Monetary

Highlights Gold prices will continue to be challenged by conflicting information flows regarding US monetary policy; higher inflationary impulses from commodity prices and supply-chain bottlenecks; global economic policy uncertainty, and risks to EM economic growth (Chart of the Week). Concern over the likely tapering of the Fed's asset-purchase program this year, rate hikes next year and fiscal-policy uncertainty will support rising interest-rate risk premia and a stronger USD. These will remain headwinds for gold. Going into the Northern Hemisphere's winter, risk premia in fossil-fuel prices are at or close to their zeniths, as is the Bloomberg commodity index. This will keep short-term inflation elevated. Heightened geopolitical tensions – particularly between Western democracies and China – will keep the USD well bid by risk-averse investors. The commodity-induced element of PCEPI inflation will be transitory. Uncertainty over US monetary policy and rising geopolitical tensions, however, will remain part and parcel of gold fundamentals indefinitely. The trailing stop on our long 1Q22 natural gas call spread – long $5.00/MMBtu call vs. short $5.50/MMBtu call – was elected, leaving us with a 20% gain. We will not be re-setting the spread at tonight's close, due to the difficulty in taking a price view in markets with extremely high weather-related uncertainty. Feature The quality of information informing the analysis of gold markets is highly uncertain at present. US monetary policy uncertainty and the future of Fed chairman Jerome Powell keep expectations twitchy when it comes issues like the tapering of the Fed's asset-purchase program. Our colleagues at BCA's US Bond Strategy expect the Fed will announce a taper in asset purchases by November 2021 which will end in June 2022.1 But the tapering really is not, in our estimation, as big a deal as inflation and inflation expectations, which will drive the Fed's rate-hiking timetable. Chart of the WeekUncertainty Weighs On Gold The first Fed rate hike expected by our bond desk likely will come at the end of next year. Our colleagues expect the Fed will want to check off three criteria before increasing interest rates (Table 1). The inflation targets – actual and expected – already have been checked off, leaving the labor market's recovery as the only outstanding issue on our internal checklist. By December 2022, once the maximum employment criterion has been met, the Fed will commence with rate hike.2 Subsequent rate hikes will depend on inflation expectations. Table 1A Checklist For Liftoff Uncertain Inflation Expectations The higher inflation that checks off our bond desk's list resulted from COVID-19-impacted services and tight auto markets (Chart 2). We also find evidence commodities feed into inflation expectations and realized inflation, both of which are key variables for the Fed (Chart 3). Transitory effects – chiefly supply-chain bottlenecks and a global scramble for coal, gas and oil – have lifted realized inflation in 2H21, and have taken the Bloomberg commodity index to record levels (Chart 4). Nonetheless, given the fundamental backdrop for the key industrial commodities – chiefly oil, gas, coal and base metals – the inflationary impulse from commodity markets could persist indefinitely into the future, in our estimation. In order to incentivize the investment in base metals needed to literally build out the renewable energy infrastructure, the grids that support it and the electric vehicles that will supplant internal-combustion-engine technology, higher energy and metals prices will be required for years.3 This will be occurring as the production of traditional energy sources – i.e., fossil fuels – winds down due to lower investment over the next 10-20 years. This also will result in higher and more volatile oil and gas prices. Chart 2Inflation Meets Fed Targets Chart 3Commodities Feed Into Inflation Expectations All of these real-economy factors will feed into higher inflation over time, which will present the Fed with difficult choices regarding monetary policy and interest rates. Chart 4Record Commodity Index Levels USD Strength Suppresses Inflation And Gold Prices  It is worthwhile noting the current USD strength is suppressing inflation. However, it is not suppressing commodity prices entirely, as Chart 4 shows. The transitory weather-related price increases in energy commodities will pass, either when winter ends or if a less severe winter hits the Northern Hemisphere. We continue to expect a lower dollar, as the Fed's accommodative monetary policy remains in place. Even after the Fed tapers its asset-purchase program, policy will remain loose. The large fiscal packages that most likely will be approved by the US Congress will swell the US debt and budget deficits, which likely will weaken the USD over time. On a purchasing-power-parity basis (PPP) we also expect a weaker dollar (Chart 5). We also are expecting the availability of more efficacious vaccines in EM economies to boost economic activity, which will strengthen incomes and local currencies vis-à-vis the USD. Chart 5Weaker USD Expected On A PPP Basis The risk to this USD view – which would support gold prices – remains the heightened geopolitical tensions between Western democracies and China, which will keep political uncertainty elevated and will keep the USD well bid by risk-averse investors. Persistent USD strength would restrain inflation, and weaken the case for owning gold. Investment Implications We remain bullish gold over the medium- and long-term, expecting higher inflation and inflation expectations to lift demand for this safe haven. However, persistent commodity-induced inflation could force the Fed to tighten monetary policy more than is currently expected to get out ahead of higher inflation and inflation expectations. This could lead to stagflation, wherein inflation runs high but growth stalls as interest rates move higher. Persistent geopolitical risk also will keep risk-averse investors well bid for the USD. Commodities Round-Up Energy: Bullish First-line US natural gas prices were down ~ 9% as we went to press, following reports Russia would make more gas available to European buyers. This report apparently was later contradicted by a Gazprom official, who said Russian inventories still were being filled ahead of winter.4 WTI crude oil prices came close to hitting a seven-year high early in the trading day Wednesday, then promptly retreated (Chart 6). The news flow is indicative of the extreme sensitivity of gas and oil buyers going into the coming winter. Base Metals: Bullish Earlier this week, the Peruvian government struck an deal with MMG Ltd, owner of the Las Bambas mine, and the local community around the site, which reportedly will involve hiring local residents to provide services to the mine, including helping transport minerals and maintaining key transit roads. The community had been protesting to seek more of the income from the mine, and created blockades en route to the site, which threatened ~ 2% of global copper supply. Peru's newly elected president, TK Castillo, rose to power on the promise to redistribute mining wealth to Peruvian citizens. This was his first negotiation with a mining company since his election in July. MMG’s major shareholder is China Minmetals Corp. The Leftist president will need to balance the interests of local stakeholders on the one hand, while ensuring the world’s second largest copper producing nation is still attractive to international miners. Precious Metals: Bullish In 2021, the World Platinum Investment Council expects the platinum to swing to a physical surplus of 190k oz, which reverses an earlier forecast for a deficit made in the Council's 1Q21 report (Chart 7). Demand is forecast to increase year-over-year, spurred by increases in automotive, industrial and jewelry demand. On the supply side, growth in South Africa's mined output growth will keep markets in a surplus for 2021. According to SFA Oxford, gross palladium demand and refined supply for 2021 are expected to be at 10.03mm oz, and 6.77mm, respectively. Palladium balances (ex-ETFs) are projected to remain in a physical deficit of 495k ounces for 2021. Chart 6 Chart 7   Robert P. Ryan Chief Commodity & Energy Strategist rryan@bcaresearch.com Ashwin Shyam Research Associate Commodity & Energy Strategy ashwin.shyam@bcaresearch.com     Footnotes 1     Please see Damage Assessment, published by BCA Research's US Bond Strategy on September 28, 2021. 2     Please see 2022 Will Be All About Inflation, published by BCA Research's US Bond Strategy on September 14, 2021, which notes the concept of maximum employment is not a well-defined term. 3    Please see La Niña And The Energy Transition, which we published last week. 4    Please see Energy price surge sends shivers through markets as Europe looks to Russia published by reuters.com on September 6, 2021.   Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations

Highlights Equity valuations are extremely stretched versus bonds, so there is little wiggle room for bonds to sell off before pulling down large tracts of the stock market. We estimate that bond yields can rise by no more than 30 bps, before the Fed is forced to talk them back down again. Starting from an earnings yield that is extreme versus its history, we should prudently assume that the prospective long-term real return from equities will be far below the current earnings yield of 4.6 percent, and closer to zero, even if not actually negative. In capitalist economies, gluts may or may not lead to shortages; but shortages always lead to gluts. In other words, the current inflation is sowing the seeds of its own destruction. Hence, we reiterate our structural recommendation to overweight US T-bonds versus US TIPS. Fractal analysis: Cotton, and Polish equities. Feature Chart of the WeekTech Stocks Have Been Tracking The 30-Year T-Bond Price One-For-One Equity valuations are extremely stretched versus bonds. The upshot is that there is little wiggle room for bonds to sell off before pulling down large tracts of the stock market. This is not just an abstract hypothesis – it is an empirical fact, as recent market action is making painfully clear. Since February, the global tech sector has tracked the 30-year T-bond price almost one-for-one. The near perfect fit proves that the tech (and broader growth stock) rally has been entirely premised on the bond market rally. Hence, on the three occasions that bonds have sold off sharply – including in the last couple of weeks – tech stocks have sold off sharply too (Chart of the Week). Put simply, the performance of the tech sector is being driven by the change in its valuation, and the change in its valuation is being driven by the change in the bond yield (Chart I-2). Chart I-2Tech Stock Valuations Are Being Driven By The Bond Yield Of course, stock prices are also premised on earnings. So, given enough time, rising earnings can make valuations less stretched, adding more wiggle room for bonds to sell off. The trouble is that a change in earnings happens much more gradually than can a change in valuation – a 10 percent rise in earnings can take a year, whereas a 10 percent fall in valuation can happen in a week. Bond Yields Remain The Dominant Driver Of The Stock Market For the next few months at least, the movement in bond yields will remain the dominant driver of the most stretched parts of the stock market and, by extension, the overall market itself. This is especially true for the growth-heavy S&P 500 which, since March, has been tracking the 30-year T-bond price one-for-one (Chart I-3). Chart I-3The S&P 500 Has Also Been Tracking The 30-Year T-Bond Price One-For-One The key question for investors is, what is the upper limit to bond yields before stock market damage causes the Federal Reserve to talk them down again? To answer this question, our working assumption is that a 15 percent drawdown in growth stocks would damage the growth-heavy S&P 500 enough – and thereby worsen ‘financial conditions’ enough – for the Fed to change its tone. Based on this year’s very tight relationship between tech stocks and the 30-year T-bond yield, a 15 percent drawdown would occur if the 30-year T-bond yield increased to 2.4 percent from 2.1 percent today (Chart I-4). Chart I-4The Fed's 'Pain Point' Is Only 30 Basis Points Away This confirms our view that the resistance level to long-duration bond yields is around 30 bps above current levels, equivalent to around 1.8 percent on the 10-year T-bond yield. More About The ‘Negative Equity Risk Premium’ Our recent report The Equity Risk Premium Turns Negative For The First Time Since 2002 caused quite a stir. So, let’s elaborate and clarify the arguments we made about the equity risk premium (ERP) – the estimated excess return that stocks will deliver over bonds over a long investment horizon, such as 10 years. Many investors estimate the ERP by taking the stock market’s earnings yield – currently 4.6 percent in the US1 – and subtracting the real 10-year bond yield – currently -0.9 percent on US Treasury Inflation Protected Securities (TIPS). At first glance, this presents a very generous ERP of 5.5 percent. So, equities are attractively valued versus bonds, right? Wrong. The glaring error is that the earnings yield estimates the stock market’s prospective return only if the earnings yield starts and ends at the same level. If it does not, then the prospective return could be very different to the earnings yield. For example, imagine that the stock market was trading at a bubble price-to-earnings multiple of 100, meaning an earnings yield of 1 percent. Clearly, from such a bubble valuation, nobody would expect the market to return 1 percent. Instead, as the bubble burst, and valuations normalised, the prospective return would be deeply negative. It follows that when, as now, the earnings yield is extreme versus its history, we must build in some prudent normalisation to estimate the prospective return. The question is, how? One approach is to use history to inform us of the likely normalisation. Chart I-5 does this using the ‘best-fit’ relationship between the earnings yield at each point through 1990-2011 and subsequent 10-year real return from each starting point. Using the best-fit for this specific episode, the current earnings yield of 4.6 percent implies a prospective 10-year real return not of 4.6 percent, but of -1.1 percent. Chart I-5Based On History, The Current Earnings Yield Implies A Prospective 10-Year Real Return Much Less Than 4.6 Percent Yet this best-fit approach meets a common reproach – that the best-fit for this specific episode is massively distorted by the dot com bubble peak and the global financial crisis (GFC) trough occurring (by coincidence) almost 10 years apart. We can counter this reproach in two ways. First, the best-fit relationship is much better than the raw earnings yield even for undistorted 10-year periods such as 1995-2005 or 2011-2021. Better still, we can change the prospective return from 10 years to 7 years and thereby remove the dot com bubble peak to GFC trough distortion. Chart I-6 shows that this 7-year best-fit relationship also works much better than the raw earnings yield. Chart I-6Based On History, The Current Earnings Yield Implies A Prospective 7-Year Real Return Much Less Than 4.6 Percent Admittedly, the best-fit comes from just one episode in history, and there is no certainty that the 10-year and 7-year relationships that applied during that one episode should apply through 2021-31 and 2021-28 respectively. Nevertheless, starting from an earnings yield that is extreme versus its history, as is the case now, we should prudently assume that the prospective long-term real return from equities will be far below 4.6 percent, and closer to zero, even if not actually negative. Will The ‘Real’ Real Yield Please Stand Up Measuring the ERP also requires an estimate of the prospective real return on bonds. This part should be easy because the yield on the US 10-year TIPS – currently -0.9 percent – is the guaranteed 10-year real return of buying and holding that investment. It is derived by taking the yield on the 10-year T-bond – currently 1.5 percent – and subtracting the market’s expected rate of inflation over the next 10 years – currently 2.4 percent. But the equivalent real return on the much larger conventional bond market could be quite different. In this case, it will be the 10-year T-bond yield minus the actual rate of inflation over the next 10 years. To the extent that the actual rate of inflation turns out less than the expected rate of 2.4 percent, the real return on the T-bond will turn out higher than that on the TIPS. In fact, this has consistently turned out to be the case. The market has consistently overestimated the inflation rate over the subsequent 10 years, meaning that the real return on T-bonds has been around 1 percent higher than that on TIPS (Chart I-7). Chart I-7Will The 'Real' Real Yield Please Stand Up Yet given the current surge in inflation, and no end in sight for supply chain disruptions and bottlenecks, is it plausible that the next ten years’ rate of inflation will be lower than 2.4 percent? The answer is yes. Because, as my colleague Peter Berezin points out: in capitalist economies, gluts may or may not lead to shortages; but shortages always lead to gluts. And gluts always cause prices to collapse. In other words, the current inflation is sowing the seeds of its own destruction. Hence, we reiterate our structural recommendation to overweight US T-bonds versus US TIPS. The Cotton Is Stretched, And So Are Polish Equities Talking of shortages, cotton now adds to the list of commodities in which supply bottlenecks have raised prices to extremes. Cotton prices have reached a 10-year high due to weather conditions in the US (the world’s biggest cotton producer) combined with shipping disruptions. However, with cotton now exhibiting extreme fragility on its combined 130/260-day fractal structure, there is a high likelihood of a price reversal in the coming months when the shortage turns into a glut (Chart I-8). Chart I-8The Cotton Is Stretched Meanwhile, the bank-heavy Polish equity market has surged on the back of the spectacular outperformance of its banks sector. This strong uptrend has now reached the point of fragility on its 130-day fractal structure that has indicated several previous reversals (Chart I-9). Chart I-9Poland's Outperformance Is Stretched Accordingly, this week’s recommended trade is to underweight the Warsaw General Index versus the Eurostoxx 600, setting a profit target and symmetrical stop-loss at 6 percent.   Dhaval Joshi Chief Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1 Based on the 12-month forward earnings yield. Fractal Trading System Fractal Trades 6-Month Recommendations Structural And Thematic 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 ##br##- Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch ##br##- Interest Rate Expectations   Chart II-6Indicators To Watch ##br##- Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch ##br##- Interest Rate Expectations      

Highlights Q3/2021 Performance Breakdown: Our recommended model bond portfolio outperformed the custom benchmark index by +8bps during the third quarter of the year. Winners & Losers: The government bond side of the portfolio outperformed by +4bps, led by the timely downgrade of UK Gilts to underweight in early August. Spread product allocations outperformed by +4bps, coming entirely from the overweights to high-yield in the US and Europe. Portfolio Positioning For The Next Six Months: We are maintaining an overall below-benchmark portfolio duration exposure, concentrated in the US and UK. We expect global growth will rebound from the Delta variant and supply chain disruptions will keep inflation elevated for longer, both of which will push global bond yields higher as central banks – led by Fed – turn less dovish. We are maintaining a moderate overweight to global spread product versus government debt, concentrated on an overweight to US high-yield where valuations still look the least stretched compared to corporate debt in other countries. Feature Global bond markets have had a lot of sources of uncertainty to digest over the past few months. Renewed COVID fears due to the spread of the Delta variant, slowing global growth momentum, supply chain disruptions leading to surging realized inflation, the ongoing US fiscal policy debate in D.C., concerns over Chinese corporate debt and the increasingly hawkish monetary policy signals sent by global central banks, most notably the Fed. The net result of these narratives has been some major swings in government bond market performance during the third quarter of 2021. The benchmark 10-year government bond yield in the US started the quarter at 1.48%, fell to an intraday low of 1.12% on August 4, then soared higher to end the quarter back at 1.50%. Even bigger moves were seen in other countries, with the 10-year UK Gilt yield doubling from its Q3 low of 0.48% on August 4 while the 10-year German bund yield is now 30bps above its low for the quarter. Despite this yield volatility, however, spreads for riskier credit market assets like US high-yield have remained generally well behaved. With that in mind, we present our quarterly review of the BCA Research Global Fixed Income Strategy (GFIS) model bond portfolio during Q3/2021. We also present our recommended positioning for the portfolio for the next six months (Table 1), as well as portfolio return expectations for our base case and alternative investment scenarios. We anticipate that bond investor uncertainty will switch from concerns about global growth to worries that stubbornly elevated inflation will elicit bond-bearish monetary policy responses from central banks. Table 1GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Recommended Positioning For The Next Six Months As a reminder to existing readers (and to new clients), the model portfolio is a part of our service that complements the usual macro analysis of global fixed income markets. The portfolio is how we communicate our opinion on the relative attractiveness between government bond and spread product sectors. We do this by applying actual percentage weightings to each of our recommendations within a fully invested hypothetical bond portfolio. Q3/2021 Model Bond Portfolio Performance: Positive Returns In An Uncertain Environment Chart 1Q3/2021 Performance: Riding The Duration Roller Coaster The total return for the GFIS model portfolio (hedged into US dollars) in the third quarter was +0.21%, slightly outperforming the custom benchmark index by +8bps (Chart 1).1 In terms of the specific breakdown between the government bond and spread product allocations in our model portfolio, the former generated +4bps of outperformance versus our custom benchmark index while the latter also outperformed by +4bps. Those small positive excess returns should be considered a victory, given the huge yield swings within the quarter, particularly for government bonds. We maintained a significant underweight position to US Treasuries in the portfolio during Q3, given our view that markets were underestimating the risks that the US economy would weather the summer Delta storm. As Treasury yields declined steadily during July and August, so did the relative performance of our model bond portfolio. The government bond portion of the portfolio was underperforming the benchmark by as much as -30bps before global bond yields bottomed out in early August. In the end, there was only a slight underperformance (-2bps) from the US Treasury portion of the portfolio during the quarter (Table 2). Table 2GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q3/2021 Overall Return Attribution Our biggest government bond overweights have been concentrated in the euro area. There, the sum of active returns during Q3 from our government bond allocations was +3bps, although that came entirely from above-benchmark allocations to inflation-linked bonds in Germany, France and Italy. We did make one major shift in our government bond allocations during the quarter, and it was both timely and successful. We downgraded our recommended UK Gilt exposure to underweight on August 11.2 We observed that the Bank of England (BoE) was starting to prepare the markets for less accommodative monetary policy, with the UK economy holding up well as its Delta variant surge was losing momentum. The BoE rhetoric has proven to be even more hawkish than we anticipated, hinting at a possible rate hike before the end of 2021, leading Gilts to be the worst performing government bond market in our model portfolio universe during the quarter. The result: our UK underweight contributed +4bps to the portfolio performance during the quarter. Turning to the credit side of the portfolio, the most successful positions were our overweight tilts on high-yield in the US (+3bps) and euro area (+1bps). All other exposures contributed little to returns, an unsurprising development given our neutral allocations to investment grade corporates in the US, UK and euro area, as well as for USD-denominated EM corporates. The bar charts showing the total and relative returns for each individual government bond market and spread product sector are presented in Charts 2 & 3. Chart 2GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q3/2021 Government Bond Performance Attribution Chart 3GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q3/2021 Spread Product Performance Attribution By Sector Biggest Outperformers: Overweight UK Gilts with a maturity greater than 10-years (+4bps) Overweight Italian inflation-linked bonds (+2bps) Overweight US high-yield: Ba-rated (+2bps) and B-rated (+1bps) Biggest Underperformers: Underweight US Treasuries with a maturity greater than 10-years (-2bps) Overweight Japanese Government Bonds in longer maturity buckets: 7-10 years (-1bps) and greater than 10-years (-1bps) Overweight UK inflation-linked bonds (-1bps) Chart 4 presents the ranked benchmark index returns of the individual countries and spread product sectors in the GFIS model bond portfolio for Q3/2021. Returns are hedged into US dollars (we do not take active currency risk in this portfolio) and adjusted to reflect duration differences between each country/sector and the overall custom benchmark index for the model portfolio. We have also color coded the bars in each chart to reflect our recommended investment stance for each market during Q3 (red for underweight, dark green for overweight, gray for neutral). Chart 4Ranking The Winners & Losers From The GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Universe In Q3/2021 Ideally, we would look to see more green bars on the left side of the chart where market returns are highest, and more red bars on the right side of the chart were returns are lowest. As can be seen in the chart, the bars look very close to that ideal for Q3/2021. Among the markets that represent our overweights, the most notably positive returns came from all euro area government bonds (a combined +136bps) and euro area corporates (a combined +20bps from investment grade and high-yield). Returns within our recommended underweight positions were even more notable: UK Gilts (-302bps), New Zealand government bonds (-103bps), EM USD-denominated sovereigns (-85bps), and Canadian government bonds (-45bps). Bottom Line: Our model bond portfolio slightly outperformed its benchmark index in the third quarter of the year by +8bps – a moderately positive result coming equally from underweight positions in government bonds and overweight allocations to spread product. Future Drivers Of Portfolio Returns Chart 5Negative Real Yields: The Biggest Mispricing In Global Bond Markets Looking ahead, the performance of the model bond portfolio will continue to be driven primarily by our below-benchmark overall duration tilt – focused on our underweight stance on US Treasuries – and our overweight stance on high-yield corporates. Our most favored cyclical indicators for global bond yields are still, in aggregate, signaling more upside potential over at least the next six months, although the nature of the signal is changing (Chart 5). While our Global Duration Indicator, comprised of leading economic indicators and measures of future economic sentiment, has peaked, the overall level of 10-year bond yields within the major developed markets remains well below levels implied by the Indicator (top panel). That is most clearly evident when looking at the large gap between deeply negative real bond yields and the still-elevated level of the global manufacturing PMI, which typically leads real yields by around six months (second panel). We continue to view this gap between real yields and growth as the biggest mispricing in global bond markets – one that will eventually be rectified by the incremental reduction in monetary accommodation that is signaled by our Global Central Bank Monitor (bottom panel). The combined message from our Central Bank Monitor, Duration Indicator and the manufacturing PMI is that global bond yields are still too low, suggesting a below-benchmark overall portfolio duration stance remains appropriate. With regards to country allocation within the government bond side of our model portfolio, we continue to overweight countries where central banks are less likely to begin normalizing pandemic-era monetary policy quickly (Germany, France, Italy, Spain, Japan, Australia), while underweighting countries where normalization is expected to begin within the next 6-12 months (the US, UK and Canada). We have the highest conviction on the US and UK underweights, with a curve-flattening bias for both markets relative to the rest of the major developed markets (Chart 6). The bond-friendly (and risk asset-friendly) impact of global quantitative easing programs is fading, on the margin, with the annual growth rate of central bank balance sheets having already slowed sharply (Chart 7). The pace of tapering, and any subsequent rate hikes, will differ by country and support our government bond country allocations in the model portfolio. Chart 6Expect More Relative Curve Flattening In The US & UK Chart 7The 'Great Global Taper' Has Begun   Chart 8Less Scope For Wider Global Inflation Breakevens We expect the Fed to taper its pace of bond purchases over the first half of 2022, setting up a first Fed rate hike late next year. The Bank of Canada and the BoE will be the other developed market central banks that will both end QE and lift rates before the Fed does the same. On the other hand, the ECB, Bank of Japan and the Reserve Bank of Australia will maintain a more relatively dovish stance in 2022, with very modest tapering (at worst) and no rate hikes. Turning to inflation-linked bonds, we are maintaining an overall neutral allocation given the competing forces of rising global inflation and rich valuations. Our Comprehensive Breakeven Indicators combine three measures to determine the upside potential for 10-year inflation breakevens: the distance from fair value based on our models, the spread between headline inflation and central bank target inflation, and the gap between market-based and survey-based measures of inflation expectations. Those indicators suggest that the most attractive markets to position for further upside potential for breakevens are Italy, France, Canada and Japan (Chart 8). On the back of this, we are maintaining our overweight allocations to inflation-linked bonds in the euro area and Japan in our model portfolio, while staying neutral on US TIPS. Chart 9Fading Support For Credit Markets From Global QE In 2022 Moving our attention to the credit side of our model portfolio, a moderate overweight stance on overall global corporates (focused on high-yield) versus governments remains appropriate. However, the slowing trend in developed market central bank balance sheets is flashing a warning sign for the future performance of global spread product. The annual growth rate of the combined balance sheets of the Fed, ECB, Bank of Japan and Bank of England has been an excellent leading indicator (by about twelve months) of the annual excess returns of both global investment grade and high-yield corporates during the “QE Era” since the 2008 financial crisis (Chart 9). That growth rate peaked back in February of this year, suggesting a peak of global corporate bond outperformance around February 2022, particularly for high-yield versus government bonds and investment grade (top two panels). At the same time, our preferred measure of the attractiveness of credit spreads - the historical percentile ranking of 12-month breakeven spreads – shows that lower-rated high-yield credit tiers in the US and euro area offer spreads that are relatively high versus their own history compared to other credit sectors in our model bond portfolio universe (Chart 10). Using this metric, investment grade corporate spreads look much more fully valued, particularly in the US. Chart 10Lower-Rated High-Yield & EM Sovereigns Offer Relatively Attractive Spreads Given sharply reduced default risks in the US and Europe, with strong nominal growth supporting corporate revenues alongside low borrowing rates, the fundamental backdrop for riskier high-yield corporates is still positive. Thus, we are maintaining our overweights to high-yield bonds in both the US and euro area, while sticking with only a neutral stance on investment grade corporates in the US, euro area and the UK. We do anticipate starting to reduce that exposure in the model portfolio sometime in early months of 2022, however, based on the ominous leading signal from the growth of central bank balance sheets – and what that means about the future path for global monetary policy and risk asset performance. Within the euro area, we are maintaining overweights to Italian and Spanish government bonds given the likelihood that the monetary policy backdrop will remain supportive (Chart 11). We expect the ECB to be one of the most accommodative central banks within our model portfolio universe in 2022. At worst, the ECB could deliver a modest reduction of total asset purchases, but with no rate hikes. Chart 11A Relatively Dovish ECB Will Be Positive For European Credit Chart 12EM Headwinds: A Firmer USD, China Tightening & Global QE Tapering Finally, we are sticking with a cautious stance on emerging market (EM) spread product in our model bond portfolio. Slowing Chinese economic growth, a firming US dollar, rate hikes across EM in response to high inflation, and the coming turn in the Fed policy cycle are all headwinds to the relative performance of EM USD-denominated corporates and sovereigns (Chart 12). We are sticking with our overall modestly underweight stance on EM USD-denominated credit. However, rebounding global growth and some potential policy stimulus in China could prompt us to consider an upgrade in the coming months.   Summing it all up, our overall allocations and risks in our model portfolio leading into Q4/2021 look like this: An overall below-benchmark stance on global duration, equal to -0.75 years versus the custom index (Chart 13). A moderate overweight stance on global spread product versus government debt, equal to five percentage points of the portfolio (Chart 14). This overweight comes almost entirely from allocations to US and euro area high-yield corporates. The tracking error of the portfolio, or its expected volatility versus that of the benchmark index, is relatively low at 55bps (Chart 15). This fits with our desire to maintain only a moderate level of absolute portfolio risk, while focusing exposures more on relative tilts between countries and credit sectors. Chart 13Overall Portfolio Duration: Stay Below Benchmark Chart 14Overall Portfolio Allocation: Small Spread Product Overweight The yield of the portfolio is now slightly higher than that of the benchmark, with a small “positive carry” of 16bps (Chart 16).   Chart 15Overall Portfolio Risk: Moderate Chart 16Overall Portfolio Yield: Small Positive Carry Vs. Benchmark Scenario Analysis & Return Forecasts We now turn to scenario analysis to determine the return expectations for the portfolio for the next six months. On the credit side of the portfolio, we use risk-factor-based regression models to forecast future yield changes for global spread product sectors as a function of four major factors - the VIX, oil prices, the US dollar and the fed funds rate (Table 2A). For the government bond side of the portfolio, we avoid using regression models and instead use a yield-beta driven framework, taking forecasts for changes in US Treasury yields and translating those in changes in non-US bond yields by applying a historical yield beta (Table 2B). For our scenario analysis over the next six months, we use a base case scenario plus two alternate “tail risk” scenarios. Table 2AFactor Regressions Used To Estimate Spread Product Yield Changes Table 2BEstimated Government Bond Yield Betas To US Treasuries We see global growth momentum, the stickiness of supply-driven inflation pressures and the Fed monetary policy outlook as the three most important factors for fixed income markets over the next six months, thus our scenarios are defined along those lines. Base case Global growth rebounds from the dip seen during July and August as fears over the spread of the Delta variant subside. Unemployment rates across the developed economies continue to decline on the back of ongoing demand/supply imbalances in labor markets. China is a relative growth laggard, but this will trigger fresh macro stimulus measures (credit, monetary, perhaps fiscal) from policymakers concerned about missing growth targets. Global supply chain disruptions will remain stubbornly persistent, keeping upward pressure on realized inflation rates in most countries even as commodity price momentum cools a bit on a rate of change basis. Most developed market central banks will move to dial back pandemic monetary policy stimulus to varying degrees, most notably the Fed and the Bank of England. The Fed will begin tapering its asset purchases around the turn of the year, to be completed during Q4/2021 thus setting the stage for a Fed rate hike in December. In this scenario, we expect the US Treasury curve to see some initial mild bear-steepening alongside moderately wider longer-term TIPS breakevens, before entering a more typical cyclical bear-flattening as the Fed begins tapering and rate hike expectations get pulled forward. The net result over the next six months: the entire US Treasury curve shifts higher in roughly parallel fashion, with the 10-year reaching 1.70% by next March. The VIX drifts a bit lower from the current 21 to 18, the US dollar is flattish (faster global growth offsets more USD-favorable real yield differentials versus other developed markets), the Brent oil price goes up +5% on the back of stronger global demand, and the fed funds target rate is unchanged at 0-0.25%. Upside growth & inflation surprise Global growth accelerates amid sharply diminished COVID risks and rallying stock and credit markets that loosen financial conditions. Consumer & business confidence recover smartly, as do hiring and capex. Global inflation rates accelerate from current elevated levels, but less from supply squeezes and more from fundamental pressures and faster wage growth. China loosens macro policies, but developed market central banks shift in an even more hawkish direction. The Fed signals a rapid 2022 taper and a funds rate liftoff well before year-end. In this scenario, real bond yields drift higher globally, but inflation breakevens stay elevated with the earlier surge in realized inflation proving not to be “transitory”. The US Treasury curve shifts much higher than in our base case, led by the 5-year maturity with bear-flattening beyond that point. The 10-year US Treasury yield climbs to 1.90% by the end of Q1/2022. The VIX moves higher to 25, the US dollar falls -3% (faster global growth offsetting a relatively modest increase in US/non-US real yield differentials), the Brent oil price goes up +10% and the fed funds target range is unchanged at 0-0.25%. Downside growth & inflation surprise Global growth loses additional momentum as consumer and business confidence stay muted. Supply/demand mismatches in labor markets remain unresolved, leading to a slower pace of employment growth. China does not signal adequate stimulus to offset its slowdown, while a weakened Biden administration implements a much smaller-than-expected US fiscal stimulus. Supply chain disruptions persist, keeping inflation elevated even as growth slows (stagflation). Developed market central banks, stuck between slowing growth and elevated inflation, are unable to ease in response to slower growth. The Fed chooses a slower drawn-out taper with liftoff delayed to 2023. Diminished economic optimism leads to a pullback in global equity values, lower government bond yields and wider global credit spreads. The US Treasury curve bull flattens as longer-maturity yields fall, with the 10-year yield moving back down to 1.25% alongside lower inflation breakevens. The VIX rises to 30, the safe-haven US dollar rises +5%, the Brent oil price falls -10% and the fed funds target range stays at 0-0.25%. The inputs into the scenario analysis are shown in Chart 17 (for the USD, VIX, oil and the fed funds rate), while the US Treasury yield scenarios are in Chart 18. The excess return scenarios for the model bond portfolio, using the above inputs in our simple quantitative return forecast framework, are shown in Table 3A (the scenarios for the changes in US Treasury yields are shown in Table 3B). Chart 17Risk Factor Assumptions For The Scenario Analysis Chart 18US Treasury Yield Assumptions For The Scenario Analysis     Table 3AGFIS Model Bond Portfolio Scenario Analysis For The Next Six Months Table 3BUS Treasury Yield Assumptions For The 6-Month Forward Scenario Analysis The model bond portfolio is expected to deliver a positive excess return over the next six months of +60bps in the base case scenario and +57bps in the optimistic growth scenario, but is projected to underperform by -26bps in the pessimistic growth scenario. Bottom Line: We are maintaining an overall below-benchmark portfolio duration exposure, concentrated in the US and UK. We expect global growth will rebound from the Delta variant and supply chain disruptions will keep inflation elevated for longer, both of which will push global bond yields higher as central banks – led by Fed – turn less dovish. We are maintaining a moderate overweight to global spread product versus government debt, concentrated on an overweight to US high-yield where valuations still look the least stretched compared to corporate debt in other countries.   Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com Ray Park, CFA Research Analyst ray@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 The GFIS model bond portfolio custom benchmark index is the Bloomberg Barclays Global Aggregate Index, but with allocations to global high-yield corporate debt replacing very high-quality spread product (i.e. AA-rated). We believe this to be more indicative of the typical internal benchmark used by global multi-sector fixed income managers. 2 Please see BCA Research Global Fixed Income Strategy/ European Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "The UK Leads The Way", dated August 11, 2021, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Global Fixed Income - Strategic Recommendations* Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

  Highlights Chart 1Bond Yields Still Track The "Re-Opening" Trade Bond yields rose notably in September, with the bulk of the move coming in the days after the Fed teased an upcoming tapering of its asset purchases and revealed slightly hawkish revisions to its interest rate projections. Interestingly, some of the details of the bond market move don’t mesh nicely with the mildly hawkish policy surprise that the Fed delivered. For example, the Treasury curve steepened on the month and long-maturity TIPS breakeven inflation rates rose. Our sense is that September’s market moves were less driven by the Fed and more by a revival of the reflation (or re-opening) trade from earlier this year. The daily new US COVID case count ticked down and, while overall S&P 500 returns were negative on the month, a basket of equities designed to profit from the end of the pandemic soundly beat a basket of “COVID winners” (Chart 1). With the delta COVID wave receding, we remain confident that economic growth will be sufficiently strong for the Fed to launch a new rate hike cycle in December 2022. The Treasury curve will bear-flatten as that outcome gets priced in.   Feature Table 1Recommended Portfolio Specification Table 2Fixed Income Sector Performance Investment Grade: Neutral Chart 2Investment Grade Market Overview Investment grade corporate bonds outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 26 basis points in September, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +193 bps. The combination of above-trend economic growth and accommodative monetary policy supports continued positive excess returns for spread product versus Treasuries. At 99 bps, the 3-year/10-year Treasury slope remains steep. This is a strong signal that monetary conditions are accommodative. But despite the positive macro back-drop, investment grade valuations are extremely tight (Chart 2). 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 Table 3ACorporate Sector Relative Valuation And Recommended Allocation* Table 3BCorporate Sector Risk Vs. Reward* High-Yield: Overweight Chart 3High-Yield Market Overview High-Yield outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 53 basis points in September, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to 558 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 3.2% (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 to 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 1.7% through the first eight months of the year, well below the estimate generated by our macro 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 outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 24 basis points in September, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to -43 bps. The nominal spread between conventional 30-year MBS and equivalent-duration Treasuries tightened 19 bps in September. The spread is wide compared to recent history, but it remains tight compared to the recent pace of mortgage refinancings (Chart 4). The conventional 30-year MBS option-adjusted spread (OAS) tightened 6 bps in September to reach 31 bps (panel 3). This is above the 22 bps offered by Aaa-rated consumer ABS but below the 52 bps offered by Aa-rated corporate bonds and the 33 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 underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 15 basis points in September, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to +69 bps (Chart 5). Sovereign debt underperformed duration-equivalent Treasuries by 95 bps in September, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to -87 bps. Foreign Agencies outperformed the Treasury benchmark by 5 bps on the month, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +49 bps. Local Authority bonds outperformed by 24 bps in September, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +406 bps. Domestic Agency bonds underperformed by 7 bps, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to +24 bps. Supranationals underperformed by 4 bps, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to +27 bps. Last week’s report looked at performance and valuation trends for Emerging Market sovereign and corporate bonds relative to US corporates.6 The recent underperformance of EM bonds versus US corporates has led to attractive relative valuations in the sector. We see investment grade EM sovereign and corporate bonds both outperforming investment grade US corporates during the next 12 months. The outperformance will be the result of better starting valuations and an acceleration of EM growth in 2022. The bonds of Colombia, Russia, Mexico, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, UAE and Qatar look particularly attractive within the USD-denominated EM sovereign space. Municipal Bonds: Overweight Chart 6Municipal Market Overview Municipal bonds outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 29 basis points in September, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +292 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 were already positive through the end of Q1 2021 and they received another significant boost in Q2 as funds from the American Rescue Plan were doled out (Chart 6). With state & local government balance sheets in such good shape, we are comfortable moving down in quality within municipal bonds. A move down in quality is especially compelling because of tight Aaa muni valuations relative to Treasuries (top panel). Valuation is more compelling in the lower investment grade credit tiers, especially at the long-end of the curve.7 Both General Obligation (GO) and Revenue munis in the 12-17 year maturity bucket offer a before-tax yield pick-up versus corporate bonds with the same credit rating and duration (panel 2). Finally, high-yield muni spreads are reasonably attractive relative to high-yield corporates, offering a breakeven tax rate of 25% (panel 4). But despite the attractive spread, we recommend only a neutral allocation to high-yield munis versus high-yield corporates as the deep negative convexity of high-yield munis makes them susceptible to extension risk if bond yields rise. Treasury Curve: Buy 2/10 Barbell Versus 5-Year Bullet Chart 7Treasury Yield Curve Overview The Treasury curve bear-steepened in September, with yields moving sharply higher – especially in the 5-10 year maturity space. The 2-year/10-year Treasury slope steepened 14 bps to end the month at 124 bps. The 5-year/30-year slope flattened 5 bps to end the month at 110 bps. We expect bond yields to be higher in 6-12 months, but we also anticipate that the next significant move higher in bond yields will coincide with curve flattening, not steepening. At 2.08%, the 5-year/5-year forward Treasury yield is already within our target fair value range of 2% - 2.25%. In a recent report, we demonstrated that yield curve steepening only occurs when either the Fed is cutting rates or the 5-year/5-year forward yield rises.8 This means that the 2/10 Treasury curve is more likely to flatten than steepen during the next 6-12 months, even as bond yields move higher. Similarly, we observe that the overnight index swap (OIS) curve is priced for the fed funds rate to be 0.30% in one year’s time and 1.62% in five years (Chart 7). The latter rate has 131 bps of upside if it converges all the way back to its 2018 high, but this pales in comparison to the 256 bps of upside in the 12-month forward rate. The yield curve will flatten as the 12-month forward OIS rate converges with the 5-year forward rate (panel 3). Investors should position in yield curve flatteners on a 6-12 month horizon. Specifically, we recommend shorting the 5-year bullet versus a duration-matched 2/10 barbell. TIPS: Neutral Chart 8TIPS Market Overview TIPS outperformed the duration-equivalent nominal Treasury index by 47 basis points in September, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +627 bps. The 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate rose 3 bps on the month, while the 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rate rose 5 bps. At 2.41%, the 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate is near the middle of 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 2.26%, the 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rate is only just below target (panel 3). With long-dated inflation expectations close to the Fed’s target levels, we see limited upside on a 6-12 month horizon. We also see the cost of short-maturity inflation protection falling during the next few months as realized inflation moderates from its extremely high level. This will lead to a steepening of the inflation curve (bottom panel). We recommend that investors position for a steeper 2/10 inflation curve, or alternatively for a flatter 2/10 real Treasury curve. We noted in last week’s report that the combination of nominal curve flattening and inflation curve steepening will lead to a large flattening of the 2/10 real curve during the next 6-12 months.9The 2-year TIPS yield, in particular, has a lot of upside.                         ABS: Overweight Chart 9ABS Market Overview Asset-Backed Securities outperformed the duration-equivalent nominal Treasury index by 3 basis points in September, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +43 bps. Aaa-rated ABS outperformed by 2 bps on the month, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +32 bps. Non-Aaa ABS outperformed by 7 bps, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +99 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 2 basis points in September, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +195 bps. Aaa Non-Agency CMBS outperformed Treasuries by 4 bps in September, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +96 bps. Non-Aaa Non-Agency CMBS underperformed Treasuries by 4 bps on the month, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to +525 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 3 basis points in September, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +94 bps. The average index option-adjusted spread tightened 1 bp on the month. It currently sits at 33 bps (bottom panel). Though Agency CMBS spreads have recovered to well below pre-COVID levels, they still look attractive compared to other similarly risky spread products. Stay overweight.   Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com 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 September 30th, 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 September 30th, 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 -17 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 17 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. Chart 11Excess Return Bond Map (As Of September 30th, 2021) 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  Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Damage Assessment”, dated September 28, 2021. 7  Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The Collapsing Credit Risk Premium”, dated July 20, 2021. 8  Please see US Bond Strategy / Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, “A Bump On The Road To Recovery”, dated July 27, 2021. 9  Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Damage Assessment”, dated September 28, 2021.

Dear Client, We are sending you our Strategy Outlook today, where we outline our thoughts on the macro landscape and the direction of financial markets for the rest of 2021 and beyond. Next week, please join me for a webcast on Thursday, October 7 at 10:00 AM EDT (3:00 PM BST, 4:00 PM CEST, 10:00 PM HKT) where I will discuss the outlook. Best regards, Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Highlights Macroeconomic Outlook: Global growth has peaked, but at very high levels. Progress on the vaccination campaign, along with continued accommodative monetary and fiscal policies, should keep recession risks at bay for the foreseeable future. Global Asset Allocation: Remain overweight stocks. While the risk-reward profile for equities is not as appealing as it was last year, the TINA theme (“There Is No Alternative” to equities) will continue to resonate with investors. Equities: Favor cyclicals, small caps, value stocks, and non-US equities. Long EM is an attractive contrarian play. Fixed Income: Maintain slightly below average interest-rate duration exposure. The US 10-year Treasury yield will rise to 1.8% by the first half of next year. Spread product will continue to outperform high-quality government bonds. Currencies: The US dollar will resume its weakening trend as growth momentum rotates from the US to the rest of the world. The Canadian dollar will be the best performing DM currency during the remainder of the year. Commodities: Oil prices will remain firm, bucking market expectations of a decline. Metals may be at the cusp of a new supercycle. I. Macroeconomic Outlook Global Growth To Remain Above Trend Global growth has peaked, but at very high levels. According to Bloomberg consensus estimates, real GDP in the G7 rose by 6.0% in Q3, down from 6.8% in Q2 (Table 1). G7 growth is expected to soften to 4.9% in Q4, mainly reflecting somewhat softer growth in Europe following a blistering third quarter which saw real GDP expand by more than 9% in the UK and the euro area. Table 1Global Growth Will Remain Above Trend Well Into Next Year Not all countries have reached peak growth. Japan is projected to see faster growth in Q4, with GDP rising by 3.8% compared to 1.6% in Q3. Canadian growth should pick up from 4.5% in Q3 to 5.8% in Q4. Australia’s economy is projected to grow by 7.4% in Q4 after having contracted by 10.7% in Q3. Chinese growth is expected to accelerate to 5.9% in Q4 from 2.6% in Q3. Across almost all the major economies, growth should remain at an above-trend pace in 2022. G7 growth is expected to hit 4.1%, well above the trend rate of 1.4%. Usually when growth peaks, investors start to worry that a recession is around the corner. Given that growth is coming down from exceptionally high levels, this is not a major risk at the moment. Most Countries Are Easing Lockdown Restrictions Ten months after the first Covid vaccines became publicly available, 3.5 billion people, or 45% of the world’s population, have received at least one shot (Chart 1). At this point, most people in developed economies who want a vaccine have been able to receive one. Chart 1Nearly Half Of The World's Population Has Received At Least One Covid Vaccine Shot While vaccine availability in many emerging markets remains a problem, the situation is improving rapidly. India is currently vaccinating 7.5 million people per day. Over 45% of Indians have had at least one shot, something that would have seemed unfathomable just a few months ago. New medications are on the way. Just today, Merck announced a breakthrough pill that lowers the risk of hospitalization from Covid by 50%. Globally, the number of new daily cases has fallen from over 650,000 in August to 450,000 today. Lower case counts, along with increased vaccinations, have allowed most countries to loosen lockdown measures. Goldman’s Effective Lockdown Index has eased to the lowest level since the start of the pandemic (Chart 2). Chart 2Covid Restrictions Are Easing In Many Places Monetary Policy: The Slow March To Neutral As the pandemic recedes from view, central banks are starting to dial back monetary support. Last week, Norway became the first major developed economy to hike rates. New Zealand, having already ended QE, may raise rates before the end of the year. Other central banks are looking to normalize policy. The Bank of Canada has cut its asset purchases in half. The Reserve Bank of Australia has begun tapering asset purchases. The Swedish Riksbank has indicated that it will end asset purchases this year. The Fed will formally announce the tapering of asset purchases in November, while the Bank of England’s latest round of QE expansion will expire in December. The ECB, Swiss National Bank, and Bank of Japan remain firmly in the dovish camp. That said, the ECB has cracked open the exit door ever so slightly by announcing that it will stop buying assets through the Pandemic Emergency Purchase Programme in March (The ECB will continue to buy bonds under the existing Asset Purchase Programme, however). Taper Tantrum Redux? The prospect of Fed tapering has stoked worries of a replay of the 2013 Taper Tantrum. We think such worries are overstated. For one thing, tapering is not the same thing as tightening. The Fed will still be adding to the size of its balance sheet; it will simply be doing so at a diminished pace. Thus, tapering implies a slower pace of easing rather than outright tightening, a subtle but important distinction. Tapering could be regarded as tightening if, as in 2013, the very act of tapering sends a signal to investors that rate hikes are forthcoming. However, in the years following the Taper Tantrum, the Fed has gone out of its way to delink balance sheet policy from interest rate policy, stressing that the two are substitutes not complements.  The Fed is unlikely to start hiking rates until late 2022 or early 2023. It will probably take another year or two beyond then for interest rates to rise into restrictive territory, and even longer for the lagged effects of monetary policy to work their way through to the economy. There is an old saying: “Expansions don’t die of old age. They get murdered by the Fed.” The Fed will probably kill the expansion. However, the deed is unlikely to be committed until 2024 at the earliest, giving the bull market in stocks further scope to continue. Fiscal Policy: Tighter But Not Tight On the fiscal side, the IMF expects the aggregate cyclically-adjusted primary budget deficit in advanced economies to decline from 7.7% of GDP in 2021 to 3.7% of GDP in 2022, implying a negative fiscal impulse of 4% of GDP. Normally, such a negative fiscal impulse would weigh heavily on growth. However, since this fiscal tightening is set to occur against a backdrop of continued strong private domestic demand growth, the economic fallout should be limited. The absolute stance of fiscal policy also matters. While budget deficits will decline over the next few years, the IMF expects deficits to be larger in the post-pandemic period than they were before the pandemic (Chart 3). Chart 3Fiscal Policy: Tighter But Not Tight If anything, the IMF’s projections understate the likely size of future budget deficits as they do not incorporate any fiscal measures that have yet to be signed into law. These include the proposed $550 billion US infrastructure bill, an election-season stimulus package in Japan, and increased investment spending by what is likely to be a center-left coalition government in Germany. Chart 4Plenty Of Pent-Up Demand Perhaps one of the most important, and largely overlooked, consequences of the pandemic is that the bond vigilantes have been banished into exile. Governments ran record budget deficits last year and bond yields fell anyway. Post-pandemic fiscal policy is likely to end up being structurally more expansionary than it was following the Global Financial Crisis. Plenty Of Dry Powder It should also be noted that not all the stimulus funds that have been disbursed have made their way into the economy. US households are currently sitting on $2.4 trillion in excess savings, equivalent to about 15% of annual consumption (Chart 4). About half of these excess savings stem from decreased spending on services during the pandemic. The other half stem from increased transfer payments – stimulus checks, unemployment insurance benefits, and the like. Some investors have expressed concern that these savings will remain idle. Among other things, they note that a record high share of households in the University of Michigan survey think that this is a bad time to be purchasing big-ticket items (Chart 5). Chart 5Consumers Are Deferring Purchases Of Big-Ticket Items In Anticipation Of Lower Prices Chart 6Improving Consumer Confidence Will Buoy Consumption We would downplay these concerns. A review of the evidence from the original CARES act suggests that households spent about 40% of the stimulus checks within three months of receiving them. That is a reasonably high number considering that precautionary savings typically rise during times of economic uncertainty. Despite the improvements in the economy, consumer confidence remains below pre-pandemic levels. There is a strong correlation between consumer confidence and household consumption (Chart 6). As confidence continues to recover, household spending should hold up well. As far as the reluctance to buy big-ticket items is concerned, we would paint this in a positive light. When households are asked why they are not in a rush to buy, say, a new automobile, they answer, quite rationally, that they expect prices to fall and availability to improve. Concerns over job security are far down on the list. In this sense, the market mechanism is doing what it is supposed to do: Supplying goods to those who are willing to pay up in order to get them immediately, while giving those with a bit more patience the opportunity to buy them later at a lower price.  Chart 7Firms Will Need To Maintain High Production To Replenish Inventories From a macro perspective, this means that demand for durable goods is unlikely to fall off a cliff anytime soon. There is enough pent-up demand around to ensure production stays buoyant well into next year. This is especially the case for autos, where nearly half of US shoppers have decided to defer purchases. And with inventory levels at record lows, firms will need to produce more than they sell (Chart 7). It is difficult to see growth slowing dramatically in such an environment. Pandemic-Induced Inflation Spike Should Fade The willingness of households to postpone spending until supply has had a chance to catch up to demand should help mitigate inflationary pressures. It would be much worse if households thought that today’s high consumer goods prices presaged even higher prices down the road. Such a dynamic could easily unmoor inflation expectations, forcing the Fed into action. Despite the recent spike in inflation, household long-term inflation expectations have not increased that much. Inflation expectations 5-to-10 years out in the University of Michigan survey ticked up to 3% in September. While this is above the average level of 2.5% in 2017-2019, it is broadly within the range of expectations that prevailed between 1997 and 2014 (Chart 8). Chart 8Long-Term Inflation Expectations Have Risen But Remain At Historically Low Levels Chart 9Wages At The Bottom End Of The Distribution Are Rising Briskly Chart 10Strong Wage Growth In The Leisure And Hospitality SectorWages have risen briskly at the bottom end of the income distribution (Chart 9). The jump in wage growth in the leisure and hospitality sector – where workers have been given the unenviable task of enforcing mask mandates and other requirements – has been particularly pronounced (Chart 10). However, wage growth for high-skilled salaried employees has been flat-to-down. As a consequence, overall wage growth, as measured by the Atlanta Fed Wage Tracker, has moved sideways. Rising CPI inflation remains contained to only a few categories. Median CPI inflation registered 2.4% in August, below where it was in late 2019. Excluding vehicle prices, the level of the core CPI remains below its pre-pandemic trend line (Chart 11). Chart 11Unwinding Of "Base Effects" Core Inflation With And Without Autos Recent indications suggest that used car prices have peaked (Chart 12). Memory prices are trending lower, suggesting that the worst of the semiconductor shortage may be behind us (Chart 13). The Drewry World Container Index also inched lower this week for the first time in five months. Chart 12Used Car Prices Have Peaked Chart 13Memory Chip Prices Are Edging Lower In capitalist economies, gluts may or may not lead to shortages; but shortages always lead to gluts. II. Feature: The Real Risk From China’s Property Market Chart 14The Demographic Turning Point In Japan And China Lehman Moment Or Japan Moment? The turmoil surrounding Evergrande, one of China’s largest property developer, has sparked fears that China is experiencing its own “Lehman moment”. Such worries are misplaced. The Chinese government has enough control over the domestic financial system to keep systemic risks in check. The more appropriate analogy is not with Lehman, but with Japan. The Japanese property bubble burst in the early 1990s, sending the country into a prolonged deflationary funk. As was the case in Japan three decades ago, Chinese property prices are very high in relation to incomes. Moreover, as was the case in Japan, China’s working-age population has peaked, which is likely to translate into lower demand for housing down the road (Chart 14). As it is, studies using night light data suggest that 20% of apartments are sitting vacant. Similar to Japan, debt has fueled China’s housing boom. Chinese property developers are amongst the most leveraged in the world (Chart 15). Households have also been borrowing aggressively: Mortgage debt has risen from around 15% of GDP in 2010 to 35% of GDP (Chart 16). Chart 15Rising Leverage Ratios In China's Real Estate Sector Chart 16Mortgage Debt Has Been On The Rise In China Differences With Japan Despite the clear parallels between Japan in the early 1990s and China today, there are a number of key differences. First, Japan was already an advanced economy in the early 1990s. Today, labor productivity in China is still 40% of what it is in neighbouring South Korea (and 25% of what it is in the US). As productivity in China continues to rise, GDP will increase, even if the number of workers continues to shrink. As Chart 17 shows, China would need to grow by at least 6% per year over the next decade for output-per-worker to converge to South Korean levels by the middle of the century. It is easier to reduce leverage when incomes are growing quickly. Second, while real estate investment in China is still too high for what the country needs, it has been falling as a share of GDP since 2014 (Chart 18). This is not obvious from the monthly fixed asset investment data that investors track because this data counts land purchases as investment. Chart 17China: A Lot Of Catch-Up Potential Chart 18Chinese Real Estate Construction Peaked Years Ago   Property developers have been buying land and holding on to it in anticipation that it will appreciate in value. This carry trade will end, but the impact on the real economy may be limited if, as is likely, the assets of bankrupt property developers end up being shuffled into quasi state-owned entities, allowing existing housing projects to continue. After all, if the goal of the government is to make housing more affordable, stopping construction would be precisely the wrong thing to do. Third, China has learned from Japan’s policy mistakes, especially when it comes to the appropriate role for government stimulus in the economy. Japan’s biggest mistake in the 1990s was not that it failed to listen to western experts, but that it listened to them too much. The whole narrative about how Japan could have revived its economy through “structural reforms” never made any sense. Japan’s problem was not one of poor resource allocation; it was one of inadequate demand: The property sector collapsed, leaving a big hole in GDP that needed to be filled. Shutting down “zombie companies” arguably made things worse, not better. Chinese Stimulus On The Way Standard debt sustainability equations imply that paradoxically, a country with a high debt-to-GDP ratio can run a larger primary budget deficit than a country with a low debt-to-GDP ratio, while still achieving a stable debt-to-GDP ratio over time.1  In China’s case, bond yields are well below nominal GDP growth, which gives the government significant fiscal leeway (Chart 19). The Ministry of Finance has expressed its intention to ramp up fiscal spending by increasing local government bond issuance. As of the end of August, local governments had used up only 50% of their annual debt issuance quota, compared to 77% at the same time last year and 93% in 2019. Increased bond issuance will allow local governments to trim their reliance on land sales to finance spending. For its part, the PBOC cut bank reserve requirements in July. In the past, cuts in reserve requirements have been a reliable predictor of faster credit growth (Chart 20). With credit growth back to its 2018 lows, there is little need for further actions to reduce lending. Chart 19Chinese Bond Yields Are Well Below Nominal GDP Growth Chart 20A Positive Sign For Credit Growth In China   Chart 21China Suffers From High Levels Of Inequality Rebalancing The Chinese Economy Over the long haul, China will need to encourage consumer spending in order to allow for the continued contraction of the construction industry without depressing overall employment. At 38% of GDP, China’s consumption share is one of the lowest in the world. A weak social safety net has forced Chinese households to maintain high levels of precautionary savings. Rampant inequality has shifted income towards richer households which tend to save more than the poor (Chart 21). Sky-high home prices only amplified the need to save more to buy a flat. All this has depressed overall consumption. For all its faults, President Xi’s “common prosperity” campaign could help redress all three of these problems, ultimately creating a stronger and more balanced economy. In summary, while China does represent a risk to the global economy, the threat at the moment is not severe enough to warrant turning bearish on equities and other risk assets. III. Financial Markets   A. Portfolio Strategy Above-Trend Global Growth Will Support Equities Investors often express skepticism about the benefits of using macroeconomics as an input into their investment process. Charts 22 and 23 should dispel such doubts. The charts show that the business cycle is by far the most important driver of equity returns over medium-term horizons of 6-to-18 months. Chart 22The Business Cycle Drives Cyclical Swings In Stocks (I) Chart 23AThe Business Cycle Drives Cyclical Swings In Stocks (II) Chart 23BThe Business Cycle Drives Cyclical Swings In Stocks (II) For the most part, the change in the value of the stock market is closely correlated with the level of economic growth. As noted earlier, global growth is peaking but at very high levels. This suggests that stock returns will be reasonably strong over the next 12 months, although not as strong as they were over the preceding 12 months. Higher Bond Yields Unlikely To Undermine The Stock Market Treasury yields have moved up since the conclusion of the FOMC meeting on September 22nd. The market narrative of a “hawkish surprise” does not make much sense to us. The yield curve usually flattens after a central bank delivers a hawkish surprise. That is what happened following the June FOMC meeting. This time around, the 2-10 curve has steepened by 13 basis points. Our sense is that the rise in bond yields mainly reflects the lagged effect from the decline in Covid cases, along with the realization that the pandemic-induced rise in inflation may be a bit stickier than previously believed. Equities often suffer some indigestion when bond yields rise. However, history suggests that as long as yields do not increase enough to imperil the economy, stocks usually end up recovering and reaching new highs (Table 2). Table 2As Long As Bond Yields Don’t Rise Into Restrictive Territory, Stocks Will Recover The 10-year Treasury yield has already risen halfway to our 2022H1 target of 1.8%. Any further upward move is likely to be more gradual than what has transpired over the past few weeks. As such, we expect the pressure on stocks to diminish. The fact that bearish sentiment in the AAII survey reached a one-year high this week suggests we may be nearing a bottom in stocks. Ultimately, TINA’s siren song will be impossible to resist. What Is The True ERP? While equity valuations are not cheap, they are not at extreme levels either. The MSCI All-Country World Index currently trades at 18-times forward earnings. Unlike in most years, analysts have been revising up earnings estimates this year, both in the US and abroad (Chart 24). This suggests the currently quoted forward PE ratios are not excessively optimistic. Chart 24Analysts Increased Earnings Estimates This Year Chart 25The Global Equity Risk Premium Is Elevated Relative to bonds, stocks still trade at a healthy discount. The forward earnings yield for the MSCI All-Country World index is 640 basis points above the global real bond yield (Chart 25). Even in the US, where valuations are more stretched, the implied equity risk premium (ERP) stands at 580 basis points. Amazingly, this is exactly where the US ERP stood in May 2008. The equity risk premium, as measured by the gap between the earnings yield and the real bond yield, will overstate the magnitude to which stocks are expected to outperform bonds if the PE ratio ends up falling over time. Nevertheless, for stocks to underperform bonds, PE multiples would need to fall by an implausibly large amount. For example, suppose US companies manage to grow real EPS by a modest 2.5% per year over the next decade. The US dividend yield is 1.3%. Assuming dividends rise in line with earnings, investors would receive a real total return of 3.8%. The 10-year TIPS yield is -0.9%. Thus, the US PE multiple would need to shrink by an average of 4.7% (3.8% plus 0.9%) per year over the next 10 years for stocks to underperform bonds on a real total return basis. This would take the US forward PE multiple down to 13. It is not unfathomable that the US PE multiple would fall this much. However, as a baseline scenario, it is too pessimistic. A more plausible baseline forecast would be a terminal PE multiple of 18. That would be consistent with a “true” ERP of 3%.   B. Equity Sectors, Regions, And Styles Favor Cyclicals, Value Stocks, And Small Caps As one might expect, cyclical equity sectors tend to outperform defensives in strong growth environments (Chart 26). The pandemic has exposed a shortage of industrial capacity across a wide range of industries from semiconductors to automobiles. US capital goods shipments have lagged orders for 18 straight months (Chart 27). Industrial stocks stand to benefit from increased capital spending. Materials and energy stocks will gain from strong commodity prices and a weaker US dollar (Chart 28). Chart 26Strong Growth Favors Cyclicals Chart 27US Capital Goods Shipments Have Lagged Orders   Chart 28Materials And Energy Stocks Will Gain From Strong Commodity Prices And A Weaker US Dollar Like cyclicals, value stocks do best during periods when global growth is strong and the US dollar is weak (Chart 29). Rising bond yields should help bank shares, which are heavily overrepresented in value indices (Chart 30). In contrast, tech shares, which are overrepresented in growth indices, usually struggle in rising yield environments. Value stocks are also cheap – three standard deviations cheap based on a simple composite valuation measure that compares price-to-earnings, price-to-book, and dividend yields (Chart 31). Chart 29Value Stocks Typically Do Well When The Dollar Is Depreciating Chart 30Higher Yields Are A Boon For Banks And A Bane For Tech   Chart 31Value Is Cheap Financials and industrials are overrepresented in US small caps indices, while tech and communication services are underrepresented (Table 3). Thus, it is not surprising that small caps usually outperform their large cap peers when growth is strong, the dollar is weakening, and bond yields are rising (Chart 32). Table 3Financials And Industrials Have A Larger Weight In US Small Caps Like value stocks, small caps are reasonably priced. The S&P 600 small cap index trades at 16-times forward earnings, compared to 17-times for the S&P 400 mid cap index and 21-times for the S&P 500 (Chart 33). Small cap earnings are also expected to grow by 30% over the next 12 months, easily beating mid caps (19%) and large caps (15%). BCA’s relative valuation indicator suggests that, compared to large caps, small caps are now as cheap as they were in the late 1990s (Chart 34). Chart 32US Small Caps Tend To Outperform When Growth Is Strong, The Dollar Is Weakening, And Bond Yields Are Rising   Chart 33US Small Caps Are Not Expensive Chart 34US Small Caps Are Attractive Relative To Large Caps Regional Equity Allocation: Better Prospects Outside The US Stock markets outside the US have more of a cyclical/value tilt (Table 4). Hence, they tend to fare best when global growth is strong and the dollar is weakening (Chart 35). Table 4Cyclicals Are Overrepresented Outside The US Chart 35Strong Growth And A Weaker Dollar Is Good For Non-US Stocks Probable tax changes could hurt the relative performance of US stocks. BCA’s geopolitical strategists expect the Democrats to raise the corporate tax rate from 21% to about 26%. Additional tax hikes are likely to apply to overseas earnings, something that will disproportionately affect tech companies. Non-US stocks are reasonably priced, trading at a forward PE ratio of 15. EM equities are especially cheap. They currently trade at a forward PE ratio of 13 (Chart 36). The EM discount to the global index is as large now as it was during the late 1990s. Chart 36AEM Equities Are Trading At A Large Discount (I) Chart 36BEM Equities Are Trading At A Large Discount (II) After a blistering period of rapid earnings growth during the 2000s, EM EPS has been trending sideways during the past decade (Chart 37). However, the combination of increased global capital spending and rising commodity prices should buoy EM profits in the years ahead. Improved performance from EM banks should also help. Chinese banks are trading at 4.2-times forward earnings, 0.5-times book, and sport a dividend yield of over 6% (Chart 38). Such valuations discount too much bad news. Chart 37AEM Earnings Have Moved Sideways Since 2011 After Blazing Higher Over The Preceding Decade(I) Chart 37BEM Earnings Have Moved Sideways Since 2011 After Blazing Higher Over The Preceding Decade (II)   Chart 38Chinese Banks: A Lot Of Bad News Is Discounted Chart 39Chinese Tech Stocks Underperformed Their Global Peers This Year Outlook For Chinese Tech Stocks The regulatory crackdown on Chinese tech companies has weighed on the sector. Chinese tech stocks have underperformed their global tech peers by 46% since February (Chart 39). Chinese tech is 44% of the China investable index and 15% of the MSCI EM index. Thus, the outlook for Chinese stocks is relevant not just for China-focused investors, but for EM investors more broadly (especially those who invest in index products). The current crackdown bears some resemblance to the one in 2018, which saw Tencent lose $20 billion in market capitalization in a single day. Like other Chinese tech names, Tencent shares quickly recovered from that incident. Contrary to popular perception, the Chinese government has not launched an indiscriminate attack on tech companies. If anything, heightened geopolitical tensions have made it more important than ever for China to buttress its tech sector. Rather, what the government has done is restrain companies that it either perceives as working against the national interest (i.e., addictive video game makers and expensive after-school tutoring companies) or that have too much sway over the public. Private tech companies in sectors such as semiconductors or clean energy continue to receive government support. A plausible outcome is that China’s leading consumer-oriented internet companies will go out of their way to pledge allegiance to the Communist Party. If that were to happen, the Chinese government may allow them to operate normally, cognizant of the fact that it is easier to monitor a few large internet companies than many small ones. While such an outcome is far from assured, current valuations offer enough cushion to prospective investors. As we go to press, Alibaba is trading at 15.9-times 2021 earnings, Baidu is trading at 17.1-times earnings, and Tencent is trading at 27.1-times earnings. In comparison, the NASDAQ Composite trades at 31.9-times 2021 earnings.   C. Fixed Income Why Are Bond Yields So Low Even Though Inflation Is So High? While global bond yields have moved higher in recent days, they remain well below pre-pandemic levels. Investors are understandably puzzled about how today’s high inflation rates can coexist with such low bond yields. Two explanations stand out: First, despite the recent uptick in inflation expectations, investors still believe inflation will come down and stay down (Chart 40). In fact, the 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rate is below the Fed’s comfort zone, suggesting that investors expect inflation to ultimately undershoot the Fed’s target. Chart 40AInvestors Expect Inflation To Fall Rapidly From Current Levels (I) Chart 40BInvestors Expect Inflation To Fall Rapidly From Current Levels (II) Chart 41The Market Thinks The Fed Will Raise Rates Only To 2% Second, and related to the point above, investors believe that the neutral rate of interest is very low. According to the New York Fed’s survey of market participants, investors think that the Fed will not be able to raise rates above 2% during the forthcoming tightening cycle (Chart 41). This is even lower than the terminal rate of 2.5% that the Fed foresees. When the Federal Reserve first introduced the dot plot back in 2012, it believed the neutral rate was 4.25%. If the neutral rate really is this low, then monetary policy is not as hyperstimulative as is often asserted. In that case, a 10-year yield of 1.5% would be entirely appropriate given that it will take a few years for rates just to reach 2%. Indeed, an even lower yield could be justified on the grounds that there is a high probability that the economy will be hit by an adverse shock over the next decade, requiring a return to zero rates and more QE. Maintain Below-Benchmark Duration Our view is that the neutral rate is higher than most market participants believe. The end of the household deleveraging cycle in the US, structurally looser fiscal policy, and the exodus of well-paid baby boomers from the labor market will all deplete national savings, pushing up the neutral rate of interest in the process. If a central bank underestimates the neutral rate, it is liable to keep interest rates too low for too long. This could cause inflation to rise more than anticipated, putting further upward pressure on bond yields. It will take some time for the market’s view to converge to our view (provided we are correct, of course!). Investors have bought into the secular stagnation thesis hook, line, and sinker. Thus, they will require plenty of evidence that the Fed can raise rates without strangling the economy. We expect the US 10-year yield to move to 1.8% by early next year, warranting a moderately below-benchmark duration stance. US Treasuries have a higher beta than most other government bond markets (Chart 42). Treasury yields tend to rise more when global bond yields are moving higher and vice versa. Given our expectation that global growth will remain solidly above trend over the next 12 months, fixed-income investors should underweight high-beta bond markets such as the US and Canada, while overweighting the euro area and Japan. Chart 42US Treasuries Have A Higher Beta Than Most Other Government Bond Markets Chart 43High-Yield Spreads Are Pricing In A Default Rate Of More Than 3% Corporate Bonds: Favor High Yield Over Investment Grade BCA’s bond strategists see more upside for high-yield bonds than for investment grade. While high-yield spreads are quite tight, they are still pricing in a default rate of 3.15% (Chart 43). This is more than their fair-value default estimate of 2.3%-to-2.8%. It is also above the year-to-date realized default rate of 1.8%. Our bond team also sees USD-denominated EM corporate bonds as being attractively priced relative to domestic US investment-grade corporate bonds with the same duration and credit rating.   D. Currencies And Commodities Fade Recent Dollar Strength The US dollar is a countercyclical currency, meaning that it tends to move in the opposite direction of the global business cycle (Chart 44). The US dollar has strengthened in recent weeks, spurred on by a more cautious tone to markets (the VIX is around 22, up from 16 in late August). As risk sentiment improves, the dollar will weaken. The composition of global growth also matters. Growth momentum is rotating from the US to the rest of the world. The dollar usually struggles when this happens (Chart 45). Chart 44The Dollar Is A Countercyclical Currency Chart 45Growth Momentum Is Shifting Outside The US, Which Should Weigh On The Dollar Despite the uptick in US yields, short-term real rate differentials are heavily skewed against the dollar (Chart 46). The US trade deficit has surged over the past 16 months (Chart 47). Equity inflows have been financing the trade deficit, but these could tail off if US stocks start to lag their overseas peers. Chart 46Short-Term Real Rates Remain Skewed Against The Dollar Chart 47Widening Trade Deficit Is Dollar Bearish The US dollar remains pricey relative to its Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) measure of fair value (Chart 48). Speculators are also net long the dollar, making the dollar vulnerable to a positioning reversal (Chart 49). Chart 48The Dollar Is Expensive Based On PPP Chart 49Long Dollar Is Becoming A Crowded Trade Buy The Loonie Our favorite developed market currency going into the fourth quarter is the Canadian dollar. Unlike in most other major economies, Canadian growth has yet to peak. The Bank of Canada has been ahead of most other central banks in winding down QE and laying the groundwork for rate hikes. Chart 50Oil Prices To Remain Firm Firm oil prices should also help the loonie. One can be bullish on oil without expecting oil prices to rise very much. The oil curve is heavily backwardated (Chart 50). It suggests that the price of Brent will fall from $79 to $67 per barrel between now and the end of 2023. BCA’s commodity strategists expect the price of Brent crude to average $75 and $80 per barrel in 2022 and 2023, respectively, with WTI trading $2-$4/bbl lower. The RMB Will Hold Its Ground We doubt that China will weaken the RMB in order to stimulate the economy. China’s export sector is already operating at peak capacity. A weaker currency would do little to boost output. Geopolitical concerns will also keep the yuan from depreciating. The trade relationship between China and the US remains frosty. A weaker yuan would only make matters worse. Perhaps more importantly, China wants the RMB to be a global reserve currency. Weakening the RMB would run counter to that goal. A New Supercycle In Metals? China consumes over half the world’s industrial metals. Thus, fluctuations in the Chinese economy tend to drive metals prices. There is a very strong correlation between the Chinese credit impulse and industrial metals prices (Chart 51). If Chinese credit growth picks up over the coming months, this should support metals. Aside from iron ore, it is quite striking that most metals prices have remained firm this year even as China has cut back imports (Chart 52). Copper prices are up 45% year-over-year despite the fact that Chinese imports of copper are down 40% during this period. Chart 51A Pickup In Chinese Credit Will Bode Well For Metals Chart 52China Cut Back On Imports Of Commodities This Year     As in the early 2000s, the combination of a multi-year period of underinvestment in new mining capacity and new sources of demand could set the stage for an extended bull market in the metals complex. The shift to electric vehicles will boost demand for many metals. The typical electric vehicle uses four times as much copper as a typical gasoline-powered vehicle. Many pundits argue that because Chinese growth is slowing, China will not need as much commodities as in the past. However, this argument ignores the fact that China is slowing from a very high base. As Chart 53 shows, China consumes five times as much industrial metals as it did in the 2000s. In absolute volume terms, China’s incremental annual increase in metal consumption is twice what it was in the 2000s. Thus, Chinese demand is likely to support the commodity market for years to come. Gold Facing Crosswinds Gold prices tend to correlate closely with real interest rates (Chart 54). This is not surprising since the real yield can be regarded as the “opportunity cost” of holding a yield-less asset such as gold. Chart 53Chinese Consumption Of Commodities Ballooned Over The Past Three Decades Chart 54Gold Prices Tend To Correlate Closely With Real Interest Rates What is somewhat surprising is that gold prices have dipped more than one would have expected based on the evolution of real yields. The US 10-year TIPS yield is only slightly higher than where it was in early August 2020, when the price of gold reached $2,067 per ounce. Although it is difficult to be certain, the shift in investor interest from gold to cryptos has probably depressed gold prices. Both gold and cryptos are seen as “fiat money hedges”. Our expectation is that tighter regulation will imperil the cryptocurrency market, causing some funds to flow back into gold. Nevertheless, with real yields likely to edge higher over the coming years, the upside for gold prices is limited.   Peter Berezin Chief Global Strategist pberezin@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1  The steady-state debt-to-GDP ratio can be expressed as p/(r-g), where r is the interest rate, g is trend GDP growth, and p is the primary (i.e., non-interest) budget balance. Thus, for example, if the government wanted to achieve a stable debt-to-GDP ratio of 50% and r-g is -2%, it would need to run a primary budget deficit of 0.5*0.02=1% of GDP. However, if the government targeted a stable debt-to-GDP ratio of 200%, it could run a primary budget deficit of 2*0.02=4% of GDP. See Box 1 in our February 22, 2019 report for a derivation of this debt sustainability equation. Global Investment Strategy View Matrix Special Trade Recommendations Current MacroQuant Model Scores

Highlights The fourth quarter will be volatile as China still poses a risk of overtightening policy and undermining the global recovery. US political risks are also elevated. A debt default is likely to be averted in the end. Fiscal stimulus could be excessive. There is a 65% chance that taxes will rise in the New Year. A crisis over Iran’s nuclear program is imminent. Oil supply disruptions are likely. A return to diplomacy is still possible but red lines need to be underscored. European political risks are comparatively low, although they cannot go much lower, Russia still poses threats to its neighbors, and China’s economic wobbles will weigh on European assets. Our views still support Mexican equities and EU industrials over the long run but we are booking some gains in the face of higher volatility. Feature Our annual theme for 2021 was “No Return To Normalcy” and events have borne this out. The pandemic has continued to disrupt life while geopolitics has not reverted to pre-Trump norms. Going forward, the pandemic may subside but the geopolitical backdrop will be disruptive. This is primarily due to Chinese policy, unfinished business with Iran, and the struggle among various nations to remain stable in the aftermath of the pandemic. Chart 1Delta Recedes With Vaccinations Chart 2Global Recovery Marches On Chart 3Global Labor Markets On The Mend The underlying driver of markets in the fourth quarter will be the fact that the COVID-19 pandemic is waning as vaccination campaigns make progress (Chart 1). New cases of the Delta variant have rolled over in numerous countries and in US states that are skeptical toward vaccines. Global growth will still face crosswinds. US growth rates are unlikely to be downgraded further while Europe’s growth has been upgraded. However, forecasters are likely to downgrade Chinese growth expectations in the face of the government’s regulatory onslaught against various sectors and property sector instability (Chart 2). Barring a Chinese policy mistake, the global composite PMI is likely to stabilize. Labor markets will continue healing (Chart 3). The tug of war between unemployment and inflation will continue to give way in favor of inflation, given that wage pressures will emerge, stimulus-fueled household demand will be strong, and supply shortages will persist. Central banks will try to normalize policy but will not move aggressively in the face of any new setbacks to the recovery. Will China Spoil The Recovery? Maybe. Chinese policy and structural imbalances pose the greatest threat to the global economic recovery both in the short and the long run. The immediate risk to the recovery is clear from our market-based Chinese growth indicator, which has not yet bottomed (Chart 4). The historic confluence of domestic political and geopolitical risks in China is our key view for the year. China is attempting to make the economic transition that other East Asian states have made – away from the “miracle” manufacturing phase of growth toward something more sustainable. But there are two important differences: China is making its political and economic system less open and free (the opposite of Taiwan and South Korea) and it is confronting rather than befriending the United States. The Xi administration is focused on consolidating power ahead of the twentieth national party congress in fall 2022. Xi is attempting to stay in power beyond the ten-year limit that was in place when he took office. On one hand he is presenting a slate of socioeconomic reforms – dubbed “common prosperity” – to curry popular favor. This agenda represents a tilt from capitalism toward socialism within the context of the Communist Party’s overarching idea of socialism with Chinese characteristics. On the other hand, Xi is cracking down on the private sector – Big Tech, property developers – which theoretically provides the base of power for any political opposition. The crackdowns have caused Chinese equities to collapse relative to global and have reaffirmed the long trend of underperformance of cyclical sectors relative to defensives within Chinese investable shares (Chart 5, top panel). Chart 4China Threatens To Spoil The Party In terms of financial distress, so far only high-yield corporate bonds have seen spreads explode, not investment grade. But current policies force property developers to liquidate their holdings, pay off debts, and raise cash while forcing banks to cut bank on loans to property developers and homebuyers. (Not to mention curbs on carbon emissions and other policies squeezing industrial and other sectors.) Chart 5Beijing Could Easily Trigger Global Market Riot If these policies are not relaxed then property developers will continue to struggle, property prices will fall, credit tightening will intensify, and local governments will be starved of revenue and forced to cut back on their own spending. Yet the government’s signals of policy easing are so far gradual and behind the curve. If policy is not relaxed, then onshore equities will sell off (as well as offshore) and credit spreads will widen more generally (Chart 5, bottom panel). Broad financial turmoil cannot be ruled out in the fourth quarter. Ultimately, however, China will be forced to do whatever it takes to try to secure the post-pandemic recovery. Otherwise it will instigate a socioeconomic crisis ahead of the all-important political reshuffle in fall 2022. That would be the opposite of what Xi Jinping needs as he tries to consolidate power. Chinese households have stored their wealth, built up over decades of economic success, in the housing sector (Chart 6). Economic instability could translate to political instability. Chart 6Beijing Will Provide Bailouts And Stimulus … Or Face Political Instability Investors often ask how the government can ease policy if doing so will further inflate housing prices, which hurts the middle class and is the opposite of the common prosperity agenda. High housing prices are the biggest of the three “mountains” that are said to be crushing the common folks and weighing on Chinese birthrates and fertility (the other two are high education and medical costs). The answer is that while policymakers want to cap housing prices and encourage fertility, they must prevent a general collapse in prices and economic and financial crisis. There is no evidence that suppressing housing prices will increase fertility or birthrates – if anything, falling fertility is hard to reverse and goes hand in hand with falling prices. Rather, evidence from the US, Japan, South Korea, Thailand, and other countries shows that a bursting property bubble certainly does not increase fertility or birthrates (Charts 7A and 7B). Chart 7AEconomic Crash Not A Recipe For Higher Fertility Chart 7BEconomic Crash Not A Recipe For Higher Fertility Bringing it all together, investors should not play down negative news and financial instability emerging from China. There are no checks and balances on autocrats. Our China Investment Strategy has a high conviction view that policy stimulus is not forthcoming and regulatory curbs will not be eased. The implication is that China’s government could make major policy mistakes and trigger financial instability in the near term before changing its mind to try to preserve overall stability. At that point it could be too late. Will Countries Add More Stimulus? Yes. Chart 8Global Monetary Policy Challenges With China’s stability in question, investors face a range of crosswinds. Central banks are struggling with a surge in inflation driven by stimulus-fueled demand and supply bottlenecks. The global output gap is still large but rapid economic normalization will push inflation up further if kinks are not removed (Chart 8). A moderating factor in this regard is that budget deficits are contracting in 2022 and coming years – fiscal policy will shift from thrust to drag (Chart 9). However, the fiscal drag is probably overstated as governments are also likely to increase deficit spending on the margin. The US is certainly likely to do so. But before considering US fiscal policy we must address the immediate question: whether the US will default on national debt. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen has designated October 18 as the “X-date” at which the Treasury will run out of extraordinary measures to make debt payments if Congress does not raise the statutory debt ceiling. There is presumably a few weeks of leeway after this date but markets will grow very jittery and credit rating agencies will start to downgrade the United States, as Standard & Poor’s did in 2011. Chart 9Global Fiscal Drag Rears Its Head Democrats have full control of Congress and can therefore suspend the debt ceiling through a party-line vote. They can do this through regular legislation, if Republicans avoid raising a filibuster, though that requires Democrats to make concessions in a back-room deal with Republicans. Or they can compromise the filibuster, though that requires convincing moderate Democrats who support the filibuster that they need to make an exception to preserve the faith and credit of the US. Or they can raise the debt ceiling via budget reconciliation, though this would run up against the time limit and so far Senate Leader Chuck Schumer claims to refuse this option. While the odds of a debt default are not zero, the Democrats have the power to avoid it and will also suffer the most in public opinion if it occurs. Therefore the debt limit will likely be suspended at the last minute in late October or early November. Investors should expect volatility but should view it as short-term noise and buy on dips – i.e. the opposite of any volatility that stems from Chinese financial turmoil. Congress is likely to pass Biden’s $550 billion bipartisan infrastructure bill (80% subjective odds). It is also likely to pass a partisan social welfare reconciliation bill over the coming months (65% subjective odds). The full impact on the deficit of both bills should range from $1.1-$1.6 trillion over ten years. This will not be enough to prevent the fiscal drag in 2022 but it will provide for a gradually expanding budget deficit over the course of the decade (Chart 10). Chart 10New Fiscal Stimulus Will Reduce Fiscal Drag On Margin The reconciliation package will be watered down and late in coming. Investors will likely buy the rumor and sell the news. If reconciliation fails, markets may cheer, as it will also include tax hikes and pose the risk of pushing up inflation and hastening Fed rate hikes. Elsewhere governments are also providing “soft budgets.” The German election results confirmed our forecast that the government will change to left-wing leadership that will be able to boost domestic investment but not raise taxes. This is due to the inclusion of at least one right-leaning party, most likely the Free Democrats. Fiscal deficits will go up. Germany has a national policy consensus on most matters of importance and thus can pass some legislation. But the new coalition will be ideologically split and barely have a majority in the Bundestag, so controversial or sweeping legislation will be unlikely. This outcome is positive for German markets and the euro. Looking at popular opinion toward western leaders and their ruling coalitions since the outbreak of COVID-19, the takeaway is that the Europeans have the strongest political capital (Chart 11). Governments are either supported by leadership changes (Italy, Germany) or likely to be supported in upcoming elections (France). The UK does not face an election until 2024, unless an early election is called. This seems doubtful to us given the government’s strong majority. Chart 11DM Shifts In Popular Opinion Since COVID-19 Chart 12EM Shifts In Popular Opinion Since COVID-19 After all, Canada called an early election and it became a much riskier affair than the government intended and did not increase the prime minister’s political capital. Spain is far more likely to see tumult and an early election. Japan’s election in November will not bring any surprises: as we have written, Kishidanomics will be Abenomics by a different name. The implication is that after November, most developed markets will be politically recapitalized and fiscal policy will continue to be accommodative across the board. In emerging markets, popular opinion has been much more damning for leaders, calling attention to our expectation that the aftershocks of the global pandemic will come in the form of social and political instability (Chart 12). Russia has a record of pursuing more aggressive foreign policy to distract from its domestic ills. The next conflict could already be emerging, with allegations that it is deliberately pushing up natural gas prices in Europe to try to force the new German government to certify and operate the NordStream II pipeline. The Americans are already brandishing new sanctions. Chart 13Stary Neutral Dollar For Now Brazil and Turkey both face extreme social instability in the lead-up to elections in 2022 and 2023. India has been the chief beneficiary of today’s climate but it also faces an increase in political and geopolitical risk due to looming state elections and its increasing alliance with the West against China. Putting it all together, the US is likely to stimulate further and pump up inflation expectations. Europe is politically stable but Russia disrupt it. Other emerging markets, including China, will struggle with economic, political, and social instability. This is an environment in which the US dollar will remain relatively firm and the renminbi will depreciate – with negative effects on EM currencies more broadly (Chart 13). Annual Views On Track Our three key views for 2021 are so far on track but face major tests in the fourth quarter: 1. China’s internal and external headwinds: If China overtightens policy and short-circuits the global economic recovery, then its domestic political risks will have exceeded even our own pessimistic expectations. We expect China to ease fiscal policy and do at least the minimum to secure the recovery. Investors should be neutral on risky assets until China provides clearer signals that it will not overtighten policy (Chart 14). 2. Iran is the crux of the US pivot to Asia: A crisis over Iran is imminent since Biden did not restore the 2015 nuclear deal promptly upon taking office. Any disruption of Middle Eastern energy flows will add to global supply bottlenecks and price pressures. Brent crude oil prices will see upside risks relative both to BCA forecasts and the forward curve (Chart 15). Chart 14Wait For China To Relax Policy Chart 15Expect A Near-Term Crisis Over Iran The reason is that Iran is expected to reach nuclear “breakout” capability by November or December (i.e. obtain enough highly enriched uranium to make a nuclear device). The Biden administration is focused on diplomacy and so far hesitant to impose a credible threat of war to halt Iranian advances. Israel’s new government has belatedly admitted that it would be a good thing for the US and Iran to rejoin the 2015 nuclear deal – if not, it supports a global coalition to impose sanctions, and finally a military option as a last resort. Biden will struggle to put together a global coalition as effective as Obama did, given worse relations with China and Russia. The US and Israel are highly likely to continue using sabotage and cyberattacks to slow Iran’s nuclear and missile progress. Chart 16Pivot To Asia Runs Through Iran Chart 17Europe: A Post-Trump Winner? Depends On China Thus the Iranians are likely to reach breakout capability at which point a crisis could erupt. The market is not priced for the next Middle East crisis (Chart 16). Incidentally, any additional foreign policy humiliation on top of Afghanistan could undermine the Biden administration more broadly, in both domestic and foreign policy. 3. Europe benefits most from a post-pandemic, post-Trump world: Europe is a cyclical economy and is also relatively politically stable in a world of structurally rising policy uncertainty and geopolitical risk. We thought it stood to benefit most from the global recovery and the passing of the Trump administration. However, China’s policy tightening has undermined European assets and will continue to do so. Therefore this view is largely contingent on the first view (Chart 17). Investment Takeaways Strategically we maintain a diversified portfolio of trades based on critical geopolitical themes: long gold, short China/Taiwan, long developed markets, long aerospace/defense, long rare earths, and long value over growth stocks. Taiwanese equities have continued to outperform despite bubbling geopolitical tensions. We maintain our view that Taiwan is overpriced and vulnerable to long-term semiconductor diversification as well as US-China conflict. Our rare earths basket, which focuses on miners outside China, has been volatile and stands to suffer if China’s growth decelerates. But global industrial, energy, and defense policy will continue to support rare earths and metals prices. Russian tensions with the West have been manageable over the course of the year and emerging European stocks have outperformed developed European peers, contrary to our recommendation. However, fundamental conflicts remain unresolved and the dispute over the recently completed Nord Stream II pipeline to Germany could still deal negative surprises. We will reassess this recommendation in a future report. We are booking gains on the following trades: long Mexico (8%), long aerospace and defense in absolute terms (4%), long EU industrials relative to global (4%), and long Italian BTPs relative to bunds (0.2%).   Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com   Appendix: GeoRisk Indicator China Russia United Kingdom Germany France Italy Canada Spain Taiwan Korea Turkey Brazil Australia Appendix: Geopolitical Calendar

Highlights The current burst of inflation in developed economies is due to a (negative) supply shock rather than a (positive) demand shock. Consumer complaints of “poor buying conditions” mean that higher prices will cause demand destruction. Hence, it is extremely dangerous for central banks to respond with the signalling of tighter policy that leads to higher bond yields. The upper limit to the 10-year T-bond yield is no higher than 1.8 percent. Hence, this yield level would be a good cyclical entry point into both stocks and bonds. Continue to underweight consumer discretionary versus the market, given the very tight connection between weaker spending on durables and the underperformance of the goods dominated consumer discretionary sector. Commodities whose prices have not yet corrected are at much greater risk than those whose prices have corrected. Hence a new cyclical recommendation is to go underweight tin versus iron ore. Fractal analysis: Netflix versus Activision Blizzard, and AUD/NZD. Feature Chart of the Week"Buying Conditions Are Poor" The current burst of inflation in developed economies is due to a (negative) supply shock rather than a (positive) demand shock. Getting this diagnosis right is crucial, because responding to supply shock generated inflation with tighter monetary policy is extremely dangerous. Responding to supply shock generated inflation with tighter monetary policy is extremely dangerous. The current burst of inflation cannot be due to a demand shock. If it was, aggregate demand would be surging. But it is not. For example, in the US, both consumer spending and income lie precisely on their pre-pandemic trend (Chart I-2). Furthermore, consumers are complaining that high prices for household durables, homes, and cars have caused “the poorest buying conditions in decades”, according to the University of Michigan’s latest consumer sentiment survey. If a positive demand shock was boosting incomes relative to prices, consumers would not be making this complaint. Given that they are making this complaint, there is the real risk of demand destruction. Meanwhile, employment remains far below its pre-pandemic trend. For example, in the US, by about 8 million jobs (Chart I-3). How can demand be on trend, but employment so far below trend? As an economic identity, the answer is that productivity has surged. Yet this should come as no surprise, because after recessions, productivity always surges. Chart I-2Demand Is On Trend... Chart I-3...But Employment Is Well Below Trend After Recessions, Productivity Always Surges As we explained in What The Olympics Teaches Us About Productivity Growth, productivity growth comes from better biology (which improves both our physical and intellectual capacity), better technology, and finding better ways to do the same thing. Of these three drivers, the first two are continuous processes but the third, finding better ways to do the same thing, is a step function whose up-steps come after disruptive changes in the economy such as recessions (Chart I-4). Chart I-4After Recessions, Productivity Always Surges To do things better, a recession is the necessary catalyst for the wholesale adoption of an existing technology. For example, the mass manufacturing of autos already existed well before the Great Depression, but the Depression catalysed its wholesale adoption. Likewise, word processors existed well before the dot com bust, but the 2000 recession finally killed the office typing pool. In the same way, the technology for remote meetings and online shopping has been around for years, but the pandemic has catalysed its wholesale adoption. Of course, it is sub-optimal to meet people remotely or shop online all the time. But it is also sub-optimal to do these things in-person all the time. The most productive way is some hybrid of remote and in-person, which will differ for each person. The pandemic has given us the opportunity to find this personally optimal hybrid, and thereby to boost our productivity. The current boost to productivity could be larger than those after previous recessions because the pandemic has reshaped the entire economy. The current boost to productivity could be larger than those after previous recessions because the pandemic has forced us all to challenge our best practices. This is different from previous post-recession periods where transformations were focussed in one sector. For example, the 80s recession reshaped manufacturing, the dot com bust changed the technology sector, and the 2008 recession transformed the financial sector. By comparison, the current transformation is reshaping the entire economy. Yet, if productivity is booming, why has inflation spiked? The answer is that we have experienced a massive and unprecedented (negative) supply shock. It’s A Supply Shock, Not A Demand Shock To repeat, there has been no positive shock in aggregate demand. Yet there has been a massive shock in the distribution of this demand. Pandemic restrictions on socialising, interacting, and movement meant that leisure, hospitality, in-person shopping, and travel services were unavailable. As spending on services slumped, consumers shifted their firepower to items that could be enjoyed within the pandemic’s confines; namely, durable goods (Chart I-5). Chart I-5A Massive Displacement In The Distribution Of Demand Led To Supply Shocks The problem is that modern supply chains have few, if any, built-in redundancies. They are always working ‘just in time’ and cannot cope with any surge in demand. To make matters worse, the type of goods in high demand also shifted: for example, from electronic goods during full lockdown – to cars when lockdowns eased, and people required local mobility. These shifting spikes in demand stressed and indeed snapped fragile supply chains, resulting in skyrocketing prices for durables. To assess the contribution to overall inflation, we need to gauge the deviation from the pre-pandemic trend. Relative to where they would have been, prices are higher by 0.5 percent for services, 1 percent for non- durables, but by a staggering 10 percent for durables. It follows that most of the current burst of inflation is due to the supply shock for durables (Chart of the Week). But now, consumer complaints that “buying conditions are poor” imply that high prices risk demand destruction as people wait for better conditions (lower prices) to make non-essential purchases. In any case, as we learn to live with the pandemic, the shock in the distribution of demand is easing. Meaning that the abnormally high spending on durable goods has a long way to fall. Furthermore, supply bottlenecks always clear as output responds with a lag. This risks unleashing a flood of supply just as higher prices have destroyed demand. Add to this mix a slowdown, or worse a slump, in China’s real estate and construction sector as we highlighted last week in The Real Risk Is Real Estate (Part 2). And the irony is that, for many global sectors, there could be a demand shock after all but it would be a negative demand shock. Three Investment Recommendations As consumers’ current complaints of poor buying conditions testify, the higher prices that come from a supply shock eventually lead to demand destruction. Hence, it is extremely dangerous for central banks to respond with tighter policy, including the signalling of tighter policy that leads to higher bond yields. The higher bond yields will, with a lag, choke demand just as the supply bottlenecks ease and unleash a flood of supply. Resulting in a deflationary shock for the economy, stock market, and commodities (Chart I-6). Chart I-6When Supply Shocks Ease, Prices Slump On this basis, we are making three investment recommendations: The upper limit to the 10-year T-bond is no higher than 1.8 percent, as we detailed in Stocks, Not The Economy, Will Set The Upper Limit To Bond Yields. Hence, this yield level would be a good cyclical entry point into both stocks and bonds. Continue to underweight consumer discretionary plays versus the market, given the very tight connection between spending on durables and the relative performance of the goods dominated consumer discretionary plays in the stock market. As supply shocks always ultimately ease, those commodities whose prices have not yet corrected are at much greater risk than those commodities whose prices have corrected. Specifically, the price of industrial metals such as tin are at their most stretched versus iron ore in a decade (Chart I-7). Moreover, this fragility is confirmed by fractal analysis (Chart I-8 and Chart I-9). Chart I-7Tin Is Very Stretched Versus Iron Ore Chart I-8Tin Is Fragile Chart I-9Tin Versus Iron Ore Is Fragile Hence, as a new cyclical recommendation, go underweight tin versus iron ore. Netflix Versus Activision Blizzard, And AUD/NZD Are Susceptible To Reversal In pure entertainment plays, the strong outperformance of Netflix versus Activision Blizzard has been fuelled by the delta wave of the virus, which helped Netflix, combined with the Chinese crackdown on gaming companies, which weighed down the whole gaming sector including Activision. The gaming company was also hit by a discrimination lawsuit, which it has now settled. Fractal analysis suggests that this strong outperformance is now fragile. Accordingly, the recommended trade is to short Netflix versus Activision Blizzard, setting a profit target and symmetrical stop-loss at 10 percent (Chart I-10). Chart I-10Netflix Versus Activision Blizzard Is Susceptible To Reversal Meanwhile, in foreign exchange, the recent sell-off in AUD/NZD has reached fragility on the 130-day dimension which has reliably signalled previous reversal points (Chart I-11). Hence, the recommended trade is long AUD/NZD, setting a profit target and symmetrical stop-loss at 2 percent. Chart I-11AUD/NZD Is Likely To Rebound   Dhaval Joshi Chief Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com Fractal Trading System Fractal Trades 6-Month Recommendations Structural And Thematic 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