Policy

Highlights There is a high risk of a global demand shortfall in 2022. This is because consumer demand for services will remain well below its pre-pandemic trend… …while the recent booming demand for goods is crashing back to earth. Stay overweight 30-year T-bonds. In the equity market, underweight the ‘reflation’ sectors: specifically, underweight banks and basic resources. Stay overweight animal care. Overweight the interactive entertainment sector (look out for a Special Report on this sector coming out very soon). Fractal analysis: Overweight gas distribution. Feature Chart of the WeekSpending On Services In The US Is Still Far Below The Pre-Pandemic Trend. Will It Catch Up In 2022? Spending On Services In The US Is Still Far Below The Pre-Pandemic Trend. Will It Catch Up In 2022? Spending On Services In The US Is Still Far Below The Pre-Pandemic Trend. Will It Catch Up In 2022? With inflation surging, you would be forgiven for thinking that global demand is red-hot. Sadly, global demand is not red-hot. Two years after the pandemic began, the lynchpin of demand – consumer spending on services – remains far below its pre-pandemic trend. For example, US consumer spending on services is around $420 billion, or 5 percent, below where it should be (Chart I-1). A similar story holds true in the UK and France (Chart I-2 and Chart I-3). Chart I-2Spending On Services Is Still Far Below The Pre-Pandemic Trend In The UK... Spending On Services Is Still Far Below The Pre-Pandemic Trend In The UK... Spending On Services Is Still Far Below The Pre-Pandemic Trend In The UK... Chart I-3...And France ...And France ...And France Still, overall US consumer spending is on trend. Just. But only thanks to an unprecedented largesse of fiscal and monetary stimulus. Begging the question, what will happen when the stimulus ends? If overall stimulated spending is just on trend while spending on services is in deficit, it means that spending on goods is in a mirror-image $420 billion surplus. Which, given the smaller share of spending on goods, equates to 8 percent above where it should be. One misconception is that the surplus in goods spending is concentrated in durables. While this was true six months ago, two-thirds of the current surplus is in nondurables, dominated by clothing and shoes, food and drink at home, and games, toys and hobbies (Chart I-4). Chart I-4US Overspend On Durables Is Now $140 Bn, While Overspend On Nondurables Is $280 Bn US Overspend On Durables Is Now $140 Bn, While Overspend On Nondurables Is $280 Bn US Overspend On Durables Is Now $140 Bn, While Overspend On Nondurables Is $280 Bn Looking ahead, if the demand for goods crashes back to earth, as seems to be happening now, then the demand for services will have to catch up to its pre-pandemic trend. Otherwise there will be a deficit in aggregate demand. So, the crucial question for 2022 is, will services spending catch up to its pre-pandemic trend? Services Spending Will Remain Well Below Its Pre-Pandemic Trend Many people believe that the deficit in US services spending is due to the underspend in bars, restaurants, and hotels. In fact, this is another misconception. The underspending on ‘food services and accommodations’ is now a negligible $30 billion out of the $420 billion deficit. In which case, where is the deficit? Surprisingly, the biggest component is a $160 billion underspend on health care (Chart I-5). In particular, the spending on ‘outpatient physician services’ levelled off a year ago well below its pre-pandemic level (Chart I-6). A plausible explanation is that many doctor’s appointments have shifted to online, requiring much lower spending. The result is that health care consumption has slowed its convergence to the pre-pandemic trend, implying that a deficit could be persistent. Chart I-5US Underspend On Health Care ##br##Is $160 Bn US Underspend On Health Care Is $160 Bn US Underspend On Health Care Is $160 Bn Chart I-6US Spending On Physician Services Is Far Below The Pre-Pandemic Trend US Spending On Physician Services Is Far Below The Pre-Pandemic Trend US Spending On Physician Services Is Far Below The Pre-Pandemic Trend A second major component of the deficit is a $110 billion underspend on recreation services, as consumers have shunned the large or dense crowds in amusement parks, sports centres, spectator sports, and theatres. Some of this shunning of crowds will be long-lasting (Chart I-7). Chart I-7US Underspend On Recreation Services Is $110 Bn US Underspend On Recreation Services Is $110 Bn US Underspend On Recreation Services Is $110 Bn A third major component of the deficit is a $60 billion underspend on public transportation, as people have likewise shunned the personal proximity required in mass transit systems and aeroplanes. Some of this shunning of transport that requires personal proximity will also be long-lasting (Chart I-8). Chart I-8US Underspend On Public Transportation Is $60 Bn US Underspend On Public Transportation Is $60 Bn US Underspend On Public Transportation Is $60 Bn Worryingly, the recent spending on both recreation services and public transportation has stopped converging with the pre-pandemic trend. Admittedly, this might be a blip due to the delta wave of the pandemic, and spending could re-accelerate once this wave subsides. On the other hand, it would be prudent to assume that the delta wave was not the last wave of the pandemic and that further waves could arrive in 2022. Pulling all of this together, large parts of services spending will remain persistently below their pre-pandemic trend. Eventually, new and innovative types of services will plug this deficit, but this will take time. Therefore, we conservatively estimate that, at the end of 2022, US consumer spending on services will still be below its pre-pandemic trend by at least $200 billion, or 2.5 percent. Other major economies, like the UK and France, will suffer similar deficits. Goods Spending Will Crash Back To Earth Let’s now switch to the other side of the ledger, and assess to what extent the underspend in services can be countered by an overspend in goods. Spending on durables is already crashing back to earth. A surplus of $500 billion in March has collapsed to $140 billion now, and we fully expect it to fall back to zero. The reason is that durables, by their very definition, provide long-duration utility. Meaning that there are only so many cars, smartphones, and gadgets that any person can own. But what about the current $280 billion surplus on nondurables – can that be sustained? The biggest component of the nondurables surplus is a $85 billion, or 20 percent, overspend on clothes and shoes. Some of this overspend is justified by a wardrobe transition to the post-pandemic way of working and living. But clothes and shoes, though classified as nondurable, are in fact quite durable. Meaning that once the wardrobe transition is complete, we do not expect people to spend 20 percent more on clothes and shoes than they did before the pandemic (Chart I-9). Chart I-9US Overspend On Clothes And Shoes Is $85 Bn US Overspend On Clothes And Shoes Is $85 Bn US Overspend On Clothes And Shoes Is $85 Bn A second major component of the nondurables surplus is a $75 billion, or 7 percent, overspend on food and beverages at home. To a large extent, this has been a displacement of the underspending on eating and drinking out. But given that this underspend on eating and drinking out has almost normalised, we expect the overspend on eating and drinking at home to fade (Chart I-10). Chart I-10US Overspend On Food And Drink At Home Is $75 Bn US Overspend On Food And Drink At Home Is $75 Bn US Overspend On Food And Drink At Home Is $75 Bn A third major component of the nondurables surplus is a $45 billion, or 16 percent, overspend on recreational items: games, toys, hobbies, and pets and pet products (Chart I-11 and Chart I-12). To a large extent, this has been a displacement of the underspend on recreation services involving crowds, which will last. Hence, we expect the nondurable surplus on recreational items also to last, to the benefit of the animal care sector and the interactive (electronic) entertainment sector. Chart I-11US Overspend On Games, Toys, And Hobbies Is $45 Bn US Overspend On Games, Toys, And Hobbies Is $45 Bn US Overspend On Games, Toys, And Hobbies Is $45 Bn Chart I-12Spending On Pets Is ##br##Booming Spending On Pets Is Booming Spending On Pets Is Booming Pulling all of this together, we expect the $140 billion surplus on durables to disappear fully, and the $280 billion surplus on nondurables to fade to well below $200 billion. Therefore, given that the deficit on services is likely to be above $200 billion, there is a high risk of a consumer demand deficit in 2022. Four Investment Conclusions The ultra-long end of the bond market is figuring out that without sustained above-trend demand, you cannot get sustained inflation. And to repeat, if demand is barely on trend after an unprecedented largesse of fiscal and monetary stimulus, then what will happen when the stimulus ends? All of which leads to four investment conclusions: Stay overweight 30-year T-bonds. In the equity market, underweight the ‘reflation’ sectors: specifically, underweight banks and basic resources. Stay overweight animal care. Overweight the interactive entertainment sector (look out for a Special Report on this sector coming out very soon). Gas Distribution Is Oversold Finally, one of the paradoxes of skyrocketing natural gas prices is that it has badly hurt the gas distributors which, for the most part, have not been able to pass on the higher prices in full to end users. The resulting margin squeeze has caused a sharp recent underperformance, which is now fragile on its 65-day/130-day composite fractal structure (Chart I-13). Chart I-13Gas Distribution Is Oversold Gas Distribution Is Oversold Gas Distribution Is Oversold Given this fractal fragility combined with the recent correction in natural gas prices, a recommended trade would be to overweight global gas distribution versus banks, setting a profit target and symmetrical stop-loss at 5 percent.   Dhaval Joshi Chief Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com Fractal Trading System Fractal Trades 6-Month Recommendations Structural Recommendations Closed Fractal Trades   Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields ##br##- Euro Area Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Euro Area Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Euro Area Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields ##br##- Europe Ex Euro Area Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Europe Ex Euro Area Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Europe Ex Euro Area Chart I-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields ##br##- Asia Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Asia Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Asia Chart I-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields ##br##- Other Developed Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Other Developed Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Other Developed   Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart I-5Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart I-6Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart I-7Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart I-8Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations  

Highlights The bipartisan Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act will increase US government non-defense spending to around 3% of GDP, a level comparable to the 1980s-90s and larger than the 2010s.   Democrats are increasingly likely to pass their ~$1.75 trillion social spending bill, with odds at 65%. The budget reconciliation process necessary to pass this bill is also necessary to raise the national debt limit by December 3, so Congress is unlikely to fail.    The Democratic spending bills will reduce fiscal drag very marginally in 2022-24 and will occasionally increase fiscal thrust thereafter. Republicans are unlikely to repeal much of the spending in coming years. Limited Big Government is a new strategic theme. The federal government is permanently taking a larger role in the economy – but this role will still be limited by voters, who do not favor socialism. Biden’s approval rating will stabilize at a low level. Immigration, crime, and especially inflation will determine the Democrats’ fate in the 2022 midterms. Gridlock is likely. The stock market has already priced the infrastructure bill and it will continue to rally on the rumor that reconciliation will pass. But growth has outperformed value, contrary to expectations. Feature Democrats in the House of Representatives finally passed the $1.2 trillion Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, which consists of $550 billion in brand new spending and $650 billion in a continuation of existing levels of spending to cover the next ten years. The legislation passed with 228 votes in the House, ten more than needed, due to 13 Republican votes, making it “bipartisan” (Chart 1). The contents of the bill are shown in Table 1. Republicans supported the bill because of its focus on traditional infrastructure – roads, bridges, ports – but they also agreed to more modern elements such as $65 billion on broadband Internet and $36 billion on electric vehicles and environmental remediation. Implementation of the bill will be felt in 2023-24, in time for the presidential election, as committees will need to be set up to identify and approve projects. Chart 1 Table 1Itemized Infrastructure Plan Closing The Loop On Infrastructure Closing The Loop On Infrastructure While $550 billion is not a lot in a world of multi-trillion dollar stimulus bills, nevertheless it makes for a 34% increase in federal non-defense investment to levels consistent with the 1980s-90s (Chart 2). Chart 2 The new government spending will amount to 3% of GDP per year over the next ten years, a non-trivial amount of stimulus even though the big picture of the budget deficit remains about the same (Chart 3). Chart 3 The passage of the infrastructure bill will increase, not decrease, the odds of Biden and the Democrats passing their $1.75 trillion social spending bill via the partisan budget reconciliation process. Subjectively we put the odds at 65% in the wake of infrastructure, although recent events suggest that the odds could be put even higher. While left-wing Democrats failed to link the infrastructure and social spending bills, as we argued, nevertheless the passage of infrastructure was a requirement for the key swing voter in the Senate, Joe Manchin of West Virginia. Manchin is negotiating on the reconciliation bill, suggesting he will vote for it, and he will ultimately capitulate because he will not want to be blamed for a default on the US national debt. The US will hit the national debt ceiling on December 3 and the only reliable means for the Democrats to raise the ceiling is reconciliation. The other critical moderate Democratic senator, Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona, seems to have capitulated, after securing a removal of corporate and high-income individual tax hikes from the bill. Far-left senators might make a last stand, holding up reconciliation and winning some last-minute concession. Six House Democrats refused to vote for the infrastructure bill (including New York House member Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez). However, progressives lost leverage after the Democrats’ losses in the off-year elections. Moreover the debt ceiling will force the hand of the progressives as well as the moderates. Any such hurdles will ultimately be steamrolled by the president and Democratic Party leaders. Combined with infrastructure, the net deficit impact of the infrastructure and reconciliation bills will range from $461 billion to $1 trillion (Table 2). Our scenarios vary based on how much credence we give to Democratic revenue raisers, since many of these are gimmicks and accounting tricks to make the bill look more fiscally responsible than it really is. At the most the US is looking at an increase in the budget deficit of less than 0.5% of GDP per year in the coming years. Table 2Biden Administration Tax-And-Spend Scenarios Closing The Loop On Infrastructure Closing The Loop On Infrastructure Investors should think of Biden’s legislative efforts as very marginally reducing fiscal drag rather than increasing fiscal thrust, at least in the short run. The budget deficit is normalizing after hitting unprecedented peacetime extremes at the height of the global pandemic and social lockdowns. The shrinking deficit subtracts from aggregate demand in 2022-2024. But the new spending bills will remove a small part of that drag during these years, as highlighted in Chart 4. More importantly the US Congress is signaling that fiscal policy is back in action and that fiscal retrenchment is a long way off. Over the long run, new spending will add marginally to fiscal thrust and aggregate demand, suggesting that the US government’s contribution to the economy will grow a bit in the latter part of the 2020s, namely if Democratic legislation survives the 2024 election. For the most part it probably will, as it is very difficult to repeal entitlements or slash government spending even with Republican majorities, as witnessed with the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) in 2017. Chart 4 Chart 5Polarization Of Economic Sentiment Declining Polarization Of Economic Sentiment Declining Polarization Of Economic Sentiment Declining The polarization of economic sentiment – i.e. divergence in partisan views of the economy – has fallen since the pandemic and will likely continue to fall as the business cycle continues (Chart 5). Both presidential candidates offered infrastructure packages – they only differed on how to fund it. With the government taking a larger role in the economy – and yet the Republicans likely to rebound in future elections – the result is one of our new strategic themes: limited big government. The heyday of “limited government,” from President Ronald Reagan through George W. Bush, has ended. But the new popular and elite consensus in favor of “Big Government” can be overrated – the US political system is defined by checks and balances that will limit the pace and magnitude of the big government trend, and at times even seem to reverse it. Hence investors should think of US fiscal policy and government role in the economy as limited big government. Political Implications Of Bipartisan Infrastructure President Biden’s approval rating has collapsed since this summer when he suffered from perceptions of incompetence on both the delta variant of COVID-19 and the withdrawal from Afghanistan. Democratic infighting, which delayed the passage of his legislation, also hurt him (Chart 6). However, these are all passing narratives, with the exception of the incompetence narrative, which could become a lasting threat to Biden if not addressed. Biden’s signing of the infrastructure bill will stabilize his approval rating. Biden will probably end up somewhere between Presidents Obama and Trump. Voters will most likely upgrade their assessment of his handling of the economy over the coming year, at least marginally. But on foreign policy he will remain extremely vulnerable since he faces numerous immediate crises in coming years. American presidential disapproval has trended upwards since the 1950s of President Eisenhower. Disapproval peaks during recessions and wars. As the economy improves, Biden’s disapproval will fall, but foreign crises and wars are likely in today’s fraught geopolitical environment (Chart 7). Chart 6 Chart 7 A few opinion polls suggest that Republicans have taken the lead over the Democrats in generic opinion polling regarding support for the parties in Congress. These polls are outliers and may or may not become the norm over the next year. Democrats have fallen from their peaks but Republicans still suffer from significant internal divisions (Chart 8). Chart 8 Voters continue to identify mostly as political independents, with a notable downtrend in the share of voters who see themselves as Republicans or Democrats in recent years (Chart 9). Independent voters have marked leanings, right or left. While the leftward lean of independents has peaked, they are not leaning to the right. The infrastructure bill and even reconciliation bill will support Democratic identification. But the sharp rise in immigration, crime, and potentially persistent inflation will support Republicans. These last will become the critical political issues going forward. The democratic socialist or progressive agenda has already been checked by voters and Democrats can only double down on that agenda at their own peril. The infrastructure bill’s passage may give a boost to perceptions of Democratic odds of maintaining the Senate in the 2022 midterm elections – that question is still up in the air, even as the House is very likely to return to Republican control (Chart 10). Chart 9Independent Voters Still Rule Independent Voters Still Rule Independent Voters Still Rule An under-the-radar beneficiary of the bipartisan infrastructure bill is Congress itself. Since 2014, public approval of Congress has gradually recovered from historic lows. The level is still low, at 27%, but the upward trend is notable for suggesting that a fiscally active Congress gains popular approval (Chart 11). New social spending will also increase Congress’s image, first for “doing something,” and second for expanding the social safety net, which more than half of voters will approve.  Chart 10 Chart 11 Partisan gridlock after 2022 could reverse the trend, as Republicans may find or invent a reason to impeach President Biden in retribution for President Trump’s impeachments. But our best guess is that Congress will remain above its low point as long as fiscal support – limited big government – remains intact. Aggressive tax hikes or spending cuts, or a national debt default, could reverse the recovery of this institution. Investment Takeaways The infrastructure bill’s passage may have supported the recent rally in stocks but it is not the main driver. Infrastructure stocks had largely discounted the bill’s passage by spring and our BCA Infrastructure Basket has underperformed the broad market since then. In absolute terms, infrastructure stocks have reached new highs and show a rising trajectory (Chart 12). The infrastructure bill has not delivered as expected when it comes to sectors or investment styles. Cyclicals have outperformed defensives, as expected. But value stocks have hit new lows relative to growth stocks, contrary to our expectation this year (Chart 13). Chart 12Infrastructure Was Already Priced Infrastructure Was Already Priced Infrastructure Was Already Priced Chart 13Wall Street Looks Well Beyond Infrastructure Wall Street Looks Well Beyond Infrastructure Wall Street Looks Well Beyond Infrastructure External factors – namely China’s policy tightening and bumps in the global recovery – weighed on cyclicals and value plays, especially relative to Big Tech (Chart 14). Growth stocks have surged yet again on low bond yields, positive earnings surprises, and secular trends like innovation and digitization. The American economy looks robust as the year draws to a close. The service sector is recovering smartly from the delta variant. Non-manufacturing business activity is surging and new orders are exploding upward relative to inventories (Chart 15). Service sector employment has suffered from shortages. Chart 14External Factors Weigh On Infrastructure Plays External Factors Weigh On Infrastructure Plays External Factors Weigh On Infrastructure Plays Chart 15Service Sector Recovery Underway Service Sector Recovery Underway Service Sector Recovery Underway Inflation risks are trickling into consumer and voter consciousness as Christmas approaches and prices rise at the pump (Chart 16). The Democrats’ two big bills will mitigate the damage they face in next year’s midterm elections – the Senate is still in competition. But a persistent inflation problem will overwhelm their legislative accomplishments. Voters will connect the dots between large deficit spending and inflationary surprises (not to mention any Democratic changes that reinforce the extremely dovish stance of the Fed). The normal political cycle will count heavily against the Democrats in 2022 regardless of inflation. But voters simultaneously face historic spikes in immigration and crime – and the former, at least, will get worse and not better over the next 12 months. Predicting inflation is a mug’s game but wage growth suggests it will remain a substantial risk in 2022 – and the structural shift in favor of big government, even if it is limited big government due to the political cycle, is inflationary on the margin. Chart 16Voters Awakening To Inflation Voters Awakening To Inflation Voters Awakening To Inflation   Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com   Appendix Image Image Image Image   Image Image Image Image

Highlights Fed/BoE: Both the Fed and the Bank of England found ways to talk down 2022 rate hike expectations discounted in US and UK bond markets. This is only a temporary reprieve, however, as the near-term uncertainties over the persistence of cost-push inflation will eventually be overwhelmed by medium-term certainties of demand-pull inflation confirmed by tightening labor markets. Stay underweight US Treasuries and UK Gilts in global bond portfolios. US Treasury Curve: Longer-term US Treasury yields are priced too low relative to the likely peak in the fed funds rate in the next cycle. Position for a steeper US Treasury curve until Fed rate hikes are imminent, which will likely not be until Q4/2022. Feature Chart of the WeekShifting Rate Expectations Driving Bond Yields As QE Fades Shifting Rate Expectations Driving Bond Yields As QE Fades Shifting Rate Expectations Driving Bond Yields As QE Fades Bond market uncertainty about future monetary policy moves is on the rise. Bond volatility has picked up, most notably at the front end of yield curves that are most sensitive to rate hike expectations which have been intensifying. Yet last week, the Federal Reserve and Bank of England (BoE) were able to talk bond investors off the ledge – at least, temporarily - by pushing back against expectations of multiple rate hikes in the US and UK in 2022. Central bankers in those countries are stuck in a difficult spot. Inflation is high enough to warrant some tightening of monetary policy. Yet there are lingering concerns over how long the current upturn in global inflation will last. Meanwhile, there are just enough questions on the underlying pace of economic momentum to require policymakers to see more data, especially in labor markets, before feeling comfortable enough to pull the trigger on actual rate hikes. We now see that happening first in the UK early next year, and in the US in late 2022. One thing that is certain is that the ups and downs of interest rate expectations – and the central bank forward guidance that influences them – will increasingly become the more dominant driver of bond yields and yield curve shape as global pandemic bond-buying programs get wound down (Chart of the Week). On that front, we see more potential for bond-bearish steepening in the UK and US over the next several months. The BoE: Another Bad Date With The Unreliable Boyfriend The UK financial press infamously dubbed the BoE “the unreliable boyfriend”, under the leadership of former Governor Mark Carney, for hinting at interest rate increases that never materialized. At last week’s Monetary Policy Committee (MPC) meeting, rates were kept unchanged in a 7-2 vote despite some intense signaling in recent weeks that a rate hike was imminent. Under current BoE Governor Andrew Bailey, this edition of the MPC is more like an indecisive spouse than unreliable boyfriend. On the one hand, there is a clear overshoot of UK inflation (and inflation expectations) that would justify a rate hike as soon as possible (Chart 2). The BoE’s new economic forecasts presented in the November Monetary Policy Report (MPR) called for headline CPI inflation to reach a peak of 5% in April 2022 – significantly higher than the 4% late-2021 forecast from the August MPR. On the other hand, high current inflation is already having a dampening effect on economic sentiment. The GfK index of UK consumer confidence is down -10% from the peak seen in July, despite diminishing concerns over COVID seen in public opinion polls (Chart 3, middle panel). A similar divergence is evident in the BoE’s Decision Maker Panel survey of UK Chief Financial Officers, which showed that uncertainty over future sales was somewhat elevated compared to diminished concerns about COVID and Brexit (bottom panel). Chart 2Fed/BoE Cannot Stay Dovish For Much Longer Fed/BoE Cannot Stay Dovish For Much Longer Fed/BoE Cannot Stay Dovish For Much Longer Chart 3High UK Inflation Raises Growth Uncertainty High UK Inflation Raises Growth Uncertainty High UK Inflation Raises Growth Uncertainty The BoE highlighted these divergences in economic sentiment series in the November MPR as examples of how high inflation, fueled by global supply chain disruptions and soaring energy prices, introduced uncertainty into the central bank’s forecasts. Even more uncertainty exists in the BoE’s ability to assess the amount of spare capacity, and underlying inflationary pressure, in the UK economy. The BoE dedicated a 9-page section of the November MPR to a discussion about estimating the growth of the supply-side of the UK economy, evidence of how difficult that process has become during the COVID era. The BoE concluded that the pandemic would end up reducing the level of UK potential supply by -2% from pre-COVID levels, even though the growth rate would return to a pre-pandemic pace of around 1.5% by 2023-24. This is a combination that makes setting monetary policy tricky. Reduced supply indicates that the UK economy has a smaller output gap with more inflationary pressure that would require higher interest rates. Yet sluggish growth in potential supply implies that the UK equilibrium interest rate is likely still very low, thus the BoE would not have to raise rates much to get policy back to neutral. This uncertainty over the size of the output gap in the UK economy will force to BoE to focus more on the labor market as the best “real-time” measure of spare capacity. On that front, the evidence is also difficult to interpret. The UK unemployment rate fell to 4.5% over the three months to August, the last available data before the UK government’s COVID furlough schemes, which protected worker incomes hit by COVID job losses, ended on September 30. The UK Office of National Statistics estimates that there were between 900,000 and 1.4 million UK workers furloughed in late September, representing a significant source of labor supply to be absorbed when the government income assistance ends. Thus, the BoE would need to see at least a month or two of post-furlough employment reports – not just job growth, but labor force participation - to assess how quickly those workers were being reabsorbed into the UK labor market. By the BoE’s own estimates, the impact of the furlough schemes, combined with the compositional issues arising from pandemic job losses being borne more by lower-wage workers, boosted UK wage growth by 2.2% (Chart 4, bottom panel). “Underlying” wage growth, net of those effects, is 0.6%, above the pre-COVID peak, suggesting a tightening labor market before the return of furloughed workers to the labor force. In the end, we see the BoE’s November non-hike as nothing more than a delay of the inevitable. While a December hike is possible, this would represent a “double tightening” of monetary policy with the current BoE quantitative easing program set to expire at year-end. The more likely date for a rate hike is now February. This would give the MPC a few months of post-furlough labor data to assess the amount of spare capacity in UK labor markets. We expect the data to show enough underlying health in labor demand relative to supply for the BoE to conclude that accelerating wage growth represents a more sustainable form of UK inflation in 2022 than energy prices or supply-chain disruptions were in 2021, justifying a move to begin hiking rates. We continue to recommend positioning for a steeper UK Gilt curve, focused on longer-maturities where yields were too low relative to even a moderate future BoE rate hike cycle (Chart 5). We entered a new tactical butterfly spread trade last week, going long the 10-year Gilt bullet versus a duration-neutral 7-year/30-year barbell – we continue to like that trade as a way to play for eventual BoE rate hikes in the first half of 2022. Chart 4BoE Needs More Employment Data To Confirm Wage Uptrend BoE Needs More Employment Data To Confirm Wage Uptrend BoE Needs More Employment Data To Confirm Wage Uptrend Chart 5Stay In UK Long-End Gilt Curve Steepeners Stay In UK Long-End Gilt Curve Steepeners Stay In UK Long-End Gilt Curve Steepeners Bottom Line: The Bank of England is still on a path to begin rate hikes, either in December or, more likely, February of next year. Stay underweight UK Gilts. Position For A Steeper US Treasury Curve The Fed announced last week that tapering would begin right away in November, in a move that has been hinted at since the summer. The monthly pace of purchases of Treasuries and Agency MBS will decline by $10 billion and $5 billion, respectively in November and also December. The Fed declined to commit to any specific tapering amounts beyond that, although it seems likely that the same monthly pace of reduction will continue in 2022. This would take the buying of Treasuries and MBS, net of maturing debt, to zero by June of next year, clearing the first necessary hurdle before the FOMC could contemplate a hike in the funds rate. A completion of the taper by June has been hinted at in the speeches of several Fed officials in recent weeks. This is a bit faster than the expected pace of tapering seen in the most recent New York Fed Primary Dealer and Market Participant Surveys from September (Chart 6), but should not be categorized as a hawkish surprise. There were also few bond-bearish signals on future policy moves hinted at by Fed Chair Jay Powell in post post-FOMC meeting press conference. Chart 6 Chart 7Upside Risk To UST Yields From A Tightening Labor Market Upside Risk To UST Yields From A Tightening Labor Market Upside Risk To UST Yields From A Tightening Labor Market Powell did note that it was still not clear how long the current supply chain/commodity price driven surge in inflation would persist into next year. The expectation, however, was that these forces would eventually subside and allow US inflation to return back to levels much closer to the Fed’s 2% target. Given the uncertainties in the timing of that peak and decline in US inflation, the Fed has limited ability to calibrate any post-taper rate hikes by focusing solely on inflation - especially with longer-term inflation expectations still at levels consistent with the Fed’s target. The Fed will continue to look at US labor market developments to determine the timing and pace of future rate hikes. The last set of FOMC economic projections compiled for the September meeting have the US unemployment rate falling to 3.8% next year, below the median FOMC estimate of full employment at 4%, with one 25bp rate hike penciled in for 2022. We can use that as a baseline assumption on what the Fed considers to be the level of “maximum employment” that would need to be reached before rate hikes could begin. The US unemployment rate fell to 4.6% in October, thus there is still some more to go before hitting that 3.8% rate hike threshold. Yet among the FOMC members, the estimates of full employment range from 3.5%-4.5%, so the October print did knock on the door of that range (Chart 7, middle panel). With US wage growth already showing signs of breaking out – the Atlanta Fed Wage Tracker hit a 14-year high of 14% in September (bottom panel), while the Employment Cost Index rose by a record quarterly pace of 1.3% in Q3 – the Fed will likely be under a lot of pressure to begin hiking rates soon after the taper is expected to end next June. Chart 8UST Curve Forwards Too Flat Vs. Likely Fed Rate Hikes UST Curve Forwards Too Flat Vs. Likely Fed Rate Hikes UST Curve Forwards Too Flat Vs. Likely Fed Rate Hikes We still see December 2022 as the most likely liftoff date, although a faster decline in unemployment could move that timetable forward. The bigger issue for the US Treasury market, however, is not the timing of liftoff but how fast the pace of hikes will be afterward. On that note, future rate expectations are still far too low. For example, according to the New York Fed’s Primary Dealer Survey, the fed funds rate is expected to average only 1.7% over the next ten years (top panel), a level that has proved to be a ceiling for the 10-year Treasury yield so far in 2021. Our colleagues at BCA Research US Bond Strategy recently made the case for expecting the US Treasury curve to bearishly steepen in the coming months. In their view, longer-maturity Treasury yield forward rates were too low compared to a fair value determined by the likely path for the funds rate that assumes rate hikes start in December of next year and rise by 100bps per year to a terminal rate of 2.08% (Chart 8). Interestingly, 2-year Treasury forward rates were in line with the projections of our US Bond Strategy team’s fair value framework. We fully agree with our US Bond colleagues on the likelihood of future Treasury curve steepening. This fits with our views on many developed market countries, not just the US, where longer-maturity bond yields were pricing in too few future rate hikes relative to what was likely to occur over the next few years. Even when taking a much longer perspective, the US Treasury curve looks too flat right now. Going back to the mid-1980s, the current 2-year/10-year US Treasury curve slope of just over 100bps has never been reached (in a flattening move) in the absence of actual Fed rate hikes (Chart 9). Chart 9UST Curve Has Never Been This Flat Without Some Actual Fed Rate Hikes UST Curve Has Never Been This Flat Without Some Actual Fed Rate Hikes UST Curve Has Never Been This Flat Without Some Actual Fed Rate Hikes This week, we are adding a new trade to our Tactical Overlay table to benefit from this expected move in the US yield curve, a US Treasury 2-year/10-year curve steepener (combined with a position in cash, or US 3-month treasury bills, to make the entire trade duration-neutral). We are also taking profits on our previous Tactical US curve flattening trade, which has returned 0.84% since initiation back in June. The exact securities and weightings for our new trade can be found in the Tactical Overlay Trades table below. Bottom Line: Longer-term US Treasury yields are priced too low relative to the likely peak in the fed funds rate in the next cycle. Position for a steeper US Treasury curve until Fed rate hikes are imminent, which will likely not be until Q4/2022.   Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com   Recommendations Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Overlay Trades GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Recommended Positioning     Active Duration Contribution: GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. Custom Performance Benchmark Image The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index

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

Highlights Supply-side pressures should abate over the coming months as semiconductor availability improves, transportation bottlenecks ease, energy prices recede, and more workers enter the labor force. The respite from inflation will be temporary, however. The combination of easy fiscal and monetary policies will cause unemployment to fall below its equilibrium level in the US, and eventually, in most major economies. Unlike in the late 1990s, when rising wages were counterbalanced by robust productivity gains, most of the recent rebound in US productivity growth will prove to be illusory. US inflation will follow a “two steps up, one step down” trajectory. We are currently at the top of those two steps, but rising unit labor costs will eventually drive inflation higher. Rather than fretting that the Federal Reserve will keep rates too low for too long, investors are worried that the Fed will tighten too much. This is a key reason why the 20-year/30-year Treasury slope has inverted. Such an inversion does not make sense to us. Hence, we are initiating a trade going long the 20-year bond versus the 30-year bond. Go short the 10-year Gilt on any break below 0.85%. UK real bond yields are amongst the lowest in the world. The Bank of England will eventually have to turn more hawkish, which will support the beleaguered pound. Structurally higher bond yields will benefit value stocks. Banks stand to gain from rising bond yields while tech could suffer. The eventual re-emergence of supply-side pressures will catalyze more investment spending. This will bolster industrial stocks. The Supply Side Matters, Again Savings glut, secular stagnation; call it what you will, but for the better part of two decades, the global economy has faced a chronic shortfall of aggregate demand. Times are changing, however. The predominant problem these days is not a lack of spending; it is a lack of production. Unlike during the Global Financial Crisis – when worries about moral hazard complicated efforts to bail out homeowners and banks – the victims of the pandemic elicited sympathy. As a result, governments in developed economies rolled out a slew of measures to support workers and businesses. Thanks to bountiful fiscal transfers, households in the US have accrued $2.2 trillion in income since the start of the pandemic, about $1.2 trillion more than one would have expected based on the pre-pandemic trend (Chart 1). With many services unavailable, consumers diverted spending towards manufactured goods. At first, sellers were able to dip into their inventories to meet rising demand. By early this year, however, inventories had been depleted (Chart 2). Shortages began to pop up across much of the global supply chain. Chart 1Stimulus-Supported Income Growth Boosted Goods Consumption Stimulus-Supported Income Growth Boosted Goods Consumption Stimulus-Supported Income Growth Boosted Goods Consumption Chart 2The Pandemic Depleted Inventories The Pandemic Depleted Inventories The Pandemic Depleted Inventories While today’s empty warehouses can be largely attributed to surging demand for goods, supply-side disruptions have also played an important role. Four disruptions stand out: 1) semiconductor shortages; 2) transportation bottlenecks; 3) inadequate energy supplies; and 4) reduced labor force participation. Let us examine all four in turn. Semiconductor Shortages Chart 3Car Prices Have Jumped Car Prices Have Jumped Car Prices Have Jumped The global supply chain was not equipped to handle the dislocations caused by the pandemic. The combination of just-in-time inventory systems and far-flung supplier networks ensured that bottlenecks in one part of the global economy quickly filtered down to other parts of the economy. Few industries are as important as semiconductors. The auto sector has felt the brunt of the chip shortage. Both new and used vehicle prices have soared as dealer lots have emptied out (Chart 3). The drop in vehicle spending alone shaved 2.4 percentage points off US real GDP growth in the third quarter. Semiconductor makers have ramped up production to meet growing demand. The US Census Bureau’s Quarterly Survey of Plant Capacity Utilization showed that semiconductor plants operated an average of 73 hours per week in the first half of this year, up from around 45-to-50 hours prior to the pandemic (Chart 4). Chip production in Northeast Asia has rebounded (Chart 5). Southeast Asian production dropped in August due to Covid lockdowns, with semiconductor exports falling by over a third in Malaysia and Vietnam. Fortunately, since then, a decline in Covid cases and rising vaccination rates have spurred a recovery throughout the region. Chart 4Chipmakers Are Working Overtime Chipmakers Are Working Overtime Chipmakers Are Working Overtime Chart 5Semiconductor Production Has Accelerated In Northeast Asia Semiconductor Production Has Accelerated In Northeast Asia Semiconductor Production Has Accelerated In Northeast Asia Chart 6Memory Chip Prices Are Declining Memory Chip Prices Are Declining Memory Chip Prices Are Declining Commentary from semiconductor companies and automakers suggest that the chip shortage will ease over the coming months. In an auspicious sign, US auto sales jumped to 13.1 million in October from 12.3 million in September. Memory chip prices are also falling (Chart 6). Nevertheless, the overall chip market is unlikely to return to balance until 2023. Transportation Bottlenecks Unlike semiconductors and high-end electronics, which usually arrive by air, bulkier items such as furniture, sporting goods, and housing appliances typically arrive by sea. Port congestion, insufficient warehouse capacity, and a lack of truck chassis on which to place containers have all contributed to transportation bottlenecks. Chart 7Transportation Bottlenecks: Past The Worst? Transportation Bottlenecks: Past The Worst? Transportation Bottlenecks: Past The Worst? As with the semiconductor shortage, we are probably past the worst point in the shipping crisis. Drewry’s composite World Container Index has edged down 11% from its highs, although it is still up more than three-fold from mid-2020 levels (Chart 7). The easing in container shipping costs follows a dramatic 47% decline in the Baltic Dry Index since early October. The number of ships waiting to unload cargo off the coast of Los Angeles and Long Beach remains near record highs (Chart 8). Port congestion should ease over the next few months. US port throughput usually falls starting in the late fall and remains weak during the winter months, bottoming shortly after the Chinese New Year. If throughput remains elevated near current levels this year, this should be enough to clear much of the backlog. Looking further out, shipping costs could face additional downward pressure. Chart 9 shows that the number of container ships on order has risen to a 10-year high; these new ships will be delivered over the next two years. Chart 8Port Congestion Should Ease Over The Coming Months Port Congestion Should Ease Over The Coming Months Port Congestion Should Ease Over The Coming Months Chart 9Shipbuilders Are Busy Shipbuilders Are Busy Shipbuilders Are Busy Inadequate Energy Supplies After a torrid rally since the start of the year, energy prices have come off their highs. The price of Brent oil has dipped 6% from its October peak. US natural gas prices have retreated 11%. Natural gas prices in Europe have fallen 37%. Chart 10 The biggest move has been in coal prices, which have dropped 36% over the past two weeks alone. Futures curves are pricing in further declines in key energy prices (Chart 10). BCA’s Commodity and Energy Strategy service expects energy prices to soften over the next 12 months, but not as much as markets are discounting. Their latest forecast calls for the price of Brent crude to average $81/bbl in 2021Q4, $80/bbl in 2022 (versus market expectations of $77/bbl), and $81/bbl in 2023 (versus market expectations of $71/bbl). As we discussed a few weeks ago, years of underinvestment have led to tight supply conditions across the entire energy complex (Chart 11). Proven global oil reserves increased by only 6% between 2010 and 2020, having risen by 26% over the preceding decade. Gas reserves followed a similar trajectory, increasing by only 5% between 2010 and 2020 compared to 30% over the prior ten years (Chart 12). Chart 11 Chart 12   With little spare capacity, energy markets have become increasingly vulnerable to shocks. A cold snap across the Northern Hemisphere this spring depleted natural gas supplies, while a lack of wind reduced energy production by European wind farms. Increased gas imports from Russia could have mitigated the problem, but the dispute over the Nord Stream 2 pipeline prevented that from happening. The pipeline is popular with German voters (Chart 13). BCA’s geopolitical team expects it to be approved, a welcome development given that La Niña is highly likely to lead to colder-than-normal temperatures across northern Europe this winter. Chart 13 China has also restarted 170 coal mines and will probably begin re-importing Australian coal. Beijing is also allowing utilities to charge higher prices, which should help stave off bankruptcies across the sector. These measures should help mitigate China’s energy crisis. Chart 14US Rig Count Has Risen From Low Levels US Rig Count Has Risen From Low Levels US Rig Count Has Risen From Low Levels A bit more oil production will also help. The US rig count, while still far below its 2014 highs, has doubled since last year (Chart 14). BCA’s commodity strategists expect output in the Lower 48 states to average 9.5mm b/d in 2022 and 10mm b/d in 2023, versus 2021 production levels of 9.0mm b/d. Nevertheless, shale producers are a lot more disciplined these days. Debt reduction and cash flow generation are now the top priorities. This implies that fairly high oil prices may be necessary to catalyze additional investment in the industry.  Reduced Labor Force Participation Despite the rapid economic recovery, US employment remains 5 million below its pre-pandemic peak. One would not know this from the survey data, however. A record 51% of small businesses expressed difficulty finding qualified workers in the October NFIB survey. The share of households reporting that jobs are plentiful versus hard-to-get has returned to its 2000 highs. Both the quits rate and the job openings rate are well above their pre-pandemic levels (Chart 15). A wave of early retirement accounts for some of the apparent labor market tightness. About 1.3 million more workers have retired since the pandemic began than one would have expected based on demographic trends. Yet, there is more to the story than that. The labor force participation rate for workers aged 25-to-54 has not fully recovered; the employment-to-population ratio for that age cohort is still 2.5 percentage points below pre-pandemic levels (Chart 16). Chart 15 Chart 16Labor Force Participation Has Room To Rise Labor Force Participation Has Room To Rise Labor Force Participation Has Room To Rise   There is considerable uncertainty about how many workers will re-enter the labor force over the coming months. On the one hand, the expiration of enhanced unemployment benefits could prod more workers into the job market. Diminished anxiety about the virus should help. While the number has fallen by half, there are still 2.5 million people not working due to concerns about getting or spreading Covid-19 (Chart 17). According to Boston College’s Center for Retirement Research, the retirement rate rose more for older lower-income workers than higher-income workers (Chart 18). Some of these retirees may decide to re-enter the labor force. Chart 17Less Anxiety About The Coronavirus Should Increase Labor Supply Poorer Older Workers Were More Likely To Retire Last Year Poorer Older Workers Were More Likely To Retire Last Year Chart 18   On the other hand, the imposition of vaccine mandates could reduce labor supply. About 100 million US workers are currently subject to the mandates. According to the Census Household Pulse Survey, about 8 million of them are unvaccinated and attest that “they will definitely not get the vaccine.” Perhaps the biggest question mark is over whether the pandemic will lead to permanent changes in peoples’ perspectives on the optimal work/life balance. High burnout rates (especially in the health care sector), a reluctance to restart the daily commute to the office, and the desire to spend more time with family have all contributed to what some commentators have dubbed The Great Resignation. Ultimately, the deciding factor may be wages. Wage growth accelerated during the late 1990s as the labor market tightened (Chart 19). This drew a lot of people – especially less-skilled workers – into the labor force. Recently, wage growth has exploded at the bottom end of the income distribution, and our guess is that this will entice more people to seek employment (Chart 20). Chart 19Wage Growth Accelerated During The Late 1990s As The Labor Market Tightened Wage Growth Accelerated During The Late 1990s As The Labor Market Tightened Wage Growth Accelerated During The Late 1990s As The Labor Market Tightened Chart 20Wages At The Bottom End Of The Income Distribution Are Rising Briskly Wages At The Bottom End Of The Income Distribution Are Rising Briskly Wages At The Bottom End Of The Income Distribution Are Rising Briskly     Will Higher Productivity Growth Mitigate Supply-Side Pressures? The late 1990s saw a resurgence in productivity growth. This helped restrain unit labor costs in the face of rising wages. Chart 21 While US productivity did jump during the pandemic, we are sceptical of claims that this can be attributed to efficiency gains from digitalization and work-from-home practices. A recent study of 10,000 skilled professionals at a major IT company revealed that work-from-home policies decreased productivity by 8%-to-19%, mainly because people ended up working longer. It is telling that productivity outside of the US generally declined during the pandemic (Chart 21). This suggests that last year’s productivity gains stemmed mainly from increased operating leverage, a common feature of post-recession US recoveries (Chart 22). Supporting this view is the fact that productivity growth slowed from 4.3% in Q1 to 2.4% in Q2 on a quarter-over-quarter annualized basis. Productivity declined by 5% in Q3, leading to an 8.3% increase in unit labor costs. Chart 22US Productivity Tends To Jump After Recessions US Productivity Tends To Jump After Recessions US Productivity Tends To Jump After Recessions Chart 23Capital Goods Orders Have Soared Capital Goods Orders Have Soared Capital Goods Orders Have Soared The only saving grace is that core capital goods orders have soared (Chart 23). This should translate into increased business capital spending next year and higher productivity down the road. Investment Implications Supply-side pressures should abate over the coming months as semiconductor availability improves, transportation bottlenecks ease, energy prices recede, and more workers enter the labor force. The respite from inflation will be temporary, however. The combination of easy fiscal and monetary policies will cause unemployment to fall below its equilibrium level in the US, and eventually, in most major economies. This is consistent with our “two steps up, one step down” projection for US inflation. We are probably near the top of those two steps at present. This implies that the next move for inflation is to the downside, even if the longer-term trend is still to the upside. The US 10-year Treasury yield should stabilize at around 1.8% in the first half of 2022, before moving higher later in the year. As we discussed last week, markets are understating the true level of the neutral rate of interest. Rather than fretting that the Federal Reserve will keep rates too low for too long, investors are worried that the Fed will tighten too much. This is a key reason why the 20-year/30-year Treasury slope has inverted (Chart 24). Such an inversion does not make sense to us. Hence, as of this week, we are initiating a trade going long the 20-year bond versus the 30-year bond. We would also go short the 10-year Gilt on any break below 0.85%. The Bank of England’s “surprising hold” knocked the yield down 14 basis points to 0.93%. UK real bond yields are amongst the lowest in the world (Chart 25). Growth is strong and will remain buoyant as Brexit headwinds fade. The BoE will eventually have to turn more hawkish, which will support the beleaguered pound. Chart 24Go Long US 20-Year Bonds Versus 30-Year Bonds Go Long US 20-Year Bonds Versus 30-Year Bonds Go Long US 20-Year Bonds Versus 30-Year Bonds Chart 25UK Real Bond Yields Are Amongst The Lowest In The World UK Real Bond Yields Are Amongst The Lowest In The World UK Real Bond Yields Are Amongst The Lowest In The World   Structurally higher bond yields will benefit value stocks. Chart 26 shows that there has been a close correlation between the US 30-year Treasury yield and the relative performance of global value versus growth stocks. Banks stand to gain from rising bond yields while tech could suffer (Chart 27). Chart 26Higher Bonds Yields Favor Value Stocks Higher Bonds Yields Favor Value Stocks Higher Bonds Yields Favor Value Stocks Chart 27     The re-emergence of supply-side pressures could affect companies in a variety of unexpected ways. For example, Facebook and Google both rely heavily on revenue from advertising. But what is the point of trying to boost demand for your product if you already cannot produce enough of it? Companies such as Hershey and Kimberly-Clark are already cutting ad spending in response to supply-chain bottlenecks. Finally, tight supply conditions will catalyze more investment spending. This will benefit industrial stocks. Peter Berezin Chief Global Strategist pberezin@bcaresearch.com Global Investment Strategy View Matrix Chart 28 Special Trade Recommendations The Supply Side Strikes Back The Supply Side Strikes Back Current MacroQuant Model Scores Chart 29

Highlights Japan’s long-term weaknesses – a shrinking population, low productivity growth, excess indebtedness – are very well known. However, it still punches above its weight in the realm of geopolitics. Abenomics – sorry, Kishidanomics – can still deliver some positive surprises every now and then. As the global pandemic wanes, and China faces a historic confluence of internal and external risks, investors should begin buying the yen on weakness. Japanese industrials also are an attractive play in a global portfolio. While the yen will likely fare better than the dollar over the next 6-9 months, it will lag other procyclical currencies. Feature Japan has always been an “earthquake society,”  in which things seem never to change until suddenly everything changes at once. The good news for investors is that that change occurred in 2011 and the latest political events reinforce policy continuity. Why “Abenomics” Remains The Playbook Over ten years have passed since Japan suffered a triple crisis of earthquake, tsunami, and nuclear meltdown. In fact, the Fukushima nuclear crisis merely punctuated a long accumulation of national malaise: the country had suffered two “Lost Decades” and was in the thrall of the Great Recession, a rare period of domestic political change, and a rise in national security fears over a newly assertive China. The nuclear meltdown marked the nadir. The result of all these crises was a miniature policy revolution in 2012 – Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) returned to power and initiated a range of bolder policies to whip the country’s deflationary mindset and reboot its foreign and trade relations. The new economic program, “Abenomics,” consisted of easy money, soft budgets, and pro-growth reforms. It succeeded in changing Japan. Both private debt and inflation, which had fallen during the lost decades, bottomed after the 2011 crisis and began to rise under Abe (Chart 1). By the 2019 House of Councillors election, however,  Abe was running out of steam. Consumption tax hikes, the US-China trade war, and COVID-19 thwarted his plans of national revival. In particular, Abe hoped to capitalize on excitement over the 2020 Tokyo Olympics to hold a popular referendum on revising the constitution. Constitutional revision is necessary to legitimize the Self-Defense Forces and thus make Japan a “normal” nation again, i.e. one that can maintain armed forces. But the global pandemic interrupted. Until the next heavyweight prime minister comes along, Japan will relapse into its old pattern of a “revolving door” of prime ministers who come and go quickly. For example, the only purpose of Abe’s immediate successor, Yoshihide Suga, was to tie off loose ends and oversee the Olympics before passing the baton (Chart 2). Chart 1Abenomics Was Making Progress Abenomics Was Making Progress Abenomics Was Making Progress Chart 2 The next few Japanese prime ministers will almost inevitably lack Abe’s twin supermajority in parliament, which was exceptional in modern history (Chart 3). It will be hard for the LDP to expand its regional grip given that it holds a majority in all 11 of the regional blocks in which the political parties contend for seats based on their proportion of the popular vote (Table 1). Chart 3 Table 1LDP+ Komeito Regional Performance Japan: Foreign Threats, Domestic Reflation Japan: Foreign Threats, Domestic Reflation Short-lived, traditional prime ministers will not be able to create a superior vision for Japan and will largely follow in Abe’s footsteps.   In September Prime Minister Fumio Kishida replaced Suga – a badly needed facelift for the ruling Liberal Democrats ahead of the October 31 election. The LDP retained its single-party majority in the Diet, so Kishida is off to a tolerable start (Chart 4). But he is far from charismatic and will not last long if he fumbles in the upper house elections in July 2022. This gives him a little more than half a year to make a mark. Chart 4 Kishida will oversee a roughly 30-40 trillion yen stimulus package, or supplemental budget, by the end of this year. Japanese stimulus packages are almost always over-promised and under-delivered. However, given the electoral calendar, he will put together a large package that will not disappoint financial markets. His other goal will be to build on recent American efforts to cobble together a coalition of democracies to counter China and Russia. Japan’s Grand Strategy In Brief Chart 5Japan Exposed To China Trade Japan Exposed To China Trade Japan Exposed To China Trade Japan’s grand strategy over centuries consists of maintaining its independence from foreign powers, controlling its strategic geographic approaches to prevent invasion, and stopping any single power from dominating the eastern side of the Eurasian landmass. Originally the hardest part of this grand strategy was that it required establishing unitary political control over the far-flung Japanese archipelago. However, since the Meiji Restoration, Tokyo has maintained centralized government. Since then Japan has focused on controlling its strategic approaches and maintaining a balance among the Asian powers. During the imperialist period it tried to achieve these objectives on its own. After World War II, the United States became critical to Japan’s grand strategy. Through its broad alliance with Washington, Tokyo can maintain independence, make sure critical territories are not hostile (e.g. Taiwan and South Korea), and deter neighboring threats (North Korea, China, Russia). It can at least try to maintain a balance of power in Eurasia. Yet these constant national interests underscore Japan’s growing vulnerabilities today: China’s economy is now two-times larger than Japan’s and Japan is more dependent on China’s trade than vice versa (Chart 5). Under Xi Jinping, Beijing is actively converting its wealth into military and strategic capabilities that threaten Japan’s security. Rising tensions across the Taiwan Strait are fueling nationalism and re-armament in Japan.  Russia’s post-Soviet resurgence entails an ever-closer Russo-Chinese partnership. It also entails Russian conflicts with the US that periodically upset any attempts at Russo-Japanese détente. North Korea’s asymmetric war capabilities and nuclearization pose another security threat. South Korea’s attempts to engage with the North and China, and compete with Japan, are unhelpful.    All of these realities drive Japan closer to the United States. Even the US is increasingly unpredictable, though not yet to the point of causing serious doubts about the alliance. If the US were fundamentally weakened, or abandoned the alliance, Japan would either have to adopt nuclear weapons or accommodate itself to Chinese hegemony to meet its grand strategy. Nuclearization would be the more likely avenue. The stability of Asia depends greatly on American arbitration. Japan’s Strategy Since 1990 Beneath this grand strategy Japan’s ruling elites must pursue a more particular strategy suited to its immediate time and place. Ever since Japan’s working population and property bubble peaked in the early 1990s, the country’s relative economic heft has declined. To maintain stability and security, the central government in Tokyo has had to take on a very active role in the economy and society. The first step was to stabilize the domestic economy despite collapsing potential growth. This has been achieved through a public debt supercycle (Chart 6). Unorthodox monetary and fiscal policy largely stabilized demand, at the cost of the world’s highest net debt-to-GDP ratio. The economic adjustment was spread out over a long period of time so as to prevent a massive social and political backlash. Unemployment peaked in 2009 at 5.5% and never rose above this level. The ruling elite and the Liberal Democrats maintained control of institutions and government. The second step was to ensure continued alliance with the United States. Japan could deal with its economic problems – and the rise of China – if it maintained access to US consumers and protection from the US military. To maintain the alliance required making investments in the American economy, in US-led global institutions, and cooperating with the US on various initiatives, including controversial foreign policies. As in the 1950s-60s, Japan would bulk up its Self-Defense Forces to share the burden of global security with the United States, despite the US-written constitution’s prohibition on keeping armed forces. The third step was to invest abroad and put Japan’s excess savings to work, developing materials and export markets abroad while employing foreign workers and factories to become Japan’s new industrial base in lieu of the shrinking Japanese workforce (Chart 7).  Chart 6Japan's Public Debt Supercycle Japan's Public Debt Supercycle Japan's Public Debt Supercycle Chart 7 Japan’s post-1990 strategy has staying power because of the massive pressures on Japan listed above: China’s rise, Russo-Chinese partnership, North Korean threats, and American distractions. Investors tend to underrate the impact of these trends on Japan. Unless they fundamentally change, Japan’s strategy will remain intact regardless of prime minister or even ruling party. Russia’s role is less clear and could serve as a harbinger of any future change. President Vladimir Putin and Abe had the best chance in modern memory to resolve the two countries’ territorial disputes, build on mutual interests, and maybe even sign a peace treaty. But Russia’s clash with the West  proved an insurmountable obstacle. New opportunities could emerge at some later juncture, as Japan’s interest in preventing China from dominating Eurasia gives it a strong reason to normalize ties with Russia. Russia will at some point worry about overdependency on China. But this change is not on the immediate horizon.  Japan’s Tactics Since 2011 Chart 8 Japan is nearly a one-party state. Brief spells of opposition rule, in 1993 and 2009-11, are exceptions that prove the rule. The Liberal Democrats did not fall from power so much as suffer a short “time out” to reflect on their mistakes before voters put them right back into power. However, these timeouts have been important in forcing the ruling party to adjust its tactics for changing times, as with Abenomics. Kishida will not have enough political capital to change direction. The emphasis will still be on defeating deflation and rekindling animal spirits and corporate borrowing (as opposed to relying exclusively on public debt). Kishida has talked about a new type of capitalism and a more active redistribution of wealth, in keeping with the current zeitgeist among the global elite. However, Japan lacks the impetus for dramatic change. Wealth inequality is not extreme and political polarization is non-existent (Chart 8). The LDP is wary of losing votes to the populist Japan Innovation Party, or other regional movements, but populism does not have as fertile ground in countries with low inequality.  The desire to boost wages was a central plank of Abenomics (Chart 9) and an area of success. It will come through in Kishida’s policies as well. But the ultimate outcome will depend on how tight the labor market gets in the upcoming economic cycle. Similarly Kishida can be expected to encourage, or at least not roll back, women’s participation in the labor force, as labor markets tighten (Chart 10). As the pandemic wanes it is also likely that he will reignite Abe’s loose immigration policy, which saw the number of foreign workers triple between 2010 and 2020. This inflow is perhaps the surest sign of any that insular and xenophobic Japan is changing with the times to meet its economic needs.  Chart 9Kishidanomics To Build On Abe's Wage Growth Kishidanomics To Build On Abe's Wage Growth Kishidanomics To Build On Abe's Wage Growth Chart 10Women Off To Work But Fertility ##br##Relapsed Women Off To Work But Fertility Relapsed Women Off To Work But Fertility Relapsed The only substantial difference between Kishidanomics and Abenomics is that Abe compromised his reflationary fiscal efforts by insisting on going forward with periodic hikes to the consumption tax. Kishida is under no such expectation. Instead he is operating in a global political and geopolitical context in which ambitious public investments are positively encouraged even at the expense of larger budget deficits (Chart 11). Yet interest rates are still low enough to make such investments cheaply. The stage is set for fiscal largesse. Chart 11Fiscal Largesse To Continue Fiscal Largesse To Continue Fiscal Largesse To Continue Kishida can be expected to promote large new investments in supply-chain resilience, renewable energy, and military rearmament. The US and EU may exempt climate policies from traditional budget accounting – Japan may do the same. Even more so than China and Europe, Japan has a national interest in renewable energy since it is almost entirely dependent on foreign imports for its fossil fuels. The green transition in Japan is lagging that of Germany but the Japanese shift away from nuclear power has gone even faster, creating an import dependency that needs to be addressed for strategic reasons (Chart 12). Monetary-fiscal coordination began under Abe and can increase under Kishida. What is clear is that public investment is the top priority while fiscal consolidation is not. Military spending is finally starting to edge up as a share of GDP, as noted above. For many years Japanese leaders talked about military spending but it remained steady at 1% of GDP. Now, at the onset of the US-China cold war, the Japanese are spending more and say the ratio will rise to 2% of GDP (Chart 13). Tensions with China, especially over Taiwan, will continue to drive this shift, though North Korea’s weapons progress is not negligible. Chart 12 Chart 13 The Biden administration is prioritizing US allies and the competition with China, which makes the Japanese alliance top of mind. Tokyo’s various attempts to talk with Beijing in recent years have amounted to nothing, with the exception of the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership, which is far from ratification and implementation. Japan’s relations with China are driven by interests, not passing attitudes and emotions. If Biden proves too dovish toward China – a big “if” – then it will be Japan pushing the US to take a more hawkish line rather than vice versa. Japan will take various strategic, economic, technological, and military actions to defend itself from the range of external threats it faces. These actions will intimidate and provoke China and other neighbors, which will help to entrench the “security dilemma” between the US and China and their allies. For example, Japan will eagerly participate in US efforts to upgrade its military and its regional alliances and partnerships, including via the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue with India and Australia. The Biden administration might force Japan to play nice with South Korea and patch up their trade war. But that is a price Japan can pay since American involvement also precludes any shift by South Korea fully into China’s camp. If China should invade Taiwan – which we cannot rule out over the long run – Japan’s vital supply lines and national security would fall under permanent jeopardy. Japan would have an interest in defending Taiwan but its willingness to war with China may depend on the US response. However, both Japan and the US would have to draw a stark line in defense of Japanese territory, not least Okinawa, where US troops are based. Both powers would mobilize and seek to impose a strategic containment policy around China at that point. Until The Next Earthquake … For Japan to abandon its post-1990 strategy, it would need to see a series of shocks to domestic and international politics. If China’s economy collapsed, Korea unified, or the US abandoned the Asia Pacific region, then Tokyo would have to reassess its strategy. Until then the status quo will prevail. At home Japan would need to see a split within the Liberal Democrats, or a permanent break between the LDP and their junior partner Komeito, combined with a single, consolidated, and electorally viable opposition party and a charismatic opposition leader. This kind of change would follow from major exogenous shocks. Today it is nowhere in sight – the last two shocks, in 2011 and 2020, reinforced the LDP regime. Theoretically some future Japanese government could adopt a socialist platform that relies entirely on public debt rather than trying to reboot private debt. It could openly embrace debt monetization and modern monetary theory  rather than trying to raise taxes periodically to maintain the appearance of fiscal rectitude. But if it tried to distance itself from the United States and improve relations with Russia and China, such a strategy would not go very far. It would jeopardize Japan’s grand strategy. For the foreseeable future, Japan’s economic security and national security lie in maintaining the American alliance and continuing an outward investment strategy focused on emerging markets other than China. Macroeconomic Developments The key message from an economic context is that fiscal stimulus is likely to be larger in Japan than the market currently expects. The IMF is penciling in a fiscal deficit of around 2% of potential GDP next year, which will be a drag on growth (Chart 14). More likely, Kishida will cobble together a slightly larger package to implement most of the initiatives he has proposed on the campaign trail. Meanwhile, a large share of JGBs are about to mature over the next couple of years, providing room for more issuance, which the BoJ will be happy to assimilate (Chart 15). Chart 14More Fiscal Stimulus In Japan Likely More Fiscal Stimulus In Japan Likely More Fiscal Stimulus In Japan Likely Chart 15Lots Of JGBs Mature In The Next Few Years Lots Of JGBs Mature In The Next Few Years Lots Of JGBs Mature In The Next Few Years Real numbers on the size of the fiscal package have been scarce, but it should be around 30-40 trillion yen, spread over a few years. With Japan’s net interest expense at record lows (Chart 16), and a lot of the spending slated for worthwhile productivity-enhancing projects such as supply chains, green energy, education and some boost to the financial sector in the form of digital innovation and consolidation, we expect fiscal policy in Japan will remain moderately loose, with the BoJ staying accommodative. The timing of more fiscal stimulus is appropriate as Japan has managed to finally put the pandemic behind it. The number of new Covid-19 cases is at the lowest recorded level per capita, and Japan now  has more of its population vaccinated than the US. As a result, the manufacturing and services PMIs, which have been the lowest in the developed world, could stage a coiled-spring rebound. This will be a welcome fillip for Japanese assets (Chart 17). Chart 16Little Cost To Issuing More Debt Little Cost To Issuing More Debt Little Cost To Issuing More Debt Chart 17The Japanese Recovery Has Lagged The Japanese Recovery Has Lagged The Japanese Recovery Has Lagged Consumption could also surprise to the upside in Japan. With the consumption tax hike of 2019 and the 2020 pandemic now behind us, pent-up demand could finally be unleashed in the coming quarters. Rising wages and high savings underscore that Japan could see a vigorous rebound in consumption, as was witnessed in other developed economies. This will be particularly the case as inflation stays low. The big risk for Japan from a macro perspective is an external slowdown, driven by China. A boom in foreign demand has been a much welcome cushion for Japanese growth, especially amidst weak domestic demand. The risk is that this tailwind becomes a headwind as Chinese growth slows, especially as a big share of Japanese exports go to China. Our view has been that policy makers in China will be able to ring-fire the property crisis, preventing a “Lehman” moment. As such, while China’s slowdown is a reality and downside risks warrant monitoring, we also expect China to avoid a hard landing. Meanwhile, Japanese exports are also diversified, with other developed and emerging markets accounting for the lion’s share of total exports. For example, exports to the US account for 19% of sales while EU exports account for 9%. Both exports and foreign machinery orders remain quite robust, suggesting that the slowdown in China will not crush all external demand (globally, export growth remains very strong).  It is noteworthy that many countries now have “carte blanche” to boost infrastructure spending, especially in areas like renewable energy and supply chain resiliency. Japan continues to remain a big supplier of capital goods globally. This will ensure that an economic recovery around the world will buffer foreign machinery orders. Market Implications Japanese equities have underperformed the US over the last decade, and Kishidanomics is unlikely to change this trend. But to the extent that more fiscal stimulus helps lift aggregate demand, a few sectors could begin to see short-term outperformance. More importantly, the underperformance of certain Japanese equity sectors have not been fully justified by the improving earnings picture (Chart 18). This suggests some room for catch-up. Banks in particular could benefit from a steeper yield curve in Japan, rising global yields and proposed reform in the sector (Chart 19). We will view this as a tactical opportunity however, than a strategic call. Our colleagues in the Global Asset Allocation service have clearly outlined key reasons against overweighting Japan, and are currently neutral.  More importantly, industrials also look poised to see some pickup in relative EPS growth, as global industrial demand stays robust. An improvement in domestic demand should also favor small caps over large caps. Chart 18ADismal Earnings Explain Some Underperformance Of Japanese Equities Dismal Earnings Explain Some Underperformance Of Japanese Equities Dismal Earnings Explain Some Underperformance Of Japanese Equities Chart 18BDismal Earnings Explain Some Underperformance Of Japanese Equities Dismal Earnings Explain Some Underperformance Of Japanese Equities Dismal Earnings Explain Some Underperformance Of Japanese Equities Chart 19Japanese Banks Will Benefit From A Steeper Yield Curve Japanese Banks Will Benefit From A Steeper Yield Curve Japanese Banks Will Benefit From A Steeper Yield Curve Foreigners have huge sway over the performance of Japanese assets, especially equities. Foreign holders account for nearly 30% of the Japanese equity float. This is important not only for the equity call but for currency performance as well since portfolio flows dominate currency movements. Historically, the yen and the Japanese equity market have been negatively correlated. This was due to positive profit translation effects from a lower currency. However, it is possible that Japanese domestic profits are no longer driven only by translation effects, but rather by underlying productivity gains. This could result in less yen hedging by foreign equity investors, which would restore a positive relationship between the relative share price performance and the currency. As for the yen, the best environment for any currency is when the economy can generate non-inflationary growth. Japan may well be entering this paradigm. Historically, now has been the exact environment where the yen tends to do well, as the economy exits deflation and enters non-inflationary growth (Chart 20). Chart 20The Yen And Japanese Growth The Yen And Japanese Growth The Yen And Japanese Growth Markets have been wrongly focusing on nominal rather than real yields in Japan and the implication for the yen. Therefore the risk to a long yen view is that the Bank of Japan keeps rates low as global yields are rising. However, in an environment where global inflationary pressures normalize (say in the next 6-9 months) and temper the increase in global yields, this could provide room for short covering on the yen. In our view, the yen is already the most underappreciated currency in the G10, as rising global yields have led to a massive accumulation of short positions. Finally, from a valuation standpoint, the yen is the cheapest G10 currency according to our PPP models, and is also quite cheap according to our intermediate-term timing model (Chart 21). With the yen being a risk-off currency, it also tends to rise versus the dollar not only during recessions, but also during most episodes of broad-based dollar weakness. This low-beta nature of the currency makes it a good portfolio hedge in an uncertain world. Chart 21The Yen Is Undervalued The Yen Is Undervalued The Yen Is Undervalued Given the historic return of geopolitical risk to Japan’s neighborhood, as the US and Japan engage in active great power competition with China, the yen is an underrated hedge. Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Chester Ntonifor Vice President Foreign Exchange Strategy chestern@bcaresearch.com

Highlights The off-year elections confirm that regular political cycles continue to operate in the US despite the chaotic 2020 election. The implication is negative for Democrats, especially House Democrats in the 2022 midterms. The progressives will also lose clout. Yet several factors that hurt Democrats in the off-year elections will improve over the coming year. The pandemic will wane and the economy will recover. Biden now has a framework for passing his two signature legislative bills, the reconciliation bill has been moderated away from radical proposals, and his approval rating will rebound when he signs the bills into law. The Senate is very much up for grabs in 2022 and there is at least a 25% chance Democrats retain control of Congress. Investors can expect gridlock to begin right after the Senate passes Biden’s reconciliation bill. A Republican midterm win would merely formalize it. Fiscal policy will be decided over the next two months, then frozen in place until at least 2025. Financial markets will approve of the drop in uncertainty. We still expect investors to “buy the rumor, sell the news” on Biden’s bills. But the watering down of tax hikes is a positive surprise. Over the long run Biden’s bills are positive for productivity. Feature Democrats suffered negative results in elections on November 2 highlighting that US politics is still very much a two-party game. In Virginia, Republican Glenn Youngkin defeated Democrat Terry McAuliffe by 2%, a substantial swing from the 5%-10% margins with which Democrats have carried the state in recent elections (Chart 1). The Virginia gubernatorial race has limited predictive power for the midterm elections. But the GOP had a good night in general and benefited from national dynamics. Republicans were already widely expected to take the House next year – Tuesday’s results confirm that expectation. But the Senate is still up for grabs, as the midterms are a year away (see Appendix for the latest update of our Senate Election Model). Chart 1 The Biden administration will benefit over the coming year from passing its signature legislation and presiding over a waning pandemic and recovering economy. Biden now has a framework agreement with Democrats on his infrastructure and social spending bills, discussed below.  Gridlock will become the default setting as early as Thanksgiving or Christmas, when Democrats pass Biden’s two bills. A Republican win in the midterms would merely make it official. Gridlock is marginally positive for risk assets as it reduces uncertainty around fiscal policy and economic policy in general. Thus US political and policy risks will subside after the Senate clears Biden’s reconciliation bill and investors will need to turn to other major risks stemming from wages, inflation, eventual rate hikes, and external factors like China’s slowdown.  Biden’s Framework Fiscal Agreement President Biden struck a tentative deal with congressional Democratic leaders prior to leaving for his European trip and the COP26 conference on climate change in Glasgow, Scotland. The bipartisan infrastructure deal remains the same but his signature social spending deal – to be pushed through the partisan budget reconciliation process – was cut down to $1.75 trillion. Chart 2 shows the two bills and the sums of spending by category. The Democrats plan to spend $940 billion on social programs (child care, elderly care, Medicare, health care, housing, education). They will spend $481 billion on green energy subsidies and regearing of the energy economy. They will spend $446 billion on traditional infrastructure (with the GOP) and $230 billion on high-tech initiatives. The negotiation is ongoing and there is not yet a settled draft of the reconciliation bill, so surprises are still possible, such as on Medicare negotiation of drug prices or the state and local tax deduction cap. Chart 2 Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia is fighting to ensure that the bill will be analyzed and scored by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) in time for lawmakers to consider its economic impacts before voting on it. But the CBO cannot score a bill that is not yet written down. Nevertheless, the bill has been coming together in recent weeks and the poor election results will push Democrats to a speedy resolution. The progressives are weaker now, as the elections reflected negatively on them, and any last-minute progressive threats in the Senate will be steamrolled by President Biden and party leadership. Table 1 shows our updated scenarios for Biden’s pre-COP26 framework agreement. The impact on the budget ranges from $80 billion dollars in net savings, according to the fictitious headline agreement, to $1 trillion in net deficit spending if we assume that Democrats only realize half of the revenue they hope to raise from a tougher Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and half of the revenue from higher taxes.  Table 1US Spending And Taxation Scenarios Takeaways From The Off-Year Elections Takeaways From The Off-Year Elections Table 2 itemizes the actual spending programs in this framework deal along with the bipartisan infrastructure plan, which remains at $550 billion in net deficit spending. The cumulative spending ranges from $1.9 to $2.4 trillion, which will then need to be offset by tax measures. Table 2US Spending Scenarios Takeaways From The Off-Year Elections Takeaways From The Off-Year Elections Table 3 highlights the tax measures and the amount of revenue they are expected to raise. Notice that moderate Democrats have thus far succeeded in striking out the original corporate tax hike and top individual income tax hike. What is left is the minimum corporate rate – in line with Biden’s international agreement – and a series of smaller taxes and surcharges on stock buybacks and the wealthy. Table 3US Taxation Scenarios Takeaways From The Off-Year Elections Takeaways From The Off-Year Elections Table 4 shows an itemized version of the spending programs with annotations for the changes that have occurred so far while the bill is on the chopping block. This is a loose tally of the status of negotiations. Biden’s framework deal is a major liberal spending bill likely to have a net deficit impact of $1-$1.5 trillion (infrastructure plus reconciliation). Yet it is a far cry from his party’s original, visionary proposals. Moderate Democrats succeeded in moderating the ambitions of the democratic socialists. The bill does not constitute a major redistribution of wealth. As it stands, Biden is looking to maintain President Trump’s low tax rates on corporations and high-income earners. Table 4Congressional Democratic Plan Up For Negotiation Takeaways From The Off-Year Elections Takeaways From The Off-Year Elections Off-Year Election Results Tuesday’s elections do not change the balance of power in the House of Representatives. The two House seats in Ohio produced the expected results in the Democratic-leaning eleventh district and the Republican-leaning fifteenth district (Chart 3). Another Democratic-leaning House seat will be determined in Florida in January. The House of Representatives is still very closely divided, with Democrats holding a three-seat de facto majority – meaning that if Democrats lose three votes, they cannot pass legislation. This slim majority is what is forcing them to compromise their spending bills (Chart 4). If the progressives refuse to support the final bills then the party will suffer a disaster in the midterms, so progressives are forced to capitulate. Chart 3 Chart 4 Republicans not only won the Virginia governor’s seat but could emerge victorious in the New Jersey gubernatorial election, which would be a big surprise (Chart 5). The tight New Jersey race reflects the fact that the Republicans had a good night in general – they also did well in various down-ballot races (Chart 6). Chart 5 Chart 6 Hence national politics had a substantial impact on these local elections: namely, President Biden’s low approval rating and infighting among congressional Democrats. Democrats suffered from the impacts of the Delta variant of COVID-19 on the economy – the number one issue . Notably President Trump played ball with the GOP: he endorsed Youngkin but Youngkin kept his distance and Trump avoided interfering, sparing Youngkin any controversy. This tactic apparently worked, as white women swung by 15 percentage points in favor of Republicans relative to the 2020 presidential vote in Virginia.  Overall the election reinforces the basic historical fact that the US is a two-party system and that the electoral cycle favors the opposition in off-year and midterm elections. Given that Virginia is heavily Democratic these days, only loosely considered a swing state, the victory of a Republican in a statewide race suggests that a non-Trump Republican is capable of winning the presidency, whether in 2024 or thereafter. The idea that Trump’s scandals and the January 6 insurrection disqualify Republicans in voter opinion is contradicted by normal political clockwork. Republicans are back to growing their hold on state governments (Chart 7). The election repudiated left-wing Democrats. McAuliffe’s defeat came on the heels of both national and local controversies over the impact of progressive ideology on the education system. Minneapolis disapproved of the ballot measure to convert its police department into a new department of public safety. The Left is now frantically trying to distance itself from its more radical and unpopular ideas such as Critical Race Theory and “Abolish the Police.” The historic spike in homicide and general crime rates will continue to be a problem for the incumbent Democrats if it does not subside (Chart 8). Chart 7 Chart 8 Still, the midterms are a year away. Most likely the pandemic will wane and the economy will recover between now and then. Biden’s legislation will probably pass and his approval will then rebound. The new compromise reconciliation bill will be more palatable to the median voter than the original, more radical proposals. As such Biden’s legislation will be a marginal positive for the Democrats in the midterms. Democrats and political independents generally favor the provisions included. The bipartisan infrastructure deal will be especially widely approved. So while Democrats are likely to lose the House, they could still keep the Senate. A lot of surprises can also happen between now and next November that could cut either way for the incumbent party. It is not impossible for Democrats to retain Congress. Given that Biden is keeping Trump’s tax rates, passing an infrastructure deal with Republicans, and maintaining the new hawkish line on China, it turns out that the only major points of distinction are social spending, climate spending, and immigration. Immigration is by far Democrats’ biggest weakness. The US is seeing a historic surge of immigrants on the southern border and the popular backlash will escalate dramatically in the lead-up to the midterms (Chart 9).  Chart 9Immigration Crisis Looms On Southern Border Immigration Crisis Looms On Southern Border Immigration Crisis Looms On Southern Border Gridlock will not begin next November but with the passage of Biden’s bills this November or December. With paper thin margins in Congress, and election campaigning taking place all year, it is unlikely that major legislation will pass in 2022. Biden will resort to regulation and foreign policy for most of the year. Congress will effectively be gridlocked already. A likely Republican victory in the House would then formalize it for the 2023-24 period. Investment Takeaways Public investments in infrastructure, tech, and renewable energy should be positive for productivity over the long run. The US economy is already gearing up for what looks likely to be a productivity boomlet based on businesses’ capital spending intentions and core capital goods orders (Chart 10). Chart 10US Productivity Boomlet US Productivity Boomlet US Productivity Boomlet However, inflation is certain to be a risk in the short run and a large new fiscal spending package will increase that risk, given that the output gap is virtually closed. In general US stocks should outperform government bonds in an inflationary environment (Chart 11). Investors may continue to “buy the rumor” of Biden’s legislation. The legislation favors cyclical equities, especially in the context of a new business cycle (Chart 12). But this is a very short term consideration and otherwise cyclicals are looking stretched relative to defensives. Chart 11US Equities Versus Bonds, Total Return US Equities Versus Bonds, Total Return US Equities Versus Bonds, Total Return Chart 12US Cyclicals Versus Defensives US Cyclicals Versus Defensives US Cyclicals Versus Defensives Biden’s agenda has failed to galvanize a long-lasting outperformance of value stocks over growth stocks – though financials are clearly outperforming tech, which should be expected as a result of robust reflationary policies (Chart 13). The abandonment of corporate tax hikes is a positive but we still generally expect investors to “sell the news” once Biden’s bills are signed. US infrastructure stocks are close to pricing the positive news, relative to the broad market, cyclical sectors, and global cyclicals (Chart 14). Chart 13US Value Versus Growth US Value Versus Growth US Value Versus Growth   Uncertainty will subside significantly after the Senate passes Biden’s reconciliation bill. From that point investors will have a clear expectation for US fiscal policy through 2025. Impending congressional gridlock will be marginally positive for US risk assets because it will reduce uncertainty around fiscal policy. But investors will turn toward other threatening issues like wage growth and inflation, eventual rate hikes, regulation, and external risks. Chart 14BCA Infrastructure Basket BCA Infrastructure Basket BCA Infrastructure Basket Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Appendix Image Image Image Image Image Image Image Image        

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