Monetary

Highlights Fed: Chair Powell’s remarks after the November FOMC meeting suggest that the Fed will not panic and move quickly toward tightening in the face of high inflation. Rather, the Fed will stay the course and will only lift rates once its “maximum employment” liftoff trigger is met. We continue to expect Fed liftoff in December 2022. Nominal Treasuries: We project that Treasury securities will still deliver negative total returns, even if Fed liftoff is delayed until December 2022. Investors can protect returns by favoring the 2-year note (long 2yr over cash/10yr barbell) and 20-year bond (long 20yr over 10yr/30yr barbell). TIPS: Investors should short 2-year TIPS outright in anticipation of falling short-dated inflation expectations during the next 12 months. The Taper Is Done, Now Onto Liftoff The Fed announced a tapering of its asset purchases last week and the details of the tapering plan were consistent with what had already been signaled to the public. The Fed will purchase $70 billion of Treasuries this month (compared to $80 billion in October) and $35 billion of agency MBS (down from $40 billion in October). It will then reduce monthly Treasury and MBS purchases by $10 billion and $5 billion each month, respectively, until it reaches net zero asset purchases by June of next year (Chart 2). The Fed didn’t give specific guidance on what will happen with the balance sheet after June, but it’s highly likely that it will follow the pattern of the last tightening cycle and keep the balance sheet flat for a long time, until the fed funds rate is well above the zero bound. The Fed also gave itself the option to increase or decrease the pace of purchases if such changes are warranted by the economic outlook, but it would take a major shock to knock the Fed off its pre-set course. Chart 1The Market's Liftoff Expectations Chart 2Net Purchases Will Reach Zero By June With the tapering announcement out of the way, the Fed can now turn to the more important question of when to start lifting interest rates. Jay Powell made it clear at last week’s press conference that the committee hasn’t yet formally taken up the issue, but that didn’t stop reporters from pressing the Chairman to provide more details about when the Fed will hike. None of that should be too surprising. There’s intense market interest and a great deal of uncertainty about the timing of Fed liftoff. Two months ago, markets were pricing-in no rate hikes at all in 2022. Now, markets are looking for Fed liftoff at the September 2022 FOMC meeting and are discounting a 90% chance of 2 rate hikes by the end of next year (Chart 1). The Fed’s Thinking On Liftoff So, what did we learn from last week’s FOMC Statement and press conference about how the Fed is thinking about the liftoff date? First, we know from previous comments that the Fed would prefer to reduce net asset purchases to zero before it starts lifting rates. This means that the July 2022 FOMC meeting is the first “live meeting” where a rate hike could possibly occur, and the fed funds futures market is already pricing-in a 74% chance that liftoff will occur at that meeting (Chart 1). We aren’t so sure. In fact, we don’t see the Fed lifting rates until December 2022, and Chair Powell’s comments about inflation at last week’s press conference only increased our confidence in that view. On inflation, Powell echoed comments by Fed Governor Randal Quarles that we flagged in a recent report.1 Both Powell and Quarles put less emphasis on the length of time that inflation remains above the Fed’s target and more emphasis on the causes of that inflation and whether it’s appropriate for the Fed to lean against it. Here’s Powell from last week (emphasis added): Supply constraints have been larger and longer lasting than anticipated. Nonetheless, it remains the case that the drivers of higher inflation have been predominantly connected to dislocations caused by the pandemic, specifically the effects on supply and demand from the shutdown, the uneven reopening, and the ongoing effects of the virus itself. Our tools cannot ease supply constraints. Like most forecasters, we continue to believe that our dynamic economy will adjust to the supply and demand imbalances, and that as it does, inflation will decline to levels much closer to our 2 percent longer-run goal. Of course, it is very difficult to predict the persistence of supply constraints or their effects on inflation. Global supply chains are complex; they will return to normal function, but the timing of that is highly uncertain.2 Essentially, Powell is pointing out that it would be a mistake for the Fed to tighten policy to bring down inflation only to find out that the economy’s natural supply side response was about to do so anyways. The Fed would have dragged down aggregate demand for no reason. So what would cause the Fed to lift rates? We see two potential triggers. The first liftoff trigger would be an assessment by the FOMC that the labor market has reached “maximum employment”. This is the liftoff condition that the Fed has officially set for itself. The second liftoff trigger would be an uncomfortable increase in long-dated inflation expectations. A spike in long-dated inflation expectations would be worrying enough that the Fed would abandon its “maximum employment” goal and tighten earlier. The “Maximum Employment” Trigger Chart 3How Far From "Maximum Employment"? The concept of “maximum employment” brings a whole host of other issues along with it. How will the Fed know if the labor market is at “maximum employment”? We’ve discussed this topic at length ourselves and have come to a few helpful conclusions.3 First, we can infer from the most recent Summary of Economic Projections that the Fed views an unemployment rate of 3.8% as roughly consistent with “maximum employment”. It is therefore highly unlikely that the Fed will even consider declaring victory on its employment goal until the unemployment rate is in the vicinity of 3.8%, down from its current 4.6% (Chart 3). Second, there are good reasons to believe that the aging of the US population and the recent sharp increase in retirements will prevent the labor force participation rate from re-gaining its pre-pandemic level. However, FOMC participants seem to agree that the prime-age (25-54) labor force participation rate should be close to its February 2020 level for the “maximum employment” condition to be satisfied (Chart 3, bottom panel). Chair Powell even specifically referenced the prime-age participation rate at last week’s press conference. We think a declaration of “maximum employment” will only occur once the unemployment rate is near 3.8% and the prime-age (25-54) labor force participation rate is near its February 2020 level of 82.9%, up from its current 81.7%. It’s unlikely that these conditions will be met in time for a July 2022 rate hike. The Appendix to this report updates our scenarios for the average monthly nonfarm payroll growth that is required to reach different combinations of the unemployment and participation rates by specific future dates. Our scenarios use the overall participation rate (not the prime-age one), but we think the scenarios derived from the New York Fed’s Surveys of Market Participants and Primary Dealers come close to capturing reasonable conditions for “maximum employment”. Based on those scenarios, we calculate that average monthly nonfarm payroll growth of 602k to 733k is required to reach “maximum employment” by June 2022. Conversely, average monthly payroll growth of only 379k to 455k is required to reach “maximum employment” by December 2022. We see the latter as easily achievable and the former as more of a stretch. On the topic of employment growth, it’s worth noting that both monthly nonfarm payroll growth and the prime-age labor force participation rate were dragged down by the spread of the Delta variant during the past few months (Chart 4). With new COVID cases falling, we should see stronger payroll growth and a higher prime-age part rate in the months ahead. Relatedly, falling COVID cases will also help alleviate some the constraints on labor supply as workers grow less fearful of the virus and more confident about re-entering the labor force. This will not only push prime-age participation higher, but it will also take some of the sting out of wage growth. Wage growth has been extremely high recently as the number of job openings has far outpaced the number of new hires (Chart 5). Fading COVID fears should increase the pace of hiring and slow wage growth. This will give the Fed even more confidence that it should stay the course. Chart 5Peak Wage Growth? The Inflation Expectations Trigger Chart 6Inflation Expectations Are Well-Anchored We noted above that the Fed would abandon its “maximum employment” liftoff condition if long-dated inflation expectations rose to uncomfortably high levels. Specifically, we like to track the 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rate relative to a target range of 2.3% to 2.5% (Chart 6). As long as the 5-year/5-year breakeven rate stays within that range or below, the Fed will be guided by its “maximum employment” goal. However, if that rate were to break above 2.5% for a significant period of time, the Fed would be sufficiently worried about an expectations-driven inflationary spiral that it would abandon its “maximum employment” trigger and bring forward the liftoff date. We don’t expect to see a breakout above 2.5% in the 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rate anytime soon. The rate has stayed well contained throughout the past few months even as inflation skyrocketed. It would be strange for it to suddenly spike after inflation has already peaked.4 Bottom Line: Chair Powell’s remarks after the November FOMC meeting suggest that the Fed will not panic and move quickly toward tightening in the face of high inflation. Rather, the Fed will stay the course and will only lift rates once its “maximum employment” liftoff trigger is met. We continue to expect Fed liftoff in December 2022. Treasury Market Positioning For A December 2022 Liftoff To determine how we should position within the Treasury market, we translate our above views on the timing of Fed liftoff into fair value estimates for different segments of the Treasury curve. Specifically, we assume a scenario where the Fed starts hiking in December 2022 and then lifts rates at a pace of 100 bps per year until reaching a terminal rate of 2.08%. That 2.08% terminal rate is based on an expected target range of 2%-2.25% that is inferred from responses to the New York Fed’s Surveys of Market Participants and Primary Dealers. We assume that the effective fed funds rate will trade 8 bps above the lower-bound of its target range, as it does currently. Table 1 shows expected 12-month total returns for each Treasury maturity, assuming the market moves to fully price-in our expected funds rate path during the next year. Table 1Projected 12-Month Treasury Returns: Dec 2022 Liftoff/100 Bps Per Year Pace/2.08% Terminal Rate The first observation that jumps out is that, except for the 2-year and 20-year maturities, expected Treasury returns are negative across the board. This justifies sticking with our recommended below-benchmark portfolio duration stance. Second, our expectation that liftoff will be delayed relative to current market expectations gives the 2-year note slightly better expected returns, particularly relative to the 10-year note. As a result, we advise investors to hold 2/10 yield curve steepeners. Specifically, investors should go long the 2-year note versus a duration-matched barbell consisting of the 10-year note and cash. Third, the 20-year bond looks to be priced cheaply on the curve. It offers expected 12-month returns of +79 bps while the 10-year note and 30-year bond are both projected to lose money. We recommend taking advantage of this situation by going long the 20-year bond versus a duration-matched barbell consisting of the 10-year note and 30-year bond. This proposed trade offers positive carry of 20 bps (Chart 7). Further, the 10/20 slope is stuck in the middle of where it was on the 2015 and 2004 liftoff dates (Chart 7, panel 2). The 20/30 slope, meanwhile, is inverted and well below where it was on the 2015 and 2004 liftoff dates (Chart 7, bottom panel). Our 20 over 10/30 trade will profit as the 20/30 slope re-steepens, even if the 10/20 slope doesn’t move that much. Chart 7Buy 20s Versus 10s30s It could be argued that our recommend trades are all predicated on a fed funds rate scenario that embeds too low of a terminal rate. In fact, the median projection of FOMC participants would place the terminal rate closer to 2.5% than to 2%. If we alter our scenario by increasing the terminal rate assumption from 2.08% to 2.58%, it only improves the outlook for our recommended positions (Table 2). Table 2Projected 12-Month Treasury Returns: Dec 2022 Liftoff/100 Bps Per Year Pace/2.58% Terminal Rate In the new scenario, expected Treasury returns are more negative – especially at the long-end. However, the 2-year note is still expected to earn a small profit. Our 20 over 10/30 trade performs slightly worse in this second scenario compared to the first one (+1.79% versus +1.95%), but it is still expected to make money.  TIPS Chart 8A Lot Of Upside In Short-Maturity Real Yields We have one final government bond recommendation based on our expectation that Fed liftoff will be delayed until December 2022. That trade is to go short 2-year TIPS. Alternatively, investors could enter 2/10 inflation curve steepeners or 2/10 real yield curve flatteners. Our base case economic outlook is that supply side constraints (both in global supply chains and in the labor market) will loosen during the next 12 months. This will push down short-dated inflation expectations while long-dated inflation expectations stay relatively close to the Fed’s target. If we assume that both the 2-year and 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rates trend towards the middle of the Fed’s 2.3% to 2.5% target range during the next 12 months and that the nominal 2-year and 10-year yields follow the paths predicted by the fair value scenario presented in Table 1, then we see that the 2-year real yield has a lot of upside (Chart 8). This is true both in absolute terms and relative to the 10-year real yield. We advise investors to short 2-year TIPS outright. Alternatively, 2/10 inflation curve steepeners or 2/10 real yield curve flatteners will also perform well during the next 12 months. Bottom Line: We suggest four different ways that bond investors can profit from the Fed delaying liftoff until December 2022. Investors should keep portfolio duration low, enter 2/10 nominal curve steepeners, buy the 20-year T-bond versus a 10/30 barbell and short 2-year TIPS.  Appendix: How Far From “Maximum Employment” And Fed Liftoff? Chart A1Defining “Maximum Employment” The Federal Reserve has promised that the funds rate will stay pinned at zero until the labor market returns to “maximum employment”. The Fed has not provided explicit guidance on the definition of “maximum employment”, but we deduce that “maximum employment” means that the Fed wants to see the U3 unemployment rate within a range consistent with its estimates of the natural rate of unemployment, currently 3.5% to 4.5%, and that it wants to see a significant increase in the labor force participation rate (Chart A1). Alternatively, we can infer definitions of “maximum employment” from the New York Fed’s Surveys of Primary Dealers and Market Participants. These surveys ask respondents what they think the unemployment and labor force participation rates will be at the time of Fed liftoff. Currently, the median respondent from the Survey of Market Participants expects an unemployment rate of 3.5% and a participation rate of 63%. The median respondent from the Survey of Primary Dealers expects an unemployment rate of 3.7% and a participation rate of 62.7%. Tables A1-A4 present the average monthly nonfarm payroll growth required to reach different combinations of unemployment rate and participation rate by specific future dates. For example, if we use the definition of “maximum employment” from the Survey of Market Participants, then we need to see average monthly nonfarm payroll growth of +455k in order to hit “maximum employment” by the end of 2022. Chart A2 presents recent monthly nonfarm payroll growth along with target levels based on the Survey of Market Participants’ definition of “maximum employment”. This chart is to help us track progress toward specific liftoff dates. For example, if monthly nonfarm payroll growth prints +400k per month going forward, we would expect Fed liftoff between December 2022 and June 2023. Chart A2Tracking Toward Fed Liftoff We will continue to track these charts and tables in the coming months, and will publish updates after the release of each monthly employment report. Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The Best & Worst Spots On The Yield Curve”, dated October 26, 2021. 2 https://www.federalreserve.gov/mediacenter/files/FOMCpresconf20211103.pdf 3 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “2022 Will Be All About Inflation”, dated September 14, 2021. 4 For more details on our inflation outlook please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Right Price, Wrong Reason”, dated October 19, 2021. Recommended Portfolio Specification Other Recommendations Treasury Index Returns Spread Product Returns

Highlights Supply-side pressures should abate over the coming months as semiconductor availability improves, transportation bottlenecks ease, energy prices recede, and more workers enter the labor force. The respite from inflation will be temporary, however. The combination of easy fiscal and monetary policies will cause unemployment to fall below its equilibrium level in the US, and eventually, in most major economies. Unlike in the late 1990s, when rising wages were counterbalanced by robust productivity gains, most of the recent rebound in US productivity growth will prove to be illusory. US inflation will follow a “two steps up, one step down” trajectory. We are currently at the top of those two steps, but rising unit labor costs will eventually drive inflation higher. Rather than fretting that the Federal Reserve will keep rates too low for too long, investors are worried that the Fed will tighten too much. This is a key reason why the 20-year/30-year Treasury slope has inverted. Such an inversion does not make sense to us. Hence, we are initiating a trade going long the 20-year bond versus the 30-year bond. Go short the 10-year Gilt on any break below 0.85%. UK real bond yields are amongst the lowest in the world. The Bank of England will eventually have to turn more hawkish, which will support the beleaguered pound. Structurally higher bond yields will benefit value stocks. Banks stand to gain from rising bond yields while tech could suffer. The eventual re-emergence of supply-side pressures will catalyze more investment spending. This will bolster industrial stocks. The Supply Side Matters, Again Savings glut, secular stagnation; call it what you will, but for the better part of two decades, the global economy has faced a chronic shortfall of aggregate demand. Times are changing, however. The predominant problem these days is not a lack of spending; it is a lack of production. Unlike during the Global Financial Crisis – when worries about moral hazard complicated efforts to bail out homeowners and banks – the victims of the pandemic elicited sympathy. As a result, governments in developed economies rolled out a slew of measures to support workers and businesses. Thanks to bountiful fiscal transfers, households in the US have accrued $2.2 trillion in income since the start of the pandemic, about $1.2 trillion more than one would have expected based on the pre-pandemic trend (Chart 1). With many services unavailable, consumers diverted spending towards manufactured goods. At first, sellers were able to dip into their inventories to meet rising demand. By early this year, however, inventories had been depleted (Chart 2). Shortages began to pop up across much of the global supply chain. Chart 1Stimulus-Supported Income Growth Boosted Goods Consumption Chart 2The Pandemic Depleted Inventories While today’s empty warehouses can be largely attributed to surging demand for goods, supply-side disruptions have also played an important role. Four disruptions stand out: 1) semiconductor shortages; 2) transportation bottlenecks; 3) inadequate energy supplies; and 4) reduced labor force participation. Let us examine all four in turn. Semiconductor Shortages Chart 3Car Prices Have Jumped The global supply chain was not equipped to handle the dislocations caused by the pandemic. The combination of just-in-time inventory systems and far-flung supplier networks ensured that bottlenecks in one part of the global economy quickly filtered down to other parts of the economy. Few industries are as important as semiconductors. The auto sector has felt the brunt of the chip shortage. Both new and used vehicle prices have soared as dealer lots have emptied out (Chart 3). The drop in vehicle spending alone shaved 2.4 percentage points off US real GDP growth in the third quarter. Semiconductor makers have ramped up production to meet growing demand. The US Census Bureau’s Quarterly Survey of Plant Capacity Utilization showed that semiconductor plants operated an average of 73 hours per week in the first half of this year, up from around 45-to-50 hours prior to the pandemic (Chart 4). Chip production in Northeast Asia has rebounded (Chart 5). Southeast Asian production dropped in August due to Covid lockdowns, with semiconductor exports falling by over a third in Malaysia and Vietnam. Fortunately, since then, a decline in Covid cases and rising vaccination rates have spurred a recovery throughout the region. Chart 4Chipmakers Are Working Overtime Chart 5Semiconductor Production Has Accelerated In Northeast Asia Chart 6Memory Chip Prices Are Declining Commentary from semiconductor companies and automakers suggest that the chip shortage will ease over the coming months. In an auspicious sign, US auto sales jumped to 13.1 million in October from 12.3 million in September. Memory chip prices are also falling (Chart 6). Nevertheless, the overall chip market is unlikely to return to balance until 2023. Transportation Bottlenecks Unlike semiconductors and high-end electronics, which usually arrive by air, bulkier items such as furniture, sporting goods, and housing appliances typically arrive by sea. Port congestion, insufficient warehouse capacity, and a lack of truck chassis on which to place containers have all contributed to transportation bottlenecks. Chart 7Transportation Bottlenecks: Past The Worst? As with the semiconductor shortage, we are probably past the worst point in the shipping crisis. Drewry’s composite World Container Index has edged down 11% from its highs, although it is still up more than three-fold from mid-2020 levels (Chart 7). The easing in container shipping costs follows a dramatic 47% decline in the Baltic Dry Index since early October. The number of ships waiting to unload cargo off the coast of Los Angeles and Long Beach remains near record highs (Chart 8). Port congestion should ease over the next few months. US port throughput usually falls starting in the late fall and remains weak during the winter months, bottoming shortly after the Chinese New Year. If throughput remains elevated near current levels this year, this should be enough to clear much of the backlog. Looking further out, shipping costs could face additional downward pressure. Chart 9 shows that the number of container ships on order has risen to a 10-year high; these new ships will be delivered over the next two years. Chart 8Port Congestion Should Ease Over The Coming Months Chart 9Shipbuilders Are Busy Inadequate Energy Supplies After a torrid rally since the start of the year, energy prices have come off their highs. The price of Brent oil has dipped 6% from its October peak. US natural gas prices have retreated 11%. Natural gas prices in Europe have fallen 37%. The biggest move has been in coal prices, which have dropped 36% over the past two weeks alone. Futures curves are pricing in further declines in key energy prices (Chart 10). BCA’s Commodity and Energy Strategy service expects energy prices to soften over the next 12 months, but not as much as markets are discounting. Their latest forecast calls for the price of Brent crude to average $81/bbl in 2021Q4, $80/bbl in 2022 (versus market expectations of $77/bbl), and $81/bbl in 2023 (versus market expectations of $71/bbl). As we discussed a few weeks ago, years of underinvestment have led to tight supply conditions across the entire energy complex (Chart 11). Proven global oil reserves increased by only 6% between 2010 and 2020, having risen by 26% over the preceding decade. Gas reserves followed a similar trajectory, increasing by only 5% between 2010 and 2020 compared to 30% over the prior ten years (Chart 12).   With little spare capacity, energy markets have become increasingly vulnerable to shocks. A cold snap across the Northern Hemisphere this spring depleted natural gas supplies, while a lack of wind reduced energy production by European wind farms. Increased gas imports from Russia could have mitigated the problem, but the dispute over the Nord Stream 2 pipeline prevented that from happening. The pipeline is popular with German voters (Chart 13). BCA’s geopolitical team expects it to be approved, a welcome development given that La Niña is highly likely to lead to colder-than-normal temperatures across northern Europe this winter. China has also restarted 170 coal mines and will probably begin re-importing Australian coal. Beijing is also allowing utilities to charge higher prices, which should help stave off bankruptcies across the sector. These measures should help mitigate China’s energy crisis. Chart 14US Rig Count Has Risen From Low Levels A bit more oil production will also help. The US rig count, while still far below its 2014 highs, has doubled since last year (Chart 14). BCA’s commodity strategists expect output in the Lower 48 states to average 9.5mm b/d in 2022 and 10mm b/d in 2023, versus 2021 production levels of 9.0mm b/d. Nevertheless, shale producers are a lot more disciplined these days. Debt reduction and cash flow generation are now the top priorities. This implies that fairly high oil prices may be necessary to catalyze additional investment in the industry.  Reduced Labor Force Participation Despite the rapid economic recovery, US employment remains 5 million below its pre-pandemic peak. One would not know this from the survey data, however. A record 51% of small businesses expressed difficulty finding qualified workers in the October NFIB survey. The share of households reporting that jobs are plentiful versus hard-to-get has returned to its 2000 highs. Both the quits rate and the job openings rate are well above their pre-pandemic levels (Chart 15). A wave of early retirement accounts for some of the apparent labor market tightness. About 1.3 million more workers have retired since the pandemic began than one would have expected based on demographic trends. Yet, there is more to the story than that. The labor force participation rate for workers aged 25-to-54 has not fully recovered; the employment-to-population ratio for that age cohort is still 2.5 percentage points below pre-pandemic levels (Chart 16). Chart 16Labor Force Participation Has Room To Rise   There is considerable uncertainty about how many workers will re-enter the labor force over the coming months. On the one hand, the expiration of enhanced unemployment benefits could prod more workers into the job market. Diminished anxiety about the virus should help. While the number has fallen by half, there are still 2.5 million people not working due to concerns about getting or spreading Covid-19 (Chart 17). According to Boston College’s Center for Retirement Research, the retirement rate rose more for older lower-income workers than higher-income workers (Chart 18). Some of these retirees may decide to re-enter the labor force. Chart 17Less Anxiety About The Coronavirus Should Increase Labor Supply   On the other hand, the imposition of vaccine mandates could reduce labor supply. About 100 million US workers are currently subject to the mandates. According to the Census Household Pulse Survey, about 8 million of them are unvaccinated and attest that “they will definitely not get the vaccine.” Perhaps the biggest question mark is over whether the pandemic will lead to permanent changes in peoples’ perspectives on the optimal work/life balance. High burnout rates (especially in the health care sector), a reluctance to restart the daily commute to the office, and the desire to spend more time with family have all contributed to what some commentators have dubbed The Great Resignation. Ultimately, the deciding factor may be wages. Wage growth accelerated during the late 1990s as the labor market tightened (Chart 19). This drew a lot of people – especially less-skilled workers – into the labor force. Recently, wage growth has exploded at the bottom end of the income distribution, and our guess is that this will entice more people to seek employment (Chart 20). Chart 19Wage Growth Accelerated During The Late 1990s As The Labor Market Tightened Chart 20Wages At The Bottom End Of The Income Distribution Are Rising Briskly     Will Higher Productivity Growth Mitigate Supply-Side Pressures? The late 1990s saw a resurgence in productivity growth. This helped restrain unit labor costs in the face of rising wages. While US productivity did jump during the pandemic, we are sceptical of claims that this can be attributed to efficiency gains from digitalization and work-from-home practices. A recent study of 10,000 skilled professionals at a major IT company revealed that work-from-home policies decreased productivity by 8%-to-19%, mainly because people ended up working longer. It is telling that productivity outside of the US generally declined during the pandemic (Chart 21). This suggests that last year’s productivity gains stemmed mainly from increased operating leverage, a common feature of post-recession US recoveries (Chart 22). Supporting this view is the fact that productivity growth slowed from 4.3% in Q1 to 2.4% in Q2 on a quarter-over-quarter annualized basis. Productivity declined by 5% in Q3, leading to an 8.3% increase in unit labor costs. Chart 22US Productivity Tends To Jump After Recessions Chart 23Capital Goods Orders Have Soared The only saving grace is that core capital goods orders have soared (Chart 23). This should translate into increased business capital spending next year and higher productivity down the road. Investment Implications Supply-side pressures should abate over the coming months as semiconductor availability improves, transportation bottlenecks ease, energy prices recede, and more workers enter the labor force. The respite from inflation will be temporary, however. The combination of easy fiscal and monetary policies will cause unemployment to fall below its equilibrium level in the US, and eventually, in most major economies. This is consistent with our “two steps up, one step down” projection for US inflation. We are probably near the top of those two steps at present. This implies that the next move for inflation is to the downside, even if the longer-term trend is still to the upside. The US 10-year Treasury yield should stabilize at around 1.8% in the first half of 2022, before moving higher later in the year. As we discussed last week, markets are understating the true level of the neutral rate of interest. Rather than fretting that the Federal Reserve will keep rates too low for too long, investors are worried that the Fed will tighten too much. This is a key reason why the 20-year/30-year Treasury slope has inverted (Chart 24). Such an inversion does not make sense to us. Hence, as of this week, we are initiating a trade going long the 20-year bond versus the 30-year bond. We would also go short the 10-year Gilt on any break below 0.85%. The Bank of England’s “surprising hold” knocked the yield down 14 basis points to 0.93%. UK real bond yields are amongst the lowest in the world (Chart 25). Growth is strong and will remain buoyant as Brexit headwinds fade. The BoE will eventually have to turn more hawkish, which will support the beleaguered pound. Chart 24Go Long US 20-Year Bonds Versus 30-Year Bonds Chart 25UK Real Bond Yields Are Amongst The Lowest In The World   Structurally higher bond yields will benefit value stocks. Chart 26 shows that there has been a close correlation between the US 30-year Treasury yield and the relative performance of global value versus growth stocks. Banks stand to gain from rising bond yields while tech could suffer (Chart 27). Chart 26Higher Bonds Yields Favor Value Stocks     The re-emergence of supply-side pressures could affect companies in a variety of unexpected ways. For example, Facebook and Google both rely heavily on revenue from advertising. But what is the point of trying to boost demand for your product if you already cannot produce enough of it? Companies such as Hershey and Kimberly-Clark are already cutting ad spending in response to supply-chain bottlenecks. Finally, tight supply conditions will catalyze more investment spending. This will benefit industrial stocks. Peter Berezin Chief Global Strategist pberezin@bcaresearch.com Global Investment Strategy View Matrix Special Trade Recommendations Current MacroQuant Model Scores

Highlights Duration & Country Allocation: Global bond yields have been driven by growth and inflation expectations over the past year, but shifting policy expectations are now the more important driver. Tighter monetary policies will pressure global bond yields higher over the next 6-12 months, but not equally. Stay underweight countries where tapering and rate hikes are more likely (the US, the UK, Canada, New Zealand) relative to countries where policymakers will move much more slowly (euro area, Australia, Japan). Inflation-Linked Bonds: An update of our Comprehensive Breakeven Indicators shows limited scope for a further widening of breakeven inflation rates between nominal and index-linked government bonds in most developed economies, most notably in Europe. Downgrade strategic (6-18 months) exposure to inflation-linked bonds (vs nominals) to underweight in Germany, France and Italy. Feature Chart of the WeekGlobal Bond Yield Drivers: Inflation Now, Labor Later “Actually, we talked about inflation, inflation, inflation. That has been a topic that has occupied a lot of our time and a lot of our debates.” – ECB President Christine Lagarde Are you tired of talking about inflation? Central bankers likely are. The only problem is that is the job of monetary policymakers to worry about inflation – and the appropriate policy response – when it is rising as fast as been the case in 2021. The current global inflation surge, on the back of supply squeezes for both durable goods and commodity prices, will ease to some degree in 2022. This does not mean, however, that global bond yields have seen their cyclical peak. The driver of higher yields is already starting to transition from high inflation to tightening labor markets and rising wage costs – more enduring sources of potential inflation that will require monetary tightening in many, but not all, countries (Chart of the Week). This week, we discuss the implications of this shift to more policy-driven yields for the country allocation decisions in a government bond portfolio, for both nominal and inflation-linked debt. Shorter-Term Bond Yields Awaken, Longer-Term Yields Take Notice October represented a shift in the relative performance of developed economy government bond markets compared to the previous three months, most notably at the extremes (Chart 2). UK Gilts were the largest underperformer in Q3, down 1.8% versus the Bloomberg Global Treasury index (in USD-hedged terms, duration-matched to the benchmark), while Spain (+0.7%), Australia (+0.4%) and Italy (+0.3%) were the outperformers. In October, that script was flipped with Gilts being the best performer (+2.3%), Australia being the worst performer (-4.2%) and Spain (-0.6%) and Italy (-1.5%) reversing the Q3 gains. Those particular swings in relative performance were a result of shifting market views on policy changes in those countries. The UK Gilt rally was largely contained to a single day, and focused at the long-end of the Gilt curve after the Conservative government announced a smaller-than-expected budget deficit on October 26 - with much less issuance of longer-maturity bonds – which triggered a huge -22bps decline in 30-year Gilt yields. The Australian bond selloff was a triggered by a rapid market reassessment of the next move in monetary policy for the Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) after an upside surprise on Q3 inflation data. Italian and Spanish debt also sold off on the back of growing fears that even the European Central Bank (ECB) would be forced to tighten policy in response to higher inflation. The backup in Australian and European yields ran counter to the latest policy guidance of from the RBA and ECB, indicating speculation of a bond-bearish hawkish policy shift. In countries where policymakers have been more explicit about the need for monetary tightening, like Canada and New Zealand, government bonds performed poorly in both Q3 and October. While US Treasury returns were “flattish” in both Q3 (0.1%) and October (0.1%), the 2-year Treasury yield doubled from 0.27% to 0.52% during October as the market pulled forward the timing and pace of Fed rate hikes starting next year (Chart 3). Shifting views on monetary policy have not only impacted the relative performance of bond markets, but also the shapes of yield curves. The bigger increases seen in shorter-maturity bond yields have resulted in a fairly synchronized global move towards curve flattening (Chart 4). This would not be unusual during an actual monetary policy tightening cycle involving rate hikes. However, within the developed economies, only Norway and New Zealand have seen an actual rate hike. In other words, yield curves have been flattening on the anticipation of a rate hiking cycle – but one that is expected to be relative mild. Chart 3A Bond-Bearish Repricing Of Global Rate Expectations​​​​​​ Chart 4Some Violent Repricing Of Policy Expectations​​​​​​ Forward interest rates in Overnight Index Swap (OIS) curves are discounting higher rates in 2022 and 2023 across most countries, but with stable rates in 2024 (Chart 5). Yet the cumulative amounts of tightening are very modest, especially when compared to inflation (both realized and expected). Only in New Zealand are policy rates expected to go above 2% by 2023, with the US OIS curve discounting the Fed lifting policy rates to just 1.4%. In the UK, markets are discounting 123bps of hikes by the end of 2022 and a rate cut in 2024 – market pricing that strongly suggests that the Bank of England will make a “policy error” by tightening too much, too quickly, over the next year. Chart 5Markets Still Think Central Banks Will Not Have To Hike Much After the October repricing of rate expectations, and reshaping of yield curves, we see a few conclusions – and investment opportunities – that stand out: US Treasuries With the Fed set to begin tapering asset purchases, the market discussion has moved on to the timing and pace of the post-taper rate hike cycle. The US OIS curve is discounting two Fed hikes in the second half of 2022, starting shortly after the likely end of the Fed taper in June. That timing and pace for 2022 is a bit more aggressive than we are expecting, but a rapidly tightening US labor market and rising wage growth could force the Fed to at least match the market pricing for hikes next year. On that note – the US Employment Cost Index in Q3 rose +1.3%, the fastest quarterly pace since 2001, and +3.7% on a year-over-year basis, the highest since 2004. The greater medium-term risk for the Treasury market is that the Fed starts to signal a need to go higher and faster than the market expects in 2023 and even into 2024. US Treasury yields remain well below levels implied by growth indicators like the ISM index. Thus, there is upside potential as the Fed tightens because of persistent above-trend growth and falling unemployment over the next couple of years (Chart 6). Chart 6Stay Below-Benchmark On US Duration Exposure We continue to recommend a below-benchmark duration strategic stance for dedicated US bond investors, based on our expectation that US bond yields will climb higher over the next 12-18 months. However, our more preferred way to play this for global investors is as a spread trade versus euro area bond yields – specifically, selling 10-year US Treasury versus 10-year German bunds (Chart 7). Chart 7Position For UST Underperformance Vs. Europe​​​​​​ While headline inflation in the euro area has rapidly converged to the pace of US inflation over the past few months, this is overwhelmingly due to surging European energy costs. The pace of underlying inflation, as proxied by measures like the Cleveland Fed trimmed mean CPI and the euro area trimmed mean CPI constructed by our colleagues at BCA Research European Investment Strategy, has diverged sharply with the latter barely above 0%. The ECB will not follow the Fed into a rate hiking cycle next year, which will push US government yields higher versus European equivalents. Australia Government Bonds Chart 8Fade The RBA 'Rate Shock' In Australia The RBA fought back against the sharp repricing of Australian interest rate expectations earlier this week by signaling that no rate hikes are expected until 2023. This is a modest change from the previous forward guidance of 2024 liftoff, but a surprisingly dovish message for markets that had rapidly moved to price in rate hikes next year after the big upside surprise on Q3/2021 Australian inflation With underlying trimmed mean inflation now having crept back into the RBA’s 2-3% target range, although just barely at 2.1%, the RBA would be justified in removing some degree of monetary accommodation. The central bank has already been doing so, on the margin, with some earlier tapering of the pace of asset purchases and last week’s decision to formally abandon its yield control target on shorter-dated government bond yields. Per the RBA’s current forward guidance, however, a move to actual rate hikes would require more evidence of tighter labor markets and faster wage growth – and thus, a more sustainable move to the 2-3% inflation target - that is not yet evident in measures like the Wage Cost Index (Chart 8). We plan on doing a deeper dive into Australia for next week’s report, where we’ll more formally evaluate our strategic view on Australian bond markets. For now, we remain comfortable with our overweight stance on Australian government bonds, as the RBA is still projected to be one of the less hawkish central banks in 2022. UK Gilts The sharp rally in longer-dated UK Gilts seen at the end of October was due to a downside surprise in the expected size of the UK budget deficit next year, and the amount of Gilt issuance that will be needed to finance it. The UK Debt Management Office (DMO) said it planned to issue 194.8 billion pounds ($267.5 billion) of bonds in the current 2021/22 financial year, 57.8 billion pounds less than its previous remit back in March. The pre-budget market expectation was for a far smaller reduction of 33.8 billion pounds. The cut in issuance was most pronounced for longer-dated Gilts, -35% lower than the March budget issuance projection (Chart 9). With longer-maturity Gilts always in high demand from longer-term UK institutional investors, a major “supply shock” of reduced issuance can temporarily boost bond prices and lower yields. This is especially true in the UK where more aggressive rate hike expectations, and more defensive bond market positioning after the August/September selloff, left Gilts vulnerable to a short squeeze. The most important medium-term drivers of Gilt yields are still expectations of growth, inflation and future policy rates. There was very little change in shorter-dated Gilt yields or UK OIS forward rates after last week’s budget announcement – all the price action was the long end of the Gilt yield curve, resulting in an overall bull flattening. As we discussed in last week’s report, we expect the next move in the shape of the Gilt curve will be towards a steeper curve, likely bond-bearishly as long-term yields are still priced too low relative to how high UK policy rates will eventually have to climb in the upcoming BoE hiking cycle. The post-budget flattening has made the valuation of longer-maturity Gilt curve steepeners far more attractive, according to our UK butterfly spread valuation model (Table 1). Table 1UK Butterfly Spread Valuations From Our Curve Models Chart 10A New UK Tactical Trade: Long 10yr Bullet Vs. 7/30 Barbell The trade that stands out as most attractive is to go long the 10-year Gilt bullet versus selling a 7-year/30-year Gilt curve barbell – a butterfly spread that was last priced this attractively in 2013 (Chart 10). We are adding this as a new recommended trade in our Tactical Overlay portfolio, the details of which (specific bonds and weightings for each leg of the trade) can be found on page 17. Bottom Line: Tighter monetary policies will pressure global bond yields higher over the next 6-12 months, but not equally. Stay underweight countries where tapering and rate hikes are more likely (the US, the UK, Canada, New Zealand) relative to countries where policymakers will move much more slowly (euro area, Australia, Japan). Global Breakevens: How Much More Upside? The surge in global inflation this year has helped boost the performance of inflation-linked government bonds versus nominal equivalents. Yet current breakeven inflation rates have reached levels not seen in some time. Last week, the 10-year US TIPS breakeven hit a 15-year high of 2.7%, the 10-year German breakeven reached a 9-year high of 2.1%, while the 10-year UK breakeven climbed to 4.2% - the highest level since 1996 (!). With market-based inflation expectations reaching such historically high levels, how much more can breakevens widen – especially with central banks incrementally moving towards tighter monetary policies? To answer that question, we turn to our Comprehensive Breakeven Indicators (CBIs). The CBIs measure the upside/downside potential for breakevens for the US, Germany, France, Italy, Japan, the UK, Canada and Australia. The CBIs incorporate the following three measures: The residuals from our 10-year breakeven inflation spread fair value models, as a measure of valuation. The spread between 10-year breakevens and survey-based measures of inflation expectations, as a measure of the inflation risk premium embedded in breakevens The gap between headline inflation and the central bank inflation target, as an indication of the existing inflation backdrop and of future monetary policy moves in response to an inflation trend that can help to reverse that trend. Each of the three measures is standardized and added together to produce a single CBI. A higher reading on CBI suggests less potential for additional increases in breakevens, and vice versa. The latest readings from our CBIs are shown in Chart 11. The red diamonds for each country are the actual CBI, while the stacked bars show the individual CBI components. The highest CBI readings are in Germany and the US, while the lowest are in Canada and France. Importantly, no country has a CBI significantly below zero, indicative of the more limited upside potential for breakevens after the big run-up since mid-2020. As a way to assess the usefulness of the CBIs as an indicator of the future breakeven moves, we constructed a simple backtest. We looked at how 10-year breakevens performed in the twelve months after the CBI hit certain thresholds (Chart 12). The backtest results show that the CBIs work as intended, signaling reversals of existing trends once the CBIs climb above +0.5 or below -0.5. The average (mean) size of the breakeven reversal gets larger as the CBI moves further to extremes. Based on the latest reading from the CBIs, we are making significant changes to the recommended allocations (Chart 13) to inflation-linked bonds (ILBs) in our model bond portfolio on pages 14-15: Chart 13No Overweights In Our Revised Allocations To Global Linkers Downgrading ILBs to underweight (versus nominal government bonds) in Germany, France, Italy & Spain from the current overweight allocation. The backtested CBI history for those countries suggests breakevens are more likely to fall over the next twelve months. Furthermore, realized euro area inflation is more likely to fall in 2022, given the lack of underlying euro area inflation described earlier in this report. Downgrade Japan ILBs to neutral from overweight. While the CBI is not at a stretched level, realized Japanese core inflation has struggled to stay in positive territory – even in the current environment of soaring commodity and durable goods prices. Upgrade ILBs in Canada and Australia to neutral from underweight. The former has a CBI that is still below zero, while the latter benefits from the lack of RBA hawkishness compared to other central banks. We are maintaining our other ILB allocations in the UK (underweight vs. nominals) and the US (neutral vs. nominals). In the UK, stretched breakevens are at risk from the hawkish turn by the BoE, which is a clear response to the higher UK inflation expectations. While the US CBI is at a high level, we see better value in playing for narrowing TIPS breakevens at shorter maturity points that are even more exposed to a likely slowing of commodity fueled inflation in 2022 than longer maturity TIPS breakevens. In other words, we see a steeper US breakeven curve, but a flatter real yield curve as the Fed tightens. Bottom Line: An update of our Comprehensive Breakeven Indicators shows limited scope for a further widening of breakeven inflation rates between nominal and index-linked government bonds in most developed economies, most notably in Europe.   Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.co Recommendations Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Recommended Positioning     Active Duration Contribution: GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. Custom Performance Benchmark The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index

Highlights Chart 1Buy The 2-Year, Sell The 10-Year Treasury yields have been volatile of late, but the biggest move has been a flattening of the yield curve led by a sell-off at the front-end. Our recommended yield curve positioning (short the 5-year bullet / long a duration-matched 2/10 barbell) was well suited to profit from this move but has now run its course. The solid lines in the bottom panel of Chart 1 show the paths discounted in the forward curve for the 2-year and 10-year yields. The dashed lines show the fair value paths for each yield in a scenario where the Fed starts hiking in December 2022 and proceeds at a pace of 100 bps per year until reaching a 2.08% terminal rate. We can see that the 2-year yield looks a bit too high relative to fair value and the 10-year looks too low. Taken together, our fair value estimates show that the 2/10 Treasury slope should flatten during the next 12 months, but not by as much as is currently discounted in the forward curve (Chart 1, top panel). Investors should maintain below-benchmark portfolio duration but should shift out of 2/10 flatteners and into steepeners. Specifically, we close our prior yield curve trade and open a new one: Long the 2-year note, short a duration-matched barbell consisting of cash and the 10-year note.   Feature Table 1Recommended Portfolio Specification Table 2Fixed Income Sector Performance Investment Grade: Neutral Chart 2Investment Grade Market Overview Investment grade corporate bonds performed in line with the duration-equivalent Treasury index in October, leaving year-to-date excess returns unchanged at +193 bps (Chart 2). The combination of above-trend economic growth and accommodative monetary policy continues to support positive excess returns for spread product versus Treasuries. The recent flattening of the yield curve is a strong reminder that the window of outperformance for corporate bonds will eventually close, but the curve will need to be a lot flatter before we start to worry. Specifically, we are targeting a level of 50 bps for the 3-year/10-year Treasury slope as a level where we will turn more cautious on spread product relative to Treasuries. This slope currently sits at 80 bps and the pace of flattening should moderate during the next few months. A recent report presented the results of a scenario analysis for investment grade corporate bond returns during the next 12 months.1 We concluded that investment grade corporate bond total returns will be close to zero or negative during the next 12 months and that excess returns versus duration-matched Treasuries are capped at 85 bps. With that in mind, we advise investors to seek out higher returns in junk bonds, municipal bonds and USD-denominated Emerging Market sovereign and corporate bonds. We also recommend favoring long-maturity corporate bonds and those corporate sectors with elevated Duration-Times-Spread.2 High-Yield: Overweight Chart 3High-Yield Market Overview High-Yield outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 14 basis points in October, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +572 bps. A recent report looked at the default expectations that are currently priced into the junk index and considered whether they are likely to be met.3 If we demand an excess spread of 100 bps and assume a 40% recovery rate on defaulted debt, then the High-Yield index embeds an expected default rate of 3.1% (Chart 3). Using a model of the 12-month trailing speculative grade default rate that is based on gross corporate leverage (pre-tax profits over total debt) and C&I lending standards, we estimate that the 12-month default rate will fall between 2.3% and 2.8%, below what the market currently discounts. Notably, the corporate default rate is tracking at an annualized rate of roughly 1.6% through the first nine months of the year, well below the estimate generated by our model. Another recent report considered different plausible scenarios for junk bond returns during the next 12 months.4 We concluded that junk bond total returns will fall into a range of -0.29% to +1.80% during the next 12 months and that excess returns versus duration-matched Treasuries will be between +0.94% and +1.84%.     MBS: Underweight Chart 4MBS Market Overview Mortgage-Backed Securities underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 1 basis point in October, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to -44 bps. The nominal spread between conventional 30-year MBS and equivalent-duration Treasuries tightened 16 bps in October. The spread looks tight relative to levels seen during the past year and relative to the pace of mortgage refinancings (Chart 4). The conventional 30-year MBS option-adjusted spread (OAS) tightened 3 bps in October to reach 29 bps (panel 3). This is only just above the 28 bps offered by Aaa-rated consumer ABS but below the 54 bps offered by Aa-rated corporate bonds and the 30 bps offered by Agency CMBS. In a recent report we looked at MBS performance and valuation across the coupon stack.5 We noted that the higher convexity of high-coupon MBS makes them likely to outperform lower-coupon MBS in a rising yield environment. Higher coupon MBS also have greater OAS than lower coupons. This makes the high-coupon MBS more likely to outperform in a flat bond yield environment as well. Given our view that bond yields will be higher in 6-12 months, we recommend favoring high coupons (4%, 4.5%) over low coupons (2%, 2.5%, 3%) within an overall underweight allocation to Agency MBS.  Government-Related: Neutral Chart 5Government-Related Market Overview The Government-Related index performed in-line with the duration-equivalent Treasury index in October, leaving year-to-date excess returns unchanged at 68 bps. Sovereign debt outperformed duration-equivalent Treasuries by 23 basis points October, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to -65 bps. Foreign Agencies underperformed the Treasury benchmark by 5 bps on the month, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to +44 bps. Local Authority bonds outperformed by 16 bps in October, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +423 bps. Domestic Agency bonds underperformed by 15 bps, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to +9 bps. Supranationals underperformed by 11 bps, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to +16 bps. The investment grade Emerging Market Sovereign bond index outperformed the equivalent-duration US corporate bond index by 35 bps in October. The Emerging Market Corporate & Quasi-Sovereign index delivered 8 bps of outperformance versus duration-matched US corporates (Chart 5). Despite this outperformance, both indexes continue to offer significant yield advantages versus US corporate bonds with the same credit rating and duration. We continue to recommend overweighting USD-denominated EM sovereigns and corporates versus investment grade US corporates with the same credit rating and duration.6 Within EM sovereigns, attractive countries include: Russia, Mexico, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, UAE and Qatar. Municipal Bonds: Overweight Chart 6Municipal Market Overview Municipal bonds outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 48 basis points in October, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +341 bps (before adjusting for the tax advantage). The economic and policy back-drop remains favorable for municipal bond performance. Trailing 4-quarter net state & local government savings are incredibly high (Chart 6) and individual tax hikes will only increase the attractiveness of tax-exempt munis if they are included in the upcoming reconciliation bill. Last week’s report showed that the average duration of municipal bond indexes has fallen significantly during the past few decades, a trend that has implications for how we should perceive municipal bond valuation.7 Specifically, the trend makes municipal bonds more attractive relative to both Treasury securities and investment grade corporates. Long-maturity municipal bonds are especially compelling. We calculate that 17-year+ maturity General Obligation Munis offer a before-tax yield pick-up relative to credit rating and duration-matched corporate credit. The same goes for 17-year+ Revenue bonds. High-yield muni spreads are reasonably attractive relative to high-yield corporates (panel 4), but we recommend only a neutral allocation to high-yield munis versus high-yield corporates. The deep negative convexity of high-yield munis makes them susceptible to extension risk if bond yields rise. Treasury Curve: Buy 2-Year Bullet Versus Cash/10 Barbell Chart 7Treasury Yield Curve Overview The Treasury curve bear-flattened dramatically in October. The 2-year/10-year Treasury slope flattened 17 bps to end the month at 107 bps. The 5-year/30-year slope flattened 35 bps to end the month at 75 bps. As is mentioned on the first page of this report, the large flattening of the yield curve has led us to take profits on our prior 2/10 flattener (short 5-year bullet versus 2/10 barbell) and to initiate a 2/10 curve steepener (long 2-year bullet versus cash/10 barbell). We also noted on the front page that we still expect the 2/10 slope to flatten during the next 12 months, just not by as much as what is currently priced into the forward curve. The 2/5/10 butterfly spread has risen a lot during the past few weeks and it now looks extremely high, both in absolute terms and relative to our fair value model (Chart 7). The 2/5/10 butterfly spread can rise because of either 2/5 steepening or 5/10 flattening. We contend that the current elevated 2/5/10 butterfly is mostly the result of a 5/10 slope that is too flat, not a 2/5 slope that is too steep. The bottom two panels of Chart 7 show the 2/5 and 5/10 slopes along with dashed lines indicating where those slopes were on prior Fed liftoff dates in 2015 and 2004. We see that the 2/5 slope is not unusually steep compared to those prior liftoff dates, but the 5/10 slope is unusually flat. For this reason, we want long exposure to the 2-year note and short exposure to the 10-year note between now and Fed liftoff in late-2022. The best way to achieve this exposure is to buy the 2-year note and short a duration-matched barbell consisting of the 10-year note and cash. TIPS: Neutral Chart 8TIPS Market Overview TIPS outperformed the duration-equivalent nominal Treasury index by 106 basis points in October, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +740 bps. The 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate rose 15 bps on the month and the 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rate fell 10 bps. At 2.54%, the 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate is now slightly above the 2.3% to 2.5% range that is consistent with inflation expectations being well-anchored around the Fed’s target (Chart 8). Meanwhile, at 2.14%, the 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rate has dipped below the Fed’s target range (panel 3). The divergence between 10-year and 5-year/5-year breakeven rates underscores the flatness of the inflation curve (bottom panel). Near-term inflation expectations are extremely high, but they decline sharply further out the curve. Our view is that inflationary pressures will wane during the next 6-12 months and this will lead to a steep decline in short-maturity TIPS breakeven inflation rates.8 Breakeven rates at the long-end should remain relatively close to the Fed’s target range. We recommend positioning for this outcome by entering inflation curve steepeners or real yield curve (aka TIPS curve) flatteners. We also advise entering an outright short position in 2-year TIPS. The 2-year TIPS yield has a lot of room to rise as the cost of 2-year inflation compensation falls and the 2-year nominal yield remains close to its fair value. ABS: Overweight Chart 9ABS Market Overview Asset-Backed Securities underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 7 basis points in October, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to +35 bps. Aaa-rated ABS underperformed by 8 bps on the month, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to +25 bps. Non-Aaa ABS underperformed by 5 bps, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to +93 bps. The stimulus from last year’s CARES Act led to a significant increase in household savings when individual checks were mailed in April 2020. That excess savings has still not been spent and the most recent round of stimulus checks has only added to the stockpile (Chart 9). The extraordinarily large stock of household savings means that the collateral quality of consumer ABS is also extraordinarily high. Indeed, many households have been using their windfalls to pay down consumer debt (bottom panel). Investors should remain overweight consumer ABS and should also take advantage of the high quality of household balance sheets by moving down the quality spectrum.     Non-Agency CMBS: Neutral Chart 10CMBS Market Overview Non-Agency Commercial Mortgage-Backed Securities outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 1 basis point in October, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +196 bps. Aaa Non-Agency CMBS underperformed Treasuries by 3 bps in October, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to +93 bps. Non-Aaa Non-Agency CMBS outperformed Treasuries by 17 bps, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +543 bps (Chart 10). Though returns have been strong and spreads remain attractive, particularly for lower-rated CMBS, we continue to recommend only a neutral allocation to the sector because of the structurally challenging environment for commercial real estate. Agency CMBS: Overweight Agency CMBS outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 12 basis points in October, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +105 bps. The average index option-adjusted spread tightened 3 bps on the month. It currently sits at 30 bps (bottom panel). Though Agency CMBS spreads have recovered to well below their pre-COVID levels, they still look attractive compared to other similarly risky spread products. Stay overweight. Appendix A: Butterfly Strategy Valuations The following tables present the current read-outs from our butterfly spread models. We use these models to identify opportunities to take duration-neutral positions across the Treasury curve. The following two Special Reports explain the models in more detail: US Bond Strategy Special Report, “Bullets, Barbells And Butterflies”, dated July 25, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com US Bond Strategy Special Report, “More Bullets, Barbells And Butterflies”, dated May 15, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Table 4 shows the raw residuals from each model. A positive value indicates that the bullet is cheap relative to the duration-matched barbell. A negative value indicates that the barbell is cheap relative to the bullet. Table 4Butterfly Strategy Valuation: Raw Residuals In Basis Points (As Of October 29th, 2021) Table 5 scales the raw residuals in Table 4 by their historical means and standard deviations. This facilitates comparison between the different butterfly spreads. Table 5Butterfly Strategy Valuation: Standardized Residuals (As Of October 29th, 2021) Table 6 flips the models on their heads. It shows the change in the slope between the two barbell maturities that must be realized during the next six months to make returns between the bullet and barbell equal. For example, a reading of -60 bps in the 5 over 2/10 cell means that we would expect the 5-year to outperform the 2/10 if the 2/10 flattens by less than 60 bps during the next six months. Otherwise, we would expect the 2/10 barbell to outperform the 5-year bullet. Table 6Discounted Slope Change During Next 6 Months (BPs) Appendix B: Excess Return Bond Map The Excess Return Bond Map is used to assess the relative risk/reward trade-off between different sectors of the US bond market. It is a purely computational exercise and does not impose any macroeconomic view. The Map’s vertical axis shows 12-month expected excess returns. These are proxied by each sector’s option-adjusted spread. Sectors plotting further toward the top of the Map have higher expected returns and vice-versa. Our novel risk measure called the “Risk Of Losing 100 bps” is shown on the Map’s horizontal axis. To calculate it, we first compute the spread widening required on a 12-month horizon for each sector to lose 100 bps or more relative to a duration-matched position in Treasury securities. Then, we divide that amount of spread widening by each sector’s historical spread volatility. The end result is the number of standard deviations of 12-month spread widening required for each sector to lose 100 bps or more versus a position in Treasuries. Lower risk sectors plot further to the right of the Map, and higher risk sectors plot further to the left.   Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Expected Returns In Corporate Bonds”, dated September 21, 2021. 2 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The Collapsing Credit Risk Premium”, dated July 20, 2021. 3 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The Post-FOMC Credit Environment”, dated June 29, 2021. 4 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Expected Returns In Corporate Bonds”, dated September 21, 2021. 5 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “A New Conundrum”, dated April 20, 2021. 6 For more details please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Damage Assessment”, dated September 28, 2021. 7 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The Best & Worst Spots On The Yield Curve”, dated October 26, 2021. 8 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Right Price, Wrong Reason”, dated October 19, 2021.

The markets were deluged by a lot of information in late October. Several central banks made surprise moves towards tightening (the Bank of Canada, for example, ended asset purchases, and the Reserve Bank of Australia effectively abandoned its yield-curve control). Inflation continued to surprise on the upside (headline CPI in the US is now 5.4% year-on-year). But, at the same time, there were signs of faltering growth with, for example, US real GDP growth in Q3 coming in at only 2.0% quarter-on-quarter annualized, compared to 6.7% in Q2. This caused a flattening of the yield curve in many countries, as markets priced in faster monetary tightening but lower long-term growth (Chart 1). Nonetheless, equities shrugged off the barrage of news, with the S&P500 ending the month at a new high. All this highlights what we discussed in our latest Quarterly: That the second year of a bull market is often tricky, resulting in lower (but still positive) returns from equities and higher volatility. For risk assets to continue to outperform, our view of a Goldilocks environment needs to be “just right”: The economy must not be too hot or too cold. We think it will be – and so stay overweight equities versus bonds. But investors should be aware of the risks on either side. How too hot? Inflation is broadening out (at least in the US, UK, Australia and Canada, though not in the euro zone and Japan) and is no longer limited to items which saw unusually strong demand during the pandemic but where supply is constrained (Chart 2). Chart 1What Is The Message Of Flattening Yield Curves? Chart 2Inflation Is Broadening Out In The US There is a risk that this turns into a wage-price spiral as employees, amid a tight labor market, push for higher wages to offset rising prices. We find that wages tend to follow prices with a lag of 6-12 months (Chart 3). The Atlanta Fed Wage Tracker (good for gauging underlying wage pressures since it looks only at employees who have been in a job for 12 months or more) is already at 3.5% and looks set to rise further. On the back of these inflationary moves, the market has significantly pulled forward the date of central bank tightening. Futures now imply that the Fed will raise rates in both July and December next year (Chart 4) and that other major developed central banks will also raise multiple times over the next 14 months (Table 1). Breakeven inflation rates have also risen substantially (Chart 5). Chart 3Wages Tend To Rise After Prices Rise Chart 4Will The Fed Really Hike This Soon?   Table 1Futures Implied Path Of Rate Hikes Chart 5Breakevens Suggest Higher Inflation     We think these moves are a little excessive. There are several reasons why inflation might cool next year. Companies are rushing to increase capacity to unblock supply bottlenecks. For example, semiconductor production has already begun to increase, bringing down DRAM prices over the past few months (Chart 6). Another big contributor to broad-based inflation has been a 126% increase in container shipping costs since the start of the year (Chart 7). But currently the number of container ships on order is at a 10-year high; these new ships will be delivered over the next two years. Such deflationary forces should pull down core inflation next year (though we stick to our longstanding view that for multiple structural reasons – demographics, the end of globalization, central bank dovishness, the transition away from fossil fuels – inflation will trend up over the next five years). Chart 6DRAM Prices Falling As Production Ramps Up Chart 7All Those Ships On Order Should Bring Down Shipping Costs The Fed, therefore, will not be in a rush to raise rates. It does not see the labor market as anywhere close to “maximum employment” – it has not defined what it means by this, but we would see it as a 3.8% unemployment rate (the median FOMC dot for the equilibrium unemployment rate) and the prime-age participation rate back to its 2019 level (Chart 8). We continue to expect the first rate hike only in December next year. The Fed will feel the need to override its employment criterion only if long-term inflation expectations become unanchored – but the 5-year 5-year forward breakeven rate is only at 2.3%, within the Fed’s effective CPI target range of 2.3-2.5% (Chart 5). We remain comfortable with our view of only a moderate rise in long-term rates, with the US 10-year Treasury yield at 1.7% by end-2021, and reaching 2-2.25% at the time of the first Fed rate hike. It is also worth emphasizing that even a fairly sharp rise in long-term rates has historically almost always coincided with strong equity performance (Chart 9 and Table 2). This has again been evident in the past 12 months: When rates rose between August 2020 and March 2021, and then from July 2021, equities performed strongly. Chart 8We Are Not Back To "Maximum Employment" Chart 9Rising Rates Are Usually Accompanied By A Rising Stock Market   Table 2Episodes Of Rising Long-Term Rates Since 1990 But could the economy get too cold? We would discount the weak US GDP reading: It was mostly due to production shortages, especially in autos, which pushed down consumption on durable goods by 26% QoQ annualized, and by some softness in spending on services due to the delta Covid variant, the impact of which is now fading. US growth should continue to be supported by a combination of the $2.5 trillion of excess household savings, strong capex as companies boost their production capacity, and a further 5% of GDP in fiscal stimulus that should be passed by Congress by year-end. Similar conditions apply in other developed economies. Chart 10Real Estate Is A Big Part Of Chinese GDP We see three principal risks to this positive outlook: A new strain of Covid-19 that proves resistant to current vaccines – unlikely but not impossible. Our geopolitical strategists worry about Iran, which may have a nuclear bomb ready by December, prompting Israel to bomb the country. Iran would likely react by hampering oil supplies, even blocking the Strait of Hormuz, through which 25% of global oil flows. Chinese growth has been slowing and the impact from the problems at Evergrande is still unclear. Real estate is a major part of the Chinese economy, with residential investment comprising 10% of GDP (Chart 10) and, broadly defined to include construction and building materials, real estate overall perhaps as much as one-third. Our China strategists don’t expect the government to launch a major stimulus which would bail out the industry, since it is happy with the way that property-related lending has been shrinking in recent years (Chart 11). We expect the slowdown in Chinese credit growth to bottom out over the coming few months, but economic activity may have further to slow (Chart 12), and there is a risk that the authorities are unable to control the fallout from the property market. Chart 11Chinese Authorities Are Happy To See Slowing Property Lending Chart 12When Will Credit Growth Bottom?       Fixed Income: Given the macro environment described above, we remain underweight bonds and short duration. If we assume 1) a Fed liftoff in December 2022, 2) 100 basis points of rate hikes over the following year, and 3) a terminal Fed Funds Rate of 2.08% (the median forecast from the New York Fed’s Survey of Market Participants), 10-year US Treasurys will return -0.2% over the next 12 months, and 2-year Treasurys +0.3%.1 TIPs have overshot fair value and, although we remain neutral since they a tail-risk hedge against high inflation over the next five years, we would especially avoid 2-year TIPS which look very overvalued. We see some pockets of selective value in lower-quality high-yield bonds, specifically US Ba- and Caa-rated issues, which are still trading at breakeven spreads around the 35th historical percentile, whereas higher-rated bonds look very expensive (Chart 13). For US tax-paying investors, municipal bonds look particularly attractive at the moment, with general-obligation (GO) munis trading at a duration-matched yield higher than Treasurys even before tax considerations (Chart 14). Our US bond strategists have recently gone maximum overweight. Chart 14Muni Bonds Are A Steal     Equities: We retain our longstanding preference for US equities over other Developed Markets. US equities have outperformed this year, irrespective of whether rates were rising or falling, or how US growth was surprising relative to the rest of the world, emphasizing the much stronger fundamentals of the US market (Chart 15).  Analysts’ forecasts for the next few quarters look quite cautious, and so earnings surprises can push US stock prices up further (Chart 16). We reiterate the neutral on China but underweight on Emerging Markets ex-China that we initiated in our latest Quarterly. Our sector overweights are a mixture of cyclicals (Industrials), rising-interest-rate plays (Financials), and defensives (Heath Care). Chart 15US Equites Outperformed This Year Whatever Happened Chart 16Analysts Are Pessimistic About The Next Couple Of Quarters   Currencies: We continue to expect the US dollar to be stuck in its trading range and so stay neutral. Recent moves in prospective relative monetary policy bring us to change two of our currency recommendations. We close our underweight on the Australian dollar. The recent rise in Australian inflation (with both trimmed mean and 10-year breakevens now above 2% – Chart 17) has brought forward the timing of the first rate hike and should push up relative real rates (Chart 18). We lower our recommendation on the Japanese yen from overweight to neutral. The Bank of Japan will not raise rates any time soon, even when other central banks are tightening. This will push real-rate differentials against the yen (Chart 18, panel 2). Chart 17Australian Inflation Is Picking Up Chart 18Real Rates Moving In Favor Of The AUD And Against The JPY Chart 19Chinese-Related Metals' Prices Are Falling Commodities: We remain cautious on those industrial metals which are most sensitive to slowing Chinese growth and its weakening property market. The fall in iron ore prices since July is now being followed by aluminum. However, metals which are increasingly driven by investment in alternative energy, notably copper, are likely to hold up better (Chart 19). We are underweight the equity Materials sector and neutral on the commodities asset class. The Brent crude oil price has broadly reached our energy strategists’ forecasts of $80/bbl on average in 2022 and $81 in 2023 (Chart 20). Although the forward curve is lower than this, with December-22 Brent at only $75/bbl, it is a misapprehension to characterize this as the market forecasting that the oil price will fall. Backwardation (where futures prices are lower than spot) is the usual state of affairs for structural reasons (for example, producers hedging production forward). The market typically moves to contango only when the oil price has fallen sharply and reserves are high (Chart 21). We remain neutral on the equities Energy sector.   Chart 20Brent Has Reached Our 2022 And 2023 Forecast Level Chart 21Lower Oil Futures Don't Mean Oil Price Is Forecast To Fall Garry Evans, Senior Vice President Global Asset Allocation garry@bcaresearch.com GAA Asset Allocation  

Highlights The market pricing of the ECB is too aggressive. More so than in the US, temporary factors explain the European inflation surge. Energy, taxes, and base effects account for the bulk of the price increases. In contrast to supply shortages, European labor shortages are small and slack will limit wage growth. Despite the lack of near-term inflation risks, European growth prospects are significantly stronger than last decade. As a result, European inflation will settle at a higher level than in the 2010s and will increase durably in the second half of the 2020s. The inflation curve will steepen, as will the yield curve. Banks will continue to outperform, especially compared to the insurance sector. A tactical opportunity to buy European high-yield corporates has emerged. In France, Macron remains the favorite for the 2022 presidential election. Feature Last week’s ECB meeting did nothing to curb the impression among traders that the ECB will start removing monetary accommodation in 2022. The implied policy rate stands at -0.25% one year from now and -0.08% in two years. Meanwhile, Italian 10-year spreads over Germany have increased to 127bps, their highest level since November 2020. This market action rests on the perception that inflationary pressures in the Euro Area are durable. While this line of reasoning may have credence in the US, it is weaker across the Atlantic where the economy shows fewer signs of genuine inflationary pressure. Moreover, the deterioration in peripheral financial conditions further limits the ability of the ECB to withdraw accommodation without a financial accident. Meanwhile, the NGEU program has created a climate where the likelihood of a premature and excessive fiscal tightening is low. Thus, the weak European growth of the past decade will not be repeated. When considering these inflationary and fiscal views, it becomes apparent that the European yield curve has room to steepen further. Consequently, European banks remain attractive and should be bought on dips, especially relative to insurance companies. The EONIA Curve Is Too Aggressive The sudden increase in interest rate hikes priced in the EONIA curve is a consequence of the rapid acceleration in European realized inflation and CPI swaps. Neither are durable. Headline HICP has surged to 4.1% and core CPI towers at 2.1%, their highest reading in 13 and 19 years, respectively. These surges are the reflection of transitory factors: Chart 1The Energy Path-Through Energy prices are lifting HICP and are sipping through to core CPI. Inflation for electricity, gas, and fuel has reached 14.7% and the energy CPI is at 23.5%. Both are moving in line with headline and core CPI (Chart 1). Now that Brent oil and natural gas have increased four and twenty folds since Q2 2020, respectively, their ability to contribute as much to overall inflation has decreased because they are unlikely to appreciate as much again. While oil prices may rise again here, European natural gas will decline meaningfully in the coming months. Tax increases are another important driver of core CPI. Core inflation with constant taxes stand at 1.37%, which is 0.67% below core CPI. In other words, while core CPI is high by the standard of the past decade, once we adjust for tax increases, it stands at normal levels (Chart 2). Base-effects are another dominant ingredient of the surge in European core CPI. The annualized two-year rate of change of the Eurozone’s core CPI stands at 1.11%, which is within the norm of the past seven years and below the rates experienced prior to 2014. In comparison, the annualized two-year core inflation in the US is 2.87%, well outside the range of the past decade (Chart 3). Chart 2Death And Taxes Chart 3Controlling For The Base Effect Inflation remains narrowly based. The Euro Area trimmed-mean CPI stands at 0.22%, or 1.82% below core CPI. Meanwhile, in the US, trimmed-mean CPI has reached 3.5% or 0.5% below core CPI (Chart 4). These figures confirm that the Eurozone inflation increase is more muted and narrower than that of the US. Wages are not experiencing any meaningful shock so far. Negotiated wages are growing at a 1.7% annual rate; meanwhile, the Atlanta Fed Wage Tracker is expanding at 3.6% and is rising even more steadily for low-skill jobs (Chart 5). Chart 4Much More Narrow Than In The US Chart 5Limited Wage Pressures Continental Europe’s more limited inflationary pressures compared to the US are a consequence of policy decisions during the crisis. The Euro Area fiscal stimulus in 2020 and 2021 amounted to 11% of 2019 GDP, but output declined by 15% in Q2 2020 and suffered a second dip in Q1 2021. Meanwhile, US fiscal packages amounted to 25% of 2019 GDP, while GDP declined by 10% in Q2 2020. Consequently, the Eurozone’s output gap is -4.1% of GDP, while that of the US has essentially closed. The contrasting nature of the stimuli accentuated the different outcomes created by their respective size. In Europe, governmental support focused on keeping people at work, which left aggregate supply unchanged. In the US, public programs allowed jobs to disappear, but they placed money directly in the pockets of consumers, which caused aggregate demand to rise relative to aggregate supply. In this context, a wage-price spiral is unlikely to develop in Europe as long as the energy crisis does not continue through 2022. First, the labor shortage problems are less acute in the Eurozone than in the US or the UK. Chart 6 highlights the factors limiting production in various industries. In the industrial sector, the “labor shortages” category has grown, but pale compared to the role of “material and equipment shortages” as a problem. In the services sector, the “weak demand” and “other” categories are greater obstacles to production than the “labor” factor, which remains at Q1 2020 levels (Chart 6, middle panel). Only in the construction sector are “labor shortages” the chief problem, but they still hurt production less than “insufficient demand” did in February 2021, when real estate prices were already strong (Chart 6, bottom panel). Second, labor market slack remains comparable to 2011 levels, when the ECB erroneously increased interest rates to fight energy-driven inflation (Chart 7). Additionally, the rise in persons available to work but not currently seeking employment represent 75% of the increase in labor market slack since Q4 2019. At the crisis peak in Q2 2020, this category accounted for 105% of the increase in labor market slack. This suggests that, as the vaccination campaign continues to progress across the continent; as households use up their savings; and as government supports ebb across Europe, a large share of those who are a part of the labor market slack will start looking for jobs again, which will increase the supply of workers and limit wage pressures. If traders are overly worried about realized inflation remaining high in Europe, they are also over-emphasizing some CPI swap measures that trade above 2%. CPI swaps only tell one part of the inflation expectations story, because they are one and the same as energy prices. Elevated energy prices sap spending power in the rest of the economy, if other inflation expectation measures remain well anchored; thus, rising energy inflation rarely translates into broad-based pricing pressure. For now, our Common Inflation Expectation measure for the Eurozone, based on the New York Fed’s method for the US, is still toward the low-end of its distribution, even though it includes CPI swaps (Chart 8). This confirms that the energy crisis remains a relative-price shock and that it is unlikely to lead to a generalized inflation outburst in the Euro Area. Chart 8Different Inflation Expectations Bottom Line: Markets expect a first 10bps ECB rate hike by June 2022 and the deposit rate to be 25bps higher by September 2023. However, unlike in the US, there are few signs that European inflation reflects anything more than higher energy prices, rising taxes, and base effects. Moreover, the stories in the press of labor shortages are exaggerated, while broad-based inflation expectations are not unmoored. In this context, we lean against the EONIA pricing and expect the ECB to increase rates in 2024, at the earliest. Fiscal Policy Unlike Last Decade The 2010s were a lost decade for Europe. GDP only overtook its 2008 peak in 2015. Today, GDP is recovering much faster from the recession than it did twelve years ago, and it is unlikely to relapse as it did back then. Chart 9A Lost Decade The European economic underperformance last decade was rooted in fiscal policy. As the top panel of Chart 9 highlights, the fiscal thrust during the GFC was minimal, at 1.3% of GDP, and was rapidly followed by a negative fiscal thrust. Moreover, the ECB unduly tightened policy in 2011 and left peripheral spreads fester at elevated levels between 2011 and 2014. This combination substantially hurt demand, especially in the European periphery. Capex proved particularly vulnerable. It is derived demand and therefore adds considerable variance to GDP. Faced with strong policy headwinds, its share of GDP plunged for most of the decade, which greatly contributed to the European economic malaise (Chart 9, bottom panel). According to the IMF, the Eurozone fiscal thrust will not exert the same drag as it did last decade; hence, capex is also unlikely to repeat its mediocre performance. Instead, the poorer Eastern and Central European economies as well as the weaker peripheral nations will receive a significant fillip from the NGEU program (Chart 10). When the NGEU grants and loans as well as the EU’s Multiannual Financial Framework funds are aggregated together, the EU will provide EUR1.9 trillion funding (adjusted for inflation) to member states over the next five years (Table 1). These sums will prevent any meaningful fiscal retrenchment from taking place. Table 1Bigger Spending The NGEU funds will be particularly supportive for capex. The Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF), which will be the main instrument to deliver funds across Europe, is heavily weighted toward green transition, reskilling, and digital transformation (Chart 11, top panel). Practically, this spending focuses on electrical, power, water, and broadband infrastructures, as well as renovation and modernization projects (Chart 11, bottom panel). This reinforces the notion that capex is unlikely to follow the same trajectory it did last decade. The implication of more accommodative fiscal policy and more robust capex is that the European output gap will close much faster than it did after the GFC. Hence, even if we expect the current inflation spike to pass next year, inflation will ultimately settle higher than it did last decade. Moreover, in the second half of the 2020s, European inflation will trend higher as full employment will be achieved. Bottom Line: The Euro Area is unlikely to experience another lost decade like the previous one. European trend growth remains low, but fiscal policy will not be as tight. Consequently, capex will not be as depressed, especially because the NGEU grants will greatly incentivize investments in certain sectors of the economy. As a result, the output gap will close much faster than it did in the 2010s. Moreover, once the current pandemic-driven inflation surge passes, CPI will settle at a higher level than it did last decade and will trend higher durably in the second half of the 2020s. Investment Implications Three main conclusions can be derived from our expectation on European inflation and growth dynamics over the coming decade. First, the inflation yield curve will steepen meaningfully. Today, near-term CPI swaps are lifted by energy markets and 2-year CPI swaps are 20bps above 20-year CPI swaps (Chart 12). From 2012 to 2020, 20-year CPI swaps stood between 30 bps and 150 bps above short maturity ones. Second, a steeper inflation curve, along with greater inflation risk toward the end of the decade will cause the European term premium to normalize from its -1.21% level. This will allow German 10-year yields to rise and the European yield curve to steepen (Chart 13). Chart 12Long-Term Inflation Expectations Have Upside Chart 13A Steeper German Yield Curve Third, higher German yields and a steeper curve will greatly benefit European banks (Chart 14, top panel). This pattern will be especially evident against insurance firms, which have massively outperformed deposit-taking institutions over the past seven years as yields fell (Chart 14, bottom panel). Additionally, banks’ balance sheets have become more robust than they once were and NPLs are unlikely to rise meaningfully as a result of government guarantees and easy fiscal policy (Chart 15). Investors should go long bank/short insurance on a cyclical basis. Chart 14Long Bank / Short Insurance Chart 15Imporving Balance Sheets A Tactical Buying Opportunity In European High-Yield Corporate Bond Market Chart 16Tactical Buying Opportunity The 40 basis points widening in European high-yield spreads has created a tactical buying opportunity. Inflation fears spurred by rising energy prices and by input prices are the likely culprit behind the recent spread widening (Chart 16). Although US junk spreads have already narrowed significantly, European high-yield corporate bond spreads are still 40 bps wider than at the beginning of September.     The 12-month breakeven spread, which measures the degree of spread widening required over a 12-month period for corporate bond returns to break even with a duration-matched position in government bond securities, now ranks at its 20th percentile, from 10th (Chart 16, second panel). Spreads will narrow back to near post-crisis lows before year-end on both an absolute and breakeven basis: First, monetary and fiscal policy remain very accommodative. Importantly, Spain and Italy will receive large shares of the NGEU funds until 2026. Second, growth will remain above trend despite recent inflation worries. Third, the European default rate is still falling, leaving the worst of the default cycle behind (Chart 16, third panel). Finally, our bottom-up Corporate Health Monitor signals improving corporate health, which historically coincides with narrowing spreads (Chart 16, bottom panel). Bottom Line: The recent widening in European high-yield spreads represents a short window of opportunity to buy the dip. Beyond this timeframe, a more cautious approach toward European credit is appropriate, as the ECB will become less active in the bond market. A French Update Last month, French President Emmanuel Macron unveiled a EUR30 billion investment plan aimed at supporting and fostering industrial and tech “champions of the future.” This new plan comes on top of the EUR100 billion recovery package that was announced in September 2020 to face the pandemic. While these investments will be made across many sectors of the French economy, the focus will be the French tech and energy sectors (Chart 17, top panel). This announcement comes six months before the next presidential election and amid the emergence of Eric Zemmour as a potential far-right candidate. However, Zemmour’s candidacy is unlikely to alter our expectation that Macron will be re-elected in 2022. Recent polls that include Zemmour as a potential candidate in the first-round show that he is appealing to Marine Le Pen’s voter base (Chart 17, bottom panel). Meanwhile, former Prime Minister Edouard Philippe—who would have made a formidable opponent to Macron had he decided to run—announced the creation of his own party with the objective of supporting Macron’s re-election campaign. Chart 18Recent Developments Support These Trades These political developments come as the French health and economic picture keeps improving. Although the vaccination pace has slowed in France, 68% of the population is fully vaccinated and 76% of the population has received at least one dose. Thus, the healthcare system continues to weather well recent COVID waves. Moreover, business confidence remains robust and reached its highest reading since July 2007, despite supply issues holding back production. The French jobs market is also recovering, with the unemployment rate expected to fall to 7.6% in Q3 from 8% in Q2. The introduction of a new investment plan, the emergence of a far-right candidate and Edouard Philippe’s newfound support, and the COVID-19 and economic developments bode well for President Macron’s chances at re-election. This implies additional French reforms over the next five years that aim to suppress unit labor costs and to make French exports more competitive vis-à-vis their main competitor, Germany. As a result, investors should overweight French industrial stocks relative to German ones (Chart 18, top panel). Meantime, additional investment in the French tech is bullish for a sector that is inexpensive relative to its European peers. Overweight French tech equities relative to European ones (Chart 18, panel 2 and 3).   Mathieu Savary, Chief European Strategist Mathieu@bcaresearch.com Jeremie Peloso, Associate Editor JeremieP@bcaresearch.com Tactical Recommendations Cyclical Recommendations Structural Recommendations Closed Trades Currency Performance Fixed Income Performance Equity Performance

In this report we examine the risk of stagflation by comparing the current environment to that of the late-1960s and 1970s. Today, investors cannot rule out the possibility of a stagflationary outcome, for four reasons: long-term household inflation expectations have risen significantly over the past year; fiscal policy has been expansionary; monetary policy will remain expansionary at the Fed’s projected terminal Fed funds rate; and component shortages and price increases linked to energy market and supply chain disruptions may persist or worsen over the coming year. However, the strong demand-pull inflationary dynamics that existed in the late-1960s were mostly absent in the lead-up to the pandemic, supply-chain issues are in part due to strong goods demand and supply disruptions that will eventually dissipate, and economic agents do not expect severe price pressures to persist beyond the pandemic. On balance, this points to a stagflationary outcome over the coming 6-24 months as a risk, but not a likely event. Investors should use the Misery Index, which is the sum of the unemployment rate and headline PCE inflation, as a real-time stagflation indicator. The Misery Index underscores that the US economy is unlikely to experience true stagflation unless the unemployment rate rises. A portfolio of the US dollar, the Swiss Franc, and industrial commodities may serve as a useful hedge for investors who are concerned about absolute return prospects in a world in which long-maturity bond yields are rising and risks of stagflationary dynamics are present. Chart II-1The Misery Index Reflects The Risk Of Stagflation Over the past several weeks, concerns about a possible return to 1970s-style stagflation have re-emerged significantly in the minds of many investors. These investors have pointed toward similarities between the current environment and that of the 1970s, including shortages limiting output, a snarled global trade and logistical system, and rising energy prices. Chart II-1 highlights that the US “Misery Index” – the sum of the unemployment rate and headline PCE inflation – rose again over the past several months to high single-digit territory, after having fallen dramatically from April 2020 to February of this year. Panel 2 of Chart II-1 highlights that last year's rise in the Misery Index was driven almost entirely by the unemployment rate, whereas the current level is due to a combination of a modestly elevated unemployment rate and a pronounced acceleration in inflation. The headline PCE deflator has risen above 4%, a level that has not been reached since 1991 during the First Gulf War. In this report, we examine the risk of stagflation by comparing the current environment to that of the late 1960s and 1970s. We conclude that while investors cannot rule out the possibility of a stagflationary outcome, there are important differences that point toward a stagflation outcome over the coming 6-24 months as a risk, not a likely event. We conclude by highlighting assets that may produce absolute returns in a world in which long-maturity bond yields are rising and risks of stagflationary dynamics are present. Revisiting The 1960s And 70s Chart II-2The 1960s Laid The Groundwork For Elevated Inflation The first step in judging the risk of a return to 1970s-style stagflation is to review, in a detailed way, what caused those conditions. Investors are well aware of the role that two separate energy price shocks played in raising prices and damaging output during this period, but they are less cognizant of the impact that a persistent period of above-trend output and significant labor market tightness had in setting up the conditions for sharply higher inflation. This focus of investors on energy prices partially reflects the fact that the Misery Index increased most visibly in the 1970s and that policymakers in the 1960s may not have realized how extensively economic output was running above its potential. With the benefit of hindsight, Chart II-2 illustrates the extent to which inflationary pressures built up in the 1960s, well before the first oil price shock in 1973. The chart shows that the unemployment rate was below NAIRU – the non-accelerating inflation rate of unemployment – for 70% of the time during the 1960s, and that inflation had already responded to this in the latter half of the decade. Annual headline PCE inflation was running just shy of 5% at the onset of the 1970 recession; it fell to 3% in the aftermath of the recession, but had already begun to reaccelerate in the first half of 1973. Following the 1973/1974 recession, inflation did decelerate significantly, falling from 11-12% to 5% in headline terms, and from 10% to 6% in core terms. But the pace of price appreciation did not fall below 5-6% in the second half of the 1970s, despite a significant and sustained rise in the unemployment rate above its natural rate. The 1975 to 1978 period is especially important for investors to understand, because it is arguably the clearest period of true stagflation in the 1970s. The fact that the Misery Index rose sharply during two major oil price shocks is not particularly surprising in and of itself, given the direct impact of energy prices on headline consumer prices; it is the fact that the index remained so elevated between these shocks, the result of persistently high inflation in the face of significant labor market slack, that is most relevant to investors. There are two reasons that both inflation and unemployment remained high during this period. First, labor market slack was sizeable during these years because the US economy was more energy-intensive in the 1970s than it is today. Chart II-3 highlights that goods-producing employment lagged overall employment growth from late 1973 to late 1977, underscoring that the rise in oil prices significantly impacted jobs growth in energy-intensive industries. Second, it is clear that the combination of demand-pull inflation in the late 1960s and the predominantly cost-push inflation of the 1970s led to expectations of persistent inflation among households and firms. The original Phillips Curve, as formulated by New Zealand economist William Phillips in the late 1950s, described a negative relationship between the unemployment rate and the pace of wage growth. Given the close correlation between wage and overall price growth at the time, the Phillips Curve was soon extended and generalized to describe an inverse relationship between labor market slack and overall price inflation. But the experience of the 1970s highlighted that inflation expectations are also an important determinant of inflation, a realization that gave birth to the expectations-augmented (i.e. “modern-day”) Phillips Curve (more on this below). The Stagflation Era Versus Today Table II-1 presents a stagflation “threat matrix,” representing the Bank Credit Analyst service’s assessment of the various factors that could potentially contribute to a stagflationary environment today, relative to what occurred in the 1960s and 1970s. While we acknowledge that there are some similarities today to what occurred five decades ago, the most threatening factors have been present for a shorter period of time and appear to have a smaller magnitude than what occurred during the stagflationary era. In addition, key factors, such as the visibility available to policymakers and investors about household inflation expectations and the potential output of the economy, would appear to reduce significantly the risk of a stagflationary outcome today. We discuss each of the factors presented in Table II-1 below: Fiscal & Monetary Policy Chart II-4Government Spending Last Cycle Looked Nothing Like The 1960s The persistently tight labor market that contributed to the inflationary buildup in the 1960s occurred as a result of easy fiscal and monetary policy. Chart II-4 highlights that the contribution to real GDP growth from government expenditure and investment was very elevated in the 1960s. Chart II-5 shows that a positive output gap in the late 1960s and the first half of the 1970s is well explained by the fact that 10-year US government bond yields were persistently below nominal GDP growth. The relationship between the stance of monetary policy and the output gap only meaningfully diverged in the latter half of the 1970s, during the true stagflationary era that we noted above. Chart II-5Easy Monetary Policy Juiced Aggregate Demand In The 60s And Early 70s Chart II-6Monetary Policy Today Is Extremely Easy Today, it is clear that the stance of fiscal policy has recently been extraordinarily easy, and 10-year US government bond yields have remained well below nominal GDP growth for the better part of the last decade. Relative to estimates of potential nominal GDP growth, 10-year Treasury yields are the lowest they have been since the 1970s (Chart II-6). Ostensibly, this supports concerns that policy might contribute to a stagflationary outcome. These concerns were raised by Larry Summers in March, when he described the Biden administration’s fiscal policy as the “least responsible” that the US has experienced in four decades and warned of the potential inflationary consequences of overheating the economy.1 But there are two important counterpoints to these concerns. First, easy fiscal policy this cycle has followed a period during the last economic cycle in which government spending contributed to the most sustained drag on economic activity since the 1950s. Unlike the 1960s, the unemployment rate has been below NAIRU for only a third of the time over the past decade. In addition, Chart II-7 highlights that fiscal thrust will turn to fiscal drag next year, underscoring the temporary nature of the massive burst in fiscal spending that has occurred in response to the pandemic. Under normal circumstances, the fiscal drag implied by Chart II-7 would substantially raise the risks of a recession next year, but we have noted in previous reports that a significant amount of excess savings remain to support spending and employment. The net impact of these two factors results in a reasonable expectation that the US economy will return to maximum employment next year, but this is a far cry from the 1960s when the unemployment rate was below its natural rate for 70% of the decade. Based on conventional measures, US monetary policy has been easy for a decade, but easy monetary policy did not begin to contribute positively to a rise in household sector credit growth last cycle until 2014/2015. This underscores that the natural rate of interest (“R-star”) did fall during the early phase of the last economic expansion. However, we argued in an April report that R-star was likely rising in the latter half of the last expansion,2 and we believe that the terminal Fed funds rate is likely higher than what the Fed is currently projecting, barring any additional negative policy shocks. Thus, while we do not believe that the duration of easy monetary policy over the past decade has laid the groundwork for a major rise in prices, it is now clearly positively contributing to aggregate demand and does risk a future overshoot in prices if long maturity bond yields remain well below the pace of economic growth for a sustained period of time. The Impact Of Shortages Chart II-8Gasoline Shortages Plagued The US Economy In The 1970s Gasoline shortages occurred during the oil shocks of the 1970s and are a key similarity that some investors point toward when comparing the situation today with the stagflationary era. Chart II-8 highlights that the annual growth in real personal consumption expenditures on energy goods and services fell into negative territory on six occasions in the 1970s, although it was most pronounced during the two oil price shocks and their resulting recessions. Today, the impact of shortages appears to be broader than what occurred in the 1970s, but less impactful and not likely to be as long-lasting. Chart II-9 highlights that the OPEC oil embargo of 1973 raised the global oil bill by 2.4% of global GDP and permanently raised the price of oil. The global oil bill will only be fractionally above its pre-pandemic level in 2022, with oil prices at $80/bbl, and, while it is true that US gasoline prices have risen significantly, they are not higher than they were from 2011-2014 (Chart II-10). Chart II-9$80/bbl Oil Is Not Onerous Chart II-10US Gasoline Prices Are High, But They Have Been Higher It is certainly true that global shipping costs have skyrocketed and that this is contributing to the increase in US consumer prices. We estimate, however, that this increase in shipping costs as a share of GDP is no more than a quarter of the impact of the 1973 increase in oil prices, without the attendant negative effects on US goods-producing employment that occurred in the 1970s. If anything, surging shipping costs create an incentive to re-shore manufacturing production, which would contribute positively to US goods-producing employment. We also do not expect the rise in shipping costs to be meaningfully permanent, i.e., shipping costs may ultimately settle at a higher level than they were in late-2019, but at a much lower level than what prevails today. Chart II-11A Tight Labor Market Is Causing Wage Growth To Pick Up Semiconductor and labor shortages would appear to represent a more salient threat of stagflation in the US, as the domestic production of motor vehicles cannot occur without key inputs and a tight labor market is already contributing to an acceleration in wage growth (Chart II-11). As we noted in Section 1 of our report, auto production significantly impacted growth in the third quarter. However, Chart II-12 highlights that, for now, the breadth of impact of these shortages appears to be limited: the production component of the ISM manufacturing index remains in expansionary territory, industrial production of durable manufacturing excluding motor vehicles and parts has not broken down, and both housing starts and building permits remain above pre-pandemic levels despite this year’s downtrend in permits. Chart II-12Shortages Do Not Yet Seem To Be Broad-Based A physical shortage of components is a less relevant factor for the services side of the economy, which appears to have re-accelerated meaningfully in October. The services sector is more considerably impacted by shortages in the labor market, which seem to be linked to a still-low labor force participation rate. We noted in our September report that the decline in the participation rate has significantly overshot what would be implied by the ongoing pace of retirements. Chart II-13 highlights that this has occurred not just because of a significant retirement effect, but also because of the shadow labor force (people who want a job but are not currently looking for work) and family responsibilities. We expect that the recent expiry of expanded unemployment insurance benefits, a steady rise in the immunity of the US population, an abating Delta wave of COVID-19, and a likely upcoming reduction in school/classroom closures once the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine is approved for school-age children will likely ease the labor shortage issue over the coming several months. Output Gap Uncertainty It remains a debate among economists why policymakers maintained such easy monetary policy in the 1960s and 1970s, but Chart II-14 highlights that uncertainty about the size of the output gap may have contributed to too-low interest rates. The chart shows the unemployment rate compared with today's estimate of NAIRU, alongside a simple proxy for policymakers’ real time estimate of the natural rate of employment: the cumulative average unemployment rate in the post-war environment. To the extent that policymakers used past averages of the unemployment rate as their guide for NAIRU, Chart II-14 highlights how they may have underestimated the degree to which output was running above its potential level in the 1960s, and would not have even concluded that output was above potential in the early 1970s. Chart II-14Policymakers Overestimated Labor Market Slack In The 60s And 70s Chart II-15Policymakers Know That NAIRU Is Likely At Or Below 4% Today, the environment is quite different, because the acceleration in wage growth at the tail end of the last expansion gives policymakers and investors a good estimate of where NAIRU is. Chart II-15 highlights that wage growth accelerated in 2018/2019 in response to a sub-4% unemployment rate, which is consistent with both the Fed’s NAIRU estimate of 3.5-4.5% and Fed Vice Chair Richard Clarida’s expressed view that a 3.8% unemployment rate likely constitutes maximum employment (barring any issues with the breadth and inclusivity of the labor market recovery). It is possible that the pandemic has structurally lowered potential output, which could mean that policymakers may no longer rely on the wage growth / unemployment relationship that existed in the latter phase of the last expansion. However, we do not find any credible arguments that would support the notion of a structurally lower level of potential output: the pandemic is likely to end at some point in the not-too-distant future, the negative impact of working-from-home policies on office properties and employment in central business districts is not sizeable,3 and productivity may have permanently increased in some industries because of the likely stickiness of a hybrid work culture. The Behavior Of Inflation Expectations Chart II-16Rising Long-Term Expectations Have Merely Normalized (For Now) One parallel to the argument that policymakers may have underestimated the degree of labor market tightness in the 1960s and early 1970s is the fact that they did not yet understand that inflation expectations are an important determinant of actual inflation, nor were they able to monitor them even if they did. Most credible surveys of inflation expectations began in the 1980s, and policymakers in the 1960s and 1970s were guided by the original Phillips Curve that solely related inflation to unemployment. Today, policymakers have the experience of the stagflationary episode to serve as a warning not to allow inflation expectations to get out of control, and both policymakers and investors have reliable measures of inflation expectations for households and market-participants. Chart II-16 highlights that households expect significant inflation over the coming year, but also expect prices over the longer term to rise at a pace that is almost exactly in line with their average from 2000-2014. The Rudd Controversy: (Adaptive) Inflation Expectations Do Matter One potential criticism of the idea that inflation expectations are signaling a low risk of higher future inflation has emerged through arguments made by Jeremy Rudd, a Federal Reserve economist. In a recent paper, Rudd questioned the view that households’ and firms’ expectations of future inflation are a key determinant of actual inflation; he suggested instead that relatively stable inflation since the mid-1990s might reflect a situation in which inflation simply does not enter workers’ employment decisions and expectations are irrelevant. Rudd’s paper was primarily addressed to policymakers who view inflation dynamics in a highly quantitative light. A full response to the paper would be mostly academic and thus not especially relevant to investors; however, we would like to highlight three points related to the Rudd piece that we feel are important.4 First, we disagree with Rudd’s argument that the trend in inflation has not responded to changes in economic conditions since the mid-1990s. Chart II-17 highlights that while the magnitude of the relationship has shifted, the trend in inflation relative to a measure of long-term expectations based on prior actual inflation has mimicked that of the output gap. The fact that inflation was (ironically) too high during the early phase of the last economic cycle provides some support for Rudd’s inflation responsiveness view, although we would still point toward the Fed’s strong record of maintaining low and stable inflation, its active communication with the public in the years following the global financial crisis, and the fact that a recovery began and the output gap began to (slowly) close as the best explanation for the avoidance of deflation during that period. Second, we agree with Rudd’s point that regime shifts in inflation’s responsiveness to economic conditions can occur, and that adaptive measures of inflation expectations, and even surveys of inflation, may not capture such a shift in real time. Chart II-18 shows that the 2014-2016 period was a good example of this, when adaptive expectations as well as household survey measures of long-term inflation expectations both lagged the actual decline in inflation that was caused by a collapse in the price of oil. Chart II-17The Trend In Inflation Continues To Respond To Economic Conditions Chart II-18Surveyed Inflation Expectations Can Lag, But This Time They Led But Chart II-18 also shows that long-term household survey measures of inflation led the rise in actual inflation (and thus our adaptive expectations measure) last year, underscoring that these measures are likely more reliable indicators today of whether a major regime shift is occurring. As noted above, long-term expectations have risen significantly relative to what prevailed prior to the pandemic, but this has merely raised expectations from extraordinarily depressed levels back to the average that prevailed prior to (and immediately after) the global financial crisis. Therefore, household expectations are not yet at dangerous levels. Chart II-19Unit Labor Costs Modestly Lead Inflation, But Are Far From Extreme Third, one of the core observations in Rudd’s paper is that unit labor cost (ULC) growth leads the trend in inflation, which he argued was evidence against the idea that expectations of future inflation are a key determinant of actual inflation. Chart II-19 highlights that Rudd is correct that ULC growth modestly leads inflation (especially core inflation), but we disagree with his conclusion that it argues against the importance of expectations. As we noted in Section 2 of our January 2021 Bank Credit Analyst,5 one crucial aspect of the expectations-augmented, or “modern-day” Phillips Curve is that, if inflation expectations are largely formed based on the experience of past inflation, then inflation is ultimately determined by three dimensions of the output gap: whether it is rising or falling, whether it is above or below zero, and how long it has been above or below zero. Our view is that ULC growth is fundamentally linked to slack in the labor market, which is directly incorporated in output gap measures. As we noted above, investors currently have a good estimate of the magnitude of the output/employment gap, meaning that it is possible to track the inflationary consequences of prevailing aggregate demand. As a final point about ULC growth, Chart II-19 highlights that while the five-year CAGR of unit labor costs is currently running at its strongest pace since the global financial crisis, investors should note that it remains well below the levels that prevailed in the late-1960s when persistently above-potential output laid the groundwork for a massive inflationary overshoot. Conclusions And Investment Strategy Our review of the 1960s and 1970s highlights that stagflation is a phenomenon in which supply-side shocks raise prices of key inputs to production, which lowers output and raises unemployment. Energy price shocks in the 1970s occurred after a long period of policy-driven above-trend growth in the 1960s, meaning that both demand-pull and cost-push inflation contributed to stagflation in the 1970s. Today, investors cannot rule out the possibility of a stagflationary outcome, for four reasons: long-term household inflation expectations have risen significantly over the past year; fiscal policy has been very expansionary; monetary policy will remain expansionary at the Fed’s projected terminal Fed funds rate; and component shortages and price increases linked to energy market and supply chain disruptions may persist or worsen over the coming year. Chart II-20It Is Not Stagflation If The Unemployment Rate Continues To Fall However, the strong demand-pull inflationary dynamics that existed in the late-1960s were mostly absent in the lead-up to the pandemic, supply-chain issues are in part the result of strong goods demand and disruptions that are clearly linked to the pandemic (and thus will eventually dissipate), and long-term inflation expectations are behaving differently than short-term expectations, signaling that economic agents do not expect severe price pressures to persist beyond the pandemic. Policymakers also have more visibility about the magnitude of economic / labor market slack than they did during the stagflationary era and better tools to track inflation expectations. On balance, this points to a stagflationary outcome over the coming 6-24 months as a risk, but not as a likely event. Using the Misery Index as real-time stagflation indicator, investors should note that the US economy is not likely experiencing true stagflation unless the unemployment rate rises. Chart II-20 highlights that there is no evidence yet of a contraction in goods-producing or service-producing jobs. Even if goods-producing employment slows meaningfully over the coming few months as a result of component shortages, the unemployment rate is still likely to fall if services spending normalizes, as it would imply that the gap in services-producing employment, which is currently 20% of the level of pre-pandemic goods-producing employment, will continue to close. Investors have been focused on the issue of stagflation because its occurrence would imply a sharply negative correlation between stock prices and bond yields. This is not our base case view, but we have highlighted that months with negative returns from both stocks and long-maturity bonds tend to be associated with periods of monetary policy tightening (or in anticipation of such periods). As we discussed in Section 1 of our report, we do expect the Fed to raise interest rates next year. We do not see a rise in bond yields to levels implied by the Fed’s interest rates projections as being seriously threatening to economic activity, corporate earnings growth, or equity multiples. But the adjustment to higher long-maturity bond yields may unnerve equity investors for a time, implying temporary periods of a negative stock price / bond yield correlation. Table II-2 highlights that, since 1980, commodities, the US dollar, and the Swiss franc have typically earned positive returns during non-recessionary months in which stock and long-maturity bond returns are negative. While the dollar is not likely to perform well in a stagflationary scenario, Chart II-21 highlights that CHF-USD and industrial commodities performed quite well in the late-1970s. As such, a portfolio of these three assets might serve as a useful hedge for investors who are concerned about absolute return prospects in a world in which long-maturity bond yields are rising and risks of stagflationary dynamics are present. Chart II-21The Swiss Franc and Raw Industrials Did Well During The Stagflationary Era Jonathan LaBerge, CFA Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst Footnotes 1  “Summers Sees ‘Least Responsible’ Fiscal Policy in 40 Years,” Bloomberg News, March 20, 2021. 2 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst “R-star, And The Structural Risk To Stocks,” dated March 31, 2021, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst “Work From Home “Stickiness” And The Outlook For Monetary Policy,” dated June 24, 2021, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 4 Rudd, Jeremy B. (2021). “Why Do We Think That Inflation Expectations Matter for Inflation? (And Should We?),” Finance and Economics Discussion Series 2021-062. Washington: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. 5  Please see The Bank Credit Analyst “The Modern-Day Phillips Curve, Future Inflation, And What To Do About It,” dated December 18, 2021, available at bca.bcaresearch.com

Highlights Major cryptocurrencies have failed to break above important technical levels. Meanwhile, the appeal of fiat money is increasing as many central banks are reining in monetary stimulus. Cryptocurrencies continue to seriously lag fiat as a unit of account. There has been a surge in the development of central bank digital currencies around the world (CBDCs). This will replicate the advantages and success of cryptos. Cryptocurrencies are unlikely to disappear anytime soon. However, conservative investors should stick with gold and silver. Remain long silver relative to gold, along with a petrocurrency basket (RUB, MXN and COP) versus the euro. Feature Chart I-1Cryptos Are At Important Technical Levels The world of cryptocurrencies continues to generate headlines. The latest hype is the Shiba Inu coin, created by the anonymous Ryoshi. Shiba Inu’s raison d'être is to kill Dogecoin, another cryptocurrency created in part as a joke, and in part to displace Bitcoin. As these two meme coins compete in a race to the moon (both have done phenomenally well this year), the more important price action has been among the dominant players in the space. Bitcoin peaked near US$67,000 this year and has been facing strong upside resistance just as in April. Similarly, Ethereum has failed to break above the $US4,400 level twice this year. Taken together, both assets are exhibiting a classic double-top formation (Chart I-1). Historically, that has been symptomatic of a non-negligible drawdown. The Merit (Or Not) Of Cryptocurrencies Our first report on cryptocurrencies suggested that they deserved merit.  For one, blockchain technology provides a decentralized, peer-to-peer system, which alleviates the need for an intermediary to validate transactions and arbitrate disputes. This is good news for transaction costs and will likely upend a few business models soon (banking, law, and so forth). This process of creative destruction is exactly what a society needs to become more productive. The fact that the creation, distribution, and use of cryptocurrencies is outside the purview of central banks also enhances the autonomy and anonymity of cryptos, an important feature for many users. Meanwhile, cryptocurrencies have been improving as a medium of exchange. The ability to swap fiat currency into Bitcoins, Ethereum or even Dogecoins and back is fairly easy. In a nutshell, the global turnover of cryptocurrencies has been rising rapidly. On the flip side, little regulation around cryptos has led to a plethora of alternatives. There are currently about 7000 cryptos in circulation, a feat that seriously challenges their value proposition against fiat debasement (Chart I-2). The Shiba Inu coin has a supply of one quadrillion, almost half of which is claimed to have been “burned.” This is occurring within a context where many central banks are sticking to policy orthodoxy, curtailing quantitative easing (and so curbing the growth of the monetary base), and lifting interest rates. The volatility of cryptocurrencies is a serious drawback as both a store of value and unit of account. As highlighted in Chart I-1, both Bitcoin and Ethereum are at critical technical levels. In a broader sense, the drawdown in cryptocurrency prices has been around 80% a year or 40%-50% over three months (Chart I-3). These are much more volatile than currencies such as the Turkish lira, one of the worst-performing currencies this year. Chart I-3Due For Another 40-50% Drawdown? The inherent volatility of cryptos also makes them unsuitable as a unit of account. The world is currently experiencing an inflationary boom. In a world dominated by cryptos, should a price correction occur, it would exacerbate this trend. Shiba Inu coins have fallen in value by around 30% from their peak, while inflation in the US is rising by 5.4% per annum. With both Bitcoin and Ethereum off their highs, a similar or even more significant decline cannot be ruled out. The Return Of Fiat Chart I-4The Carry From Fiat Money Is Improving In recent months, central bankers have been staple champions in maintaining their currencies’ purchasing power. The Bank of Canada joined a quorum of central banks in ending quantitative easing this week. A few developed and emerging central banks have already raised interest rates to fend off inflationary pressures (Chart I-4). President Richard Nixon ended dollar convertibility into gold in the 1970s because he believed a fiat money regime was a better solution for the US. In the end, he was right as the real effective exchange rate of the dollar has been rather flat since then (Chart I-5). This has led to the dollar maintaining its reserve status over the last several decades, despite a few challenges over time. This puts cryptocurrencies a long way off from the starting line. Chart I-5Despite Rolling Cycles, The Dollar Has Been Flat Over Time More importantly, many fiat currencies are likely to do well next year, which will curb the appeal of cryptos. If Bloomberg estimates are right, the world is about to see a big rotation in growth next year from the US towards other countries which have lagged so far (Chart I-6). In this environment, currencies such as the CAD, AUD, and the Scandinavian currencies will do particularly well. This will provide lots of alternatives to cryptocurrencies. Chart I-6AA Global Growth Rebound Outside The US Chart I-6BA Global Growth Rebound Outside The US Taking a step back, the correlation between the dollar and cryptos has not been straight forward. This year, the dollar is rising along with the price of many cryptocurrencies. In previous years, there was a loose but clear inverse correlation (Chart I-7). Therefore, our bias is that this year’s rise is partly due to overexuberance. Chart I-7Bitcoin And The Dollar Central Bank Digital Currencies National governments regulate national currencies. This puts a natural limit to how much widespread acceptance cryptos can achieve before policy makers start clamping down on them. So far, the instances of government intervention is heavily stacking up against cryptos. As the turnover in cryptocurrencies overtakes global trading in various domestic currencies, many countries are moving to ban cryptocurrency transactions (Table I-1). China has been a major case in point. Meanwhile, many central banks are also moving to establish their own digital currencies. According to the Atlantic Council, there are almost 70 CDBCs that are either in the research or development phase or in pilot programs (Map I-1). There is an undeniable benefit to adopting blockchain technology. CDBCs will ensure that many of the advantages of using a cryptocurrency are captured without some of the known pitfalls. We highlighted at our conference that many governments will be loathe to relinquish control over money supply. For one, the loss in seigniorage revenue will be significant, to the tune of around $100bn for the US. Second, the use of cryptocurrencies continues to encourage the proliferation of illegal activities, a well-known flaw, and something governments will push back against. Once CDBCs become mainstream, the need for alternative cryptocurrencies will not disappear but fall greatly. In a nutshell, a monetary standard which includes both paper currency and CBDCs will provide the flexibility that central bankers need to smooth out economic cycles, along with the security, speed and low cost offered by cryptocurrencies. The Case For Precious Metals When Bitcoin was first introduced, one of the advantages was its limited supply, to the tune of 21 million coins. This resonated particularly well with anti-fiat enthusiasts who have viewed quantitative easing and rising fiscal deficits as a threat to the purchasing power of fiat money. With the number of cryptocurrencies ballooning to fresh new highs every day, this rationale no longer has solid footing. Within this context, precious metals are becoming attractive, especially in a world where inflation is overshooting, and real rates are deeply negative. On this basis, we went long the silver/gold ratio last week, partly as a hedged play on persistently high inflation and partly because we expect both gold and silver to fare well in this environment (Chart I-8). Silver (and platinum) particularly benefit since they remain a much smaller share of the anti-fiat market (Chart I-9). Chart I-8A Hedged Bet On High Inflation Chart I-9Cryptos Versus Precious Metals Central banks (the biggest holders of US Treasuries) will be another big force behind precious metals. Central banks tend to have strong hands. This is because they are ideological while private investors can be swayed by momentum. Since the middle of the last decade, there has been a tectonic shift in central bank purchases of gold, especially from developing nations. For example, China and Russia, countries that have a geopolitical imperative to diversify out of dollars, have almost 4% and 25% respectively of their foreign exchange reserves in gold. An asset backed by strong hands is a very attractive conservative play. Investment Conclusions And Housekeeping The chorus from many central banks over the last few weeks has generally been biased towards less stimulus. This is brightening the outlook for many fiat currencies. We particularly like petrocurrencies (which we bought last week), and the Scandinavian currencies which are a cheap play on dollar downside. Oil prices will likely stay elevated in the coming months, especially given that the forward curve remains very backwardated, and could be subject to upward reprising, according to our colleagues in the Commodity & Energy Strategy. As such, a bet on being long oil producers versus consumers will prove profitable. In a nutshell, many petrocurrencies provide an attractive relative carry, and as a lot of oil players see a rebound in their domestic economies, real rates should improve further. Finally, cryptocurrencies are due for a relapse from a technical standpoint. We continue to believe that cryptocurrencies will have intermittent rallies, and as such can be wonderful speculative instruments. However, rising regulation and the proliferation of CBDCs pose a structural threat.   Chester Ntonifor Foreign Exchange Strategist chestern@bcaresearch.com Currencies U.S. Dollar Chart II-1USD Technicals 1 Chart II-2USD Technicals 2 The US economy has been softening of late: The manufacturing PMI fell from 60.7 to 59.2 in October. The Chicago Fed National activity index was also soft, falling from 0.29 to -0.13 in September. House prices in the US continue to inflect higher to the tune of 20% year-on-year. The conference board consumer confidence index was rather upbeat. The present situation rose from 143.4 to 147.4 and the expectations component rose from 86.6 to 91.3. Durable goods orders softened by 0.4% month-on-month in September. The Q3 GDP report was rather weak, rising only 2% quarter-on-quarter (annualized). The US dollar DXY index fell this week. A chorus of central banks have been more proactive curtailing accommodative policy settings, as inflation pressures remain front and center. This is boosting confidence in most procyclical currencies and pressuring the dollar lower.   Report Links: Arbitrating Between Dollar Bulls And Bears - March 19, 2021 The Dollar Bull Case Will Soon Fade - March 5, 2021 Are Rising Bond Yields Bullish For The Dollar? - February 19, 2021 The Euro Chart II-3EUR Technicals 1 Chart II-4EUR Technicals 2 Euro area data also on the softer side this week: The manufacturing PMI was relatively flat, at 58.5 in October. Both consumer and industrial confidence were rather flat in October as well. The ECB kept monetary policy on hold at this week’s meeting. The euro was up 0.3% this week. The markets continue to challenge Governor Christine Lagarde’s dovish stance with both euro area bonds yields and the euro rising amidst a rather dovish communique. This is because in the current environment, global, as well as domestic conditions, are important for the euro area. And the global landscape suggests inflation might be more sticky than central banks expect, warranting a tighter monetary policy stance.  Report Links: Relative Growth, The Euro, And The Loonie - April 16, 2021 The Euro Dance: One Step Back, Two Steps Forward - April 2, 2021 On Japanese Inflation And The Yen - January 29, 2021 The Japanese Yen Chart II-5JPY Technicals 1 Chart II-6JPY Technicals 2 Recent Japanese data has been weak: Departmental store sales both in Tokyo and nationwide were rather weak in September. In Tokyo they rose only 0.7% year-on-year. Nationwide, they fell 4.3% year-on-year. Retail sales were weak but beat expectations. The came in -0.6% year-on-year, but with a 2.7% month-on-month increase. The Bank of Japan kept policy on hold, even though it downgraded its forecasts. The yen was flat this week. The yen is in a stalemate as we await the results of the October 31 Japanese elections. Our report next week will be solely focused on this. From a contrarian standpoint, we remain bullish the yen as it is one of the most shorted G10 currencies. Meanwhile, Japanese data could positively surprise to the upside. Report Links: The Case For Japan - June 11, 2021 The Dollar Bull Case Will Soon Fade - March 5, 2021 On Japanese Inflation And The Yen - January 29, 2021 British Pound Chart II-7GBP Technicals 1 Chart II-8GBP Technicals 2 Recent UK data has been rather upbeat: The manufacturing PMI rose from 57.1 to 57.7 in October. The service PMI rose from 55.4 to 58. CBI retailing reported sales rose from 11 to 30 in October. Retail sales were rather weak in September, falling 1.3%. The pound rose by 0.3% this week. We continue to believe the hawkish shift priced in by markets for the BoE is overdone. We remain bullish sterling on a cyclical horizon but are also long EUR/GBP tactically as a play on a policy convergence between the BoE and the ECB. Report Links: Why Are UK Interest Rates Still So Low? - March 10, 2021 Portfolio And Model Review - February 5, 2021 Thoughts On The British Pound - December 18, 2020 Australian Dollar Chart II-9AUD Technicals 1 Chart II-10AUD Technicals 2 The inflation data out of Australia was rather strong: Q3 CPI rose 3% year-on-year. The trimmed-mean number was 2.1%, like the trimmed-median print. The import price index surged 5.4% quarter-on-quarter in Q3. The AUD rose 0.9% this week. The RBA has been one of the most dovish central banks in the G10, communicating no interest rate increase until at least 2024. This has put downward pressure on the AUD, setting the stage for a coiled-spring rebound. Meanwhile, the AUD is cheap, especially on a terms of trade basis. At the crosses, we are long AUD/NZD as a play on these trends. Report Links: The Dollar Bull Case Will Soon Fade - March 5, 2021 Portfolio And Model Review - February 5, 2021 Australia: Regime Change For Bond Yields & The Currency? - January 20, 2021 New Zealand Dollar Chart II-11NZD Technicals 1 Chart II-12NZD Technicals 2 Data out of New Zealand this week was on the weaker side: The ANZ consumer confidence index fell from 104.5 to 98 in October. Exports were flattish near NZ$4.40bn in September. The NZD rose by 0.5% this week. Of all the central banks we follow, the RBNZ might be more prone to a policy error should inflation prove to be transitory, and/or a housing slowdown develops, especially if triggered by higher mortgage rates.  At 2.6%, New Zealand currently has the highest G10 10-year rate. We continue to believe the NZD will fare well cyclically, but hawkish expectations from the RBNZ are already priced in. This provides room for disappointment. Report Links: How High Can The Kiwi Rise? - April 30, 2021 Portfolio And Model Review - February 5, 2021 Currencies And The Value-Versus-Growth Debate - July 10, 2020 Canadian Dollar Chart II-13CAD Technicals 1 Chart II-14CAD Technicals 2 The Bank of Canada decision was the main highlight this week: Retail sales remained robust at 2.1% month-on-month in August. The Bloomberg nanos confidence index was flat at 59 for the week of October 22. The Bank of Canada kept rates on hold at its latest policy meeting. The CAD has been flat this week. The BoC delivered a hawkish message, ending QE and signaling that interest rate increases could occur sooner than the market expects. Our thesis this year has always been that on a cyclical basis, the CAD is backed by robust oil prices, and an orthodox central bank that will raise rates to curb high inflation and real estate speculation. As such, our bias is that the path of least resistance for the CAD is up. Report Links: Relative Growth, The Euro, And The Loonie - April 16, 2021 Will The Canadian Recovery Lead Or Lag The Global Cycle? - February 12, 2021 The Outlook For The Canadian Dollar - October 9, 2020 Swiss Franc Chart II-15CHF Technicals 1 Chart II-16CHF Technicals 2 There was scant data out of Switzerland this week: Total sight deposits were flat at CHF 715.3bn in the week ended October 22. The Credit Suisse survey expectations fell from 25.7 to 15.6 in October. CHF rose by 0.5% this week. We remain long CHF/NZD on a bet that volatility in currency markets will eventually rise. That said, the SNB will likely be that last central bank to curtail monetary accommodation. This suggests that CHF will lag both the EUR and other European currencies over a cyclical horizon. Report Links: An Update On The Swiss Franc - April 9, 2021 Portfolio And Model Review - February 5, 2021 The Dollar Conundrum And Protection - November 6, 2020 Norwegian Krone Chart II-17NOK Technicals 1 Chart II-18NOK Technicals 2 There was scant data out of Norway this week: Retail sales rose 0.5% month-on-month in September. The unemployment rate fell from 4.2% to 4.0% in August. The NOK was up 0.3% this week. We continue to believe being long the NOK is the sweet spot in currency markets. The central bank has hiked interest rates, oil prices are robust and the Norwegian economy is on the mend. As such, stay short EUR/NOK and USD/NOK. Report Links: The Norwegian Method - June 4, 2021 Portfolio And Model Review - February 5, 2021 Revisiting Our High-Conviction Trades - September 11, 2020 Swedish Krona Chart II-19SEK Technicals 1 Chart II-20SEK Technicals 2 Data out of Sweden this week has been rather robust: PPI rose 17.2% year-on-year in September. The trade balance came in at a surplus of SEK 6.3bn in September, a big swing from the August deficit of SEK 10.3bn. Manufacturing confidence rose from 126.6 to 128.5 in October. Q3 GDP came in at 4.7% year-on-year, well above expectations of a 3% quarter-on-quarter rise. Retail sales also rose 4.8% year-on-year in September. The SEK rose by 80 bps this week. We remain short both EUR/SEK and USD/SEK as reflation plays. Incoming data continues to suggest the Swedish economy remains on a mend, even if slowing from stronger growth earlier this year. This could lead to a hawkish surprise from the Riksbank should economic conditions remain robust. Report Links: Revisiting Our High-Conviction Trades - September 11, 2020 More On Competitive Devaluations, The CAD And The SEK - May 1, 2020 Sweden Beyond The Pandemic: Poised To Re-leverage - March 19, 2020 Trades & Forecasts Strategic View Cyclical Holdings (6-18 months) Tactical Holdings (0-6 months) Limit Orders Forecast Summary

Highlights Increasing consumption should be a lot easier than increasing savings. After all, most people like to spend! It is getting them to work that should be challenging. Yet, the conventional wisdom is that deflation is a much tougher problem to overcome than inflation. It is true that the zero-bound constraint on interest rates makes it more difficult for central banks to react to deflationary forces. However, monetary policy is not the only game in town; fiscal policy becomes more effective as interest rates fall because governments can stimulate the economy without incurring onerous financing costs. When the borrowing rate is below the growth rate of the economy, the more profligate a government has been in the past, the more profligate it can be in the future, while still maintaining a stable debt-to-GDP ratio. The pandemic banished the bond vigilantes. Governments ran massive budget deficits, but bond yields still dropped. While budget deficits will decline from their highs, fiscal policy will remain structurally more accommodative in the post-pandemic period. The combination of easier fiscal policy, increased household net worth, and other factors has raised the neutral rate of interest in the US and most other economies. This means that monetary policy is currently much more stimulative than widely believed. This is good news for equities and other risk assets in the near term, even if it does produce a major hangover down the road. New trade: Short US consumer discretionary stocks relative to other cyclicals. Consumer durable goods spending will slow as services spending and capex continue to recover. A Paradoxical Problem Economic pundits like to say that deflation is a tougher problem to overcome than inflation. We hear this statement so often that we do not think twice about it. In many respects, it is a rather strange perspective. Inflation results from too much spending relative to output, whereas deflation results from too little spending. Yet, people like to spend! One would think it would be much easier to get people to consume than to get them to work. The claim that deflation is a bigger problem than inflation is really just a statement about the limits of monetary policy. If the economy is overheating, central banks can theoretically raise rates as high as they want. In contrast, if the economy is in a deflationary funk, the zero-bound constraint limits how far interest rates can fall. Fortunately, there are other ways of stimulating the economy when interest rates cannot be cut any further. Most notably, governments can utilize fiscal policy by cutting taxes, spending more on goods and services, or increasing transfer payments. Getting Paid To Eat Lunch When interest rates are very low, not only is fiscal stimulus a free lunch, but you actually get paid for eating more. If the borrowing rate is below the growth rate of the economy, the more profligate a government has been in the past, the more profligate it can be in the future, while still maintaining a stable debt-to-GDP ratio. This sounds so counterintuitive that it is worth thinking through a simple example. Suppose you currently earn $100,000 per year and expect your income to rise by 8% per year. You have $100,000 in debt, which incurs an interest rate of 3%, and want to keep your debt-to-income ratio constant at 100% over time. Next year, your income will be $108,000, so you should target a debt level of $108,000. Thus, this year, you can spend $105,000 on goods and services, make $3,000 in interest payments, and take on $8,000 in additional debt. Now, suppose you have been spendthrift in the past and have accumulated $200,000 in debt. You still want to keep your debt-to-income ratio constant, but this time at 200%. How much can you spend this year? The answer is $110,000. If you spend $110,000 and pay an additional $6,000 in interest, your cash outflows will exceed your income by $16,000, taking your debt to $216,000 — exactly twice next year’s income. Notice that by maintaining a higher debt balance, you can actually spend $5,000 more while still keeping your debt-to-income ratio constant. Appendix A proves this point mathematically. One might protest that the interest rate you face would be higher if you had more debt. Fair enough, although in our example, the interest rate would need to rise above 5.5% for spending to decline. The more important point is that unlike people, governments which issue debt in their own currencies get to choose whatever interest rate they want. Granted, if central banks set interest rates too low, the economy will overheat, leading to higher inflation. But this just reinforces the point we made at the outset, which is that inflation and not deflation is the real constraint to macroeconomic policy. A Blissful Outcome For Stocks We would not have waded through this theoretical discussion if it did not serve a practical purpose. In April of last year, we wrote a controversial report asking if, paradoxically, the pandemic could turn out to be good for stocks. We noted that by combining monetary easing with fiscal stimulus, policymakers could steer equity markets towards a “blissful outcome” where the economy was operating at full capacity, yet interest rates were lower than they were before (Chart 1). If such a blissful state were reached, earnings would return to their pre-pandemic level, but the discount rate would remain below its pre-pandemic level, thus allowing stock prices to rise above their pre-pandemic peak. In the months following our report, the stock market played out this narrative.   From Blissful To Blissless? Chart 2Both The Fed And Investors Have Lowered Their Estimate Of The Neutral Rate More recently, bond yields have risen, stoking fears that we are moving towards less auspicious conditions for equities. There is no doubt that many central banks are looking to normalize monetary policy. That said, what central banks regard as normal today is very different from what they thought was normal in the past. Back in 2012, when the Fed began publishing its “dot plot,” the FOMC thought the neutral rate of interest was around 4.25%. Today, it thinks the neutral rate is only 2.5%. And based on the New York Fed’s survey of market participants and primary dealers, investors believe the neutral rate is even lower than the Fed’s estimate (Chart 2). Even if the Fed did not face political pressure to keep interest rates low, it probably would not want to raise them all that much anyway. The same applies to most other central banks. Why The Neutral Rate Is Higher Than The Fed Believes There are at least four reasons to think that the neutral rate of interest is higher than what the Fed believes:   Reason #1: The drag on growth from the household deleveraging cycle is ending As a share of disposable income, US household debt has declined by nearly 40 percentage points since 2008. Debt-servicing costs are now at record low levels (Chart 3). The Fed’s Senior Loan Officer Survey points to an increasing willingness to lend (Chart 4). The Conference Board’s Leading Credit Index also remains in easing territory (Chart 5). Chart 3The Deleveraging Cycle Has Run Its Course Real personal consumption increased by only 1.6% in Q3. However, this was largely driven by a 54% drop in auto spending on the back of the semiconductor shortage. While vehicle purchases normally account for only 4% of consumer spending, the sector still managed to shave 2.4 percentage points off GDP growth in Q3. Chart 4Banks Are Easing Credit Standards Chart 5A Positive Signal For Credit Growth Spending on services rose by 7.9%, an impressive feat considering the quarter saw the peak in the Delta variant wave.   Reason #2: Fiscal policy is likely to remain accommodative in the post-pandemic period The combination of lower real rates and higher debt levels has increased the budget deficit consistent with a stable debt-to-GDP ratio in the US and most developed markets (Chart 6). This point has not been lost on governments. While the flow of red ink will abate, the IMF estimates that the US cyclically-adjusted primary budget deficit will be 3% of GDP larger in 2022-26 than it was in 2014-19. The IMF also expects most other advanced economies to run larger budget deficits (Chart 7). Chart 8A Record Rise In Household Net Worth Reason #3: Higher asset prices will bolster spending According to the Federal Reserve, US household net worth rose by over 113% of GDP between 2019Q4 and 2021Q2, the largest six-quarter increase on record (Chart 8). Empirical estimates of the wealth effect suggest that households spend about 5-to-8 cents on goods and services for every additional dollar of housing wealth, and 2-to-4 cents for every additional dollar of equity wealth. Based on the latest available data, we estimate that US homeowner equity has increased by $5 trillion since the start of 2020, while household equity holdings have increased by $15.8 trillion. Together, this would translate into 2.5%-to-4% of GDP in additional annual consumption. And this does not even include any spending arising from the $2.4 trillion in incremental bank deposits that households have amassed since the start of the pandemic.    Chart 9Most Of The Deceleration In US Potential Real GDP Growth Has Already Occurred Reason #4: Population aging will drain savings Aging populations can affect the neutral rate either by dragging down investment demand or reducing savings. The former would lead to a lower neutral rate, while the latter would lead to a higher rate. As Chart 9 shows, most of the decline in US potential GDP growth has already occurred. According to the Congressional Budget Office, real potential GDP growth fell from over 3% in the early 1980s to about 1.8% today, mainly due to slower labor force growth. The CBO expects potential growth to edge down to 1.5% over the next few decades. The average age of the US capital stock is now the highest on record (Chart 10). Whereas real business fixed investment is 6% below its pre-pandemic trend, core capital goods orders – a leading indicator for capex – are 17% above trend. Capex intentions remain near multi-year highs (Chart 11). All this suggests that investment spending is unlikely to fall much in the future. Chart 10The Average Age Of The US Capital Stock Is Now The Highest On Record Chart 11Capex Intentions Remain At Lofty Levels In contrast, the depletion of national savings from an aging population is just beginning. Baby boomers are leaving the labor force en masse. They hold over half of US household wealth, considerably more than younger generations (Chart 12). As baby boomers transition from net savers to net dissavers, national savings will fall. UnTaylored  Monetary Policy The Taylor Rule prescribes the Fed to hike rates by between 50-to-100 bps for each percentage point that output rises relative to its potential. Over the past decade, the Fed has favored the higher output gap coefficient, meaning that a permanent one percentage-point increase in aggregate demand should translate, all things equal, into a one percentage-point increase in the neutral rate of interest. Taken at face value, the combination of increased household wealth and looser fiscal policy may have raised the neutral rate in the US by more than five percentage points since the pandemic. This estimate, however, does not consider feedback loops: A higher term structure for interest rates would depress asset prices, thus obviating some of the wealth effect. Higher rates would also reduce the incentive for governments to run large budget deficits. Taking these feedback loops into account, a reasonable estimate is that the neutral rate in the US is about 2% in real terms, or slightly over 4% in nominal terms based on current long-term inflation expectations. This is close to the historic average for real rates, although well above current market pricing. The implication for investors is that US monetary policy is currently more stimulative than widely believed. This is the good news. The bad news is that in the absence of fiscal tightening, the Fed will eventually be forced to raise rates by more than investors are discounting. Higher Inflation Won’t Force The Fed’s Hand… Just Yet When will the Fed be forced to move away from its baby-step approach to monetary policy normalization and adopt a more aggressive stance? Our guess is not for another two years. Last week, we argued that inflation in the US and many other countries is likely to follow a “two steps up, one step down” trajectory of higher highs and higher lows over the remainder of the decade. We are currently near the top of those two steps: Most of the recent increase in inflation has been driven by surging durable goods prices (Chart 13). Considering that durable goods prices usually fall over time, this is not a sustainable source of inflation. Chart 13ADurable Goods Spending Has Further To Fall (I) Chart 13BDurable Goods Spending Has Further To Fall (II) In modern service-based economies, structurally high inflation requires rapid wage growth. While US wage growth has picked up recently, most of the increase in wages has occurred at the bottom end of the income distribution (Chart 14). The Fed welcomes this development, given its expanded mandate to pursue “inclusive growth.” At some point in the future, long-term inflation expectations could become unmoored. However, that has not happened yet, whether one looks at market-based or survey-based expectations (Chart 15). Thus, for now, investors should remain constructive on stocks. Chart 14Wages At The Bottom End Of The Income Distribution Are Rising Briskly   New Trade: Short Consumer Discretionary Stocks Relative To Other Cyclicals We continue to favor cyclical stocks over defensives. Within the cyclical category, however, we are cautious on consumer discretionary names. Spending on consumer durable goods still has further to fall in order to return to trend. Durable goods prices will also come down, potentially squeezing profit margins. Go short the Consumer Discretionary Select Sector SPDR Fund (XLY) versus an S&P 500 sector-weighted basket of the Industrial Select Sector SPDR Fund (XLI), the Energy Select Sector SPDR Fund (XLE), and the Materials Select Sector SPDR Fund (XLB). Appendix A Peter Berezin Chief Global Strategist pberezin@bcaresearch.com View Matrix Special Trade Recommendations This table provides trade recommendations that may not be adequately represented in the matrix on the preceding page. Current MacroQuant Model Scores

In lieu of next week’s report, I will be presenting the quarterly Counterpoint webcast titled ‘Where Is The Groupthink Wrong? (Part 2)’. I do hope you can join. Highlights If a continued surge in the oil price – or other commodity or goods prices – started driving up the 30-year T-bond yield, the markets and the economy would feel the pain. We reiterate that the pain point at which the Fed would be forced to volte-face is only around 30 bps away on the 30-year T-bond, equal to a yield of around 2.4-2.5 percent. That would be a great buying opportunity for bonds. Given the proximity of this pain point, it is too late to short bonds, or for equity investors to rotate into value and cyclical equity sectors. That tactical opportunity has almost played out. On a 6-month and longer horizon, equity investors should prefer long-duration defensive sectors such as healthcare. Chinese long-duration bond yields are on a structural downtrend. Fractal analysis: The Korean won is oversold. Feature 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 about the trebling of the crude oil price since March 2020? 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, by driving up the bond yield and tipping an already fragile market and economy over the brink. Today, could oil become the accessory to another murder? (Chart I-1) Chart I-1AOil Was The Accessory To The Murder In 2008... Chart I-1B...Could It Become The Accessory To Another Murder?   Oil Is The Accessory To Many Murders Turn the clock back to the 1970s, and it might seem more straightforward that the recession of 1974 was the direct result of the oil shock that preceded it. Yet even in this case, we can argue that oil was the accessory, rather than the true culprit of that murder. It is correct that the specific timing, magnitude, and nature of OPEC supply cutbacks were closely related to geopolitical events – especially the US support for Israel in the Arab-Israeli war of October 1973. Yet as neat and popular as this explanation is, it ignores a bigger economic story: the collapse in August 1971 of the Bretton Woods ‘pseudo gold standard’, which severed the fixed link between the US dollar and quantities of commodities. To maintain the real value of oil, the OPEC countries were raising the price of crude oil well before October 1973. Meaning that while geopolitical events may have influenced the precise timing and magnitude of price hikes, OPEC countries were just ‘staying even’ with the collapsing real value of the US dollar, in which oil was priced. Seen in this light, the true culprit of the recession was the collapse of the Bretton Woods system, and the oil price surge through 1973-74 was just the accessory to the murder (Chart I-2). Chart I-2In 1973-74, OPEC Was Just 'Staying Even' With A Collapsing Real Value Of The Dollar A quarter of a century later in 1999, the oil price again trebled within a short time span – and by the turn of the millennium, the ensuing inflationary fears had pushed up the 10-year T-bond yield from 4.5 percent to almost 7 percent (Chart I-3). With stocks already looking expensive versus bonds, it was this increase in the bond yield – rather than a decline in the equity earnings yield – that inflated the equity bubble to its bursting point in early 2000 (Chart I-4). Chart I-3In 1999, As Oil Surged, So Did The Bond Yield... Chart I-4...Making Expensive Equities Even More Expensive To repeat, for the broader equity market, the last stage of the bubble was not so much that stocks became more expensive in absolute terms (the earnings yield was just moving sideways). Rather, stock valuations worsened markedly relative to sharply higher bond yields. Seen in this light, the oil price surge through 1999 was once again the accessory to the murder. Eight years later in 2007-08, the oil price once again trebled with Brent crude reaching an all-time high of $146 per barrel in July 2008. Again, the inflationary fears forced the 10-year T-bond yield to increase, from 3.25 percent to 4.25 percent during the early summer of 2008 (Chart I-5) – even though the Federal Reserve was slashing the Fed funds rate in the face of an escalating financial crisis (Chart I-6). Chart I-5In 2008, As Oil Surged, So Did The Bond Yield... Chart I-6...Even Though The Fed Was Slashing Rates In The Face Of A Financial Crisis Suffice to say, driving up bond yields in the summer of 2008 – in the face of the Fed’s aggressive rate cuts and a global financial system teetering on the brink – was not the smartest thing that the bond market could do. On the other hand, neither could it override its Pavlovian fears of the oil price trebling. Seen in this light, the oil price surge through 2007-08 was once again the accessory to the murder. Inflationary Fears May Once Again Lead To Murder Fast forward to today, and the danger of the recent trebling of the oil price comes not from the oil price per se. Instead, just as in 2000 and 2008, the danger comes from its potential to drive up bond yields, which can tip more systemically important economic and financial fragilities over the brink. One such fragility is the extreme sensitivity of highly-valued growth stocks to the 30-year T-bond yield, as explained in The Fed’s ‘Pain Point’ Is Only 30 Basis Points Away. On this note, one encouragement is that while shorter duration yields have risen sharply through October, the much more important 30-year T-bond yield has just gone sideways. A much bigger systemic fragility lies in the $300 trillion global real estate market, as explained in The Real Risk Is Real Estate (Part 2). Specifically, the global real estate market has undergone an unprecedented ten-year boom in which prices have doubled in every corner of the world. Over the same period, rents have risen by just 30 percent, which has depressed the global rental yield to an all-time low of 2.5 percent. Structurally depressed rental yields are justified by structurally depressed 30-year bond yields. Therefore, any sustained rise in 30-year bond yields risks undermining the foundations of the $300 trillion global real estate market (Chart I-7). Chart I-7Structurally Depressed Rental Yields Are Justified By Structurally Depressed 30-Year Bond Yields Nowhere is this truer than in China, where prime real estate yields in the major cities are at a paltry 1 percent. In this context, the recent woes of real estate developer Evergrande are just the ‘canary in the coalmine’ warning of an extremely fragile Chinese real estate sector. This will put downward pressure on China’s long-duration bond yields. As my colleague, BCA China strategist, Jing Sima, points out, “Chinese long-duration bond yields are on a structural downtrend…yields are likely to move structurally to a lower bound.” But it is not just in China. Real estate is at record high valuations everywhere and contingent on no major rise in long-duration bond yields. In the US, there is a tight relationship between the (inverted) 30-year bond yield and mortgage applications for home purchase (Chart I-8), and a tight relationship between mortgage applications for home purchase and building permits (Chart I-9). Thereby, higher bond yields threaten not only real estate prices. They also threaten the act of building itself, an important swing factor in economic activity. Chart I-8The Bond Yield Drives Mortgage Applications... Chart I-9...And Mortgage Applications Drive Building Permits To repeat, focus on the 30-year T-bond yield – as this is the most significant driver for both growth stock valuations, and for real estate valuations and activity. To repeat also, the 30-year T-bond yield has been generally well-behaved over the past few months. But if a continued surge in the oil price – or other commodity or goods prices – started driving up the 30-year T-bond yield, the markets and the economy would feel pain. And at some point, this pain would force the Fed to volte-face. We reiterate that this pain point is only around 30 bps away, equal to a yield on 30-year T-bond of around 2.4-2.5 percent – a level that would be a great buying opportunity for bonds. Given the proximity of this pain point, it is too late to short bonds or for equity investors to rotate into value and cyclical equity sectors. That tactical opportunity has almost played out. On a 6-month and longer horizon, equity investors should prefer long-duration defensive sectors such as healthcare. The Korean Won Is Oversold Finally, in this week’s fractal analysis, we note that the Korean won is oversold – specifically versus the Chinese yuan on the 130-day fractal structure of that cross (Chart I-10). Chart I-10The Korean Won Is Oversold Given that previous instances of such fragility have reliably indicated trend changes, this week’s recommended trade is long KRW/CNY, setting the profit target and symmetrical stop-loss at 2 percent.   Dhaval Joshi Chief Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com 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