Policy

Dear Client, We will not be publishing the Commodity & Energy Strategy next week, as I will be participating in a panel discussion with Dr. Bassam Fattouh, Director of the Oxford Institute for Energy Studies (OIES), which will focus on global energy markets and their evolution.  Our panel will be moderated by my colleague Roukaya Ibrahim, Managing Editor of BCA Research's Daily Insights.  We will return to our regular publishing schedule on September 15, 2022. Sincerely, Robert Ryan Chief Commodity & Energy Strategist Executive Summary  The Biden administration’s Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) will throw just under $370 billion at incentivizing renewable-energy development via tax credits, grants and loans, and, in what arguably is a concession to common sense, to adding and extending incentives for conventional energy sources, carbon capture and hydrogen. In the short run, the IRA could add to systematic stress in the North American bulk power supply market, which still is contending with grid stability issues caused by solar PV generation. In a direct shot at the dominance of EV supply chains by China, the IRA subsidizes EVs assembled in North America using batteries sourced from there and critical minerals sourced either from the US or states which have a Free Trade Agreement with the US. The IRA will increase global competition for base metals supplies, which already are tight.  This will push prices higher to incentivize the development of the mines and local metals-refining operations required to satisfy this demand. IRA’s $370 Billion Allocations US IRA Supports Renewable, Conventional Energy US IRA Supports Renewable, Conventional Energy Bottom Line: The IRA incentivizes investment in clean energy, pollution reduction and GHG remediation, and employment in the energy-supply market writ large.  The next year likely will be taken up writing the actual regulations implementing the IRA.  If it succeeds in significantly boosting renewable energy investment and EV sales, it will stoke already-tight base metals markets and drive costs higher.  By incentivizing the development of carbon-capture and hydrogen technologies, it would extend the life of traditional hydrocarbon energy. Feature The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) will make $370 billion available to energy providers and households via tax credits, grants and loans to incentivize green-energy production and deployment in the US (Chart 1). It also seeks to incentivize the expansion of locally built EVs in North America, the batteries that will power them, and the critical minerals crucial for green energy, as it attempts to break China’s dominance of EV and critical mineral supply chains globally. Support for carbon-capture and use, and hydrogen as a fuel also will be expanded. Chart 1IRA’s $370 Billion Allocations US IRA Supports Renewable, Conventional Energy US IRA Supports Renewable, Conventional Energy The US DOE estimates the IRA and the previously passed Bipartisan Infrastructure Law will reduce Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions by 1,150 MMT CO2e in 2030, equivalent to a 40% reduction vs 2005 GHG levels, in 2030.1 The inclusion of Carbon-Capture-Use-and-Storage (CCUS) technology in the IRA will incentivize technology that would allow for fossil fuels to be used as a bridge for the green energy transition, which, if successful, will dramatically extend the useful life of hydrocarbon resources. Per the IRA, tax credits for CCUS can reach a maximum of USD 60 – USD 85/ MT of CO2 captured depending on how successful the technology is in actually removing CO2.2 This is $25-$35/MT more than what is provided by the existing CCUS tax credits. As we argued in previous reports, lower production costs for nascent green technologies such as CCUS will spur research and development, unlocking a virtuous cycle of increased production and deployment, and lower costs.3 The IRA is technologically agnostic as to how low-carbon energy is produced – i.e., via renewables, hydrocarbons, or nuclear power. From 2025, Investment- and Production-Tax Credits (IC and PC tax credits) will be available for technology-neutral electricity production, meaning electricity from fossil fuels or nuclear power will receive tax and investment credits alongside renewables, provided no toxic GHG emissions are released. This will catalyze the development and use of CCUS technology, especially in existing power plants, which can be retrofitted with this technology. Controversy Around Oil, Gas Attends The IRA Among the more controversial features of the Act are provisions supporting oil and gas production. One of the provisions requires 2mm acres of public land and 60mm acres of water to be offered for lease to oil and gas companies a year prior to issuing new onshore solar or wind rights-of-way. We do not believe this will meaningfully increase US oil production since its main constraint isn’t a dearth of land but investor-induced drilling restraint – i.e., the capital discipline that compels oil and gas producers to only produce what can profitably be produced. We also are doubtful that increasing oil and gas royalties to 16.6-18.75% under the IRA will influence drillers’ production decisions since most states’ royalties, most notably Texas and New Mexico’s will be at parity or higher than the revised rate under the new law.4 The duration and coverage of investment and production tax credits for solar and wind projects have increased. Furthermore, energy storage technology will now receive ITCs and PTCs, which should encourage the development of this technology. Energy storage technology – e.g., utility-scale lithium batteries – will make green electricity more reliable, providing a competitive alternative to fossil fuel-generated electricity. Increasing Solar PV Resources Strain Power Grids As Chart 1 shows, renewables are receiving massive support from the IRA, particularly solar PV and wind resources. This will, over the short run, present problems for grid stability. The North American power grid is being stressed by lack of investment in systems capable of fully integrating renewables – particularly solar PV – with incumbent bulk power supplies from fossil fuels and nuclear power. This is being exacerbated by extreme-weather events (e.g., prolonged heat waves, droughts, fire storms, flooding, etc.).5 The IRA focuses on incentivizing particular power-generation technologies and, in conjunction with the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, investing in and bolstering North American electric grids.6 This is and will remain a critical issue, given the threat to bulk power system (BPS) stability posed by the large amount of small-scale solar supplies, which are not required to meet NERC reliability standards, per the NERC’s analysis. This risk is being analysed in depth following widespread loss of solar PV power in California during the summer of 2021, which was compounded by droughts and wildfires.7 “The ongoing widespread reduction of solar PV resources continues to be a notable reliability risk to the BPS, particularly when combined with the additional loss of other generating resources on the BPS and in aggregate on the distribution system,” the April 2022 NERC report notes. In an earlier report, NERC analysts noted much of the solar PV resource operates at a smaller scale than other supplies (baseload nuclear power, e.g.), and are not part of the NERC’s bulk electric supply (BES) system (Chart 2).8 Practically speaking, the NERC noted, “the vast majority of solar PV plants connected to the BPS, totaling over half the capacity, are not considered BES and are therefore not subject to NERC Reliability Standards.” Chart 2Solar PV Resources Strain Grids US IRA Supports Renewable, Conventional Energy US IRA Supports Renewable, Conventional Energy In theory, this could limit the expansion of solar PV resources until the grid stability problems are addressed. Because of its intermittency, wind resources also can be unreliable sources of power, which means fossil-fuels alternatives – particularly natural-gas-fired generation – will continue to be favored to maintain grid stability and to provide back-up generation if wind or solar PV generation becomes unavailable. If CCUS technology can be harnessed to significantly reduce methane discharge – another goal of the IRA – along with particulates, natural gas production stands to increase as the US migrates to a low-carbon future. Investment Implications The recently enacted IRA law will incentivize increased investment in renewables and conventional resources. In addition, it will spur investment in energy-transmission and –transportation resources. The drafting and implementation of the regulations required to implement the law will be done over the next year or so, so it is difficult to forecast which investments will get off to the fastest start. We remain bullish base metals – the sine qua non of the renewal-energy transition – and conventional hydrocarbon resources. We continue to favor equity exposure via ETFs – the XME and XOP for exposure to miners and oil-and-gas producers, respectively. We also remain long the COMT ETF, an optimized version of the S&P GSCI to retain exposure to commodities directly.   Robert P. Ryan Chief Commodity & Energy Strategist rryan@bcaresearch.com Ashwin Shyam Research Analyst Commodity & Energy Strategy ashwin.shyam@bcaresearch.com Paula Struk Research Associate Commodity & Energy Strategy paula.struk@bcaresearch.com   Commodities Round-Up Energy: Bullish EU gas storage facilities were 80.17% full as of August 29 , reaching the bloc’s 80% target two months early (Chart 3) and raising the possibility of natgas rationing to reduce demand will not be needed this winter. The EU’s willingness to purchase gas at high prices over the summer injection months, given the dire consequences of possibly low gas storage levels in the winter withdrawal period, is responsible for this result. As Russian gas flows have dropped, the EU has had to rely on other sources, namely the US. LNG imports of 39 Bcm from the US to the EU over the first six months of this year have surpassed full year 2021 flows, according to Reuters. Elevated US gas flows to Europe have come at the expense of gas flows to states which are unable to afford the fuel at such high prices. In the US, high Henry Hub gas prices signal low domestic fuel availability primarily due to higher gas exports (Chart 4). Base Metals: Bullish High electricity and fuel prices in Europe are making metal smelting increasingly expensive, and are forcing refiners to voluntarily reduce operations. Nyrstar’s Budel zinc smelter and Norsk Hydro’s Slovalco aluminum smelter are the latest refinery operations forced to shutter operations going into the winter. Reduced domestic metal production runs counter to the continent’s aim of becoming more self-reliant on the supply of minerals critical to strategic industries such as defense and aerospace. Precious Metals: Neutral Federal Reserve chair Jerome Powell stressed the importance of price stability and reiterated the Fed’s commitment to restrictive policy to reduce inflation at the Jackson Hole conference. Gold prices fell on his speech as markets adjusted to higher interest rates than previously expected. However, counter to BCA’s US Bond Strategy view, markets still expect the Fed to start cutting rates in 2023. Two key drivers for gold prices next year will be the Fed’s rate hike regime and inflation perpetuated by potentially high oil prices following European sanctions on Russian oil and oil products. Chart 3 US IRA Supports Renewable, Conventional Energy US IRA Supports Renewable, Conventional Energy Chart 4 US IRA Supports Renewable, Conventional Energy US IRA Supports Renewable, Conventional Energy       Footnotes 1     Please see The Inflation Reduction Act Will Significantly Cut the Social Costs of Climate Change, published by the US Department of Energy on August 23.  See also 8.18 InflationReductionAct_Factsheet_Final.pdf (energy.gov) for additional DOE analysis of the IRA. 2     Manufacturers of different green technologies can maximize tax credits by ensuring certain labor and materials sourcing requirements are met. 3    For a report with our most recent discussion on this issue, please see EU Gas Crisis Boosts Hydrogen’s Prospects, which we published on April 7, 2022.  See also Assessing Risks To Our Commodity Views, published on July 8, 2021, and Industrial Commodities Super-Cycle Or Bull Market?, published on March 4, 2021, for additional discussion on the need for carbon-capture investment. 4    The Permian basin, which constitutes 60% of total US shale production is located in these two states. 5    Please see the North American Electric Reliability Corporation’s recent report entitled Summer Reliability Assessment, May 2022, for an in-depth discussion of electric grid reliability going into the 2022 summer. 6    Please see “The Inflation Reduction Act Drives Significant Emissions Reductions and Positions America to Reach Our Climate Goals,” published by the US DOE as DOE/OP-0018, August 2022. 7     Please see “Multiple Solar PV Disturbances in CAISO, Disturbances between June and August 2021, April 2022,” published by the North American Electric Reliability Corporation. 8    Please see “Summary of Activities, BPS-Connected Inverter-Based Resources and Distributed Energy Resources,” published by NERC in September 2019.   Investment Views and Themes  New, Pending And Closed Trades WE WERE STOPPED OUT OF OUR LONG SPDR S&P METALS & MINING ETF (XME) TRADE ON AUGUST 29, 2022 WITH A RETURN OF 19.43%. WE WILL RE-ESTABLISH A LONG POSITION IN THE XME AT TONIGHT'S CLOSE. Strategic Recommendations Trades Closed in 2022

Next week, on September 7-8, is the BCA New York Conference, the first in-person version since 2019. I look forward to seeing many of you there, and if you haven’t already booked your place, you still can! (a virtual version is also available). As such, the next Counterpoint report will come out on September 15. Executive Summary The 2022-23 = 1981-82 template for markets is working well. If it continues to hold, these are the major investment implications: Bonds: The 30-year T-bond (price) will trend sideways for the next few months, albeit with a potential correction that lifts the yield to 3.5 percent. However, bond prices will enter a sustained rally in 2023, in which the 30-year T-bond yield will fall to sub-2.5 percent. Stocks: A coordinated global recession will depress profits, causing the S&P 500 to test 3500. However, once past the worst of the recession, a strong rally will lift it through 5000 later in 2023. Sector allocation: Longer duration defensive sectors (such as healthcare) will strongly outperform shorter duration cyclical sectors (such as basic resources) until mid-2023, after which it will be time to flip back into cyclicals. Industrial metals: A tactical rebound in copper could lift it to $8500/MT after which the structural downtrend will resume, taking it to sub-$7000/MT in 2023. Oil: Just as in 1981-82, supply shortages will provide near-term support. But ultimately, demand destruction will dominate, depressing the price to, at best, $85, though our central case is $55 in 2023.  If 2022-23 = 1981-82, Then This Is What Happens To The Copper Price If 2022-23 = 1981-82, Then This Is What Happens To The Copper Price If 2022-23 = 1981-82, Then This Is What Happens To The Copper Price Bottom Line: The 2022-23 = 1981-82 template for markets is working well, and should continue to do so. Feature History doesn’t repeat, but it does rhyme. And the period that rhymes closest with the current episode in the global economy and markets is 1981-82, a rhyming which we first highlighted four months ago in Markets Echo 1981, When Stagflation Morphed Into Recession, and then developed in More On 2022-23 = 1981-82, And The Danger Ahead. In those reports, we presented three compelling reasons why 2022-23 rhymes with 1981-82: 1981-82 is the period that rhymes closest with the current episode in the global economy and markets. First, the simultaneous sell-off in stocks, bonds, inflation protected bonds, industrial commodities, and gold in the second quarter of 2022 is uniquely linked with an identical ‘everything sell-off’ in the second quarter of 1981. It is extremely rare for stocks, bonds, inflation protected bonds, industrial commodities, and gold to sell off together. Such a simultaneous sell-off has happened in just these 2 calendar quarters out of the last 200. Meaning a ‘1-in-a-100’ event conjoins 2022 with 1981 (Chart I-1 and Chart I-2). Chart I-1A 1-In-A-100 Event: The 'Everything Sell-Off' In 2022... A 1-In-A-100 Event: The 'Everything Sell-Off' In 2022... A 1-In-A-100 Event: The 'Everything Sell-Off' In 2022... Chart I-2...And The 'Everything Sell-Off' In 1981 ...And The 'Everything Sell-Off' In 1981 ...And The 'Everything Sell-Off' In 1981 Second, the Jay Powell Fed equals the Paul Volcker Fed. Now just as then, the world’s central banks are obsessed with ‘breaking the back’ of inflation. And now, just as then, the central banks are desperate to repair their badly battered credibility in managing inflation. Third, the Russia/Ukraine war that started in February 2022 equals the Iraq/Iran war that started in September 1980. Now, just as then, a war between two commodity producing neighbours has unleashed a supply shock which is adding to the inflation paranoia. To repeat, it is a 1-in-a-100 event for all financial assets to sell off together. This is because it requires an extremely rare star alignment. Inflation fears first morph to stagflation fears and then to recession fears. Leaving investors with nowhere to hide, as no mainstream asset performs well in inflation, stagflation, and recession. So, the once-in-a-generation star alignment conjoining 2022 with 1981 is as follows: Inflation paranoia is worsened by a major war between commodity producing neighbours, forcing reputationally damaged central banks to become trigger-happy in their battle against inflation, dragging the world economy into a coordinated recession. September 2022 Equals August 1981 If 2022-23 = 1981-82, then where exactly are we in the analogous episode? There are two potential synchronization points. One potential synchronization is that the Russia/Ukraine war which started on February 24, 2022 equals the Iraq/Iran war which started on September 22, 1980. In which case, September 2022 equals April 1981. But given that inflation is public enemy number one, a better synchronization is the Fed’s preferred measure of underlying inflation, the US core PCE deflator. Aligning the respective peaks in core PCE inflation, we can say that February 2022 equals January 1981. Meaning that our original report in May 2022 aligned with April 1981, and September 2022 equals August 1981 (Chart I-3 and Chart I-4). Chart I-3The Peak In Core PCE Inflation In ##br##February 2022 The Peak In Core PCE Inflation In February 2022 The Peak In Core PCE Inflation In February 2022 Chart I-4...Aligns With The Peak In Core PCE Inflation In ##br##January 1981 ...Aligns With The Peak In Core PCE Inflation In January 1981 ...Aligns With The Peak In Core PCE Inflation In January 1981 In which case, how has the template worked since we introduced it on May 19th? The answer is, very well. The template predicted that the long bond price would track sideways, which it has. The template predicted that the S&P 500 would decline from 4200 to 4000, which it has. The template predicted that the copper price would decline from $9250/MT to $8500/MT. In fact, it has fallen even further to $8200/MT. In the case of oil, the better synchronization is the starts of the respective wars. This template predicted that the Brent crude price would decline sharply from a knee-jerk peak in the $120s, which it has. Not a bad set of predictions! If 2022-23 = 1981-82, Here’s What Happens Next Assuming the template continues to hold, here are the major implications for investors: Bond prices will enter a sustained rally in 2023. Bonds: The 30-year T-bond (price) will trend sideways for the next few months, albeit with a potential tactical correction that takes its yield to 3.5 percent. However, bond prices will enter a sustained rally in 2023 in which the 30-year T-bond yield will fall to sub-2.5 percent (Chart I-5). Chart I-5If 2022-23 = 1981-82, Then This Is What Happens To Bond Prices If 2022-23 = 1981-82, Then This Is What Happens To Bond Prices If 2022-23 = 1981-82, Then This Is What Happens To Bond Prices Stocks: A coordinated global recession will depress profits, causing the S&P 500 to test 3500 in the coming months. However, once past the worst of the recession, a strong rally will lift it through 5000 later in 2023 (Chart I-6). Chart I-6If 2022-23 = 1981-82, Then This Is What Happens To Stock Prices If 2022-23 = 1981-82, Then This Is What Happens To Stock Prices If 2022-23 = 1981-82, Then This Is What Happens To Stock Prices Sector allocation: Longer duration defensive sectors (such as healthcare) will strongly outperform shorter duration cyclical sectors (such as basic resources) until mid-2023, after which it will be time to flip back into cyclicals (Chart I-7). Chart I-7If 2022-23 = 1981-82, Then This Is What Happens To Sector Allocation If 2022-23 = 1981-82, Then This Is What Happens To Sector Allocation If 2022-23 = 1981-82, Then This Is What Happens To Sector Allocation Industrial metals: A tactical rebound in copper could lift it to $8500/MT after which the structural downtrend will resume, taking it to sub-$7000/MT in 2023 (Chart I-8). Chart I-8If 2022-23 = 1981-82, Then This Is What Happens To The Copper Price If 2022-23 = 1981-82, Then This Is What Happens To The Copper Price If 2022-23 = 1981-82, Then This Is What Happens To The Copper Price Oil: Just as in 1981-82, supply shortages will provide near-term support. But ultimately, demand destruction will dominate, depressing the price to, at best, $85 (Chart I-9) though our central case is $55 in 2023.  Chart I-9If 2022-23 = 1981-82, Then This Is What Happens To The Oil Price If 2022-23 = 1981-82, Then This Is What Happens To The Oil Price If 2022-23 = 1981-82, Then This Is What Happens To The Oil Price But What If 2022-23 Doesn’t = 1981-82? And yet, and yet…what if the Jay Powell Fed doesn’t equal the Paul Volcker Fed? What if central banks lose their nerve before inflation is slayed? Long bond yields could gap much higher, or at least not come down, causing a completely different set of investment outcomes. In this case, the correct template would not be 1981-82, but the 1970s. If central banks lose the stomach to slay inflation, then the consequent housing market crash will do the job for them. However, there is one huge difference between now and the 1970s, which makes that template highly unlikely. In the 1970s, the global real estate market was worth just one times world GDP, whereas today it has become a monster worth four times world GDP, and whose value is highly sensitive to the long bond yield. In the US, the mortgage rate has surged to well above the rental yield for the first time in 15 years. Simply put, it is now more expensive to buy than to rent a home, causing a disappearance of would be homebuyers, a flood of home-sellers, and an incipient reversal in home prices (Chart I-10). Chart I-10If Bond Yields Don't Come Down, Then House Prices Will Crash If Bond Yields Don't Come Down, Then House Prices Will Crash If Bond Yields Don't Come Down, Then House Prices Will Crash Hence, if long bond yields were to gap much higher, or even stay where they are, it would trigger a housing market crash whose massive deflationary impulse would swamp any inflationary impulse. The upshot is that the 2022-23 = 1981-82 template would suffer a hiatus. Ultimately though, it would come good, because a crash in the $400 trillion global housing market would obliterate inflation. In other words, if central banks lose the stomach to slay inflation, then the consequent housing market crash will do the job for them. Fractal Trading Watchlist As just discussed, copper’s tactical rebound is approaching exhaustion. This is confirmed by the 130-day fractal structure of copper versus tin reaching the point of extreme fragility that has consistently marked turning-points in this pair trade (Chart I-11). Chart I-11Copper's Tactical Rebound Is Exhausted Copper's Tactical Rebound Is Exhausted Copper's Tactical Rebound Is Exhausted Hence, this week’s recommendation is to short copper versus tin, setting the profit target and symmetrical stop-loss at 12 percent.   Chart 1Expect Hungarian Bonds To Rebound Expect Hungarian Bonds To Rebound Expect Hungarian Bonds To Rebound Chart 2Copper Is Experiencing A Tactical Rebound Copper Is Experiencing A Tactical Rebound Copper Is Experiencing A Tactical Rebound Chart 3US REITS Are Oversold Versus Utilities US REITS Are Oversold Versus Utilities US REITS Are Oversold Versus Utilities Chart 4FTSE100 Outperformance Vs. Euro Stoxx 50 Is Vulnerable To Reversal FTSE100 Outperformance Vs. Euro Stoxx 50 Is Vulnerable To Reversal FTSE100 Outperformance Vs. Euro Stoxx 50 Is Vulnerable To Reversal Chart 5Netherlands' Underperformance Vs. Switzerland Has Ended Netherlands' Underperformance Vs. Switzerland Has Ended Netherlands' Underperformance Vs. Switzerland Has Ended Chart 6The Sell-Off In The 30-Year T-Bond At Fractal Fragility The Sell-Off In The 30-Year T-Bond At Fractal Fragility The Sell-Off In The 30-Year T-Bond At Fractal Fragility Chart 7Food And Beverage Outperformance Is Exhausted Food And Beverage Outperformance Is Exhausted Food And Beverage Outperformance Is Exhausted Chart 8German Telecom Outperformance Has Started To Reverse German Telecom Outperformance Has Started To Reverse German Telecom Outperformance Has Started To Reverse Chart 9Japanese Telecom Outperformance Vulnerable To Reversal Japanese Telecom Outperformance Vulnerable To Reversal Japanese Telecom Outperformance Vulnerable To Reversal Chart 10The Strong Trend In The 18-Month-Out US Interest Rate Future Has Ended The Strong Trend In The 18-Month-Out US Interest Rate Future Has Ended The Strong Trend In The 18-Month-Out US Interest Rate Future Has Ended Chart 11The Strong Downtrend In The 3 Year T-Bond Has Ended The Strong Downtrend In The 3 Year T-Bond Has Ended The Strong Downtrend In The 3 Year T-Bond Has Ended Chart 12A Potential Switching Point From Tobacco Into Cannabis A Potential Switching Point From Tobacco Into Cannabis A Potential Switching Point From Tobacco Into Cannabis Chart 13Biotech Is A Major Buy Biotech Is A Major Buy Biotech Is A Major Buy Chart 14Norway's Outperformance Has Ended Norway's Outperformance Has Ended Norway's Outperformance Has Ended Chart 15Cotton Versus Platinum Has Reversed Cotton Versus Platinum Has Reversed Cotton Versus Platinum Has Reversed Chart 16Switzerland's Outperformance Vs. Germany Is Exhausted Switzerland's Outperformance Vs. Germany Is Exhausted Switzerland's Outperformance Vs. Germany Is Exhausted Chart 17USD/EUR Is Vulnerable To Reversal USD/EUR Is Vulnerable To Reversal USD/EUR Is Vulnerable To Reversal Chart 18The Outperformance Of MSCI Hong Kong Versus China Has Ended The Outperformance Of MSCI Hong Kong Versus China Has Ended The Outperformance Of MSCI Hong Kong Versus China Has Ended Chart 19US Utilities Outperformance Vulnerable To Reversal US Utilities Outperformance Vulnerable To Reversal US Utilities Outperformance Vulnerable To Reversal Chart 20The Outperformance Of Oil Versus Banks Is Exhausted The Outperformance Of Oil Versus Banks Is Exhausted The Outperformance Of Oil Versus Banks Is Exhausted Dhaval Joshi Chief Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com Fractal Trading System Fractal Trades Markets Still Echoing 1981-82, So Here’s What Happens Next Markets Still Echoing 1981-82, So Here’s What Happens Next Markets Still Echoing 1981-82, So Here’s What Happens Next Markets Still Echoing 1981-82, So Here’s What Happens Next 6-12 Month Recommendations Structural Recommendations Closed Fractal Trades Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Euro Area Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Euro Area Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Euro Area Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Europe Ex Euro Area Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Europe Ex Euro Area Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Europe Ex Euro Area Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Asia Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Asia Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Asia Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Other Developed Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Other Developed Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Other Developed   Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-5Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations  

Dear Clients, Next week we will attend the BCA Investment Conference in New York. Therefore we will not publish our regular report. We will resume regular publication in the week of September 12. We apologize in advance for any inconvenience. Thank you, Matt Gertken, Senior Vice President US Political Strategy Executive Summary Top Issues On Voters’ Minds Waiting On The Biden Doctrine Waiting On The Biden Doctrine President Biden has a foreign policy but not yet a foreign policy doctrine.  The Biden Doctrine will emerge after critical tests. These tests are likely to be imminent, signaling more volatility and negative surprises for global investors. The three key foreign policy tests are: the Russia-EU energy crisis, the Iran nuclear crisis, and the fourth Taiwan Strait crisis. Of these, only Iran is looking like it could become a win for Biden – and a boon for markets – but even there deal is not yet confirmed. Biden’s foreign policy is domestically focused given the looming midterm elections. The result is likely to be high or higher volatility in the short run. Recommendation (Tactical) INITIATION DATE Return Long DXY (Dollar Index) Feb 23, 2022 13.1% Bottom Line: Stay defensive and long US dollar in the short run. The fourth quarter could be a turning point but for now political risk remains negative for risk assets. Feature Successful US presidents establish a foreign policy doctrine. The doctrine should not be defined by ideas and ideals but rather by the test of reality and experience – i.e. the decisions the president makes during crises. The Biden administration has a foreign policy and it has been tested in Ukraine. The focal point is to strengthen US alliances – even if that means deferring to allies’ interests on critical points. For example, while the US wanted to sell natural gas to Europe at the expense of Russia, Biden approved of Germany’s decision to finish building and operate the Nord Stream 2 pipeline to Russia in summer 2021. He condoned this decision even though Russia was already threatening Ukraine with invasion. Once Russia invaded, Germany froze the pipeline. The US had given its ally a choice, the choice ended badly, and now the ally is more certain that its interest lies with the United States. Bottom Line: The Biden administration’s foreign policy aims to restore US alliances and thus looks for the common denominator among allies. Biden’s Reactive Foreign Policy Biden’s foreign policy is fundamentally defensive, not offensive like that of the Trump administration. Trump initiated a trade war with China and others, revoked several international deals, tried to build a wall on the Mexican border, and imposed “maximum pressure” sanctions on Iran. By contrast, Biden, who entered office with a weak grip on Congress and a rebellion at the capitol, preferred to focus on domestic politics and social issues. He preferred to be reactive rather than proactive abroad, slapping sanctions on Russia only after it invaded Ukraine and so far avoiding major new sanctions on Iran or China. Biden’s foreign policy has also been reactive in the sense that it aims to win the approval of his domestic audience. Biden is a first-term US president, he faces midterm elections and the potential for re-election in 2024 – and the odds for him and his party are not great (Chart 1). Elections encourage him to maximize domestic legislation and minimize risks on the international scene. Chart 1Midterm Election Odds From The Street Waiting On The Biden Doctrine Waiting On The Biden Doctrine The second term – when the president is no longer eligible for re-election and could become a “lame duck” – is opportune for prioritizing national interests over partisan interests and taking risks abroad. The 2022 midterm election fits into this rubric: Biden’s foreign policy this year has been domestically focused and will continue to be through November. Biden’s goal must be balanced: to pursue his foreign policies but avoid worsening the Democratic Party’s difficulties at the voting booth. Our quantitative election models show that Democrats are likely to lose 21 seats in the House of Representatives (Table 1) and two seats in the Senate (Chart 2), thus losing control of all Congress to Republicans. The Senate is uncertain but the House is not. Given that the Senate is highly competitive, Biden must tread carefully to avoid worsening the economy or suffering a policy humiliation. Table 1BCA’s US House Election Quant Model Waiting On The Biden Doctrine Waiting On The Biden Doctrine Chart 2BCA’s US Senate Election Quant Model Waiting On The Biden Doctrine Waiting On The Biden Doctrine Hence while sanctions on Russia have pushed up energy prices and given ammunition to critics at home, Biden has encouraged Europe to take a pragmatic and gradual approach so as to soften the blow. The EU agrees for its own reasons and the oil embargo will not fully kick in until December 5, after the midterm election. Bottom Line: The Biden administration’s foreign policy is focused on its domestic audience, which means that midterm elections will continue to drive US foreign policy this year. Taking Risks Before The Midterms Since May we have observed that the Ukraine war and Biden’s midterm woes have stirred the administration into taking greater risks in its foreign policy. If American interests are asserted, Biden will look stronger at home. If a crisis erupts, Americans will rally around the flag. For example, Biden agreed to sell long-range artillery rockets (HIMARS) to Ukraine and provide higher value targeting intelligence to Ukraine. Biden expanded export controls on China and agreed to send legislators and eventually a new arms package to Taiwan. The current crisis in the Taiwan Strait arose because of the Biden administration’s initiatives – House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s trip. Similarly Biden has not, as of August 31, provided Iran with the concessions necessary to clinch a nuclear agreement, raising the risk of rising tensions across the Middle East. He has slightly expanded sanctions, though, to be fair, the odds of an Iran deal are not low.1 We are contrarians on this issue and have put the odds of a deal at 40%, but rumors are swirling in the news media that a deal is at hand. In short, with his job approval rating falling to a net negative 13 percentage points (net negative 18 percentage points on his handling of the economy), Biden is increasingly willing to take foreign policy risks. The domestic focus of foreign policy is overwhelming its initial defensiveness. Biden’s policy is becoming more offensive, albeit still not to the same degree as the Trump administration’s. This shift in foreign policy does not line up well with what voters want. Voter priorities for the midterms are shaping up as follows: Economy: Voters are far more concerned about the economy than anything else (Chart 3, first panel). Biden’s foreign policy actions – sanctions on oil producers like Russia and Iran and tariffs on manufacturers like China – add to inflation, which is the top concern for voters within the economic sphere. Society: Voters are concerned about a range of social grievances such as gun policy, health care, crime, the electoral system. Abortion access and gun rights have become more important over the year, while foreign policy and energy policy have become less important (Chart 3, second panel). Foreign Policy: True, Biden’s foreign policy can tap into unfavorable views of Russia, Iran, and China (Chart 3, third panel). But voters are not demanding a more hawkish foreign policy in this election, so Biden’s decision to take more foreign policy risks this year must come from somewhere else. That somewhere else is the need to respond to foreign events, such as Russian invasions, but there is also the political expediency of stirring up nationalism, as is clear in the case of China. Chart 3Top Issues On Voters’ Minds Waiting On The Biden Doctrine Waiting On The Biden Doctrine Bottom Line: Voters are focused on the economy and social issues but Biden must respond to international challenges. In doing so, Biden is increasingly willing to take risks as the Democrats could benefit from any crisis that leads to an outburst of nationalism and patriotism. Biden’s Foreign Policy And Anti-Inflation Drive Back in June the Biden administration unveiled an anti-inflation plan that consisted of (1) Fed rate hikes (2) a reconciliation bill (3) budget discipline. We pointed out that the first option was the only one that would truly reduce inflation – but that it would also bring recession within a year or two. Once the reconciliation bill passed, we showed how the Inflation Reduction Act would increase budget deficits and inflation, especially when taken along with other new legislation like the Chips and Science Act. More recently Biden’s $500 billion plan for student debt forgiveness has underscored the continuing inflationary bent of his policies. Gasoline prices have come down slightly over the summer but not to the extent that Democrats can declare victory (Chart 4). Midterm voters will feel the year-on-year increase in headline inflation. Chart 4Prices At The Pump Prices At The Pump Prices At The Pump Market-based inflation expectations are rising again and consumers still report very high expectations for the one-year period, which is most relevant this fall (Chart 5). This brings us to Biden’s three foreign policy options for reducing inflation: reduce tensions with Russia, lift sanctions on Iran, and lift tariffs on China. Back in June we doubted that any of these would come to fruition. Now Biden faces a series of tests that will define his foreign policy doctrine: Chart 5Inflation Expectations Unabated Inflation Expectations Unabated Inflation Expectations Unabated   European Energy Crisis: Biden faces a European energy crisis stemming from Russia’s clash with NATO. Biden is providing Ukraine with extensive support in the form of money and weapons. That will continue in the short run as the Ukrainians are launching a counter-offensive against Russia. There are some signs of Russia signaling a willingness to negotiate but until Russia defeats the new counter-offensive it is highly unlikely to offer any serious concessions, or to relieve the pressure on Europe. The Biden administration has not yet accepted Russia’s broader demands, namely on the topic of NATO enlargement and whether NATO will ever try to station military bases in Finland or Sweden when they join the alliance (Table 2). Russia’s reaction to western policy is to constrict Europe’s energy supply further – namely shutting down the Nord Stream 1 pipeline – which will also tighten American energy supply via exports and exacerbate energy price inflation and expectations (Chart 6). Table 2US Response To Russia’s Demands On Finland, Sweden Waiting On The Biden Doctrine Waiting On The Biden Doctrine  Biden can allow slippage on sanction enforcement prior to the midterm but still his Russia policy will be a source of both conflict and inflation. Chart 6Russia Squeezes Europe Harder Russia Squeezes Europe Harder Russia Squeezes Europe Harder   Iranian Nuclear Crisis: Biden faces an Iranian nuclear crisis but it could be resolved quickly through a return to the 2015 nuclear deal. Apparently Biden is closer to clinching a deal. But the US and Iran do not trust each other, as shown in Chart 3 above. Biden could unilaterally relieve sanctions and allow Iranian their oil exports to pick up substantially (Chart 7). He can overcome Congress after a 30-day delay. But any deal will alienate the Saudi Arabians, who are threatening to cut oil production and reverse the oil price drop that Biden is seeking on behalf of US voters. So Iran is an option for Biden but it is not very compelling: the oil can be traded regardless of any deal. Biden’s capitulation would hurt politically without helping much economically. However, the failure of a deal poses a greater risk of instability in the Middle East and inflationary energy price shocks. So Biden faces an immediate and critical foreign policy test on this issue. Chart 7Iranian Oil Exports By Destination Waiting On The Biden Doctrine Waiting On The Biden Doctrine Fourth Taiwan Strait Crisis: Biden also faces a crisis in relations with China over the One China Policy and the status quo in the Taiwan Strait. This is the fourth such crisis since 1954. In previous crisis the US sent aircraft carriers through the strait, including in 1995-96. But it is not clear that Biden will do so given that China’s capabilities are much greater today (Map 1). The crisis probably will not be resolved before the midterm election since China will remain firm given its own domestic concerns this fall. Recently there emerged a tentative deal on the US auditing Chinese firms that list on US stock exchanges and an attempt to restart talks on climate change cooperation. The US and China are still talking despite tensions. But Biden has ruled out the option of reducing tariffs … which would only marginally have reduced inflation anyway. Map 1US Aircraft Carriers Suggest Taiwan Risk Is Substantial Waiting On The Biden Doctrine Waiting On The Biden Doctrine Bottom Line: Biden faces three foreign policy crises that threaten to exacerbate inflation. In each case he will likely uphold US security interests at the expense of higher inflation expectations in the short run. Investment Takeaways The Biden administration has a foreign policy but it does not yet have a foreign policy doctrine. The Biden Doctrine will be forged in the crucible of experience. The critical tests look to be coming soon. It will be difficult for Biden to pass the tests without fanning inflation expectations, at least in the short run. While bold action on Iran will not reduce oil prices as much as the consensus holds, a deal could avoid a worse scenario in which the Middle East destabilizes and energy shocks multiply. Investors should brace for more volatility, at least through the November 8 midterm election. Investors will need to see US-Russia, US-China, and US-Iran relations improve concretely and verifiably before determining that the geopolitical and macroeconomic backdrop are turning more favorable for risk assets.   Matt Gertken Senior Vice President Chief US Political Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com       Footnotes 1     See Ivana Saric, “Biden administration ramps up Iran sanctions as nuclear talks falter,” Axios, June 16, 2022, axios.com; Ellen Nakashima, “Biden administration slaps export controls on Chinese firms for aiding PLA weapons development,” Washington Post, April 8, 2021, washingtonpost.com; see also Karen Freifeld, “Biden administration reviewing China chip export policies, official says,” Reuters, July 14, 2022, reuters.com.   Strategic View Open Tactical Positions (0-6 Months) Open Cyclical Recommendations (6-18 Months) Table A2Political Risk Matrix Waiting On The Biden Doctrine Waiting On The Biden Doctrine Table A3US Political Capital Index Waiting On The Biden Doctrine Waiting On The Biden Doctrine Chart A1Presidential Election Model Third Quarter US Political Outlook: Last Ditch Effort Third Quarter US Political Outlook: Last Ditch Effort Chart A2Senate Election Model Third Quarter US Political Outlook: Last Ditch Effort Third Quarter US Political Outlook: Last Ditch Effort  Table A4House Election Model Waiting On The Biden Doctrine Waiting On The Biden Doctrine Table A5APolitical Capital: White House And Congress Waiting On The Biden Doctrine Waiting On The Biden Doctrine Table A5BPolitical Capital: Household And Business Sentiment Waiting On The Biden Doctrine Waiting On The Biden Doctrine Table A5CPolitical Capital: The Economy And Markets Waiting On The Biden Doctrine Waiting On The Biden Doctrine  

Executive Summary Low-Yielding Countries Facing High USD Hedging Costs Low-Yielding Countries Facing High USD Hedging Costs Low-Yielding Countries Facing High USD Hedging Costs The US dollar will remain strong alongside continued Fed rate hikes. Interest rate differentials will remain positive for the greenback, alongside other USD-positive factors like slowing global growth and rising investor risk aversion. Relatively high US interest rates have made hedging away US currency risk very expensive for some of the largest holders of US Treasuries like Japan. US Treasury yields, on an FX-hedged basis, look unattractive relative to local currency denominated bonds across the developed world. Increased foreign demand for US Treasuries evident in the US TIC data appears to reflect a re-establishment of positions unwound by global hedge funds and mutual funds dating back to the 2020 “dash for cash” in global financial markets. UST yields must rise even further versus non-US yields to attract more fundamental buyers like Japanese and European institutional investors, given elevated volatility in both US Treasury prices and the dollar. Bottom Line: Global investors should continue to underweight US Treasuries in global bond portfolios, on both a currency-unhedged and USD-hedged basis. Feature Dear Client, The schedule for the next two Global Fixed Income Strategy reports will be impacted by the upcoming Labor Day holiday and next week’s BCA’s annual conference in New York (I hope to see you there!). This Friday, September 2, we will be publishing a joint report with our colleagues at Foreign Exchange Strategy discussing Japan. On Monday, September 12, we will be publishing another joint report with our colleagues at European Investment Strategy, covering estimates of global neutral interest rates. -Rob Robis The title of our report from four weeks ago was “Dovish Central Bank Pivots Will Come Later Than You Think.” This could have also been the title for Fed Chair Jerome Powell's Jackson Hole speech. He reiterated the Fed’s commitment to tighten policy further and “keep at it” until the US economy slows enough to bring down inflation. Other central bankers who spoke at the conference had a similar tone to Powell, talking up an ongoing inflation fight that will require much slower growth and higher unemployment. Related Report  Global Fixed Income StrategyRecent USD Strength Is Not Bond Bullish By quickly and bluntly dispensing any notion that the Fed could soon pause its rate hiking cycle, Powell poured ice cold water on the risk asset rally that boosted the S&P 500 by nearly 17% between mid-June and mid-August. The S&P 500 plunged 3.4% after Powell’s speech, a tightening of US financial conditions that was likely welcomed by the Fed, as it helps their goal of slowing the US economy. Minneapolis Fed President Neil Kashkari even said he was “happy” to see the negative market reaction to Powell’s speech. Powell, Kashkari and the rest of the FOMC are probably happy over the strength of the US dollar, which is also helping tighten US financial conditions – while also having a major impact on global bond returns and currency hedging decisions for investors. A Collision Of A USD Bull Market & Global Bond Bear Market Chart 1A Big Move In The USD A Big Move In The USD A Big Move In The USD The current strength of the US dollar is becoming increasingly broad-based. The EUR/USD exchange rate has fallen below parity, while USD/JPY continues to flirt with the 140 level (Chart 1). The British pound is trading at a 2-year low versus the US dollar, many important emerging market (EM) currencies are struggling, and the Chinese renminbi is set to retest the 7.0 level. The strength of the US dollar is no recent phenomenon. The current uptrend dates back to the start of 2021, with the DXY dollar index up 21% since then. The dollar bull market has been supported by several factors, most critically rising US interest rates. The 2-year US Treasury yield started 2021 just above 0% and now sits at 3.4%. Higher US interest rates have raised the benefit of hedging currency risk into US dollars for global bond investors. The Bloomberg Global Aggregate Bond Index in USD-hedged terms has outperformed the unhedged version of the index by 6.3% over the past year, one of the largest such increases dating back to 2000 (Chart 2). This means that global bond investors have been paid handsomely to simply swap non-US bond exposures into US dollars – in some cases, making low-yielding assets like Japanese government bonds (JGBs), hedged from yen into dollars, comparable to US Treasury yields. Chart 2Big Gains From Hedging Global Bond Exposure Into USD Big Gains From Hedging Global Bond Exposure Into USD Big Gains From Hedging Global Bond Exposure Into USD This wedge between USD-hedged and unhedged bond returns is unlikely to reverse soon, as the fundamental drivers of the dollar remain biased to more dollar strength. The US dollar is not only supported by more favorable interest rate differentials versus other currencies (both in nominal and inflation-adjusted terms), but is also benefitting from its safe haven status at a time of considerable uncertainty on the future of the global economy (Chart 3). Global growth expectations are depressed and showing no signs of turning around anytime soon, particularly in Europe and the UK where electricity and gas prices are climbing at a record pace. The dollar not only typically appreciates during periods of slowing growth, but also during episodes of investor risk aversion. Investors remain cautious, according to indicators like the US equity put/call ratio which shows greater demand for downside protection via puts – an outcome that also typically coincides with a stronger US dollar. In this current environment of broad-based US dollar strength, the gap between hedged and unhedged bond returns has varied widely depending on the base currency of the investor. For a euro-based investor, the performance gap between the unhedged Global Aggregate index and the EUR-hedged index has been 6% over the past year (Chart 4). Chart 3USD Strength Supported By Key Fundamental Drivers USD Strength Supported By Key Fundamental Drivers USD Strength Supported By Key Fundamental Drivers ​​​​​​ Chart 4FX Hedging Decisions Mean Everything In A Global Bond Bear Market FX Hedging Decisions Mean Everything In A Global Bond Bear Market FX Hedging Decisions Mean Everything In A Global Bond Bear Market ​​​​​ Chart 5Low-Yielding Countries Facing High USD Hedging Costs Low-Yielding Countries Facing High USD Hedging Costs Low-Yielding Countries Facing High USD Hedging Costs The gap has been even larger for yen-based investors, with the unhedged index beating the JPY-hedged index by a whopping 13% over the past twelve months. Although Japanese fixed income investors are not typically known for taking unhedged currency risk on foreign bond holdings, doing so would have turned an awful year of global bond returns into a great year, simply due to yen weakness. When looking at current levels of interest rate differentials versus the US, which are the main determinant of currency hedging costs, the low yielding currencies like the euro, yen and Swiss franc see the greatest gain on returns versus the high-yielding US dollar (Chart 5). Hedging euros into dollars results in an annualized pickup of 252bps, while hedging yen into dollars produces an even bigger gain of 327bps. At the same time, the USD-hedging gains for relatively higher yielders are much lower. Hedging Australian dollars into US dollars only produces an annualized gain of 48bps, while hedging Canadian dollars into US dollars produces an annualized loss of -18bps. These varying hedging costs matter for global bond investors, as they impact the attractiveness of an individual country’s bond yields, depending on the investor’s base currency. We show the unhedged yield levels, and currency-hedged yield levels for six main developed market base currencies (USD, EUR, JPY, GBP, CAD, AUD) in the tables on the next two pages. Table 1 shows 2-year government bond yields, Table 2 shows 5-year government bond yields, Table 3 shows 10-year government bond yields and Table 4 shows 30-year government bond yields. Unsurprisingly, hedging into euros and yen, where short-term interest rates are the lowest, produces the smallest yields. Meanwhile, hedging into higher-rate currencies like US dollars and Canadian dollars generates the highest yields. Table 1Currency-Hedged 2-Year Government Bond Yields Currency Hedging Matters More Than Ever For Bond Investors Currency Hedging Matters More Than Ever For Bond Investors Table 2Currency-Hedged 5-Year Government Bond Yields Currency Hedging Matters More Than Ever For Bond Investors Currency Hedging Matters More Than Ever For Bond Investors Table 3Currency-Hedged 10-Year Government Bond Yields Currency Hedging Matters More Than Ever For Bond Investors Currency Hedging Matters More Than Ever For Bond Investors Table 4Currency-Hedged 30-Year Government Bond Yields Currency Hedging Matters More Than Ever For Bond Investors Currency Hedging Matters More Than Ever For Bond Investors We take the analysis a step further in the next set of tables on pages 9-11. Here, we take the hedged yields for each currency and compare them to the yields of the base currency. For example, in Table 5, it can be seen that a 2-year US Treasury yield of 3.4%, hedged into euros, produces a yield of 0.82% that is -17bps below the 2-year German yield (which is obviously denominated in euros). In other words, from the point of view of a euro-based investor who wants to hedge away the currency risk in a global bond portfolio, he gets paid a bit more to own a German bond over a US Treasury. Table 5Currency-Hedged 2-Year Govt. Bond Yield Spreads Currency Hedging Matters More Than Ever For Bond Investors Currency Hedging Matters More Than Ever For Bond Investors Similar results are shown in the subsequent tables for 5-year yields (Table 6), 10-year yields (Table 7) and 30-year yields (Table 8). From these tables, we can make the following broad conclusions: Table 6Currency-Hedged 5-Year Govt. Bond Yield Spreads Currency Hedging Matters More Than Ever For Bond Investors Currency Hedging Matters More Than Ever For Bond Investors Table 7Currency-Hedged 10-Year Govt. Bond Yield Spreads Currency Hedging Matters More Than Ever For Bond Investors Currency Hedging Matters More Than Ever For Bond Investors Table 8Currency-Hedged 30-Year Govt. Bond Yield Spreads Currency Hedging Matters More Than Ever For Bond Investors Currency Hedging Matters More Than Ever For Bond Investors For USD-based bond investors, all non-US markets except Canada have a yield pickup over US Treasuries on an FX-hedged basis For EUR-based investors, all non-euro area markets except Australia produce yields lower than those of Germany on an FX-hedged basis For GBP-based investors, all non-UK bond markets except the US and Canada have yields greater than those of Gilts for maturities from 5-30 years (the results are more mixed across countries for 2-year yields) For JPY-based investors, euro area and Australian bonds are clearly more attractive than JGBs on an FX-hedged basis, while US Treasuries, UK Gilts and Canadian government bonds offer FX-hedged yields below puny JGB yields. This is true up to the 10-year maturity point, as 30-year JGB yields – which are not targeted by the Bank of Japan in its yield curve control program – are much higher than those on the rest of the JGB curve For CAD-based investors, hedging virtually all non-Canadian bonds into CAD results in yields that are higher than Canadian government bond yields, with the largest hedged yield advantage for euro area and Australian bonds For AUD-based investors, only euro area bonds offer a consistent yield pickup over Australian government bonds on an FX-hedged basis. Broadly speaking, government bonds in the euro area and Australia offer consistently attractive FX-hedged yield pickups over the unhedged bonds for all currencies shown in the tables. On the other hand, Canadian government bonds have consistently less attractive FX-hedged yields across all currencies shown. Perhaps most importantly, US Treasuries look unattractive on an FX-hedged basis to all but CAD-based investors – a result that has meaningful implications for the potential of foreign buying to help stem the rise of US bond yields. Bottom Line: The US dollar bull market is having a huge influence on global bond returns. US Treasury yields, on an FX-hedged basis, look unattractive relative to most local currency denominated bonds across the developed world. Who Are The Foreign Buyers Of US Treasuries? When simply looking at currency-unhedged yield spreads, US Treasury yields offer particularly inviting yields over low-yielding (and low “beta” to US yields) markets like Germany and Japan. The unhedged 10-year US-Germany spread is now 160bps, while the unhedged US-Japan spread is up to 286bps (Chart 6). Meanwhile, among high-beta markets, the US-Canada 10-year spread is flat on an FX-unhedged basis, while an unhedged Australian 10-year bond yields 56bps more than a 10-year US Treasury. Chart 6UST Yields Only Look Attractive In FX-Unhedged Terms UST Yields Only Look Attractive In FX-Unhedged Terms UST Yields Only Look Attractive In FX-Unhedged Terms Yet after factoring in the currency hedging costs shown earlier, US Treasuries look consistently unattractive versus the other major developed economy bond markets. Chart 7UST Yields Look Unattractive After Hedging Out USD Exposure UST Yields Look Unattractive After Hedging Out USD Exposure UST Yields Look Unattractive After Hedging Out USD Exposure ​​​​​ A 10-year US Treasury hedged into euros now yields -77bps less than a 10-year German bund, at the low end of the historical range for this spread dating back to 2000 (Chart 7). A 10-year Treasury hedged into GBP and JPY also offers lower yields versus 10-year UK Gilts (-11bps) and 10-year JGBs (-50bps), respectively. The 10-year hedged US-Australia spread (with the US yield hedged into AUD) is also at a stretched negative extreme at -114bps (Chart 8). Despite these broadly unattractive hedged US yield spreads, the US Treasury market has seen significant foreign inflows this year, according to the US Treasury Department’s capital flow (TIC) data. Total net purchases of US Treasuries by foreign buyers accelerated to $470bn (on a 12-month rolling total basis) as of the latest data for June (Chart 9). When broken down by type of buyer, private buyers bought a net $619bn, while official buyers were net sellers to the tune of -$149bn. Chart 8No Compelling Yield Advantage To Owning FX-Hedged USTs No Compelling Yield Advantage To Owning FX-Hedged USTs No Compelling Yield Advantage To Owning FX-Hedged USTs When looking at the TIC data by country, China was an important net seller of -$18bn of Treasuries. This is consistent with the reduced demand for US dollar assets from China, where policymakers are actively targeting a weaker renminbi. Chart 9TIC Data Shows USTs Seeing Foreign Buying (Ex-China) TIC Data Shows USTs Seeing Foreign Buying (Ex-China) TIC Data Shows USTs Seeing Foreign Buying (Ex-China) ​​​​​ There was also net selling from many EM countries that have seen reduced trade surpluses and, hence, fewer US dollars to recycle into Treasuries. Chart 10Even Higher UST Yields Needed To Entice Japanese & European Buyers Even Higher UST Yields Needed To Entice Japanese & European Buyers Even Higher UST Yields Needed To Entice Japanese & European Buyers The largest net buying (Chart 10) was seen from the UK (+$306bn) and Cayman Islands (+$154bn) – the latter being a large source of Treasury buying through hedge funds and offshore investment funds located there. Those two countries accounted for almost all of the net foreign inflows into Treasuries, despite the fact they only hold a combined 12% of all foreign US Treasury holdings. There was modest net buying from the euro area (+$37bn) and small net selling by the country with the largest stock of US Treasury holdings, Japan. The relatively subdued inflows from Europe, and lack of inflows from Japan, are consistent with the unattractive hedged US-Europe and US-Japan yield spreads shown earlier, particularly at a time of elevated US bond yield volatility. The huge inflows from the UK and Cayman Islands are harder to explain on a fundamental basis, but are likely due to a continued normalization of Treasury market liquidity after the spring 2020 “dash for cash”. In a report published back in January, Fed researchers analyzed foreign demand for US Treasuries around the worst of the COVID pandemic shock in 2020. The report concluded that the huge collapse in private inflows into Treasuries – from a peak of +$238bn at the start of 2020 to a trough of -$373bn at the end of 2020 – was the result of aggressive net selling by hedge funds and global mutual funds. These are exactly the types of investors that would be domiciled in the Cayman Islands and UK (London). Specifically, the Fed report noted that: “In short, two prominent reasons for the large sales are the unwind of the Treasury basis trade by hedge funds (including foreign-domiciled funds) and the sudden, massive investor outflows from mutual funds that caused these funds to sell their most liquid assets, U.S. Treasury securities, to meet these redemptions.” The “basis trade” mentioned likely involved buying cash Treasuries versus selling Treasury futures, attempting to exploit unsustainable price differences between the two. As market liquidity conditions dried up in the spring of 2020 during the first wave of global lockdowns, leveraged bond investors needed to frantically unwind positions. For Treasury basis trades, that would have involved selling cash Treasuries, which was likely what is being picked up in the TIC data from the Cayman Islands which showed a huge plunge in net buying in 2020. The mutual fund outflows were likely a global phenomenon, but given the large fund management presence in London, the huge net selling of Treasuries from the UK in 2020 were almost certainly related to global fund managers, not purely UK investors. As Treasury market liquidity conditions normalized in 2021 and 2022, those large sellers in the UK and Cayman Islands (and other offshore investment locations) have likely turned into big net buyers, as evidenced from the TIC data. However, the modest inflows from Europe, and outflows from Japan, tell a more important story about the fundamental demand for US Treasuries. Treasury yields must rise further, widening both currency-hedged and unhedged spreads versus non-US government bonds to more historically attractive levels, to entice more foreign buying. Bottom Line: UST yields must rise even further versus non-US yields to attract more fundamental buyers like Japanese and European institutional investors, given elevated volatility in both US Treasury prices and the dollar. Global investors should underweight US Treasuries in global bond portfolios, on both a currency-unhedged and USD-hedged basis.   Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com   GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Recommended Positioning     Active Duration Contribution: GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. Custom Performance Benchmark Currency Hedging Matters More Than Ever For Bond Investors Currency Hedging Matters More Than Ever For Bond Investors The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Global Fixed Income - Strategic Recommendations* Currency Hedging Matters More Than Ever For Bond Investors Currency Hedging Matters More Than Ever For Bond Investors Tactical Overlay Trades

Executive Summary   Reshoring And FDI Job Creation Have Accelerated After The Pandemic Industrials: A Trifecta Of Positives Industrials: A Trifecta Of Positives The US is entering a period of an industrial boom thanks to limited manufacturing capacity paired with strong demand for industrial and consumer goods. In addition, a trifecta of positive developments is further boosting US manufacturing: Onshoring, automation, and fiscal stimulus. Onshoring has accelerated after the onset of the pandemic and reshoring announcements are growing steadily. Automation and robotization allow industrial companies to circumvent labor shortages and rising wages and, hence, boost their profit margins.  The domestic political landscape in the US is also favorable for industrial stocks given the three major legislative Acts (Infrastructure Investment & Jobs, Inflation Reduction, and National Defense Authorization) that will secure a healthy demand pipeline. While long-term trends are favorable for the sector, a macroeconomic backdrop of slowing growth is a headwind.  However, thanks to a confluence of positive long-term trends, most companies are optimistic. Bottom Line: The US industrial sector is in the middle of a boom fueled by onshoring, automation, and favorable government policy. This trifecta of positives helps the sector to defy the gravity of the slowing economy. We remain overweight Industrials on both tactical and strategical time horizons but will continue to monitor it closely, watching out for potential cracks in operating performance. Feature A little over a year ago EMS, GIS, and USES co-published a report “Industrials as equity sector winner in the coming years”. In that report, we posited that the Industrial sector is poised for outperformance as it enjoys a boom thanks to strong new trends in onshoring and automation. In addition to the tectonic shifts described above, the sector has also found itself at the epicenter of the US legislative activity, which will provide a significant tailwind for its performance. Since we published the report on July 30, 2021, Industrials have performed in line with the S&P 500. However, since the beginning of the year, Industrials and Capital Goods outperformed the index by 7%, showing impressive resilience (Chart 1 and Table 1). Chart 1A Resilient Cyclical Sector A Resilient Cyclical Sector A Resilient Cyclical Sector In this week’s report, we take a close look at the trends highlighted above and conduct a deep dive to evaluate whether the sector is still attractive on a tactical basis considering the backdrop of rising rates and slowing economic activity. Our focus is on the Industrial sector in general, and the Capital Goods Industry Group, in particular. We will also assess which industries are best positioned for outperformance. Table 1Industrials Outperformed On The Way Down And During The Summer Rally Industrials: A Trifecta Of Positives Industrials: A Trifecta Of Positives Sneak Preview: The US industrial sector is in the middle of a boom fueled by onshoring, automation, and favorable government policy. This trifecta of positives helps the sector to defy the gravity of the slowing economy. For now, we are both strategically and tactically bullish on the sector but remain vigilant. US Manufacturing Capacity Has Been Severely Limited For Years US manufacturing capacity has been stagnant over the past 20 years, and the level of US manufacturing employment has declined by 30% since 2000 (Charts 2 & 3). Presently, manufacturing employment accounts for only 8% of total US employment. Chart 2US Manufacturing Employment Has Been Shrinking For Decades US Manufacturing Employment Has Been Shrinking For Decades US Manufacturing Employment Has Been Shrinking For Decades Chart 3US Manufacturing Capacity Has Not Expanded In The Past Two Decades US Manufacturing Capacity Has Not Expanded In The Past Two Decades US Manufacturing Capacity Has Not Expanded In The Past Two Decades The reason for the lack of capacity expansion over the past 20 years has been the outsourcing and shifting of production to other countries, especially China. The peak in US manufacturing capacity and employment occurred after the massive Asian currency devaluation in 1998 and China’s WTO admission in 2001. The semiconductor sector, which has recently come into the limelight, is a case in point: From 1990 to 2020, the percentage of chips manufactured in the US has fallen from 37% to 10%, with the lion’s share of chips manufactured in Asia. This trend has brought about The Chips Act which seeks to reverse the trend for national security reasons. Notably, more recently, the decline in manufacturing capacity and employment has started to reverse. More about this later. American Manufacturing Is Booming Again Limited manufacturing capacity paired with a strong demand for industrial and consumer goods translates into an industrial boom. Industrial companies are incentivized to expand given they are already operating at nearly full capacity (Chart 4) and enjoying considerable pricing power. Building industrial capacity in itself lifts demand for industrial goods and the US may be in the early innings of the new Capex cycle, unless the trend is derailed by headwinds from a significantly tighter monetary policy. After all, the age of US capital stock, at 24 years, is two years older than at previous peaks, indicating that many companies are overdue for replacing some of their equipment and machinery (Chart 5). Chart 4Industrial Companies Operate At Nearly Full Capacity Industrial Companies Operate At Nearly Full Capacity Industrial Companies Operate At Nearly Full Capacity Chart 5The US Capital Stock Has To Be Renewed The US Capital Stock Has To Be Renewed The US Capital Stock Has To Be Renewed Indeed, this may already be happening. According to S&P Dow Jones Indices, which analyzed second-quarter earnings season data, capital expenditures of the companies in the S&P 500, have been growing at a faster pace than stock repurchases for the first time since the first quarter of 2021, rising by 20% from a year earlier. Companies from Pepsi to Google to GM are investing in their production capacity, which in itself may be an encouraging sign that they are comfortable with the demand outlook. Of course, the caveat here is that industrials are late in cycle performance, as companies usually wait towards the end of the cycle to expand, only to find waning demand for their products. You Say “Reshoring,” I Say “Onshoring” A multi-decade decline in US manufacturing employment has started to reverse after the GFC, with the onset of the pandemic and geopolitical tensions accelerating the pace of reshoring and Foreign Direct Investing (FDI). Reshoring and FDI job announcements have increased from 6K in 2010 to 345K in 2022 (Chart 6). The resulting cumulative 950,000 incremental hires represent about 7% of US manufacturing employment. The acceleration of jobs coming back combined with the decline in the rate of offshoring has resulted in a 12-year steady uptrend in US manufacturing jobs. Truly amazing! Onshoring remains on top of mind for companies’ management. According to Statista, mentions of onshoring buzzwords in earnings calls and presentations of US public companies have increased from about 100 throughout 2020 to nearly 200 in Q2-2020. Chart 6Reshoring And FDI Job Creation Have Accelerated After The Pandemic Industrials: A Trifecta Of Positives Industrials: A Trifecta Of Positives According to Morgan Stanley’s survey of more than 400 executives of large corporations from the US to Germany to Japan, the most important factor in supply chain decisions is geopolitical stability, followed by skilled labor, physical infrastructure, and a developed supply chain ecosystem. On nearly every count, the US outranked Europe, China, and Mexico. Some 18% of the companies planned to significantly expand US manufacturing in the next 12 months, while 36% anticipated doing so within three years. More than 40% of US companies were taking steps to “onshore” supply chains. The reasons are well publicized: The COVID crisis has revealed over-dependence on imports. China’s decoupling from the US, tensions in the Taiwan Strait, and the Russian/Ukraine war have invoked concerns about the reliability of the existing supply chains. Supply chain disruptions have highlighted corporate vulnerabilities and had made companies realize that “just-in-case” trumps “just-in-time.” The US is pursuing protectionist policies that are to benefit companies operating in the US, Mexico, and Canada. According to Reshoring Initiative,1 Industrial and Tech companies are at the forefront of reshoring: Electrical Equipment, Chemicals, Transportation Equipment, Computer, and Electronic Products, and Medical Equipment suppliers are the leaders in onshoring (Table 2). Many large manufacturers such as Caterpillar have implemented or announced plans to bring offshore manufacturing back to the US. Table 2Reshoring Jobs By Top 5 Industries Industrials: A Trifecta Of Positives Industrials: A Trifecta Of Positives Will onshoring benefit some of the former manufacturing hubs? We believe it will, as Kentucky, North Carolina, Georgia, Ohio, and Alabama are the top five destinations (Table 3). However, there is a hitch. The US unemployment rate, which is at an all-time low of 3.5%, is certainly a speed limit. Moreover, companies that bring their businesses back home do realize that labor costs in this country are many times higher than, say, in Asia. Hence, one of the solutions they pursue is automation. After many years in the making, onshoring is finally gaining pace, benefiting the US manufacturing base. Table 32022 Projected Reshoring Jobs By Top 10 States Industrials: A Trifecta Of Positives Industrials: A Trifecta Of Positives Automation To The Rescue! The Pace of Robotization And Automation Is Accelerating A critical constraint for the expansion of US manufacturing is the labor shortage. Open vacancies in manufacturing are now at a record high, 100% above the 2018 peak (Chart 7, top panel). Notably, industrial companies have been experiencing difficulties hiring qualified staff over the past 10 years which has led to high wage growth (Chart 7, bottom panel). Chart 7US Manufacturers Cannot Fill Vacant Positions, Wages Are Surging US Manufacturers Cannot Fill Vacant Positions, Wages Are Surging US Manufacturers Cannot Fill Vacant Positions, Wages Are Surging Chart 8Automation Expands Profits Margins Of Global Industrials Automation Expands Profits Margins Of Global Industrials Automation Expands Profits Margins Of Global Industrials One remedy is automation. Replacing labor with automation/robots allows companies to produce more and avoid a profit margin squeeze (Chart 8). In a recent report published by the International Federation of Robotics, industrial robots reported record preliminary sales in 2021 with 486,800 units shipped globally, a 27% increase from 2020. The US has been lagging behind other developed countries in terms of automation and robotization (Chart 9). However, labor shortages brought about by the pandemic appear to have “moved the needle.” According to the Association for Advancing Automation (A3),2 the number of robots sold in the US in 2021 rose by 27% over 2020 with 49,900 units installed. 2022 is on pace to exceed previous records, with North American companies ordering a record 11,595 robots. Chart 9US Has Been Lagging Other Developed Nations In Robot Installations Industrials: A Trifecta Of Positives Industrials: A Trifecta Of Positives Non-automotive sales now represent 58% of the total, demonstrating a broadening reach of automation. Metals, Auto, and Food and Consumer Goods have the highest growth in the purchase of robots (Chart 10). Chart 10In 2021 The Pace Of Robot Installation Has Picked Up Industrials: A Trifecta Of Positives Industrials: A Trifecta Of Positives Implications For Industrial Companies The Industrials sector is home to companies that create robots and offer automation solutions as well as companies on the receiving end of the trend. Both sellers and buyers are to benefit: Buyers Of Robots: Manufacturing companies automating production and enlisting robots into their operations will enjoy higher operating leverage, lower labor costs, and more resilient margins. It is easier to automate processes in manufacturing than in service sectors. Consequently, we believe profit margins in manufacturing will outperform those of service sector companies, where automation will be slower. Sellers Of Robots: The sizzling demand for robots demonstrates that technological breakthroughs are no longer just about the Tech companies, and many industrial companies are to benefit from these nascent trends. Rockwell Automation, Eaton, and Caterpillar are the leaders in industrial automation. These companies also reach across the aisle to software companies to leverage their expertise in data storage, computing, and artificial intelligence. Rockwell has just recently partnered with Microsoft, while others are acquiring software companies. Deere has acquired GUSS Automation, a pioneer in semi-autonomous springs for high-value crops. These companies are to benefit from strong demand for their products and should exhibit strong sales and profit growth. To meet strong demand, industrial/manufacturing companies will automate their processes. This will allow them to boost volume and cap costs resulting in widening profit margins. Uncle Sam Loves American Manufacturing Both Biden and Trump before him, have stated that their overarching objective is to revive America’s manufacturing. However, their methods were drastically different, with Trump introducing tax cuts and tariffs, while Biden leans heavily on fiscal stimulus. The following is a recap of some of the recent laws passed by Congress and signed by President Biden. Infrastructure Investment And Jobs Act The $1.2-trillion Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act will increase US government non-defense spending to bring it to around 3% of GDP, a level comparable to the 1980s-90s and larger than the 2010s. The bill’s focus is on traditional infrastructure – roads, bridges, ports, and electrical grid modernization – but also includes more modern elements such as $65 billion for 5G broadband Internet and $36 billion for electric vehicles and environmental remediation (Table 4). Implementation of the bill is delayed to 2023-24. Table 4Itemized Infrastructure Plan Industrials: A Trifecta Of Positives Industrials: A Trifecta Of Positives However, the market is forward-looking and companies in Construction & Engineering, and Building Products industries are already winners, and are up 12% in relative terms since the bill was passed on November 15, 2021. The potential increase in public construction will help offset a slump in residential construction on the back of the softening housing market (Chart 11). Chart 11The Increase In Public Construction Will Help Offset A Slump In Residential Construction The Increase In Public Construction Will Help Offset A Slump In Residential Construction The Increase In Public Construction Will Help Offset A Slump In Residential Construction Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) The bill earmarks $370 billion for clean energy spending as well as EV tax credits for both new and used cars. We have written on the topic of “Green and Clean” and the effect of the IRA on renewable energy and EV industries, two industries that are major beneficiaries of the bill. However, the bill also creates an enormous opportunity for industrial companies, which can build and service renewable infrastructure, such as Quanta Services (PWR) and Eaton (ETN). Companies that produce and service wind turbines (GE) and solar batteries will also get a revenue boost from the package. Chips Act Congress has passed the CHIPS+ bill to alleviate the chip shortage and shore up US competitiveness with China. Money is earmarked for domestic semiconductor production and research, and factory construction. While the key beneficiaries are chip foundries, construction of new factories will require equipment and services of a wide range from industrial companies from Construction to Machinery. National Defense Authorization Act In December, the House and Senate Armed Services Committee leadership released the Fiscal Year 2022 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). This bill introduces an overall discretionary authorization of $768.2 billion including $740.3 billion for base Department of Defense programs and $27.8 billion for national security programs in the Department of Energy. At a later date, another $37 billion was amended to the bill to include $2.5 billion to help pay higher fuel costs; $550 million for Ukraine, funding for five ships, eight Boeing Co-made F-18 Super Hornet fighter jets, and five Lockheed Martin C-130 Hercules planes; and about $1 billion for four Patriot missile units. For FY 2023, the House has already passed $839 billion, which is $37 billion above the White House request. The Senate will work on the bill after the summer recess. But it is already clear that defense spending has become a bipartisan issue. The increase in the defense budget, as well as additional allocation of funds towards Ukraine, have been a major boost for the Aerospace and Defense industry. We overweighted the sector back in January and it is up 24% in relative terms. Overweight Or Not, That Is The Question Macroeconomic Backdrop Business Cycle: Performance of the Industrial sector tends to lag the business cycle, as sector customers tend to wait until they are sure of recovery and have high utilization of their existing capacity before they expand their own production. However, demand is not entirely cyclical, as the need to replace obsolete or aging equipment or machines is relatively stable. There is also a stark difference in behavior of the largest industrial companies and smaller companies in their ecosystems. Larger manufacturers are long-cycle as it takes months to build machines, planes, or equipment. These companies are less sensitive to the business cycle. On the other hand, their suppliers are “short cycle” as they sell parts to many customers, turn their inventory frequently, and are very sensitive to the economic condition. At present, as economic growth is slowing, long-cycle industrial companies are preferable to short-cycle ones. Despite a bifurcation in demand, Industrials tend to underperform in a generic economic slowdown (Chart 12). This is unsurprising as the relative performance of Industrials is correlated to industrial production and the ISM PMI (Chart 13). Chart 12Historically, Industrials Underperformed During The Slowdown Stage Of The Business Cycle Industrials: A Trifecta Of Positives Industrials: A Trifecta Of Positives Chart 13Industrials Usually Underperform When IP And ISM PMI Decline Industrials Usually Underperform When IP And ISM PMI Decline Industrials Usually Underperform When IP And ISM PMI Decline Chart 14Survey Of Capex Intentions Is Weakening Survey Of Capex Intentions Is Weakening Survey Of Capex Intentions Is Weakening And while we touted the beginning of the new industrial boom in the US, and a brand new Capex cycle, we need to monitor it carefully, as multiple surveys of Capex intentions are decelerating (Chart 14). Tighter Monetary Policy: Another potential headwind comes from rising rates. After all, the higher cost of corporate borrowing may weigh on demand for industrial goods. However, historically, US industrial stocks outperformed the S&P 500 Index in the past 70 years during periods of rising bond yields, including the inflation decade of the 1970s (Chart 15). Industrial companies are well positioned to withstand inflation as strong pricing power allows them to pass on their costs to customers. Chart 15When Rates Rise, Industrials Outperform When Rates Rise, Industrials Outperform When Rates Rise, Industrials Outperform The macroeconomic backdrop presents challenges to Industrial companies Fundamentals Are Strong Significant Pricing Power: While dangers are looming in the macroeconomic backdrop, so far industrial companies have been doing well thanks to their significant pricing power (Chart 16), which they enjoy due to high capacity utilization. The relationship between capacity utilization and selling prices is not linear but exponential. When capacity reaches its limit and shortages arise, potential buyers will likely be willing to pay considerably higher prices to secure the supply of goods that they require. High Operating Leverage: In addition to high pricing power, industrial companies enjoy high operating leverage, which implies that while the economy is growing, even if at a slower pace, they can easily convert sales into profits. This will not be the case when the economy is outright contracting – then high operating leverage will become a liability. Chart 16Industrials Enjoy Substantial Pricing Power Industrials Enjoy Substantial Pricing Power Industrials Enjoy Substantial Pricing Power Strong Q2-2022 Earnings And Sales Results: This explains the strong Q2-2022 sales and earnings results of the Industrial sector. Industrial earnings grew at 17.4%, while its sales increased by 13.3% – a remarkable feat, considering that many companies, especially consumer-facing ones, are struggling with shrinking profitability – earnings growth of the Consumer Discretionary sector was down 12.6%. Clearly, business-to-business companies are faring much better than consumer-facing ones, whose demand was pulled forward by the pandemic, and whose customers are reeling from rising prices and are tightening their belts. Looking ahead, margins are expected to shrink by 0.5% (Chart 17), which is modest compared to the 2.5% contraction expected for the S&P 500. In terms of earnings growth expectations, they have fallen but still exceed the market by an impressive 10% even after a series of downgrades. Importantly, earnings growth in real terms is also positive (Charts 18 & 19). Chart 17Operating Margins Are Expected To Hold Up Well Operating Margins Are Expected To Hold Up Well Operating Margins Are Expected To Hold Up Well Chart 18Industrial Earnings Will Grow Faster Than The Market Industrial Earnings Will Grow Faster Than The Market Industrial Earnings Will Grow Faster Than The Market Chart 19Earnings Expectations Have Been Re-calibrated Earnings Expectations Have Been Re-calibrated Earnings Expectations Have Been Re-calibrated What Companies Are Saying All the charts and numbers align well with what we have heard from companies during the earnings season. For instance, nearly every major player within its own respective sub-industry reported healthy demand, low inventories, and a hefty backlog this quarter. Here are a few quotes from the largest players: Caterpillar (CAT): “We expect production and utilization levels will remain elevated, and our autonomous solutions continued to gain momentum … overall demand remained healthy across our segments … was unable to completely satisfy strong customer demand for our machines and engines.” MMM: “Continued strong demand for our solutions in semiconductor, factory automation, and automotive end markets.” GE: “In Renewables, … we are making progress. Our pricing has substantially improved onshore … we're growing our higher-margin businesses, such as grid automation, which delivered double-digit orders growth.” Honeywell (HON): “Orders were up 12% year over year and closing backlog was also up 12% year over year.” The profitability of the Industrial sector is expected to be resilient and to better the market. Valuations And Technicals The Industrial sector and the Capital Goods Industry group trade on par with the S&P 500 on a forward earnings basis (17.7x and 17.9x to 18.0x). The BCA Valuations Indicator signals a neutral level of valuation which is roughly in line with the 10-year average. From the BCA Technical Indicator standpoint, Capitals Goods are also in the neutral zone (Chart 20). Valuations and technicals are moderate for the sector. Chart 20Valuations And Technicals Valuations And Technicals Valuations And Technicals Investment Implications The US industrial sector is in the middle of a boom fueled by a trifecta of positives: Onshoring, automation, and favorable government policy. And while it is hard to fight the Fed and the business cycle, it appears that for now, the sector is defying gravity despite slowing manufacturing surveys and tighter monetary policy. So far fundamentals appear strong, and earnings expectations are robust thanks to the high pricing power and operating leverage of the sector. Within Capital Goods, we favor industries and companies that benefit from these tailwinds: Aerospace and Defense which is to benefit from increased federal defense spending; Robotics and Automation which is overrepresented in the Electrical Equipment industry; and Renewables, i.e., companies that manufacture and service wind turbines and solar panels. Construction and building materials will have a second breath when Infrastructure spending projects will actually get selected and approved. We are both strategically and tactically bullish on the sector but will monitor it closely from a tactical standpoint. After all, industrial surveys are at odds with the resilient earnings expectations. ETFs There are a number of very inexpensive and highly liquid ETFs from Vanguard, iShares, and State Street, that capture the performance of the Industrial sector (Table 5). Table 5Industrial Sector ETFs Industrials: A Trifecta Of Positives Industrials: A Trifecta Of Positives Bottom Line The US industrial sector is in the middle of a boom fueled by onshoring, automation, and favorable government policy. This trifecta of positives helps the sector to defy the gravity of the slowing economy. Companies are optimistic and earnings growth expectations are both robust and resilient. We are both strategically and tactically bullish on the sector but will continue to monitor it closely, watching out for potential cracks in operating performance.   Irene Tunkel Chief Strategist, US Equity Strategy irene.tunkel@bcaresearch.com     Footnotes 1     Reshoring Initiative reshorenow.org 2     https://www.automate.org/   Strategic View Open Tactical Positions (0-6 Months) Open Cyclical Recommendations (6-18 Months) Table A2Political Risk Matrix Industrials: A Trifecta Of Positives Industrials: A Trifecta Of Positives Table A3US Political Capital Index Industrials: A Trifecta Of Positives Industrials: A Trifecta Of Positives Chart A1Presidential Election Model Third Quarter US Political Outlook: Last Ditch Effort Third Quarter US Political Outlook: Last Ditch Effort Chart A2Senate Election Model Third Quarter US Political Outlook: Last Ditch Effort Third Quarter US Political Outlook: Last Ditch Effort  Table A4House Election Model Biden's Midterm Tactics Bear Fruit… But There's A Snake Biden's Midterm Tactics Bear Fruit… But There's A Snake Table A5APolitical Capital: White House And Congress Industrials: A Trifecta Of Positives Industrials: A Trifecta Of Positives Table A5BPolitical Capital: Household And Business Sentiment Industrials: A Trifecta Of Positives Industrials: A Trifecta Of Positives Table A5CPolitical Capital: The Economy And Markets Industrials: A Trifecta Of Positives Industrials: A Trifecta Of Positives  

Executive Summary   Surging Electricity, Gas Prices Will Fuel Higher Inflation Energy-Price Surge Will Drive Inflation Higher Energy-Price Surge Will Drive Inflation Higher Heat waves in the Northern Hemisphere are sending electricity and natgas prices through the roof, which will feed into higher inflation prints in the months ahead. Heat waves and droughts this summer also will damage crops, and, on the back of higher natgas prices, will raise the cost of fertilizer, and push food prices up. Central banks attempting to control inflation cannot address exogenous supply shocks related to weather and commodity shortages via monetary policy, which will complicate their attempts to rein in inflation. Higher prices for necessary commodities – heat, cooling and food – will, perforce, account for increasing shares of firms’ operating expenses and household budgets. This will reduce spending on other goods and services. And it will provide central banks with some policy space to keep rate hikes from becoming so draconian they add unmanageable strains to firms’ and households’ budgets. Bottom Line: A remarkable confluence of exogenous weather shocks and supply constraints in commodity markets will push food and energy prices higher, and raise inflation expectations. Further down the line, supplies of base metals will come under pressure, as refinery and smelting operations are curtailed. We remain long direct commodity exposure via the COMT ETF. We also remain long equity exposure to oil and gas producers and miners via XOP and XME ETFs, respectively, (please see tables at the back of this report for details). Feature Electricity and natural gas prices continue to surge in Europe – this week on the back of reduced wind-power availability and higher air-conditioning demand (Chart 1). Meanwhile, Brent crude oil prices again were trading above $100/bbl earlier this week.1 Related Report  Commodity & Energy StrategyTight Commodity Markets: Persistently High Inflation             Elsewhere in the Northern Hemisphere, energy prices in the US also are trading higher, as are agricultural commodities. In the US, drought and heat are stressing grains. The US Climate Prediction Center is expecting hotter- and dryer-than-average weather conditions until November.2 In China, drought and heat waves are straining the electricity network. Energy rationing is forcing curtailments of power and closures of factories and metals refineries, and limiting exports of fertilizers; natural gas comprises ~ 70% of fertilizer inputs. Chart 1Surging Electricity, Gas Prices Will Fuel Higher Inflation Energy-Price Surge Will Drive Inflation Higher Energy-Price Surge Will Drive Inflation Higher Higher Energy, Grain Prices; Higher Inflation Chart 2AFood, Energy Drive US, EU Inflation Energy-Price Surge Will Drive Inflation Higher Energy-Price Surge Will Drive Inflation Higher Chart 2BFood, Energy Drive US, EU Inflation Energy-Price Surge Will Drive Inflation Higher Energy-Price Surge Will Drive Inflation Higher Higher energy and food prices will continue to drive inflation gauges in the US (Chart 2A) and Europe (Chart 2B). Our modeling shows the Bloomberg energy, agricultural and base metals spot subindexes – aggregations of the futures in the complete index – are cointegrated with the 5-year/5-year CPI swaps (5y5y CPI), meaning these series share a common long-term trend (Chart 3). The complete Bloomberg Commodity index based on prompt-delivery contracts also is cointegrated with CPI 5y5y inflation expectations, as is the 3-year forward WTI futures, which is one of the strongest relationships (Chart 4). Chart 35Y5Y CPI Inflation Expectations Move With Commodity Groups 5Y5Y CPI Inflation Expectations Move With Commodity Groups 5Y5Y CPI Inflation Expectations Move With Commodity Groups Chart 4Spot Commodities Impact 5y5y Expectations Spot Commodities Impact 5y5y Expectations Spot Commodities Impact 5y5y Expectations We continue to expect higher Brent and WTI crude oil prices going forward, particularly following the announcement from Saudi Arabia’s oil minister earlier this week that cutting oil production – say, in the event the US and Iran agree to revive the nuclear deal proffered by the EU – remains among its options to manage its production.3 For 4Q22, we expect Brent to trade at $119/bbl, while next year we expect prices to average $117/bbl. Any shock that moves Brent and WTI higher will push inflation higher. Fed Policy Rates And Commodities In earlier research, we noted oil prices are more than an input cost for manufacturing, mining, agriculture, etc. We share the ECB’s view that the oil price is a barometer of global economic activity, as well as being an input cost and the price of an asset.4 In this report, we delve into the relationship between Fed policy and commodity markets, specifically oil prices. We believe we have identified a feedback loop between market-cleared crude oil prices and Fed monetary policy vis-à-vis setting the Fed funds rate. We use the following theoretical framework to study this. High crude-oil prices feed into general price levels, which drive up inflation and inflation expectations as revealed in the CPI 5y5y swaps. Seeing this, the Fed begins to signal it will tighten monetary policy, trying to cool aggregate demand. On the other side of the coin, low crude oil prices drive inflation and inflation expectations lower – assuming markets are not in the midst of a market-share war – giving the Fed space to run a looser monetary policy. Granger Causality tests provide evidence of a short-term relationship between crude oil futures prices, inflation expectations evident in the 5y5y CPI swaps market, and Fed funds rate expectations revealed in the 1-year/1-year (1y1y) US Overnight Indexed Swap rates. We find past and present values of the front-month WTI contract help predict market expectations of 1-year Fed funds rates one year from now.5 What is interesting about this result is that we find Granger Causality between the expected Fed funds rates revealed in the 1y1y US OIS rate and 3-year forward WTI futures, which is a strong explanatory variable for 5y5y CPI swaps. This is to say, the 1y1y OIS rate Granger Causes the 3-year WTI futures, but not vice versa. Consistent with the feedback loop we posit between crude oil futures and Fed funds rates, we find that past and present values of the 1y1y Fed funds rate derived from the OIS curve help predict expected WTI prices 3 years forward. This means the 3-year WTI futures are reacting to short-term inflation expectations revealed in the OIS rates – and, most likely, the Fed’s assumed policy-response function contained in forward guidance – which, in turn, is used to calibrate 5y5y CPI swaps expectations (Chart 5). Chart 5Forward Oil Prices Drive 5y5y CPI Swaps Forward Oil Prices Drive 5y5y CPI Swaps Forward Oil Prices Drive 5y5y CPI Swaps Investment Implications Weather shocks – drought and heat waves across the Northern Hemisphere – and supply constraints (energy demand in excess of energy supply) will push food and energy prices higher, and lift inflation and inflation expectations. Tight natural gas markets will increase the cost of fertilizer, which will keep grain prices elevated. Further down the line, supplies of base metals will come under pressure, as refinery and smelting operations are curtailed. We remain long direct commodity exposure via the COMT ETF. We also remain long equity exposure to oil and gas producers and miners via XOP and XME ETFs, respectively.   Robert P. Ryan Chief Commodity & Energy Strategist rryan@bcaresearch.com Ashwin Shyam Research Analyst Commodity & Energy Strategy ashwin.shyam@bcaresearch.com Paula Struk Research Associate Commodity & Energy Strategy paula.struk@bcaresearch.com   Commodities Round-Up Energy: Bullish US commercial crude oil inventories ex-SPR barrels fell 3.3mm barrels week-on-week for the week ended 19 August 2022, according to the EIA. Including SPR barrels, total US crude oil inventories were down 11.4mm barrels. Total US oil stocks – crude and products – including the SPR barrels were down 6.7mm barrels; without the SPR draws, inventories built 1.4mm barrels. The US SPR now stands at 453.1 million barrels, the lowest since January 1985, according to reuters.com. The US has made 1mm b/d available to the market from its SPR over since May; this program will terminate at the end of October. We expect the SPR release will be extended, if the US and Iran cannot agree to extend the Iran nuclear deal in the near future. Low-sulfur distillates fell 1.7mm barrels, reflecting tight inventories of diesel, heating oil and jet fuel (Chart 6). Total products supplied (the EIA’s nomenclature for demand) fell 2.5mm b/d y/y, and now stands at 19.34mm b/d. Base Metals: Bullish Iron ore prices rose on Chinese growth prospects following the People’s Bank of China (PBoC) decision to cut lending rates on Monday, one week after its initial rate cut. More aggressive policy will be needed to stimulate credit activity and growth in an economy which has to contend with a zero COVID tolerance policy and a faltering property market. With no dearth of money in the economy, credit demand maybe the issue, not supply. M2 money supply – which includes cash and deposits - rose 12% y/y in July, while new bank lending dropped nearly 40% y/y (Chart 7). Precious Metals: Neutral Gold prices on Tuesday were supported by weak US manufacturing and household sales data. Significant support for the yellow metal will occur after the US Federal Reserve begins reducing interest rates, which we do not believe will occur this year. The Fed will continue tightening monetary policy, at the risk of increasing unemployment. Chart 6 Energy-Price Surge Will Drive Inflation Higher Energy-Price Surge Will Drive Inflation Higher Chart 7 M2 Money Supply Increasing While New Bank Loans Decreasing M2 Money Supply Increasing While New Bank Loans Decreasing       Footnotes 1     Please see European Power Prices Smash Records in Another Inflation Blow published by bloomberg.com on August 23, 2022. The surge in prices has lifted European power prices above the equivalent of $1,000/bbl, more than 10x the Brent price on Wednesday. See also Drought Negatively Impacting China, the U.S. and Europe, as Ukrainian Black Sea Exports Continue published on August 22, 2022 by farmpolicynews.illinois.edu. 2     Please see Prognostic Discussion for Long-Lead Seasonal Outlooks published by the National Weather Service’s Climate Prediction Center on August 18, 2022. See also Farm Futures Daily AM - U.S., China heat concerns lift grains - 08/24 (penton.com) for a summary of ag market trading and crop conditions. 3    Please see Oil pares losses after Saudi oilmin says OPEC+ has options including cuts published by reuters.com on August 22, 2022. 4    At a high level of abstraction, we model crude oil demand as a function of real GDP, while supply is assumed to react to realized demand – i.e., oil producers are data-dependent vis-à-vis the volume of crude they produce to meet demand. Our crude-oil price estimate is calculated using supply, demand and inventories – along with US financial variables. In other words, our model uses real and financial variables to estimate a crude-oil price, which, we contend, qualifies it as a summary statistic for the variables on the right-hand side of our model. Please see Tight Commodity Markets: Persistently High Inflation, a Special Report we published on March 24, 2022 for further discussion. We note this is aligned with the way the ECB thinks about oil prices. It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 5    Market expectations for the US federal funds rate are derived using US Overnight Indexed Swap rates. The US Secured Overnight Financing Rate (SOFR) is used as the floating rate for the swap deal and tracks the federal funds rate.   Investment Views and Themes Strategic Recommendations Trades Closed in 2022

Highlights The risk of a US recession has increased sharply over the past several months. We have not yet concluded that a recession over the coming year is inevitable, but substantial (further) supply-side and pandemic-related disinflation is likely needed for the US economy to avoid a contraction in output. The increased risk of a contraction has caused investors to ponder what the next recession might look like. One very important question concerns the likely behavior of short-term interest rates during the next recession, especially if it occurs sooner rather than later. The historical experience suggests that the Fed may cut interest rates to zero during the next recession, but that the re-establishment of a long-lasting zero interest rate policy and the associated resumption of large-scale asset purchases seem quite unlikely unless the recession is severe. In the post-WWII environment, severe US recessions have been accompanied by aggravating factors that appear to be missing in the current environment. In addition, there are several arguments pointing to the next US recession being a mild one. For fixed-income investors, the implication is that investors should not overstay their welcome in a long-duration position during the next US recession, and should be looking to reduce their duration exposure earlier rather than later. For equity investors, our findings underscore that meaningful downside risk exists for stocks even in a mild recession environment, because the decline in bond yields is not likely to offset a rise in the equity risk premium. Feature Over the past several months, investors have been faced with a sharp increase in the odds of a US recession. Gauging the risk of a recession has featured prominently in our recent reports, and we have concluded, for now, that a US recession over the coming year is not yet inevitable. Still, we acknowledge that the risks are quite elevated, and that substantial (further) supply-side and pandemic-related disinflation is likely needed for the US economy to avoid a contraction in output. Economic expansions do not last forever. This means that the US economy will eventually succumb to a recession at some point over the coming few years. One very important question for investors concerns the likely behavior of short-term interest rates during the next recession, especially if a contraction occurs sooner rather than later. A key aspect of this question is whether the Fed is likely to be forced back towards a zero or negative interest rate policy, and whether it will need to employ asset purchases as part of its stabilization efforts as it has during the last two recessions. If so, long-maturity bond yields are likely to fall significantly during the next recession; if not, investors may be surprised by how modestly long-maturity yields decline. In this report, we examine the historical record of short-term interest rates during recessions and discuss whether the next US recession is likely to be severe or mild. We conclude that the next US recession is more likely to be mild than severe, and that the 10-year Treasury yield is unlikely to fall below 2% during the recession (or fall below this level for very long). In the case of a more severe recession driven by unanchored inflation expectations, the implications would be clearly bearish for bonds. Within a fixed-income portfolio, one conclusion of our analysis is that investors should not overstay their welcome in a long-duration position during the next recession and should be looking to reduce their duration exposure earlier rather than later. For equity investors, our findings underscore that meaningful downside risk exists for stocks even in a mild recession environment, because the decline in bond yields is not likely to offset a rise in the equity risk premium. The Historical Recessionary Path Of Short-Term Interest Rates When projecting how the Fed funds rate is likely to evolve during the next US recession, most investors typically look to the average decline in short-term interest rates during previous recessions as a guide. Based on that approach, Table II-1 highlights that the Fed would likely have to cut rates into negative territory if a recession occurred over the coming 12-18 months, unless it is able to hike interest rates significantly more over the coming year than the market is currently expecting and the FOMC itself is projecting. But in our view, focusing on the historical recessionary decline in interest rates from their peak is not the right approach, because it ignores the fact that recessions typically occur when monetary policy is tight. If a recession occurs within the next 18 months, it will have happened in large part because of a collapse in real wage growth, not just because of the increase in interest rates that has occurred. Chart II-1 highlights that short-term interest rates remain well below potential GDP growth, highlighting that monetary policy would still be easy today – despite the quick pace of increase in short rates – if real wages were growing rather than contracting sharply. In our view, the right approach is to examine how much short-term interest rates have typically fallen during recessions relative to potential or average historical GDP growth. This method captures the degree to which monetary policy easing has typically been required relative to neutral levels to catalyze an economic recovery. Table II-1Based Only On The Historical Decline In Short-Term Interest Rates, The Fed Would Ostensibly Have To Cut Rates Into Negative Territory During The Next Recession September 2022 September 2022 Chart II-1Monetary Policy Would Still Be Easy Today If Real Wage Growth Was Positive Monetary Policy Would Still Be Easy Today If Real Wage Growth Was Positive Monetary Policy Would Still Be Easy Today If Real Wage Growth Was Positive Based on this approach, Chart II-2 highlights that the Fed might have to cut the target range for the Fed funds rate to 0-0.25% during the next recession, but there are some examples (like the 1990-1991 recession) that point to a cut to just 0.25-0.5%. The goal of this exercise is not to be specific about the exact level to which the Fed will have to cut the Fed funds rate, but rather whether the de facto re-establishment of a long-lasting zero interest rate policy and the associated resumption of large-scale asset purchases is likely. Chart II-2The Fed May Have To Cut To Zero During The Next Recession, But Probably Not Into Negative Territory September 2022 September 2022 Structural bond bulls might note that there are five recessions in the post-war era that could potentially point to that outcome based on Chart II-2. However, these episodes involved circumstances that we doubt would be present during the next US recession, especially if one were to emerge over the coming 12-18 months. The 1950s Recessions The recessions of 1953-54 and 1957-58 were fairly sizeable based on the total rise in the unemployment rate, but the monetary policy stance at that time was wildly stimulative in a way that is very unlikely to repeat itself today. In the 1950s, the level of interest rates was still an artifact of WWII (with the Treasury-Fed accord having only been agreed upon in March 1951). Monetary policy was both overly responsive to a period of pent-up disinflation following the initial burst of government spending associated with the Korean war and insufficiently responsive to a strongly positive output gap (Chart II-3). This was meaningfully compounded by a poor understanding of the size of the output gap at that time; the deviation of the unemployment rate from its 10-year average was significantly smaller than its deviation from today’s estimate of NAIRU (Chart II-4). In sum, the economic and monetary policy conditions that existed in the 1950s and that contributed to an interest rate level that was well below the prevailing rate of economic growth do not exist today. As such, we strongly doubt that the Fed’s response to the next US recession would resemble what occurred during that decade. Chart II-3We Strongly Doubt The Fed's Response To The Next US Recession Would Resemble What Occurred In The 1950s We Strongly Doubt The Fed's Response To The Next US Recession Would Resemble What Occurred In The 1950s We Strongly Doubt The Fed's Response To The Next US Recession Would Resemble What Occurred In The 1950s Chart II-4Low Interest Rates In The 1950s Were Partly Caused By Wrong Output Gap Estimates Low Interest Rates In The 1950s Were Partly Caused By Wrong Output Gap Estimates Low Interest Rates In The 1950s Were Partly Caused By Wrong Output Gap Estimates   1973-1975 The recession that began in 1973 occurred because of a huge energy shock that proved to be stagflationary in the true sense of the word. Excluding the 2020 recession, this was the third largest rise in the unemployment rate of any recession since WWII, following 2008/2009 and the 1981/1982 recessions. There are some parallels between this recession and the current economic environment, but the stability of inflation expectations so far does not point to a truly stagflationary outcome. As such, we do not see the 1973-74 recession as a reasonable parallel to today’s environment. In addition, manufacturing employment – which was heavily impacted by the permanent rise in oil prices due to the sector’s energy intensity – stood at 24% of total nonfarm employment in 1973, compared with 8% today. Finally, the weight of food and energy as a share of total consumer spending today is roughly half of what it was during the 1970s (Chart II-5). 2001 Of the five recessions potentially implying that the Fed may have to cut interest rates into negative territory during the next US recession, the 2001 recession is the most relevant parallel to today. It was a modern recession in which the Fed maintained very easy monetary policy for a significant amount of time, in response to concerns about a significant tightening in financial conditions and the impact of prior corporate sector excesses on aggregate demand. The total rise in the unemployment rate during this recession was not very large, but it took some time for the unemployment rate to return to NAIRU. Still, even though this justified a later liftoff, a Taylor rule approach makes it clear that the Fed overstimulated the economy in response to the recession – a view that is reinforced by the enormous rise in household debt that fueled the housing market bubble during that period (Chart II-6). The Fed was very concerned about the negative wealth effects of the bursting of the equity market bubble, which had been caused by a massive decline in the equity risk premium in the second half of the 1990s. These conditions are simply not present today. Chart II-5Today's US Economy Is Meaningfully Less Impacted By Energy And Food Prices Today's US Economy Is Meaningfully Less Impacted By Energy And Food Prices Today's US Economy Is Meaningfully Less Impacted By Energy And Food Prices Chart II-6The Fed Clearly Overstimulated In Response To The 2001 Recession The Fed Clearly Overstimulated In Response To The 2001 Recession The Fed Clearly Overstimulated In Response To The 2001 Recession 2008/2009 Chart II-7A Repeat Of The 2008/2009 Recession In The US Is A Totally Implausible Scenario A Repeat Of The 2008/2009 Recession In The US Is A Totally Implausible Scenario A Repeat Of The 2008/2009 Recession In The US Is A Totally Implausible Scenario Chart II-2 highlighted that the Fed would have to cut interest rates to -1% were the 2008/2009 recession to repeat itself, but we judge that to be a totally implausible scenario given the improvement in US household sector balance sheets and financial sector health since the global financial crisis (Chart II-7). As we discuss below, the next US recession is likely to be meaningfully less severe than the 2008/2009 and 2020 recessions, which we believe carries important significance for the path of interest rates and the response of long-maturity bond yields. The bottom line for investors is that, based on the historical experience of rate cuts during recessions, the Fed may end up cutting interest rates back to or close to the zero lower bound in response to the next recession. But the de facto re-establishment of a long-lasting zero interest rate policy and the associated resumption of large-scale asset purchases seems quite unlikely unless the recession is severe, which we do not expect. Will The Next US Recession Be Severe Or Mild? Chart II-8The Most Severe US Recessions Have Had Aggravating Factors That Do Not Appear To Be Present Today September 2022 September 2022 How drastically the Fed will be forced to cut interest rates during the next recession will be driven by its severity. Chart II-8 presents the total rise in the unemployment rate during post-WWII recessions (excluding 2020), in order to gauge whether the factors that have led to severe recessions in the past are likely to be present during the next contraction in output. From our perspective, the most severe US recessions in the post-WWII era have been driven by factors that are very unlikely to repeat themselves in the current environment. We noted above that a repeat of the 2008/2009 recession is a totally implausible scenario, leaving the 1981-1982, 1973-1975, and 1950s recessions as potential severe recession analogues. In three of these four cases we see clear signs of an aggravating factor that we do not (yet) believe will be present during the next US recession. Chart II-9Inflation Expectations Have Not Yet Unanchored To The Upside, In Sharp Contrast To The 1970s Inflation Expectations Have Not Yet Unanchored To The Upside, In Sharp Contrast To The 1970s Inflation Expectations Have Not Yet Unanchored To The Upside, In Sharp Contrast To The 1970s In the 1981-1982 recession, the unemployment rate rose significantly as the Federal Reserve confronted the fact that inflation expectations had become severely unanchored to the upside, causing a persistent wage/price spiral. While unanchored inflation expectations is a risk today, so far the evidence suggests that both households and market participants expect that currently elevated inflation will not persist over the long run (Chart II-9). If inflation expectations do become unanchored to the upside at some point over the coming 12-18 months (or beyond), we are very likely to change our view about the severity of the next recession. However, this would be a bond bearish outcome (at least initially), as it would imply sharply higher yields at both the short and long end of the yield curve in order to tame inflation and re-anchor inflation expectations. As noted above, in the 1973-74 recession, the unexpected and permanent rise in oil prices and outright energy shortages rendered a significant amount of capital and labor uneconomic, which is different than what has been occurring during the pandemic. Were the recent rise in natural gas prices to be permanent and no alternatives available, Europe’s current energy situation would be more reminiscent of the 1973-1974 recession than the pandemic-driven price pressures and supply shortages affecting the US and other developed economies. Chart II-10The US Is Currently Experiencing Fiscal Drag, But That Will Lessen Next Year The US Is Currently Experiencing Fiscal Drag, But That Will Lessen Next Year The US Is Currently Experiencing Fiscal Drag, But That Will Lessen Next Year Finally, while the 1957-58 recession appears to be somewhat of an anomaly driven by a mix of factors, the 1953-54 recession was clearly exacerbated by a sharp slowdown in government spending following the end of the Korean war. It is true that the US is currently experiencing fiscal drag (Chart II-10), but this has occurred against the backdrop of a strong labor market, and IMF forecasts imply that the drag will be significantly smaller over the coming year than what the US is currently experiencing. There are several additional points suggesting that the next US recession will be comparatively mild: Chart II-11The Milder US Recessions Were All Seemingly Triggered By Tight Monetary Policy (As Would Be The Case Today) The Milder US Recessions Were All Seemingly Triggered By Tight Monetary Policy (As Would Be The Case Today) The Milder US Recessions Were All Seemingly Triggered By Tight Monetary Policy (As Would Be The Case Today) Chart II-11 highlights that the milder recessions, those which have seen the unemployment rate rise by less than 3% from their previous low, have generally been the recessions that appear to have simply been triggered by monetary policy becoming tight or nearly tight. This would likely be the case during the next US recession. In the lead up to the 1970, 1990-91, and 2001 recessions, short-term interest rates approached or exceeded either potential growth or the rolling 10-year average growth rate of nominal GDP. The 1960-61 recession stands out slightly as an exception to this rule, in that interest rates were still moderately easy, which is based on our definition of the equilibrium short-term interest rate. But interest rates had risen close to 400 basis points from 1958 to 1960 (suggesting a change in addition to a level effect of interest rates on aggregate demand), and it is notable that the 60-61 recession was the mildest in post-war history, based on the total rise in the unemployment rate. Chart II-12Labor Scarcity May Mean That Firms Will Be Somewhat More Reluctant To Shed Labor During The Next Recession Labor Scarcity May Mean That Firms Will Be Somewhat More Reluctant To Shed Labor During The Next Recession Labor Scarcity May Mean That Firms Will Be Somewhat More Reluctant To Shed Labor During The Next Recession We argued in Section 1 of our report that monetary policy is not currently restrictive on its own, and that the recessionary risk currently facing the US is the result of a combination of the speed of adjustment in interest rates, the fact that real wages have fallen sharply, and the fact that the Fed is determined to see inflation quickly return to target levels. However, what this also highlights is that a recession would likely cause a rise in real wages via a significant slowdown in inflation (at least for a time); this would likely help stabilize aggregate demand and cause a comparatively mild rise in the unemployment rate. While the odds and magnitude of this effect are difficult to quantify, the fact that the labor market has been so tight over the past year and that the participation rate has yet to recover to its pre-pandemic levels suggests that some firms may be reluctant to shed labor during a recession (Chart II-12), suggesting that the total rise in unemployment in the next recession could be relatively small. Finally, Chart II-13 shows that the excess savings that have accumulated over the course of the pandemic, now primarily the result of reduced spending on services, dwarf the magnitude of precautionary savings that were generated in the prior three recessions as a % of GDP. We agree that the savings rate would likely still rise during the next recession, but the existence of excess savings implies that the rise in the savings rate may be surprisingly small – which would, in turn, imply a comparatively mild rise in the unemployment rate. We noted above that the household sector has deleveraged significantly, which is strong evidence against an outsized or long-lasting decline in consumer spending as a possible driver of an above-average rise in the unemployment rate during the next recession. One question that we often receive from clients is whether excessive corporate sector leverage could cause a more severe decline in economic activity once a recession emerges. Chart II-14 illustrates that the answer is “probably not.” The chart presents one estimate of the US nonfinancial corporate sector debt service ratio, based on national accounts data. The chart highlights that the current debt burden for the nonfinancial corporate sector is very low, underscoring that elevated corporate sector debt would not likely act as an aggravating factor driving an outsized rise in the unemployment rate were a recession to occur today. The chart also shows that even if the 10-year Treasury yield were to rise to 4% and corporate bond spreads were to widen in the lead up to a recession, the nonfinancial corporate sector debt service burden would rise to a lower peak than seen in the last three recessions. One key risk to a mild recession view is a scenario in which inflation does not return to or below the Fed’s target during the recession. In that kind of environment, the Fed would not likely cut interest rates to as low a level as they have in the past relative to potential growth. But the historical record is clear that recessions cause a deceleration in inflation, and if a recession emerges over the coming 12-18 months it will likely happen after supply-side and pandemic-related disinflation has already occurred. That means that inflation is likely to move back to or below the Fed’s target in a recessionary environment. We should note that this assessment differs somewhat from the scenario described by my former colleague Martin Barnes, who wrote a guest report on inflation published in our July Bank Credit Analyst.1 Chart II-13Today’s Pandemic-Related Excess Savings Dwarf Precautionary Savings During The Prior Three Recessions September 2022 September 2022 Chart II-14US Corporate Sector Debt Unlikely To Lead To A More Severe Recession, Even In A Higher Yield Environment US Corporate Sector Debt Unlikely To Lead To A More Severe Recession, Even In A Higher Yield Environment US Corporate Sector Debt Unlikely To Lead To A More Severe Recession, Even In A Higher Yield Environment   Long-Maturity Bond Yields And The Next US Recession What does our analysis imply for long-maturity bond yields and the duration call over the coming few years? In order to judge what is likely to happen to long-maturity bond yields in a recession scenario over the coming 12-18 months, we first project the fair value of the 5-year Treasury yield based on the following hypothetical circumstances: The onset of recession in March 2023 and a peak in the Fed funds rate at a target range of 3.75-4%. A recession duration of eight months, over which time the Fed steadily cuts the policy rate to 0-0.25%. An initial Fed rate hike in September 2024, nine months following the end of the recession, consistent with a relatively short return of the unemployment rate to NAIRU as an expansion takes hold. A rate hike pace of eight quarter-point hikes per year, with the Fed again raising rates to a peak of 4% A longer-term average Fed funds rate of 3%, which we regard as a low estimate. Chart II-15The 5-Year Treasury Yield Would Not Fall Enormously In A Mild Recessionary Scenario The 5-Year Treasury Yield Would Not Fall Enormously In A Mild Recessionary Scenario The 5-Year Treasury Yield Would Not Fall Enormously In A Mild Recessionary Scenario Chart II-15 highlights the fair value path for the 5-year Treasury yield in this scenario. Not surprisingly, the fair value today is lower than the current level of the 5-year yield, highlighting that a shift to a long duration stance will be warranted at some point over the coming year if the US economy enters a non-technical, typical income-statement recession. However, the chart also highlights that a long duration position is not likely to be warranted for very long, given that the lowest level of the 5-year fair value path is substantially higher than it was in 2020 and 2021 and is also higher than its 10-year average. Chart II-16 reveals the importance of forecasting the near-term path of interest rates when predicting the likely behavior of long-maturity bond yields. Even though near- and long-term interest rate expectations should be at least somewhat differentiated, the chart highlights that the real 5-year/5-year forward Treasury yield is very closely explained by the real 5-year Treasury yield and a 3-year lag of our adaptive inflation expectations model (which is highly consistent with BCA’s Golden Rule of bond investing framework). Chart II-16 shows that long-maturity bond yields should be higher than they are based on the current level of real 5-year yields and lagged inflation expectations, underscoring the point that we made in Section 1 of our report that significant upside risk exists for long-maturity bond yields in a non-recessionary outcome over the coming year. In a recessionary outcome, it is clear that bond yields will fall as the Fed cuts interest rates, as Chart II-15 demonstrated. But, Chart II-17 highlights that during recessions, there is little precedent for a negative 5-10 yield curve slope outside of the context of the persistently high inflation environment of the late 1960s and 1970s. Applying that template to the fair value path that we showed in Chart II-15 suggests that the 10-year Treasury yield will not fall below 2% during the next recession. As we noted in our August report,2 a 10-year Treasury yield decline to 2% would result in significant performance for long-maturity bonds, but it would not end the structural bear market in bonds that began two years ago – a fact that we suspect would be very surprising to bond-bullish investors. Chart II-165-Year Bond Yields Strongly Explain Yields 5-Years/5-Years Forward 5-Year Bond Yields Strongly Explain Yields 5-Years/5-Years Forward 5-Year Bond Yields Strongly Explain Yields 5-Years/5-Years Forward Chart II-17There Is Not Much Precedent For A Negative 5/10 Yield Curve During Modern Recessions, Suggesting 10-Year Yields Will Not Fall Below 2% During The Next Recession There Is Not Much Precedent For A Negative 5/10 Yield Curve During Modern Recessions, Suggesting 10-Year Yields Will Not Fall Below 2% During The Next Recession There Is Not Much Precedent For A Negative 5/10 Yield Curve During Modern Recessions, Suggesting 10-Year Yields Will Not Fall Below 2% During The Next Recession It is true that bond yields may deviate from the fair value levels shown in Chart II-15 if investors expect a different outcome for the path of the Fed funds rate than we described. However, it is worth noting that changes in our assumed post-recession peak Fed funds rate and the long-term average do not substantially change the outcome shown in Chart II-15. If investors instead assume that the Fed funds rate will peak at 3% during the next expansion, that lowers the fair value path for the 5-year yield by approximately 5 basis points. Changing the long-term average Fed funds rate to 2.4%, the Fed’s current neutral rate expectation, would reduce it by about 25 basis points. These levels would still be significantly above the lows reached in 2011-2013 and in 2020, underscoring that the length of the recession and the speed at which the Fed begins to raise interest rates will be far more important determinants of the path of US Treasury yields. We strongly suspect that investors will recognize that a comparatively mild recession will not result in the same hyper-accomodative monetary policy stance that occurred during the past two recessions, implying that long-maturity bond yields will have less downside during the next recession than may be currently recognized. Investment Conclusions As we have presented, the historical experience suggests that the Fed may cut interest rates to zero during the next recession, but that the re-establishment of a long-lasting zero interest rate policy and the associated resumption of large-scale asset purchases seem quite unlikely unless the recession is severe. In the post-WWII environment, severe US recessions have been accompanied by aggravating factors that appear to be missing in the current environment. In addition to this, there are several arguments pointing to the next US recession being a mild one. In a mild recession scenario, we doubt that the 10-year Treasury yield would fall below 2%, or fall below this level for very long. For fixed-income investors, while bond yields will fall for a time if a recession emerges, the implication is that investors should not overstay their welcome in a long-duration position during the recession and should be looking to reduce their duration exposure earlier rather than later. For equity investors, our findings underscore that meaningful downside risk exists for stocks even in a mild recession environment, because the decline in bond yields is not likely to offset a rise in the equity risk premium. We noted in our July report that if a recession occurred within the coming 6-12 months, that the S&P 500 would likely fall to 3100, even if the recession were average. A mild recession may see the S&P 500 decline less severely than this, but stocks are still likely to incur significant losses during the next recession unless investors price in a much shallower path for short-term interest rates than we believe will be warranted. As noted in Section 1 of our report, we have not yet concluded that a US recession is inevitable over the coming 6-12 months. Still, we acknowledge that the risks are quite elevated, and that substantial (further) supply-side and pandemic-related disinflation is likely needed for the US economy to avoid a contraction in output. Additional changes to our recommended cyclical allocation may thus occur over the coming few months, in response to incoming data, our assessment of the likely implications for monetary policy, and the response of long-maturity government bond yields. Jonathan LaBerge, CFA Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst   Footnotes 1  Please see The Bank Credit Analyst "Inflation Whipsaw Ahead," dated June 30, 2022, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 2  Please see The Bank Credit Analyst "August 2022," dated July 28, 2022, available at bca.bcaresearch.com

Highlights The odds of a Goldilocks outcome for the US economy increased somewhat in August, but the risks of a US recession over the coming year remain quite elevated. We continue to recommend that investors stay neutrally positioned towards equities within a global multi-asset portfolio. The disinflationary impulse from the July US CPI report is less compelling than it seems, in that it appears to have been mostly driven by declining energy prices. It is far from clear that energy prices will continue to decline over the coming months and are, in fact, likely to rise even if an Iranian deal takes place. This implies that investors may have jumped the gun in pricing in substantial disinflation and sharply higher odds of a Goldilocks economic outcome. The OIS curve is implying a reasonable path for the Fed funds rate for the remainder of this year, but it is too low 12 months from now based on the Fed’s median rate expectation for year-end 2023. This suggests that a further upward adjustment in the OIS curve is likely warranted, and that a modestly short duration stance is appropriate. Investors believe that the rate hike path priced into the OIS curve would not be recessionary, because short-term inflation expectations are pricing in a very substantial slowdown in headline inflation. From the perspective of market participants, this would both raise the recessionary threshold for interest rates (via stronger real wages) and could potentially allow the Fed to reduce interest rates closer to its (very likely wrong) estimate of neutral. We agree that the odds of a recession will decline if headline inflation does fall below 4% over the coming year, but it is not yet clear that this will occur. And if it does, the resulting improvement in real wages would ultimately allow the Fed to raise interest rates to a higher level before short-circuiting the economic expansion. As such, we expect real long-maturity government bond yields to rise meaningfully in a scenario where real wages recover significantly and a recession is avoided, which will put heavy pressure on equity multiples. This underscores that stock prices face risks in both a recessionary and non-recessionary environment. There are arguments pointing to a decline in the dollar beyond the near term, even within the context of elevated recessionary odds in the US and our recommended neutral stance towards global equities. Stay neutral for now, but look for opportunities to short the dollar beyond the coming few months. Jumping The Gun On Goldilocks The odds of a Goldilocks outcome for the US economy over the coming six to nine months increased somewhat in August. The July CPI report presented some evidence of supply-side and pandemic-related disinflation (Chart I-1), and we saw more resilient manufacturing production in the US – even after excluding the automotive sector – than many manufacturing indicators have been indicating (Chart I-2). In addition, the regional Fed manufacturing index in the especially manufacturing-sensitive state of Pennsylvania surprised significantly to the upside in July, although this was at least somewhat offset by a collapse in the New York and Dallas Fed’s general business conditions indexes (Chart I-3). Chart I-1There Is Now Some Evidence Of Supply-Side & Pandemic-Related Disinflation In The US There Is Now Some Evidence Of Supply-Side & Pandemic-Related Disinflation In The US There Is Now Some Evidence Of Supply-Side & Pandemic-Related Disinflation In The US Chart I-2US Manufacturing Production Has Been More Resilient Than Surveys Would Have Suggested US Manufacturing Production Has Been More Resilient Than Surveys Would Have Suggested US Manufacturing Production Has Been More Resilient Than Surveys Would Have Suggested Against the backdrop of significant recessionary risks, and a debate about whether negative growth in the first half of the year already constitutes a recession in the US, these developments have been positive. The Atlanta Fed’s GDPNow model is pointing to positive (albeit below-trend) growth of 1.4% in Q3, which is consistent with consensus forecasts. The Atlanta Fed’s model is also forecasting the strongest real consumption growth since Q4 2021 (Chart I-4). Equity investors responded to incrementally lower recession odds and a slower pace of inflation by bidding up the S&P 500 from roughly 3800 at the beginning of July to over 4200 in August. Chart I-3Mixed Messages From The Regional Fed Indicators Mixed Messages From The Regional Fed Indicators Mixed Messages From The Regional Fed Indicators Chart I-4The Atlanta Fed GDPNow Model Is Pointing To Positive Growth And Resilient Consumption In Q3 September 2022 September 2022   However, several other developments over the past month continue to highlight that the risks of a US recession over the coming year are quite elevated, which supports our recommendation that investors stay neutrally positioned towards equities within a global multi-asset portfolio: The August flash PMIs were fairly negative, especially for the services sector. The August flash S&P Global manufacturing PMI rose in Germany, but it fell in the US, France, and the UK. Services PMIs declined significantly in all four countries, especially in the US where survey participants noted that “hikes in interest rates and inflation dampened customer spending as disposable incomes were squeezed.” Survey respondents also noted that “new orders contracted at the steepest pace for over two years, as companies highlighted greater client hesitancy in placing new work.” Chart I-5The Conference Board's LEI Is Very Weak The Conference Board's LEI Is Very Weak The Conference Board's LEI Is Very Weak The Conference Board’s leading economic indicator dropped for a fifth month in a row in July, which has always been associated with a US recession (based on the indicator’s current construction). Chart I-5 highlights that the indicator’s market-based and real economy components are both very weak, and that the Conference Board’s coincident indicator has now fallen below its 12-month moving average. While the Philly Fed manufacturing index picked up in July, the new orders component of the regional Fed manufacturing PMIs broadly sank further into contractionary territory (Chart I-6). Chart I-6The Regional Fed New Orders Components Are Very Weak The Regional Fed New Orders Components Are Very Weak The Regional Fed New Orders Components Are Very Weak The Atlanta Fed model shown in Chart I-4 is pointing to a second quarter of negative growth from real residential investment, a component of GDP that reliably peaks in advance of economic contractions.1 Job openings are now pointing to a potential rise in unemployment. The relationship between job openings and unemployment is currently subject to heavy debate, as discussed in a recent report by my colleague Ryan Swift.2 However, abstracting from a theoretical discussion about movements along or shifts in the Beveridge curve, investors should note that the empirical record is fairly clear – Chart I-7 highlights that falling job vacancies occurred alongside a significant rise in the level of unemployment during the last two recessions. We acknowledge that the relationship has seen some deviations since 2018/2019, so this may highlight that a larger decline in job openings will be required for unemployment to trend higher. A 10% rise in the level of unemployment relative to its 12-month moving average has always been associated with a recession, implying that a sustained decline in job openings to 10M or lower would represent a likely recessionary signal – even if that recession proves to be a mild one (see Section 2 of this month’s report). Chart I-7Declining Job Openings Are Pointing To Potentially Higher Unemployment Declining Job Openings Are Pointing To Potentially Higher Unemployment Declining Job Openings Are Pointing To Potentially Higher Unemployment Table I-1 highlights that the disinflationary impulse from the July CPI report is less compelling than it seems, in that it appears to have been mostly driven by declining energy prices (particularly gasoline and fuel oil). Outside of the clear impact that falling fuel prices had on airline fares, there is not yet compelling evidence that core inflation is decelerating due to easing supply-side and pandemic-related effects, or due to slowing demand. As we will discuss below, it is far from clear that energy prices will continue to decline over the coming months and are, in fact, likely to rise even if an Iranian deal takes place. This implies that investors may have jumped the gun in pricing in substantial disinflation and sharply higher odds of a Goldilocks economic outcome. Table I-1The Disinflationary Impulse From The July CPI Report Is Less Compelling Than It Seems September 2022 September 2022 Inflation And The Fed As we discuss in Section 2 of our report, recessions occur because monetary policy becomes tight, a significant non-policy shock to aggregate demand or supply occurs, or some combination of both develops. We do not believe that monetary policy is currently restrictive on its own (Chart I-8), and we have not yet concluded that a US recession is inevitable. But when combined with the speed of adjustment in interest rates, the fact that real wages have fallen sharply (Chart I-9), and the fact that the Fed is determined to see inflation quickly return to target levels, it is clear that the odds of a recession over the coming 12-18 months remain elevated. Chart I-8Absent Declining Real Wages, The Current Level Of Interest Rates Would Not Be Restrictive Absent Declining Real Wages, The Current Level Of Interest Rates Would Not Be Restrictive Absent Declining Real Wages, The Current Level Of Interest Rates Would Not Be Restrictive Chart I-9But Real Wages Are Declining, And The Pace Of Tightening Has Been Extraordinarily Rapid But Real Wages Are Declining, And The Pace Of Tightening Has Been Extraordinarily Rapid But Real Wages Are Declining, And The Pace Of Tightening Has Been Extraordinarily Rapid Many investors do not appear to fully appreciate the fact that the Fed will continue to tighten policy until it sees clear and unequivocal signs that inflation is easing. Importantly, the minutes of the July FOMC meeting highlighted that this is likely to be true even if unambiguous signs of easing supply-side and pandemic-related inflation present themselves. During the July meeting, FOMC participants noted that “though some inflation reduction might come through improving global supply chains or drops in the prices of fuel and other commodities, some of the heavy lifting would also have to come by imposing higher borrowing costs on households and businesses”. They also emphasized that “a slowing in aggregate demand would play an important role in reducing inflation pressures”. The upshot is that the Fed was aware before the July CPI report that energy-related inflation might fall, but also understood that they would still have to tighten enough to slow aggregate demand to reduce underlying inflationary pressures. It is true that investors are pricing in additional rate hikes from the Fed, but there are two caveats for investors to consider. The first is that while the OIS curve is implying a reasonable path for the Fed funds rate for the remainder of this year, it is too low 12 months from now based on the Fed’s median rate expectation for year-end 2023 (Chart I-10). This suggests that a further upward adjustment in the OIS curve is likely warranted. Second, and more importantly, investors appear to be making the assumption that the rate hikes already built into the OIS curve will not be recessionary. Investors are making this assumption because short-term inflation expectations are pricing in a very substantial slowdown in headline inflation (Chart I-11), which would both raise the recessionary threshold for interest rates (via stronger real wages) and could potentially allow the Fed to reduce interest rates closer to its (very likely wrong) estimate of neutral. Chart I-10A Further Upward Adjustment In The OIS Curve Is Likely Warranted A Further Upward Adjustment In The OIS Curve Is Likely Warranted A Further Upward Adjustment In The OIS Curve Is Likely Warranted Chart I-11Short-Term Inflation Expectations Are Pricing In A Massive Deceleration In Headline Inflation Short-Term Inflation Expectations Are Pricing In A Massive Deceleration In Headline Inflation Short-Term Inflation Expectations Are Pricing In A Massive Deceleration In Headline Inflation We agree with investors that the odds of a recession will decline significantly, ceteris paribus, if headline inflation does drop below 4% over the coming year. But we noted above that it is not yet clear that this will occur. In addition, we disagree with investors that this would result in a reduction in short-term interest rates, because this belief is based on the view that monetary policy is currently in restrictive territory even without the negative impact of sharply lower real wages. Absent the negative real wage effect, our view is that monetary policy would still be stimulative at current interest rates, which is why we believe that the 2023 portion of the OIS curve is too dovish in a non-recessionary scenario. The Outlook for Stocks The equity market rally that began in early July has been based on the assumption that significant supply-side and pandemic-related disinflation is now a fait accompli. If it is, then the odds of a recession over the coming year are indeed meaningfully lower, and the risk to corporate profits is less than feared. We noted above that investors may have jumped the gun in pricing in substantial disinflation and sharply lower odds of a US recession. But even in a scenario in which the odds of recession do come in significantly, stocks still face risks from a significant rise in real bond yields. Chart I-12Long-Maturity TIPS Yields Would Likely Rise In A Non-Recessionary Scenario, Compressing Equity Multiples Long-Maturity TIPS Yields Would Likely Rise In A Non-Recessionary Scenario, Compressing Equity Multiples Long-Maturity TIPS Yields Would Likely Rise In A Non-Recessionary Scenario, Compressing Equity Multiples Investors have been focused on very elevated inflation as the driver of both rising inflation expectations and rising real bond yields, and have assumed that a meaningful slowdown in inflation (as forecast by short-term measures of inflation expectations) implies that the Fed funds rate will return to the Fed’s estimate of neutral. This belief, along with a lower projected Fed funds rate in 2024 than 2023 in the FOMC’s participant forecasts, is the basis for the 2023 “pivot” currently priced into the OIS curve. Given that the Fed funds rate has already reached the Fed’s neutral rate estimate, there is a meaningful chance that this estimate will be revised upwards by the Fed or challenged by investors if economic activity improves in response to a decline in inflation and a corresponding rise in real wages. Such a scenario would highlight to investors that the Fed’s estimate of neutral is likely too low, which would imply a significant increase in real 10-year TIPS yields (which are currently 160 basis points below their pre-2008 average). Chart I-12 highlights the impact that a rise in real long-maturity bond yields could have on equities, even in a non-recessionary scenario where 12-month forward earnings per share grows 8% over the coming year. A rise in 10-year TIPS yields to 1.5% by the middle of 2023 would cause a 16% contraction in the 12-month forward P/E ratio and a 10% decline in stock prices, assuming an unchanged 12-month forward equity risk premium (ERP). It is possible that the ERP could decline in a rising bond yield scenario. Chart I-13 highlights that the ERP is indeed negatively correlated with real bond yields (in part due to the methods that we use to calculate it). The counterpoint is that there are a number of risks that equity investors should be compensated for today that did not exist in the late 1990s or early 2000s, especially the risks of populist policies in many advanced economies and major geopolitical events (as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine recently highlighted). Chart I-14 illustrates that, since 1960, a long-term version of the equity risk premium, calculated using trailing earnings and our adaptive expectations proxy to deflate long-maturity bond yields, has been fairly well explained by the Misery Index (the sum of the unemployment and headline inflation rates). However, the chart also shows that the ERP has been structurally higher over the past decade than the Misery Index would have predicted. It is unclear if this is due to a riskier environment or the negative ERP/real yield correlation that we noted. Chart I-13The Equity Risk Premium Could Come Down As Bond Yields Rise, But That Is Not Guaranteed The Equity Risk Premium Could Come Down As Bond Yields Rise, But That Is Not Guaranteed The Equity Risk Premium Could Come Down As Bond Yields Rise, But That Is Not Guaranteed Chart I-14A Structurally Higher ERP Over The Past Decade Could Represent Needed Compensation For Structural Risks A Structurally Higher ERP Over The Past Decade Could Represent Needed Compensation For Structural Risks A Structurally Higher ERP Over The Past Decade Could Represent Needed Compensation For Structural Risks The conclusion is that investors do not yet appear to have a basis to bet on a declining ERP in a rising bond yield environment, underscoring that even a non-recessionary scenario poses a risk to stock prices. It is worth noting that this second risk facing stocks has essentially been caused by the Fed because of its maintenance of a very low neutral rate estimate that we feel is no longer economically justified. Bond Market Prospects Chart I-15Investors Should Stay Modestly Short Duration, For Now Investors Should Stay Modestly Short Duration, For Now Investors Should Stay Modestly Short Duration, For Now Over the past few months, the Bank Credit Analyst service has continued to recommend that investors maintain a modestly short duration stance even as we recommended reducing equity exposure. The recent rise in the 10-year Treasury yield back to 3% has validated that view (Chart I-15), and reinforces our view that there is significant upside risk to long-maturity bond yields in a non-recessionary scenario. Our expectation that the Fed will raise interest rates to a higher level over the next year than the OIS curve is currently discounting also argues for a modestly short stance, based on BCA’s “Golden Rule” framework. The “Golden Rule” states that investors should set their overall bond portfolio duration based on how their own 12-month fed funds rate expectations differ from the expectations that are priced into the market. As we detail in Section 2 of our report, the Fed has always cut interest rates in response to a recession in the post-WWII environment, so we would certainly recommend a long duration stance if a recession emerges. But given our view that a recession is still a risk rather than a likely event, we feel that a modestly short duration stance is currently appropriate. Chart I-16US Corporate Bond Value Has Improved, But Not Enough To Trump The Cycle US Corporate Bond Value Has Improved, But Not Enough To Trump The Cycle US Corporate Bond Value Has Improved, But Not Enough To Trump The Cycle As noted above in our discussion of the risks facing stock prices in a non-recessionary scenario, falling inflation that is not associated with a recession will ironically be a bearish signal for long-maturity bonds, because it means that the Fed will have greater capacity to raise interest rates without ending the recovery. The short end of the yield curve could be flat or move modestly lower in response to a significant easing in inflation, but the long end of the curve would be at serious risk of moving higher. We are thus very likely to recommend a short duration stance in response to solid evidence of true supply-side and pandemic-related disinflation, assuming it emerges outside of the context of a recession. Within the credit space, the rise in US corporate bond spreads since the start of the year has meaningfully improved the value of investment- and speculative-grade corporate bonds (Chart I-16), but not so much that it justifies a positive stance towards these assets relative to government bonds given the risks facing the US economy. We continue to recommend an underweight stance towards investment-grade and a neutral stance towards speculative-grade within a fixed-income portfolio. The Outlook For Energy Prices Chart I-17The EU's Oil Embargo Will Cause Russian Oil Production To Tank The EU's Oil Embargo Will Cause Russian Oil Production To Tank The EU's Oil Embargo Will Cause Russian Oil Production To Tank The likely path of commodity prices, particularly that of oil, is an extremely important determinant of whether the US is likely to experience a recession over the coming year. We are among those who have downplayed the significance of oil price shocks in driving contractions in economic output over the past two decades,3 but the current situation is unique given the role that very elevated inflation has played in driving real wages lower. In a recent Strategy Report from our Commodity & Energy Strategy service, my colleague Robert P. Ryan underscored the impact that the European Union’s embargo of Russian oil will likely have on the energy market. If fully implemented, ~ 2.3mm barrels/day of seaborne imports of Russian crude oil will be excluded from EU markets by year-end. EU, UK and US shipping insurance and reinsurance sanctions are also scheduled to be implemented in December, which means that “surplus” Russian oil production cannot be fully reoriented to other countries. Chart I-17 presents the likely impact on Russia’s crude oil output, namely a ~ 2mm barrels/day decline in oil output by the end of next year – nearly equal to the amount of oil set to be embargoed. Our base case view remains that supply and demand in the oil market will remain relatively balanced going into the winter, but the removal from the market of Russian oil production because of the various EU embargoes – even if it is offset by the return of 1mm b/d of Iranian exports on the back of a deal with the US – will ultimately push crude oil prices higher and inventories lower (Chart I-18). The price impact of this event could happen earlier than the immediate supply/demand balance would suggest, if investors have not fully priced in the extent of the decline in Russian oil production that our commodity team is forecasting. Our commodity team’s forecast serves as an important reminder that the economic consequences of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine may not be fully behind us. It also highlights that the recent disinflation observed in the US, which was mostly driven by lower energy prices in July, may not be sustained. Chart I-19 highlights what could happen to US gasoline prices based on the path for oil shown in Chart I-18, and how that forecast is sharply at odds with the current gasoline futures curve. Chart I-20 highlights that US gasoline stocks are currently below their 5-year average; the last time this occurred was in Q1 2021, which was an environment of rising gasoline prices to levels that were higher than what would usually be implied by crude oil prices. Chart I-18Oil Prices Are More Likely To Rise Than Fall Oil Prices Are More Likely To Rise Than Fall Oil Prices Are More Likely To Rise Than Fall Chart I-19Higher Oil Prices Would Cause Gasoline Prices To Deviate Significantly From Market Expectations Higher Oil Prices Would Cause Gasoline Prices To Deviate Significantly From Market Expectations Higher Oil Prices Would Cause Gasoline Prices To Deviate Significantly From Market Expectations Chart I-20Gasoline Stocks Are Low In The US, Underscoring The Upside Risk To Prices Gasoline Stocks Are Low In The US, Underscoring The Upside Risk To Prices Gasoline Stocks Are Low In The US, Underscoring The Upside Risk To Prices The upshot is that our commodity team expects oil prices to move higher over the coming 6-12 months, under the assumption that the EU’s embargo against Russian oil moves forward as announced. This poses a clear threat to imminent supply-side and pandemic-related disinflation, and underscores the risks to a Goldilocks economic outcome over the coming few months. The Dollar: Value, Technical Conditions, And The Cycle Chart I-21The Dollar Is Reliably Countercyclical, But It Has Registered Outsized Gains Over The Past Year The Dollar Is Reliably Countercyclical, But It Has Registered Outsized Gains Over The Past Year The Dollar Is Reliably Countercyclical, But It Has Registered Outsized Gains Over The Past Year The US dollar moved higher over the past month, after first retreating from its mid-July high for the year. We tempered our view about the likelihood of a falling dollar over the near term in last month’s report, but from a bigger picture perspective we have been surprised by the degree of dollar strength this year. The US dollar is a reliably countercyclical currency, so clearly some of the dollar’s strength has been the result of weakness in risky asset prices (Chart I-21). But the bottom panel of Chart I-21 highlights that the broad trade-weighted dollar has performed even better over the past year than returns to the S&P 500 would have implied, underscoring that the magnitude of the dollar’s strength has been atypical. The last two times that the US dollar performed substantially better than the trend in risky assets would have implied were in 2012 and 2015, years in which euro area breakup risk was a driving force in markets. Alongside the fact that EURUSD has fallen below parity and USDEUR has outperformed even more than the broad trade-weighted dollar has, “excess” dollar returns point strongly to Europe’s energy woes in the aftermath of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine as the key driver of outsized broad dollar strength. Chart I-22 highlights that European natural gas prices have exceeded the level that we had forecasted would occur in a complete cutoff scenario, meaning that Europe’s energy crunch is likely happening now, rather than in the winter. However, even considering the negative economic outlook facing the euro area, there are arguments pointing to a decline in the dollar beyond the near term – even within the context of elevated recessionary odds in the US and our recommended neutral stance towards global equities. First, Chart I-23 highlights that EURUSD has undershot what the trend in relative real interest rates would suggest, which has historically led changes in the euro. This implies that the euro has declined partly because of the introduction of a sizeable risk premium, which may dissipate after the winter. Chart I-22The Euro Has Been Heavily Impacted By Europe's Energy Crunch The Euro Has Been Heavily Impacted By Europe's Energy Crunch The Euro Has Been Heavily Impacted By Europe's Energy Crunch Chart I-23EURUSD Has Undershot What The Trend In Relative Real Interest Rates Would Suggest EURUSD Has Undershot What The Trend In Relative Real Interest Rates Would Suggest EURUSD Has Undershot What The Trend In Relative Real Interest Rates Would Suggest Second, Chart I-24 highlights that the US dollar is extremely overbought and is technically extended to a point that has historically been associated with reversals in the broad dollar trend. Finally, Chart I-25 highlights that the US dollar is extraordinarily expensive based on our valuation models, underscoring that an eventual decline in the dollar may be quite severe. We agree that valuation is not usually an effective market timing tool, but investors should place a greater weight on valuation measures as they are stretched further. Based either on our models or a more traditional PPP approach, the degree of US dollar overvaluation is extreme – arguing for a bearish bias on a 6-12 month timeline barring an unambiguous move towards recession in the US. Chart I-24US Dollar And Indicator The US Dollar Is Heavily Overbought US Dollar And Indicator The US Dollar Is Heavily Overbought US Dollar And Indicator The US Dollar Is Heavily Overbought Chart I-25The US Dollar Is Extremely Expensive The US Dollar Is Extremely Expensive The US Dollar Is Extremely Expensive         Investment Conclusions Considering the economic developments over the past month and the reaction of financial markets, the takeaway for investors seems clear. Market participants have eagerly shifted towards the Goldilocks economic and financial market outcome, based on (so far) incomplete evidence of supply-side and pandemic-related disinflation that has predominantly been driven by declining energy prices. Given significant potential upside risks to oil and US gasoline prices over the coming few months, investors should wait for more durable signs of significant disinflation before downgrading the odds of a US recession over the coming year. We would certainly recommend cutting global equity exposure to underweight were we to determine that the US is likely to experience an imminent recession, but the avoidance of a recession does not necessarily suggest that an overweight stance is warranted. Sharply lower inflation would reduce the odds of a recession, but it would also raise real wages and would ultimately allow the Fed to raise interest rates to a higher level before short-circuiting the economic expansion. As such, we expect real long-maturity government bond yields to rise meaningfully in a scenario where real wages recover significantly and a recession is avoided, which will put meaningful pressure on equity multiples. Barring a decline in the equity risk premium, US stocks could face a loss on the order of 10% over the coming year in such a scenario (even under the assumption of positive earnings growth), reinforcing our view that a neutral stance towards global equities is currently appropriate. In addition to a neutral global asset allocation stance, we recommend that investors maintain a neutral regional equity position and a neutral stance towards cyclicals versus defensives, although we do recommend a modest overweight towards value stocks given our view that a modestly short duration stance is appropriate. Although we recommend a neutral stance towards USD over the next few months, we also see ample scope for a decline in the dollar beyond the near term – even within the context of elevated recessionary odds in the US and our recommended neutral stance towards global equities. We believe that there are upside risks to energy prices, which our Commodity & Energy Strategy service recommends playing via the iShares GSCI Commodity Dynamic Roll Strategy (COMT) ETF. As a final point, we remain cognizant of the fact that financial markets rarely trend sideways over 6-to-12 month periods. We continue to regard a neutral global asset allocation stance as a temporary stepping stone either to a further downgrade of risky assets to underweight, or to an increase in risky asset exposure back to a high-conviction overweight. The latter is still possible, especially if we see unequivocal signs of a substantial and broad-based slowdown in the US headline inflation rate, and if long-maturity real bond yields are well-behaved in response or if we see clear signs of a declining equity risk premium. Thus, investors should note that additional changes to our recommended cyclical allocation may occur over the coming few months, in response to incoming data, our assessment of the likely implications for monetary policy, and the response of long-maturity government bond yields.   Jonathan LaBerge, CFA Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst August 25, 2022 Next Report: September 29, 2022 II. The Fed Funds Rate, Bond Yields, And The Next US Recession The risk of a US recession has increased sharply over the past several months. We have not yet concluded that a recession over the coming year is inevitable, but substantial (further) supply-side and pandemic-related disinflation is likely needed for the US economy to avoid a contraction in output. The increased risk of a contraction has caused investors to ponder what the next recession might look like. One very important question concerns the likely behavior of short-term interest rates during the next recession, especially if it occurs sooner rather than later. The historical experience suggests that the Fed may cut interest rates to zero during the next recession, but that the re-establishment of a long-lasting zero interest rate policy and the associated resumption of large-scale asset purchases seem quite unlikely unless the recession is severe. In the post-WWII environment, severe US recessions have been accompanied by aggravating factors that appear to be missing in the current environment. In addition, there are several arguments pointing to the next US recession being a mild one. For fixed-income investors, the implication is that investors should not overstay their welcome in a long-duration position during the next US recession, and should be looking to reduce their duration exposure earlier rather than later. For equity investors, our findings underscore that meaningful downside risk exists for stocks even in a mild recession environment, because the decline in bond yields is not likely to offset a rise in the equity risk premium. Over the past several months, investors have been faced with a sharp increase in the odds of a US recession. Gauging the risk of a recession has featured prominently in our recent reports, and we have concluded, for now, that a US recession over the coming year is not yet inevitable. Still, we acknowledge that the risks are quite elevated, and that substantial (further) supply-side and pandemic-related disinflation is likely needed for the US economy to avoid a contraction in output. Economic expansions do not last forever. This means that the US economy will eventually succumb to a recession at some point over the coming few years. One very important question for investors concerns the likely behavior of short-term interest rates during the next recession, especially if a contraction occurs sooner rather than later. A key aspect of this question is whether the Fed is likely to be forced back towards a zero or negative interest rate policy, and whether it will need to employ asset purchases as part of its stabilization efforts as it has during the last two recessions. If so, long-maturity bond yields are likely to fall significantly during the next recession; if not, investors may be surprised by how modestly long-maturity yields decline. In this report, we examine the historical record of short-term interest rates during recessions and discuss whether the next US recession is likely to be severe or mild. We conclude that the next US recession is more likely to be mild than severe, and that the 10-year Treasury yield is unlikely to fall below 2% during the recession (or fall below this level for very long). In the case of a more severe recession driven by unanchored inflation expectations, the implications would be clearly bearish for bonds. Within a fixed-income portfolio, one conclusion of our analysis is that investors should not overstay their welcome in a long-duration position during the next recession and should be looking to reduce their duration exposure earlier rather than later. For equity investors, our findings underscore that meaningful downside risk exists for stocks even in a mild recession environment, because the decline in bond yields is not likely to offset a rise in the equity risk premium. The Historical Recessionary Path Of Short-Term Interest Rates When projecting how the Fed funds rate is likely to evolve during the next US recession, most investors typically look to the average decline in short-term interest rates during previous recessions as a guide. Based on that approach, Table II-1 highlights that the Fed would likely have to cut rates into negative territory if a recession occurred over the coming 12-18 months, unless it is able to hike interest rates significantly more over the coming year than the market is currently expecting and the FOMC itself is projecting. But in our view, focusing on the historical recessionary decline in interest rates from their peak is not the right approach, because it ignores the fact that recessions typically occur when monetary policy is tight. If a recession occurs within the next 18 months, it will have happened in large part because of a collapse in real wage growth, not just because of the increase in interest rates that has occurred. Chart II-1 highlights that short-term interest rates remain well below potential GDP growth, highlighting that monetary policy would still be easy today – despite the quick pace of increase in short rates – if real wages were growing rather than contracting sharply. In our view, the right approach is to examine how much short-term interest rates have typically fallen during recessions relative to potential or average historical GDP growth. This method captures the degree to which monetary policy easing has typically been required relative to neutral levels to catalyze an economic recovery. Table II-1Based Only On The Historical Decline In Short-Term Interest Rates, The Fed Would Ostensibly Have To Cut Rates Into Negative Territory During The Next Recession September 2022 September 2022 Chart II-1Monetary Policy Would Still Be Easy Today If Real Wage Growth Was Positive Monetary Policy Would Still Be Easy Today If Real Wage Growth Was Positive Monetary Policy Would Still Be Easy Today If Real Wage Growth Was Positive Based on this approach, Chart II-2 highlights that the Fed might have to cut the target range for the Fed funds rate to 0-0.25% during the next recession, but there are some examples (like the 1990-1991 recession) that point to a cut to just 0.25-0.5%. The goal of this exercise is not to be specific about the exact level to which the Fed will have to cut the Fed funds rate, but rather whether the de facto re-establishment of a long-lasting zero interest rate policy and the associated resumption of large-scale asset purchases is likely. Chart II-2The Fed May Have To Cut To Zero During The Next Recession, But Probably Not Into Negative Territory September 2022 September 2022 Structural bond bulls might note that there are five recessions in the post-war era that could potentially point to that outcome based on Chart II-2. However, these episodes involved circumstances that we doubt would be present during the next US recession, especially if one were to emerge over the coming 12-18 months. The 1950s Recessions The recessions of 1953-54 and 1957-58 were fairly sizeable based on the total rise in the unemployment rate, but the monetary policy stance at that time was wildly stimulative in a way that is very unlikely to repeat itself today. In the 1950s, the level of interest rates was still an artifact of WWII (with the Treasury-Fed accord having only been agreed upon in March 1951). Monetary policy was both overly responsive to a period of pent-up disinflation following the initial burst of government spending associated with the Korean war and insufficiently responsive to a strongly positive output gap (Chart II-3). This was meaningfully compounded by a poor understanding of the size of the output gap at that time; the deviation of the unemployment rate from its 10-year average was significantly smaller than its deviation from today’s estimate of NAIRU (Chart II-4). In sum, the economic and monetary policy conditions that existed in the 1950s and that contributed to an interest rate level that was well below the prevailing rate of economic growth do not exist today. As such, we strongly doubt that the Fed’s response to the next US recession would resemble what occurred during that decade. Chart II-3We Strongly Doubt The Fed's Response To The Next US Recession Would Resemble What Occurred In The 1950s We Strongly Doubt The Fed's Response To The Next US Recession Would Resemble What Occurred In The 1950s We Strongly Doubt The Fed's Response To The Next US Recession Would Resemble What Occurred In The 1950s Chart II-4Low Interest Rates In The 1950s Were Partly Caused By Wrong Output Gap Estimates Low Interest Rates In The 1950s Were Partly Caused By Wrong Output Gap Estimates Low Interest Rates In The 1950s Were Partly Caused By Wrong Output Gap Estimates   1973-1975 The recession that began in 1973 occurred because of a huge energy shock that proved to be stagflationary in the true sense of the word. Excluding the 2020 recession, this was the third largest rise in the unemployment rate of any recession since WWII, following 2008/2009 and the 1981/1982 recessions. There are some parallels between this recession and the current economic environment, but the stability of inflation expectations so far does not point to a truly stagflationary outcome. As such, we do not see the 1973-74 recession as a reasonable parallel to today’s environment. In addition, manufacturing employment – which was heavily impacted by the permanent rise in oil prices due to the sector’s energy intensity – stood at 24% of total nonfarm employment in 1973, compared with 8% today. Finally, the weight of food and energy as a share of total consumer spending today is roughly half of what it was during the 1970s (Chart II-5). 2001 Of the five recessions potentially implying that the Fed may have to cut interest rates into negative territory during the next US recession, the 2001 recession is the most relevant parallel to today. It was a modern recession in which the Fed maintained very easy monetary policy for a significant amount of time, in response to concerns about a significant tightening in financial conditions and the impact of prior corporate sector excesses on aggregate demand. The total rise in the unemployment rate during this recession was not very large, but it took some time for the unemployment rate to return to NAIRU. Still, even though this justified a later liftoff, a Taylor rule approach makes it clear that the Fed overstimulated the economy in response to the recession – a view that is reinforced by the enormous rise in household debt that fueled the housing market bubble during that period (Chart II-6). The Fed was very concerned about the negative wealth effects of the bursting of the equity market bubble, which had been caused by a massive decline in the equity risk premium in the second half of the 1990s. These conditions are simply not present today. Chart II-5Today's US Economy Is Meaningfully Less Impacted By Energy And Food Prices Today's US Economy Is Meaningfully Less Impacted By Energy And Food Prices Today's US Economy Is Meaningfully Less Impacted By Energy And Food Prices Chart II-6The Fed Clearly Overstimulated In Response To The 2001 Recession The Fed Clearly Overstimulated In Response To The 2001 Recession The Fed Clearly Overstimulated In Response To The 2001 Recession 2008/2009 Chart II-7A Repeat Of The 2008/2009 Recession In The US Is A Totally Implausible Scenario A Repeat Of The 2008/2009 Recession In The US Is A Totally Implausible Scenario A Repeat Of The 2008/2009 Recession In The US Is A Totally Implausible Scenario Chart II-2 highlighted that the Fed would have to cut interest rates to -1% were the 2008/2009 recession to repeat itself, but we judge that to be a totally implausible scenario given the improvement in US household sector balance sheets and financial sector health since the global financial crisis (Chart II-7). As we discuss below, the next US recession is likely to be meaningfully less severe than the 2008/2009 and 2020 recessions, which we believe carries important significance for the path of interest rates and the response of long-maturity bond yields. The bottom line for investors is that, based on the historical experience of rate cuts during recessions, the Fed may end up cutting interest rates back to or close to the zero lower bound in response to the next recession. But the de facto re-establishment of a long-lasting zero interest rate policy and the associated resumption of large-scale asset purchases seems quite unlikely unless the recession is severe, which we do not expect. Will The Next US Recession Be Severe Or Mild? Chart II-8The Most Severe US Recessions Have Had Aggravating Factors That Do Not Appear To Be Present Today September 2022 September 2022 How drastically the Fed will be forced to cut interest rates during the next recession will be driven by its severity. Chart II-8 presents the total rise in the unemployment rate during post-WWII recessions (excluding 2020), in order to gauge whether the factors that have led to severe recessions in the past are likely to be present during the next contraction in output. From our perspective, the most severe US recessions in the post-WWII era have been driven by factors that are very unlikely to repeat themselves in the current environment. We noted above that a repeat of the 2008/2009 recession is a totally implausible scenario, leaving the 1981-1982, 1973-1975, and 1950s recessions as potential severe recession analogues. In three of these four cases we see clear signs of an aggravating factor that we do not (yet) believe will be present during the next US recession. Chart II-9Inflation Expectations Have Not Yet Unanchored To The Upside, In Sharp Contrast To The 1970s Inflation Expectations Have Not Yet Unanchored To The Upside, In Sharp Contrast To The 1970s Inflation Expectations Have Not Yet Unanchored To The Upside, In Sharp Contrast To The 1970s In the 1981-1982 recession, the unemployment rate rose significantly as the Federal Reserve confronted the fact that inflation expectations had become severely unanchored to the upside, causing a persistent wage/price spiral. While unanchored inflation expectations is a risk today, so far the evidence suggests that both households and market participants expect that currently elevated inflation will not persist over the long run (Chart II-9). If inflation expectations do become unanchored to the upside at some point over the coming 12-18 months (or beyond), we are very likely to change our view about the severity of the next recession. However, this would be a bond bearish outcome (at least initially), as it would imply sharply higher yields at both the short and long end of the yield curve in order to tame inflation and re-anchor inflation expectations. As noted above, in the 1973-74 recession, the unexpected and permanent rise in oil prices and outright energy shortages rendered a significant amount of capital and labor uneconomic, which is different than what has been occurring during the pandemic. Were the recent rise in natural gas prices to be permanent and no alternatives available, Europe’s current energy situation would be more reminiscent of the 1973-1974 recession than the pandemic-driven price pressures and supply shortages affecting the US and other developed economies. Chart II-10The US Is Currently Experiencing Fiscal Drag, But That Will Lessen Next Year The US Is Currently Experiencing Fiscal Drag, But That Will Lessen Next Year The US Is Currently Experiencing Fiscal Drag, But That Will Lessen Next Year Finally, while the 1957-58 recession appears to be somewhat of an anomaly driven by a mix of factors, the 1953-54 recession was clearly exacerbated by a sharp slowdown in government spending following the end of the Korean war. It is true that the US is currently experiencing fiscal drag (Chart II-10), but this has occurred against the backdrop of a strong labor market, and IMF forecasts imply that the drag will be significantly smaller over the coming year than what the US is currently experiencing. There are several additional points suggesting that the next US recession will be comparatively mild: Chart II-11The Milder US Recessions Were All Seemingly Triggered By Tight Monetary Policy (As Would Be The Case Today) The Milder US Recessions Were All Seemingly Triggered By Tight Monetary Policy (As Would Be The Case Today) The Milder US Recessions Were All Seemingly Triggered By Tight Monetary Policy (As Would Be The Case Today) Chart II-11 highlights that the milder recessions, those which have seen the unemployment rate rise by less than 3% from their previous low, have generally been the recessions that appear to have simply been triggered by monetary policy becoming tight or nearly tight. This would likely be the case during the next US recession. In the lead up to the 1970, 1990-91, and 2001 recessions, short-term interest rates approached or exceeded either potential growth or the rolling 10-year average growth rate of nominal GDP. The 1960-61 recession stands out slightly as an exception to this rule, in that interest rates were still moderately easy, which is based on our definition of the equilibrium short-term interest rate. But interest rates had risen close to 400 basis points from 1958 to 1960 (suggesting a change in addition to a level effect of interest rates on aggregate demand), and it is notable that the 60-61 recession was the mildest in post-war history, based on the total rise in the unemployment rate. Chart II-12Labor Scarcity May Mean That Firms Will Be Somewhat More Reluctant To Shed Labor During The Next Recession Labor Scarcity May Mean That Firms Will Be Somewhat More Reluctant To Shed Labor During The Next Recession Labor Scarcity May Mean That Firms Will Be Somewhat More Reluctant To Shed Labor During The Next Recession We argued in Section 1 of our report that monetary policy is not currently restrictive on its own, and that the recessionary risk currently facing the US is the result of a combination of the speed of adjustment in interest rates, the fact that real wages have fallen sharply, and the fact that the Fed is determined to see inflation quickly return to target levels. However, what this also highlights is that a recession would likely cause a rise in real wages via a significant slowdown in inflation (at least for a time); this would likely help stabilize aggregate demand and cause a comparatively mild rise in the unemployment rate. While the odds and magnitude of this effect are difficult to quantify, the fact that the labor market has been so tight over the past year and that the participation rate has yet to recover to its pre-pandemic levels suggests that some firms may be reluctant to shed labor during a recession (Chart II-12), suggesting that the total rise in unemployment in the next recession could be relatively small. Finally, Chart II-13 shows that the excess savings that have accumulated over the course of the pandemic, now primarily the result of reduced spending on services, dwarf the magnitude of precautionary savings that were generated in the prior three recessions as a % of GDP. We agree that the savings rate would likely still rise during the next recession, but the existence of excess savings implies that the rise in the savings rate may be surprisingly small – which would, in turn, imply a comparatively mild rise in the unemployment rate. We noted above that the household sector has deleveraged significantly, which is strong evidence against an outsized or long-lasting decline in consumer spending as a possible driver of an above-average rise in the unemployment rate during the next recession. One question that we often receive from clients is whether excessive corporate sector leverage could cause a more severe decline in economic activity once a recession emerges. Chart II-14 illustrates that the answer is “probably not.” The chart presents one estimate of the US nonfinancial corporate sector debt service ratio, based on national accounts data. The chart highlights that the current debt burden for the nonfinancial corporate sector is very low, underscoring that elevated corporate sector debt would not likely act as an aggravating factor driving an outsized rise in the unemployment rate were a recession to occur today. The chart also shows that even if the 10-year Treasury yield were to rise to 4% and corporate bond spreads were to widen in the lead up to a recession, the nonfinancial corporate sector debt service burden would rise to a lower peak than seen in the last three recessions. One key risk to a mild recession view is a scenario in which inflation does not return to or below the Fed’s target during the recession. In that kind of environment, the Fed would not likely cut interest rates to as low a level as they have in the past relative to potential growth. But the historical record is clear that recessions cause a deceleration in inflation, and if a recession emerges over the coming 12-18 months it will likely happen after supply-side and pandemic-related disinflation has already occurred. That means that inflation is likely to move back to or below the Fed’s target in a recessionary environment. We should note that this assessment differs somewhat from the scenario described by my former colleague Martin Barnes, who wrote a guest report on inflation published in our July Bank Credit Analyst.4 Chart II-13Today’s Pandemic-Related Excess Savings Dwarf Precautionary Savings During The Prior Three Recessions September 2022 September 2022 Chart II-14US Corporate Sector Debt Unlikely To Lead To A More Severe Recession, Even In A Higher Yield Environment US Corporate Sector Debt Unlikely To Lead To A More Severe Recession, Even In A Higher Yield Environment US Corporate Sector Debt Unlikely To Lead To A More Severe Recession, Even In A Higher Yield Environment   Long-Maturity Bond Yields And The Next US Recession What does our analysis imply for long-maturity bond yields and the duration call over the coming few years? In order to judge what is likely to happen to long-maturity bond yields in a recession scenario over the coming 12-18 months, we first project the fair value of the 5-year Treasury yield based on the following hypothetical circumstances: The onset of recession in March 2023 and a peak in the Fed funds rate at a target range of 3.75-4%. A recession duration of eight months, over which time the Fed steadily cuts the policy rate to 0-0.25%. An initial Fed rate hike in September 2024, nine months following the end of the recession, consistent with a relatively short return of the unemployment rate to NAIRU as an expansion takes hold. A rate hike pace of eight quarter-point hikes per year, with the Fed again raising rates to a peak of 4% A longer-term average Fed funds rate of 3%, which we regard as a low estimate. Chart II-15The 5-Year Treasury Yield Would Not Fall Enormously In A Mild Recessionary Scenario The 5-Year Treasury Yield Would Not Fall Enormously In A Mild Recessionary Scenario The 5-Year Treasury Yield Would Not Fall Enormously In A Mild Recessionary Scenario Chart II-15 highlights the fair value path for the 5-year Treasury yield in this scenario. Not surprisingly, the fair value today is lower than the current level of the 5-year yield, highlighting that a shift to a long duration stance will be warranted at some point over the coming year if the US economy enters a non-technical, typical income-statement recession. However, the chart also highlights that a long duration position is not likely to be warranted for very long, given that the lowest level of the 5-year fair value path is substantially higher than it was in 2020 and 2021 and is also higher than its 10-year average. Chart II-16 reveals the importance of forecasting the near-term path of interest rates when predicting the likely behavior of long-maturity bond yields. Even though near- and long-term interest rate expectations should be at least somewhat differentiated, the chart highlights that the real 5-year/5-year forward Treasury yield is very closely explained by the real 5-year Treasury yield and a 3-year lag of our adaptive inflation expectations model (which is highly consistent with BCA’s Golden Rule of bond investing framework). Chart II-16 shows that long-maturity bond yields should be higher than they are based on the current level of real 5-year yields and lagged inflation expectations, underscoring the point that we made in Section 1 of our report that significant upside risk exists for long-maturity bond yields in a non-recessionary outcome over the coming year. In a recessionary outcome, it is clear that bond yields will fall as the Fed cuts interest rates, as Chart II-15 demonstrated. But, Chart II-17 highlights that during recessions, there is little precedent for a negative 5-10 yield curve slope outside of the context of the persistently high inflation environment of the late 1960s and 1970s. Applying that template to the fair value path that we showed in Chart II-15 suggests that the 10-year Treasury yield will not fall below 2% during the next recession. As we noted in our August report,5 a 10-year Treasury yield decline to 2% would result in significant performance for long-maturity bonds, but it would not end the structural bear market in bonds that began two years ago – a fact that we suspect would be very surprising to bond-bullish investors. Chart II-165-Year Bond Yields Strongly Explain Yields 5-Years/5-Years Forward 5-Year Bond Yields Strongly Explain Yields 5-Years/5-Years Forward 5-Year Bond Yields Strongly Explain Yields 5-Years/5-Years Forward Chart II-17There Is Not Much Precedent For A Negative 5/10 Yield Curve During Modern Recessions, Suggesting 10-Year Yields Will Not Fall Below 2% During The Next Recession There Is Not Much Precedent For A Negative 5/10 Yield Curve During Modern Recessions, Suggesting 10-Year Yields Will Not Fall Below 2% During The Next Recession There Is Not Much Precedent For A Negative 5/10 Yield Curve During Modern Recessions, Suggesting 10-Year Yields Will Not Fall Below 2% During The Next Recession It is true that bond yields may deviate from the fair value levels shown in Chart II-15 if investors expect a different outcome for the path of the Fed funds rate than we described. However, it is worth noting that changes in our assumed post-recession peak Fed funds rate and the long-term average do not substantially change the outcome shown in Chart II-15. If investors instead assume that the Fed funds rate will peak at 3% during the next expansion, that lowers the fair value path for the 5-year yield by approximately 5 basis points. Changing the long-term average Fed funds rate to 2.4%, the Fed’s current neutral rate expectation, would reduce it by about 25 basis points. These levels would still be significantly above the lows reached in 2011-2013 and in 2020, underscoring that the length of the recession and the speed at which the Fed begins to raise interest rates will be far more important determinants of the path of US Treasury yields. We strongly suspect that investors will recognize that a comparatively mild recession will not result in the same hyper-accomodative monetary policy stance that occurred during the past two recessions, implying that long-maturity bond yields will have less downside during the next recession than may be currently recognized. Investment Conclusions As we have presented, the historical experience suggests that the Fed may cut interest rates to zero during the next recession, but that the re-establishment of a long-lasting zero interest rate policy and the associated resumption of large-scale asset purchases seem quite unlikely unless the recession is severe. In the post-WWII environment, severe US recessions have been accompanied by aggravating factors that appear to be missing in the current environment. In addition to this, there are several arguments pointing to the next US recession being a mild one. In a mild recession scenario, we doubt that the 10-year Treasury yield would fall below 2%, or fall below this level for very long. For fixed-income investors, while bond yields will fall for a time if a recession emerges, the implication is that investors should not overstay their welcome in a long-duration position during the recession and should be looking to reduce their duration exposure earlier rather than later. For equity investors, our findings underscore that meaningful downside risk exists for stocks even in a mild recession environment, because the decline in bond yields is not likely to offset a rise in the equity risk premium. We noted in our July report that if a recession occurred within the coming 6-12 months, that the S&P 500 would likely fall to 3100, even if the recession were average. A mild recession may see the S&P 500 decline less severely than this, but stocks are still likely to incur significant losses during the next recession unless investors price in a much shallower path for short-term interest rates than we believe will be warranted. As noted in Section 1 of our report, we have not yet concluded that a US recession is inevitable over the coming 6-12 months. Still, we acknowledge that the risks are quite elevated, and that substantial (further) supply-side and pandemic-related disinflation is likely needed for the US economy to avoid a contraction in output. Additional changes to our recommended cyclical allocation may thus occur over the coming few months, in response to incoming data, our assessment of the likely implications for monetary policy, and the response of long-maturity government bond yields. Jonathan LaBerge, CFA Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst III. Indicators And Reference Charts In contrast to the recent rally in equities, BCA’s equity indicators continue to paint a bearish outlook for stock prices. Our Monetary, Technical, and Speculative indicators have stopped falling, but they remain very weak. Meanwhile, the recent rally has pushed our valuation indicator back towards a level indicating stocks are considerably overvalued. While it is still a risk and not yet a likely event, the odds of a US recession over the next 12 months remain elevated. We maintain a neutral stance for stocks versus bonds over the coming year. Forward earnings are no longer being revised up, but bottom-up analysts’ expectations for earnings are likely still too optimistic. Although earnings growth will be positive over the coming year if a US recession is avoided, it will be in the mid-to-low single-digits given ongoing pressure on profit margins. Within a global equity portfolio, we maintain a neutral stance on cyclicals versus defensives, small caps versus large, and a neutral stance on regional equity allocation. We recommend a modest overweight towards value versus growth stocks, given our recommendation of a modestly short duration stance within a global fixed-income portfolio. Commodity prices have stopped falling, and our composite technical indicator now highlights that commodities are oversold. Our base-case view is that oil prices are likely to rise over the coming 12-months, barring a US recession. Global food prices have come down in the wake of deal between Russia and Ukraine to allow the latter to resume its agricultural exports. But the recent surge in European natural gas prices suggests that global food inflation may remain elevated, given that natural gas is used in the production of fertilizer. Ongoing weakness in the Chinese property market argues for a neutral stance towards industrial metals, until compelling signs of a more aggressive policy response emerge. US and global LEIs have now fallen into negative territory, underscoring that the risk of a global recession is elevated. Some indicators are easing back towards positive territory, such as our global LEI Diffusion Index and our US Financial Conditions Index, but it is not yet clear if they are heralding a reacceleration in economic activity or merely a less intense pace of decline. Jonathan LaBerge, CFA Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst Gabriel Di Lullo Research Associate EQUITIES: Chart III-1US Equity Indicators US Equity Indicators US Equity Indicators Chart III-2Willingness To Pay For Risk Willingness To Pay For Risk Willingness To Pay For Risk Chart III-3US Equity Sentiment Indicators US Equity Sentiment Indicators US Equity Sentiment Indicators Chart III-4US Stock Market Breadth US Stock Market Breadth US Stock Market Breadth Chart III-5US Stock Market Valuation US Stock Market Valuation US Stock Market Valuation Chart III-6US Earnings US Earnings US Earnings Chart III-7Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Chart III-8Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance FIXED INCOME: Chart III-9US Treasurys And Valuations US Treasurys And Valuations US Treasurys And Valuations Chart III-10Yield Curve Slopes Yield Curve Slopes Yield Curve Slopes Chart III-11Selected US Bond Yields Selected US Bond Yields Selected US Bond Yields Chart III-1210-Year Treasury Yield Components 10-Year Treasury Yield Components 10-Year Treasury Yield Components Chart III-13US Corporate Bonds And Health Monitor US Corporate Bonds And Health Monitor US Corporate Bonds And Health Monitor Chart III-14Global Bonds: Developed Markets Global Bonds: Developed Markets Global Bonds: Developed Markets Chart III-15Global Bonds: Emerging Markets Global Bonds: Emerging Markets Global Bonds: Emerging Markets CURRENCIES: Chart III-16US Dollar And PPP US Dollar And PPP US Dollar And PPP Chart III-17US Dollar And Indicator US Dollar And Indicator US Dollar And Indicator Chart III-18US Dollar Fundamentals US Dollar Fundamentals US Dollar Fundamentals Chart III-19Japanese Yen Technicals Japanese Yen Technicals Japanese Yen Technicals Chart III-20Euro Technicals Euro Technicals Euro Technicals Chart III-21Euro/Yen Technicals Euro/Yen Technicals Euro/Yen Technicals Chart III-22Euro/Pound Technicals Euro/Pound Technicals Euro/Pound Technicals COMMODITIES: Chart III-23Broad Commodity Indicators Broad Commodity Indicators Broad Commodity Indicators Chart III-24Commodity Prices Commodity Prices Commodity Prices Chart III-25Commodity Prices Commodity Prices Commodity Prices Chart III-26Commodity Sentiment Commodity Sentiment Commodity Sentiment Chart III-27Speculative Positioning Speculative Positioning Speculative Positioning ECONOMY: Chart III-28US And Global Macro Backdrop US And Global Macro Backdrop US And Global Macro Backdrop Chart III-29US Macro Snapshot US Macro Snapshot US Macro Snapshot Chart III-30US Growth Outlook US Growth Outlook US Growth Outlook Chart III-31US Cyclical Spending US Cyclical Spending US Cyclical Spending Chart III-32US Labor Market US Labor Market US Labor Market Chart III-33US Consumption US Consumption US Consumption Chart III-34US Housing US Housing US Housing Chart III-35US Debt And Deleveraging US Debt And Deleveraging US Debt And Deleveraging Chart III-36US Financial Conditions US Financial Conditions US Financial Conditions Chart III-37Global Economic Snapshot: Europe Global Economic Snapshot: Europe Global Economic Snapshot: Europe Chart III-38Global Economic Snapshot: China Global Economic Snapshot: China Global Economic Snapshot: China Footnotes 1     Please see The Bank Credit Analyst "Is The US Housing Market Signaling An Imminent Recession?" dated May 26, 2022, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 2     Please see US Bond Strategy "The Great Soft Landing Debate," dated August 2, 2022, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 3    Please see The Bank Credit Analyst "April 2022," dated March 31, 2022, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 4    Please see The Bank Credit Analyst "Inflation Whipsaw Ahead," dated June 30, 2022, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 5    Please see The Bank Credit Analyst "August 2022," dated July 28, 2022, available at bca.bcaresearch.com

Executive Summary US Companies Will Attempt To Raise Selling Prices To Protect Their Profit Margins US Companies Will Attempt To Raise Selling Prices To Protect Their Profit Margins US Companies Will Attempt To Raise Selling Prices To Protect Their Profit Margins China needs lower interest rates and a weaker currency to battle deflationary pressures. In the US, the main problem is elevated inflation. This heralds higher interest rates and a stronger currency. Hence, the Chinese yuan will depreciate against the greenback. When the RMB weakens versus the US dollar, commodity prices usually fall, and EM currencies and asset prices struggle. Faced with surging unit labor costs, US companies will continue to raise their prices to protect their profit margins and profitability. This will lead to one of the following two possible scenarios in the months ahead. Scenario 1: If customers are willing to pay considerably higher prices, nominal sales will remain robust, profits will not collapse, and a recession is unlikely. However, this also implies that the Fed will have to tighten policy by more than what is currently priced in by markets. Scenario 2: If customers push back against higher prices and curtail their purchases, then the economy will enter a recession. In this scenario, inflation will plummet, corporate margins will shrink, and their profits will plunge.  In both scenarios, the outlook for stocks is poor. However, one key difference is that scenario 1 is bearish for US Treasurys while scenario 2 is bond bullish. Bottom Line: On the one hand, the US has a genuine inflation problem. The upshot is that the Fed cannot pivot too early. The Fed’s hawkish rhetoric will support the US dollar. A strong greenback is bad for EM financial markets. On the other hand, the Chinese economy and global trade are experiencing deflation/recession dynamics. Cyclical assets underperform and the US dollar generally appreciates in this environment. This is also a toxic backdrop for EM financial markets.   Financial markets have been caught in contradictions. The reason is that investors cannot decide if the global economy is heading into a recession with deflationary forces prevailing, or whether a goldilocks economy or a period of inflation or stagflation will emerge in the foreseeable future. There are also plenty of contradictory data to support all the above scenarios.  As such, financial markets are volatile, swinging wildly as market participants absorb new economic data points. The S&P 500 index has rebounded from its 3-year moving average, which had previously served as a major support (Chart 1). Yet, the rebound has faltered at its 200-day moving average. Its failure to break decisively above this 200-day moving average entails that a new cyclical rally is not yet in the cards. Chart 1The S&P 500 Is Stuck Between Technical Resistance And Support Lines The S&P 500 Is Stuck Between Technical Resistance And Support Lines The S&P 500 Is Stuck Between Technical Resistance And Support Lines The S&P 500 index will remain between these resistance and support lines until investors make up their minds about the economic outlook. The EM equity index has been unable to rebound strongly alongside US stocks. A major technical support that held up in the 1998, 2001, 2002, 2008, 2015 and 2020 bear markets is about 15% below the current level (Chart 2). Hence, we recommend that investors remain on the sidelines of EM stocks. Chart 2EM Share Prices Are Still 15% Above Their Long-Term Technical Support Level EM Share Prices Are Still 15% Above Their Long-Term Technical Support Level EM Share Prices Are Still 15% Above Their Long-Term Technical Support Level BCA’s Emerging Markets Strategy team’s macro themes and views remain as follows: Related Report  Emerging Markets StrategyCharts That Matter In China, the main economic risk is deflation and the continuation of underwhelming economic growth. Core and service consumer price inflation are both below 1% and property prices are deflating. Falling prices amid high debt levels is a recipe for debt deflation. We discussed the government’s stimulus – including measures enacted for the property market – in the August 11 report. The latest announcement about the RMB 1 trillion stimulus does not change our analysis. In fact, we expected an additional RMB 1.5 trillion in local government bond issuance for the remainder of the current year. Yet, the government authorized only an additional RMB 0.5 trillion. This is substantially below what had been expected by analysts and commentators in recent months.   In Chinese and China-related financial markets, a recession/deflation framework remains appropriate. Onshore interest rates will drop further, the yuan will depreciate more, and Chinese stocks and China related plays will continue experiencing growth/profit headwinds. Meanwhile, the US economy has been experiencing stagflation this year. Chart 3 shows that even though the nominal value of final sales has expanded by 8-10%, sales and output have stagnated in real terms (close to zero growth). Hence, nominal sales and corporate profits have so far held up because companies have been able to raise prices by 8-9.5% (Chart 4). Is this bullish for the stock market? Not really. Chart 3US Stagflation: Strong Nominal Growth, But Small In Real Terms US Stagflation: Strong Nominal Growth, But Small In Real Terms US Stagflation: Strong Nominal Growth, But Small In Real Terms Chart 4US Corporate Profits Have Held Up Because Of Pricing Power/Inflation US Corporate Profits Have Held Up Because Of Pricing Power/Inflation US Corporate Profits Have Held Up Because Of Pricing Power/Inflation The fact that companies have been able to raise their selling prices at this rapid pace implies that the Fed cannot stop hiking rates. Besides, US wages and unit labor costs are surging (Chart 9 below). The implication is that inflation will be entrenched and core inflation will not drop quickly and significantly enough to allow the Fed to pivot anytime soon. Overall, US economic data releases have been consistent with our view that although real growth is slowing, the US economy is experiencing elevated inflations, i.e., a stagflationary environment. Critically, wages and inflation lag the business cycle and are also very slow moving variables. Hence, US core inflation will not drop below 4% quickly enough to provide relief for the Fed and markets. Is a US recession imminent? It depends. One thing we are certain of is that faced with surging unit labor costs, US companies will attempt to raise their prices to protect their profit margins and profitability. Our proxy for US corporate profit margins signals that they are already rolling over (Chart 5). Hence, business owners and CEOs will attempt to raise selling prices further. Chart 5US Companies Will Attempt To Raise Selling Prices To Protect Their Profit Margins US Companies Will Attempt To Raise Selling Prices To Protect Their Profit Margins US Companies Will Attempt To Raise Selling Prices To Protect Their Profit Margins This will lead to one of two possible scenarios for the US economy in the months ahead. Scenario 1: If customers (households and businesses) are willing to pay considerably higher prices, nominal sales will remain very robust, and profits will not collapse, reducing the likelihood of a recession. Yet, this means that inflation will become even more entrenched, and employees will continue to demand higher wages. A wage-price spiral will persist. The Fed will have to raise rates much more than what is currently priced in financial markets. This is negative for US share prices. Scenario 2: If customers push back against higher prices and curtail their purchases, output volume will relapse, i.e., the economy will enter a recession. In this scenario, inflation will plummet, corporate margins will shrink (prices received will rise much less than unit labor costs) and profits will plunge.  Suffering a profit squeeze, companies will lay off employees, wage growth will decelerate, and high inflation will be extinguished. In this scenario, bond yields will drop significantly but plunging corporate profits will weigh on share prices. We are not certain which of these two scenarios will prevail: it is hard to determine the point at which US consumers will push back against rising prices. Nevertheless, it is notable that in both scenarios, the outlook for stocks is poor.   Finally, as we have repeatedly written, global trade is about to contract. Charts 10-18 below elaborate on this theme. This is disinflationary/recessionary. Investment Conclusions On the one hand, the Chinese economy and global trade are experiencing deflation/recession dynamics. Cyclical assets struggle and the US dollar does well in this environment. This constitutes a toxic backdrop for EM financial markets. On the other hand, the US has a genuine inflation problem. The upshot is that the Fed cannot pivot too early. The Fed’s hawkish rhetoric will support the US dollar. A strong greenback is also bad for EM financial markets. Thus, we do not see any reason to alter our negative view on EM equities, credit and currencies. Investors should continue underweighting EM in global equity and credit portfolios. Local currency bonds offer value, but further currency depreciation and more rate hikes remain a risk to domestic bonds. We continue to short the following currencies versus the USD: ZAR, COP, PEN, PLN and IDR. In addition, we recommend shorting HUF vs. CZK, KRW vs. JPY, and BRL vs. MXN.   Arthur Budaghyan Chief Emerging Markets Strategist arthurb@bcaresearch.com Messages From Various US High-Beta / Cyclical Stock Prices US high-beta consumer discretionary, industrials, tech and early cyclical stocks have not yet broken out. The rebounds in high-beta tech and industrials have been rather muted. We are watching these and many other market signs and technical indicators to gauge if the recent rebounds can turn into a cyclical bull market. Chart 6 Messages From Various US High-Beta / Cyclical Stock Prices Messages From Various US High-Beta / Cyclical Stock Prices Chart 7 Messages From Various US High-Beta / Cyclical Stock Prices Messages From Various US High-Beta / Cyclical Stock Prices Falling Global Trade + Sticky US Inflation = US Dollar Overshot On the one hand, US household spending on goods ex-autos is already contracting and will drop further. The same is true for EU demand. The reasons are excessive consumption of goods over the past two years and shrinking household real disposable income. As a result, global trade is set to shrink, which is positive for the US dollar. On the other hand, surging US unit labor costs entail that core CPI will be very sticky at levels well above the Fed’s target. Hence, the Fed will likely maintain its hawkish bias for now, which is also bullish for the greenback. In short, the US dollar will continue overshooting.  Chart 8 Falling Global Trade + Sticky US Inflation = US Dollar Overshot Falling Global Trade + Sticky US Inflation = US Dollar Overshot Chart 9 Falling Global Trade + Sticky US Inflation = US Dollar Overshot Falling Global Trade + Sticky US Inflation = US Dollar Overshot Chinese Exports Will Contract, And Imports Will Fail To Recover Chinese export volume growth has come to a halt. Shrinking imports of inputs used for re-export (imports for processing trade) are pointing to an imminent contraction in the mainland’s exports. Further, Chinese import volumes have been contracting for the past 12 months. The value of imports has not plunged only because of high commodity prices. As commodity prices drop, import values will converge to the downside with import volumes. This is negative for economies/industries selling to China. Chart 10 Chinese Exports Will Contract, And Imports Will Fail to Recover Chinese Exports Will Contract, And Imports Will Fail to Recover Chart 11 Chinese Exports Will Contract, And Imports Will Fail to Recover Chinese Exports Will Contract, And Imports Will Fail to Recover Global Manufacturing / Trade Downtrend Is Intact China buys a lot of inputs from Taiwan that are used in its exports. That is why the mainland’s imports from Taiwan lead the global trade cycle. This is presently heralding a considerable deterioration in global trade.  In addition, falling freight rates and depreciating Emerging Asian (ex-China) currencies are all currently pointing to a further underperformance of global cyclicals versus defensive sectors. Chart 12 Global Manufacturing / Trade Downtrend Is Intact Global Manufacturing / Trade Downtrend Is Intact Chart 13 Global Manufacturing / Trade Downtrend Is Intact Global Manufacturing / Trade Downtrend Is Intact Chart 14 Global Manufacturing / Trade Downtrend Is Intact Global Manufacturing / Trade Downtrend Is Intact Taiwan Is A Canary In A Coal Mine Taiwanese manufacturing companies have seen their export orders plunge and their customer inventories surge. This has occurred in its overall manufacturing and semiconductor companies.  This corroborates our thesis that global export volumes will contract in the coming months. Chart 15 Taiwan Is A Canary In A Coal Mine Taiwan Is A Canary In A Coal Mine Chart 16 Taiwan Is A Canary In A Coal Mine Taiwan Is A Canary In A Coal Mine Korean Exporters Are Struggling Korean export companies are experience the same dynamics as their Taiwanese peers. Semiconductor prices and sales are falling hard in Korea. Export volume growth has come to a halt and will soon shrink. Chart 17 Korean Exporters Are Struggling Korean Exporters Are Struggling Chart 18 Korean Exporters Are Struggling Korean Exporters Are Struggling EM Equities: Cheap And Unloved? The EM cyclically adjusted P/E (CAPE) ratio has fallen to one standard deviation below its mean. Based on this measure, EM stocks are currently as cheap as they were at their bottoms in 2020, 2015 and 2008. EM share prices in USD deflated by US CPI are now at two standard deviations below their long-term time-trend. This is as bad as it got when EM stocks bottomed in the previous bear markets. The reason for EM stocks poor performance and such “cheapness” is corporate profits. EM EPS in USD has been flat, i.e., posting zero growth in the past 15 years. Besides, EM narrow money (M1) growth points to further EM EPS contraction in the months ahead. Chart 19 EM Equities: Cheap And Unloved? EM Equities: Cheap And Unloved? Chart 20 EM Equities: Cheap And Unloved? EM Equities: Cheap And Unloved? Chart 21 EM Equities: Cheap And Unloved? EM Equities: Cheap And Unloved? Chart 22 EM Equities: Cheap And Unloved? EM Equities: Cheap And Unloved? Commodity Prices Remain At Risk China needs lower interest rates and a weaker currency to battle deflationary pressures. In the US, the problem is inflation, which heralds higher interest rates and a stronger currency to fight rising prices. Hence, the yuan will depreciate versus the greenback. When the RMB depreciates versus the US dollar, commodity prices usually fall. Further, commodity currencies (an average of AUD, NZD and CAD) continue drafting lower. This indicator correlates with commodity prices and also presages further relapse in resource prices. Chart 23 Commodity Prices Remain At Risk Commodity Prices Remain At Risk Chart 24 Commodity Prices Remain At Risk Commodity Prices Remain At Risk Oil Prices: A Major Top In Place, But Geopolitics Will Drive Near-Term Fluctuations Chinese crude oil imports have been contracting for almost a year. Global (including US) demand for gasoline has relapsed. Meantime, Russia’s oil and oil product exports have fallen only by a mere 5% from their January level. This explains why oil prices have recently fallen. Oil lags business cycles: its consumption will shrink as global growth downshifts. However, geopolitics remain a wild card. Hence, we are uncertain about the near-term outlook for oil prices. That said, oil has made a major top and any rebound will fail to last much longer or push prices above recent highs. Chart 25 Oil Prices: A Major Top In Place, But Geopolitics Will Drive Near-Term Fluctuations Oil Prices: A Major Top In Place, But Geopolitics Will Drive Near-Term Fluctuations Chart 26 Oil Prices: A Major Top In Place, But Geopolitics Will Drive Near-Term Fluctuations Oil Prices: A Major Top In Place, But Geopolitics Will Drive Near-Term Fluctuations Chart 27 Oil Prices: A Major Top In Place, But Geopolitics Will Drive Near-Term Fluctuations Oil Prices: A Major Top In Place, But Geopolitics Will Drive Near-Term Fluctuations Chart 28 Oil Prices: A Major Top In Place, But Geopolitics Will Drive Near-Term Fluctuations Oil Prices: A Major Top In Place, But Geopolitics Will Drive Near-Term Fluctuations What Is Next For The Chinese RMB? The Chinese yuan will continue depreciating versus the US dollar. China needs lower interest rates and a weaker currency to battle deflationary pressures. While currency is moderately cheap, exchange rates tend to overshoot/undershoot and can remain cheap/expensive for a while. The CNY/USD has technically broken down. Interestingly, the periods of RMB depreciation coincide with deteriorating global US dollar liquidity and, in turn, poor performance by EM assets and commodities. Chart 29 What Is Next For The Chinese RMB? What Is Next For The Chinese RMB? Chart 30 What Is Next For The Chinese RMB? What Is Next For The Chinese RMB? Chart 31 What Is Next For The Chinese RMB? What Is Next For The Chinese RMB? Stay Put On Chinese Equities Odds are rising that Chinese platform companies will likely be delisted from the US as we have argued for some time. Hence, international investors will continue dampening US-listed Chinese stocks. The outlook for China’s economic recovery and profits is downbeat. This will weigh on non-TMT stocks and A shares. Within the Chinese equity universe, we continue to recommend the long A-shares / short Investable stocks strategy, a position we initiated on March 4, 2021. Chart 32 Stay Put On Chinese Equities Stay Put On Chinese Equities Chart 33 Stay Put On Chinese Equities Stay Put On Chinese Equities Chart 34 Stay Put On Chinese Equities Stay Put On Chinese Equities Chart 35 Stay Put On Chinese Equities Stay Put On Chinese Equities Messages For Stocks From Corporate Bonds Historically, rising US and EM corporate bond yields led to a selloff in US and EM share prices, respectively. Corporate bond yields are the cost of capital that matters for equities. Unless US and EM corporate bond yields start falling on a sustainable basis, their share prices will struggle. Corporate bond yields could increase because of either rising US Treasury yields or widening credit spreads. Chart 36 Messages For Stocks From Corporate Bonds Messages For Stocks From Corporate Bonds Chart 37 Messages For Stocks From Corporate Bonds Messages For Stocks From Corporate Bonds EM Currencies And Fixed-Income: An Unfinished Adjustment The profiles of EM FX and credit spreads suggest that their adjustment might not be complete. We expect further EM currency depreciation and renewed EM credit spread widening. EM domestic bond yields have risen significantly and offer value. However, if and as US TIPS yields rise and/or EM currencies continue to depreciate, local bond yields are unlikely to fall. To recommend buying EM local bonds aggressively, we need to change our view on the US dollar. Chart 38 EM Currencies And Fixed-Income: An Unfinished Adjustment EM Currencies And Fixed-Income: An Unfinished Adjustment Chart 39 EM Currencies And Fixed-Income: An Unfinished Adjustment EM Currencies And Fixed-Income: An Unfinished Adjustment Chart 40 EM Currencies And Fixed-Income: An Unfinished Adjustment EM Currencies And Fixed-Income: An Unfinished Adjustment Chart 41 EM Currencies And Fixed-Income: An Unfinished Adjustment EM Currencies And Fixed-Income: An Unfinished Adjustment   Footnotes Strategic Themes (18 Months And Beyond) Equities Cyclical Recommendations (6-18 Months) Cyclical Recommendations (6-18 Months)

Executive Summary Upgrade Euro Area ILBs To Overweight Upgrade Euro Area ILBs To Overweight Upgrade Euro Area ILBs To Overweight Inflation breakevens have stabilized in the US, where gasoline prices have fallen, but have reaccelerated in the UK and euro area, where natural gas prices have exploded. Inflation breakevens have declined in Canada, potentially due to markets starting to discount a rapid decline in Canadian house price inflation. Our suite of global breakeven models shows that US and Canadian 10-year breakevens are too low, while euro area and UK breakevens are too high. When adjusted for market expectations for the future stance of monetary policies, expressed as the slope of nominal bond yield curves, only the UK stands out with a “conflicted” combination of too-high breakevens and an inverted nominal Gilt curve. Bottom Line: Upgrade inflation-linked bonds to overweight in the euro area (Germany, France, Italy), while downgrading Canadian linkers to underweight. Stay underweight UK linkers, with the Bank of England on course to tip the UK into a deep recession. Maintain a neutral stance on US TIPS, but look to upgrade if the Fed signals a less hawkish path for US monetary policy. Feature Chart 1Intensifying Inflation Worries In Europe Intensifying Inflation Worries In Europe Intensifying Inflation Worries In Europe Inflation-linked bonds (ILBs) have played a useful role for fixed income investors looking to protect their portfolios from the pernicious effects of the current era of high inflation. The rising inflation tide had been lifting all global ILB boats. Given the global nature of the brief deflationary shock from the global COVID lockdowns in 2020, and the persistent inflationary shock of the policy-induced recovery from the pandemic, ILB yields – and breakeven spreads versus nominal bonds – have tended to be positively correlated between countries. Now, some interesting divergences have started to appear between market-based inflation expectations (ILB breakevens or CPI swaps) at the country level. Most notably, inflation expectations have been climbing in the euro area and UK, while staying more stable – below the 2022 peak - in the US (Chart 1). In smaller ILB markets like Canada and Australia, breakevens have rolled over and remain at levels consistent with central bank inflation targets even in the fact of high realized inflation. Amid signs of easing inflation pressures from the commodity and traded goods spaces, and with global central banks now in full-blown tightening cycles to try and rein in overshooting inflation, ILB markets are likely to continue being less correlated. Being selective with ILB allocations at the country level, both on the long and short side of the market, will provide better relative return opportunities for bond investors over the next 6-12 months. To assess where those ILB opportunities lie within the developed market universe, we must first go over what is happening with various measures of inflation expectations in each country. A Country-By-Country Tour Of The Recent Dynamics Of Inflation Expectations US Chart 2Lower Gas Prices, Lower US Inflation Expectations Lower Gas Prices, Lower US Inflation Expectations Lower Gas Prices, Lower US Inflation Expectations In the US, the correlation with inflation expectations and gasoline prices remains quite strong (Chart 2). That has been the case when gas prices were soaring, but the correlation works in both directions. The US national gasoline price has fallen by 22% since the peak on June 13, according to the American Automobile Association. Lower gas prices have helped ease consumer inflation expectations. The July reading of the New York Fed’s Survey of Consumer Expectations showed a dip in the 1-year-ahead inflation expectation to 6.2% from 6.8% in June. The 5-year-ahead inflation expectation, which was introduced to the New York Fed survey back in January, fell sharply in July to 2.3% from 2.8% in June (and from a peak of 3% back in March). The fall in US survey-based inflation is also mirrored in lower TIPS breakevens. The 10-year TIPS breakeven fell from 2.76% at the peak of the national gasoline price in mid-June to a low of 2.29% on July 7. The 10-year breakeven has since recovered to 2.58%, but is still below the levels at the time of the peak in gas prices – and considerably lower than the cyclical peak of 3.02% reached in April. The 2-year TIPS breakeven has fallen even more, down from 4.93% to 2.87% since the April peak. UK Chart 3A Historic Energy Price Shock In The UK A Historic Energy Price Shock In The UK A Historic Energy Price Shock In The UK The UK inflation story has been heavily focused on the historic surge in energy prices. UK headline CPI inflation reached double-digit territory in July, climbing to 10.1% on a year-over-year basis, with the energy component of the CPI rising by a staggering 58%. Within that energy component, natural gas prices have been a huge driver, with the gas component of the CPI index up 96% year-over-year in July (Chart 3). Yet despite the relentless climb in energy prices, and the well-publicized “cost of living crisis” with high inflation rates in many non-energy sectors of the UK economy, survey-based measures of UK inflation expectations have stopped rising. The medium-term (5-10 years ahead) inflation expectation from the Citigroup/YouGov survey of UK consumers fell to 3.8% in July, down from the 4.4% peak reached back in March. Even shorter-term inflation expectations have stabilized in the face of rising energy costs (bottom panel). The dip in survey-based inflation expectations as of the July surveys may only be that – a dip – with the 10-year breakeven rate on index-linked Gilts having climbed from 3.8% to 4.2% so far in August. It’s also possible that the household inflation surveys are picking up the impact from the recent slowing of global goods price inflation (and easing global supply chain disruptions). More likely, in our view, UK households are starting to factor in the impact of BoE monetary tightening and an imminent UK recession – one that the BoE is now forecasting – on future inflation. Euro Area Chart 4European Inflation Expectations On The Rise European Inflation Expectations On The Rise European Inflation Expectations On The Rise In the euro area, inflation expectations are finally responding to the steady climb in realized inflation evident across the region. Headline CPI inflation in the region climbed to 8.9% in July, the highest reading since the inception of the euro in 1999. The inflation has been concentrated in a few sectors, with four percentage points of that 8.9% coming from energy prices and another two percentage points coming from food, tobacco and alcohol. Core inflation (excluding food and energy) was 4.0% in July, less alarming than the headline number but still double the ECB’s inflation target of 2%. The ECB now produces its own survey of consumer inflation expectations, which it has been conducting without publishing the results since April 2020. The ECB started publishing the survey this month, as part of a broader Consumer Expectations Survey that also asks questions on topics like future economic growth and the health of labor markets. The most recent survey in June showed that 1-year-ahead inflation expectations were 5%, and 3-year-ahead were 2.8% (Chart 4). Both measures have risen sharply since February – the month before the Russian invasion of Ukraine that triggered the spike in oil and European natural gas prices – when the 1-year-ahead and 3-year-ahead measures were 3.2% and 2.1%, respectively. Euro area market-based inflation expectations are a little more subdued than those from the ECB’s consumer survey. The 5-year breakeven inflation rate on German ILBs is now at 3.4%, while the 10-year breakeven is at 2.5%. A similar message comes from European inflation swaps, with the 5-year measure at 3.4% and the 10-year measure at 2.8%. Canada Chart 5A Housing-Driven Peak In Canadian Inflation Expectations? A Housing-Driven Peak In Canadian Inflation Expectations? A Housing-Driven Peak In Canadian Inflation Expectations? In Canada, realized inflation is still elevated, but may be peaking. Headline CPI inflation was 7.6% in July, down from 8.1% in June, although this came almost entirely from lower energy inflation. Measures of underlying inflation produced by the Bank of Canada (BoC) also stabilized in July, with the trimmed CPI inflation measure ticking down from 5.4% from 5.5% in June (Chart 5). The latest read on survey-based inflation expectations from the BoC’s quarterly Consumer Expectations Survey for Q2/2022 showed a pickup in the 1-year-ahead measure (from 5.1% in Q1 to 6.8%), 2-year-ahead measure (from 4.6% in Q1 to 5%) and 5-year-ahead measure (from 3.2% to 4%). All of those measures are well above the latest readings on market-based inflation expectations from Canadian ILBs, a.k.a. Real Return Bonds, with the 5-year breakeven at 2.2% and 10-year breakeven at 2.1%. Market liquidity is always a factor in the relatively small Canadian Real Return Bond market, yet it is somewhat surprising that breakevens are so low compared with realized and survey-based inflation. The aggressive tightening so far by the BoC, including a whopping 100bp rate hike last month and more expected over the next year, may be playing a role in dampening inflation breakevens – especially with the BoC’s tightening already having an impact on the Canadian housing market. National house price inflation, which tends to lead overall headline CPI inflation by around one year, was 14.2% in July, down from the 2022 peak of 18.8% (top panel). Australia Chart 6Inflation Expectations Remain Moderate In Australia & Japan Inflation Expectations Remain Moderate In Australia & Japan Inflation Expectations Remain Moderate In Australia & Japan In Australia, headline CPI inflation reached 6.1% in Q2/2022, up from 5.1% in Q1/2022, while the median inflation rate was 4.2%. While energy costs were a big contributor to the rise in overall inflation, the pickup was fairly broad-based with notable increases in the inflation rates related to housing (both house prices and furniture prices). Survey-based measures of inflation expectations in Australia focus on more shorter time horizons, thus they are highly correlated to current realized inflation. On that note, the Melbourne University measure of 1-year-ahead consumer inflation expectations soared from 4.9% in Q1/2022 to 6.2% in Q2/2022, while the early read on Q3/2022 2-year-ahead inflation expectations from the Union Officials survey rose to 4.1% from 3.5% in the previous quarter (Chart 6). Market-based inflation expectations are relatively subdued given the high readings of realized inflation and shorter-term survey-based inflation expectations. The 10-year Australian ILB breakeven is now at 1.9%, while the 5-year/5-year forward CPI swap rate is at 2.4%. The aggressive RBA tightening in 2022, with the Cash Rate having increased 175bps over the last four policy meetings, may be playing a role in holding down ILB breakevens. The relatively moderate pace of wage gains in Australia, with the Wage Price Index climbing 2.6% year-over-year in Q2, may also be weighing on ILB breakevens (middle panel). Japan There is not much exciting to say on the inflation front in Japan. The core (excluding fresh food) CPI inflation rate targeted by the Bank of Japan (BoJ) did hit a 7-year of 2.4% in July, but the core CPI measure more in line with international standards (excluding fresh food and energy) was only 1.2% in July (bottom panel). That was the strongest reading since 2015 but still well below the BoJ’s 2% inflation target. Survey-based consumer inflation expectations from the BoJ’s Opinion Survey showed a noticeable increase in Q2/2022, with the 5-year-ahead measure rising to 5% from 3% in Q1. This is obviously well above realized Japanese inflation, although the same survey showed that Japanese consumers believed that the current inflation rate was also 5%. Market-based Japanese inflation expectations are well below the BoJ survey-based measure, but in line with realized core inflation with the 2-year and 10-year CPI swap rates at 1.22% and 0.9%, respectively. The Message From Our Inflation Breakeven Valuation Models Chart 7A Diminished Case For Overweighting Inflation-Linked Bonds A Diminished Case For Overweighting Inflation-Linked Bonds A Diminished Case For Overweighting Inflation-Linked Bonds From an overall global perspective, the case for favoring ILBs versus nominal government bonds across all countries is less intriguing today than was the case in 2021 and early 2022 (Chart 7). Commodity price inflation is slowing rapidly alongside decelerating global growth. This is true both for oil and especially for non-oil commodities, with the CRB Raw Industrials index now falling on a year-over-year basis (middle panel). Supply chain disruptions on goods prices are easing, which is evident in lower rates of goods inflation in the US and other countries. Given the divergences evident between realized inflation, expected inflation and monetary policy outlook outlined in our tour of global inflation expectations, there may be better opportunities to selectively allocate to ILBs on a country-by-country basis. One tool to help us identify such opportunities is our suite of inflation breakeven fair value models. The models are all constructed in a similar fashion, determining the fair value of 10-year ILB breakevens as a function of the same two factors for each country: The underlying trend in realized inflation, defined as the five-year moving average of headline CPI inflation. This forms the medium-term “anchor” for breakevens. The year-over-year percentage change in the Brent oil price, denominated in local currency terms for each country. This attempts to capture cyclical trends around that medium-term anchor based on movements in oil and currencies. We have breakeven fair value models for eight developed market countries, which are shown in the next four pages of this report. The list of countries includes the US (Chart 8), the UK (Chart 9), France (Chart 10), Germany (Chart 11), Italy (Chart 12), Canada (Chart 13), Australia (Chart 14) and Japan (Chart 15). Chart 8Our US 10-Year Inflation Breakeven Model Our US 10-Year Inflation Breakeven Model Our US 10-Year Inflation Breakeven Model ​​​​​​ Chart 9Our UK 10-Year Inflation Breakeven Model Our UK 10-Year Inflation Breakeven Model Our UK 10-Year Inflation Breakeven Model ​​​​​​ Chart 10Our France 10-Year Inflation Breakeven Model Our France 10-Year Inflation Breakeven Model Our France 10-Year Inflation Breakeven Model ​​​​​​ Chart 11Our Germany 10-Year Inflation Breakeven Model Our Germany 10-Year Inflation Breakeven Model Our Germany 10-Year Inflation Breakeven Model ​​​​​​ Chart 12Our Italy 10-Year Inflation Breakeven Model Our Italy 10-Year Inflation Breakeven Model Our Italy 10-Year Inflation Breakeven Model ​​​​​​ Chart 13Our Canada 10-Year Inflation Breakeven Model Our Canada 10-Year Inflation Breakeven Model Our Canada 10-Year Inflation Breakeven Model ​​​​​ Chart 14Our Australia 10-Year Inflation Breakeven Model Our Australia 10-Year Inflation Breakeven Model Our Australia 10-Year Inflation Breakeven Model ​​​​​ Chart 15Our Japan 10-Year Inflation Breakeven Model Our Japan 10-Year Inflation Breakeven Model Our Japan 10-Year Inflation Breakeven Model ​​​​​ Full disclosure: we decided last year to de-emphasize our breakeven fair value models after the 2020 COVID recession and, more importantly, the sharp global economic recovery in 2021 from the pandemic shock. The rapid acceleration of oil prices – up 2-3 times in all countries - triggered by that recovery created some wild swings in the estimated breakeven fair value. Today, with oil inflation at more “normal” levels below 100%, we have greater confidence in using the models once again in our strategic thinking on ILBs. The broad conclusions from the models are the following: 10-year inflation breakevens are too low in the US, Canada and Germany 10-year inflation breakevens are too high in the UK and Italy 10-year inflation breakevens are fairly valued in France, Japan and Australia. Taken at face value, our models would suggest overweighting ILBs in the US, Canada and Germany and underweighting ILBs in the UK (and staying neutral on France, Japan and Australia) as part of a new regional ILB diversification strategy. However, there is an additional element to consider when assessing the attractiveness of inflation breakevens at the macro level – the expected stance of monetary policy. ILB inflation breakevens often represent a market-based “report card” on the appropriateness of a central bank’s monetary policy. If monetary settings are deemed to be overly stimulative, the markets will price in higher expected inflation and wider breakevens. The opposite holds true if policy is deemed to be too restrictive, leading to reduced expected inflation and narrower breakevens. Thus, any regional ILB allocation strategy should not only use fair value assessments, but also a monetary policy “filter”. In Chart 16, we show a scatter graph plotting the latest deviations from fair value of 10-year breakevens from our eight country fair value models on the x-axis, and the cumulative amount of expected interest rate increases discounted in overnight index swap (OIS) curves for each country on the y-axis. For the latter, we define this as the peak in rates discounted in 2023 (which is the case for all the countries) minus the trough in policy rates at the start of the current monetary tightening cycle (which is near 0% for all the countries). Chart 16No Clear Link Between Rate Hikes & Breakeven Valuations A Regional Diversification Strategy For Inflation-Linked Bonds A Regional Diversification Strategy For Inflation-Linked Bonds The idea behind the chart is that inflation breakeven valuations should be inversely correlated to the amount of monetary tightening expected by markets. Too many rate hikes would result in markets discounting lower breakevens, and vice versa. However, there is no reliable relationship evident in the chart. For example, the OIS curves are discounting roughly similar levels of cumulative tightening in the US, UK, Canada and Australia, yet ILB breakeven valuations are very different between those countries. In Chart 17, we show a slightly different version of that scatter graph, this time plotting the ILB breakeven fair values versus the slope of the 2-year/10-year nominal government bond yield curve for all eight countries. The logic here is that the slope of the yield curve represents the bond market’s assessment of the appropriateness of future monetary policy. When policy is deemed to be too tight – with an expected peak in rates above what the market believes to be the neutral rate – the yield curve will be flat or even inverted, as markets discount slowing growth in the future and, eventually, lower inflation. Chart 17A Stronger Link Between Yield Curves & Breakeven Valuations A Regional Diversification Strategy For Inflation-Linked Bonds A Regional Diversification Strategy For Inflation-Linked Bonds There is a clear positive relationship between yield curve slope and inflation expectations evident in the new chart. This provides some evidence justifying adding a monetary policy filter to a regional ILB allocation strategy. Related Report  Global Fixed Income StrategyDovish Central Bank Pivots Will Come Later Than You Think Under this framework, US and Canadian breakevens trading below fair value is consistent with the inverted yield curves in both countries, with markets now discounting a restrictive level of future interest rates that would dampen inflation expectations. The fair value of Australian and Japanese breakevens also appears in line with the slope of the yield curves in those countries. In terms of divergences, the overvaluation of UK breakevens is inconsistent with the inverted nominal Gilt curve, while the three euro area countries should have somewhat higher breakevens (trading more richly to fair value) given the relatively steeper slope of their yield curves. Investment Conclusions Chart 18Upgrade Euro Area ILBs To Overweight Upgrade Euro Area ILBs To Overweight Upgrade Euro Area ILBs To Overweight After surveying our ILB breakeven fair value models, and cross-checking them versus trends in survey-based inflation expectations and our own assessment of future monetary policies, we arrive at the following country allocations within our new regional ILB strategy: Neutral on US TIPS, despite the attractive valuations. However, look to upgrade if the Fed signals a less hawkish path for US monetary policy (not our base case) or if breakevens fall even further below fair value without more deeper US Treasury curve inversion. Underweight UK ILBs. Breakevens are overshooting due to the near-term inflation risk from soaring energy prices – an outcome that will force the BoE to deliver an even tighter monetary policy, with a more deeply inverted yield curve, that will drive the UK into a disinflationary recession. Underweight Canadian ILBs, despite the attractive valuations. Canadian inflation has likely peaked, and the BoC is engineering a disinflationary downturn in the Canadian housing market with aggressive rate hikes that will maintain an inverted yield curve. Overweight German, French and Italian ILBs. The ECB is likely to deliver fewer rate hikes than markets are discounting, keeping the euro area yield curves relatively steep versus the curves of other developed countries. This also provides a better way to play the near-term inflationary upside from overshooting natural gas prices in Europe than overweighting UK ILBs, with the BoE expected to be much more hawkish than the ECB (Chart 18). Neutral Australia and Japan. Underlying inflation momentum is slower than in the other regions, while breakeven valuations are neutral and not out of line with the expected stance of monetary policy. We are incorporating this new regional ILB strategy into our Model Bond Portfolio, which can be seen on pages 18-20. The changes from current allocations involve upgrades to Germany, France and Italy to overweight, and a downgrade of Canada to underweight.   Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Recommended Positioning     Active Duration Contribution: GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. Custom Performance Benchmark A Regional Diversification Strategy For Inflation-Linked Bonds A Regional Diversification Strategy For Inflation-Linked Bonds The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Global Fixed Income - Strategic Recommendations* Cyclical Recommendations (6-18 Months) A Regional Diversification Strategy For Inflation-Linked Bonds A Regional Diversification Strategy For Inflation-Linked Bonds