This suggests that monetary policy tightening expectations are dominating the still relatively positive fundamental backdrop for corporate credit. Looking ahead to 2022, we see a greater need to focus on relative value and cross-country valuation considerations when allocating to developed market corporate debt – particularly when looking the biggest markets in the US and euro area. We see a strong case for favoring euro area corporates over US equivalents, both for investment grade and particularly for high-yield. Our preferred method of corporate bond valuation is looking at 12-month breakevens. Breakevens measure the amount of spread widening that would need to occur over a one year horizon to eliminate the yield advantage of owning corporate bonds over government bonds of similar duration. We calculate this as the ratio of the index spread to the index duration for a particular credit market, like US investment grade. We then take a percentile ranking of those 12-month breakevens to determine the attractiveness of spreads versus its own history. On that basis, the 12-month breakeven for US investment grade corporates looks very unattractive, sitting near the bottom of the historical distribution (Chart 26). This reflects not only tight spreads but also the high durations of investment grade credit. US high-yield corporate spreads are not as stretched, but are also not particularly cheap, with the 12-month breakeven sitting at the 34th percentile of its distribution. In the euro area, the 12-month breakeven for investment grade is not as stretched as in the US, sitting in the 36th percentile (Chart 27). The euro area high-yield 12-month breakeven looks similar to the US, at the 24th percentile of its historical distribution. Chart 26US Corporate Spread Valuations Are Not Compelling​​​​​​ Chart 27Euro Area Corporate Spread Valuations Are Also Stretched​​​​​​ Our current recommended strategy on US corporate exposure is to be neutral investment grade and overweight high-yield. We see no reason to change that view to begin 2022. However, we do anticipate downgrading US corporate exposure later in the year when the Fed begins to lift interest rates and the US Treasury curve flattens more aggressively. Earlier, we recommended positioning for a wider US Treasury-German bund spread as a way to play for the growing policy divergence between a more hawkish Fed and a still dovish ECB. Another way to do that is to overweight euro area corporate debt versus US equivalents, for both investment grade and especially for high-yield. In terms of potential default losses, the outlook is positive on both sides of the Atlantic. Moody’s is projecting a 2022 default rate of 2.3% in the US and 2.2% in the euro area (Chart 28). The last two times that the default rates were so similar, in 2014/15 and 2017/18, also coincided with a period of euro area high-yield outperforming US high-yield (on a duration-matched and currency-matched performance). We see that pattern repeating in 2022. Chart 28Favor Euro Area High-Yield Over US Equivalents In 2022​​​​​​ When looking within credit tiers, we see the best value in favoring Ba-rated euro area high-yield versus US equivalents when looking at 12-month breakeven percentile rankings (Chart 29). Yet even looking at just yields rather than spread, lower-rated euro area high-yield corporates offer more attractive yields than US equivalents, on a currency-hedged basis (Chart 30). Chart 31Stay Cautious On EM Hard Currency Debt Turning to EM hard currency debt, we recommend a cautious stance entering 2022. EM fundamentals that typically need to in place to produce tighter EM credit spreads are currently not in place. Chinese economic growth is slowing, commodity price momentum is fading and the US dollar is appreciating versus EM currencies (Chart 31). An improvement in non-US economic growth will help turn around all three trends, especially the strengthening US dollar which typically trades off US/non-US growth differentials. The key to any non-US growth acceleration in 2022 will come from China. When Chinese policymakers announce more aggressive stimulus measures in 2022, as we expect, that would represent an opportunity to turn more positive on EM USD-denominated debt. Until that happens, we recommend staying underweight EM hard currency debt, with a slight bias to favor sovereigns over corporates.   Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com   Recommendations Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Recommended Positioning     Active Duration Contribution: GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. Custom Performance Benchmark The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index

Special Report

This is US Bond Strategy’s final report of the year. Our regular publication schedule will resume on January 11th with our Portfolio Allocation Summary for January 2022. Highlights Interest Rate Policy: The Fed will tighten policy in 2022. Our baseline expectation is that the first hike will occur in June 2022 and that rate increases will proceed at a pace of 25 basis points per quarter through the end of the year. An increase in real wage growth to above the rate of productivity growth and/or a break-out in long-dated inflation expectations would cause the Fed to tighten more quickly. An abrupt tightening of financial conditions would cause the Fed to move more slowly. The Flexible Average Inflation Target: The re-anchoring of long-term inflation expectations suggests that the Fed’s new FAIT framework is viewed as credible and is working as intended. It is likely here to stay. The Long-Run Neutral Rate: We think it’s likely that consensus estimates of a 2.0% to 2.5% long-run neutral fed funds rate will turn out to be too low, but we don’t recommend trading on that view in 2022. The low neutral rate narrative is very well-entrenched, and it will only be questioned after several rate hikes have been delivered and their economic impact is assessed. A Year Of Tightening The Fed started 2021 with three conditions for lifting rates (Table 1). Now, as we head into 2022, the Fed has officially acknowledged that the two conditions related to inflation have been met, and Fed Chair Jay Powell said that the economy is making “rapid progress” toward the final condition of “maximum employment”. Table 1The Fed's Liftoff Criteria Based on this, it looks like rate hikes are imminent. The Fed recently doubled its pace of asset purchase tapering so that net purchases will reach zero by mid-March. This opens up the March 2022 FOMC meeting as the first “live meeting” where a rate hike could occur. Our base case expectation is that the Fed will wait a tad longer, but that liftoff will occur at the June FOMC meeting. Rate hikes will then proceed through the end of the year at a pace of 25 basis points per quarter. Next, we discuss why the Fed has adopted this hawkish posture. We also consider the factors that would cause tightening to proceed more quickly or more slowly in 2022. Reasons For The Fed’s Hawkish Pivot Chart 1Labor Market Indicators It might sound odd to say that the US economy is rapidly approaching maximum employment. After all, the labor market is still 3.9 million jobs short of where it was in February 2020 (Chart 1). What’s more, only 59.2% of the population is employed today compared to 61.1% prior to the pandemic (Chart 1, panel 2). But Fed Chair Powell wasn’t referring to either of those figures when he said that the economy is making “rapid progress” toward maximum employment. Rather, he was referring to the unemployment rate, which currently sits at 4.2% (Chart 1, panel 3). This is only 0.2% above the Fed’s estimate of the natural rate of unemployment and only 0.7% above the pre-pandemic level of 3.5%. The fact that the unemployment rate has declined sharply means that the bulk of the shortfall in the economy-wide number of jobs is the result of people dropping out of the labor force (Chart 1, bottom panel), not the result of an increase in the percentage of the labor force that is unemployed. As recently as the November FOMC meeting, the Fed wasn’t drawing a sharp distinction between these two trends. In fact, Chair Powell said in his post-meeting press conference that “there is still ground to cover to reach maximum employment, both in terms of employment and in terms of participation.” But just one month later, at the December FOMC press conference, Chair Powell struck a much different tone. He said: Chart 2Participation Trends The Demographic Downtrend In Participation But the reality is, we don’t have a strong labor force participation recovery yet and we may not have it for some time. At the same time, we have to make policy now. And inflation is well above target. So this is something we need to take into account. It appears that the Fed is no longer confident that labor force participation is about to rise. There are a few good reasons for this. First, the aging of the US population imparts a structural demographic downtrend to the labor force participation rate as an increasing number of people reach retirement age (Chart 2). In addition, there was a sharp drop in 55+ participation at the onset of the pandemic that has so far not recovered at all (Chart 2, panel 2). It is debatable whether people in this older age cohort will ever return to work. Finally, there is a shortfall in participation for people in their prime working years (ages 25-54) (Chart 2, bottom panel). These people are likely not working because of factors related to the pandemic (e.g. fear of getting sick, caregiving requirements). It is likely that prime-age participation will rise as pandemic concerns fade, but the Fed is no longer confident that these pandemic concerns will fade quickly. Faced with elevated inflation right now, the Fed has decided that it must act against inflation earlier than it had intended, before prime-age labor force participation makes a full recovery. For bond investors, the important takeaway from the recent shift in Fed policy is that a recovery in labor force participation is no longer a pre-condition for liftoff. That being the case, we are very close to the Fed pulling the trigger on rate hikes. Table 2 shows the average monthly nonfarm payroll growth required to reach different target unemployment rates by different future dates, assuming the labor force participation rate remains at its current level. With the participation rate held flat, it only takes average monthly nonfarm payroll growth of 224 thousand to reach the pre-COVID unemployment rate of 3.5% by June. That same rate of growth would cause the unemployment rate to fall below the Fed’s 4% natural rate estimate by January. Table 2Average Monthly Nonfarm Payroll Growth (Thousands) Required To Reach Unemployment Rate Target By Given Date The message is clear. With rising participation no longer a pre-condition for hikes, the Fed’s “maximum employment” liftoff condition will be met within the next few months. We expect this will lead to the first Fed rate hike at the June 2022 FOMC meeting. What Happened To “Transitory” Inflation? Chart 3Core CPI Components The Fed’s view of the labor force participation rate is very similar to its view of inflation. Both are being influenced by the pandemic, but the Fed is no longer confident that pandemic concerns will fade in a timely manner. Looking at the inflation picture, it’s easy to see the impact of the pandemic. Core goods inflation is running at a year-over-year rate of 9.4%. It was close to 0% prior to COVID (Chart 3). This is obviously the result of pandemic-related supply chain disruptions and the shift in consumer spending away from services and toward goods. Just like with labor force participation, these trends should reverse as pandemic concerns fade. However, given the pandemic’s uncertain duration, the Fed is no longer willing to wait for that to happen. The Fed’s Interest Rate Projections In line with its hawkish shift on the definition of “maximum employment”, FOMC participants revised up their interest rate projections at the December meeting. The median FOMC participant is now looking for three 25 basis point rate hikes in 2022. This is consistent with liftoff in June followed by a pace of one rate hike per quarter (Chart 4). Interestingly, the market is reasonably well priced for this near-term path for rates. The deviation between market pricing and Fed expectations occurs further out the curve. As such, we recommend that US bond investors keep portfolio duration low and favor the 2-year Treasury note over the 10-year.1 Chart 4Rate Expectations What Would Make The Fed Go Faster? Chart 5No Wage/Price Spiral Yet As noted above, our base case forecast is that the Fed will start lifting rates in June 2022 and continue to hike at a pace of 25 bps per quarter. This is roughly consistent with the Fed’s own median projections. However, we acknowledge that the Fed will tighten policy more quickly if it sees evidence of an emerging wage-price spiral. Specifically, the Fed has pointed to the risk that real wage growth might exceed the rate of productivity growth. If that were to occur, the Fed would be worried about a wage-price spiral where firms lift prices to meet wage demands, but that only causes employee inflation expectations to rise further, leading to even greater wage demands. So far, this is not occurring. Real wage growth is negative and long-dated inflation expectations remain well-anchored near the Fed’s target levels (Chart 5). An increase in real wage growth to above the rate of productivity growth and/or a break-out in long-dated inflation expectations during the next few months would cause the Fed to bring forward the liftoff date and increase the pace of rate hikes in 2022. What Would Make The Fed Go Slower? The main thing that would cause the Fed to tighten more slowly in 2022 would be if its hawkish shift prompted a severe tightening in overall financial conditions. Chart 6 shows that the ends of Fed tightening cycles typically coincide with the Goldman Sachs Financial Conditions Index moving above 100. This tightening in financial conditions also typically precedes a slowdown in economic growth (Chart 6, panel 2). Chart 6Watch Financial Conditions And Treasury Slope As The Fed Tightens Financial conditions are incredibly easy at present. But it is conceivable that risky assets will sell-off on fears of Fed rate hikes, and a large enough sell-off would cause the Fed to pause. The slope of the Treasury curve could also be a useful indicator in this regard. The 2/10 slope is usually close to inversion when the Fed ends its rate hike cycles (Chart 6, panel 3). Bottom Line: The Fed will tighten policy in 2022. Our baseline expectation is that the first hike will occur in June 2022 and that rate increases will proceed at a pace of 25 basis points per quarter through the end of the year. An increase in real wage growth to above the rate of productivity growth and/or a break-out in long-dated inflation expectations would cause the Fed to tighten more quickly. An abrupt tightening of financial conditions would cause the Fed to move more slowly. US bond investors should position for this outcome by keeping portfolio duration low and by favoring the 2-year Treasury note over the 10-year. FAIT Accompli It’s been roughly one year since the Fed concluded its Strategic Review and released a revised Statement on Longer-Run Goals and Monetary Policy Strategy.2 One year on, it seems appropriate to consider how much Fed policy actually changed as a result. We focus on what, in our view, are the two most significant changes to the Fed’s Statement. 1.  No More Pre-Mature Tightening First, the Fed changed its strategy to focus on “shortfalls of employment from its maximum level” rather than “deviations from its maximum level”. In the Fed’s words, “this change signals that high employment, in the absence of unwanted increases in inflation […], will not by itself be a cause for policy concern.” In the past, the Fed would tighten policy in response to a low unemployment rate on the expectation that inflation was about to increase. The new strategy is to wait for inflation to emerge before tightening, even if the unemployment rate is very low. Inflation has obviously emerged, so policy tightening is justified even under the new framework. Nonetheless, the evidence shows that the Fed has waited longer than usual to tighten. Chart 7A shows the change in the unemployment rate since the previous trough for the current cycle alongside the previous three cycles. For prior cycles, the lines end when the Fed delivers its first rate hike. While it’s notable that the unemployment rate has improved much more quickly this time around, it’s just as notable that the Fed still hasn’t lifted rates. This is despite the fact that the unemployment rate is only 0.7% above its pre-recession trough. This is more progress than was made before tightening in the 1990 and 2000 cycles, and about the same amount of progress as was made in the 107 months since the unemployment rate troughed before the Great Financial Crisis. A broader measure of labor market utilization, the prime-age (25-54) employment-to-population ratio, tells a similar story (Chart 7B). By this metric, the labor market has already made more progress than it did during the prior two cycles and the Fed still hasn’t increased the funds rate. All in all, even though inflation has emerged earlier this cycle than most expected, it’s pretty clear that the Fed’s new focus on employment “shortfalls” instead of “deviations” has made it act more dovishly. 2. Flexible Average Inflation Targeting (FAIT) The second big change that the Fed made to its Statement on Longer-Run Goals and Monetary Policy Strategy was the introduction of a Flexible Average Inflation Target (FAIT). Under the FAIT framework, the Fed will no longer view its 2% inflation target as purely forward looking. Rather, the Fed will seek to achieve average 2% inflation over time. This means 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.” While the Fed doesn’t specify a period over which it seeks 2% average inflation, it seems clear that the new inflation target has been achieved. PCE inflation is well above where it would have been if it averaged 2% since the new framework was adopted in August 2020 (Chart 8). This is also true if we pick February 2020, the peak of the last cycle, as our starting point. In fact, PCE inflation has almost made up for the entire inflation shortfall since January 2010. Chart 8The FAIT Framework While it’s interesting to look at average inflation over different lookback periods, it’s more important to note that the actual goal of the FAIT framework is to keep long-dated inflation expectations anchored near target levels. In the Fed’s own words: By seeking inflation that averages 2 percent over time this will help ensure that longer-run inflation expectations do not drift down and remain well anchored at 2 percent.3 If we judge the effectiveness of FAIT based on trends in long-term inflation expectations, then the only reasonable conclusion is that it has been a massive success. By any measure, long-term inflation expectations were well below levels consistent with the Fed’s 2% target in fall 2020. Now, they are very close to target levels. This is true whether we look at market-based measures (Chart 9A), survey measures (Chart 9B), trend measures (Chart 9C) or a composite indicator of many different measures (Chart 9D). Chart 9AMarket-Based Inflation Expectations Chart 9BSurvey-Based Inflation Expectations Chart 9CTrend Measures Of Inflation ##br##Expectations Chart 9DThe CIE Index The Fed's New Index Of Common Inflation Expectations (CIE) The Verdict All told, it looks like the Fed has made good on its promises. It refrained from lifting rates as the unemployment rate fell and has only now moved toward tightening in response to extremely high inflation. Also, the re-anchoring of long-term inflation expectations suggests that the Fed’s new FAIT framework is viewed as credible and is working as intended. Neutral Rate Expectations In 2022 Chart 10Neutral Rate Estimates There is one key issue for both Fed policy and bond markets that we have not yet discussed, and that’s the long-run neutral fed funds rate. This is the interest rate that, on average, will be consistent with the Fed’s price stability and maximum employment goals in the long run. As of today, the consensus among central bankers and investors is that the neutral rate is very low compared to history. There is also a widespread belief that it will remain low for the foreseeable future. For example, here is a sentence from the Fed’s Statement on Longer-Run Goals and Monetary Policy Strategy: The Committee judges that the level of the federal funds rate consistent with maximum employment and price stability over the longer run has declined relative to its historical average. Therefore, the federal funds rate is likely to be constrained by its effective lower bound more frequently than in the past. The top panel of Chart 10 shows that the Fed has revised its median estimate of the long-run neutral rate substantially lower since 2012, down from 4.3% to 2.5%. And it’s not just the Fed that has done so. The same downward revisions are seen in the Surveys of Market Participants and Primary Dealers (Chart 10, bottom 2 panels). Incidentally, the 5-year/5-year forward Treasury yield – a market-derived proxy for the long-run neutral rate – is below even the survey estimates. This is a key reason for our below-benchmark portfolio duration stance. Why Does The Fed Believe That The Neutral Rate Is Low And Will Stay Low? Chart 11The Demographic Effect New York Fed President John Williams has cited three key reasons for the low neutral fed funds rate: demographics, lower productivity growth and a heightened demand for safe and liquid assets.4 Of those factors, Fed research has determined that demographics are particularly important. The trend of increasing life expectancy, specifically, has been shown to be an important factor pushing interest rates down as people increase their savings in anticipation of a longer retirement (Chart 11).5 Could The Fed Be Wrong? We aren’t as confident that the neutral rate will stay low. In fact, we think it’s possible that both Fed and investor estimates understate the current long-run neutral rate. Our own Bank Credit Analyst has observed that the 5-year/5-year forward Treasury yield was very close to trend nominal GDP growth up until the 2008 financial crisis (Chart 12). Then, it dipped below as a protracted period of household deleveraging caused private sector credit demand to dry up. With household balance sheets no longer in disrepair, we are starting to see an increase in household debt, one that could eventually push bond yields back toward trend growth.6 It’s not just our own research that is starting to question the popular narrative of a low neutral fed funds rate. At the most recent Jackson Hole summit, Atif Mian, Ludwig Straub and Amir Sufi presented a paper that shows that rising income inequality is predominantly responsible for today’s low neutral rate (Chart 13), not the demographic effect previously identified by the Fed.7 Chart 13Rising Income Inequality ##br##Since 1980 Chart 12Household Deleveraging Kept Rates Low Post-2008 This research has important implications for the future evolution of the neutral rate. Unlike demographics, income inequality can be altered by changes in tax policy and by shifts in the power struggle between capital owners and workers. In this regard, our US Investment Strategy service has written several reports demonstrating the ongoing structural shift toward greater labor power.8 If this structural trend continues, it suggests that the long-run neutral rate may also rise. Trading The Neutral Rate While we suspect that the long-run neutral fed funds rate will turn out to be higher than both the market and Fed anticipate, we don’t think it’s wise to trade on that view in 2022. The reason is that expectations of a low neutral fed funds rate are extremely well-entrenched. It will take a lot of contrary evidence to shift those expectations, evidence we probably won’t get next year. As noted above, survey estimates of the long-run neutral rate range roughly from 2.0% to 2.5%. Our sense is that those estimates will only be revised higher if the fed funds rate gets much closer to those levels, say at least above 1%, and the economic data suggest that further rate increases will be required. This is a story for 2023, not 2022. A recent paper documented some interesting facts about the relationship between monetary policy and market expectations.9  It observed that the entire decline in the 10-year Treasury yield since 1990 has occurred during 3-day windows around FOMC meetings (Chart 14). This is not what we would expect to see if the long-run neutral rate was determined by independent macroeconomic factors that are distinct from Fed interest rate decisions. Chart 14Fed Rate Decisions Drive Long-Maturity Bond Yields We find this research very compelling. It suggests that the market changes its neutral rate expectations in response to Fed interest rate moves. In our view, this strengthens our conviction that a series of rate hikes will eventually cause the market to push its neutral rate expectations higher, leading to a sell-off in long-maturity bonds. Bottom Line: We think it’s likely that consensus estimates of a 2.0% to 2.5% long-run neutral fed funds rate will turn out to be too low, but we don’t recommend trading on that view in 2022. The low neutral rate narrative is very well-entrenched, and it will only be questioned after several rate hikes have been delivered and their economic impact is assessed.   Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 For our full set of recommendations please see US Bond Strategy Special Report, “Key Views 2022: US Fixed Income”, dated December 14, 2021. 2 https://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/guide-to-changes-in-statement-on-longer-run-goals-monetary-policy-strategy.htm 3 https://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/review-of-monetary-policy-strategy-tools-and-communications-qas.htm#7 4 https://www.newyorkfed.org/newsevents/speeches/2018/wil181130#footnote3 5 https://www.frbsf.org/economic-research/files/el2017-27.pdf 6 For more details on this argument please see Bank Credit Analyst Special Report, “R-star, And The Structural Risk To Stocks”, dated March 31, 2021. 7 https://www.kansascityfed.org/documents/8337/JH_paper_Sufi_3.pdf 8 Please see January 13, January 20 and February 3, 2020 US Investment Strategy Special Reports, “An Investor’s Guide To US Labor History”, “Where Strikes Come From And Who Wins Them” and “The Public-Approval Contest”. 9 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3550593 Recommended Portfolio Specification Other Recommendations Treasury Index Returns Spread Product Returns

Highlights Indian stocks need more time to digest and consolidate the significant gains from earlier this year. However, the country’s medium and long-term growth outlook remains positive. Indian firms’ profit margins will likely settle at a higher level than usual. That will also put a floor on its equity multiples. With an imminent topline recovery, the main driver of Indian stocks next year will be profits, in contrast with multiple expansions during the last year and a half. India is beginning a cyclical expansion with a cheap rupee. Stay neutral Indian stocks in an EM equity basket for now. Investors should overweight India in an EM domestic bond portfolio. Feature Chart 1Indian Stocks Are Overbought We tactically downgraded Indian stocks from overweight to neutral in EM and emerging Asian equity portfolios in early October this year. This call has worked out well so far as India’s absolute and relative share prices seem to have peaked. The primary reason for our tactical “neutral” call on Indian equities was this market’s vertical rise earlier this year, both in absolute and relative terms. Similar spikes – in terms of magnitude and duration back in 2007 and in 2014 – were followed by a period of underperformance (Chart 1). Yet, we recommended downgrading to only a neutral allocation. The reason is that the country’s cyclical outlook remains constructive, and the profit expansion cycle has further to run. That forbade us from turning too bearish on this bourse. A neutral stance on India also makes sense for the next several months as this bourse digests and consolidates its previous gains. In this report, we detail the various nuances of our analysis. Meanwhile, the Indian currency is cheap versus the greenback and will likely be one of the best performing currencies in the EM world over the next year. A positive currency outlook also makes Indian government bonds attractive for foreign investors, as Indian bonds also offer a high yield amid a benign domestic inflation backdrop. Dedicated EM domestic bond portfolios should stay overweight India. Equity Multiple Compression Ahead? Chart 2India's Profit Margin Expansion Has Led To Its Equity Re-Rating An upshot to the steep equity rally earlier this year has been India’s stretched valuations. That made many investors question the sustainability of the outperformance. A pertinent question, therefore, is how overvalued have Indian stocks become? And how much multiple compression can investors expect in this bourse? Before we answer this question, it’s useful to understand what drove the cyclical re-rating of Indian markets in the first place. The solid black line in Chart 2 shows the gross profit margins of all Indian listed non-financial firms. They have risen substantially since spring 2020 to reach decade-high levels. Margin expansions of this magnitude are indicative of material efficiency gains; and are usually rewarded with an equity re-rating. This is indeed what happened since spring 2020: stock multiples rose following the expanding margins. The same can be said if we only consider the major non-financial corporations’ EBITDA margins (Chart 2, bottom panel). If one looks at the cyclically adjusted P/E ratio (CAPE) instead, we see a very similar thing: the CAPE ratio has also risen in line with rising profit margins (Chart 3). Chart 3Profit Margins Have A Bearing On Equity Valuations Charts 2 and 3 show that the positive correlations between profit margins and stock multiples held steady over past several cycles. Hence, it will be reasonable to expect that should Indian firms hold on to wide margins, they will not suffer a significant de-rating going forward. Can Margins Stay Wide? Chart 4Indian Firms' Borrowing Costs Will Likely Stay Low Before we delve into the question of whether margins can stay wide, we need to understand what caused such a margin expansion in the first place. That cause is cost cutting: wage bills have gone down as businesses slashed employees. Data from Oxford economics show that there had been 9% fewer workers in India as of September 2021 compared to March 2020, just before the pandemic. Interest expense has also gone down – both relative to sales and profits (Chart 4) – as interest rates were cut aggressively. In our view, the latest rollover in profit margins will likely be temporary and limited. It is probably due to hiring back of some employees. Beyond a near-term limited drop in margins, the more relevant question to ask is, can Indian corporations maintain high margins? Our bias is that, to a large extent, they can. The main reason is that firms’ costs are slated to stay under control: Chart 5Indian Companies Do Not Face Any Wage Pressures Wage expectations are low. Going forward, as millions of new job seekers and workers temporarily discouraged by the pandemic enter the job market, wages have little chance of much of an increase. The top panel of Chart 5 shows salary expectations from an industrial survey by RBI. Both the assessment for the current quarter and expectations for the next quarter have been a net negative for a while. Rural wages are also similarly timid (Chart 5, bottom panel). Notably, companies’ hiring back of employees is slow. It seems they prefer to substitute labor by capital by investing in new machines and equipment. This will boost productivity and cap wages. Overall, high productivity growth will keep companies’ profit margins wide and excess labor will suppress wages. Higher margins and low inflation are bullish for the stock market. Critically, headline inflation is within the central bank target bands, and our model shows that it will likely remain as such (Chart 6, top panel). Core inflation is also likely to stay flattish (Chart 6, bottom panel). This means the odds are that the central bank will not raise rates anytime soon. Flattish inflation and policy rates mean firms’ borrowing costs, in both nominal and real terms, are slated to stay approximately as low as they are now. Low real borrowing costs are usually a tailwind for stocks (Chart 7). Chart 7Low Borrowing Costs Are Bullish For Stocks     All put together, Indian companies will likely see their costs largely under control. That, in turn, should keep profit margins wider than usual. Wide profit margins should limit multiple compression. Can The Topline Rise Further? Wider margins will boost total profits if and once the topline (revenues) recovers. So, the next question is, how much topline recovery is in the cards? Chart 8Indian Economy Is In A Rapid Expansion Mode There are already signs that sales will likely accelerate in the months to come: PMI indexes for both the manufacturing and services sectors have recovered strongly since the Delta variant-induced lockdowns in spring. They are now hovering around a very high level of close to 60. This indicates that the economy is in a rapid expansion mode (Chart 8). The Industrial Outlook survey (conducted by the RBI) shows that the order books for the September quarter was already at a decade-high level. The expectation for the next few quarters is even more elevated – indicating strong momentum (Chart 9, top panel). In other surveys, such as the PMI and Business Expectation survey (from Dun & Bradstreet), we see similar strong order books (Chart 9, bottom panel). While orders are strong, inventory of finished goods is low. Not surprisingly, businesses are expecting very high-capacity utilization in the next few quarters (Chart 10, top two panels). Chart 9Firms' Order Books Are Quite Robust Chart 10Low Inventories Mean Stronger Economic Activity Ahead They are expecting to hire more people. Companies also believe consumer demand will revive which will enable wider profit margins. In sum, firms are optimistic about accelerating economic activity (Chart 10, bottom two panels). Chart 11A Positive Bank Credit Impulse Is Bullish For Industrial Activity This, in turn, is encouraging them to make capital investments. Finally, the commercial banks’ credit impulse has also turned positive. Rising bank credit impulses usually signal stronger industrial production (Chart 11). To summarize, chances are that firms’ top lines are set to rise materially. Coupled with high margins, this will translate into strong profit acceleration in the next several quarters. Put differently, over the past year and a half, Indian firms witnessed rising margins. Going forward, they will likely see rising profits. Higher profits, in turn, will propel Indian share prices cyclically beyond any short-term consolidation. A Sustainable Expansion? In a notable departure from most developed countries, India’s recovery from the pandemic-induced recession has been more capex-led, rather than consumption-led (Chart 12). One reason for that is the Indian government did not supplement the lost household incomes during the lockdowns nearly as much as developed countries did. That, in turn, kept household demand low. And it also contributed to keeping inflation in check – even though India’s supply side was also paralyzed due to strict lockdown measures. On the other hand, firms’ profits soared owing to rigorous cost-cutting. Higher profits in turn have encouraged firms to expand their production capacity. Companies are ramping up capital spending as they expect sales to accelerate in the future (Chart 13). Chart 12A Capex-Led Recovery Will Prolong The Economic Expansion Chart 13Strong Profits Are Encouraging Firms To Ramp Up Capital Spending Notably, the combination of curtailed household demand and robust capital expenditure has set India’s inflation dynamics apart from many other countries in Latin America and EMEA. While India’s inflation remains largely contained, countries in those regions are witnessing accelerating inflation.  Also, over a cyclical horizon, a capex-led expansion is very crucial for India as this will determine the duration and magnitude of the cycle. Strong investment expenditures do not only boost firms’ competitiveness and profitability, but they also help keep inflationary pressures at bay. Lower inflation for a longer period means the central bank need not raise rates as soon and/or as much as otherwise would be the case. That in turn allows the economic and profit expansion to continue for longer. An extended period of expansion is also positive for multiples as investors extrapolate profit growth over many years ahead. India’s current dynamics are a case in point. Given the country is facing no imminent interest rate hikes, stock multiples can stay higher for longer. This is because multiple de-rating commences only after meaningful rate hikes have already been accorded (Chart 14). Since that is quite far off, valuations are not facing any immediate and considerable headwinds. Finally, India is beginning the new cycle with a rather inexpensive currency. Chart 15 shows that the rupee is currently cheaper by about 10% than what would be its “fair value” vis-à-vis the US dollar. The fair value has been derived from a regression analysis of the exchange rate on the relative manufacturing producer prices of India and the US. Chart 14It Takes Several Rate Hikes Before It Hurts Stock Multiples Chart 15India's Cyclical Expansion Has A Tailwind From Cheap Currency   Investment Conclusions Equities: Given the vertical rise earlier this year, Indian stocks would likely need a few more months to digest previous gains and consolidate. Hence, even though the country’s cyclical outlook remains constructive, we recommend that dedicated EM and Asian equity portfolios stay neutral on this market for now. Absolute return investors should stay on the sidelines and wait for a better entry point. Currency and Bonds: The rupee is cheap and could be one of the best performers within the EM world over a cyclical horizon. Indian government bonds also offer a good value with a rather high yield (6.4% for 10-year securities) amid a benign inflation outlook. A positive rupee outlook also makes Indian bonds more appealing for foreign investors. Investors should stay overweight India in an EM local currency bond portfolio. Rajeeb Pramanik Senior EM Strategist rajeeb.pramanik@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes