Policy

When defining maximum employment, many investors focus on the state of the labor market that prevailed as of February 2020. However, the US labor market was beyond maximum employment levels at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, suggesting that the Fed is likely to raise interest rates before the unemployment rate falls back to 3.5%. This assumes that the Fed deems the ongoing recovery in the labor market to be “broad-based and inclusive,” given revisions to the FOMC’s Statement on Longer-Run Goals and Monetary Policy Strategy last August. The extraordinary nature of the COVID-19 pandemic has indeed had an outsized impact on some demographic segments of the labor market, but most of these effects already have or are likely to be reversed as the overall unemployment rate continues to fall. A permanent decline in the participation rate, relative to pre-pandemic levels, is likely given ongoing demographic trends. Even if the recent behavioral impact of retirements is overdone, the demographic impact of retirement on the participation rate suggests that the Federal Reserve may hit its maximum employment objective by next summer, barring a long-lasting impact on US economic activity from the Delta variant of COVID-19. In a 2H 2022 rate hike scenario, the fair value of the 10-year Treasury yield will be 2.2%-2.3% next year, which the market is not priced for. This underscores that investors should maintain a short duration position within a fixed-income portfolio, and that equity investors should favor value over growth stocks on a 12-month time horizon. The cyclical outlook for monetary policy in the US rests heavily, if not exclusively, on the length of time needed to return to maximum employment. In this report, we argue that a complete return to the state of the labor market as of February 2020 is probably not required for the Fed’s maximum employment objective to be met, because the jobs market was likely beyond maximum employment at that time. In addition, we highlight that the broad-based and inclusive nature of the Fed's maximum employment objective is objective will not delay the first Fed rate hike beyond what the trajectory of the unemployment rate would suggest, as the odds of a persistent negative impact on demographic segments of the labor market no longer seem meaningful. In fact, the one partial exception that we can identify – retirement – argues for an earlier return to maximum employment. We conclude by noting that a first Fed rate hike is possible by the middle of next year, barring a long-lasting impact on US economic activity from the Delta variant of COVID-19 or if the Fed’s inflation liftoff criteria are no longer met. Normalized levels of inflation expectations, as well as reasonable estimates of a closed output gap over the coming year, suggest that inflation itself will remain liftoff-consistent barring a significant shock to growth or a major disinflationary/deflationary supply-side event. A 2022 rate hike is not currently reflected in market pricing, underscoring that investors should remain short duration within a fixed-income portfolio. Equity investors should expect a meaningful rise in stock market volatility as long-maturity yields rise over the coming year, and should favor value over growth stocks once fears of the likely impact of the Delta variant on near-term economic growth abate. Defining “Maximum Employment” Chart II-1Last Cycle, Rates Began To Rise Before Maximum Employment Was Reached Last Cycle, Rates Began To Rise Before Maximum Employment Was Reached Last Cycle, Rates Began To Rise Before Maximum Employment Was Reached Last September, the Fed’s official shift to an average inflation targeting regime represented a significant break from how the Fed conducted monetary policy in the past. The shift replaced what was previously a “symmetric” 2% inflation target with the goal of achieving inflation that averages 2% over time, meaning that monetary policy is no longer strictly forward-looking. According to the Fed's previous framework, monetary policy should start to tighten before the economy reaches its full employment level, in anticipation that further declines in the unemployment rate will likely lead to accelerating inflation. For example, during the last economic cycle, the Fed began to raise interest rates in December 2015, when the unemployment rate stood at 5% (Chart II-1). But the Fed's new regime implies that the onset of tightening should begin later, the criteria for which was explicitly laid out in the September 2020 FOMC statement: “The Committee decided to keep the target range for the federal funds rate at 0 to 1/4 percent and expects it will be appropriate to maintain this target range until labor market conditions have reached levels consistent with the Committee's assessments of maximum employment and inflation has risen to 2 percent and is on track to moderately exceed 2 percent for some time.” In addition, while the Fed’s statutory mandate from Congress has always included the pursuit of maximum employment as an objective of monetary policy, revisions to the FOMC’s Statement on Longer-Run Goals and Monetary Policy Strategy last August explicitly noted that the maximum level of employment is a “broad-based and inclusive goal.” This has left many investors questioning when the Fed’s maximum employment criterion will be reached, with some market participants believing that a complete return to the state of the labor market that prevailed as of February 2020 will be required before the Fed lifts interest rates. But there are three arguments suggesting that the US labor market was beyond maximum employment levels at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic: 1. Chart II-2 highlights that the February 2020 unemployment rate ranked at the 5th percentile of its post-WWII history, and was at its lowest level since the late-1960s. While it is true that the unemployment rate would have been higher for most of the last economic expansion based on December 2007 age-adjusted participation rates, Chart II-3 highlights that this effect had waned by the end of 2019. This underscores that the pre-pandemic unemployment rate likely reflected very low labor market slack. Chart II-2The US Labor Market Was Likely Beyond Maximum Employment Levels Prior To The Pandemic September 2021 September 2021 2. The February 2020 unemployment rate stood at 3.5%, which is at the very low end of the Fed’s NAIRU estimates, and meaningfully below the CBO’S long- and short-term NAIRU projections (Chart II-4). Given that NAIRU estimates signify the level of unemployment that is consistent with a steady inflation rate, this implies that 3.5% is likely below the “maximum employment” unemployment rate. Chart II-3The Part Rate Had Mostly Normalized Just Prior To COVID-19 The Part Rate Had Mostly Normalized Just Prior To COVID-19 The Part Rate Had Mostly Normalized Just Prior To COVID-19 Chart II-4A 3.5% Unemployment Rate Is Likely Below NAIRU A 3.5% Unemployment Rate Is Likely Below NAIRU A 3.5% Unemployment Rate Is Likely Below NAIRU Chart II-5Wage Growth Accelerated In Response To A Sub-4% Unemployment Rate Wage Growth Accelerated In Response To A Sub 4% Unemployment Rate Wage Growth Accelerated In Response To A Sub 4% Unemployment Rate 3. The pre-pandemic trend in wage growth also supports the notion that the labor market was past maximum employment levels at that time. Chart II-5 highlights that average hourly earnings and the Atlanta Fed’s median wage growth tracker were both accelerating in 2018/2019, and Chart II-6 highlights that real average hourly earnings growth of production and nonsupervisory employees was close to its 90th percentile historically at the end of 2019. This underscores that the Fed is likely to raise interest rates before the unemployment rate falls back to 3.5%, assuming that the ongoing recovery in the labor market is deemed by the Fed to be “broad-based and inclusive.”   Chart II-6Real Average Hourly Earnings Growth Was At Its 90th Percentile Historically Prior To COVID-19 September 2021 September 2021 Breadth, Inclusivity, And Participation Chart II-7The "She-cession" Is Over The "She-cession" Is Over The "She-cession" Is Over The extraordinary nature of the COVID-19 pandemic has indeed had an outsized impact on some demographic segments of the labor market, but most of these effects have already reversed or are likely to as the overall unemployment rate continues to fall. And as we highlight below, the one partial exception that we can identify – retirement – in fact argues for an earlier return to maximum employment. We focus our demographic segment analysis on four main categories: 1. employment by gender; 2. race; 3. wage level and education; and 4. the impact on labor force participation from retirement. Gender Chart II-7 highlights the impact of the pandemic on the US labor market by gender. In 2020, the impact of the pandemic fell disproportionately on women. The unemployment rate rose close to 13 percentage points for women from February to April of last year, versus a 10 percentage point rise for men. In addition, the recovery in the participation rate last year was less robust for women, who disproportionately cited family responsibilities as the basis for not participating in the labor force. However, Chart II-7 also highlights that the disproportionate labor market impact of the pandemic on women is now over, with the female unemployment rate closer to its pre-pandemic level than for men, with a similar recovery in the participation rate. The difference in wage growth, relative to February 2020 levels, is also now smaller for women than for men. Thus, barring the development of a new divergence over the coming year, there is no longer any basis for the Federal Reserve to distinguish between men and women in the labor market recovery. Chart II-8Black Unemployment And Labor Force Participation Has Mostly Normalized Black Unemployment And Labor Force Participation Has Mostly Normalized Black Unemployment And Labor Force Participation Has Mostly Normalized Race Chart II-8 highlights the impact of the pandemic on the US labor market by race. In this case, it is clear that a disproportionately negative effect on Black employment persisted for longer than it did for women. But it is also clear that the Black unemployment rate is now roughly the same magnitude above its February 2020 level as is the case for the overall unemployment rate. In June, the Black labor force participation rate had actually recovered more than the overall participation rate, although it did decline meaningfully in July. The Black labor force participation rate has shown itself to be highly volatile since the onset of the pandemic, and we doubt that the July reading marks a decoupling from the overall participation rate. It is also true that median non-white wage growth has decelerated significantly more than median white wage growth during the pandemic, but this has occurred from a very elevated starting point. Median non-white wage growth was growing a full percentage point above median white wage growth just prior to the pandemic, compared with a half a percentage point below today. This deceleration has likely occurred as a lagged impact from the larger rise in Black unemployment noted above, which has now dissipated – suggesting that nonwhite wage growth is not likely to meaningfully lag over the coming year. Two additional points highlight that Black unemployment, labor force participation, and wages are likely to be highly correlated with overall labor market trends over the coming year. First, Chart II-9 highlights that in 2019 Black workers were underrepresented in management / professional and natural resources / construction / maintenance occupations, and overrepresented in service and production / transportation / material moving occupations. Given that services spending remains below its pre-pandemic trend, it is likely that the Black unemployment rate will continue to decline as the gap in leisure and hospitality and other services employment closes further relative to pre-pandemic levels. Chart II-9Black Unemployment Will Fall As Services Spending Recovers September 2021 September 2021 Second, Table II-1 highlights that Black survey respondents to the Census Bureau’s Household Pulse Survey located in New York and California are reporting lower and only modestly higher levels, respectively, of lost employment income than is the case for Black workers in the US overall. Given that services employment in these two states, particularly New York, are the most likely to be negatively impacted by persistent “work-from-home” effects, Table II-1 suggests that Black services employment is not likely to lag gains in overall services employment. Wage Level And Education Chart II-10 highighlights wage growth for those with a high school diploma or less, for low-skilled workers, and for those in the lowest average wage quartile, and Charts II-11A & II-11B highlight the impact of the pandemic on the unemployment and participation rates by education. Table II-1No Evidence Of A Negative “Work-From- Home” Effect On Black Unemployment September 2021 September 2021 Chart II-10Wage Growth By Education And Skill Level Is Largely Unchanged Wage Growth By Education And Skill Level Is Largely Unchanged Wage Growth By Education And Skill Level Is Largely Unchanged Chart II-11AThe Least Educated Workers Still Need To See More Job Gains… The Least Educated Workers Still Need To See More Job Gains... The Least Educated Workers Still Need To See More Job Gains... Chart II-11B…But This Will Occur As Services Spending Improves ...But This Will Occur As Services Spending Improves ...But This Will Occur As Services Spending Improves     On the wage front, Chart II-10 makes it clear that there are no major negative differences between those with limited education, limited skills, or limited pay and the overall trend in wage growth relative to pre-pandemic levels. Reflecting a shortage of workers in some services industries, wages for 1st quartile wage earners and low-skilled workers are accelerating, and are poised to reach their highest level since 2008. On the employment and participation front, Charts II-11A & B show that the job market recovery has been less pronounced for high school graduates and those with less than a high school diploma. But, we believe – with high conviction – that this reflects the industry composition of the existing employment gap, which skews heavily towards service and leisure & hospitality. These jobs tend to require less formal education and training, and to offer less pay. Given this, and similar to the case for Black employment, low education employment growth is unlikely to meaningfully diverge from the trend in overall services employment over the coming year. The Impact of Retirement On Labor Force Participation Chart II-12Most Of The Pandemic Decline In Labor Force Participation Has Occurred Due To Retirement ...But This Will Occur As Services Spending Improves ...But This Will Occur As Services Spending Improves Chart II-12 presents a breakdown of the change in overall labor force participation from Q4 2019 to Q2 2021 by nonparticipation category. The chart is based off the Atlanta Fed’s Labor Force Participation Dynamics dataset, and employs some Bank Credit Analyst estimates to seasonally adjust the impact of some categories in the first half of this year and to align it with the actual change in the published monthly seasonally-adjusted participation rate. The chart underscores that, while family responsibilities and those who are not in the labor force but who want a job (the shadow labor force) have been important contributors to the decline in labor force participation since the onset of the pandemic, retirement has been the single most important factor driving the participation rate lower. This sharp drop in labor force participation from retirement likely reflects the decision of some older workers to bring forward their retirement date by a year or two, although a recent study from the Kansas City Fed suggests that the non-demographic component of the recent surge in retirements has mainly been driven by a decline in the number of retirees rejoining the labor force.1 But demographic effects are important, and Chart II-13 highlights that the participation rate has fallen at a rate of roughly 30 basis points per year on average since 2008, reflecting the aging of the population. Chart II-13 is consistent with the age-adjusted participation rate that we showed in Chart II-3 above, and underscores that, even though the recent decline in the participation rate due to retirement is overdone, a permanent decline relative to pre-pandemic levels is likely the result of ongoing demographic trends. In our view, the Federal Reserve is unlikely to regard a demographically-driven decline in the overall participation rate as evidence that the labor market recovery has fallen short of the Fed’s maximum employment objective. It is possible that a return of the working age participation rate to its pre-pandemic level will be viewed as a condition for maximum employment, but Chart II-14 highlights that progress on this front is already more advanced. Chart II-13A Full Recovery To The Pre-Pandemic Labor Force Participation Rate Is Unlikely A Full Recovery To The Pre-Pandemic Labor Force Participation Rate Is Unlikely A Full Recovery To The Pre-Pandemic Labor Force Participation Rate Is Unlikely Chart II-14The Working Age Participation Rate Has Recovered More Than The Overall Part Rate The Working Age Participation Rate Has Recovered More Than The Overall Part Rate The Working Age Participation Rate Has Recovered More Than The Overall Part Rate   A lower overall participation rate results in a faster decline in the unemployment rate for any given level of employment growth. Given that there are minimal-to-no remaining labor market divergences along other demographic dimensions of the labor market that aren’t simply correlated with the overall unemployment rate, the implication of a permanently lower participation rate is that the Federal Reserve is likely to hit its maximum employment objective earlier than market participants, and the Fed itself, are currently expecting. Timing The Return To Maximum Employment, And The First Fed Rate Hike Table II-2 presents the average monthly nonfarm payroll growth that will be required to reach a 3.8% unemployment rate, a level that Fed Vice Chair Richard Clarida recently affirmed would in his view likely constitute maximum employment.2 The values shown in the table assume the trend participation rate shown in Chart II-13 above, as well as a recent average of monthly population growth. Table II-2The Return To Maximum Employment May Be Faster Than You Think September 2021 September 2021 The table highlights that the unemployment rate is likely to fall to 3.8% following the creation of roughly 4.3 million additional jobs. If the monthly change in nonfarm payrolls continues to grow at its average over the past 3 months, this threshold will be met in January 2022 – essentially a full year before the Fed and market participants expect interest rates to begin to rise. Based instead on a simple linear trend of nonfarm payrolls since late last year, the unemployment rate is likely to fall to 3.8% by sometime next summer. As we highlighted above, the Fed has been explicit that its conditions for raising the funds rate are the following: Labor market conditions have reached levels consistent with the Committee's assessments of maximum employment Inflation has risen to 2 percent Inflation is on track to moderately exceed 2 percent for some time. Currently, the second and third conditions for liftoff are present, suggesting that a first rate hike is possible by the middle of next year, barring a long-lasting impact on US economic activity from the Delta variant of COVID-19. We agree that inflation will slow significantly from its current pace over the coming year as pandemic-induced supply-side factors wane, which some investors have noted may put the Fed’s inflation criteria back into play. But we doubt that the Fed will narrowly focus on the year-over-year growth rate in the core PCE deflator – which will be strongly influenced by base effects next year from this year’s comparatively elevated price level – when judging its second and third liftoff criteria. Instead, the Fed is likely to focus on the prevailing “run rate” of inflation that excludes prices experiencing any disinflationary effects of supply-chain normalization. Chart II-15 illustrates one important reason that the Fed’s inflation criteria will remain “checked” over the coming year. The chart shows that the pandemic, especially last year’s fiscal response to it, has “normalized” important measures of inflation expectations (based on an interval of 2004 to today). We noted in a report earlier this year that inflation is determined by both the degree of economic slack and inflation expectations, a framework that the Fed and many economists refer to as the “modern-day Phillips Curve.”3 Chart II-15The Fed’s Inflation Liftoff Criteria Are Likely To Stay “Checked” The Fed's Inflation Liftoff Criterion Are Likely To Stay "Checked" The Fed's Inflation Liftoff Criterion Are Likely To Stay "Checked" Many investors feel that the Phillips Curve has failed to predict weak inflation over the past decade, but we noted in our report that this perception is due to a singular focus on the economic slack component of the modern-day version of the curve – to the exclusion of inflation expectations – and a failure to consider the lasting impact of sustained periods of a negative output gap on those expectations. Chart II-16A Closed Output Gap Will Support Liftoff-Consistent Inflation A Closed Output Gap Will Support Liftoff-Consistent Inflation A Closed Output Gap Will Support Liftoff-Consistent Inflation Chart II-16 highlights that both market and Fed economic projections imply a positive output gap within the next 12 months, suggesting that inflation itself will remain liftoff-consistent barring a significant shock to growth or a major disinflationary/deflationary supply-side event. Declines in the prices of goods that have surged as a result of the disruption of global supply chains could potentially lower inflation expectations over the coming year, but our sense is that this is only likely in a scenario in which the prices of these goods fall below their pre-pandemic levels (which we do not currently expect). Investment Implications      There are three key investment implications of a potentially faster return to maximum employment than is currently anticipated by investors and the Fed. First, Chart II-17 highlights that the market is not priced for a first Fed rate hike by next summer, and Table II-3 highlights that a sizeable majority of respondents to the New York Fed’s Survey of Primary Dealers do not expect a single rate hike in 2022. Chart II-18 highlights that the fair value of the 10-year Treasury yield a year from today is 2.2%-2.3% in a 2H 2022 rate hike scenario, underscoring that a short duration stance is warranted within a fixed-income portfolio over the coming year – barring a long-lasting impact on economic activity from the Delta variant of COVID-19. Chart II-17The Market Is Not Fully Priced For A Quick Return To Maximum Employment The Market Is Not Fully Priced For A Quick Return To Maximum Employment The Market Is Not Fully Priced For A Quick Return To Maximum Employment Table II-3Market Participant Surveys Show No Hike Expectations Next Year September 2021 September 2021 Chart II-18Investors Should Maintain A Short-Duration Fixed-Income Stance Investors Should Maintain A Short-Duration Fixed-Income Stance Investors Should Maintain A Short-Duration Fixed-Income Stance Second, while a 2.2%-2.3% 10-year Treasury yield would not necessarily be negative for stock prices on a sustained basis, Chart II-19 shows that it would bring the equity risk premium (ERP) within its 2002-2007 range. The level of the 10-year yield that is consistent with that range has fallen relative to pre-pandemic levels and is now clearly below the trend rate of economic growth, due to a significant run-up in equity market multiples. This underscores that stocks are the most dependent on T.I.N.A., “There Is No Alternative,” than at any other point since the global financial crisis. It is unclear what ERP investors will require to contend with the myriad risks to the longer-term economic outlook, many of which are political or geopolitical in nature and which did not exist in the early 2000s. Chart II-19Now, Stocks Are Increasingly Dependent On Low Bond Yields Now, Stocks Are Increasingly Dependent On Low Bond Yields Now, Stocks Are Increasingly Dependent On Low Bond Yields Consequently, there are meaningful odds that equities will experience a “digestion phase” at some point over the coming year as long-maturity bond yields rise – potentially trading flat-to-down in absolute terms for several weeks or months. It is also possible that stocks will experience a more malicious sell-off, if it turns out that equity investors require a structurally higher risk premium than what prevailed prior to the global financial crisis. This is not our base case view. We continue to recommend an overweight stance toward equities in a multi-asset portfolio. But it is a risk that warrants monitoring over the coming year. Finally, rising bond yields clearly favor value over growth stocks on a 12-month time horizon. In the US, the sizeable recent bounce in growth stocks has occurred alongside a renewed decline in the 10-year Treasury yield, which itself has been driven by renewed fears about the economic impact of the Delta variant. Thus, growth stocks may remain well bid relative to value in the very near term. But on a 12-month time horizon, value stocks are likely to outperform their growth peers, as long duration tech sector valuation comes under pressure and financial sector earnings benefit from higher interest rates. Jonathan LaBerge, CFA Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst Footnotes 1 What Has Driven the Recent Increase in Retirements? by Jun Nie and Shu-Kuei X. Yang, Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City Economic Bulletin, August 11, 2021. 2 Outlooks, Outcomes, and Prospects for U.S. Monetary Policy, by Fed Vice Chair Richard H. Clarida, At the Peterson Institute for International Economics, Washington, D.C. (via webcast), August 4, 2021 3 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst Special Report "The Modern-Day Phillips Curve, Future Inflation, And What To Do About It," dated 18 December, 2020, available at bca.bcaresearch.com

Highlights China’s new plan for “common prosperity” is a long-term strategic plan to bulk up the middle class that will strengthen China – if it is implemented successfully. The record on implementing reforms is mixed. Large budget deficits to provide subsidies for households and key industries are inevitable. But fiscal reforms will be more difficult. Implementation will proceed gradually and some provinces will move faster than others. Cyclically, the common prosperity plan will not be allowed to interfere with the post-pandemic economic recovery. Beijing will have to ease monetary and fiscal policy to secure the recovery. But large debt levels create a limit on the ability to push through key reforms. Macro policy easing is beneficial for the rest of the world but Chinese investors must deal with a rise in uncertainty and an anti-business turn in the policy environment. Beijing has centralized political power to move rapidly on reforms. However, centralization creates new structural problems while antagonizing foreign nations. Feature Chinese President Xi Jinping laid out a plan on August 18 for “common prosperity” in China that will help guide national policy over the coming decades. The plan seeks to reduce social and economic imbalances and hence strengthen China and reinforce the Communist Party’s rule. The plan confirms our top key view for the year – China’s confluence of internal and external risks – as well as our long-running theme that Chinese domestic political risk is greater than it looks because of underlying problems like inequality and weak governance. The market has woken up to these views and themes (Chart 1). Now Beijing is turning to address these problems, which is positive if it follows through. But investors will have to cope with new policies and laws that reverse the pro-business context of recent decades. In this report we review the new plan and its implications in the context of overall Chinese economic policy. The chief investment takeaway is that while China will push forward various reforms, Beijing cannot afford to self-inflict an economic collapse. Monetary and fiscal policy will ease over the coming 12 months. As such China policy tightening will not short-circuit the global recovery. However, Chinese corporate earnings and the renminbi will not benefit from the country’s anti-business turn. Chart 1Market Wakes Up To China's Political Risk Market Wakes Up To China's Political Risk Market Wakes Up To China's Political Risk What Is In The Common Prosperity Plan? The first thing to understand about Beijing’s new plan for “common prosperity” is that it is aspirational: it contains few specific targets or concrete policies. It builds on existing policy goals set for 2049, the hundredth anniversary of the People’s Republic. Implementation will be gradual. The plan is consistent with the Xi administration’s previous emphasis on improving the country’s quality of life and tackling systemic risks. It takes aim at social immobility, income and wealth inequality, poor public services, a weak social safety net, and other problems that did not receive enough attention during China’s rapid growth phase over the past forty years. Left unattended, China’s socioeconomic imbalances could fester and eventually destabilize the regime. From the beginning, the Xi administration has tackled the most pressing popular concerns to try to rebuild the party’s legitimacy, increase public support, and avoid crises. Crackdowns on pollution and excessive debt are prime examples. China does indeed suffer from high income inequality and low social mobility, as we have highlighted in key reports. It is comparable to the United States as well as Italy, Argentina, and Chile, all of which have suffered from significant social and political upheaval in recent memory (Chart 2). By contrast, Japan, Germany, and Australia have been relatively politically stable. Chart 2China Risks Social Unrest Like The Americas China Spreads The Wealth Around China Spreads The Wealth Around Table 1 summarizes the common prosperity plan. The key takeaways are the long 2049 deadline, the emphasis on “mixed ownership” in the corporate sphere (retaining a big role for state control and state-owned enterprises but attracting private capital), the redistribution of household income (reform the tax code), the establishment of property rights, the censorship of media/discourse, and the need to reduce rural disparity. The most important point of all is that Beijing intends to grow the size and wellbeing of the middle class – the foundation of a country’s strength. Table 1China’s “Common Prosperity” Plan For 2049 China Spreads The Wealth Around China Spreads The Wealth Around Coastal China today has reached Taiwanese and Korean levels of per capita income and has slightly exceeded their levels of wealth inequality (Chart 3). These countries witnessed social unrest and regime change in the 1980s due to such problems. The urban-rural gap is even more problematic in China due to its large rural population and territory. The Chinese public is expected to become more demanding as it evolves. Hence Beijing is pledging to redistribute wealth, grow the middle class, speed up income growth among the poorest, reduce rural disparities, expand access to elderly care, medicine, and housing, and establish a better legal framework for business. These goals are positive in principle, especially for household sentiment, social stability, and political support for the administration. But they also entail a higher tax/wage/regulation environment for business and corporate earnings. The question for investors centers on implementation. Chart 3China's Wealth Disparities Outstrip Comparable Neighbors China's Wealth Disparities Outstrip Comparable Neighbors China's Wealth Disparities Outstrip Comparable Neighbors What About Vested Interests? Table 1 above shows that the super-committee that issued the common prosperity plan also addressed China’s ongoing battle against financial risk. The financial policy statement was neither new nor surprising but it highlights something important: “preventing risks” will have to be balanced with “ensuring stable growth.” This balancing of reform and growth is essential to Chinese government and will guide the implementation of the common prosperity plan just as it has guided President Xi’s crackdown on shadow banking. This is an especially pertinent point today, as Beijing runs the risk of overtightening monetary, fiscal, and regulatory policies. While Beijing’s vision of a better regulated, more heavily taxed, and higher-wage society should not be underrated, reform initiatives will be delayed if they threaten to derail the post-pandemic recovery. Time and again the Xi administration has ruled against a rapid, resolute, and disruptive approach to reform, such as the “assault phase of reform” spearheaded by Premier Zhu Rongji in the late 1990s. In the plan’s own words: “achieving common prosperity will be a long-term, arduous, and complicated task and it should be achieved in a gradual and progressive manner.” Having said that, the pattern of reform has been a vigorous launch, a market riot, and then backtracking or delay. This means markets face more volatility first before things settle down. An initial volley of policy actions should be expected between now and spring of 2023, when the National People’s Congress solidifies the plans of the twentieth National Party Congress in fall 2022. As with the ongoing regulatory crackdown on Big Tech, the market may experience a technical rebound but the political assessment suggests government pressure will be sustained for at least the next 12 months. We do not recommend bottom feeding in Chinese equities. Will the reforms be effective over time? When the Xi administration took power in 2012-13, it issued a visionary policy document calling for wide-ranging reforms to China’s economy (“Decision on Several Major Questions About Deepening Reform”).1 Over the past decade these reforms have had mixed success. Rhodium Group maintains a reform tracker to monitor progress – the results are lackluster (Table 2). Some core principles, such as the claim that China would make market forces “decisive” in allocating resources, have been totally reversed. Table 2China’s Progress On Reforms Over Past Decade China Spreads The Wealth Around China Spreads The Wealth Around While China’s government model is absolutist, there are still social and economic limits on what the government can achieve. Beijing cannot raise a nationwide property tax, estate tax, and capital gains tax overnight just to reduce inequality. In fact, the long saga of the property tax tells a very different story. Beijing is limited in how it can tax the bubbling property sector because Chinese households store their wealth in houses and because any sustained price deflation would lead to a national debt crisis. Officials have pledged to advance a nationwide property tax in the past three five-year plans with little progress. A serious effort to impose the tax in 2014 was only implemented in two provinces, notably Shanghai’s tax on second or third homes owned by the same household.2 The common prosperity plan entails that the government will revive the property tax but the rollout will still be gradual and step-by-step reform. The tax will focus on major urban areas, not minor ones where population decline could weigh on prices. The government work report in early 2023 will be a key watchpoint for where and when the property tax will be levied but there can be little doubt that it will gradually be levied for top-tier cities. Other aspects of the common prosperity plan will be implemented with provincial trial runs. It all begins with a “demonstration zone,” namely Zhejiang province, a wealthy coastal state where President Xi Jinping once served as party secretary and first army secretary. Zhejiang is expected to make some progress by 2025 and achieve most the goals by 2035 (in keeping with Xi’s 2035 strategic vision). The Zhejiang plan includes concrete numerical targets and as such sheds light on the broader national plan and how other provinces will implement it. The most important target is the desire to have 80% of the population earn an annual disposable income of CNY 100,000-500,000 ($15,400-77,000). The labor share of output should be greater than 50%, compared to a national average of 35%-40%. The urbanization rate should hit 75%, up from 72%. Urban incomes should be capped at just short of twice that of rural income. Enrollment rates in higher education will go up, life expectancy should reach above 80 years, pollution should be further controlled, and the unemployment rate should stay below 5.5%. A host of other goals, ranging from technology to fertility and the social safety net, are shown in Table 3. Table 3China: Zhejiang Province As Bellwether For “Common Prosperity” Plan China Spreads The Wealth Around China Spreads The Wealth Around Some of the plan’s intentions will be undermined by Chinese governance. It is difficult to improve social fairness and property rights in the context of autocracy because the central and local governments create distortions and cannot be held to account for their own mistakes and abuses. The immediate political context of the common prosperity plan should not be missed: the president is outlining a bright future to justify the fact that he will not step down from power as earlier term limits required in fall 2022. The president’s 2035 vision implies an important strategic window in which to accomplish ambitious goals but the lack of checks and balances suggests that the next 14 years could be very similar to the last 10 years, in which arbitrary and absolutist decisions govern policy. The problem is highlighted by China’s recent 10-point plan on government under rule of law, which is undercut by the arbitrary actions of regulators in the tech crackdown (see Appendix). In other words, while social stability may improve in many ways, the shift away from consensus rule, toward rule of a single person, will increase policy uncertainty and create new governance problems at the same time that could produce greater instability over the long run. Having said all that, it is essential to acknowledge that a comprehensive plan to grow the middle class and expand the social safety net could be very positive for China if implemented. A Global Social Justice Race? If investors are thinking that the Xi administration’s calls for “social fairness and justice” and big new investments in “elderly care, medical security, and housing supply” resemble those of US President Joe Biden in his American Families Plan, then they are right. But while the US is already at historic levels of social division after failing to deal with inequality, China is attempting to learn from the US’s problems and rebalance society before polarization, factionalization, and social unrest occur. The Communist Party tends to take major action in response to American crises. Beijing’s crackdown on extremism and domestic terrorism in the early 2000s followed from the September 11 attacks. Its crackdown on local government debt and shadow banking stemmed from the 2008 financial crisis. And its crackdown on Big Tech, social media, and inequality today responds to the rise of populism in the US and Europe. The fact that deindustrialization has led to political crises in the developed world, and that social media companies can both exacerbate social unrest and silence a sitting president, is not lost on the Chinese administration. Unfortunately, China’s approach will probably escalate conflict with the West. First, Beijing is coupling its new social agenda with an aggressive campaign of military modernization and technological acquisition. It is doubling down on advanced manufacturing as its future economic model. The liberal democracies will not only be forced to defend their own political systems and governance models but will also be pressured into more hawkish stances on foreign, trade, and defense policy toward China. So far China is still attractive to foreign investors but the combination of socialist policy, import substitution, and foreign protectionism should put a cap on investment flows over time (Chart 4). What is the net effect of social largesse at home and great power competition abroad? Larger budget deficits. Fiscal expansionism is the key mechanism for the US and China to reboot their economies, reduce social pressures, secure supply chains, and compete with other each other. And expansionary fiscal policies will boost inflation expectations on the margin. One thing is clear: China’s regime will be imperiled if instead of common prosperity and “national rejuvenation” it gets economic collapse. Beijing is already seeing capital outflows reminiscent of the crisis period in 2014-15 when aggressive reforms triggered a collapse in risk appetite and a stock market crash (Chart 5). The implication is that monetary and fiscal easing will accompany the reform agenda. Chart 4China's New Policies Will Deter Foreign Investment China's New Policies Will Deter Foreign Investment China's New Policies Will Deter Foreign Investment Chart 5Capital Flight And Capital Controls A Risk If Implementation Aggressive Capital Flight And Capital Controls A Risk If Implementation Aggressive Capital Flight And Capital Controls A Risk If Implementation Aggressive That would be marginally positive for global growth and EM countries that export to China. Investors in China, however, will have to deal with greater policy uncertainty as China attempts to redistribute wealth while waging a cold war abroad. Investment Takeaways None of Beijing’s social goals can be met if overall growth and job creation slow too much. Reforms are constantly subject to the ultimate constraint of maintaining overall stability. Already in 2021 Beijing is verging on excessive monetary and fiscal policy tightening (Chart 6). The Politburo signaled in July that it would take its foot off the brakes but policy uncertainty is still wreaking havoc in the equity market and overall animal spirits are downbeat. We expect policy to ease over the coming year to ensure stability ahead of the twentieth national party congress. This would be marginally good news for global growth, contingent on the effects of the global pandemic. Of course we cannot deny that more bad news for global risk assets may be necessary in the very near term to prompt the policy easing that we expect. Policymakers will backtrack on various policies when the market revolts or when the risk of debt-deflation rears its ugly head. Corporate and even household debt have expanded so much in recent years that Chinese policymakers have their hands tied when they try to push reforms too aggressively (Chart 7). A Japanese-style combination of a shrinking and graying population could create a feedback loop with debt deleveraging in the event of a sharp drop in asset prices. On the whole we maintain a pessimistic outlook on Chinese currency and assets. Chart 6China Runs Risk Of Overtightening Policy China Runs Risk Of Overtightening Policy China Runs Risk Of Overtightening Policy Chart 7Debt Trap Must Be Avoided - Monetary/ Fiscal Policy Will Stay Accommodative Debt Trap Must Be Avoided - Monetary/ Fiscal Policy Will Stay Accommodative Debt Trap Must Be Avoided - Monetary/ Fiscal Policy Will Stay Accommodative   Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com     Appendix Table A1China: 10-Point Guidelines On Government Under Rule Of Law (2021-25) China Spreads The Wealth Around China Spreads The Wealth Around Footnotes 1     See Arthur R. Kroeber, “Xi Jinping’s Ambitious Agenda for Economic Reform in China,” Brookings, November 17, 2013, brookings.edu. 2     Chongqing’s property tax only affects luxury houses. Shenzhen and Hainan are the next pilot projects.

Dear Client, I will be on vacation next week. In lieu of our regular report, we will be sending you a Special Report written by my colleagues Chester Ntonifor, BCA Research’s Chief Foreign Exchange Strategist, and Matt Gertken, Chief Geopolitical Strategist. Their report discusses the threat to the dollar’s reserve status over the next decade. This week, Matt published a timely report entitled “Afghanistan? Watch Iran And China,” examining the global macro significance of the US withdrawal from Afghanistan. I trust you will find both reports insightful.   Best regards, Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Highlights Over the next 12 months, US inflation will decline fast enough to allow the Federal Reserve to maintain its accommodative monetary stance, but not as fast as investors are expecting. A number of structural forces were becoming inflationary even before the pandemic began. The pandemic will only buttress the tide. Even if the virus is eventually vanquished, the pandemic could prop up inflation by permanently reducing labor supply, hastening the retreat from globalization, and keeping fiscal policy looser than it otherwise would have been. Fixed-income investors should maintain a short duration stance. We expect the US 10-year Treasury yield to rebound to about 1.8% by early next year. Long-term bond yields in the other major economies will also rise, although not as much as in the US. In and of itself, higher inflation is not necessarily bad for equities. What makes higher inflation toxic for stocks is when it forces central banks to raise rates to punitive levels. Fortunately, such an outcome is still a few years away, justifying an overweight equity position for now. Upside Risks To Inflation In our July 23rd report, we argued that investors were asking the wrong question about inflation. Rather than asking whether higher inflation is transitory, they should be asking whether inflation will decline faster or slower than what the market is discounting. Chart 1Investors Expect Inflation To Fall Rapidly From Current Levels Transitory At First: The Pandemic’s Long-Term Impact On Inflation Transitory At First: The Pandemic’s Long-Term Impact On Inflation Chart 1 shows that investors expect inflation to fall rapidly from current levels and to remain subdued thereafter. The widely followed 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rate currently stands at 2.12%, below the Fed’s comfort zone of 2.3%-to-2.5% (Chart 2).1 Chart 2Below-Target Inflation Expectations And A Low R* Have Restrained Bond Yields Below-Target Inflation Expectations And A Low R* Have Restrained Bond Yields Below-Target Inflation Expectations And A Low R* Have Restrained Bond Yields Downbeat long-term inflation expectations and the market’s perception that the neutral rate of interest is very low are the two main reasons why bond yields are so depressed. QE programs have also dampened yields, although not nearly as much as widely believed. Chart 3Outside Of A Few Pandemic-Related Sectors, The CPI Has Yet To Return To Trend Outside Of A Few Pandemic-Related Sectors, The CPI Has Yet To Return To Trend Outside Of A Few Pandemic-Related Sectors, The CPI Has Yet To Return To Trend In our report, we contended that US inflation would come down fast enough over the next few quarters to allow the Federal Reserve to maintain its accommodative monetary stance, but not as fast as investors are expecting. On the one hand, the evidence clearly shows that most of the recent increase in US inflation has been driven by just a few pandemic-related sectors (Chart 3). On the other hand, high levels of excess household savings, the need for firms to expand capacity and rebuild inventories, and continued policy support will boost output and prices. The Long-Term Inflationary Consequences Of The Pandemic We also argued that a variety of structural forces, including the exodus of baby boomers from the labor market, a retreat from globalization, and increasing social unrest, would drive up inflation over the long haul. A key question is how the pandemic will shape these structural forces going forward. As we discuss below, there are three main overlapping channels through which the pandemic could have a lasting impact on inflation: Labor market scarring: Even if the virus is eventually vanquished, the pandemic could still permanently reduce the labor supply. Widespread worker shortages would fuel inflation. Deglobalization: Globalization has historically been a deflationary force. The pandemic could accelerate the retreat from globalization by prompting firms to bring more production back home, while exacerbating geopolitical tensions. Fiscal policy: Big budget deficits could persist in the post-pandemic period. Debt-saddled governments may turn to inflation to erode their debt burdens. Let us assess these three channels in turn.   Channel #1: Labor Market Scarring Despite July’s blockbuster employment report, there are still nearly 4% fewer Americans employed than was the case in January 2020. Yet, US businesses are struggling to hire workers (Chart 4). Nationwide, the job openings rate stands at a record 6.5%, up from 4.5% on the eve of the pandemic (Chart 5). Chart 4US Companies Are Facing A Labor Shortage US Companies Are Facing A Labor Shortage US Companies Are Facing A Labor Shortage Chart 5There Are Plenty Of Jobs Available There Are Plenty Of Jobs Available There Are Plenty Of Jobs Available Generous unemployment benefits, less immigration, and the reluctance of many workers to expose themselves to the virus have all helped to reduce labor supply. A marked shift in the composition of spending has increased the demand for workers in some sectors while reducing demand in other sectors (Chart 6). Since labor is not perfectly fungible across sectors, this has caused overall unemployment to rise. Chart 6Which Sectors Have Gained And Which Have Lost Jobs Since The Pandemic? Transitory At First: The Pandemic’s Long-Term Impact On Inflation Transitory At First: The Pandemic’s Long-Term Impact On Inflation Looking out, labor supply should increase as emergency unemployment benefits expire, immigration picks up, and more people are vaccinated. The mismatch of workers across sectors should also diminish as goods and services spending rebalances. Nevertheless, there is considerable uncertainty over how quickly all this will happen. According to Indeed, an online job posting site, unemployed workers cited having a “financial cushion” as the most popular reason for not looking for a job in July (Chart 7). Given that American households are sitting on $2.4 trillion in excess savings, it may take some time for this cushion to deflate (Chart 8). Chart 7Americans Are Not Desperate To Find Work Transitory At First: The Pandemic’s Long-Term Impact On Inflation Transitory At First: The Pandemic’s Long-Term Impact On Inflation Chart 8A Lot Of Excess Savings A Lot Of Excess Savings A Lot Of Excess Savings Chart 9No Jab, No Job Transitory At First: The Pandemic’s Long-Term Impact On Inflation Transitory At First: The Pandemic’s Long-Term Impact On Inflation Wider vaccine mandates could also impact labor market participation. A host of major companies, ranging from Google to Citigroup, are requiring their employees to be inoculated before returning to the office (Chart 9). The Pentagon has laid out a plan endorsed by President Biden obliging members of the military to get the COVID-19 vaccine. Earlier this week, the Las Vegas Raiders became the first NFL team to require fans to produce proof of vaccination to gain entry to home games. On the one hand, vaccine mandates could encourage more people to get the jab, which should help curb the pandemic and boost employment in the service sector. While the numbers have improved in recent weeks, only 57% of Americans between the ages of 18 and 64 are fully vaccinated (Chart 10). On the other hand, some people might opt for unemployment over a vaccine. According to a recent YouGov poll, about half of all unvaccinated Americans believe that the government is using COVID-19 vaccines to microchip the population (Chart 11). The threat of losing one’s job is unlikely to sway many of them. Chart 10Many Workers Remain Unvaccinated Transitory At First: The Pandemic’s Long-Term Impact On Inflation Transitory At First: The Pandemic’s Long-Term Impact On Inflation Chart 11One In Five Americans Believes The US Government Is Using The Covid-19 Vaccine To Microchip The Population Transitory At First: The Pandemic’s Long-Term Impact On Inflation Transitory At First: The Pandemic’s Long-Term Impact On Inflation Pandemic-induced shifts in work-life preferences could also reduce labor supply. According to Ipsos, a polling firm, most employees would prefer to work remotely at least part of the time, with 25% indicating they do not want to return to their workplace at all (Chart 12). The same poll found that 30% of workers would consider looking for another job if their employer required them to work away from home full time (Chart 13). Chart 12Let’s Chat Around The Water Cooler On Tuesdays And Wednesdays Transitory At First: The Pandemic’s Long-Term Impact On Inflation Transitory At First: The Pandemic’s Long-Term Impact On Inflation Chart 13What Is The Opposite Of A “One Size Fits All” Work Environment? Transitory At First: The Pandemic’s Long-Term Impact On Inflation Transitory At First: The Pandemic’s Long-Term Impact On Inflation Chart 14Number Of Retired People Jumped During The Pandemic Number Of Retired People Jumped During The Pandemic Number Of Retired People Jumped During The Pandemic If remote working boosted productivity, as some have claimed, this would not be such a bad thing. However, it is far from clear that this is the case. A recent University of Chicago study of 10,000 skilled professionals from an Asian IT company revealed that work-from-home policies decreased productivity by 8%-to-19%. Early retirement has also reduced labor supply. The share of retirees in the US population rose by 1.3 percentage points between February 2020 and July 2021, with most of the increase occurring early in the pandemic (Chart 14). Based on pre-pandemic demographic trends, the retirement rate should have risen by only 0.5 percentage points over this period.  The good news, as discussed in a recent study by the Kansas City Fed, is that most of the increase in the retirement rate was driven by fewer people transitioning from retirement back into employment. The share of people transitioning from employment to retirement did not change much (Chart 15). This led the authors to conclude that “More retirees may rejoin the workforce as health risks fade, but the retirement share is unlikely to return to a normal level for some time.” Chart 15Increased Retirees: A Closer Look Transitory At First: The Pandemic’s Long-Term Impact On Inflation Transitory At First: The Pandemic’s Long-Term Impact On Inflation Bottom Line: Labor supply will recover as the pandemic recedes. Nevertheless, the available pool of workers will likely be lower in the post-pandemic period than it would have otherwise been. A shortage of workers will prop up wage growth, helping to fuel inflation.   Channel #2: Deglobalization Globalization was on the back foot even before the pandemic began. Having steadily increased between 1991 and 2008, the ratio of global trade-to-output was basically flat during the 2010s (Chart 16). Ironically, the pandemic has revived global trade by shifting the composition of spending away from non-tradable services towards tradable goods. This shift in spending is the key reason why shipping costs have soared in recent months (Chart 17). Chart 16Globalization Plateaued Over A Decade Ago Globalization Plateaued Over A Decade Ago Globalization Plateaued Over A Decade Ago Chart 17Shipping Costs Have Soared In Recent Months Shipping Costs Have Soared In Recent Months Shipping Costs Have Soared In Recent Months The rebound in trade will not endure. Already, we are seeing companies moving production back home to establish greater control over their supply chains. The pandemic has exacerbated geopolitical tensions between China and the US. Recriminations about how the pandemic began and what China could have done to stop it will not go away anytime soon. Trade bloomed during Pax Britannica, when Great Britain ruled the waves, and then again during Pax Americana, when the US controlled the commanding heights. As BCA’s geopolitical team has long stressed, the shift to a multi-polar world is likely to restrain globalization.2 Historically, globalization has been a deflationary force. Trade has allowed countries such as the US that consistently run current account deficits to satiate excess demand for goods with imports, thereby forestalling inflation. Trade has also raised productivity by allowing countries to specialize in those areas in which they have a comparative advantage, while providing a mechanism to diffuse technological know-how around the world. Standard trade theory predicts that less-skilled workers in developed economies will suffer a relative decline in wages in response to rising trade with developing countries. A number of studies have documented that this is precisely what happened after China entered the global trading system.3  Poor workers tend to spend more of their paychecks than either rich workers or the owners of capital. To the extent that deglobalization shifts the balance of economic power back towards blue-collar workers in advanced economies, this will raise overall aggregate demand. Against the backdrop of muted productivity growth, inflation could increase as a consequence. Bottom Line: Globalization is deflationary, while deglobalization is inflationary. The pandemic is likely to reinforce the trend towards deglobalization.    Channel #3: Fiscal Policy There was once a time when governments trembled in fear of the bond vigilantes. Those days are long gone. After briefly rising to 4% in June 2009, the US 10-year Treasury yield trended lower over the subsequent decade, even though unemployment fell and government debt rose. The pandemic sent the bond vigilantes scurrying for cover. Negative real yields allowed governments to run budget deficits of previously unimagined proportions during the pandemic. Budget deficits will decline over the next few years, but the aversion to deficit spending will not return. Not anytime soon at least. The IMF expects the cyclically-adjusted primary budget deficit in advanced economies to average 2.6% of GDP between 2022 and 2026, up from 1% of GDP in the 2014-19 period (Chart 18). Even that is probably too conservative, since the IMF’s projections do not include pending legislation such as President Biden’s $550 billion infrastructure package and $3.5 trillion reconciliation budget bill. Chart 18Fiscal Policy: Tighter But Not Tight Transitory At First: The Pandemic’s Long-Term Impact On Inflation Transitory At First: The Pandemic’s Long-Term Impact On Inflation If the growth rate of the economy exceeds the interest rate on government debt, then governments with high debt-to-GDP ratios could run larger budget deficits than governments with low ratios, while still achieving a stable debt-to-GDP ratio over time.4  The problem is that these same governments would face an exponential increase in debt-servicing costs if interest rates were to rise above the growth rate of the economy. This is not a risk for any major developed economy at the moment but could become an issue as spare capacity recedes. At that point, central banks could face political pressure to keep rates low, even if their economies are overheating. The result could be higher inflation. Higher inflation, in turn, would boost nominal GDP growth, putting downward pressure on debt-to-GDP ratios. Bottom Line: While budget deficits will come down over the next few years, governments in developed economies will still maintain looser fiscal policies than before the pandemic. High debt levels could incentivize policymakers to permit higher inflation. Investment Conclusions US inflation will decline over the next 12 months, but not as quickly as markets are discounting. A number of structural forces were becoming inflationary even before the pandemic began. The pandemic will only reinforce the inflationary tide. Fixed-income investors should maintain a short duration stance. We expect the US 10-year Treasury yield to rebound to about 1.8% by early next year as the Delta variant wave fades. Long-term bond yields in the other major economies will also rise, although not as much as in the US. In and of itself, higher inflation is not necessarily bad for equities. What makes higher inflation toxic for stocks is when it forces central banks to raise rates to punitive levels. Fortunately, such an outcome is still a few years away, justifying an overweight equity position for now. The second quarter earnings season was a strong one. Back on July 2nd, analysts expected S&P 500 companies to generate about $45 in EPS in Q2. In the end, they generated at least $52. Analysts expect earnings to decline in absolute terms in Q3 and remain below Q2 levels until the second quarter of next year, when they are projected to grow by a meagre 3.5% year-over-year (Table 1). Table 1US Earnings Estimates Have Upside Transitory At First: The Pandemic’s Long-Term Impact On Inflation Transitory At First: The Pandemic’s Long-Term Impact On Inflation Earnings estimates usually drift lower over time (Chart 19). BCA’s US equity strategists think there is scope for earnings estimates for the second half of this year to rise materially from current levels. This should support US stocks. Along the same lines, above-trend global growth and attractive valuations should buoy stock markets outside the US. Chart 19Analysts Have Been Revising Up Earnings Estimates This Year Analysts Have Been Revising Up Earnings Estimates This Year Analysts Have Been Revising Up Earnings Estimates This Year Peter Berezin Chief Global Strategist peterb@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 The Federal Reserve targets an average inflation rate of 2% for the personal consumption expenditures (PCE) index. The TIPS breakeven is based on the CPI index. Due to compositional differences between the two indices, CPI inflation has historically averaged 30-to-50 basis points higher than PCE inflation. This is why the Fed effectively targets a CPI inflation rate of about 2.3%-to-2.5%. 2 Please see Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report “Hypo-Globalization (A GeoRisk Update),” dated July 30, 2021; and Special Report, “The Apex Of Globalization - All Downhill From Here,” dated November 12, 2014. 3 For example, economists Katharine Abraham and Melissa Kearney have estimated that increased competition from Chinese imports cost the US economy 2.65 million jobs between 1999 and 2016, almost double the 1.4 million jobs lost to automation. Similarly, David Autor and his colleagues found that increased trade with China has led to large job losses for blue-collar workers in the US manufacturing sector. 4 The steady-state debt-to-GDP ratio can be expressed as p/(r-g), where r is the interest rate, g is trend GDP growth, and p is the primary (i.e., non-interest) budget balance. Thus, for example, if the government wanted to achieve a stable debt-to-GDP ratio of 50% and r-g is -2%, it would need to run a primary budget deficit of 0.5*0.02=1% of GDP. However, if the government targeted a stable debt-to-GDP ratio of 200%, it could run a primary budget deficit of 2*0.02=4% of GDP. See Box 1 in our February 22, 2019 report for a derivation of this debt sustainability equation. Global Investment Strategy View Matrix Transitory At First: The Pandemic’s Long-Term Impact On Inflation Transitory At First: The Pandemic’s Long-Term Impact On Inflation Special Trade Recommendations Transitory At First: The Pandemic’s Long-Term Impact On Inflation Transitory At First: The Pandemic’s Long-Term Impact On Inflation Current MacroQuant Model Scores Transitory At First: The Pandemic’s Long-Term Impact On Inflation Transitory At First: The Pandemic’s Long-Term Impact On Inflation

Highlights US crude oil output will continue its sharp recovery before leveling off by mid-2022, in our latest forecast (Chart of the Week). The recovery in US production is led by higher Permian shale-oil production, which is quietly pushing toward pre-COVID-19 highs while other basins languish. Permian output in July was ~ 143k b/d below the basin's peak in Mar20, and likely will surpass its all-time high output in 4Q21. Overall US shale-oil output remains ~ 1.1mm b/d below Nov19's peak of 9.04mm b/d, but we expect it to end the year at 7.90mm b/d and to average 8.10mm b/d for 2022. We do not expect US crude oil production to surpass its all-time high of 12.9mm b/d of Jan20 by the end of 2023. Instead, exploration & production (E&P) companies will continue to prioritize shareholders' interests. This means larger shares of free cashflow will go to shareholders, and not to drilling for the sake of increasing output. While our overall balances estimates remain largely unchanged from last month, we have taken down our expectation for demand growth this year by close to 360k b/d and moved it into 2022, due to continuing difficulties containing the COVID-19 Delta variant. Our Brent crude oil forecasts for 2H21, 2022 and 2023 remain largely unchanged at $70, $73 (down $1) and $80/bbl. WTI will trade $2-$3/bbl lower. Feature Chart 1US Crude Recovery Continues US Crude Recovery Continues US Crude Recovery Continues Global crude oil markets are at a transition point. The dominant producer – OPEC 2.0 – begins retuning 400k b/d every month to the market from the massive 5.8mm b/d of spare capacity accumulated during the COVID-19 pandemic. For modeling purposes, it is not unreasonable to assume this will be a monthly increment returned to the market until the accumulated reserves are fully restored. This would take the program into 2H22, per OPEC's 18 July 2021 communique issued following the meeting that produced this return of supply. Thereafter, the core group of the coalition able to increase and sustain higher production – Kuwait, the UAE, Iraq, KSA and Russia – is expected to meet higher demand from their capacity.1 There is room for maneuver in the OPEC 2.0 agreement up and down. We continue to expect the coalition to make supply available as demand dictates – a data-dependent strategy, not unlike that of central banks navigating through the pandemic. This could stretch the return of that 5.8mm b/d of accumulated spare capacity further into 2H22 than we now expect. The pace largely depends on how quickly effective vaccines are distributed globally, particularly to EM economies over the course of this year and next. US Shale Recovery Led By Permian Output While OPEC 2.0 continues to manage member-state output – keeping the level of supply below that of demand to reduce global inventories – US crude oil output is quietly recovering. We expect this to continue into 1H22 (Chart 2). Chart 2Permian Output Recovers Strongly Permian Output Approaches Pre-Covid Peak Permian Output Approaches Pre-Covid Peak The higher American output in the Lower 48 states primarily is due to the continued growth of tight-oil shale production in the low-cost Permian Basin (Chart 3). This has been aided in no small part by the completion of drilled-but-uncompleted (DUC) wells in the Permian and elsewhere. Chart 3E&Ps Favor Permian Assets Permian Output Approaches Pre-Covid Peak Permian Output Approaches Pre-Covid Peak Since last year’s slump, the rig count has increased; however, compared to pre-pandemic levels, the number of rigs presently deployed are not sufficient to sustain current production. The finishing of DUC wells means that, despite the low rig count during the pandemic, shale oil supply has not dipped by a commensurate amount. This is a major feat, considering shale wells’ high decline rates. Chart 4US Producers Remain Focused On Shareholder Priorities US Producers Remain Focused On Shareholder Priorities US Producers Remain Focused On Shareholder Priorities DUCS have played a large role in sustaining overall US crude oil production. According to the EIA, since its peak in June 2020, DUCs in the shale basins have fallen by approximately 33%. As hedges well below the current market price for shale producers roll off, and DUC inventories are further depleted, we expect to see more drilling activity and the return of more rigs to oil fields. We do not expect US crude oil output to surpass its all-time high of 12.9mm b/ of Jan20 by the end of 2023. Instead, exploration & production (E&P) companies will continue to prioritize shareholders' interests. This means only profitable drilling supporting the free cashflow that allows E&Ps to return capital to shareholders will receive funding. US oil and gas companies have a long road back before they regain investors' trust (Chart 4).   Demand Growth To Slow We expect global demand to increase 5.04mm b/d y/y in 2021, down from last month's growth estimate of 5.4mm b/d. We have taken down our expectation for demand growth this year by ~ 360k b/d and moved it into 2022, because of reduced mobility and local lockdowns due to continuing difficulties in containing the COVID-19 Delta variant, particularly in Asia (Chart 5).2 We continue to expect the global rollout of vaccines to increase, which will allow mobility restrictions to ease, and will support demand. This has been the case in the US, EU and is expected to continue as Latin America and other EM economies receive more efficacious vaccines. Thus, as DM growth slows, EM oil demand should pick up (Chart 6). Chart 5COVID-19 Delta Variant's Spread Remains Public Health Challenge Permian Output Approaches Pre-Covid Peak Permian Output Approaches Pre-Covid Peak Chart 6EM Demand Growth Will Offset DM Slowdown EM Demand Growth Will Offset DM Slowdown EM Demand Growth Will Offset DM Slowdown Net, we continue to expect demand for crude oil and refined products to grind higher, and to be maintained into 2023, as mobility rises, and economic growth continues to be supported by accommodative monetary policy and fiscal support. If anything, the rapid spread of the Delta variant likely will predispose central banks to continue to slow-walk normalizing monetary policy and interest rates. Global Balances Mostly Unchanged Chart 7Oil Markets To Remain Balanced Oil Markets To Remain Balanced Oil Markets To Remain Balanced Although we have shifted part of the demand recovery into next year, at more than 5mm b/d of growth, our 2021 expectation is still strong. This is expected to continue next year and into 2023 although not at 2021-22 rates. Continued production restraint by OPEC 2.0 and the price-taking cohort outside the coalition will keep the market balanced (Chart 7). We expect OPEC 2.0's core group of producers – Kuwait, the UAE, Iraq, KSA and Russia – will continue to abide by the reference production levels laid out in 18 July 2021 OPEC communique. Capital markets can be expected to continue constraining the price-taking cohort's misallocation of resources. These factors underpin our call for balanced markets (Table 1), and our view inventories will continue to draw (Chart 8). Table 1BCA Global Oil Supply - Demand Balances (MMb/d, Base Case Balances) To Dec23 Permian Output Approaches Pre-Covid Peak Permian Output Approaches Pre-Covid Peak Our balances assessment leaves our price expectations unchanged from last month, with Brent's price trajectory to end-2023 intact (Chart 9). We expect Brent crude oil to average $70, $73 and $80/bbl in 2H21, 2022 and 2023, respectively. WTI is expected to trade $2-$3/bbl lower over this interval. Chart 8Inventories Will Continue To Draw Inventories Will Continue To Draw Inventories Will Continue To Draw Chart 9Brent Prices Trajectory Intact Brent Prices Trajectory Intact Brent Prices Trajectory Intact   Investment Implications Balanced oil markets and continued inventory draws support our view Brent and refined-product forward curves will continue to backwardate, even if the evolution of this process is volatile. As a result, we remain long the S&P GSCI and the COMT ETF, which is optimized for backwardation. We continue to wait for a sell-off to get long the SPDR S&P Oil & Gas Exploration & Production ETF (XOP ETF).   Robert P. Ryan Chief Commodity & Energy Strategist rryan@bcaresearch.com Ashwin Shyam Research Associate Commodity & Energy Strategy ashwin.shyam@bcaresearch.com Commodities Round-Up Energy: Bullish The US EIA expects natural gas inventories at the end of the storage-injection season in October to be 4% below the 2016-2020 five-year average, at 3.6 TCF. At end-July, inventories were 6% below the five-year average (Chart 10). Colder-than-normal weather this past winter – particularly through the US Midwest and Texas natural gas fields – affected production and drove consumption higher this past winter, which forced inventories lower. Continued strength in LNG exports also are keeping gas prices well bid, as Asian and European markets buy fuel for power generation and to accumulate inventories ahead of the coming winter. Base Metals: Bullish The main worker’s union at Chile's Escondida mine, the largest in the world, and BHP reached an agreement on Friday to avoid a strike. The mine is expected to constitute 5% of total mined global copper supply for 2021. China's refined copper imports have been falling for the last three months (Chart 11). Weak economic data – China reported slower than expected growth in retail sales and manufacturing output for July – contributed to lower import levels.  Precious Metals: Bullish Gold has been correcting following its recent decline, ending most days higher since the ‘flash crash’ last Monday, facilitated by a drop in real interest rates. The Jackson Hole Symposium next week will provide insights to market participants regarding the Fed’s future course of action and if it is in fact nearing an agreement to taper asset purchases. According to the Wall Street Journal, some officials believe the program could end by mid-2022 on the back of strong hiring reports. This was corroborated by minutes of the FOMC meeting which took place in July, which suggested a possibility to begin tapering the program by year-end. While the Fed stressed there was no mechanical relationship between the tapering and interest rate hikes, this could be bearish for gold, as real interest rates and the bullion move inversely. On the other hand, political uncertainty and a potential economic slowdown in China will support gold prices. Ags/Softs: Neutral Grain and bean crops are in slightly worse shape this year vs the same period in 2020, according to the USDA. The Department reported 62% of the US corn crop was in good to excellent condition for the week ended 15 August 2021, compared to 69% for the same period last year. 57% of the soybean crop was in good-to-excellent shape for the week ending on the 15th vs 72% a year ago. Chart 10 US WORKING NATGAS IN STORAGE GOING DOWN US WORKING NATGAS IN STORAGE GOING DOWN Chart 11 Permian Output Approaches Pre-Covid Peak Permian Output Approaches Pre-Covid Peak Footnotes 1 Please see our report of 22 July 2021, OPEC 2.0's Forward Guidance In New Baselines, which discusses the longer-term implications of this meeting and the subsequent communique containing the OPEC 2.0 core group's higher reference production levels. It is available at ces.bcareserch.com. 2 S&P Global Platts notes China's most recent mobility restrictions throughout the country will show up in oil demand figures in the near future. We expect similar reduced mobility as public health officials scramble to get more vaccines distributed. Please see Asia crude oil: Key market indicators for Aug 16-20 published 16 August 2021 by spglobal.com. Investment Views and Themes Strategic Recommendations Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed In 2021 Summary of Closed Trades

Dear Client, This week, the US Bond Strategy service is hosting its Quarterly Webcast (August 17 at 10:00 AM EDT, 15:00 PM BST, 16:00 PM CEST and August 18 at 9:00 HKT, 11:00 AEST). In addition, we are sending this Quarterly Chartpack that provides a recap of our key recommendations and some charts related to those recommendations and other areas of interest for US bond investors. Please tune in to the Webcast and browse the Chartpack at your leisure, and do let us know if you have any questions or other feedback. To view the Quarterly Chartpack PDF please click here. Scheduling Note: There will be no US Bond Strategy report next week. The following week (August 31), clients will receive a report written by our Global Fixed Income Strategist Rob Robis. The regular US Bond Strategy publication schedule will resume on September 8 with the publication of September’s Portfolio Allocation Summary. Best regards, Ryan Swift, US Bond Strategist

Highlights The chaotic US withdrawal from Afghanistan is symbolic – the US is conducting a strategic pivot to Asia Pacific to confront China. US-Iran negotiations are the linchpin of this pivot. If they fail, war risk will revive in the Middle East and the US will remain entangled in the region. At the moment, there is no deal, so investors should brace for a geopolitical risk premium in oil prices. That is, as long as global demand holds up despite COVID-19, and as long as the OPEC 2.0 cartel remains disciplined. We think they will in the short run. The US and Iran still have fundamental reasons to agree to a deal. If they do, the US will regain global room for maneuver while China’s and Russia’s window of opportunity will close. The implication is that markets face near-term oil supply risks – and long-term geopolitical risks due to Great Power rivalry in Eastern Europe and East Asia. Feature Events in Afghanistan have little macroeconomic significance but the geopolitical changes underway are profound and should be viewed through the lens of our second key view for 2021: the US strategic pivot to Asia. Chart 1The US Pivot To Asia Runs Through Iran Not Afghanistan The US Pivot To Asia Runs Through Iran Not Afghanistan The US Pivot To Asia Runs Through Iran Not Afghanistan As we go to press the Taliban is reconquering swathes of Afghanistan while US armed forces evacuate embassy staff and civilians. The chaotic scenes are reminiscent of the US’s humiliating flight from Saigon, Vietnam in 1975. As with Vietnam, the immediate image is one of American weakness but the reality over the long run is likely to be different. Over the past decade we have chronicled the US’s efforts to disentangle itself from wars of choice in the Middle East and South Asia. In accordance with US grand strategy, Washington is refocusing its attention on its rivalries with Russia and especially China, the only power capable of supplanting the US as a global leader (Chart 1). The US has struggled to conduct this “pivot to Asia” over the past decade but the underlying trajectory is clear: while trying to manage its strategic interests in the Middle East through naval power, the US will need to devote greater resources and attention to shoring up its economic and military ties in Asia Pacific (Map 1). The Middle East still plays a critical role – notably through China’s energy import needs – but primarily via the Persian Gulf. Map 1The US Seeks Balance In Middle East In Order To Pivot To Asia And Confront China Afghanistan? Watch Iran And China Afghanistan? Watch Iran And China Thus the critical geopolitical risks today stem from Iran and the Middle East on one hand, and China on the other. They do not stem from the US’s belated and messy exit from Afghanistan, which has limited market relevance outside of South Asia. First, however, we will address the political impact in the United States. US Political Implications Chart 2Americans Agree With Biden And Trump On Exit From Afghanistan Afghanistan? Watch Iran And China Afghanistan? Watch Iran And China American popular opinion has long turned against the “forever wars” in Iraq and Afghanistan, which cumulatively have cost $6.4 trillion and about 7,000 American troops dead1 (Chart 2). Three presidents, from two political parties, campaigned and won election on the basis of winding down these wars. The only presidential candidate since Republicans George W. Bush and John McCain who took a hawkish stance for persistent military engagement, Hillary Clinton, nearly lost the Democratic nomination and did lose the general election to a Republican, President Trump, who had reversed his party’s stance to advocate strategic withdrawal. War hawks have been sidelined in both parties. This is notable even if it were not the case that the current President Biden, whose son Beau fought in Afghanistan, had opposed the troop surge there under Obama. True, Biden will use drones, surgical strikes, and limited troop rotations to manage the aftermath in Afghanistan, both militarily and politically. Americans are still concerned about terrorism in general and any sign of a resurgent terrorist threat to the US homeland will be politically potent (Chart 3). But neither Biden nor the US can roll back the Taliban’s latest gains or achieve anything in Afghanistan that has not been achieved over the past twenty years.   Chart 3American Public Cares About Terrorism, Not Afghanistan Per Se Afghanistan? Watch Iran And China Afghanistan? Watch Iran And China True, Biden will suffer a political black eye from Afghanistan. His approval rating has already fallen to 49.6%, slipping beneath 50% for the first time, in the face of the Delta variant of COVID-19 and the Afghan debacle. In both cases his early optimistic statements have now become liabilities. Biden is also 79 years old, which will make the 2024 campaign questionable, and he faces mounting problems in other areas, from lax border security and immigration enforcement to rising domestic crime. Nevertheless, Biden still has sufficient political capital to push through one or both of his major domestic legislative proposals by the end of the year, despite thin majorities in both the House and Senate. Afghanistan will not affect that, for three reasons: 1. The US economy is likely to continue to recover despite hiccups due to the lingering pandemic, since the vaccines so far are effective. The labor market is recovering and business capex and government support are robust. Setbacks, such as volatile consumer confidence, will help Biden pass bills designed to shore up the economy. 2. The public fundamentally agrees with Biden (and Trump) on military withdrawal, as mentioned. Voters will only turn against him if a major attack reinforces an image of weakness on terrorism. A major attack based in Afghanistan is not nearly as likely to succeed as it was prior to the September 11, 2001 attacks. But Biden also faces an imminent increase in tensions in the Middle East that could result in attacks on the US or its allies, or other events that reinforce any image of foreign policy failure. 3. Biden has broad popular support for his infrastructure deal, which also has bipartisan buy-in, with 19 Republican Senators already having voted for it. Further, the Democratic Party has a special fast-track mechanism for passing his social spending agenda, though conviction levels must be modest on this $3.5 trillion bill, which is controversial and will have to be winnowed to pass on a partisan vote in the Senate. If we are correct that Afghanistan will not derail Biden’s legislative efforts then it will not fundamentally affect US fiscal policy or the global macro outlook. Note, however, that a failure of Biden’s bills would be significant for both domestic and global economy and financial markets as it would suggest that US fiscal policy is dysfunctional even under single party rule and would thus help to usher back in a disinflationary context. Might Afghanistan affect the midterm elections and hence the US policy setup post-2022? Not decisively. Republicans are more likely than not to retake at least the House of Representatives regardless. This is a cyclical aspect of US politics driven by voter turnout and other factors. Democrats are partly shielded in public opinion due to the Trump administration’s attempts to pull out of foreign wars. But surely a black eye on terrorism or foreign policy would not help. Similarly, a major failure to manage the Middle East, South Asia, and the pivot to Asia Pacific would marginally hurt the Democrats in 2024, but that is a long way off. Geopolitical Implications The Taliban’s reconquest of Afghanistan has very little if any direct significance for global financial markets. Pakistan and India are the two major markets most likely to be directly affected – and their own geopolitical tensions will escalate as a result – yet both equity markets have been outperforming over the course of the Taliban’s military gains (Chart 4). Afghanistan’s impacts are indirect at best. However, the US withdrawal connects with major geopolitical currents, with both macro and market significance. Afghanistan often marks the tendency of empires to overreach. Russia’s failure in Afghanistan contributed to the collapse of the Soviet Union, though Russia’s command economy was unsustainable anyway. British failures in Afghanistan in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries did not lead to the British empire’s decline – that was due to the world wars – but Afghanistan did accentuate its limitations. Since 9/11 and the US’s wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the US public’s economic malaise, political polarization, and loss of faith in public institutions have gotten worse. In turn, political divisions have impeded the government’s ability to respond cogently to financial and economic crisis, the resurgence of Russia, the rise of China, nuclear proliferation, constitutional controversies, and the COVID-19 pandemic. Once again Afghanistan marked imperial overreach. It is natural for investors to be concerned about the stability of the United States. And yet the US’s global power has recently stabilized (Chart 5). The US survived the 2020 stress test and innovated new vaccines for the pandemic. It is passing laws to upgrade its domestic technological, manufacturing, and infrastructural base and confronting its global rivals. Chart 4If Indo-Pak Markets Shrug Off Taliban Wins, So Can You If Indo-Pak Markets Shrug Off Taliban Wins, So Can You If Indo-Pak Markets Shrug Off Taliban Wins, So Can You Chart 5US Geopolitical Power Is Stabilizing Afghanistan? Watch Iran And China Afghanistan? Watch Iran And China Chart 6US Not Shrinking From Global Role US Not Shrinking From Global Role US Not Shrinking From Global Role The US is not retreating from its global role, judging by defense spending or trade balances (Chart 6). While the desire to phase out wars could theoretically open the way to defense cuts, the reality is that the great power confrontation with China and Russia will demand continued large defense spending. The US also continues to run large trade deficits, due to its shortage of domestic savings, which gives it influence as a consumer and provider of dollar liquidity across the world. The critical geopolitical problem is Iran, where events have reached a critical juncture: To create a semblance of a balance of power in the Middle East, the US needs an understanding with Iran, which is locked in a struggle with Saudi Arabia over the vulnerable buffer state of Iraq. President Biden was not able to rejoin the 2015 détente with Iran prior to the inauguration of the new president, Ebrahim Raisi, who is a hawk and whose confrontational policies will lead to an escalation of Middle Eastern geopolitical risk in the short term – and, if no US-Iran deal is reached, over the long term. Iran recognizes the US’s war-weariness, as demonstrated by withdrawals from Iraq and Afghanistan. It was also exposed to economic sanctions after the US’s 2018-19 abrogation of the 2015 nuclear deal – it cannot trust the US to hold to a deal across administrations. Still, both the US and Iran face substantial strategic forces pressuring them to conclude a deal. The US needs to pivot to Asia while Iran needs to improve its economy and reduce social unrest prior to its looming leadership succession. But the time frame for negotiation is uncertain. Any failure to agree would revive the risk of a major war that would keep the US entangled in the region. Thus the pivot to Asia could be disrupted again, with major consequences for global politics, not because of Afghanistan but because of a failure to cut a deal with Iran. If the US succeeds in reducing its commitments to the Middle East and South Asia, the window of opportunity that China and Russia have enjoyed since 2001 will close. They will face a United States that has greater room for maneuver on a global scale. This is a threat to their own spheres of influence. But neither Beijing nor Moscow has an interest in a nuclear-armed Iran, so a US-Iran deal is still possible. Unless and until the US and Iran normalize relations, the Middle East is exposed to heightened geopolitical risk and hence oil supply risk. Global oil spare capacity is sufficient to swallow small disturbances but not major risks to stability, such as in Iraq or the Strait of Hormuz. Investment Takeaways Chart 7Near-Term US-Iran Risks Help Oil...Long-Term US-China Risks Help Dollar Near-Term US-Iran Risks Help Oil...Long-Term US-China Risks Help Dollar Near-Term US-Iran Risks Help Oil...Long-Term US-China Risks Help Dollar Back in 2001, the combination of American war spending, and conflict in the Middle East, combined with China’s massive economic opening after joining the WTO, led to a falling US dollar and an oil bull market. Today the US’s massive budget deficits and current account deficits present a structural headwind to the US dollar. Yet the greenback has remained resilient this year. While the pandemic will fade as long as vaccines continue to be effective, China’s potential growth is slowing even as it faces an unprecedented confrontation with the US and its allies. Until the US and Iran normalize relations, geopolitics will tend to threaten Middle Eastern oil supply and put upward pressure on oil prices. However, if the US manages the pivot to Asia, China will face more resolute opposition in its sphere of influence, which will tend to strengthen the dollar. The dollar and oil still tend to move in opposite directions. These geopolitical trends will be influential in determining which direction prevails (Chart 7). Thus geopolitics poses an upward risk to oil prices for now.     Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1 Please see Crawford, Neta, "United States Budgetary Costs and Obligations of Post 9/11 Wars Through FY 2020: $6.4 trillion", Watson Institute, Brown University.

Highlights Global growth is peaking, which makes it important to monitor the risks for signs that it is time to reduce equity exposure. We are especially focused on five risks: 1) The emergence of vaccine-resistant Covid variants; 2) a possible “goods recession”; 3) higher real bond yields; 4) higher US corporate tax rates; and 5) a weaker Chinese economy and regulatory crackdown. For now, we recommend a modest overweight to global equities. We will likely pare back exposure early next year. Stocks And The Business Cycle Our “golden rule” for asset allocation is to remain bullish on equities unless there is a good reason to think that a recession is around the corner. This rule has strong empirical support. Chart 1 shows that equity bear markets rarely occur outside of major business cycle downturns. Chart 1Recessions And Bear Markets Tend To Overlap Five Risks We Are Monitoring Five Risks We Are Monitoring Nevertheless, there are different shades of bullishness. Stocks generally perform best coming out of recessions; that is, when the economy is weak but improving. Stocks perform worst when the economy is falling into recession. We are currently in an intermediate phase, where global growth is weakening but still solidly above trend. Historically, stocks have posted positive but uninspiring returns during such phases (Table 1). Table 1The Economic Cycle And Financial Assets Five Risks We Are Monitoring Five Risks We Are Monitoring Monitoring The Risks In “post peak growth” environments, it is important to monitor the risks for signs that it is time to reduce equity exposure. We are especially focused on five risks:   Risk 1: New Covid Variants Chart 2A New Covid Wave Five Risks We Are Monitoring Five Risks We Are Monitoring The Delta strain continues to roll through the US and a number of other countries (Chart 2). While the new strain does not seem to be any more deadly than other variants, it is a lot more contagious. CDC internal estimates suggest the R0 for the Delta variant is between 5-to-8, similar to that of chickenpox, and 40% higher than the original strain.1 Countries such as Thailand and Vietnam, which were able to keep the pandemic at bay last year, have succumbed to Delta. In Australia, the 7-day average of new cases has climbed above 300, the highest since last August. China has detected the Delta variant in more than a dozen cities since July 20. Even if the country succeeds in quashing the new variant, it will come at an economic cost. Lockdowns in major Chinese cities could further clog a global supply chain that is still reeling from the dislocations caused by the pandemic. While still vulnerable to the Delta variant, the symptoms of vaccinated individuals tend to be mild and non-life threatening. The Lambda variant, which surfaced in Peru this past December, appears more vaccine-resistant than the Delta variant. Fortunately, it is not as contagious as Delta, and has struggled to propagate outside of South America. The risk is that a new variant emerges which is: 1) highly contagious; 2) vaccine resistant; and 3) as or more lethal than the original strain. Chart 3The Divergence Between Goods And Services Spending The Divergence Between Goods And Services Spending The Divergence Between Goods And Services Spending Our Assessment: The current suite of vaccines confers substantial protection. While a vaccine-resistant strain could emerge, it is likely that vaccine producers will be able to adjust their formula to keep the virus at bay. As such, we see Covid as only a modest risk to global stocks.   Risk #2: A Goods Recession Even if Covid fades from view, the dislocations caused by the pandemic will persist for a while longer. As we discussed last week, the pandemic induced a major reallocation of spending from services to goods: Overall consumer spending in the US is broadly back to its pre-pandemic trend. However, service spending remains below trend while goods spending is above trend (Chart 3). Retail sales, which are dominated by goods, are also firmly above trend (Chart 4). We do not expect spending on goods to drop off anytime soon. A variety of manufactured goods, ranging from automobiles to major appliances, remain in short supply. The need to fill backorders and replenish inventories will keep production elevated for the next four quarters. However, at some point in the second half of 2022, manufacturers and retailers could find themselves with a glut of goods on their hands. Chart 4AUS Retail Spending Is Well Above Trend (I) US Retail Spending Is Well Above Trend (I) US Retail Spending Is Well Above Trend (I) Chart 4BUS Retail Spending Is Well Above Trend (II) US Retail Spending Is Well Above Trend (II) US Retail Spending Is Well Above Trend (II) Manufacturing accounts for only 11% of US GDP. However, goods producers account for about a third of S&P 500 market capitalization. Thus, while a slowdown in spending on goods is unlikely to push the US into recession, it could cause S&P 500 earnings growth to slow sharply, similar to what occurred during the 2015-16 manufacturing recession (Chart 5). Our Assessment: A goods recession represents a threat to both US and overseas stocks, particularly manufacturers and retailers. Most likely, however, that threat will not become visible to investors until next year.   Risk #3: Higher Real Bond Yields Stocks represent a claim on future corporate cash flows. Higher real interest rates reduce the present value of those claims, leading to lower stock prices. Chart 6 shows that there is a strong correlation between the US 10-year TIPS yield and the forward P/E ratio for the stock market. Chart 5The 2015-16 Manufacturing Recession Weighed On Earnings The 2015-16 Manufacturing Recession Weighed On Earnings The 2015-16 Manufacturing Recession Weighed On Earnings Chart 6Higher Real Rates Would Be A Headwind For Equity Valuations Higher Real Rates Would Be A Headwind For Equity Valuations Higher Real Rates Would Be A Headwind For Equity Valuations US real yields jumped in the wake of July’s stellar employment report. However, they still remain negative and far below pre-pandemic levels. Looking out, real yields could rise for two diametrically different reasons. On the one hand, an adverse demand shock could drive up real yields by pushing down inflationary expectations. This is precisely what happened during the early days of the pandemic.     Such a deflationary shock could arise if a vaccine-resistant variant emerges or if spending on manufactured goods declines faster than we expect. The failure of the US Congress to pass the infrastructure bill and/or a budget reconciliation bill could also exacerbate fiscal tightening next year. Under current law, fiscal policy will subtract around two percentage points from growth next year (Chart 7). Chart 7After A Strong Boost, Fiscal Thrust Is Turning Negative Five Risks We Are Monitoring Five Risks We Are Monitoring On the other hand, real yields could rise if an overheated economy prompts the Fed to hike rates more aggressively than markets are discounting. The US 10-year yield tends to track expected policy rates three years out (Chart 8). Chart 810-Year Treasurys Track Expected Policy Rates Three Years Out 10-Year Treasurys Track Expected Policy Rates Three Years Out 10-Year Treasurys Track Expected Policy Rates Three Years Out Chart 9Both The Fed And Market Participants Have Revised Down Their Estimate Of The Neutral Rate Of Interest Both The Fed And Market Participants Have Revised Down Their Estimate Of The Neutral Rate Of Interest Both The Fed And Market Participants Have Revised Down Their Estimate Of The Neutral Rate Of Interest   An increase in the market’s estimate of the terminal rate could also push up real yields. According to the New York Fed’s survey of primary dealers and market participants, investors think that the fed funds rate will top out at around 2%. Not only is this extremely low by historic standards, but it is also lower than the Fed’s estimate of the terminal rate (Chart 9). In the past, we have made a distinction between the strong- and weak-form versions of secular stagnation. The strong-form version is one where an economy is unable to reach full employment even with zero interest rates. Japan is a good example. The weak-form version is one where the economy can achieve full employment but only in the presence of low positive interest rates (Chart 10). Chart 10Strong- Versus Weak-Form Secular Stagnation Five Risks We Are Monitoring Five Risks We Are Monitoring In many respects, weak-form secular stagnation is better for equities than the normal state of affairs where the economy is at full employment and interest rates are near their historic average. This is because weak-form secular stagnation allows equity investors to have their cake and eat it too – to enjoy full employment and high corporate profits, all with the persistent tailwind of very low rates. Our Assessment: Our baseline view on the US envisions a goldilocks scenario of sorts: An economy that is hot enough to keep deflationary forces at bay, but not so hot that the Fed has to intervene to raise rates. While there are risks on both sides of this view, they are fairly modest. US households are sitting on nearly $2.5 trillion in excess savings, which should support consumption over the next few years. BCA’s geopolitical team, led by Matt Gertken, thinks that there is an 80% chance that Congress will pass an infrastructure bill. Assuming an infrastructure bill passes, they also see a 65% chance that the Democrats will succeed in pushing through a watered-down $3.5 trillion budget reconciliation bill. Meanwhile, as the July CPI report illustrates, inflationary forces are already starting to die down, which should keep rate expectations from rising too rapidly.   Risk #4: Higher US Corporate Tax Rates Chart 11Bettors Expect US Corporate Tax Rates To Rise, But Not By Much Five Risks We Are Monitoring Five Risks We Are Monitoring Congress’ passage of a budget reconciliation bill would blunt some of the fiscal tightening slated for next year. However, to pay for the additional spending, Democrats will seek to levy more taxes on corporations and higher-income earners. The Biden Administration is aiming to raise the corporate tax rate from 21% to 28%, bringing it halfway back to the 35% level that prevailed prior to the Trump tax cuts. Joe Manchin, a key swing voter in the Senate, has indicated a preference for 25%. PredictIt, a popular betting site, assigns 31% odds to no tax hike. Among bettors forecasting higher tax rates, the median estimate is around 25% (Chart 11). Analyst estimates do not appear to reflect the prospect of higher taxes. This is not surprising. Chart 12 shows that analysts did not adjust their earnings estimates until shortly after President Trump signed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act into law on December 22, 2017. Chart 12Analysts Have Not Adjusted Their Earnings Estimates To Reflect The Likelihood Of Higher Taxes Analysts Have Not Adjusted Their Earnings Estimates To Reflect The Likelihood Of Higher Taxes Analysts Have Not Adjusted Their Earnings Estimates To Reflect The Likelihood Of Higher Taxes Chart 13Until Recently, Companies That Stand To Lose The Most From Higher Taxes Have Fared Well Until Recently, Companies That Stand To Lose The Most From Higher Taxes Have Fared Well Until Recently, Companies That Stand To Lose The Most From Higher Taxes Have Fared Well It is more difficult to know what markets are discounting. Chart 13 displays the performance of Goldman‘s “Formerly High Tax” and “Formerly Low Tax” equity baskets. The formerly high-taxed companies gained the most from Trump’s tax cuts and presumably would lose the most if the tax cuts were rolled back. While formerly high-taxed companies have underperformed the market since early May, they are still up relative to their low-taxed peers since the Georgia runoff election, which handed control of the Senate to the Democrats. Moreover, companies that are vulnerable to higher taxes on overseas profits – many of which are in the tech space – have continued to fare well. Our Assessment: BCA’s geopolitical team thinks that corporate taxes will rise more than current market expectations suggest. However, even under our baseline scenario, higher tax rates will only cut earnings-per-share for S&P 500 companies by about 5% in 2022. Given that earnings are expected to rise by 9% next year, this would still leave earnings growth in positive territory.   Risk #5: China The Chinese economy grew at an annualized rate of only 3.5% in the first half of 2021 (Chart 14). While stricter Covid restrictions will weigh on growth in Q3, activity should pick up again in the fourth quarter. Chart 14Chinese Growth Was Weak In The First Half of 2021 Chinese Growth Was Weak In The First Half of 2021 Chinese Growth Was Weak In The First Half of 2021 The degree to which China’s economy recovers later this year will depend on the overall policy stance. Both credit and money growth fell short of expectations in July. Aggregate social financing declined to CNY 1.06 trillion from CNY 3.7 trillion in June, missing expectations of a CNY 1.7 trillion increase. M2 money growth clocked in at 8.3% year-over-year, below consensus estimates of 8.7%. As of July, local governments had used only 37% of their annual bond issuance quota, compared with 61% over the same period last year and 78% in 2019. BCA Chief China strategist, Jing Sima, thinks that local governments were waiting for a clear signal from the Politburo meeting held on July 30th before issuing new debt. If so, the fiscal stance should turn more expansionary over the coming months. Nevertheless, Beijing continues to send conflicting messages – on the one hand, telling local governments that they need to support growth, while on the other hand admonishing them for wasteful spending. Chart 15Chinese Tech Stocks Have Underperformed Their Global Peers This Year Chinese Tech Stocks Have Underperformed Their Global Peers This Year Chinese Tech Stocks Have Underperformed Their Global Peers This Year Stepped-up regulation of China’s major internet companies has also unnerved investors. Chinese internet stocks have underperformed the global tech sector by more than 40% since February (Chart 15). Our Assessment: With credit growth back down to its 2018 lows, the authorities are likely to ease policy over the coming months. While the crackdown on internet companies will continue, it is unlikely to spill over to other sectors. Unlike Chinese companies in, say, the telecom or semiconductor sectors, Beijing does not see most online platforms as contributing much to the economy. What they do see are companies with the potential to undermine the authority of the Communist Party (and in the case of online education providers, reduce the birth rate by burdening parents with high educational expenses). Investment Conclusions Chart 16Equities Look More Attractive Than Bonds Equities Look More Attractive Than Bonds Equities Look More Attractive Than Bonds We will likely pare back equity exposure early next year. For now, however, we recommend that asset allocators maintain a modest overweight to global equities. Growth is slowing but will remain solidly above trend for the remainder of the year. The forward earnings yield on the MSCI All-Country World Index stands at 5.2%. While this is not particularly high in absolute terms, it is still very high in relation to bond yields (Chart 16). Stocks outside the US trade at a still-decent earnings yield of 6.4% (compared to 4.6% in the US). Granted, the earnings performance of many non-US companies leaves much to be desired. Nevertheless, relative valuations largely discount this fact. Moreover, continued above-trend global growth, Chinese stimulus, and rising bond yields should benefit cyclical stocks and value names, which are overrepresented in overseas indices. Peter Berezin Chief Global Strategist peterb@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1  The basic reproduction number, R0 (pronounced “R naught”), corresponds to the average number of people a carrier of the virus will infect in a population with no natural or vaccine-induced immunity.   Global Investment Strategy View Matrix Five Risks We Are Monitoring Five Risks We Are Monitoring Special Trade Recommendations Five Risks We Are Monitoring Five Risks We Are Monitoring Current MacroQuant Model Scores Five Risks We Are Monitoring Five Risks We Are Monitoring

Highlights A critical aspect of the diffusion of global geopolitical power – “multipolarity” – is the structural rise of India. India will gain influence in the coming five years as a growing importer of goods, services, oil, and capital. Trade with China is a positive factor in Sino-Indian relations but it will not be enough to offset the build-up of strategic tensions. Indo-Russian relations will also wane. India’s slow transition to green energy will give it greater sway in the Middle East but will not remove its vulnerability if the region destabilizes anew over Iran. Sino-Indian tensions have already affected capital flows, with the US building on its position as a major foreign investor. Feature Chart 1Sino-Pak Alliance’s Geopolitical Power Is Thrice That Of India The Future Of India’s Power: Trade, Guns, Capital, And Oil The Future Of India’s Power: Trade, Guns, Capital, And Oil India’s geopolitical power pales in comparison to that of the China-Pakistan alliance (Chart 1). India is traditionally an independent and “non-aligned” power that has managed conflicts with its neighbors by influencing either Russia or America to display a pro-India tilt. This strategy has held India in good stead as it helps create the illusion of a “balance of power” in the South Asian region. Structural changes are now afoot: Sino-Pakistani assertiveness toward India continues. But in a break from the past India’s Modi-led Bhartiya Janata Party (BJP) has been constrained to adopt a far more assertive stance itself. Russo-Indian relations face new headwinds. Russia has been a close historical partner of India. But Russia under President Vladimir Putin has courted closer ties with China, while the US has tried to warm up with India since President Bush. Under Presidents Trump and Biden, the US is taking a more confrontational approach to Russia and China and will continue to court India. Against this backdrop the key question is this: In a multipolar world, how will India’s relations with the Great Powers evolve over the next five years? Will the alliances of the early 2000s stay the same or will they change? And if they change, what will it mean for global investors? In this special report we provide a helicopter view of India’s relations with key countries. We do so by examining India’s trade and capital flows with the world. A country’s power to a large extent is a function not only of its population and military strength but also of the business interests it represents. India today is the second largest arms importer globally (guns), fifth largest recipient of global FDI flows (capital) and third largest importer of energy (oil). Looking at the trajectory of these business relations, we quantify the magnitude and sources of India’s geopolitical power over the next five years and its investment implications. Trade: India’s Imports Not Enough To Offset China Tensions “The 11th Law of Power - Learn to Keep People Dependent on You. To maintain your independence, you must always be needed and wanted. The more you are relied on, the more freedom you have.” – Robert Greene, The 48 Laws of Power1 A small and closed economy in the 1980s, India today is large and open. Since India lacked industrial capabilities, and was energy-deficient to start with, its import needs grew manifold over this period. India’s current account deficit has increased by nine times from 1980 to 2019. The magnitude of India’s appetite for imports is such that its current account deficit is the fifth largest in the world today (Chart 2). Chart 2India Is The Fifth Largest Importer Of Goods And Services The Future Of India’s Power: Trade, Guns, Capital, And Oil The Future Of India’s Power: Trade, Guns, Capital, And Oil Given its lack of domestic energy and industrial capabilities, India’s role as a client of the world will only become more pronounced as it grows. In fact, India appears all set to become the third largest importer of goods and services globally over the next five years (Chart 3). Chart 3India Will Become The Third Largest Net Importer, After US And UK, By 2026 The Future Of India’s Power: Trade, Guns, Capital, And Oil The Future Of India’s Power: Trade, Guns, Capital, And Oil Global history suggests that the client is king. The rise and fall of empires have been driven by the strength of their economies and militaries. Great powers import lots of goods and resources – and tend to export arms. The UK’s geopolitical decline over the nineteenth century, and America’s rise over the twentieth, were linked to their respective status as importers within the global economy. India’s rise as a large global importer will prove to be a key source of diplomatic leverage over the next five years. For example, India’s high appetite for imports from China will give India much-needed leverage in bilateral relations. Also, India’s slow transition to green energy continued reliance on oil will strengthen its bargaining power vis-à-vis oil producers. But these trends also bring challenges. Structurally, Sino-Indian tensions are rising and trade will not be enough to prevent them. Meanwhile dependency on the volatile Middle East is a geopolitical vulnerability. China: India’s Growing Might As A Consumer Increases Leverage Vis-à-Vis China China’s rising assertiveness in South Asia and India’s own inclination to adopt an assertive foreign policy stance will lead to structurally higher geopolitical tensions in the region. So, is a full-blooded confrontation between the two nigh? No. First, Sino-Indian wars have always been constrained by geography: they are separated by the Himalayas, which help to keep their territorial disputes contained, driving them toward proxy battles rather than direct and total war. Second, India, Pakistan, and China are nuclear-armed powers which means that war is constrained by the principle of mutually assured destruction. This principle is not absolute – world history is filled with tragedy. There are huge structural tensions lurking in the combination of China’s Eurasian strategy and growing Sino-Indian naval competition that will keep Sino-Indian geopolitical risks elevated. Nevertheless, the bar to a large-scale war remains high. In the meantime, India’s growing might as a consumer could act as a much-needed deterrent to conflict. The last two decades saw America’s share in Chinese exports decline from a peak of 21% to 17% today. With US-China relations expected to remain fraught under Biden and with the US looking to revive its strategic anchor in the Pacific and shore up its domestic manufacturing strength, China’s trade relations with America will continue to deteriorate regardless of which party holds the White House. Against such a backdrop, China will try to build stronger trading ties with countries like India whose share in China’s exports has been growing (Chart 4). After excluding Hong Kong, India today is the eighth-largest exporting destination for China. While it only accounts for 3% of China’s exports, this ratio is comparable to that of larger exporting partners like Vietnam (4% share in China’s exports), South Korea (4%), Germany (3%), Netherlands (3%), and the UK (3%). In other words, China’s need for India is underrated and growing. There are two problems with Sino-Indian trade going forward. First, the strategic tensions mentioned above could prevent trade ties from improving. Over the past decade, Sino-Indian maritime and territorial disputes have escalated while Sino-Indian trade has merely grown in line with that of other emerging markets (Chart 5). China’s rising import dependency has led it to develop both a navy and an overland Eurasian strategy. The Eurasian strategy threatens India’s security in border areas of South Asia, while India’s own naval rise and alliances heighten China’s maritime supply insecurity. These trends may or may not prevent trade from living up to its potential, but they could result in strategic conflict regardless. Chart 4Amongst Top Chinese Export Clients, India’s Importance Has Increased The Future Of India’s Power: Trade, Guns, Capital, And Oil The Future Of India’s Power: Trade, Guns, Capital, And Oil Chart 5India’s Imports From China Have Broadly Grown In Line With Peers India's Imports From China Have Broadly Grown In Line With Peers India's Imports From China Have Broadly Grown In Line With Peers Second, the trade relationship itself is imbalanced. India imports heavily from China but sells little into China. China is responsible for more than a third of India’s trade deficit. At the same time, India increasingly shares the western world’s concern about network security in a world where cheap Chinese hardware could become integral to the digital economy. If Sino-Indian diplomacy cannot redress trade imbalances, then trade will generate new geopolitical tensions rather than resolve other ones. One should expect China to court India in the context of rising American and western strategic pressure. Yet China has failed to do so. Why? Because China’s economic transition – falling export orientation and declining potential GDP – is motivating a rise in nationalism and an assertive foreign policy. Meanwhile India’s own economic difficulties – the need to create jobs for a growing population – are generating an opposing wave of nationalism. Thus, while Sino-Indian trade will discourage conflict on the margin, it may not be enough to prevent it over the long run. Oil: As India Lags On Green Transition, Its Significance As An Oil Consumer Will Rise Whilst renewable energy’s share of India’s energy mix is expected to grow, the pace will be slow. Moreover, India’s increased reliance on green energy sources over the next decade will come at the expense of coal and not oil (Chart 6). Consequently, India’s reliance on oil for its energy needs is expected to stay meaningful. Chart 6India’s Reliance On Oil Will Persist For The Next Decade And Beyond The Future Of India’s Power: Trade, Guns, Capital, And Oil The Future Of India’s Power: Trade, Guns, Capital, And Oil Chart 7India’s Importance As An Oil Client Has Been Rising The Future Of India’s Power: Trade, Guns, Capital, And Oil The Future Of India’s Power: Trade, Guns, Capital, And Oil The International Energy Agency (IEA) forecasts that India’s net dependence on imported oil for its overall oil needs will increase from 75% today to above 90% by 2040. But India’s relative importance as an oil client will also grow as most large oil consumers will be able to transition to green energy faster than India. In fact, data pertaining to the last decade confirms that this trend is already underway. India’s share of the global oil trade has been rising (Chart 7). In particular, India has taken advantage of Iraq’s rise as a producer after the second Gulf War and has marginally increased imports from Saudi Arabia (Chart 8). Chart 8India’s Importance As A Client Has Been Rising For Top Oil Exporters The Future Of India’s Power: Trade, Guns, Capital, And Oil The Future Of India’s Power: Trade, Guns, Capital, And Oil Iran is the country most likely to gain from this dynamic in the coming years – if the US and Iran strike a deal to curb Iran’s nuclear program in exchange for the US lifting economic sanctions. India has maintained stable imports from the Middle East over the past decade despite nominally eliminating imports of oil from Iran (Chart 9). Chart 9India Has Maintained Stable Imports From The Middle East The Future Of India’s Power: Trade, Guns, Capital, And Oil The Future Of India’s Power: Trade, Guns, Capital, And Oil However, while India will have greater bargaining power between OPEC and non-OPEC suppliers, dependency on the unstable Middle East is always a geopolitical liability. If the US and Iran fail to arrive at a deal, a regional conflict is likely, in which case India’s slow green transition and vulnerability to supply disruptions will become a costly liability. Bottom Line: India’s growing importance to both Chinese manufacturers and global oil producers will give it leverage in trade negotiations. However, ultimately, national security will trump economics when it comes to China, while India will remain extremely vulnerable to instability in the Middle East. Guns: Indo-Russian Relations Weaken “When the war broke out [between India & Pakistan in 1971], the Soviet Union cast aside all pretentions of neutrality and non-partisanship… the Russians were in no hurry to terminate the fighting since their interest was better served by the continuation of hostilities leading to an India victory … The factors that decisively determined the outcome of the war were: first, Soviet military assistance to India; secondly the USSR’s role in the UN Security council; and thirdly, Russia strategy to prevent a direct Chinese intervention in the war.” – Zubeida Mustafa, "The USSR and the Indo-Pakistan War"2 The true origins of Russia’s pro-India tilt can be traced back to 1971. The former Soviet Union’s support for India played a critical role in helping India win the Indo-Pakistan war of 1971. Half a century later the Indo-Russia relationship persists, but its intensity has declined and will continue declining over the next few years. We see three reasons: America’s withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan will allow the US to focus more intently on its rivalry with China and Russia – a dynamic that is reinforcing China’s and Russia’s move closer together. Meanwhile India’s relationship with the US continues to improve. The China-Pakistan alliance continues to strengthen. Beyond cooperation on China’s ambitious Belt and Road Initiative, Pakistan shares a deep relationship with China based on defense and trade (Chart 10). Hence India is distrustful of closer Russo-Chinese relations. In light of this strategic re-alignment, Russia may see value in developing a closer defense relationship with China. Trading relations between Russia and India are minimal even today. Hence unlike in the case of China, there exists no backstop on weakening of Russo-Indian relations. Less than 1.5% of India’s merchandise imports come from Russia and less than 1% of India’s exports go to Russia. Russia’s share of Indian oil imports has grown in recent years but only to 1.4% of total. Meanwhile the US share of India’s imports has catapulted to 5.7% since the US became an exporter. Any removal of Iran sanctions will come at the cost of other Middle Eastern exporters, not these two alternatives to the risky Persian Gulf, but Russia’s share is still small. Now the backbone of Indo-Russia relations has been their arms trade. However, India’s reliance on Russia for arms could decline over the next five years. India today is Russia’s largest arms client accounting for 23% of its arms sales (Chart 10). However, second in line is China which accounts for 18% of Russia’s arms sales. Given that Russia’s share in global arms exports has been declining (Chart 11), Russia will be keen to reverse or at least halt this trend. Russia can do so most easily by selling more arms to India or to China. Even as China appears to be increasingly focused on developing indigenous arms production capabilities, for reasons of strategy, China appears like a better client for Russia to bank on for the next decade. After all, in 1989, when western countries imposed an arms embargo against China in response to events at Tiananmen Square, Russia became the prime supplier of arms to China. Chart 10India Is A Key Client For Russia, As Is China The Future Of India’s Power: Trade, Guns, Capital, And Oil The Future Of India’s Power: Trade, Guns, Capital, And Oil By contrast, for reasons of strategy India appears like a less promising client to bank on for Russia. India’s import demand for arms has been declining while China’s demand is increasing (Chart 12). India under the Modi-led Bhartiya Janata Party (BJP) has been reducing its reliance on imported arms. Last month, for example, the Indian Ministry of Defense (MoD) said that it has set aside 64% of the defense capital budget for acquisitions from domestic companies.3 This is an increase of 6% over last year, which was the first time such a distinction between domestic and foreign defense expenditure was made. Whilst it will take years for India to develop its domestic arms production capabilities, India’s inward tilt is worrying for traditional suppliers like Russia. Chart 11Among Top Arms Exporters, Russia Is Losing Market Share The Future Of India’s Power: Trade, Guns, Capital, And Oil The Future Of India’s Power: Trade, Guns, Capital, And Oil Chart 12India’s Appetite For Arms Imports Is Falling The Future Of India’s Power: Trade, Guns, Capital, And Oil The Future Of India’s Power: Trade, Guns, Capital, And Oil Moreover, Russia is aware that the situation is rife for US-India arms trade to strengthen given that India is starting to display a pro-US tilt. Groundwork for a sound defense relationship with India has already been laid out by the US as evinced by: Foundational agreements: India and the US signed the Communications, Compatibility, and Security Agreement (COMCASA) in 2018 and the Basic Exchange and Cooperation Agreement (BECA) in 2020. Sanction exemptions: The US had applied sanctions on Turkey under the Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act (CAATSA) for Ankara’s purchase of Russia’s S-400 missile defense system in 2020. The US has threatened India with CAATSA sanctions for buying S-400 missile defense systems from Russia but has not applied these sanctions to India (at least not yet). Not applying CAATSA sanctions to India allows the US to strengthen its strategic relations with India that can help further the American goal of creating a counter to China in Asia. Bottom Line: India-Russia relations will remain amicable, but this relationship is bound to fade over the next five years as the US counters China and Russia. Limited backstops exist for Indo-Russia ties. Economic ties between India and Russia are minimal, as India is cutting back on arms imports and only marginally increasing oil imports. Capital: China Investment Down, US Investment Up “America has no permanent friends or enemies, only interests.” – Henry Kissinger, Former US Secretary of State India’s economic growth rates could be higher if it did not have to deal with the paradox of plentiful savings alongside capital scarcity. Even as Indian households are known to be thrifty, only a limited portion of their savings is available for being borrowed by small firms. Almost a quarter of bank deposits are blocked in government securities. More than a third of adjusted net bank credit must be made available for government-directed lending. With what is left, banks prefer lending the residual funds to large top-rated corporates. It is against this backdrop that foreign direct investment (FDI) flows provide much needed succor to Indian corporates, particularly capital-guzzling start-ups. FDI inflows into India have become a key source of funding for Indian corporates over the last decade with annual FDI flows often exceeding new bank credit. Correspondingly, for FDI investors, India provides the promise of high returns on investment in an emerging market that offers political stability. India emerged as the fifth largest FDI destination globally in 2020. Amongst suppliers of FDI into India (excluding tax havens like Cayman Islands), the US and China have been top contributors. Whilst China has been a leading investor into the Indian start-up space, geopolitical tensions have translated into regulatory barriers that prevent Chinese funds from investing in India. Separately, as Indo-US relations improve, the symbiotic relationship between capital-rich US funds and capital-hungry Indian start-ups should strengthen. In fact, in 2020 itself, Chinese private equity (PE) and venture capital (VC) investments into India shrank whilst American investments into India doubled, according to Venture Intelligence (Chart 13). Distinct from Chinese funds’ restrained ability to invest in Indian firms, Indian tech start-ups could potentially benefit from reduced global investor appetite in Chinese tech stocks owing to China’s regulatory crackdown and breakup with the United States. China’s foreign policy assertiveness and domestic policy uncertainty may lead to a reallocation of FDI flows away from China and into India. China (including Hong Kong) has been a top host country for FDI, attracting 4x times more funds than India (Chart 14). However, India’s ability to absorb these reallocated funds over the next five years will be a function of sectoral competencies. For instance, India’s information and communications technology (ICT) sector appears best positioned to benefit from this trend. But the same may not be the case for sectors like manufacturing that traditionally attract large FDI flows in China yet are relatively underdeveloped in India. On the goods’ front, given that India’s comparative advantage lies in the production of capital-light, labor-light and medium-tech intensive products, pharmaceuticals and chemicals could be two other industries that attract FDI flows in India. Chart 13Chinese PE/VC Investments Into India In 2020 Slowed Significantly The Future Of India’s Power: Trade, Guns, Capital, And Oil The Future Of India’s Power: Trade, Guns, Capital, And Oil Chart 14China Has Been A Top Host Country For FDI, Attracting 4x More Flows Than India The Future Of India’s Power: Trade, Guns, Capital, And Oil The Future Of India’s Power: Trade, Guns, Capital, And Oil Bottom Line: Whilst trade between India and China has not been affected much by geopolitical tensions, capital flows have been. Given that the US historically has been a top FDI contributor in India, and given improving Indo-US relations, FDI investment into India from the US appears set to rise steadily over the next five years, particularly into the ICT sector. Investment Conclusions China-India geopolitical tensions are here to stay and will be a recurring feature of South Asia’s geopolitical landscape. However, a growing trade relationship could discourage conflict, especially if it becomes more balanced. It may not be enough to prevent conflict forever but it is an important constraint to acknowledge. India’s current account deficit will remain vulnerable to swings in oil prices, but it may be able to manage its energy bill better as its bargaining power relative to oil suppliers improves. The problem then will become energy insecurity, particularly if the US and Iran fail to normalize relations. As India and Russia explore new alignments with USA and China respectively, the historic Indo-Russia relationship will weaken. It will not collapse entirely because Russia provides a small but growing alternative to Mideast oil. US-India business interests may deepen as India considers joint ventures with American arms manufacturers and American funds court India’s capital-hungry information and communications technology sector. Against this backdrop we reiterate our constructive strategic view on India. However, for the next 12 months, we remain worried about near-term geopolitical and macro headwinds that India must confront.   Ritika Mankar, CFA Editor/Strategist ritika.mankar@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 (Viking Press, 1998). 2 Mustafa, Zubeida. "The USSR and the Indo-Pakistan War, 1971" Pakistan Horizon 25, No. 1 (1972): 45-52. 3 Ajai Shukla, "Local procurement for defence to see 6% hike this year: Govt to Parliament" Business Standard, July 2021.

Highlights Going into the new crop year, we expect the course of the broad trade-weighted USD to dictate the path taken by grain and bean prices (Chart of the Week). Higher corn stocks in the coming crop year, flat wheat stocks and lower rice stocks will leave grain markets mostly balanced vs the current crop year.  Soybean stocks and carryover estimates from the USDA and International Grains Council (IGC) are essentially unchanged year-on-year (y/y). In the IGC's estimates, changes in production, trade, and consumption for the major grains and beans largely offset each other, leaving carryovers unchanged. Supply-demand fundamentals leave our outlook for grains and beans neutral.  This does not weaken our conviction that continued global weather volatility will tip the balance of price risk in grains and beans over the coming year to the upside. Our strategically bearish USD view also tips the balance of price risk in grains – and commodities generally – to the upside. We believe positioning for higher-volatility weather events and a lower US dollar is best done with index products like the S&P GSCI and the COMT ETF, which tracks a version of the GSCI optimized for backwardation.  Feature Chart of the WeekUSD Will Drive Global Grain Markets USD Will Drive Global Grain Markets USD Will Drive Global Grain Markets Chart 2Opening, Closing Grain Stocks Will Be Largely Unchanged Global Grain, Bean Markets Balanced; USD Expected To Drive '21/22 Prices Global Grain, Bean Markets Balanced; USD Expected To Drive '21/22 Prices Going into the new crop year, opening and closing stocks are expected to remain flat overall vs the current crop years, with changes in production and consumption largely offsetting each other in grain and bean markets (Chart 2).1 This will leave overall prices a function of weather – which no one can predict – and the path taken by the USD over the coming year. The IGC's forecast calls for mostly unchanged production and consumption for grains and beans globally, with trade volumes mostly flat y/y. This leaves global end-of-crop-year carryover stocks essentially unchanged at 594mm tons. The USDA expects wheat ending stocks at the end of the '21/22 crop year up a slight 0.5%; rice down ~ 4.5%, and corn up ~ 4%. Below we go through each of the grain and bean fundamentals, and assess the impact of COVID-19 on global trade in these commodities. We then summarize our overall view for the grain and bean complex, and our positioning recommendations. Rice The IGC forecasts higher global rice production and consumption, and, since they expect both to change roughly by the same amount, ending stocks are projected to remain unchanged in the '21/22 crop year relative to the current year (Chart 3). The USDA, on the other hand, is expecting global production to increase by ~ 1mm MT in the new crop year, with consumption increasing by ~ 8mm MT. This leaves ending inventories for the new crop year just under 8mm MT below '20/21 ending stocks, or 4.5%. Chart 3Global Rice Balances Roughly Unchanged Global Rice Balances Roughly Unchanged Global Rice Balances Roughly Unchanged Corn The IGC forecasts global corn production will rise 6.5% to a record high in the '21/22 crop year, while global consumption is expected to increase 3.6%. Trade volumes are expected to fall ~ 4.2%, leaving global carryover stocks roughly unchanged (Chart 4). In the USDA's modelling, global production is expected to rise 6.6% in the '21/22 crop year to 1,195mm MT, while consumption is projected to rise ~ 2.4% to 1,172mm MT. The Department expects ending balances to increase ~ 11mm MT, ending next year at 291.2mm MT, or just over 4% higher. Chart 4Corn Balances Y/Y Remain Flat Corn Balances Y/Y Remain Flat Corn Balances Y/Y Remain Flat Wheat The IGC forecasts global wheat production in the current crop year will increase by ~ 16mm MT y/y, which will be a record if realized. Consumption is expected to rise 17mm MT, with trade roughly unchanged. This leaves expected carryover largely unchanged at ~ 280mm MT globally (Chart 5). The USDA's forecast largely agrees with the IGC's in its ending-stocks assessment for the new crop year. Global wheat production is expected to increase 16.6mm MT y/y in '21/22, and consumption will rise ~ 13mm MT, or 1.7% y/y. Ending stocks for the new crop year are expected to come in at just under 292mm MT, or 0.5% higher. Chart 5Ending Wheat Stocks Mostly Unchanged Ending Wheat Stocks Mostly Unchanged Ending Wheat Stocks Mostly Unchanged Soybeans Both the IGC and USDA expect increases in soybean ending stocks for the '21/22 crop year. However, the USDA’s estimates for ending stocks are nearly double the IGC projections.2 We use the IGC's estimates in Chart 6 to depicts balances. USDA - 2021/22 global soybean ending stocks are set to increase by ~3 mm MT to 94.5 mm MT, as higher stocks from Brazil and Argentina are partly offset by lower Chinese inventories. US production is expected to make up more than 30% of total production, rising 6% year-on-year. Chart 6Higher Bean Production Meets Higher Consumption Higher Bean Production Meets Higher Consumption Higher Bean Production Meets Higher Consumption Impact Of COVID-19 On Ags Trade Global agricultural trade was mostly stable throughout the COVID-19 pandemic. China was the main driver for this resilience, accounting for most of the increase in agricultural imports from 2019 to 2020. Ex-China, global agricultural trade growth was nearly zero. During this period, China was rebuilding its hog stocks after an outbreak of the African Swine Flu, which prompted the government to grant waivers on tariffs in key import sectors, which increased trade under the US-China Phase One agreement. As a result, apart from COVID-19, other factors were influencing trade. Arita et. al. (2021) attempted to isolate the impact of COVID on global agricultural trade.3 Their report found that COVID-19 – through infections and deaths – had a small impact on global agricultural trade. Government policy restrictions and reduced mobility in response to the pandemic were more detrimental to agricultural trade flows than the virus itself in terms of reducing aggregate demand. Policy restrictions and lower mobility reduced trade by ~ 10% and ~ 6% on average over the course of the year. Monthly USDA data shows that the pandemic was not as detrimental to agricultural trade as past events. Rates of decline in global merchandise trade were sharper during the Great Recession of 2007 – 2009 (Chart 7). Many agricultural commodities are necessities, which are income inelastic. Furthermore, shipping channels for these types of commodities did not require substantial human interactions, which reduced the chances of this trade being a transmission vector for the virus, when governments declared many industries using and producing agricultural commodities as necessities. This could explain why agricultural trade was spared by the pandemic. Amongst agricultural commodities, the impact of the pandemic was heterogenous. For necessities such as grains or oilseeds, there was a relatively small effect, and in few instances, trade actually grew. For example, trade in rice increased by ~4%. The value of trade in higher-end items, such as hides, Chart 7COVID-19 Spares Ag Trade Global Grain, Bean Markets Balanced; USD Expected To Drive '21/22 Prices Global Grain, Bean Markets Balanced; USD Expected To Drive '21/22 Prices Chart 8Grains Rallied During Pandemic Global Grain, Bean Markets Balanced; USD Expected To Drive '21/22 Prices Global Grain, Bean Markets Balanced; USD Expected To Drive '21/22 Prices tobacco, wine, and beer fell during the pandemic. This was further proof of the income inelasticity of many agricultural products which kept global trade in this sector resilient. Indeed, the UNCTAD estimates global trade for agriculture foods increased 18% in 1Q21 relative to 1Q19. Over this period, Bloomberg's spot grains index was up 47.08% (Chart 8). Investment Implications We remain neutral grains and beans based on our assessment of the new crop-year fundamentals. That said, we have a strong-conviction view global weather volatility will tip the balance of price risk in grains over the coming year to the upside. Our strategically bearish USD view also tips the balance of price risk in grains – and commodities generally – to the upside. Weather-induced grain and bean prices volatility is supportive for our recommendations in the S&P GSCI and the COMT ETF, which tracks a version of the GSCI optimized for backwardation. These positions are up 5.8% and 7.9% since inception, and are strategic holdings for us.   Robert P. Ryan Chief Commodity & Energy Strategist rryan@bcaresearch.com Ashwin Shyam Research Associate Commodity & Energy Strategy ashwin.shyam@bcaresearch.com   Commodities Round-Up Energy: Bullish US natural gas prices remain well supported by increased power-generation demand due to heat waves rolling through East and West coasts, lower domestic production and rising exports. The US EIA estimates natgas demand for July rose 3.9 bcf/d vs June, taking demand for the month to 75.8 bcf/d. Exports – pipeline and LNG – rose 0.4 bcf/d to 18.2 bcf/d, while US domestic production fell to 92.7 bcf/d, down 0.2 bcf/d from June's levels. As US and European distribution companies and industrials continue to scramble for gas to fill inventories, we expect natgas to remain well bid as the storage-injection season winds down. We remain long 1Q22 call spreads, which are up ~214% since the position was recommended April 8, 2021 (Chart 9). Base Metals: Bullish Labor and management at BHP's Escondida copper mine – the largest in the world – have a tentative agreement to avoid a strike that would have crippled an already-tight market. The proposed contract likely will be voted on by workers over the next two days, according to reuters.com. Separately, the head of a trade group representing Chile's copper miners said prices likely will remain high over the next 2-3 years as demand from renewables and electric vehicles continues to grow. Diego Hernández, president of the National Society of Mining (SONAMI), urged caution against expecting a more extended period of higher prices, however, mining.com reported (Chart 10). We remain bullish base metals generally, copper in particular, which we expect to remain well-bid over the next five years. Precious Metals: Bullish US CPI for July rose 0.5% month-over-month, suggesting the inflation spike in June was transitory. While lower inflation may reduce demand for gold, it will allow the Fed to continue its expansionary monetary policy. The strong jobs report released on Friday prompted markets and some Fed officials to consider tapering asset purchases sooner than previously expected. The jobs report also boosted an increasing US dollar. A strong USD and an increase in employment were negative for gold prices on Monday. There also were media reports of a brief “flash crash” caused by an attempt to sell a large quantity of gold early in the Asian trading day, which swamped available liquidity at the time. This also was believed to trigger stops and algorithmic trading programs, which exacerbated the move. The potential economic impact of the COVID-19 Delta variant is the only unequivocally supportive development for gold prices. Not only will this increase safe-have demand for gold, but it will also prevent the Fed from being too hasty in tapering its asset purchases and subsequently raising interest rates. Chart 9 Natgas Prices Recovering Natgas Prices Recovering Chart 10 Copper Prices Going Down Copper Prices Going Down Footnotes 1     The wheat crop year in the US begins in June; the rice crop year begins this month; and the corn and bean crop years begin in September. 2     Historical data indicate this difference is persistent, suggesting different methods of calculating ending stocks.  The USDA estimates ending stocks for the '21/22 crop year will be 94.5mm tons, while the IGC is projecting a level of 53.8mm.  3    Please refer to ‘Has Global Agricultural Trade Been Resilient Under Coronavirus (COVID-19)? Findings from an Econometric Assessment. This is a working paper published by Shawn Arita, Jason Grant, Sharon Sydow, and Jayson Beckman in May 2021.   Investment Views and Themes Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed in 2021 Summary of Closed Trades Image

Highlights Since 2008, the 10-year T-bond yield has struggled to exceed the earnings yield on technology stocks minus a constant of 2.5 percent. Based on the current technology earnings yield of 3.8 percent, and the 10-year T-bond yield at 1.3 percent, stock markets are on the edge of rationality. But at the limit, the elastic can briefly stretch by around 0.5 percent before it eventually snaps back. Hence, the 10-year T-bond yield could make a brief trip to 1.8 percent before reversing. The labour market participation rate for African Americans dropped sharply in July to 2.3 percent below its pre-pandemic benchmark level. The weakest performing demographic group could set the employment condition for the Fed’s lift-off, making it later than the market is pricing. The next shock will drive down the T-bond yield to its ultimate low, and the stock market’s valuation to its ultimate high. Fractal analysis: NOK/GBP, Hong Kong versus the world, and Netherlands versus New Zealand. Feature Chart of the WeekSince 2008, The 10-Year T-Bond Yield Has Struggled to Exceed the Earnings Yield On Tech (Minus A Constant Of 2.5 Percent) Since 2008, The 10-Year T-Bond Yield Has Struggled to Exceed the Earnings Yield On Tech (Minus A Constant Of 2.5 Percent) Since 2008, The 10-Year T-Bond Yield Has Struggled to Exceed the Earnings Yield On Tech (Minus A Constant Of 2.5 Percent) Since 2008, a remarkable financial relationship has held true. The 10-year T-bond yield has struggled to exceed the earnings yield on technology stocks minus a constant of 2.5 percent. The 10-year T-bond yield has struggled to exceed the earnings yield on technology stocks minus a constant of 2.5 percent. T-bond yield ≤ technology forward earnings yield – 2.5% (Chart I-1). The upshot is that whenever, as now, the yields on tech and other high-flying growth stocks have become depressed – which is to say highly valued – the upper limit to the bond yield has been established not by the economy, but by the financial markets. On the occasions that the bond yield has attempted to breach its stock market-set upper limit, it has unleashed a self-correcting sequence of events. It has pulled up the tech sector earnings yield, which is to say pulled down the tech sector’s valuation and price. Then, to contain and reverse this sharp sell-off, the bond yield has quickly unwound its short-lived spike. Stock Markets Are On The Edge Of Rationality Earlier this year in The Rational Bubble Is Turning Irrational we highlighted that the T-bond yield was at its stock market-set upper limit. And in the subsequent six months, the markets have behaved exactly as predicted. First, tech stocks declined sharply through February-March. Then, bond yields declined sharply through May-July, allowing tech stocks to claw back their declines and then reach new highs. Indeed, since mid-February, the T-bond yield and tech stocks have moved as a near-perfect mirror image (Chart I-2). Chart I-2The T-Bond Yield And Tech Stocks Have Moved As A Near-Perfect Mirror Image The T-Bond Yield And Tech Stocks Have Moved As A Near-Perfect Mirror Image The T-Bond Yield And Tech Stocks Have Moved As A Near-Perfect Mirror Image In the long run, a depressed earnings yield relative to the bond yield – which is to say a high valuation – can normalise as earnings go up. But in the short term, the adjustment must come from either the equity price declining or the bond yield declining. Or some combination of the two. With the tech earnings yield now at 3.8 percent – and assuming the post-GFC 2.5 percent minimum gap still holds true – it would set the upper limit of the 10-year T-bond yield at 1.3 percent, close to where it is trading today. Still, at the limit, the elastic can briefly stretch before it eventually snaps back. Over the last thirteen years, the maximum stretch has been around 0.5 percent. This means that, based on the current earnings yield of the tech sector, the 10-year T-bond yield could make a brief trip to 1.8 percent before reversing. For equity investors, a higher T-bond yield would support the value versus growth trade. But given that it would be a brief trip, the opportunity would not be cyclical (12-month) but merely tactical (3-month), as has been the case over the past ten years. Since 2012, cyclical opportunities to overweight value versus growth have been virtually non-existent, but there have been several good tactical opportunities (Chart I-3 and Chart I-4). Chart I-3Cyclical Opportunities To Overweight Value Versus Growth Have Been Virtually Non-Existent... Cyclical Opportunities To Overweight Value Versus Growth Have Been Virtually Non-Existent... Cyclical Opportunities To Overweight Value Versus Growth Have Been Virtually Non-Existent... Chart I-4...But There Have Been Several Good Tactical Opportunities ...But There Have Been Several Good Tactical Opportunities ...But There Have Been Several Good Tactical Opportunities We await a fractal signal that T-bonds are overbought to initiate this tactical trade. Stay tuned. The Truth About The Jobs Recovery At first glance, last week’s US employment report appeared strong. The unemployment rate continued its plunge from 14.8 percent in April 2020 to 5.4 percent in July 2021, constituting the fastest jobs recovery of all time. But the first glance doesn’t tell the true story.   Unlike in previous recessions, the number of workers put on furlough or ‘temporary layoff’ surged and then plunged as the pandemic let rip and then was brought under control. Hence, to get the true story of the jobs recovery, we must strip out the furloughed workers and focus on the unemployment rate based on those ‘not on temporary layoff’ (Chart I-5). Chart I-5To Get The True Story Of The Jobs Recovery, Focus On Those 'Not On Temporary Layoff' To Get The True Story Of The Jobs Recovery, Focus On Those 'Not On Temporary Layoff' To Get The True Story Of The Jobs Recovery, Focus On Those 'Not On Temporary Layoff' Based on this truer measure of labour market slack, the pace of the current recovery in jobs looks remarkably like the recoveries that followed previous downturns in 1974/75, the early 1980s, the early 1990s, dot com bust, and the GFC. The true story is that the US is little more than a third of the way on the journey to full employment (Chart I-6). Chart I-6The Pace Of The Current Jobs Recovery Looks Remarkably Like Previous Recoveries The Pace Of The Current Jobs Recovery Looks Remarkably Like Previous Recoveries The Pace Of The Current Jobs Recovery Looks Remarkably Like Previous Recoveries This is significant, because unlike in previous recoveries, the Federal Reserve is now explicitly targeting full employment before it lifts the policy interest rate. Furthermore, the employment recovery must be broad and inclusive of minority demographic groups, which adds further conditionality for the Fed. While the market is focussing on the aggregate employment market, it is the weakest performing demographic group that could set the condition for the Fed’s lift-off. On this note, the labour market participation rate for African Americans dropped sharply in July to 2.3 percent below its pre-pandemic benchmark level (Chart I-7). This raises an interesting point. While the market is focussing on the aggregate employment market, it is the weakest performing demographic group that could set the condition for lift-off, if the Fed stays true to its promise of inclusivity. Which would push back lift-off to later than the market is pricing. Chart I-7The Labour Market Participation Rate For African Americans Dropped Sharply In July The Labour Market Participation Rate For African Americans Dropped Sharply In July The Labour Market Participation Rate For African Americans Dropped Sharply In July Shocks Do Not Have A Cycle According to the recovery in jobs then, we are still ‘early cycle.’ Some people argue that early cycle implies that a recession is a distant prospect, that stocks only underperform in a recession, and therefore that the bull market in stocks has further to run. The investment conclusion is right, but the reasoning is wrong, on two counts. First, nobody can predict the precise timing of recessions or shocks. Second, recessions or shocks do not have a ‘cycle.’ Shocks can come in quickfire succession such as the back-to-back GFC in 2008 and the euro debt crisis which started in 2010, or the back-to-back votes for Brexit and Trump in 2016 (Chart I-8). Chart I-8Shocks Do Not Have A Cycle Shocks Do Not Have A Cycle Shocks Do Not Have A Cycle Yet, while we cannot predict the precise timing of shocks, The Shock Theory Of Bond Yields tells us that we can predict their statistical distribution very accurately. The upshot is that in any 5-year period, the probability of (at least) one shock is an extremely high 81 percent, and in any 10-year period, it is a near-certain 96 percent.  Given the tight feedback from bond yields to stocks and then back to bond yields, we can say with high conviction that the next shock will drive down the T-bond yield to its ultimate low. This will happen directly from a deflationary shock, or indirectly from an initially inflationary shock that drives up bond yields through the upper limit set by stock valuations. The resulting sharp correction in stocks will then cause bond yields to reverse to the ultimate low. The next shock will drive down the T-bond yield to its ultimate low, and the stock market’s valuation to its ultimate high. In turn, the ultimate low in the T-bond yield will mark the ultimate high in the stock market’s valuation, and the end of the structural bull market in stocks. Until then, long-term investors should own stocks. Fractal Analysis Update This week’s fractal analysis highlights three recent price moves that are at risk of reversal because of fragile fractal structures. First, the recent sell-off in NOK/GBP has become fragile on its 65-day fractal structure implying a likelihood of a countertrend move based on similar recent signals (Chart I-9). Chart I-9NOK/GBP Is Oversold NOK/GBP Is Oversold NOK/GBP Is Oversold Second, the sell-off following China’s aggressive crackdown on its technology and private education sectors has created fragility in Hong Kong’s relative performance on its composite 65-day/130-day fractal dimension. Assuming the worst of the policy crackdown is over, this would imply a countertrend reversal based on similar signals over the past decade. The recommended trade is long Hong Kong versus developed world (MSCI indexes), setting the profit target and symmetrical stop-loss at 4 percent (Chart I-10). Chart I-10Hong Kong Versus The World Is Oversold Hong Kong Versus The World Is Oversold Hong Kong Versus The World Is Oversold Finally, the massive outperformance of tech-heavy Netherlands versus healthcare and utility-heavy New Zealand has reached the limit of fragility on its 260-day fractal structure that signalled major turning points in 2011, 2015, 2016, and 2018 (Chart I-11). Hence the recommended trade is short Netherlands versus New Zealand, setting the profit target and symmetrical stop-loss at 13 percent. Chart I-11Netherlands Versus New Zealand Is Overbought Netherlands Versus New Zealand Is Overbought Netherlands Versus New Zealand Is Overbought   Dhaval Joshi Chief Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com Fractal Trading System Fractal Trades 6-Month Recommendations Structural Recommendations Closed Fractal Trades Closed Trades Asset Performance Equity Market Performance   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 II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields ##br##- Asia Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Asia Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Asia Chart II-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 II-5Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations