Mega Themes

Executive Summary We look at the Ukraine crisis in the broader context of shocks, what we can learn from them, and how we can incorporate them into our strategy for investment, and life in general. Our high-conviction view is that the Ukraine crisis will be net deflationary, because the economic and financial sanctions imposed on Russia will lead to a generalized demand destruction. Bond yields will be lower in the second half of the year. Underweight cyclicals such as banks, ‘value’ sectors, and value-heavy stock markets such as the FTSE 100. Stay structurally overweight the 30-year T-bond. The ultimate low in the 30-year T-bond yield is yet to come, and will be a long way below the current 2.1 percent. Fractal trading watchlist: We focus on banks, add alternative electricity, and review bitcoin. Every Shock Is Always Supplanted By A New Shock Bottom Line: The recent rise in bond yields and the associated outperformance of cyclical sectors such as banks, ‘value’, and value-heavy stock markets such as the FTSE 100 was just a short-lived countertrend move within a much bigger structural downtrend. This structural downtrend is now set to resume. Feature Suddenly, nobody is worried about Covid and everybody is worried about nuclear war. Or as Vladimir Putin warns, “such consequences that you have never experienced in your history.” The life lesson being that every shock is always supplanted by a new shock. Hence, in this report we look at the Ukraine crisis through a wider lens. We look at the broader context of shocks, what we can learn from them, and how we can incorporate them into our strategy for investment, and life in general. The Predictability Of Shocks Shocks are very predictable. This sounds like a contradiction, but we don’t mean the timing or nature of individual shocks. As specific events, Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine and the global pandemic were ‘tail-events’ that did come as shocks. Yet the statistical distribution of such tail-events is very predictable. This predictability of shocks forms the bedrock of the world’s $5 trillion insurance industry, and should also form the bedrock of any long-term strategy for investment, or life in general. The predictability of shocks forms the bedrock of the world’s $5 trillion insurance industry, and should also form the bedrock of any long-term investment strategy. We define a shock as any event that causes the long-duration bond price in a major economy to rally or slump by at least 20 percent, albeit this is just one definition.1On this definition, the Ukraine crisis is not yet a far-reaching economic or financial shock, but it is certainly well-placed to become one. Applying this definition of a shock through the last 60 years, the statistical distribution of shocks over any long period is well-defined and very predictable. For example, over a ten-year period the number of shocks exhibits a Poisson distribution with parameter 3.33 (Chart I-1), while the time between shocks exhibits an Exponential distribution with parameter 3.33. Chart 1The Statistical Distribution Of Shocks Is Very Predictable Many economists and investment strategists present their long-term forecasts for the economy and financial markets, yet completely ignore this very predictable distribution of shocks – making their long-term forecasts worthless! The question to such economists and strategists is why are there no shocks over your forecasting horizon? Their typical answer is that it is not an economist’s job to predict ‘acts of god’ or ‘black swans.’ But if insurance companies can incorporate the very predictable distribution of acts of god and black swans, then why can’t economists and strategists? Over any ten-year period, the likelihood of suffering a shock is a near-certainty, at 95 percent; in any five-year period, it is an extremely high 80 percent; in a two-year period, it is a coin toss at 50 percent; and even in one year it is a significant 30 percent (Chart I-2). Chart I-2On A Multi-Year Horizon, Another Shock Is A Near-Certainty Witness that since just 2016 we have experienced Brexit, and the election of Donald Trump as US president. These were binary-outcome events where we could ‘visualise’ the tail-event in advance, but many dismissed it as implausible. Then we had a global pandemic, and now Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine. Therefore, the crucial question is not whether we will experience shocks. We always will. The crucial question is, will the shock be net deflationary or net inflationary? Our high-conviction view is that the Ukraine crisis will be net deflationary. Meaning that even if it starts as inflationary, it will quickly morph into deflationary. The Danger From Higher Energy Prices: The Obvious And The Not So Obvious Many people have noticed the suspicious proximity of oil price surges to subsequent economic downturns – most recently, the 1999-2000 trebling of crude and the subsequent 2000-01 downturn, and the 2007-2008 trebling of crude and the subsequent 2008-09 global recession. Begging the question, should we be concerned that the Ukraine crisis has lifted the crude oil price to a near-trebling since October 2020, not to mention the massive spike in natural gas prices? Many people have noticed the suspicious proximity of oil price surges to subsequent economic downturns. Of course, we know that the root cause of both the 2000-01 downturn and the 2008-09 recession was not the oil price surge that preceded them. As their names make crystal clear, the 2001-01 downturn was the dot com bust and the 2008-09 recession was the global financial crisis. And yet, and yet… while the oil price surge was not the culprit, it was certainly the accessory to both murders. The obvious way that high energy prices hurt is that they are demand destructive to both energy and non-energy consumption. In this regard, the good news is that the economy is becoming much less energy-intensive – every unit of real output requires about 40 percent less energy than at the start of the millennium (Chart I-3). Nevertheless, even if the scope to hurt is lessening, higher energy prices are still demand destructive. Chart I-3The Economy Is Becoming Less Energy-Intensive The not so obvious way that high energy prices hurt is that they risk driving up the long-duration bond yield and thereby tipping more systemically important economic and financial fragilities over the brink. This was the where the greater pain came from in both 2000 and 2008 (Chart I-4 and Chart I-5). Chart I-4Fears Of Energy-Driven Inflation Drove Up The Bond Yield In 1999 Chart I-5Fears Of Energy-Driven Inflation Drove Up The Bond Yield In 2008 Fortunately, the recent decline in the 30-year T-bond yield suggests that the bond market is looking through the short-term inflationary impulse of higher energy prices (Chart I-6). Instead, it is focussing on the deflationary impulse that will come from the demand destruction that the higher prices will trigger. Chart I-6Today, The Bond Market Is Looking Through The Inflationary Impulse From Higher Energy Prices The economic and financial sanctions imposed on Russia will only lead to additional demand destruction. Sanctions restrict trade and economic and financial activity – therefore they hurt both the side that is sanctioned and the side that is sanctioning. This mutuality of pain caused the West to balk at both the timing and severity of its sanctions. But absent an unlikely backdown from Russia, the sanctions noose will tighten, choking growth everywhere.   If bond yields were to re-focus on inflation and move higher, it would add a further headwind to the economy and markets, forcing the 30-year T-bond yield back down again from a ‘line in the sand’ at around 2.4-2.5 percent. So, the long-duration bond yield will go down directly or via a short detour higher. Either way, bond yields will be lower in the second half of the year. Given the very tight connection between bond yields and stock market sector, style, and country allocation, it will become clear that the recent outperformance of cyclicals such as banks, ‘value’ sectors, and value-heavy stock markets such as the FTSE 100 was just a short-lived countertrend move in a much bigger structural downtrend (Chart I-7). This structural downtrend is set to resume. Chart I-7When Bond Yields Decline, Banks Underperform Underweight cyclicals such as banks, ‘value’ sectors, and value-heavy stock markets such as the FTSE 100. Yet, the over-arching message from the anatomy of shocks is that the ultimate structural low in the 30-year T-bond yield is yet to come, and will be a long way below the current 2.1 percent. Stay structurally overweight the 30-year T-bond.   Fractal Trading Watchlist This week’s analysis focusses on banks, adds alternative electricity, and reviews bitcoin. Supporting the fundamental arguments in the main body of this report, the recent outperformance of banks has reached the point of fractal fragility that has signalled several important turning-points through the past decade (Chart 1-8). Accordingly, this week’s recommended trade is to go short world banks versus world consumer services, setting the profit target and symmetrical stop-loss at 12 percent.  Chart I-8The Recent Outperformance Of Banks May Soon End Alternative Electricity Is Rebounding From An Oversold Position Bitcoin's Support Is Holding Dhaval Joshi Chief Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1 As bond yields approach their lower limit, this definition of a shock will need to change as it will become impossible for long-duration bond prices to rally by 20 percent. Fractal Trading System Fractal Trades 6-Month Recommendations Structural Recommendations Closed Fractal Trades Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields ##br##- Euro Area Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields ##br##- Europe Ex Euro Area Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields ##br##- Asia Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields ##br##- Other Developed   Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-5 Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6 Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations  

Executive Summary Chinese Onshore Stocks Are Less Impacted By External Factors We are upgrading Chinese onshore stocks from underweight to neutral relative to global stocks. At the same time, we are closing our tactical trade of long Chinese investable stocks/short global stocks. In the near term, Russia’s armed invasion of Ukraine will spark a further selloff in global risk assets. Volatility in Chinese onshore stock prices will remain high; A-share prices in absolute terms may also drop but should fall by less than their peers in European and emerging markets. On the other hand, Chinese offshore stocks are more vulnerable to geopolitical risks compared with their onshore counterparts. There are tentative signs that home prices may be stabilizing, although demand for housing remains in deep contraction. Chinese policymakers remain vigilant in preventing the property market from overheating and credit creation from overshooting. However, the ongoing Russia/Ukraine incursion has the potential to catalyze a larger stimulus package in China. If the escalating geopolitical crisis threatens the global economy, China’s authorities will likely strengthen policy supports at home to buttress the country’s domestic political, economic and financial conditions. Bottom Line: Chinese onshore stocks will weather the ongoing geopolitical storm better than their offshore and global peers. China’s economy is also less negatively impacted by the Russia/Ukraine hostilities. If the crisis deepens, China’s leadership will likely step up measures to support its economy and ensure stable domestic financial and political dynamics. Feature The conflict between Russia and Ukraine unnerved global financial markets in the past few weeks. Chinese offshore stocks were not insulated from the geopolitical event; the MSCI China Index declined by about 4% in February, in-line with the selloff in global stocks. Chart 1Chinese Onshore Financial Markets Held Up Relatively Well Last Month The current global geopolitical environment, however, has turned us a bit more positive on Chinese onshore stocks in relative terms. In the near term, the onshore market should hold up better than its offshore and European counterparts. China’s closed capital market prevents panic capital outflows and its large current account surplus as well as favorable real interest rate differentials help to maintain strength in the RMB (Chart 1). On a cyclical basis, China’s domestic economic fundamentals will continue to drive prices in the A-share market. China’s aggregate economy is less affected by the Russia/Ukraine conflict than Europe. Energy supplies from Russia to China will likely continue and may even accelerate, mitigating the risks of energy shock-induced inflation spikes. As such, we are upgrading Chinese onshore stocks from underweight to neutral in a global portfolio, both in tactical and cyclical time horizons. We remain cautious about the size of Chinese stimulus for the year and, therefore, are neutral in our cyclical view on Chinese onshore stocks relative to global equities. Despite some nascent signs of reflation and an easing of housing policy in a few Chinese cities, aggregate property demand remains weak and overall policy easing in the sector has been marginal. Nonetheless, the situation surrounding Ukraine and the global sanctions against Russia are highly fluid and may provide some ground for Chinese policymakers to ramp up stimulus at home. If the conflict intensifies and derails the European/global economy, Beijing will be more inclined to adopt measures to ensure the stability of its domestic economy, financial markets and political dynamics. Meanwhile, we are closing our long MSCI China/short MSCI global tactical trade. Chinese offshore stocks are more vulnerable to geopolitical tensions and risk-off sentiment among global investors. The Russia Incursion Has Limited Direct Impact On China’s Economy Chinese stocks were not immune last week to the global financial market’s gyrations triggered by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. While Russia’s attack on its neighbor will create short-term disruptions on the prices of global commodities and China’s A-shares, the cyclical performance of Chinese onshore stocks is tied to the country’s domestic economic fundamentals. The military conflict between Russia and Ukraine should have a limited knock-on effect on China’s business cycle dynamics for the following reasons: Russia and Ukraine together account for less than 3% of Chinese total exports as of 2021, limiting the negative impact from reduced demand in the region on China’s current account balance.  Chart 2Ukraine: China’s Major Source Of Agricultural Commodity Supplies Russia’s incursion of Ukraine may have consequences on China’s food prices. Ukraine is a major agricultural commodity exporter to China, hence a prolonged military conflict may disrupt agricultural supplies and push up imported food prices in China (Chart 2). In this scenario, we expect that Beijing will provide subsidies to ease pressures on domestic food prices due to supply shocks, rather than tighten monetary policy to reduce demand. China is unlikely to experience shocks linked to possible energy disruptions. Russia is a core exporter of energy to China and supplies of crude oil, natural gas and coal have increased in recent years (Chart 3). We do not expect that Russia’s energy supply to China will be disrupted. Indeed, following the 2014 Russia’s invasion of Crimea, Russia’s crude oil exports to China increased by 40% (Chart 3, top panel). We anticipate that oil prices will fall from the current level in the second half of the year, limiting the upshot from higher oil prices on Chinese inflation. So far, the US and EU have announced tough sanctions on Russia’s non-energy sectors, but they have avoided halting Russia’s energy exports. ​​​​​​​In the unlikely scenario that energy flows from Russia to Europe are disrupted in any meaningful and long-lasting way, either through European sanctions or a Russian embargo, Russia would probably turn to China to absorb its energy exports. Given that Russia cannot easily replace Europe with any other alternative market, particularly natural gas, China would gain an upper hand in price negotiations with the Russians (Chart 4). Thus, a steady supply of cheap natural gas and other forms of energy would be a net positive for China’s economy. Chart 4Russia Cannot Easily Replace Europe With Any Alternative Consumer Other Than China Chart 3Russia's Ties With China On Energy Supplies Will Likely Strengthen Meanwhile, oil’s current price spike may widen the gap in profits between China’s upstream and downstream industrial enterprises (Chart 5). However, the effect from higher oil prices on Chinese downstream manufacturers should be temporary. Our Commodity and Energy Strategists believe that the Russian invasion will prompt increased production from core OPEC producers. These production increases would reduce prices from last week’s $105 per barrel level to $85 per barrel by the second half of 2022 and keep it at that level throughout 2023 (Chart 6). Chart 6Crude Oil Price Risk Premium Will Abate But Not Disappear Chart 5Rising Oil Prices May Temporarily Widen Profit Gaps Between China's Up- And Downstream Industries Bottom Line: Russia’s invasion of Ukraine should have a limited direct impact on China’s domestic economy, inflation and monetary policy. Tentative Signs Of Home Price Stabilization Although the property market is showing some signs of improvement, the aggregate demand for homes remains very sluggish. Recently released housing data in China show some slight progress, as fewer cities reported a month-on-month drop in new home prices in January (Chart 7). The monthly average new home prices among China’s 70 cities were broadly flat last month following four consecutive months of falling prices. Tier 1 and Tier 2 cities had the largest increases in home prices, whereas prices in other regions continued to contract through January, albeit to a lesser degree (Chart 7, bottom panel). The minor improvement in home prices reflects recently implemented measures to help shore up the flagging market. Last month, the PBoC cut the policy rate by 10 bps and reduced the one- and five-year loan prime rates by 10 bps and 5 bps, respectively. Moreover, last week several regional banks lowered the down payments on mortgages for homebuyers. Chart 8...Demand For Housing Remains In Deep Contraction Chart 7Although There Are Some Early Signs Of Stabilization In Home Prices... Nonetheless, the aggregate demand for housing remains weak. China’s 100 largest developers experienced a roughly 40% year-on-year plunge in total sales in January, indicating that recent easing measures failed to revive the downbeat sentiment among homebuyers (Chart 8). Bottom Line: Policymakers will remain vigilant in not inducing another surge in house prices and will continue to target steady home prices. As such, it is too early to upgrade our cyclical view on China’s property market, stimulus and economic recovery. Investment Conclusions We are upgrading Chinese onshore stocks to neutral relative to global equities (both tactically and in the next 6 to 12 months), while closing our tactical trade of long MSCI China/short MSCI global index. Chart 9Chinese Onshore Stock Prices Are Largely Driven By Domestic Rather Than External Factors... Given the limited impact of the Russia/Ukraine conflict on China’s domestic economy and the low correlation to the global equity index, Chinese onshore stock prices may also fall in absolute terms in the coming weeks, but not by as much as their offshore and European counterparts (Chart 9). Furthermore, while we maintain a cautious cyclical outlook for China’s stimulus, the ongoing geopolitical crisis has the potential to provide a catalyst for Chinese policymakers to stimulate the domestic economy more forcefully. If the clash evolves into a real risk to the European economy and global financial markets, odds are high that Chinese policymakers will step up stimulus measures to ensure domestic stability. In this scenario, Chinese onshore stocks will likely outperform global equities. In the past, Chinese authorities refrained from a credit overshoot when the business cycle slowed in an orderly manner, but they stimulated substantially following an exogenous shock. For example, China rolled out massive stimulus packages after the 2008 Global Financial and the 2011/12 European credit crises. Beijing did not directly respond to Russia’s 2014 annexation of Crimea with additional monetary support to China’s domestic economy. However, the Chinese authorities started to aggressively stimulate when a collapse in domestic demand coincided with a global manufacturing recession in 2015. Chart 10...Whereas Chinese Offshore Stocks Are More Vulnerable To Global Risk-Off Sentiment The PBoC’s outsized liquidity injection in the interbank system last Friday is also a sign that Beijing is willing to accelerate policy easing if the geopolitical backdrop meaningfully worsens.  Regarding Chinese investable stocks, we maintain our cyclical underweight stance relative to global equities. In the near term, risk-off sentiment among global investors will undermine the performance of Chinese offshore stocks in both absolute and relative terms (Chart 10). Over a longer time horizon (6 to 12 months), growth stocks will likely underperform value stocks when global stocks recover. Thus, the tech-heavy MSCI China Index is less attractive to investors compared with other emerging and developed market equities that are more value-centric. Jing Sima China Strategist jings@bcaresearch.com Strategic Themes Cyclical Recommendations Tactical Recommendations

Highlights The buildup of excessive household debt in Canada over the past two decades has occurred because of outsized demand for housing, not because of the impact of constrained housing supply on house prices. Outsized demand for housing has occurred because interest rates have been persistently too low, pointing to the need for the Bank of Canada to tighten monetary policy in order to prevent even further leveraging. The burden of Canada’s household sector debt may exceed its pre-pandemic level next year given current market expectations for the path of rate hikes. This implies that the prior peak in the Canadian policy rate (1.75%) likely reflects a high-end estimate of the neutral rate of interest in Canada. Regulatory changes have occurred in recognition of Canada’s extreme levels of household debt. Although a massive decline in Canadian house prices would cause a very severe recession, it would not likely precipitate a Lehman-style collapse of the Canadian financial system. Over the next twelve months, investors should position favorably toward CAD-USD. As the Canadian policy rate approaches our estimate of the neutral rate, a short CAD position and an overweight stance towards long-maturity Canadian bonds versus US Treasurys will likely be warranted. Within a global equity portfolio, exposure to relatively high-yielding Canadian banks should not be reduced until hard evidence of a significant slowdown in the housing market emerges. Feature The outlook for monetary policy in advanced economies has shifted rapidly in a hawkish direction over the past few months. While we believe that the Fed and other central banks will end up raising interest rates this year fewer times than investors currently expect, it is clear that monetary policy will tighten in the DM world over the coming 12-18 months. This has raised the question of how high policy rates may rise before monetary policy begins to restrict economic activity. Some investors have specifically focused this question on countries like Canada, which has a highly indebted household sector and has seen house prices rise at a 7% average annual pace for the past 20 years. In this report, we explore the root cause of Canada’s extreme household debt and argue against the constrained housing supply view. Instead, we conclude that persistently low interest rates have fueled excessive housing demand and that the prior peak in the Canadian policy rate (1.75%) probably reflects a high-end estimate of the neutral rate of interest in Canada – in contrast with that of the US. Finally, we note that the regulatory changes that have occurred in recognition of the risk from excessive household debt suggest that a massive decline in Canadian house prices would not likely precipitate a Lehman-style collapse of the Canadian financial system – it would, however, clearly cause a severe recession. Over the next twelve months, investors should position favorably toward CAD-USD. As the Canadian policy rate approaches our estimate of the neutral rate, a short CAD position and an overweight stance towards long-maturity Canadian bonds versus US Treasurys will likely be warranted. Within a global equity portfolio, exposure to relatively high-yielding Canadian banks should not be reduced until hard evidence of a significant slowdown in the housing market emerges. The Root Cause Of Canada’s Extreme Household Debt Chart II-1Canadian Households Are Massively Indebted Relative to disposable income, Canadian household debt has risen substantially over the past two decades. Chart II-1 highlights that Canada’s household debt to disposable income ratio has risen by 180% since 2000, and is currently over 50 percentage points higher than that in the US, even when nonfinancial noncorporate debt is included in the latter.1 Rising Canadian household indebtedness is a problem that is well known to investors, policymakers, regulators, banks, and consumers themselves. Organizations such as the IMF have repeatedly warned that excess household debt poses a potential economic stability risk. In the years prior to the pandemic, policymakers have responded with a series of macroprudential measures designed to limit speculation and foreign ownership in the housing market and to reduce the incremental risk to the economy posed by new borrowers. When asked why Canadian households have leveraged themselves so significantly over the past 20 years, most market commentators in Canada point to insufficient housing supply as the main driver of excessive house prices. Given normal ongoing demand for housing, they argue, persistent supply-side pressure on housing prices will naturally lead to a rising stock of debt relative to income. According to this narrative, the solution to Canada’s housing crisis is centered squarely on incentives to build more homes. Raising interest rates to cool mortgage demand will simply exacerbate the housing affordability problem, while simultaneously discouraging additional residential investment needed to decrease home prices structurally. Chart II-2The Supply Of Non-Apartment Dwellings Has Indeed Declined Over Time... We hold a different perspective. We do agree that there are some limitations on the supply side that likely are unduly boosting prices of certain dwelling types. For example, the Greenbelt that surrounds Ontario’s Golden Horseshoe region - a permanently protected area of land - has likely constrained some housing activity, and Chart II-2 highlights that single detached, semi-detached, and row/townhouses have fallen significantly as a share of overall housing completions. Apartments and other dwellings now account for a clear majority of new housing construction in Canada. However, there is a great deal of evidence positioned against the view that supply-side factors are the primary cause of outsized housing inflation and, by extension, a massive increase in Canadian household debt to GDP: Based on real residential investment, the pace of housing construction in Canada has not fallen relative to GDP or the population. Chart II-3 highlights that, compared with the US, residential investment has trended higher over the past 20 years. Based on Canadian housing completion data, Chart II-4 highlights that the number of completions has generally kept pace with half of the change in Canada’s population, a ratio that is easily consistent with two or more people per household. In addition, the chart highlights that the periods when houses were completed at a below-average rate relative to population growth have not been the same as when Canadian household debt has increased relative to disposable income. Chart II-3...But Overall Real Residential Investment Has Kept Pace With Canada's GDP And Population Chart II-4Housing Supply Has Not Been The Main Driver Of Rising Canadian Indebtedness Chart II-5Prices For All Canadian Property Types Have Surged Over The Past Two Decades If the rise in Canadian household indebtedness has been caused by the increasing scarcity of single-detached, semi-detached, and row/townhouses, then we would expect to see a persistent and growing divergence between overall Canadian house prices and those of apartment/condominiums. Chart II-5 highlights that this is not the case: while apartment/condo prices have at times grown at a slower rate than overall home prices over the past 15 years (as in the period from 2011 to 2016), they have also at times grown at a faster rate. The chart clearly highlights that the Canadian housing market is driven by a common factor, and that average house price gains have not been significantly different across property types over time. Similarly, if a scarcity of housing supply was the main driver of rising house prices and household debt, we would not expect to see a significant increase in the homeownership rate. Chart II-6 highlights that the Canadian homeownership rate did rise substantially from the mid-1990s to 2016 (the last available datapoint). While it is not clear what the sustainable or “equilibrium” homeownership rate is, it is notable that the most recent datapoint was not significantly lower than the peak rate reached in the US following that country’s massive housing bubble. Finally, Chart II-7 reiterates a point we made in our June 2021 Special Report: in several economies (including Canada), interest rates have remained well below levels that macroeconomic theory would traditionally consider to be in equilibrium over the past two decades. This has occurred alongside significant household sector leveraging. Chart II-7Too-Low Interest Rates Have Fueled Rising Household Indebtedness In Canada (And Other DM Economies) Chart II-6The Canadian Homeownership Rate Has Risen Significantly, Pointing To Excess Housing Demand     These factors strongly point to rising household debt levels as being driven by demand-side rather than supply-side factors – demand that has been fueled by persistently low interest rates. How High Can The Bank Of Canada Raise Interest Rates? Over the next 12 months, investors expect the Bank of Canada (BoC) to raise interest rates by 180 basis points, in line with the Fed (Chart II-8). Over the longer term, the BoC believes that interest rates will average between 1.75% and 2.75%. In the US, the 2/10 yield curve has flattened significantly in response to the Fed’s hawkish shift, and neither the explosion in headline consumer price inflation nor the Fed’s about face have significantly raised the market’s longer-term expectations for interest rates (which are even below the Fed’s estimates). In Canada, investors expect essentially the same long-term interest rate outlook, as evidenced by 5-year / 5-year forward government bond yields (Chart II-9). Chart II-8Investors Expect A Similar Magnitude Of Tightening In Canada And The US Over The Next Year... Chart II-9...And A Similar Average Interest Rate Over The Longer Term As in the case in the US, the hawkish shift among major central banks has left investors asking how high the BoC can raise interest rates, and what implications that might have for Canadian assets – especially the CAD and long-maturity Canadian government bonds. In our view, the best way for investors to assess the impact of rising interest rates on the private sector – especially a highly indebted one – is to project the impact that an increase in interest rates will have on the debt service ratio (DSR). The burden of servicing debt, rather than the stock of debt relative to income, is the right way to measure the impact of shifting monetary policy because it considers the combined effect of changes in leverage, income, and interest rates. The primary drawback of debt service ratio analysis is that the question of sustainability must be answered empirically. In countries experiencing an ever-rising debt service ratio, it can be difficult for investors to judge where the breaking point will be. Cross-country comparisons may sometimes be helpful in this respect, but Chart II-10 highlights that BIS estimates for household debt service ratios vary widely even among advanced economies. However, in Canada, the 2017-2019 tightening cycle provides a useful framework. As we anticipated in a 2017 Special Report,2 the rise in Canadian interest rates during that period caused the household debt service ratio to exceed the level reached in 2007, which contributed to a collapse in Canadian house price appreciation to its lowest level since the global financial crisis (Chart II-11). The decline in house prices during this period was also caused by the introduction of new macroprudential measures (particularly the introduction of a minimum qualifying rate for mortgages, more commonly referred to as a mortgage “stress test” rule), but the impact of higher interest rates was likely significant. Chart II-11The Last Tightening Cycle In Canada Contributed Significantly To A Major Slowdown In Canadian House Prices Chart II-10Private Sector Debt Service Ratios Vary Significantly Across DM Countries   Chart II-11 highlights that the Canadian household debt service ratio collapsed during the pandemic, which seems to suggest that the Bank of Canada has ample room to raise interest rates. However, the decline in the DSR occurred not only because of falling interest rates, but also because of the significant excess savings amassed as a result of the pandemic. As in the US, excess savings in Canada were the result of reduced spending on services and the generation of significant excess income from government transfers (see Chart I-20 from Section 1 of this month’s report). These fiscal transfers will eventually disappear, implying that the Canadian household DSR is artificially low. Chart II-12 shows our estimate of the evolution of the overall Canadian household sector DSR based on the following assumptions: Mortgage rates rise in line with market expectations for the change in the policy rate Government transfers fall back to their pre-pandemic trend Disposable income growth ex-transfers grows in line with consensus expectations for nominal GDP growth The overall debt-to-disposable income ratio, using our estimate for total disposable income, remains flat. The chart highlights that the Canadian household sector DSR may exceed its pre-pandemic level next year, and that a 1.75% policy rate is the threshold at which the DSR will hit a new high. The implication of our projection is that the re-acceleration in household sector debt that has occurred during the pandemic, shown in Chart II-13, will again contribute to a significant slowdown in the Canadian housing market as the BoC begins to raise interest rates as in 2018/2019. It also implies that the prior peak in the Canadian policy rate probably reflects a high-end estimate of the neutral rate of interest in Canada. Chart II-12Market Expectations For The Canadian Policy Rate Imply A Record High Debt Burden Chart II-13Canadian Household Loan Growth Has Reaccelerated During The Pandemic   As we discuss below, this is likely to lead to significant implications for CAD-USD and an allocation to long-maturity Canadian government bonds, once investors begin to upwardly revise their expectations for the US neutral rate. Extreme Household Debt And Canadian Financial Stability The question of financial stability is often posed by investors when discussing Canada’s extreme household debt burden. Some investors view the US subprime financial crisis as the likely template for the Canadian economy, given the fact that the US credit bubble also focused on the housing market. Despite our pessimistic assessment of the capacity of the Canadian economy to tolerate higher interest rates (unlike the US today), we do not share the view that the Canadian financial system faces a potential insolvency risk, like the US banking system did in 2008. We see two potential arguments in favor of the instability view. The first is related to the sheer concentration of debt in Canada relative to other countries. Chart II-14 highlights that the median debt-to-income ratio of indebted Canadian households is currently the second highest in the world (after Norway) among the 29 countries that the OECD tracks. This concentration measure has worsened considerably since we published our 2017 Special Report. The combination of a very high average level of debt and extremely high leverage among those who are indebted suggests that Canadian banks may be exposed to significant credit losses in the event of a serious housing market crash. Chart II-14The Degree Of Concentration In Canadian Household Debt Is A Potential Financial Stability Risk Chart II-15A Decline In The CMHC's Footprint In The Mortgage Insurance Market Is Also Concerning The second argument relates to the declining share of mortgages insured by the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC). The CMHC is a Crown corporation that provides mortgage-default insurance to Canadian banks. Banks must purchase such insurance when a borrower’s loan-to-value ratio exceeds 80%. The CMHC has seen increased competition from two private mortgage insurers, and Chart II-15 highlights that the number of mortgages with CHMC insurance has been steadily falling over time. In order for the CMHC to be able to reduce systemic risk during a crisis, it must be present enough in the mortgage market to be able to replace private insurers in the event of a shock that causes them to leave the market. In effect, the CMHC should be able to act as a ballast to prevent a sharp tightening in Canadian mortgage lending standards and credit provision, which could occur if banks find themselves unable to purchase mortgage insurance to cover borrowers with relatively small down payments. In this respect, the reduced footprint of the CMHC is concerning. However, these risks have to be weighed against two key structural changes that legitimately lower the systemic risk facing the Canadian banking system (or lower the impact of a major adverse housing event). The first of these changes is the introduction of the minimum qualifying rate for mortgages in Canada (the mortgage stress test), which we regard as one of the most important macroprudential policies that Canada has enacted to reduce the systemic risk of rising household debt. The stress test rules – which apply to all borrowers – force mortgage borrowers to pass the CMHC’s gross debt and total debt service ratio thresholds under the assumption of higher interest rates than borrowers will actually pay: either the contracted mortgage rate plus 2 percentage points, or 5.65% – whichever is higher. Given prevailing mortgage rates in Canada, this effectively means that new borrowers will not exceed the CMHC’s debt service thresholds until the Bank of Canada’s policy rate exceeds 2.5%. That is positive from a financial stability perspective, although it does not rule out the slowdown in household spending that we would expect if the aggregate household debt service ratio hits a new high next year in response to BoC tightening. The second important risk-reducing structural change is a significant improvement in Canadian bank capital levels. Chart II-16 highlights that Tier 1 capital has risen significantly relative to risk-weighted assets for Canadian depository institutions, and is now on par with US levels (in contrast to a typically lower level over the past decade). The IMF stress tested Canadian banks in 2019, when capital levels were lower than they are today. They found that most Canadian banks would run down conservation capital buffers in the adverse economic scenario that they modeled, subjecting them to dividend restrictions for a period of time following the adverse event. However, Canadian banks would not breach their minimum capital requirements in the scenario modeled by the IMF, which involved a 40% decline in house prices and a 2% cumulative decline in Canadian real GDP over a two year period – which is essentially what occurred in the US and Canada in 2008 and 2009 (Chart II-17). Chart II-16Canadian Bank Capital Appears Sufficient To Weather A Storm Chart II-17The IMF's Stress Tests Modeled A Repeat Of The 2008/2009 Crisis To conclude on the question of financial stability, it is clear that the magnitude and concentration of household debt implies that the impact of a serious housing market crash on the Canadian economy would be severe. But the fact that regulatory changes have occurred in recognition of this risk suggests that although a massive decline in Canadian house prices would cause a very severe recession, it would not likely precipitate a Lehman-style collapse of the Canadian financial system. Investment Conclusions Three conclusions emerge from our report. First, when considering the total experience of the past two decades, it is clear that the buildup of excessive household debt in Canada has occurred because of outsized demand for housing, not because of the impact of constrained housing supply on house prices. Outsized demand for housing has occurred because interest rates have been persistently below what traditional monetary policy rules such as the Taylor Rule would prescribe, pointing to the need for the Bank of Canada to tighten monetary policy in order to prevent even further leveraging. While US interest rates were also below what the Taylor Rule would have suggested for several years following the global financial crisis, the US household sector did not leverage itself significantly during that period because of the multi-year impact of the 2008/2009 financial crisis on US household balance sheets (Chart II-18). Canadian households did not suffer the same type of balance sheet impairment, and yet the Bank of Canada wrongly imported hyper-accommodative US monetary policy in an attempt to prevent a significant further increase in the exchange rate (which was still persistently strong for several years following the crisis). Through its actions, the Bank of Canada succeeded in staving off “Dutch Disease”, but at the cost of fueling a substantial housing and credit market bubble. Second, the fact that the Bank of Canada is likely to struggle to raise interest rates above 1.75% implies that a sizeable divergence may emerge between Canadian and US monetary policy over the coming few years if we are correct in our view that the US neutral rate is higher than the Fed currently expects. While such a divergence is not likely to occur over the coming year, Chart II-19 highlights that a 125 basis point policy rate spread – consistent with a nominal neutral rate of 1.75% in Canada and 3% in the US – last occurred in the mid-to-late 1990s, when CAD-USD ultimately declined to 0.65. Chart II-18The Bank Of Canada Staved Off "Dutch Disease", At The Cost Of Fueling A Major Housing And Credit Bubble Chart II-19Some Potentially Large Downside For CAD If US Neutral Rate Expectations Move Higher Over the coming year, we expect Canadian dollar strength rather than weakness: we are generally bearish toward the US dollar on the expectation of above-trend global growth, and our fundamental intermediate-term model suggests that CAD should strengthen. Thus, while it is too early to short the Canadian dollar, we would be inclined to turn bearish in response to rising long-term US interest rate expectations. We would draw similar conclusions for Canadian government bonds: investors should raise exposure to long-dated Canadian government bonds versus similar maturity US Treasurys as the Bank of Canada raises its policy rate toward our estimate of the neutral rate. Chart II-20Relative ROE Justifies A Valuation Premium For Canadian Banks Finally, the improvements that have been made over the past several years to dampen the impact of a housing market crash on the Canadian financial system suggests that exposure to Canadian banks should not be reduced until hard evidence of a significant slowdown in the housing market emerges. Chart II-20 highlights that the valuation premium of Canadian banks appears to be supported by a sizeable ROE advantage relative to global banks. Panel 2 highlights how composite relative valuation indicator for Canadian banks suggests that they have been persistently expensive for some time, but not extremely so. Canadian banks would certainly underperform their global peers should the adverse scenario modeled by the IMF’s 2019 stress test of the banking system to occur, especially if it implied that Canadian banks would be forced to restrict dividends for a time to bolster capital adequacy. However, we would advise investors against shorting relatively high-yielding Canadian banks as Canadian interest rates rise, until they see clear signs of Canada-specific slowdown in housing demand in response to higher rates. Jonathan LaBerge, CFA Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst Gabriel Di Lullo Research Associate   Footnotes 1 For an explanation of why we add US nonfinancial noncorporate debt to the numerator of the US household sector debt to disposable income ratio when comparing Canada to the US, please see: “Reconciling Canadian-U.S. measures of household disposable income and household debt: Update”. 2 Please see Global Investment Strategy "Canada: A (Probably) Happy Moment In An Otherwise Sad Story," dated July 14, 2017, available at gis.bcaresearch.com

Executive Summary From Nixon-Mao To Putin-Xi The geopolitical “big picture” of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is the deepening of the Russo-Chinese strategic partnership. While Russia’s economic and military constraints did not prohibit military action in Ukraine, they are still relevant. Most likely they will prevent a broader war with NATO or a total energy embargo of Europe. Still, volatility will persist in the near term as saber-rattling, aftershocks, and spillover incidents will occur this year.  Russo-Chinese relations are well grounded. Russia needs investment capital and resource sales, while China needs overland supply routes and supply security. Both seek to undermine the US in a new game of Great Power competition that will prevent global politics and globalization from normalizing. Tactically we remain defensive but buying opportunities are emerging. We maintain a cyclically constructive view. Favor equity markets of US allies and partners that are geopolitically secure. Trade Recommendation Inception Date Return Long Gold (Strategic) 2019-12-06 32.7% Bottom Line: Tactically investors should remain defensive but cyclically they should look favorably on cheap, geopolitically secure equity markets like those of Australia, Canada, and Mexico. Feature To understand the Russian invasion of Ukraine and the likely consequences, investors need to consider three factors: 1.  Why Russia’s constraints did not prohibit war and how constraints must always be measured against political will. 2.  Why Russia’s constraints will grow more relevant going forward, as the costs of occupation and sanctions take hold, the economy weakens, and sociopolitical pressures build. 3.  Why the struggle of the Great Powers will drive a Russo-Chinese alliance, whose competition with the US-led alliance will further destabilize global trade and investment. Russia’s Geopolitical Will Perhaps the gravest national security threat that Russia can face, according to Russian history, is a western military power based in the Ukraine. Time and again Russia has staged dramatic national efforts at great cost of blood and treasure to defeat western forces that try to encroach on this broad, flat road to Moscow. Putin has been in power for 22 years and his national strategy is well-defined: he aims to resurrect Russian primacy within the former Soviet Union, carve out a regional sphere of influence, and reduce American military threats in Russia’s periphery. He has long aimed to prevent Ukraine from becoming a western defense partner. Chart 1Russia Structured For Conflict While Moscow faced material limitations to military action in Ukraine, these were not prohibitive, as we have argued. Consider the following constraints and their mitigating factors: Costs of war: The first mistake lay in assuming that Russia was not willing to engage in war. Russia had already invaded Ukraine in 2014 and before that Georgia in 2008. The modern Russian economy is structured for conflict: it is heavily militarized (Chart 1). Military spending accounts for 4.3% of GDP, comparable to the United States, also known for waging gratuitous wars and preemptive invasions. Financial burdens: The second mistake was to think that Moscow would avoid conflict for fear of the collapse of the ruble or financial markets. Since Putin rose to power in 2000, the ruble has depreciated by 48% against the dollar and the benchmark stock index has fallen by 57% against EMs. Each new crackdown on domestic or foreign enemies has led to a new round of depreciation and yet Putin remains undeterred from his long-term strategy (Chart 2). Chart 2Putin Doesn't Eschew Conflict For Sake Of Ruble Or Stocks Economic health: Putin’s foreign policy is not constrained by the desire to make the Russian economy more open, complex, advanced, or productive. While China long practiced a foreign policy of lying low, so as to focus on generating wealth that could later be converted into strategic power (which it is doing now), Russia pursued a hawkish foreign policy for the past twenty years despite the blowback on the economy. Russia is still an undiversified petro-state and total factor productivity is approaching zero (Chart 3). Chart 3Putin Doesn't Eschew Conflict For Sake Of Productivity​​​​​​ Chart 4Putin Doesn’t Eschew Conflict For Fear Of Sanctions​​​​​​ Western sanctions: Western sanctions never provided a powerful argument against Russian intervention into Ukraine. Russia knew all along that if it invaded Ukraine, the West would impose a new round of sanctions, as it has done periodically since 2014. The 2014 oil crash had a much greater impact on Russia than the sanctions. Of course, Russia’s overall economic competitiveness is suffering, although it is capable of gaining market share in exporting raw materials, especially as it depreciates its currency (Chart 4). Chart 5Putin Doesn't Eschew Conflict For Sake Of Popular Opinion Public opinion: Surely the average Russian is not interested in Ukraine and hence Putin lacks popular support for a new war? True. But Putin has a strong record of using foreign military adventures as a means of propping up domestic support. Of course, opinion polls, which confirm this pattern, are manipulated and massaged (Chart 5). Nevertheless Russians like all people are highly likely to side with their own country in a military confrontation with foreign countries, at least in the short run. Over the long haul, the public will come to rue the war. Moscow believes that it can manage the domestic fallout when that time comes because it has done so since 2014. We doubt it but that is a question for a later time. Investors also need to consider Putin’s position if he did not stage ever-escalating confrontations with the West. Russia is an autocracy with a weak economy – it cannot win over the hearts and minds of its neighboring nations in a fair, voluntary competition with the West, the EU, and NATO. Russia’s neighbors are made up of formerly repressed Soviet ethnic minorities who now have a chance at national self-determination. But to secure their nationhood, they need economic and military support, and if they receive that support, then they inherently threaten Russia and help the US keep Russia strategically contained. Russia traditionally fights against this risk. Bottom Line: Investors and the media focused on the obstacles to Russian military intervention without analyzing whether there was sufficient political will to surmount the hurdles. Constraints Eroded None of the above suggests that Putin can do whatever he wants. Economic and military constraints are significant. However, constraints erode over time – and they may not be effective when needed. Europe did not promise to cancel all energy trade if Russia invaded: Exports make up 27% of Russian GDP, and 51% of exports go to advanced economies, especially European. Russia is less exposed to trade than the EU but more exposed than the US or even China (Chart 6). However, Russia trades in essential goods, natural resources, and the Europeans cannot afford to cut off their own energy supply. When Russia first invaded Ukraine in 2014, the Germans responded by building the Nord Stream pipeline, basically increasing energy cooperation. Russia concluded that Europeans, not bound to defend Ukraine by any treaty, would continue to import energy in the event of a conflict limited to Ukraine. Chart 6Putin Limits Conflict For Sake Of EU Energy Trade​​​​​​ Chart 7Putin Limits Conflict For Sake Of Chinese Trade​​​​​​ Russia substitutes China for Europe: As trade with the West declines, Russia is shifting toward the Far East, especially China (Chart 7). China is unlikely to reduce any trade and investment for the sake of Ukraine – it desperately needs the resources and the import-security that strong relations with Russia can provide. It cannot replace Europe – but Russia does not expect to lose the European energy trade entirely. (Over time, of course, the EU/China shift to renewables will undermine Russia’s economy and capabilities.) Ukraine is right next door: Aside from active military personnel, the US advantage over Iraq in 2002-03 was greater than the Russian advantage over Ukraine in 2022 (Chart 8). And yet the US got sucked into a quagmire and ultimately suffered political unrest at home. However, Ukraine is not Afghanistan or Iraq. Russia wagers that it can seize strategic territory, including Kiev, without paying the full price that the Soviets paid in Afghanistan and the US paid in Afghanistan and Iraq. This is a very risky gamble. But the point is that the bar to invading Ukraine was lower than that of other recent invasions – it is not on the opposite side of the world. ​​​​​​​Chart 8Putin Limits Conflict For Fear Of Military Overreach Chart 9Putin Limits Conflict For Fear Of Military Weakness NATO faces mutually assured destruction: NATO’s conventional military weight far surpasses Russia’s. For example, Russia, with its Eurasian Union, does not have enough air superiority to engage in offensive initiatives against Europe, even assuming that the United States is not involved. Even if we assume that China joins Russia in a full-fledged military alliance under the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), NATO’s military budget is more than twice as large (Chart 9). However, this military constraint is not operable in the case of Ukraine, which is not a NATO member. Indeed, Russia’s aggression toward Ukraine stems from its fear that Ukraine will become a real or de facto member of NATO. It is the fear of NATO that prompted Russia to attack rather than deterring it, precisely because Ukraine was not a member but wanted to join. Bottom Line: Russia’s constraints did not prohibit military action because several of them had eroded over time. NATO was so threatening as to provoke rather than deter military action. Going forward, Russia’s economic and military constraints will prevent it from expanding the war beyond Ukraine.  Isn’t Russia Overreaching? Yes, Russia is overreaching – the military balances highlighted in Charts 8 and 9 above should make that plain. The Ukrainian insurgency will be fierce and Russia will pay steep costs in occupation and economic sanctions. These will vitiate the economy and popular support for Putin’s regime over the long run. Chart 10The West Is Politically Divided And Vulnerable The West is also vulnerable, however, which has given rise to a fiscal and commodity cycle that helps to explain why Putin staged his risky invasion at this juncture in time: The US and West are politically divided. Western elites see themselves as surrounded by radical parties that threaten to throw them out and overturn the entire political establishment. Their tenuous grip on power is clear from the thin majorities they hold in their legislatures (Chart 10). Nowhere is this clearer than in the United States, where Democrats cannot spare a single seat in the Senate, five in the House of Representatives, in this fall’s midterm elections, yet are facing much bigger losses. Russia believes that its hawkish foreign policy can keep the democracies divided.​​​​​​​ Elites are turning to populist spending: Governments have adopted liberal fiscal policies in the wake of the global financial crisis and the pandemic. They are trying to grow their way out of populist unrest, debt, and various strategic challenges, from supply chains to cyber security to research and development (Chart 11). China is also part of this process, despite its mixed economic policies. The result is greater demand for commodities, which benefits Russia.    Elites are turning to climate change to justify public spending: Governments, particularly in Europe and China, are using fears of climate change to increase their political legitimacy and launch a new government “moonshot” that justifies more robust public investment and pump-priming. The long-term trend toward renewable energy is fundamentally threatening to Russia, although in the short term it makes Russian natural gas and metals all the more necessary. Germany especially envisions natural gas as the fossil-fuel bridge to a green future as it has turned against both nuclear power and coal (Chart 12). Russian aggression will provoke a rethink in some countries but Germany, as a manufacturing economy, is unlikely to abandon its goals for green industrial innovation. Chart 11Politically Vulnerable States Need Fiscal Stimulus​​​​​​ Chart 12The West Reluctant To Abandon Climate Goals​​​​​​ Proactive fiscal and climate policy motivate new capex and commodity cycle: The West’s attempt to revive big government and strategic spending will require vast resource inputs – resources that Russia can sell at higher prices. The new commodity cycle gives Russia maximum leverage over Europe, especially Germany, at this point in time (Chart 13). Later, as inflation and fiscal fatigue halt this cycle, Russia will lose leverage. Chart 13Commodity Cycle Gives Russia Advantage (For Now) Meanwhile Russia’s economic and hence strategic power will subside over time. Russia’s potential GDP growth has fallen since the Great Recession as productivity growth slows and the labor force shrinks (Chart 14). Chart 14Future Will Not Yield Strategic Opportunities For Russia​​​​​​ Chart 15Younger Russians Not Calling The Shots (But Will Someday) In short, the Kremlin has chosen the path of economic austerity and military aggression as a means of maintaining political legitimacy and achieving national security objectives. Western divisions, de-carbonization, the commodity cycle, and Russia’s bleak economic outlook indicated that 2022 was the opportunity to achieve a pressing national security objective, rather than some future date when Russia will be less capable relative to its opponents. In the worst-case scenario – not our base case – the invasion of Ukraine will trigger an escalation of European sanctions that will lead to Russia cutting off Europe’s energy and producing a global energy price shock. And yet that outcome would upset US and European politics in Russia’s favor, while Putin would maintain absolute control at home in a society that is already used to economic austerity and that benefits from high commodity prices. Note that Putin’s strategy will not last forever. Ukraine will mark another case of Russian strategic overreach that will generate a social and political backlash in coming years. While Putin has sufficient support among older, more Soviet-minded Russians for his Ukraine adventure, he lacks support among the younger and middle-aged cohorts who will have to live with the negative economic consequences (Chart 15). The entire former Soviet Union is vulnerable to social unrest and revolution in the coming decade and Russia is no exception. The Russo-Chinese Geopolitical Realignment Chart 16From Nixon-Mao To Putin-Xi From a broader, geopolitical point of view, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine drives another nail into the coffin of the post-Cold War system and hyper-globalization. Russia is further divorcing itself from the western economy, with even the linchpin European energy trade falling victim to renewables and diversification. The US and its allies are imposing export controls on critical technologies such as semiconductors against Russia to cripple any attempts at modernization. The US is already restricting China’s access to semiconductors and from now on is locked into a campaign to try to enforce these export controls via secondary sanctions, giving rise to proxy battles in countries that Russia and China use to circumvent the sanctions. Russia will be forced to link its austere, militarized, resource-driven economy to the Chinese economy. Hence a major new geopolitical realignment is taking place between the US, Russia, and China, on the order of previous realignments since World War II. When the Sino-Soviet communist bloc first arose it threatened to overwhelm the US in economic heft and dominate Eurasia. This communist threat drove the US to undertake vast expeditionary wars, such as in South Korea and Vietnam. These were too costly, so the US sought economic engagement with China in 1972, which isolated the Soviet Union and ultimately helped bring about its demise. Yet China’s economic boom predictably translated into a strategic rise that began to threaten US preeminence, especially since the Great Recession. Today Russia and China have no option other than to cooperate in the face of the US’s increasingly frantic attempts to preserve its global status – and China’s economic growth and technological potential makes this alliance formidable (Chart 16). In short, the last vestiges of the “Nixon-Mao” moment are fading and the “Putin-Xi” alignment is already well-established. Russia cannot accept vassalage to China but it can make many compromises for the sake of strategic security. Their economies are much more complimentary today than they were at the time of the Sino-Soviet split. And Russia’s austere economy will not collapse as long as it retains some energy trade with Europe throughout the pivot to China. In turn the US will attempt to exploit Russian and Chinese regional aggression as a basis for a revitalization of its alliances. But Europe will dampen US enthusiasm by preserving economic engagement with Russia and China. The EU is increasingly an independent geopolitical actor and a neutral one at that. This environment of multipolarity – or Great Power Struggle – will define the coming decades. It will ensure not only periodic shocks, like the Ukraine war, but also a steady undercurrent of growing government involvement in the global economy in pursuit of supply security, energy security, and national security. Competition for security is not stabilizing but destabilizing. Hyper-globalization has given way to hypo-globalization, as regional geopolitical blocs take the place of what once promised to be a highly efficient and thoroughly interconnected global economy. Investment Takeaways Tactically, Geopolitical Strategy believes it is too soon to go long emerging markets. Russia is at war, China is reverting to autocracy, and Brazil is still on the path to debt crisis. Multiples have compressed sharply but the bad news is not fully priced (Chart 17). The dollar is likely to be resilient as the Fed hikes rates and a major European war rages. Europe’s geopolitical and energy insecurity will weigh on investment appetite and corporate earnings. American equities are likely to outperform in the short run. Chart 17Investors Should Not Bet On Russian And European Equities In This Context​​​​​ Chart 18Investors Find Value, Minimize Risk In Geopolitically Secure Equity Markets​​​​​​ Cyclically, global equities outside the US, and pro-cyclical assets offer better value, as long as the war in Ukraine remains contained, a Europe-wide energy shock is averted, and China’s policy easing secures its economic recovery. While European equities will snap back, Europe still faces structural challenges and eastern European emerging markets face a permanent increase in geopolitical risk due to Russian geopolitical decline and aggression. Investors should seek markets that are both cheap and geopolitically secure – namely Australia, Canada, and Mexico (Chart 18). We are also bullish on India over the long run.    Matt Gertken Chief Geopolitical Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com Strategic Themes Open Tactical Positions (0-6 Months) Open Cyclical Recommendations (6-18 Months)

Executive Summary The Excess Return Of Corporate Bonds Is Driven By Corporate Profits Given that a sustainable business cycle acceleration in China is unlikely in the short term, onshore government bond yields will likely drop further. In the long run, odds are that Chinese government bond yields will drop below US Treasury yields. For domestic asset allocators, we continue to recommend overweighting government bonds over stocks for now. The excess return of corporate bonds is driven by the corporate profit cycle. On a volatility-adjusted basis, the total return on equities exceeds the excess return on corporate bonds during periods when economic growth is accelerating and underperforms during deceleration phases. Bottom Line: Given our view that a meaningful growth recovery in China will only be a theme for the second half of this year, onshore asset allocators should continue favoring corporate credit over stocks and government bonds over corporate bonds. The bear market in Chinese offshore corporate credit might be in its late stages but it is not yet over. Feature In this report we (1) elaborate on our outlook for Chinese government and corporate bonds and (2) offer a framework for understanding how asset allocation for fixed-income (government and corporate bonds) and multi-asset portfolios (comprised of fixed-income plus equities) should be implemented. Domestic Government Bonds Chart 1Chinese Bond Yields Have Bucked The Global Trend The risk-reward profile of Chinese domestic government bonds remains attractive. Chinese government bond yields have been declining,  bucking the global trend of surging government bond yields (Chart 1, top panel). Odds are that Chinese bond yields will drop further, both cyclically and structurally: In contrast with the Americas and Europe, China’s consumer price inflation has remained subdued. Its core, trimmed mean and headline inflation rates have remained low (Chart 2). The ongoing growth slump will cap core inflation in China at around 1%, allowing monetary authorities to lower interest rates further. Real bond yields in China remain well above those in the majority of DM (Chart 1, bottom panel). Hence, risk-free bonds in China offer value. As to the Chinese stimulus and business cycle, the recent pickup in Chinese credit numbers has been entirely due to local government bond issuance. After excluding local government bonds, credit growth and its impulse have not improved (Chart 3). While infrastructure spending will pick up in the coming months (given large special bond issuance), sentiment among consumers and private companies remains downbeat and local government budgets are severely impaired by the collapse in revenues from land sales. Hence, it will take some time before a boost in infrastructure activity lifts broader business and consumer sentiment such that a sustainable economic recovery can take hold. Chart 2Chinese Consumer Price Inflation Is Subdued Chart 3Recent Credit Improvement Is Entirely Due to Local Government Bond Issuance The special bond quota for Q1 stands at RMB 1.46 trillion and is equivalent to 28% of local government aggregate quarterly revenue. Even though the special bond issuance in Q1 is massive, it will be largely offset by the drop in local governments’ land sales revenue. The latter is shrinking and makes up more than 40% of local government aggregate revenues. In brief, strong headwinds from the property market in the form of shrinking land sales might counteract the increase from front-loaded special bond issuance in Q1 2022. As to real estate construction, funding for property developers is down dramatically from a year ago (Chart 4). In the absence of financing, real estate developers will shrink construction volumes in the months ahead. Chart 5Debt Service Burden For Chinese Enterprises And Households Is High Chart 4Property Completions Will Roll Over   Structurally, high enterprise and household debt levels in China amid slumping incomes mean that borrowing costs should drop to facilitate debt servicing. BIS estimates that debt service costs for the private sector (enterprises and households) in China are 21% of disposable income, much higher than in many other economies (Chart 5). Finally, China’s large and persistent current account surpluses mean that the nation is a major international creditor rather than a debtor. Thus, China does not need to offer high yields to attract foreign capital. Structurally speaking, foreign fixed-income inflows into Chinese domestic bonds will likely continue. Chart 6Credit Cycle And Government Bond Yields Bottom Line: Bond yields will likely drop further as a sustainable business cycle acceleration in China is unlikely in the short term. Chart 6 illustrates that the total social financing impulse leads bond yields by nine months and a cyclical bottom in yields will probably occur a few months from now. In the long run, Chinese government bonds yields will likely drop below US Treasury yields. Onshore Corporate Bonds The proper measure of corporate bond performance is excess return over similar government bonds (herein excess return). The basis for using excess return instead of total return for corporate bonds is because investors can attain government bond return by purchasing them outright. Essentially, investors prefer corporate bonds over government bonds because of credit spreads. Hence, a corporate bond performance assessment – whether in absolute terms or relative to other asset classes – should be based on excess return. In China, the excess return on onshore corporate bonds1 usually moves in tandem with the business cycle and government bond yields. In particular: The excess return of corporate bonds is positive during periods of growth acceleration and negative during slowdowns (Chart 7, top panel). The middle panel of Chart 7 illustrates that the excess return of corporate bonds correlates with analysts’ net EPS revisions for onshore listed companies. This confirms the above point that corporate bonds correlate with the profit/business cycle. Significantly, even though industrial profit growth is not yet negative (Chart 8, top panel), earnings in commodity-user industries have crashed (Chart 8, bottom panel).  This explains the negative excess return for onshore corporate bonds in the past 12 months. Chart 7The Excess Return Of Corporate Bonds Is Driven By Corporate Profits Chart 8Corporate Profit Cycle: Mind The Divergence Furthermore, the excess return of corporate bonds declines and rises with interest rate expectations (Chart 7, bottom panel). As the outlook for corporate profits remains sour, fixed-income investors should continue to favor government bonds over corporate bonds. Now, how do corporate bonds perform versus stocks? What drives their relative performance? To compare stock performance to corporate bond excess return, one should adjust for volatility. In other words, share prices are much more volatile than the excess return on corporate bonds. Hence, during risk-on periods equities always outperform corporate bonds and vice versa. Chart 9The Performance of Stocks over Corporate Bonds is Very Pro-Cyclical Chart 9 demonstrates that even on a volatility-adjusted basis, the total return on equities exceeds the excess return on corporate bonds during periods when economic growth is accelerating and underperforms during deceleration phases. In short, the performance of stocks over corporate bonds is very pro-cyclical. Bottom Line: The excess return of corporate bonds is driven by corporate revenue and profits rather than by interest rate expectations. Getting China’s business cycle right is critical to the allocation between government and corporate bonds in fixed-income portfolios and to the allocation between corporate bonds and equities in multi-asset portfolios. Given our view that a meaningful growth recovery in China will only be a theme in the second half of this year, onshore asset allocators should continue favoring corporate bonds over stocks and government bonds over corporate credit. Offshore Corporate Bonds What drives the excess return of Chinese USD corporate bonds in absolute terms as well as versus Chinese non-TMT investable stocks2 and onshore corporate bonds? Given that the offshore corporate bond universe is dominated by property developers, their excess return correlates with perceived risks to the mainland property market in general and the financial health of property developers in particular (Chart 10, top panel). Property developers are very overleveraged, their sales are shrinking and their financing has dried up. Yet, authorities are compelling them to complete construction of their pre-sold housing. Property developers will therefore continue to experience financial distress. Odds are that bond prices of corporate developers – both investment grade and high yield - will continue falling (Chart 10, middle and bottom panels). Chart 11Investable Stocks Vs. Offshore Corporate Credit: Volatility-Adjusted Performance Chart 10A Massive Bear Market In Offshore Corporate Bonds On a volatility-adjusted basis, non-TMT investable stocks outpace the excess return of offshore corporate bonds during periods of growth improvement and underperform during growth slowdowns (Chart 11, top panel). The same pattern holds true when it comes to the performance of offshore corporate bond versus the aggregate MSCI Investable equity index (including TMT stocks) (Chart 11, bottom panel). The credit cycle leads the business cycle and, thereby, it leads these financial market trends. Bottom Line: The bear market in Chinese offshore corporate credit might be in its late stages but it is not yet over. Chinese offshore corporate bonds will continue underperforming EM corporate bonds as well as Chinese onshore corporate bonds. Investment Recommendations Investors often read market signals across asset classes to gauge which market moves will persist and which ones will be short-lived.  In this regard, we have two observations for Chinese onshore markets: Chart 12Moving In Tandem The sustainability of an equity rally is higher when it is confirmed by rising excess returns of corporate bonds and rising government bond yields (Chart 12). Presently, there is no strong signal to switch from government bonds to either corporate bonds or stocks. Unfortunately, the yield curve in China does not correlate with its business cycle and, hence, cannot be used as a tool in macro analysis.  Our key investment conclusions are: For fixed-income investors, we continue to recommend receiving 10-year swap rates in China and for dedicated EM local currency bond managers to remain overweight China. The renminbi has been firm versus the US dollar despite a considerable narrowing in the interest rate differential between China and the US. In the long run, the real interest rate differential between China and the US will drive the exchange rate, and it will favor the RMB. While US real bond yields might rise relative to Chinese bond yields in the coming months, triggering a period of yuan softness, it will prove to be transitory. The basis is that the Federal Reserve is very sensitive to asset prices. As US share prices decline and corporate spreads widen, the central bank will eventually turn dovish and will lag behind the inflation curve. When a central bank falls behind the inflation curve, real rates stay low and its currency depreciates. Chart 13China’s Stock-to-Bond Ratio For domestic asset allocators, we continue to recommend favoring government bonds over stocks (Chart 13). Within fixed-income portfolios, investors should overweight government bonds over corporate bonds. Finally, corporate bonds will fare better than equities in the near term. In a few months there will be an opportunity to shift these positions.  More aggressive stimulus from authorities and aggressive property market relaxation measures will create conditions for an improvement in domestic demand. Finally, the risk-reward profile for offshore USD corporate bonds remains unattractive. Chinese offshore corporate credit will continue underperforming EM USD corporate credit as well as Chinese onshore corporate bonds.   Arthur Budaghyan Chief Emerging Markets Strategist arthurb@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1    Due to the lack of excess return data from the index provider (Bloomberg Barclays onshore bond indexes), we calculated the excess return on onshore corporate bonds as the ratio of the total return on the corporate bond index divided by the total return on the government bond index. This measure is not ideal as it does not account for duration mismatches between the corporate and government bond indexes. However, the key conclusions of this report will hold true for the duration-adjusted excess return not least because this framework is valid for financial markets in the US and Europe. 2    The reason to compare it to non-TMT (technology, media and telecommunication, i.e., Chinese tech and internet stocks) is that offshore corporate bond issuers are largely old economy industries.

Executive Summary US biotech is trading at its greatest discount to the market. Ever. Much of biotech’s underperformance is due to transient factors: specifically, the sell-off in long-duration bonds; the focus on delivering a Covid vaccine; regulatory concerns; a drought in M&A; and a flood of IPOs. Overweight US biotech versus US big-tech, both tactically and structurally. Long-only investors with a time horizon of at least 2 years should go outright long biotech, especially US biotech. If, as we expect, the 30-year T-bond (price) continues to rally, then long-duration sectors and stock markets will resume their outperformance versus shorter-duration sectors and stock markets. Fractal trading watchlist: We focus on biotech, and add US banks versus consumer services, Norway versus China, Greece versus euro area, and BRL/NZD. US Biotech Is Trading At Its Greatest Discount To The Market. Ever Bottom Line: Every now and then comes a rare opportunity to buy a deeply unloved asset at a bargain basement price. We believe that now provides such an opportunity for the beaten-down biotech sector – especially the US biotech sector which is trading at its greatest discount to the market. Ever. Feature Every now and then comes a rare opportunity to buy a deeply unloved asset at a bargain basement price. We believe that now provides such an opportunity for the beaten-down biotech sector – especially the US biotech sector which is trading at its greatest discount to the market. Ever. But before we go into the specifics of biotech, let’s quickly discuss the recent action in the broader market. The Past Year Has Been All About ‘Duration’ A good way to think of any investment is to compress all its cashflows into one future ‘lump-sum payment.’ The length of time to this lump-sum payment is the investment’s ‘duration.’ And the present value of the investment is just the discounted value of this lump-sum payment, where the discount factor will depend on the required return on the investment combined with its duration.1 It follows that, all else being equal, the present value of a long-duration stock must rise and fall in line with the present value of an equally long-duration bond – because their discount factors move in lockstep. And, as we have been banging on in recent weeks, this simple observation is all you need to explain market action over the past year. For the 30-year T-bond, 2.4-2.5 percent is an important resistance level. Given that long-duration indexes such as the Nasdaq, S&P 500 and MSCI Growth have the same duration as the 30-year T-bond, they have been tracking the 30-year T-bond price one-for-one (Chart I-1 and Chart I-2). Hence, when the long-duration bond rallied, these stock markets outperformed shorter-duration indexes such as the FTSE100 and MSCI Value; and when the long-duration bond sold off, they underperformed. Chart I-1The Nasdaq Has Been Tracking The 30-Year T-Bond Price One-For-One Chart I-2MSCI Growth Has Been Tracking The 30-Year T-Bond Price One-For-One The Russian invasion of Ukraine has catalysed a retreat in the 30-year T-bond yield from a ‘line in the sand’ at 2.4-2.5 percent, which we have previously highlighted as an important resistance level. If, as we argued in A Massive Economic Imbalance, Staring Us In The Face, the 30-year T-bond (price) continues to rally, then long-duration sectors and stock markets will resume their outperformance versus shorter-duration sectors and stock markets. US Biotech Is Trading At Its Greatest Discount To The Market. Ever Over the longer term, the bigger driver of the stock price will not be the discount factor on the future lump-sum payment; the bigger driver will be the size of the lump-sum payment itself. For any company, industry, or stock market, this expected lump-sum payment will evolve in line with current profits multiplied by a ‘structural growth multiple.’ It turns out that while current profits are updated every quarter, the structural growth multiple does not change much from quarter to quarter, year to year, or even decade to decade. Yet occasionally, it can phase-shift violently downwards when an event, or realisation, shatters the market’s lofty hopes for structural growth. Occasionally, an event or realisation shatters the market’s lofty hopes for structural growth. For example, after the dot com bubble burst it became clear that the sky-high hopes for non-US tech companies were just pie in the sky. The result was that their structural growth multiple halved, which weighed down non-US tech stocks for the subsequent 10 years (Chart I-3). Chart I-3After The Dot Com Bust, The Structural Growth Multiple For Non-US Tech Collapsed More recently, the realisation that Facebook – or Meta Platforms as it is now known – is losing subscribers was the gestalt moment that shattered hopes for its structural growth. Note that while its 2022 profits are down slightly, the Meta share price has collapsed, indicating a big hit to the structural growth multiple (Chart I-4). Chart I-4Facebook's Structural Growth Multiple Has Collapsed Conversely, there are rare occasions when a phase-shift down in a structural growth multiple is unwarranted or has gone too far. Right now, a case in point is the biotech sector, especially the US biotech sector. Relative to the relationship of the 2010s decade, US biotech’s structural growth multiple has halved (Chart I-5). The result is that US biotech is trading at the greatest valuation discount to the market (-20 percent). Ever. It is also trading at its greatest valuation discount to the broader tech sector (-35 percent). Ever (Chart I-6 and Chart I-7). Chart I-5US Biotech's Structural Growth Multiple Has Halved, But Is Such A Massive De-Rating Justified? Chart I-6US Biotech Is Trading At Its Greatest Ever Discount To The Market... Chart I-7...And Its Greatest Ever Discount To Big-Tech Another way of putting it is that in the post-pandemic era, while the structural growth multiple for the broader tech sector is largely unchanged, the structural growth multiple for biotech has collapsed by 40 percent (Charts I-8, I-11). Begging the question, is such a massive structural de-rating justified? Chart I-8US Tech's Structural Growth Multiple ##br##Is Unchanged... Chart I-9...But US Biotech's Structural Growth Multiple Has Collapsed Chart I-10Global Tech's Structural Growth Multiple##br## Is Unchanged... Chart I-11...But Global Biotech's Structural Growth Multiple Has Collapsed Much Of Biotech’s Underperformance Is Due To Transient Factors We have identified five culprits for biotech’s recent underperformance, but they are largely transient: The sell-off in long-duration bonds: Ironically, though the market has downgraded biotech’s structural growth, it has still behaved like a long-duration sector that has tracked the sell-off in the 30-year T-bond. Hence, if the long-duration bond rallies, it will boost biotech stocks. The focus on delivering a Covid vaccine: While biotech was developing a Covid vaccine, investors became enamoured with the sector, but once the vaccine was delivered, investors fell out of love with the sector. Yet there is more to biotech than a provider of vaccines, and as we show in the final section, the sell-off has gone too far. Regulatory concerns: In the US there has been some concern about the dilution of a biotech company’s intellectual property (IP) rights – known as March-In-Rights – if government funding or research has contributed to an innovation. In practice though, the sophistication of most innovations means that IP would remain with the innovator. There has also been concern about drug pricing reform, but as is normal in any negotiation, the opening extreme position is likely to get watered down. A drought in M&A: The focus on Covid, plus the uncertainty around regulation, has led to a drought in the M&A activity that is usually the mechanism to crystallize value. Still, for long-term investors, value is value, whether it is crystallized or not. Furthermore, the drought in M&A cannot last forever. A flood of IPOs: The more than 100 biotech IPOs in 2021 was double the usual rate, creating an oversupply and indigestion for specialist investors in the sector. But given the poor performance of the sector, the IPO flood is likely to recede through 2022-23 in a self-correction. So, we come back to the question: is it right to price a structural growth outlook for biotech worse than the overall market and much worse than for big-tech? If anything, it is big-tech that faces the much greater existential risk in the form of Web 3.0 – which will remove big-tech’s current ownership of the internet, thereby wiping out its very lucrative business model. Look out for our upcoming Special Report on this major theme. To repeat, the market is valuing US biotech at a record 40 percent discount to big-tech, and at its most unloved versus the broad market, when most of the headwinds it faces are transient. All of which leads to two investment conclusions. The market is valuing US biotech at a record 40 percent discount to big-tech, and at its most unloved versus the broad market. Overweight US biotech versus US big-tech, both tactically and structurally. Long-only investors with a time horizon of at least 2 years should go outright long biotech, especially US biotech. Fractal Trading Watchlist This week’s analysis focusses on our main theme, biotech, and we add US banks versus consumer services, Norway versus China, Greece versus euro area, and BRL/NZD. Reinforcing the arguments in the preceding sections, US biotech is deeply oversold versus broader tech, reaching a point of fractal fragility that signalled several significant turning-points through the past two decades (Chart I-12). Accordingly, this week’s recommended trade is to go long US biotech versus US tech, setting the profit target and symmetrical stop-loss at 17.5 percent. Chart I-12US Biotech Is Deeply Oversold Versus Broader Tech   US Banks Are At Risk Of Reversal Norway's Outperformance Could End Greece's Snapback At A Resistance Point BRL/NZD At A Resistance Point Dhaval Joshi Chief Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1 Defined fully, the duration of an investment is the weighted-average of the times of its cashflows, in which the weights are the present values of the cashflows. Fractal Trading System Fractal Trades 6-Month Recommendations Structural Recommendations Closed Fractal Trades Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields ##br##- Euro Area Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields ##br##- Europe Ex Euro Area Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields ##br##- Asia Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields ##br##- Other Developed   Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-5Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations  

Executive Summary The Market Thinks The Fed Will Be Unable To Raise Rates Much Above 2% The Fed tightening cycle is likely to proceed in two stages. In the first stage, which is now well anticipated, the Fed will seek to restore its credibility by raising rates to 2% – the lower bound of what it regards as “neutral” – by early next year. The decline in goods inflation over the next 12 months, facilitated by the easing of supply-chain bottlenecks, will allow the Fed to take a break from tightening for most of 2023. Unfortunately, the respite from rate hikes will not last. The neutral rate of interest is around 3%-to-4%, significantly higher than what either the Fed or investors believe. A wage-price spiral will intensify starting in late 2023, setting the stage for the second, and more painful, round of tightening. Trade Inception Level Initiation Date Stop Loss Long June 2023 3-month SOFR futures contract (SFRM3) / December 2024 (SFRZ4) -8 bps Feb 17/2022 -30 bps New Trade: Go short the December 2024 3-month SOFR futures contract versus the June 2023 contract. Investors expect the fed funds rate to be somewhat higher in mid-2023 than at end-2024. They are wrong about that. Bottom Line: The market has priced in the first stage of the Fed’s tightening cycle, which suggests that bond yields will stabilize over the next few quarters. However, the market has not priced in the second stage. Once it starts to do so, the bull market in equities will end. Investors should remain bullish on stocks for now but look to reduce equity exposure by the middle of 2023.   Dear Client, Instead of our regular report next week, we will be sending you a Special Report written by Matt Gertken, BCA Research’s Chief Geopolitical Strategist, discussing Russia’s geopolitical outlook over the long run. I hope you will find it insightful. Best regards, Peter Berezin Chief Global Strategist Who’s the Boss? Who sets interest rates: The economy or the Fed? The answer is both. In the short run, the Fed has complete control over interest rates. In the long run, however, the economy calls the shots. If the Fed sets rates too high, unemployment will rise, forcing the Fed to cut rates. If the Fed sets rates too low, the opposite will happen. Chart 1The Fed's Estimate Of The Neutral Rate Is Still Quite Low By Historical Standards Thus, over the long haul, it all boils down to where the neutral rate of interest – the interest rate consistent with full employment and stable inflation – happens to be. In the latest Summary of Economic Projections, released on December 15th, 9 out of 17 FOMC participants penciled in 2.5% as their estimate of the appropriate “longer run” level of the federal funds rate. Six participants thought the neutral rate was lower than 2.5%, while two participants thought it was higher (both put down 3%). Back in 2012, when the Fed began publishing its dot plot, the median FOMC participant thought the neutral rate was 4.25%. Investors have revised up their estimate of the neutral rate over the past two months. But at 2.09%, the 5-year/5-year forward bond yield – a widely-used proxy for the neutral rate – is still exceptionally low by historic standards (Chart 1). Desired Savings and Investment Determine the Neutral Rate Chart 2The Savings-Investment Balance Determines The Neutral Rate Of Interest One can think of the neutral rate as the interest rate that equates aggregate demand with aggregate supply at full employment. If interest rates are above neutral, the economy will suffer from inadequate demand; if interest rates are below neutral, the economy will overheat. As Box 1 explains, the difference between aggregate demand and aggregate supply can be expressed as the difference between how much investment an economy needs to undertake and the savings it has at its disposal. Savings can be generated domestically by deferring consumption or imported from abroad via a current account deficit. Anything that reduces savings or raises investment will lead to a higher neutral rate of interest (Chart 2). With this little bit of theory under our belts, let us consider the forces shaping savings and investment in the United States. Desired Savings Are Falling in the US There are at least six reasons to expect desired savings to trend lower in the US over the coming years: Households will spend down their accumulated pandemic savings. US households are sitting on $2.3 trillion (10% of GDP) in excess savings, the result of both decreased spending on services during the pandemic and generous government transfer payments (Chart 3). While some of that money will remain sequestered in bank deposits, much of it will eventually be spent. Household wealth has soared. Personal net worth has risen by 128% of GDP since the start of the pandemic, the largest two-year increase on record (Chart 4). Conservatively assuming that households will spend three cents of every additional dollar in wealth, the resulting wealth effect could boost consumption by 3.8% of GDP. Chart 3Plenty Of Pent-Up Demand Chart 4Net Worth Has Soared The household deleveraging cycle is over (Chart 5). Household balance sheets are in good shape. After falling during the initial stages of the pandemic, consumer credit has begun to rebound. Banks are easing lending standards on consumer loans across the board. Corporate profit margins are peaking. As a share of GDP, corporate profits are near record-high levels (Chart 6). Despite a tight labor market, wage growth has failed to keep up with inflation over the past two years. Real wages should recover over time. To the extent that households spend more of their income than businesses, a rising labor share should translate into lower overall savings. Chart 5US Household Deleveraging Pressures Have Abated Chart 6Corporate Profits Are Near Record Highs... But Wage Growth Has Failed To Keep Up Baby boomers are retiring. Baby boomers are leaving the labor force en masse. They hold over half of US household wealth, considerably more than younger generations (Chart 7). As baby boomers transition from net savers to net dissavers, national savings will decline. Government budget deficits will stay elevated. Fiscal deficits subtract from national savings. While the US budget deficit will come down over the next few years, the IMF estimates that the structural budget deficit will still average 4.9% of GDP between 2022 and 2026 compared to 2.0% of GDP between 2014 and 2019 (Chart 8). Chart 7Baby Boomers Have Amassed A Lot Of Wealth Chart 8Fiscal Policy: Tighter But Not Tight Investment Will Not Decline to Offset the Reduction in Savings A favorite talking point among those who espouse the secular stagnation thesis is that slower trend growth will curb investment demand, leading to an ever-larger savings glut. There are a number of problems with this argument. For one thing, most of the decline in US potential GDP growth has already occurred, implying less need for incremental cuts to investment spending in the future. 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 (Chart 9). Moreover, US investment spending has been weaker over the past two decades than one would have expected based on the evolution of trend GDP growth. As a consequence, the average age of both the residential and nonresidential capital stock has risen to the highest level in over 50 years (Chart 10). Chart 9Most Of The Deceleration In US Potential Real GDP Growth Has Already Taken Place Chart 10The Aging Capital Stock As the labor market continues to tighten, firms will devote greater efforts to automating production. Already, core capital goods orders have broken out to the upside (Chart 11). On the housing front, the NAHB reported this week that despite rising mortgage rates, foot traffic and prospective sales remain at exceptionally strong levels (Chart 12). Building permits also surprised on the upside. Chart 11The Outlook For US Capex Is Bright Chart 12Homebuilder Confidence Remains Strong Overseas Appetite for US Assets May Wane A larger current account deficit would allow the US to spend more than it earns without the need for higher interest rates to incentivize additional domestic savings. The problem is that the US current account deficit is already quite large, having averaged 3.1% of GDP over the past four quarters. Furthermore, as a result of the accumulation of past current account deficits, external US liabilities now exceed assets by 69% of GDP (Chart 13). It is far from clear that foreigners will want to maintain the current pace of US asset purchases, let alone increase them from current levels. Chart 13The US Has Become Increasingly Indebted To The Rest Of The World The Two-Stage Path to Neutral Chart 14The Market Thinks The Fed Will Be Unable To Raise Rates Much Above 2% Investors expect the Fed to raise rates seven times by early next year and then stop hiking (and perhaps even start cutting!) in late 2023 and beyond (Chart 14). However, if we are correct that the neutral rate of interest is higher than widely believed, the Fed will eventually need to lift rates to a higher level than what is currently being discounted. It is impossible to be certain what this level is, but a reasonable estimate is somewhere in the range of 3%-to-4%. This is about 100-to-200 basis points above current market pricing. The path to the “new neutral” will not follow a straight line. As we have argued in the past, inflation is likely to evolve in a “two steps up, one step down” fashion. We are presently at the top of those two steps. Inflation will decline over the next 12 months as goods inflation falls sharply and services inflation rises only modestly, before starting to move up again in the second half of 2023. Falling Goods Inflation in 2022 Chart 15Goods Inflation Should Fade Chart 15 shows that the current inflationary episode has been driven by rising goods prices, particularly durable goods. This is highly unusual since goods prices, adjusting for quality improvements, usually trend sideways-to-down over time. As economies continue to reopen, the composition of consumer spending will shift from goods to services. At the same time, supply bottlenecks should abate. The combination of slowing demand and increasing supply will cause goods inflation to tumble. Investors are underestimating the extent to which goods inflation could recede over the remainder of the year as pandemic-related distortions subside. For example, used vehicle prices have jumped by over 50% during the past 18 months (Chart 16). Assuming automobile chip availability improves, we estimate that vehicle-related prices will go from adding 1.6 percentage points to headline inflation at present to subtracting 0.9 points by the end of the year – a swing of 2.5 percentage points (Chart 17). Chart 16AVehicle, Food, And Energy Prices Could All Retreat From Extended Levels (I) Chart 16BVehicle, Food, And Energy Prices Could All Retreat From Extended Levels (II) Chart 17Even If Underlying Core Inflation Does Not Change, Inflation Will Fall This Year As Goods Prices Come Back Down To Earth Along the same lines, we estimate that energy inflation will go from raising inflation by 1.7 points at present to lowering inflation by 0.3 points by the end of the year. This is based on the WTI forward curve, which sees oil prices retreating to $80/bbl by the end of 2022 from $91/bbl today. A normalization in food prices should also help keep a lid on goods inflation. Service Inflation Will Rise Only Modestly in 2022 Could rising service inflation offset the decline in goods inflation this year? It is possible, but we would bet against it. While certain components of the CPI services basket, such as rents, will continue to trend higher, a major increase in service inflation is unlikely unless wages rise more briskly. As Chart 18 underscores, the bulk of recent wage growth has occurred at the bottom end of the income distribution. That is not especially surprising. Whereas employment among medium-and-high wage workers has returned to pre-pandemic levels, employment among low-wage workers is still 6% below where it was in early 2020 (Chart 19). Chart 18The Bulk Of Recent Wage Growth Has Occurred At The Bottom End Of The Income Distribution Chart 19Employment Among Low-Wage Workers Still Lagging Chart 20Workers Are Starting To Return To Their Jobs Following The Omicron Wave Looking out, labor participation among lower-paid workers will recover now that enhanced unemployment benefits have expired. A decline in the number of life-threatening Covid cases should also help bring back many lower-paid service workers. According to the Census Bureau’s Household Pulse Survey, a record 8.7 million employees were absent from work in the middle of January either because they were sick or looking after someone with Covid symptoms. Consistent with declining case counts, February data show that fewer employees have been absent from work (Chart 20). Predicting Wage-Price Spirals: The Role of Expectations A classic wage-price spiral is one where self-fulfilling expectations of rising prices prompt workers to demand higher wages. Rising wages, in turn, force firms to lift prices in order to protect profit margins, thus validating workers’ expectations of higher prices. For the time being, such a relentless feedback loop has yet to emerge. Market-based measures of long-term inflation expectations have actually fallen since October and remain below the Fed’s comfort zone (Chart 21). Survey-based measures have moved up, but not by much (Chart 22). To the extent that US households are reluctant to buy a new vehicle, it is because they expect prices to decline (Chart 23). Chart 21Market-Based Expectations Remain Below The Fed's Comfort Zone Chart 22Survey-Based Measures Of Long-Term Inflation Expectations Have Ticked Up, But Not By Much Still, if it turns out that the neutral rate of interest is higher than widely believed, then monetary policy must also be more stimulative than widely believed. This raises the odds that, at some point, the economy will overheat and a wage-price spiral will develop. It is impossible to definitively say when that point will arrive. Inflationary processes tend to be highly non-linear: The labor market can tighten for a long time without this having much impact on inflation, only for inflation to surge once the unemployment rate has fallen below a critical threshold. The Sixties as a Template for Today? The sudden jump in inflation in the 1960s offers an interesting example. The unemployment rate in the US fell to NAIRU in 1962. However, it was not until 1966, when the unemployment rate had already fallen nearly two percentage points below NAIRU, that inflation finally took off. Within the span of ten months, both wage growth and inflation more than doubled. US inflation would end up finishing the decade at 6%, setting the stage for the stagflationary 1970s (Chart 24). Chart 23The Expectation of Lower Prices Is Keeping Many People From Buying A Car Chart 24Inflation Started Accelerating Quickly Only When Unemployment Reached Very Low Levels In The 1960s Our guess is that we are closer to 1964 than 1966, implying that the US economy may still need to overheat for another one or two years before a true wage-price spiral emerges. When the second wave of inflation does begin, however, investors will find themselves in a world of pain. Stay overweight stocks for now but look to reduce equity exposure by the middle of next year. This Week’s Trade Idea Given our expectation that inflation will come down sharply in 2022 before beginning to rise again in late 2023 and into 2024, we recommend shorting the December 2024 3-month SOFR futures contract versus the June 2023 contract. Current market pricing provides an attractive entry point for the trade, with the implied interest rate for the June 2023 contract 8 bps higher than that of the December 2024 contract. We expect the interest rate spread to eventually widen substantially in favor of higher rates (lower futures contract prices) in 2024. Box 1The Neutral Rate Through The Lens Of The Savings-Investment BalancePeter Berezin Chief Global Strategist peterb@bcaresearch.com   Global Investment Strategy View Matrix Special Trade Recommendations Current MacroQuant Model Scores

Executive Summary The recent 26 percent overspend on durable goods constitutes one of the greatest imbalances in economic history. An overspend on goods is corrected by a subsequent underspend; but an underspend on services is not corrected by a subsequent overspend. This unfortunate asymmetry means that the recent overspend on goods at the expense of services makes the economy vulnerable to a downturn. And the risk is exacerbated by central banks’ intentions to hike rates in response to inflation. As the spending on durable goods wanes, so too will monthly core inflation and the 30-year T-bond yield. As the 30-year T-bond rallies, so too will other long-duration bonds, long-duration stocks, long-duration sectors, and long-duration stock markets such as the S&P 500 versus short-duration stock markets such as the FTSE 100. Fractal trading watchlist: We focus on emerging markets, add financials versus industrials, and review tobacco versus cannabis, CAD/SEK, and biotech. If A 26 Percent Overspend On Goods Is Not A Massive Economic Imbalance, Then What Is? Bottom Line: As the spending on durable goods wanes, so too will monthly core inflation and the 30-year T-bond yield. Go overweight long-duration bonds, long-duration stocks, and long-duration stock markets such as the US versus non-US. Feature My colleague Peter Berezin recently wrote that recessions tend to happen when: “1) the build-up of imbalances makes the economy vulnerable to downturn; 2) a catalyst exposes these imbalances; and 3) amplifiers exacerbate the slump.” Peter is spot on. Using this checklist, I would argue that right now: There is a massive imbalance that makes the economy vulnerable to a downturn. Specifically, a 26 percent overspend on durable goods constitutes one of the greatest imbalances in economic history – the 26 percent overspend on durables refers to the US, but other advanced economies have experienced similar binges on goods. The catalyst that exposes this massive imbalance is the realisation that durables are, well, durable. They last a long time. So, if you front-end loaded many of this year’s purchases into last year, then you will not buy them this year. If you overspent by 26 percent in 2021, then the risk is that you symmetrically underspend by 26 percent in 2022. If central banks hike rates into this demand downturn, they will amplify and exacerbate the slump. A Massive Imbalance In Spending Makes The Economy Vulnerable To A Downturn Much of the recent overspend on goods was spending displaced from the underspend on services which became unavailable in the pandemic – such as eating out, going to the movies, and going to in-person doctor’s appointments. Raising the obvious question, can a future underspend on goods be countered by a future overspend on services? The answer is no. The consumption of services is constrained by time, opportunity, and biology. For example, there is a limit on how often you can eat out, go to the movies, or go to the doctor. If you are used to eating out and going to the movies once a week, and the pandemic prevented you from doing so for a year, that does not mean you will eat out and go to the movies an extra 52 times for the 52 times you missed! Rather, you will quickly revert to your previous pattern of going out once a week. This constraint on services spending means that the underspend will not become a symmetric overspend. In fact, the underspend on certain services will persist. This is because we have made some permanent changes to our lifestyles – for example, hybrid office/home working and more online shopping and online medical care. Additionally, a small but significant minority of people have changed their behaviour, shunning services that require close contact with strangers. To repeat the crucial asymmetry, an overspend on goods is corrected by a subsequent underspend; but an underspend on services is not corrected by a subsequent overspend (Chart I-1 and Chart I-2). Therefore, the recent massive overspend on goods at the expense of services makes the economy vulnerable to a downturn, and the risk is exacerbated by central banks’ intentions to hike rates in response to inflation. These hikes will prove to be overkill, because inflation is set to cool of its own accord. Chart I-1An Overspend On Goods Can Be Corrected By A Subsequent Underspend...   Chart I-2...But An Underspend On Services Cannot Be Corrected By A Subsequent Overspend   Durables Are Driving Inflation, And Inflation Is Driving The 30-Year T-Bond The recent binge on goods really comprises three mini-binges, which peaked in May 2020, January-March 2021, and October 2021. With a couple of months lag, these three mini-binges have caused three mini-waves in core inflation. To see the cause and effect, it is best to examine the evolution of inflation granularly – on a month-on-month basis – which removes the distorting ‘base effects.’ The mini-binges in goods lifted the core monthly inflation rate to an (annualised) 7 percent in July 2020, 10 percent in April-June 2021, and 7 percent in January 2022 (Chart I-3). Chart I-3Spending On Durables Is Driving Inflation Worryingly, the sensitivity of inflation has increased in each new mini-binge in goods spending, possibly reflecting more pressure on already-creaking supply chains as well as more secondary effects. Nevertheless, the key driver of the mini-waves in core inflation is the demand for durables, and as that demand wanes, so will core inflation. As monthly core inflation eases back, so too will the 30-year T-bond yield. What about the 30-year T-bond yield? Although it is a long-duration asset, its yield has recently been tracking the short-term contours of core inflation. So, when monthly inflation reached an (annualised) 10 percent last year, the 30-year T-bond yield reached 2.5 percent. At the more recent 7 percent inflation rate, the yield has reached 2.35 percent. It follows that as monthly core inflation eases back, so too will the 30-year T-bond yield (Chart I-4). Chart I-4Inflation Is Driving The 30-Year T-Bond Get The 30-Year T-Bond Right, And You’ll Get Most Things Right For the past year, the story of stocks has been the story of bonds. Or to be more precise, the story of long-duration stocks has been the story of the 30-year T-bond. Through this period, the worry du jour has changed – from the Omicron mutation of SARS-CoV-2 to an Evergrande default to Facebook subscriber losses and now to Russia/Ukraine tensions. Yet the overarching story through all of this is that the long-duration Nasdaq index has tracked the 30-year T-bond price one-for-one (Chart I-5). And the connection between S&P 500 and the 30-year T-bond price is almost as good (Chart I-6). Chart I-5Get The 30-Year T-Bond Right, And You'll Get The Nasdaq Right Chart I-6Get The 30-Year T-Bond Right, And You'll Get The S&P 500 Right The tight short-term connection between long-duration stocks and the 30-year T-bond makes perfect sense. The cashflows of any investment can be simplified into a ‘lump-sum’ payment in the future, and the ‘present value’ of this payment will move in line with the present value of an equal-duration bond. So, all else being equal, a long-duration stock will move one-for-one in line with a long-duration bond. The story of long-duration stocks has been the story of the 30-year T-bond. ‘Value’ stocks and non-US stock markets which are over-weighted to value have a shorter-duration. Therefore, they have a much weaker connection with the 30-year T-bond. It follows that if you get the 30-year T-bond right, you’ll get most things right: The performance of other long-duration bonds (Chart I-7). The performance of long-duration growth stocks (Chart I-8). The performance of ‘growth’ versus ‘value’ (Chart I-9). The performance of growth-heavy stock markets like the S&P 500 versus value-heavy stock markets like the FTSE100 (Chart I-10). Of course, the corollary is that if you get the 30-year T-bond wrong, you’ll get most things wrong. Observe that the 1-year charts of long-duration bonds, growth stocks, growth versus value, and S&P 500 versus FTSE100 are indistinguishable. Proving once again that investment is complex, but it is not complicated! Chart I-7Get The 30-Year T-Bond Right, And You'll Get The 30-Year German Bund Right Chart I-8Get The 30-Year T-Bond Right, And You'll Get Growth Stocks Right   Chart I-9Get The 30-Year T-Bond Right, And You'll Get Growth Versus Value Right Chart I-10Get The 30-Year T-Bond Right, And You'll Get S&P 500 Versus FTSE100 Right Our expectation is that as the spending on durable goods wanes, so too will monthly core inflation and the 30-year T-bond yield. Go overweight long-duration bonds, long-duration stocks, long-duration sectors, and long-duration stock markets such as the US versus non-US. Fractal Trading Watchlist This week we focus on emerging markets, add financials versus industrials, and review tobacco versus cannabis, CAD/SEK, and biotech. Emerging markets (EM) have been a big underperformer through the past year, but it may be time to dip in again, at least relative to value-heavy developed market (DM) indexes. Specifically, MSCI Emerging Markets versus MSCI UK has reached the point of fractal fragility that signalled previous major turning-points in 2014, 2018, and 2020 (Chart I-11). Accordingly, this week’s recommended trade is to go long MSCI EM versus UK (dollar indexes), setting the profit-target and symmetrical stop-loss at 10 percent.  Chart I-11Time To Dip Into EM Again, Selectively Financials Versus Industrials Is Approaching A Turning-Point CAD/SEK At A Top Awaiting A Major Entry-Point Into Biotech Dhaval Joshi Chief Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com Fractal Trading System 6-Month Recommendations Structural Recommendations Closed Fractal Trades Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Euro Area Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Europe Ex Euro Area   Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Asia Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Other Developed   Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations I   Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations III    

Executive Summary China Needs To Create RMB35 Trillion In Credit In 2022 The pace of credit creation in January increased sharply over December. However, the jump was less than meets the eye compared with previous easing cycles and adjusted for seasonality. Our calculation suggests that a minimum of approximately RMB35 trillion of new credit, or a credit impulse that accounts for 29% of this year's nominal GDP, will be needed to stabilize the economy. January’s credit expansion falls short of the RMB35 trillion mark on a six-month annualized rate of change basis. Our model will provide a framework for investors to gauge whether the month-over-month credit expansion data is on track to meet our estimate of the required stimulus. Despite an improvement in January's credit growth from December, it is premature to update Chinese stocks (on- and off-shore) to overweight relative to global equities. Bottom Line: Approximately RMB35 trillion in newly increased credit this year will probably be needed to revive China’s domestic demand.  Any stimulus short of this goal would mean that investors should not increase their cyclical asset allocation of Chinese stocks in a global portfolio. Feature January’s credit data for China exceeded the market consensus. The aggregate total social financing (TSF) more than doubled in the first month of 2022 from December last year. However, on a year-over-year basis, the increase in January’s TSF was smaller than in previous easing cycles, such as in 2013, 2016 and 2019. Furthermore, underlying data in the TSF reflects a prolonged weak demand for bank loans from both the corporate and household sectors. While January’s uptick in credit expansion makes us slightly more optimistic about China’s policy support, economic recovery and equity performance in the next 6 to 12 months, we are not yet ready to upgrade our view. An estimated RMB35 trillion in newly increased credit this year will likely be necessary to revive flagging domestic demand. In the absence of seasonally adjusted TSF data in China, our framework will help investors determine whether incoming stimulus is on course to meet this objective. Interpreting January’s Credit Numbers Chart 1A Sharp Increase In Credit Creation In January January’s credit creation beat the market consensus to reach RMB6.17 trillion, pushed up by a seasonal boost and a frontloading of government bond issuance (Chart 1). However, the composition of the TSF data reflects an extended weakness in business and consumer credit demand. On the plus side, net government bond financing, including local government special purpose bonds, rose to RMB603 billion last month, more than twice the amount from January 2021 (Chart 1, bottom panel). Corporate bond issuance also picked up, reflecting cheaper market rates and more accommodative liquidity conditions (Chart 2). Furthermore, shadow credit (including trust loans, entrust loans and bank acceptance bills) also ticked up in January compared with a year ago. The increase in informal lending sends a tentative signal that policymakers may be willing to ease the regulatory pressure on shadow bank activities (Chart 3). Chart 2Corporate Financing Through Bond Issuance Also Increased Chart 3Shadow Banking Activity Ticked Up For The First Time In A Year Meanwhile, several factors suggest that the surge in January’s credit expansion may be less than what it appears to be at first glance. First, credit growth is always abnormally strong in January. Banks typically increase lending at the beginning of a year, seeking to expand their assets rapidly before administrative credit quotas kick in. In recent years loans made during the first month of a year accounted for about 17% - 20% of total bank credit generated for an entire year. Secondly, the credit flow in January, although higher than in January 2021, was weaker than in the first month of previous easing cycles. Credit impulse – measured by the 12-month change in TSF as a percentage of nominal GDP – only inched up by 0.6 percentage points of GDP in January this year from December, much weaker than that during the first month in previous easing cycles (Chart 4). TSF increased by RMB980 billion from January 2021, lower than the RMB1.5 trillion year-on-year jump in 2019 and the RMB1.4 trillion boost in 2016 (Chart 4, bottom panel). Chart 4The Magnitude Of Increase In January’s Credit Impulse Less Than Meets The Eye Chart 5Corporate Demand For Bank Credit Remains Soft Furthermore, China’s households and private businesses have significantly lagged in their responses to recent policy easing measures and their demand for credit remained soft in January (Chart 5). Bank credit in both short and longer terms to households were lower than a year earlier due to downbeat consumer sentiment (Chart 6A and 6B). Chart 6AConsumption Was Unseasonably Weak During Chinese New Year Chart 6BHouseholds' Propensity To Consume Continues Trending Down How Much Stimulus Is Necessary? Our calculation suggests that China will probably need to create approximately RMB35 trillion in new credit, or 29% of GDP in credit impulse, over the course of this year to avoid a contraction in corporate earnings. In our previous reports, we argued that the state of the economy today is in a slightly better shape than the deep deflationary period in 2014/15, but the magnitude of the property market contraction is comparable to that seven years ago. Chart 7 illustrates our approach, which uses a model of Chinese investable earnings growth. The model is designed to predict the likelihood of a serious contraction in investable earnings in the coming 12 months. It includes variables on credit, manufacturing new orders and forward earnings momentum. The chart shows that the flow of TSF as a share of GDP needs to reach a minimum of 28.5% in order that the probability of a major earnings contraction falls below 50%. The size of the credit impulse necessary is 2 percentage points higher than that achieved last year, but still lower than the scope of the stimulus rolled out in 2016. Assuming an 8% growth rate in nominal GDP in 2022, the credit flow that should to be originated this year would be about RMB35 trillion, as illustrated in Chart 8. The chart also shows that this amount would exceed a previous high in credit flow reached in late-2020. Chart 7China Needs At Least A 29% Credit Impulse In 2022 To Avoid An Earnings Recession Chart 8China Needs To Create RMB35 Trillion In Credit In 2022 Based on a 3-month annualized rate of change, January’s credit growth appears that it will achieve the RMB35 trillion mark. However, the jump in TSF largely reflects a one-month leap in frontloaded local government bond issuance and it is not certain if private credit will accelerate in the months ahead. For now, we contend the stimulus have been insufficiently provided during the past six months (Chart 8, bottom panel). Chance Of A Stimulus Overshoot? We will closely monitor whether the month-to-month pace of credit growth is consistent with the scope of the reflationary policy response required to revive China’s domestic demand. Despite a sharp improvement in January’s headline credit number, we view the policy signal from January’s credit data as neutral. China’s unique cyclical patterns and the lack of official seasonally adjusted data make monthly credit figures difficult to interpret. Charts 9 and 10 represent an approach that we previously introduced to help gauge whether the pace of credit creation is on track to meet the stimulus called for to stabilize the economy. Chart 9Jan Credit Growth Looked To Be Stronger Than A “Half-Strength” Credit Cycle… Chart 10…But It Is Too Early To Conclude It Is In Line With What Is Needed The charts show an average cumulative amount of TSF as the year advances, along with a ±0.5 standard deviation, based on data from 2010 to 2021. The thick black line in both charts shows the progress in new credit creation this year, assuming an 8% annual nominal GDP growth rate. Chart 9 shows the cumulative progress in credit, assuming a 27% new credit-to-GDP ratio for the year, whereas Chart 10 assumes 30%. The 27% ratio scenario shown in Chart 9, which is slightly higher than the magnitude of stimulus in 2019, would correspond to a very measured credit expansion. If the thick black line continues to trend within this range, it would suggest that policymakers are reluctant to allow credit growth to surge. Consequently, global investors should continue an underweight stance on Chinese stocks. In contrast, Chart 10 represents a 30% rate of TSF as a share of this year’s GDP; this would be the adequate stimulus needed for a recovery in domestic demand. A cumulative amount of TSF that trends within or above this range would provide more confidence that a credit overshoot similar to 2015/16 and 2020 would occur.   Investment Conclusions It is premature to upgrade Chinese stocks to an overweight cyclical stance (i.e. over 6-12 months) within a global portfolio. For now, we recommend investors stay only tactically overweight in Chinese investable equities versus the global benchmark, given their cheap relative valuations. Meanwhile, the increase in January’s TSF, while registering an improvement relative to previous months, does not signal that the pace of credit growth will be strong enough to overcome the negative ramifications of the ongoing deceleration in housing market activity. Therefore, in view of policymakers’ steadfast desire to avoid another major credit overshoot, our cyclical recommendation to underweight Chinese stocks remains unchanged.   Jing Sima China Strategist jings@bcaresearch.com Strategic Themes Cyclical Recommendations Tactical Recommendations

Executive Summary The Pandemic-Led Surge In E-Commerce Spending Is Reverting Back To Trend Rising interest rates and a cooling in pandemic-related tech spending will cap the upside for technology shares over the remainder of 2022. Looking further out, US big tech companies are likely to suffer from heightened competition in increasingly saturated markets. Concerns about big tech’s excessive market power, cavalier attitudes towards personal data, proclivity for censoring non-establishment opinions, and the deleterious impact of social media on teenage mental health are all fueling a public backlash. Investors should expect increased regulation and antitrust enforcement of big tech companies in the years ahead. Bottom Line: The hegemony of today’s US-based big tech companies is coming to an end. While we do not expect tech stocks to decline in absolute terms in 2022, they will lag the S&P 500. Given tech’s heavy representation in the US, investors should underweight the US in a global equity portfolio. Sinking Ark Tech stocks have had a tough ride since the start of the year. So far in 2022, the NASDAQ Composite has fallen 9.3% compared to 5.5% for the S&P 500. The ARK Innovation ETF, Cathie Wood’s collection of “disruptor” companies, has dropped -22%, and is now down -53% from its peak last year (Chart 1). We expect tech shares to lag the market during the remainder of 2022. The pandemic was a boon for many tech companies. Generous stimulus payments and stay-at-home policies led to a surge in e-commerce spending (Chart 2). As economies continue to reopen, many tech companies could face an air pocket in demand for their goods and services.  Chart 1Tech Stocks: Rough Start to 2022 Chart 2The Pandemic-Led Surge In E-Commerce Spending Is Reverting Back To Trend   Despite some softening of late, retail sales remain well above their pre-pandemic trendline (Chart 3). If Amazon’s still-rosy projections are any guide, a further slowdown in goods spending is something that the analyst community is not fully discounting (Chart 4). Chart 3US Retail Spending Is Above Trend Chart 4Amazon Sales Estimates May Be Too Optimistic Rate Hikes Will Disproportionately Hit Tech Chart 5Long Rates Anticipate The Movements In Short Rates US rate expectations continued to move up this week, egged on by St. Louis Fed President James Bullard’s statement earlier today declaring that he favors raising interest rates by a full percentage point by the start of July. The market is now pricing in six rate hikes by the end of the year.  Historically, bond yields have increased starting about four months before the first rate hike and over the period in which the Fed is raising rates (Chart 5). While we do not think the Fed will need to deliver more tightening this year than what is already discounted, we do think that investors will eventually be forced to revise up their expectations of the neutral rate to between 3%-and-4%. As Chart 6 shows, the market expects the Fed to stop raising rates when they reach 2%, which we regard as unrealistic. Chart 6The Market Thinks The Fed Will Not Be Able To Lift Rates Above 2% An increase in the market’s estimate of the neutral rate will push up bond yields. Unlike banks, tech tends to underperform in a rising yield environment (Chart 7). Priced For Perfection? Higher bond yields and a reversion-to-trend in tech spending would be less of a problem for technology shares if valuations were cheap. They are not, however. The Nasdaq Composite still trades at 29-times forward earnings compared to 20-times forward earnings for the broader S&P 500 (Chart 8). Chart 8Tech Shares Are No Bargain Chart 7Rising Bond Yields Will Help Bank Stocks But Hurt Tech Shares Tech investors would argue that such a hefty valuation premium is warranted given the tech sector’s superior growth prospects. Underlying this argument is the assumption that just because tech spending will grow more quickly than the rest of the economy, this will necessarily translate into above-average earnings growth and outsized returns for publicly-listed tech companies. But is that really the case? Over short horizons of a few years, there is a decent correlation between relative industry growth and relative equity returns (Chart 9). However, that relationship evaporates over very long-term horizons (Chart 10). In fact, since 1970, the best-performing equity sector has been tobacco, hardly a paragon of technological innovation (Chart 11). Chart 9Stocks In Industries That Experience A Burst Of Output Growth Do Tend To Outperform Other Stocks … Chart 10… But Over The Long Haul, Companies In Fast- Growing Industries Do Not Outperform Their Peers Chart 11Tobacco Industry Returns Have Smoked All Others What Goes Around Comes Around Table 1History Shows Leaders Can Become Laggards Tech stock enthusiasts tend to forget that the disruptors themselves can be disrupted. History is littered with tech companies that failed to keep up with a changing world: RCA, Kodak, Polaroid, Atari, Commodore, Novell, Digital, Sinclair, Wang, Iomega, Corel, Netscape, AltaVista, AOL, Myspace, Compaq, Sun, Lucent, 3Com, Nokia, Palm, and RIM were all major players in their respective industries, only to fade into oblivion. Table 1 shows that all but one of the ten biggest tech names in the S&P 500 IT index in 2000 underperformed the broader market by a substantial degree over the subsequent ten years. Today, the incentive for startups to emerge has never been stronger. Venture capital funds are flush with cash. Tech profit margins are near record highs, making challenging the incumbents an increasingly enticing goal. About one-third of the outperformance of US tech stocks since 1996 can be explained by rising relative profit margins, with faster sales growth and relative P/E multiple expansion explaining 45% and 23% of the remainder, respectively (Chart 12). Chart 12Decomposing Tech Outperformance Meta’s Malaise Chart 13Unlike Economists, Facebook Just Ain't Cool No More Which of today’s tech titans could join the “has been club”?  As we flagged in August, Meta is certainly a possibility. In its disastrous quarterly earnings report, the company revealed that globally, the number of Facebook users is shrinking for the first time ever. While this came as a surprise to many investors, the writing has been on the wall for a long time. According to Piper Sandler’s survey of teen preferences conducted late last year, only 27% of teenagers used Facebook, down from 94% in 2012 (Chart 13). Meta has been fortunate in that many Facebook users have migrated to Instagram, a social media platform it acquired in 2012. Unfortunately, the latest data suggests that even Instagram usage is starting to slow as more young people flock to TikTok. Google Also Vulnerable Unlike Meta, Alphabet crushed earnings estimates. However, the similarities between the two companies may be greater than most investors are willing to admit. Like Facebook, Google’s profits almost entirely come from ad spending. According to eMarketer, Google garnered 44% of digital ad spending in 2021 while Facebook took in 23%. Digital advertising accounted for 63% of all ad spending in 2021, up from 58% in 2020 and 51% in 2019. While there may be scope for digital ads to take further market share,  eventually, growth in digital ad spending will converge with overall consumption growth, which in the US is likely to average no more than 2% in real terms over time. Monopoly Power Another important similarity between Meta and Alphabet is that both companies are increasingly coming under scrutiny from politicians and regulators. The antitrust case brought against Alphabet by 14 US states contains a litany of allegations of unfair practices. After an initial failed attempt, the Federal Trade Commission’s antitrust suit against Meta is also moving forward. Privacy Matters In addition, the way big tech companies handle private data is raising some hackles. In its annual report filed earlier this month, Meta warned that it would need to shut down Facebook and Instagram in Europe unless regulators drew up new privacy regulations. This came on top of Meta’s disclosure that it will lose $10 billion this year after Apple introduced pop-ups on the iPhone’s operating system asking users if they wanted to be tracked by apps.  Turn Off That Phone! Another looming worry revolves around the corrosive impact of excessive social media usage on mental health. Academic studies have shown that adolescents who use Facebook and Instagram frequently feel greater anxiety and unease than those who do not. The share of students reporting high levels of loneliness more than doubled in both the US and abroad over the past decade, a trend that predates the pandemic (Chart 14). In 2020, the last year for which comprehensive data is available, one-quarter of US girls between the ages of 12 and 17 reported experiencing a major depressive episode, up from 12% in 2011 (Chart 15). Chart 15The Rise In Depression Rates Coincided With Increased Social Media Usage Chart 14Alone In The Crowd     Backlash Public contempt for tech companies is fueling a political backlash. According to a Gallup poll conducted last year, only 34% of Americans held a favorable view of tech companies such as Amazon, Facebook, and Google, down from 46% in 2019; 45% had an unfavorable opinion, up from 33% in 2019 (Chart 16). Chart 16Americans Do Not Hold Tech Companies In High Regard The shift in public sentiment over the past two years has been entirely driven by Independent and Republican voters, many of whom feel that tech companies are unfairly censoring their opinions (Table 2). The same poll revealed that the majority of Americans – including the majority of Republicans – now favor increased regulation of tech companies.  Table 2American Views On Big Tech Investment Conclusions Chart 17Value Stocks Are Cheap Considering that global growth is likely to remain above-trend this year, we do not expect tech stocks to decline in absolute terms. A flattish, though volatile, trajectory is the most plausible outcome. In relative terms, however, tech stocks will underperform. Despite having outperformed tech-heavy growth stocks by 14% since last November, value stocks remain exceptionally cheap by historic standards (Chart 17). Tech stocks are overrepresented in the US. Thus, if tech continues to underperform, it stands to reason that non-US equities will outperform their US peers over the coming years.    Peter Berezin Chief Global Strategist peterb@bcaresearch.com Global Investment Strategy View Matrix Special Trade Recommendations Current MacroQuant Model Scores