Policy

Highlights Inflation is set to decelerate, job creation has a speed limit, and super-spreaders of new-variant Covid-19 infections will create speed bumps in the economy.  This means that in the second half of the year: Bonds will rally. The US dollar will rally. Growth stocks will outperform value stocks. US stocks will outperform non-US stocks. Fractal trade shortlist: Brazilian real, Saudi Tadawul All Share, and Marine Transportation.  Feature Chart of the WeekThe 60 Percent Correction In Lumber Shows What Happens When Supply Bottlenecks Ease. Are Used Cars Next? The 60 Percent Correction In Lumber Shows What Happens When Supply Bottlenecks Ease. Are Used Cars Next? The 60 Percent Correction In Lumber Shows What Happens When Supply Bottlenecks Ease. Are Used Cars Next? As Supply Bottlenecks Ease, Inflation Will Cool Since mid-March, US inflation has surged to 5 percent. Yet bond yields have drifted lower, by almost 50 bps in the case of the 30-year T-bond yield, equating to a handsome return of 12 percent. The seeming contradiction between rising inflation and declining bond yields has puzzled some people, but it shouldn’t. In 2009, the same pattern occurred in reverse. Inflation collapsed, culminating in a modern era low of -2 percent in July 2009. Yet while inflation was collapsing, bond yields rose sharply (Chart I-2 and Chart I-3). Chart I-2In 2009, Bond Yields Rose When Year-On-Year Inflation Fell In 2009, Bond Yields Rose When Year-On-Year Inflation Fell In 2009, Bond Yields Rose When Year-On-Year Inflation Fell Chart I-3In 2021, Bond Yields Fell When Year-On-Year Inflation Rose In 2021, Bond Yields Fell When Year-On-Year Inflation Rose In 2021, Bond Yields Fell When Year-On-Year Inflation Rose We can explain this seeming contradiction with an analogy from driving. The inflation rate is like your average speed over the past mile. But the bond market cares much more about your average speed over the next mile, or even over the next 5-10 miles. If you are driving at a constant speed, then your speed over the past mile is a good guide to your future speed. But if you have been driving unusually fast or unusually slowly, there is a more important predictor of your future speed. That important predictor is your acceleration – meaning, what is happening to your speed over successive hundred yards stretches. In the same way, during episodes of unusually low or unusually high inflation, the bond market focusses on the monthly rate of inflation, and specifically the moment that it stops decreasing, as in early-2009, or stops increasing, as in mid-2021. In 2008, after a long sequence of declining monthly rates of inflation that went deep into negative territory, the December 2008 print marked the first substantial increase. Hence, the bond yield also bottomed in December 2008 (Chart I-4), even though annual inflation did not bottom until July 2009. Chart I-4In 2009, Bond Yields Bottomed When Month-On-Month Inflation Bottomed In 2009, Bond Yields Bottomed When Month-On-Month Inflation Bottomed In 2009, Bond Yields Bottomed When Month-On-Month Inflation Bottomed Similarly, in 2020-21, after a six month sequence of increasing monthly rates of inflation, the May 2021 print marked the end of the rising trend. To the extent that this was anticipated, most of the decline in the bond yield has happened since mid-May (Chart I-5). Chart I-5In 2021, Bond Yields Topped When Month-On-Month Inflation Topped In 2021, Bond Yields Topped When Month-On-Month Inflation Topped In 2021, Bond Yields Topped When Month-On-Month Inflation Topped Since mid-May, the 60 percent crash in the lumber price shows what happens when supply bottlenecks ease. Other prices that are being supported by temporary supply constraints – such as used car prices – are likely to suffer the same fate (Chart of the Week). Hence, so long as the coming monthly prints confirm an ongoing deceleration in inflation, the current rally in bonds will stay intact. Jobs: The Hard Work Starts Now Staying on the theme of speed, there is a well-defined speed limit to every post-recession jobs recovery. In A Fed Rate Hike By Early 2023 Is Pie In the Sky, we pointed out the remarkable consistency in the pace of post-recession US jobs recoveries. The last five recessions had different causes, severities, durations and peak unemployment rates. Yet in the recoveries that followed each recession, the unemployment rate declined at a remarkably consistent pace of 0.4-0.5 percent per year (Table I-1). Table I-1After Every Recession, The Pace Of Recovery In The Jobs Market Is Near-Identical H2 2021: Speed Limits, Speed Bumps, And Super-Spreaders H2 2021: Speed Limits, Speed Bumps, And Super-Spreaders Reassuringly at the last FOMC press conference, Jay Powell supported this thesis: Most of the act of sort of going back to one's old job – that's kind of already happened. So, this is a question of people finding a new job. And that's just a process that takes longer. There may be something of a speed limit on it. You've got to find a job where your skills match, you know, what the employer wants. It's got to be in the right area. There's just a lot that goes into the function of finding a job. Powell’s comments lead to two further points: The act of going back to one’s old job for those on ‘temporary layoff’ is relatively straightforward. For job creation, this is the low hanging fruit, most of which has already been picked. Now comes the much harder part – finding jobs for those ‘not on temporary layoff’ whose numbers have barely declined from the peak (Chart I-6). Chart I-6For Job Creation, The Low Hanging Fruit Has Already Been Picked For Job Creation, The Low Hanging Fruit Has Already Been Picked For Job Creation, The Low Hanging Fruit Has Already Been Picked One way of encapsulating this is to observe that the unemployment rate – including those on temporary layoff – has already made 80 percent of the journey from its recession peak to the February 2020 trough, which makes it seem that the jobs recovery is largely done. However, the unemployment rate for those not on temporary layoff has made only 25 percent of the journey (Chart I-7). Moreover, this process is not a straight line, it is a curve. The first quarter of the journey is the easiest, then it gets harder. Chart I-7The Hard Part Is Finding Jobs For Those Unemployed 'Not On Temporary Layoff' The Hard Part Is Finding Jobs For Those Unemployed 'Not On Temporary Layoff' The Hard Part Is Finding Jobs For Those Unemployed 'Not On Temporary Layoff' As we, and Jay Powell, have pointed out, the process to reduce this unemployment rate has a remarkably consistent speed limit of 0.4-0.5 percent per year. Starting at the current rate of 2.5 percent and a target of 1.5 percent, this means full employment will not be reached before the second half of 2023. And even this assumes clear blue skies for the world economy through the next two years, which is a tall order. We conclude that the market pricing of a Fed funds rate lift-off in December 2022 is much too optimistic, making the December 2022 Eurodollar contract a good buy. The End Of Pandemic Restrictions Will Unleash Super-Spreaders On July 19, the UK will remove all its domestic pandemic restrictions – meaning no more facemasks, social distancing, and limits on the size of gatherings. This doesn’t mean that the pandemic is over in the UK. Far from it. The delta variant of the virus is rampant. Rather, with a large portion of the population vaccinated, the government is replacing state-imposed laws and regulations with a libertarian onus on personal responsibility. Given that Covid-19 is not going away, the UK strategy raises a fundamental question. Other than implementing a vaccination program, what role should a government take in containing the virus? In Who’s Right On The Pandemic – Sweden Or Denmark? we revealed two important findings: First, it is a misunderstanding that state-imposed restrictions cause the collapse in social consumption. This is a classic confusion between correlation and causation. The true cause of the recession is that a virulent disease focuses millions of people on self-preservation, shunning crowds and public places. But to the extent that the pandemic also leads to state-imposed restrictions, many people blame the slowdown on these correlated restrictions rather than on the underlying cause – the voluntary change in behaviour. Second, without state-imposed restrictions, the majority will voluntarily change their behaviour to avoid catching and spreading the virus, but a minority will not. When a virus is spreading, this is critical because a tiny minority of so-called ‘super-spreaders’ is responsible for most infections. Put simply, economic growth depends on the behaviour of the majority and in a pandemic the majority will voluntarily reduce their social consumption. This explains why libertarian Sweden and lockdown Denmark suffered similar contractions in their economies (Chart I-8). Chart I-8Libertarian Sweden Has Not Significantly Outperformed Lockdown Denmark... Libertarian Sweden Has Not Significantly Outperformed Lockdown Denmark... Libertarian Sweden Has Not Significantly Outperformed Lockdown Denmark... In contrast, containing the virus depends on restricting the minority of super-spreaders. Which explains why libertarian Sweden suffered a much worse outbreak of the disease than lockdown Denmark (Chart I-9). Chart I-9...But Libertarian Sweden Has Suffered Many More Covid-19 Casualties ...But Libertarian Sweden Has Suffered Many More Covid-19 Casualties ...But Libertarian Sweden Has Suffered Many More Covid-19 Casualties The worry now is that the end of state-imposed restrictions will unleash super-spreaders and super-spreading events. This will allow the virus to replicate, mutate, and create new variants which are potentially more transmissible and resistant to existing vaccines. Pulling together our three themes for the second half of the year, inflation is set to decelerate, job creation has a natural speed-limit, and super-spreaders of new-variant Covid-19 infections will create speed bumps in the economy. This means that:  Bonds will rally. The US dollar will rally. Growth stocks will outperform value stocks. US stocks will outperform non-US stocks Candidates For Countertrend Reversal This week, we present three candidates for countertrend reversal. First, the Brazilian real’s recent surge has hit expected resistance at 65-day fractal fragility. A good way to play a continued reversal is to short BRL/COP (Chart I-10). Chart I-10The Brazilian Real Is Correcting The Brazilian Real Is Correcting The Brazilian Real Is Correcting Second, within emerging markets, the strong rally in the Saudi equity market is vulnerable to a setback, especially versus other markets. A good way to play this is to short the Saudi Tadawul All Share index versus the FTSE Bursa Malaysia KLCI, given that the 260-day fractal structure is at the point of fragility that marked the major top in 2014 (Chart I-11). Chart I-11The Saudi Stock Market Is Vulnerable To A Setback The Saudi Stock Market Is Vulnerable To A Setback The Saudi Stock Market Is Vulnerable To A Setback Finally, coming full circle to short-term supply bottlenecks, one major beneficiary has been the Marine Transportation sector which, since February, has outperformed the world market by 70 percent. As the supply bottlenecks ease, this is vulnerable to correction, especially as the 260-day fractal structure is at the point of fragility that marked the major top in 2007 (Chart I-12). Chart I-12Underweight Marine Transportation Underweight Marine Transportation Underweight Marine Transportation Hence, this week’s recommended trade is to underweight Marine Transportation versus the market, setting the profit target and symmetrical stop-loss at 16.5 percent.   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 - Euro Area Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Euro Area Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Euro Area Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Europe Ex Euro Area Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Europe Ex Euro Area Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Europe Ex Euro Area   Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Asia Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Asia Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Asia Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Other Developed Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Other Developed Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Other Developed   Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-5Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations   Chart II-7Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations  

Highlights Complementing the US Political Strategy Quantitative Presidential Election Model, we introduce our revised Quantitative Senate Election Model. Our senate election model measures the probability of the incumbent party (Democratic Party) to retain the Senate in the 2022 midterm election. The model predicts that Democrats are slightly favored to retain control of the Senate, though it is too early to call, which in combination with the high likelihood that the GOP will retake the House, points to a US political gridlock from 2023 to 2025. The “Blue Sweep” policy setting will end as early as the end of the year as Democrats pass Biden’s signature legislation. Post-midterm gridlock implies that taxes unlikely to rise further from 2023 while spending will not be subjected to cuts. While markets will not be alarmed if growth keeps up, near term surprises from potential tax hikes, rate hikes, and China’s slowdown warrants a more defensive positioning. Feature 2020 was not only the year of a highly contested US Presidential election, but also a close-knit battle for control of the US Senate, which had 351 seats up for reelection. The Republican party initially retained control of the Senate at the start of 2021 and the 117th congress, but this was short-lived. The Democrats secured victories in both run-off triggered Senate races in the state of Georgia, putting them at an even 50-50 hold with Republicans in the Senate. The inauguration of Vice President Kamala Harris who too became the Senate President, was the tie breaker the Democrats needed to take control of the Senate, and ultimately secure a “blue sweep” of holding the House of Representatives, the Senate and the White House. We recently introduced BCA US Political Strategy readers to our quantitative presidential election model. If you have not yet read it, you can access it here. In this week’s report we introduce our US Political Strategy Senate election model. We acknowledged that it was still early days in the presidential election cycle when we published our presidential election model but there were however some interesting takeaways from an early model forecast. For control of the Senate, however, the cycle is much shorter, with voting of one third of the Senate taking place every two years. The mid-term elections of 2022 are not that far-out, and with 34 seats up for reelection, we believe that introducing our readers to our Senate election model now will start to provide valuable insight going forward. Like our presidential election model, our Senate election model is a state-by-state model that uses both economic and political variables to predict the number of seats the incumbent party will win in the 2022 Senate election. Our Senate model covers a large sample size, consisting of 19 Senate elections (1984 to 2020), across 50 states, amounting to 950 observations. The Six Variables Our Senate model is based off a Probit regression that produces a probability that each state will remain under the control of the incumbent party. The dependent variable (classified as “elected”) is stated as follows: 1 = Incumbent party wins the Senate election in each state; or 0 = Incumbent party did not win the Senate election in each state. This method allows us to measure the probability that a state with certain characteristics will fall into one of two categories above. We can then predict the probability of the incumbent party winning all the Senate seat/s in each of the 50 states (although this is only relevant to one-third of the states that have a Senate seat up for election in 2022). State economic health. Specifically, we use the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia State Coincident Index for each of the 50 states. The coincident index combines four of a given state’s economic indicators to summarize current economic conditions in a single statistic. The four indicators are nonfarm payroll employment; average hours worked in manufacturing by production workers; the unemployment rate; and wage and salary disbursements plus proprietors' income deflated by the consumer price index (US city average). In other words, it captures job growth, manufacturing wages, joblessness, and real household income. The incumbent party’s margin of victory in previous Senate elections in each state Senate race. This is measured as the incumbent party’s share of the popular vote minus the non-incumbent party’s share. If the incumbent party failed to secure a solid win in each state in the previous Senate election, the probability of securing a solid win in the current election becomes smaller. Moreover, the larger the margin of victory in a previous Senate election race, the more likely that incumbent party will win re-election in said state. Net average approval level of the incumbent president in a Senate election year. This is the difference between the incumbent president’s approval and disapproval level in a Senate election year, from the start of the year up until the end of October of that year – taken as an average. Generic congressional ballot (net support rate). The generic congressional ballot asks people which party they are likely to vote for in Congress. We take the average net support rate in a Senate election year (that being whichever party leads the other in congressional ballot polling). Democrats are usually favored in congressional generic ballot voting, so the net rate is more predictive than the gross rate Dummy variable for congressional ballot. A dummy variable is assigned to variable number four. For example, dummy takes the value of 1 when Democrats have a positive net support rate in generic congressional ballot voting, and 0 when Republicans have a net positive support rate. We assign only one dummy variable to avoid a dummy variable trap.2 A “time for change” variable, a categorical variable indicating whether the incumbent party has controlled the Senate for three or more terms (six or more years). If the Senate has been controlled for three or more terms, the model will “punish” the incumbent party, as we would expect to see a change in control of the Senate the longer one incumbent party controls it. Democrats Retain Control Of The Senate As it stands, our election model predicts that Democrats will retain control of the Senate in 2022 (Chart 1). The Democrats are predicted to win 49 seats, a gain of one seat over the 2020 Senate election outcome,3 and when coupled with the two seats of Independent Senators, give them a majority of 51 seats. Chart 1Quant Model Gives Democrats 54% Chance Of Retaining The Senate Introducing The US Political Strategy Quantitative Senate Election Model Introducing The US Political Strategy Quantitative Senate Election Model The additional seat for Democrats stems from our model allocating both North Carolina and Pennsylvania (which are currently occupied by Republicans) to the Democrats (+ two seats) and allocating one of Georgia’s seats occupied by Raphael Warnock4 back to Republican control. The Democrats overall probability of retaining control of the Senate is 54%, three percentage points higher than early market predictions (Chart 2). The market implied odds highlight another close battle between Democrats and Republicans to control the Senate in 2022. Chart 2Market Narrowly In Favor Of Democratic Senate Control Introducing The US Political Strategy Quantitative Senate Election Model Introducing The US Political Strategy Quantitative Senate Election Model North Carolina is the only toss-up state,5 with a 51% chance of a Democratic victory. Pennsylvania will switch to Democrats and Georgia to Republicans. Note that North Carolina and Pennsylvania are both currently under Republican control. Both incumbents have decided not to run again. While both Georgia Senate run-off races were won by Democrats earlier this year, the sum of first-round voting in November 2020 was higher for Republican candidates than for Democrats. There was also extra-ordinary voter turnout in favor of Democrats for both run-offs, which ultimately played a big role in Democrats securing victory. Voter turnout was largely spurred on by voting against Republicans, and ultimately Donald Trump. This may not be the case come 2022, if turnout for Democrats is unmatched to 2020/2021. Our model’s prediction will evolve over time as new data become available, which could produce more toss-up states, or swing the prediction in favor of the opposing party. For now, the model provides us with a preliminary prediction as we draw nearer to the 2022 midterm elections. Senate Races Of Interest Comparing our model’s prediction to online betting markets, we group nine races into a category of “interest”. All nine races have varying degrees of probability for a Democratic win, ranging from approximately 30% to 60%. Five races are overestimated, and four races are underestimated by consensus (Chart 3). The remaining 25 races are decidedly in favor of either Democrat or Republican control, according to our model, so are therefore excluded from this analysis. Betting markets are overestimating Nevada, Arizona, Pennsylvania, Georgia, and Wisconsin, while underestimating New Hampshire, North Carolina, Florida and Ohio. Chart 3Senate Odds Compared With The Bookies Introducing The US Political Strategy Quantitative Senate Election Model Introducing The US Political Strategy Quantitative Senate Election Model All nine of these races are precariously balanced, even at this stage of the mid-term election cycle. Small or local factors could ultimately decide the outcome. This is an important limitation on our macro model, highlighting our ultimate emphasis on qualitative analysis. For example, it is not at all clear that Democrats will win Georgia. Our model gives Democrats a 43% chance of victory. Betting markets are a lot more optimistic, penning a 55% chance of a Democratic win. But even by our model’s standard, Georgia remains a toss-up. Georgia may not be as close of a race as it was in 2020/2021, if voters are not as motivated as they were to vote Democrat. Will turnout be as large in 2022? That remains to be seen. One or two races with unique makeup can contribute to maintaining or shifting the balance of power in the Senate come 2022. Back Testing Our Model Our Senate model performs at an acceptable level during in-sample and out-sample back testing. For in-sample testing, we test our model over our entire sample period (1984 – 2020) and find that 74% of Senate elections (control of the Senate) are correctly predicted, with the model predicting the outcome of the last five Senate elections correctly (Chart 4). Chart 4In-Sample Back Testing Results Introducing The US Political Strategy Quantitative Senate Election Model Introducing The US Political Strategy Quantitative Senate Election Model During out-sample back testing, we look at a sample period of 2000 – 2020, comprising of 11 Senate elections, where our model correctly predicts 73% of actual outcomes. The previous five Senate elections are predicted correctly too (Chart 5). Chart 5Out-Sample Back Testing Results Introducing The US Political Strategy Quantitative Senate Election Model Introducing The US Political Strategy Quantitative Senate Election Model In comparison to our presidential election model, prediction accuracy of our Senate model is lower across its sample period. Predicting control of the Senate can sometimes be more uncertain than that of the White House. Both statistical and event based (Senate elections) reasons give way to a lower accuracy rate in this case. For example, there could be several idiosyncratic state-level variables not captured by our model, which could have played a leading role in determining any one state’s Senate election outcome over our sample period, and ultimately, control of the Senate. Where To From Here? In comparison to the presidential election cycle, we are a lot closer to election day. That means that Senate races will begin to heat up as we move closer toward November 8, 2022 – the date of the midterm elections. For now, our model ratifies the current control of the Senate, that is, Democratic. Our Model also suggests that come 2022, the Democrats will retain control of the Senate. But this is all but an early forecast. If any long-standing conclusion can be drawn right now, it is that the battle for control of the Senate in 2022 will be highly contested. From a qualitative point of view, our model may be overestimating the Democrats’ odds in 2022 as things stand today. Midterm elections have historically seen the sitting president’s party lose seats in the Senate and House of Representatives. We already expect Republicans to retake the House after a poor showing by Democrats in 2020. This narrative may play into the Republicans taking the Senate too – and is plausible given how closely the battle for the Senate is wound. But congressional approval has ticked higher lately under a Democratic run congress (Chart 6). Most likely, the American public have largely approved of COVID-19 government relief, and the Democrats will pass at least one more major piece of legislation covering infrastructure. Republicans are deeply divided, so there is some chance that they underperform in 2022. Nevertheless, the historical pattern clearly favors the opposition. The takeaway is to expect the GOP to retake the house but to monitor the Senate closely with both quantitative and qualitative tools. Chart 6US Public Approving Of Congress ?!? Introducing The US Political Strategy Quantitative Senate Election Model Introducing The US Political Strategy Quantitative Senate Election Model Lastly, and importantly, we should note that in both the case of the presidential and Senate models, a probability between 50% and 55% for the incumbent party retaining control of the White House or Senate is indicative of an outcome “too close to call.” Both models are touting Democratic wins, but high conviction views about either the 2024 presidential election or 2022 Senate election are not warranted at this time. Investment Takeaway Unless 2022 is one of the rare cases of an incumbent party legislative victory after a national shock, like 1934 and 2002, Republicans will take the House at least. This is likely notwithstanding our model’s slight tilt in favor of Democrats in the Senate. This means that the “Blue Sweep” policy setting will cease as early as 2023, but de facto it would cease as early as the end of this year when Biden’s signature legislation is passed, since Congress will get little done in 2022. Our model suggests Republicans are slightly disfavored in the Senate. The truth is that as long as they gain one chamber of the legislature then US fiscal stimulus will virtually freeze. Taxes will no longer be able to rise from 2023 but spending will not be subject to cuts. Gridlock is reinforced by our presidential quant election model’s slightly higher odds of Democrats retaining the White House, which we think is underestimated at present. Hence Biden will retain veto power even if Democrats squander the Senate and House in 2022. Gridlock is thus looming from 2023 until at least 2025. The financial markets will not be alarmed by this forecast as long as growth keeps up. In the very near term, however, the clouds on the horizon of tax hikes, Fed rate hikes, and China’s tight-fisted economic policy pose rising headwinds to US equities in 2022 — and hence markets should respond negatively sooner than later. We are tactically growing more defensive.   Guy Russell Research Analyst GuyR@bcaresearch.com   Statistical Appendix Some clients may be curious as to how our US Political Strategy Senate election model differs from our Geopolitical Strategy model used in the 2020 elections, and where it has made improvements in its predictive accuracy. We discuss these improvements herein. Changes To The Geopolitical Strategy Senate Election Model A notable property in our dependent variable data requires a brief discussion. Our dependent variable classified as “elected” takes the form of a binary outcome. This data, however, is what’s called “unbalanced,” since incumbent Senators are re-elected approximately 80% of the time. This means that most outcomes in our dependent variable are coded as “1,” with fewer “0’s” because of the strong incumbency effect in Senate races. There are many data sets that exhibit this type of property, such as events like wars, vetoes, cases of political activism, or epidemiological infections, where non-events occur rarely. To alleviate this statistical property in the data, we estimate our model using a weighted maximum likelihood estimate as opposed to the ordinary maximum likelihood estimate usually used in a Probit regression.6 This method assigns more weighting to the unbalanced data, or what is known theoretically as “rare event” data, to aid the Probit regression in assigning higher probabilities to “0” outcomes. Through this process, we effectively deal with our unbalanced dependent variable data. The last update to the BCA Geopolitical Strategy Senate election model was published on January 6, 2021. Our model suggested that Republican’s would retain control of the Senate. Our model was limited in dealing with a unique twin Georgia run-off race that ultimately swung Senate control into the hands of the Democrats. The Geopolitical Strategy, which we will refer to as the 2020 model, only missed the Republican victory in Maine, but correctly predicted losses in Arizona and Colorado. The model missed both Georgia races, signaling they would remain red states – this was proven otherwise. Also, our model has become a better predictor in terms of in and out-sample forecasting (compared to our 2020 model). The 2022 version correctly predicts 74% (vs 72%) of in-sample and 73% (vs 70%) of out-sample outcomes. Methodology And Variables Our Senate model retains the methodology and suite of economic and political variables used in the model we first introduced in 2020. For long-time clients and those who are new to the US Political Strategy and Geopolitical Strategy service, the first version of our model can be found here. The one and only economic variable is now transformed by a six-month change to each state’s coincident index, capturing the improvement or deterioration of the state’s economy. The six-month change results in the best statistical fit for the overall model this time round. In the 2020 model, we transformed the variable by a three-month change. A fast-changing economic environment coupled with a then-higher statistical impact in our model led us to this decision. We still weight the transformation of our economic variable in the same manner as we did in last year’s updated model. We take a weighted average of the six-month change of all the monthly state coincident indices in the term preceding a Senate election. Later months are weighted heavier than earlier months as the most recent context will have a greater impact on voter opinion in the election. In terms of our political variables, they all remain the same as the 2020 model. Model Performance Classification The 2022 model correctly classifies predicted outcomes at a rate of exactly 81%. That is, when the model makes a prediction of a certain state’s Senate election outcome from 1984-2020, it is correct 81% of the time. This level of classification is higher than our 2020 model, which classified outcomes at a rate of 79% (Table 1). Table 1New Model Classifies Outcomes At A Higher Rate … Introducing The US Political Strategy Quantitative Senate Election Model Introducing The US Political Strategy Quantitative Senate Election Model Sensitivity And Specificity – Receiver Operating Characteristic Curve A Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curve is a performance measurement for classification problems of binary modelled outcomes, among others. An ROC curve tells us how much the model is capable of distinguishing between classes. In our case, we have two classes: the dependent variable (classified as “elected”) is stated as 1 = Incumbent party wins the Senate election in each state; or 0 = Incumbent party did not win the Senate election in each state. The higher the area under the curve (AUC), the better our model is at predicting 0 classes as 0 and 1 classes as 1. A robust model has an AUC near to one. A poor model has an AUC near to zero, which means it has the worst measure of classifying classes correctly, labelling zeros as ones and vice versa. In fact, at a level of zero AUC, the model is reciprocating incorrect classes by predicting zeros as ones and ones as zeros. Statistically, more AUC means that the model is identifying more true positives while minimizing the number/percent of false positives. Chart 7Receiver Operating Characteristic Curve Of 2022 Model Introducing The US Political Strategy Quantitative Senate Election Model Introducing The US Political Strategy Quantitative Senate Election Model Table 2… Is A Better Fit … Introducing The US Political Strategy Quantitative Senate Election Model Introducing The US Political Strategy Quantitative Senate Election Model The ROC curve for our 2022 model has an AUC of 0.9609 (Chart 7), a higher AUC than our 2020 model (Table 2). This means that the true positive rate for classifying outcomes is high and the false positive rate is low, improving on our model’s robustness. F1 Scores A final grading of the 2022 model is by means of the F1 score. The F1 score is a measurement that considers both precision (specificity in the above ROC curve) and recall (sensitivity in the above ROC curve) to compute the score. The F1 score can be interpreted as a weighted average of the precision and recall values, where an F1 score reaches its best value at 1 and worst value at 0. The 2022 model produces a higher F1 score compared to our 2020 model (Table 3). Table 3… And Is More Accurate Than The 2020 Model Introducing The US Political Strategy Quantitative Senate Election Model Introducing The US Political Strategy Quantitative Senate Election Model Considering the improvement in forecast accuracy and overall better model specification over our 2020 model, we accept our 2022 model as our new base case Senate election model, premised on its improvement in accuracy at predicting election outcomes in the past, as well as its ability to correctly classify outcomes as they were realized. Appendix Tables Table A1USPS Trade Table Introducing The US Political Strategy Quantitative Senate Election Model Introducing The US Political Strategy Quantitative Senate Election Model Table A2Political Risk Matrix Introducing The US Political Strategy Quantitative Senate Election Model Introducing The US Political Strategy Quantitative Senate Election Model Chart A1Presidential Election Model Introducing The US Political Strategy Quantitative Senate Election Model Introducing The US Political Strategy Quantitative Senate Election Model Table A3APolitical Capital: White House And Congress Introducing The US Political Strategy Quantitative Senate Election Model Introducing The US Political Strategy Quantitative Senate Election Model Table A3BPolitical Capital: Household And Business Sentiment Introducing The US Political Strategy Quantitative Senate Election Model Introducing The US Political Strategy Quantitative Senate Election Model Table A3CPolitical Capital: The Economy And Markets Introducing The US Political Strategy Quantitative Senate Election Model Introducing The US Political Strategy Quantitative Senate Election Model Table A4Political Capital Index Introducing The US Political Strategy Quantitative Senate Election Model Introducing The US Political Strategy Quantitative Senate Election Model Footnotes 1     Two of which were open Senate seats for the state of Georgia. 2     A dummy variable trap is a scenario in which the independent variables are multicollinear — a scenario in which two or more variables are highly correlated; or, in simple terms, in which one variable can be predicted from the others. To avoid such a trap, we must exclude one of the categorical variables. Since there are two categorical variables that can be represented here (Republican or Democrat), we use k-1 (where k = the number of categorical variables). 3    In reference to the Senate election outcome after the Georgia run-off races which concluded in early January 2021. 4    This seat formed part of the 2020 special Senate election race which was decided by a run-off election between Raphael Warnock and Kelly Loeffler. The seat was always up for reelection in 2022 no matter which party won it in the 2020 special election. 5    Toss-ups are defined as having a probability between 45% and 55% according to our model. 6    Weighted maximum likelihood estimation is a reasonable approach in dealing with dependent variables that show significant imbalance in their data set. See: King, G. and Zeng, L., 2001. Logistic regression in rare events data. Political analysis, 9(2), pp.137-163.  

Highlights Q2/2021 Performance Breakdown: Our recommended model bond portfolio underperformed the custom benchmark index by -6bps during the second quarter of the year. Winners & Losers: The government bond side of the portfolio underperformed by -21bps, led overwhelmingly by our underweight to US Treasuries (-18bps). Spread product allocations outperformed by +15bps, primarily due to overweights on US high-yield (+11bps) and US CMBS (+3bps). Portfolio Positioning For The Next Six Months: We are maintaining an overall below-benchmark portfolio duration stance, against a backdrop of persistent above-trend global growth and a highly stimulative fiscal/monetary policy mix. We are maintaining a moderate overweight to global spread product versus government debt, concentrated on an overweight to US high-yield where valuations look the least stretched. We are making two changes to the portfolio allocations heading into Q3: shifting the Treasury curve exposure to have more of a flattening bias, while downgrading EM USD-denominated corporates to neutral. Feature The trend in global bond yields so far in 2021 has been a tale of two quarters. The first three months of the year saw a surge in yields worldwide on the back of rapidly improving economic data, the rollout of COVID-19 vaccines and supply squeezes triggering rapid increases in inflation. During the second three months of the year, however, global yields drifted a bit lower in response to more mixed economic data, the spread of the Delta variant and slightly hawkish shifts from a few key central banks – most notably, the Fed – even with economic confidence measures remaining upbeat across the developed economies. The decline in yields has not been seen across the maturity spectrum, though. The yield-to-maturity of the Bloomberg Barclays Global and US Treasury 10+ year indices fell by -12bps and -30bps, respectively, from recent peaks. At the same time, shorter term bond yields have been relatively stable as central banks continue to signal that interest rate hikes are still well off into the future. In contrast to government bonds, credit markets have remained calm with spreads tight for developed market corporates and emerging market (EM) debt. With that in mind, we present our quarterly review of the BCA Research Global Fixed Income Strategy (GFIS) model bond portfolio during the second quarter of 2021. We also present our recommended positioning for the portfolio for the next six months (Table 1), as well as portfolio return expectations for our base case and alternative investment scenarios. The latter half of 2021 should prove to be even more challenging for bond investors, who must disentangle less consistent messages across countries on the Delta variant, vaccinations, inflation and the outlook for both monetary and fiscal policy. Table 1GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Recommended Positioning For The Next Six Months GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q2/2021 Performance Review & Current Allocations: Hitting A Few Roadblocks GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q2/2021 Performance Review & Current Allocations: Hitting A Few Roadblocks As a reminder to existing readers (and to new clients), the model portfolio is a part of our service that complements the usual macro analysis of global fixed income markets. The portfolio is how we communicate our opinion on the relative attractiveness between government bond and spread product sectors. We do this by applying actual percentage weightings to each of our recommendations within a fully invested hypothetical bond portfolio. Q2/2021 Model Bond Portfolio Performance: Mixed Returns Chart 1Q2/2021 Performance: Credit Gains & Duration Losses Q2/2021 Performance: Credit Gains & Duration Losses Q2/2021 Performance: Credit Gains & Duration Losses The total return for the GFIS model portfolio (hedged into US dollars) in the second quarter was +1.13%, slightly underperformed the custom benchmark index by -6bps (Chart 1).1 In terms of the specific breakdown between the government bond and spread product allocations in our model portfolio, the former generated -21bps of underperformance versus our custom benchmark index while the latter outperformed by +15bps. We have remained significantly underweight US Treasuries and positioned for a bearish steepening of the US Treasury curve since just before last year's US presidential election. That tilt was a big contributor to the excess return of the portfolio in Q1 (+63bps) that was partially given back (-18bps) in Q2 as longer maturity Treasury yields fell during the quarter. Our inflation-linked bond allocations in the US and Europe (+5bps) helped mitigate the loss on the government bond side from our below-benchmark duration stance and general curve steepening bias in most countries in the portfolio (Table 2). Table 2GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q2/2021 Overall Return Attribution GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q2/2021 Performance Review & Current Allocations: Hitting A Few Roadblocks GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q2/2021 Performance Review & Current Allocations: Hitting A Few Roadblocks The sum of excess returns during the quarter from countries that we overweighted (Germany, France, Italy, Spain, and Japan) was zero. Improving growth momentum and stronger economic confidence helped push yields higher in those countries. Therefore, those positions could not offset the losses from the underweight to US Treasuries. We did make two shifts in the country allocation within the government bond portion of the portfolio during Q2, downgrading Canada to underweight on April 20 and upgrading Australia to overweight on June 9. Neither change meaningfully contributed to the return of the portfolio. Meanwhile, our moderate overall overweight tilt on spread product versus government bonds fueled the outperformance from the credit side of the portfolio, led by US high-yield (+11bps) and US CMBS (+3bps). Overall gains from spread product were impressive in both USD-hedged total return terms (+95bps) and relative to our custom benchmark (+15bps), despite spreads entering Q2 at fairly tight levels. In the second quarter, improving economic confidence and easing credit conditions allowed spreads to narrow even further for corporate debt in the US and Europe, as well as for EM USD-denominated credit. The bar charts showing the total and relative returns for each individual government bond market and spread product sector are presented in Charts 2 & 3. Chart 2GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q2/2021 Government Bond Performance Attribution GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q2/2021 Performance Review & Current Allocations: Hitting A Few Roadblocks GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q2/2021 Performance Review & Current Allocations: Hitting A Few Roadblocks Chart 3GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q2/2021 Spread Product Performance Attribution By Sector GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q2/2021 Performance Review & Current Allocations: Hitting A Few Roadblocks GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q2/2021 Performance Review & Current Allocations: Hitting A Few Roadblocks Biggest Outperformers: Overweight US high-yield: Ba-rated (+5bps), B-rated (+4bps), and Caa-rated (+3bps) Overweight US TIPS (+4bps) Overweight US CMBS (+3bps) Overweight Euro Area high-yield (+1bps) Biggest Underperformers: Underweight US Treasuries with a maturity greater than 10 years (-17bps), Underweight US Treasuries with a maturity between 7 and 10 years (-3bps) Underweight US Treasuries with a maturity between 5 and 7 years (-2bps) Underweight EM USD sovereigns (-1bps) Underweight UK GIlts with a maturity greater than 10 years (-1bps) Chart 4 presents the ranked benchmark index returns of the individual countries and spread product sectors in the GFIS model bond portfolio for Q2/2021. Returns are hedged into US dollars (we do not take active currency risk in this portfolio) and adjusted to reflect duration differences between each country/sector and the overall custom benchmark index for the model portfolio. We have also color coded the bars in each chart to reflect our recommended investment stance for each market during Q2 (red for underweight, dark green for overweight, gray for neutral). Chart 4Ranking The Winners & Losers From The GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Universe In Q2/2021 GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q2/2021 Performance Review & Current Allocations: Hitting A Few Roadblocks GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q2/2021 Performance Review & Current Allocations: Hitting A Few Roadblocks Ideally, we would look to see more green bars on the left side of the chart where market returns are highest, and more red bars on the right side of the chart were returns are lowest. In Q2, the picture on that front was mixed. We were only neutral some of the biggest outperformers like UK Gilts (+312bps in USD-hedged duration-matched total return terms) and investment grade credit in the US (+430bps) and UK (+231bps). Our relative value allocation within EM, overweight corporates (+430bps) versus sovereigns (+527bps), also underperformed during Q2. We remained overweight government debt markets in the euro area which were the worst performers during the quarter (Germany: -25bps, Spain: -59bps, Italy: -67bps, and France: -83bps). The news was better on the credit side, where our significant overweight to US high-yield (+146bps) was a big positive contributor, as were overweights to US CMBS (+137bps) and euro area high-yield (+92bps). Bottom Line: Our model bond portfolio slightly underperformed its benchmark index in the second quarter of the year by -6bps – a negative result mainly driven by our underweight allocation to the US Treasury market but with an overweight to US high-yield providing a meaningful offset. Future Drivers Of Portfolio Returns & Scenario Analysis Looking ahead, the performance of the model bond portfolio will continue to be driven primarily by swings in global government bond yields, most notably US Treasuries. Our most favored cyclical indicators for global bond yields are still, in aggregate, signaling more upside potential over at least the next six months, although the nature of the signal is changing (Chart 5). Our Global Duration Indicator, comprised of leading economic indicators and measures of future economic sentiment, remains elevated but appears to have peaked. At the same time, the global manufacturing PMI, which typically leads global real bond yields by around six months, continues to climb to new cyclical highs. This suggests that the recent downdraft in global real bond yields could prove to be short-lived. Our Global Central Bank Monitor is climbing steadily, indicating greater upward pressure on bond yields from the combination of strong growth, rising inflation and loose financial conditions. Admittedly, bond yields are lagging the upward trajectory implied by the Monitor with central banks deliberately responding far more slowly to the cyclical pressures that would have triggered bond-bearish monetary tightening in the past. Nonetheless, the Monitor, the Global Duration Indicator and the global manufacturing PMI and all sending the same message – global bond yields remain too low, suggesting a below-benchmark overall portfolio duration stance remains appropriate. With regards to country allocation within the government bond side of our model portfolio, we continue to overweight countries where central banks are less likely to begin normalizing pandemic-era monetary policy quickly (Germany, France, Italy, Spain, Japan, Australia), while underweighting countries where normalization is expected to begin within the next 6-12 months (the US and Canada). We remain neutral the UK, although we have them on “downgrade watch” until there is greater clarity on how severely the spread of the Delta variant is impacting UK growth. The US remains the biggest underweight. The modestly hawkish turn by the Fed at the June FOMC meeting likely marked the end of the cyclical bear-steepening trend of the US Treasury curve. A full-blown turn to a bear-flattening of the US curve will be slow to develop, but we fully expect the cyclical pressures that drove the underperformance of longer-maturity US Treasuries over the past year to begin leaking into shorter-maturity bonds. That trend already appears to be underway with 5-year US yields starting to drift upward at a faster pace compared to other developed market peers (Chart 6). Chart 5Cyclical Indicators Suggest Global Yields Still Have More Upside Cyclical Indicators Suggest Global Yields Still Have More Upside Cyclical Indicators Suggest Global Yields Still Have More Upside Chart 6UST Underperformance Will Shift To Shorter Maturities UST Underperformance Will Shift To Shorter Maturities UST Underperformance Will Shift To Shorter Maturities This leads us to make a change to our model portfolio allocations this week, reducing the exposure to the belly of the US Treasury curve (the 3-5 year and 5-7 year maturity buckets), while modestly increasing the allocation to the 7-10 year bucket. To neutralize the duration-extending implication of that marginal shift, we added a new allocation to US Treasury bills, thus turning this US Treasury shift into a “butterfly” trade, essentially selling the 5-year bullet for a cash/10-year barbell. Longer-term Treasury yields, however, are still in the process of working off an oversold condition that developed in Q1 (Chart 7). Duration positioning remains quite short, according to the JP Morgan survey of bond investors, while speculators are still working off a huge net short position in 30-year Treasury futures according to data from the CFTC. We anticipate that it will take another month or two to work off such an extreme oversold condition for US Treasuries, based on similar episodes over the past two decades. After that, longer-maturity Treasury yields will begin to begin climbing again, to the benefit of the US underweight (and below-benchmark duration stance) in our model portfolio. Chart 7Longer-Maturity USTs Working Off Oversold Condition Longer-Maturity USTs Working Off Oversold Condition Longer-Maturity USTs Working Off Oversold Condition Chart 8A Sharply Diminished Impulse From Global QE A Sharply Diminished Impulse From Global QE A Sharply Diminished Impulse From Global QE Outside the US, the bond-friendly impact of quantitative easing programs is fading, on the margin, with the growth of central bank balance sheets slowing (Chart 8). While outright tapering of bond buying has only occurred in Canada and the UK (within our model bond portfolio universe), we expect the Fed to begin tapering in early 2022. Financial stability concerns are expected to play an increasingly important role in future tapering decisions, with house prices booming in many countries, most notably Canada which supports our underweight stance on Canadian government debt. Australia is the notable exception to this trend towards slowing balance sheet growth, with the Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) maintaining a healthy pace of bond buying given underwhelming realized inflation. The recent wave of COVID-19 cases, which has left half of Australia under lockdowns that were largely avoided in 2020, will ensure that the RBA stays dovish for longer, to the benefit of our overweight stance on Australian government bonds. We continue to see the overall dovish stance of global central bankers as being conducive to the outperformance of inflation-linked bonds versus nominal government debt. However, inflation breakevens in most countries have largely completed the rebound from the depressed levels reached during the 2020 COVID-19 global recession. Our Comprehensive Breakeven Indicators combine three measures to determine the upside potential for 10-year inflation breakevens: the distance from fair value based on our models, the spread between headline inflation and central bank target inflation, and the gap between market-based and survey-based measures of inflation expectations. Those indicators suggest that the most attractive markets to position for further upside potential for breakevens are in Italy and France, with breakevens looking more stretched in the US, Canada and Australia (Chart 9). On the back of this, we are maintaining our allocations to inflation-linked bonds in the euro area in our model portfolio. Chart 9Less Scope For Wider Global Inflation Breakevens Less Scope For Wider Global Inflation Breakevens Less Scope For Wider Global Inflation Breakevens Chart 10Fading Support For Credit Markets From Global QE Fading Support For Credit Markets From Global QE Fading Support For Credit Markets From Global QE Moving our attention to the credit side of our model portfolio, we feel that a moderate overweight stance on overall global corporates versus governments remains appropriate. However, the slowing trend in developed market central bank balance sheets, as an indicator of the incremental shift away from the COVID-era monetary policies from 2020, is flashing a warning sign for the performance of global spread product. The annual growth rate of the combined balance sheets of the Fed, ECB, Bank of Japan and Bank of England has been an excellent leading indicator of the excess returns of both global investment grade and high-yield corporates over the past decade (Chart 10). That growth rate peaked back in February of this year, suggesting a peak of global corporate bond excess returns around February 2022 Although given the current tight level of global corporate bond spreads, both for investment grade and high-yield, we expect future return outperformance from corporates versus government debt to come from carry rather than spread compression. Our preferred measure of the attractiveness of credit spreads is the historical percentile ranking of 12-month breakeven spreads, which measure how much spreads would need to widen to eliminate the carry advantage over duration-matched government bonds on a one-year horizon. Currently, only the lower-rated high-yield credit tiers in the US and euro area offer 12-month breakeven spreads above the bottom quartile of their history, within the credit sectors of our model portfolio (Chart 11). Chart 11Lower-Rated High-Yield Offers Relatively Attractive Spreads GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q2/2021 Performance Review & Current Allocations: Hitting A Few Roadblocks GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q2/2021 Performance Review & Current Allocations: Hitting A Few Roadblocks Given the sharply reduced default risks on both sides of the Atlantic, and with nominal growth in good shape amid low borrowing rates, we are maintaining our overweights to high-yield bonds in both the US and euro area. At the same time, we are sticking with only a neutral stance on investment grade corporates in the US, euro area and the UK. We do anticipate starting to reduce the overall corporate bond exposure later this year, however, based on the ominous leading signal from the growth of central bank balance sheets – and what that signals about the future path for global monetary policy. Within the euro area, we continue to prefer owning Italian government bonds (and to a lesser extent, Spanish government debt) over investment grade corporates, given the more explicit support for the sovereigns through ECB quantitative easing (Chart 12). We expect the ECB to be the most accommodative central bank within our model portfolio universe over at least the next year, with even tapering of any kind unlikely in 2022. Chart 12Favor Italian BTPs Over Euro Area Investment Grade Favor Italian BTPs Over Euro Area Investment Grade Favor Italian BTPs Over Euro Area Investment Grade One area of the spread product universe where we are starting to reduce risk in the model portfolio is EM USD-denominated credit. EM debt has benefited from a bullish combination of global policy stimulus, a weakening US dollar and rising commodity prices over the past year. We have positioned for that in our model portfolio through an overall overweight stance on EM USD-denominated debt, but one that favors investment grade corporates over sovereigns. Now, all of those supportive factors for EM credit are fading. Chinese policymakers have reigned in both credit stimulus and fiscal stimulus this year, with the combined impulse suggesting a slower pace of Chinese economic growth in the latter half of 2021 (Chart 13). Given China’s huge share of the global consumption of industrial commodities, slowing Chinese growth should cool the momentum of commodity prices over the next few quarters. A slowing liquidity impulse from global central bank asset purchases is also a negative for EM debt performance, on the margin. The same can be said for the US dollar, which is no longer depreciating as markets start to pull forward the expected future path for US interest rates (Chart 14). A stronger US dollar typically correlates with softer commodity prices and wider EM credit spreads. Chart 13Major EM Risks: China Tightening & Global QE Tapering Major EM Risks: China Tightening & Global QE Tapering Major EM Risks: China Tightening & Global QE Tapering Chart 14EM Supportive USD Weakness Is Fading EM Supportive USD Weakness Is Fading EM Supportive USD Weakness Is Fading In response to these growing risks to the bullish EM backdrop - including the rapid spread of the Delta variant made worse by the less-effective vaccines available in those countries - we are downgrading our overall EM USD credit exposure in the model bond portfolio to underweight from neutral. We are doing this by cutting the EM corporate exposure from overweight to neutral, while maintaining an underweight tilt on EM USD sovereigns. We expect to further cut the EM exposure in the coming months by moving to a full underweight on EM corporates. Summing it all up, our overall allocations and risks in our model portfolio leading into Q3/2021 look like this: An overall below-benchmark stance on global duration, equal to nearly one full year versus the custom index (Chart 15) A moderate overweight stance on global spread product versus government debt, equal to five percentage points of the portfolio (Chart 16). This overweight comes almost entirely from overweight allocations to US and euro area high-yield corporate debt. Chart 15Overall Portfolio Duration: Stay Below Benchmark Overall Portfolio Duration: Stay Below Benchmark Overall Portfolio Duration: Stay Below Benchmark Chart 16Overall Portfolio Allocation: Small Spread Product Overweight GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q2/2021 Performance Review & Current Allocations: Hitting A Few Roadblocks GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q2/2021 Performance Review & Current Allocations: Hitting A Few Roadblocks After the changes made to our US Treasury and EM positions, the tracking error of the portfolio, or its expected volatility versus that of the benchmark index, is quite low at 34bps (Chart 17). The main reason for this is that our positioning remains focused heavily on the US (Treasury underweight, high-yield overweight), with much of the other positioning close to neutral or largely offsetting other positions in a relative value sense (overweight Australia vs underweight Canada, overweight US CMBS versus underweight US Agency MBS). This fits with our desire to maintain only a moderate level of overall portfolio risk. The yield of the portfolio is now slightly higher than that of the benchmark, with a small “positive carry”, hedged into USD, of 13bps (Chart 18). Chart 17Overall Portfolio Risk: Moderate Overall Portfolio Risk: Moderate Overall Portfolio Risk: Moderate Chart 18Overall Portfolio Yield: Small Positive Carry Vs. Benchmark Overall Portfolio Yield: Small Positive Carry Vs. Benchmark Overall Portfolio Yield: Small Positive Carry Vs. Benchmark Scenario Analysis & Return Forecasts After making the shifts to our model bond portfolio allocations in the US and EM, we now turn to scenario analysis to determine the return expectations for the portfolio for the next six months. On the credit side of the portfolio, we use risk-factor-based regression models to forecast future yield changes for global spread product sectors as a function of four major factors - the VIX, oil prices, the US dollar and the fed funds rate (Table 2A). For the government bond side of the portfolio, we avoid using regression models and instead use a yield-beta driven framework, taking forecasts for changes in US Treasury yields and translating those in changes in non-US bond yields by applying a historical yield beta (Table 2B). For our scenario analysis over the next six months, we use a base case scenario plus two alternate “tail risk” scenarios. We see global growth momentum and the Fed monetary policy outlook as the two most important factors for fixed income markets in the second half of 2021, thus our scenarios are defined along those lines. Table 2AFactor Regressions Used To Estimate Spread Product Yield Changes GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q2/2021 Performance Review & Current Allocations: Hitting A Few Roadblocks GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q2/2021 Performance Review & Current Allocations: Hitting A Few Roadblocks Table 2BEstimated Government Bond Yield Betas To US Treasuries GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q2/2021 Performance Review & Current Allocations: Hitting A Few Roadblocks GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q2/2021 Performance Review & Current Allocations: Hitting A Few Roadblocks Base Case Global growth stays above-trend in both Q3 and Q4, putting downward pressure on unemployment rates and keeping realized inflation elevated. Ongoing global vaccinations lead to more of the global economy fully reopening, with the Delta variant not having serious widespread impact on economic confidence outside of parts of the emerging world. Excess savings built up during the pandemic are run down by both consumers and businesses as optimism stays ebullient within the developed economies. China credit tightening slows growth enough to cool off upward commodity price momentum. At the same time, falling US unemployment and surprisingly “sticky” domestic US realized inflation embolden the Fed to signal a move to begin tapering its bond purchases starting in January 2022. Real bond yields globally bottom out, while inflation expectations recover some of the pullback seen in Q2/2021. The entire US Treasury curve shifts higher, led by the 10-year reaching 1.65% and a modest bear-flattening of the 5-year/30-year curve. The VIX stays near 15, the US dollar rises +3%, the Brent oil price goes nowhere and the fed funds rate is unchanged at 0% Upside Growth Surprise The Delta variant proves to be far less deadly than feared. A rapid pace of global vaccinations leads to booming growth led by the US but including a fully reopened euro area. Chinese policymakers begin to reverse some of the H1/2021 credit tightening. Unemployment rates rapidly fall worldwide, while supply bottlenecks persist, keeping upward pressure on realized inflation. Markets pull forward the timing and pace of future central bank interest rate hikes, most notably in the US when the Fed begins tapering bond purchases sooner than expected before year-end. Real bond yields drift higher globally, but inflation breakevens stay elevated with the earlier surge in realized inflation proving not to be “transitory”. The US Treasury curve modestly bear-flattens, with the 10-year reaching 1.9% and the 5-year/30-year spread narrowing by 25bps. The VIX rises to 25 as risk assets struggle in response to rising bond yields even with faster growth. The US dollar falls -5% on the back of improving global growth expectations, the Brent oil price climbs +5% and the fed funds rate stays unchanged. Downside Growth Surprise The global economy gets hit on multiple fronts: the rapid spread of the Delta variant overwhelms the positive momentum on vaccinations, most notably in EM countries; Europe struggles to fully reopen; China policy tightening results in a larger-than-expected drag on global growth; and US households are reluctant to draw down on excess savings after government income support measures expire in September. Diminished economic optimism leads to a pullback in global equity values, lower government bond yields and wider global credit spreads. The US Treasury curve bull flattens as longer-maturity yields fall in a risk-off move, with the 10-year yield moving back down to 1.25% alongside lower inflation breakevens. The VIX rises to 30, the safe-haven US dollar rises +5%, the Brent oil price falls -10% and the fed funds rate stays at 0%. Chart 19Risk Factor Assumptions For The Scenario Analysis Risk Factor Assumptions For The Scenario Analysis Risk Factor Assumptions For The Scenario Analysis Chart 20US Treasury Yield Assumptions For The Scenario Analysis US Treasury Yield Assumptions For The Scenario Analysis US Treasury Yield Assumptions For The Scenario Analysis The inputs into the scenario analysis are shown in Chart 19 (for the USD, VIX, oil and the fed funds rate), while the US Treasury yield scenarios are in Chart 20. The excess return scenarios for the model bond portfolio, using the above inputs in our simple quantitative return forecast framework, are shown in Table 3A (the scenarios for the changes in US Treasury yields are shown in Table 3B). Table 3AGFIS Model Bond Portfolio Scenario Analysis For The Next Six Months GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q2/2021 Performance Review & Current Allocations: Hitting A Few Roadblocks GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q2/2021 Performance Review & Current Allocations: Hitting A Few Roadblocks Table 3BUS Treasury Yield Assumptions For The 6-Month Forward Scenario Analysis GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q2/2021 Performance Review & Current Allocations: Hitting A Few Roadblocks GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q2/2021 Performance Review & Current Allocations: Hitting A Few Roadblocks The model bond portfolio is expected to deliver a positive excess return over the next six months of +46bps in the base case scenario and +28bps in the optimistic growth scenario, but is projected to underperform by -36bps in the pessimistic growth scenario. Bottom Line: We are maintaining an overall below-benchmark portfolio duration stance, against a backdrop of persistent above-trend global growth and a highly stimulative fiscal/monetary policy mix. We are maintaining a moderate overweight to global spread product versus government debt, concentrated on an overweight to US high-yield where valuations look the least stretched. We are making two changes to the portfolio allocations heading into Q3: shifting the Treasury curve exposure to have more of a flattening bias, while downgrading EM USD-denominated corporates to neutral. Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com   Ray Park, CFA Research Analyst ray@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 The GFIS model bond portfolio custom benchmark index is the Bloomberg Barclays Global Aggregate Index, but with allocations to global high-yield corporate debt replacing very high-quality spread product (i.e. AA-rated). We believe this to be more indicative of the typical internal benchmark used by global multi-sector fixed income managers. Recommendations The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q2/2021 Performance Review & Current Allocations: Hitting A Few Roadblocks GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q2/2021 Performance Review & Current Allocations: Hitting A Few Roadblocks Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

Highlights Economy – The endpoint of easier-for-longer monetary policy may be coming into view: Elevated inflation readings and discomfort among more hawkish FOMC members may signal that a monetary policy inflection is on the way. Markets – Volatility should pick up as investors reprice financial assets to reflect the end of emergency accommodation: The rumblings in bond, currency and precious metals markets that followed the June FOMC meeting are likely to spread as investors pull their liftoff date expectations forward. Strategy – Maintain below-benchmark duration positioning and ensure that portfolios can withstand increased volatility: Don’t be lulled to sleep by the 10-year Treasury yield’s backing and filling or by the VIX’s foray into the low teens. It is a more auspicious time to be buying insurance than selling it. Feature After fourteen years, investors may be weary of focusing so much attention on the Fed, but there’s been no avoiding its impact since the global financial crisis (GFC) emerged. Zero interest rate policy (ZIRP), large-scale asset purchases and other emergency measures have exerted a strong pull on financial markets as they have been switched on and off. The extended turn of rushing to the rescue appears to be weighing on the Fed as well. Last August’s revisions to its Statement on Longer-Run Goals and Monetary Policy Strategy explicitly acknowledged the challenges of operating in a ZIRP world in which its ability to deploy its primary tool for countering economic weakness – cutting the fed funds rate – is constrained by the zero lower bound. The Fed responded by adjusting its approach to each element of its dual mandate. It adopted an average-inflation-targeting framework that seeks to remediate past inflation shortfalls and indicated that it would only intervene to mitigate shortfalls from its maximum employment estimate. The latter move marked a break with the previous four decades, when the Fed, unwilling to give inflation pressures a chance to take root, proactively tightened policy when it judged that the labor market might be getting too strong. Taken together, the changes amounted to a significant break from doing whatever it took to keep inflation from gaining a foothold to making sure it didn’t completely vanish from households’, businesses’ and investors’ consciousness. If the changes were implemented as outlined, the effects could be wide-ranging. Inflation would be able to gain more traction, all else equal, leading to higher bond yields as markets anticipated that a higher terminal fed funds rate would be required to bring it to heel. A higher terminal fed funds rate might lead to a deeper economic slowdown, ushering in lower bond yields than otherwise would have prevailed. By inducing higher highs and lower lows in Treasury yields, the revisions to the Fed’s framework could promote increased financial market volatility, depending on FOMC members’ ongoing commitment to them and the way that commitment interacted with investors’ expectations. Although the revised framework is eleven months old, it is freshly relevant as the interaction between its implementation and investors’ expectations may be approaching an inflection point. When the FOMC announced the framework revisions last August, it didn’t have any immediate monetary policy implications and investors and committee members could reasonably have figured they would cross the new-framework bridge when they came to it. Elevated inflation readings and some differences in views within the FOMC suggest the bridge might now have to be crossed soon enough to fit within most institutional investors’ time horizons. Volatility may well rise as markets attempt to reprice assets against the backdrop of a novel monetary policy approach. End Of An Era The aforementioned changes that the FOMC made to its monetary policy strategy represented a watershed moment for US monetary policy. Beginning with Paul Volcker’s tenure as Fed chair near the end of the high-inflation ‘70s, the Fed has kept a sharp lookout for inflation pressures (Chart 1). Though it only introduced an annual inflation target in the aftermath of the GFC, its one-way view of inflation was well established. Signs that it might be emerging could be grounds for tighter monetary conditions while dormant readings were nothing to worry about. Chart 1Upholding Volcker's Mantle Upholding Volcker's Mantle Upholding Volcker's Mantle The average inflation target indicates that inflation shortfalls will henceforth be as much of a concern as inflation overshoots and the Fed will attempt to remediate them with an eye towards keeping inflation expectations from slipping below 2%. On the other hand, the new framework shifts from a two-way to a one-way perspective on employment. Where the committee had previously attempted to conduct policy in a way that mitigated any deviations from its maximum-employment assessment, the new framework seeks only to mitigate shortfalls. Citing the post-crisis experience, when inflation remained in check despite a half-century low in the unemployment rate, and a desire to see expansion gains spread more widely across households, Chair Powell has repeatedly emphasized that too much employment is not a concern. Easier Said Than Done When the Fed announced the changes to its approach, we noted that they would be significant for investors provided it were to follow through on them. It is one thing to promise wide-reaching changes in the indefinite future but quite another to execute them in real time under duress. Financial markets seemed to be aware that turning on a dime would be easier said than done and did not bother to adjust their fed funds rate expectations (Chart 2) or reprice assets that might be most affected by the new policy framework. Among investors with a time frame of a year or less, the talk was all theoretical, anyway – of course policy was going to remain extremely easy when the US and the rest of the world were still knee-deep in a once-in-a-century pandemic and the development of an effective vaccine was a ways off. Chart 2Until Recently, Markets Saw Little Chance Of Rate Hikes On A Two-Year Horizon Until Recently, Markets Saw Little Chance Of Rate Hikes On A Two-Year Horizon Until Recently, Markets Saw Little Chance Of Rate Hikes On A Two-Year Horizon In other words, talk was cheap when the FOMC unveiled its new framework. Its plans would only matter once the pandemic’s grip eased and central banks regained some discretion. The committee’s resolve to adhere to the new framework would only be tested in the face of uncomfortably high inflation prints and/or inflation expectations that threatened to anchor at levels above its target range. Investors wouldn’t bother to reprice financial assets in line with the new framework until they were certain it would apply. Inoculating Against Deflation As it turned out, effective vaccines appeared on the horizon sooner than anticipated. Pfizer and BioNTech announced the enormously encouraging results from their vaccine’s Phase III trials before the New York open on November 9th, and the Moderna vaccine’s similar clinical successes followed shortly thereafter. Vaccine distribution would begin in January, and the long end of the Treasury curve would begin to reprice, nudged along by rising inflation expectations. Agita sparked by March CPI data caused expectations to peak ahead of the April release, and 10-year breakevens briefly edged above the levels consistent with the Fed’s goals (Chart 3, top panel). Chart 3Coloring Within The Lines Coloring Within The Lines Coloring Within The Lines Chart 4Unsustainable Outliers Unsustainable Outliers Unsustainable Outliers We share the view of most mainstream economists that the upside surprises in the March and April inflation prints resulted from transitory reopening factors and do not mark an inflection point. Increases in used car prices will slow once rental car companies rebuild their fleets to match burgeoning demand and new car production can resume at its intended pace, lumber prices will continue to ease as sawmills ramp up operations to capture outsized profits, and the pace of increases in airfares will settle down once staffing bottlenecks can be resolved and more flights can be added to meet resurgent demand (Chart 4). Easier For How Much Longer? Markets’ collective shrug upon the release of the revisions to the Fed’s monetary policy framework reflected the view that they did not amount to a meaningful change over most investors’ time horizons. The second wave of COVID-19 infections had peaked a month before, but at least one other was likely in store as students returned to college campuses, and a vaccine was not yet on the horizon. According to Good Judgment’s professional superforecasters, there was roughly an equal 40% probability that 25 million vaccine doses would be available for distribution in the US between October 1st, 2020 and March 31st, 2021 or between April 1st and September 30th, 2021 (Chart 5). The more optimistic estimate turned out to be right, albeit not quite optimistic enough: nearly 25 million doses were administered by the end of February and nearly 50 million by the March 31/April 1 midpoint of the two periods (Chart 6). Chart 5Vaccine Development And Distribution Wound Up Beating August's Expectations ... Transitioning Away From Auto-Pilot Transitioning Away From Auto-Pilot Chart 6... By A Considerable Margin ... By A Considerable Margin ... By A Considerable Margin The vaccine outlook was relevant because it was hard to envision any incremental tightening of monetary policy while the country was still in the throes of the pandemic. Treasury yields at the longer end of the curve weren’t likely to go anywhere in the absence of increases in the fed funds rate (Chart 7) or increases in inflation or real growth expectations. Just as a still-raging virus was likely to keep the FOMC from hiking rates, it would also put a lid on inflation pressures and economic growth. With economic activity sharply limited by social distancing mandates and individuals’ innate reluctance to risk exposure, it was certain that capacity would continue to surpass aggregate demand. Chart 7Treasury Yields Move With Fed Funds Expectations Treasury Yields Move With Fed Funds Expectations Treasury Yields Move With Fed Funds Expectations To the extent investors thought about the FOMC’s new framework when it was unveiled, they seem to have taken it as confirmation that monetary policy would remain easier for longer, consistent with the theme that has prevailed since the Bernanke Fed led the charge to counter the GFC. Treasury yields were subdued even after the vaccine news broke in November (Chart 8, top panel), and with the interest rate structure remaining quiet, there was no major repricing in other rate-sensitive markets. Gold, which might have been expected to benefit from more accommodative policy, slipped nearly 15%, from the mid-$1,900s to the high $1,600s, between the release of the new framework and its March trough. After retracing half of its post-August decline, it shed a fresh 5% following the FOMC’s June meeting (Chart 8, second panel). Chart 8Growth Prospects, Not Fed Prospects Growth Prospects, Not Fed Prospects Growth Prospects, Not Fed Prospects Commodity currencies had added 10% versus the US dollar before ceding half of those gains in the wake of the June FOMC meeting, but their rally appears to have been driven by the increased global growth expectations that followed the positive vaccine news as they went nowhere in September and October (Chart 8, third panel). Similarly, the DXY Index had taken its post-revision cue from global growth prospects, moving inversely with pandemic news (rising when bad, falling when good), before rallying after the June meeting (Chart 8, bottom panel). The rise in measured inflation has encouraged some committee members to bring forward their anticipated liftoff dates and accelerate their individual dot plots, as disclosed last month. Now that the Fed no longer seems to be of one mind on the easier-for-longer path, investors have begun to reassess the scene. Prices are moving as capital reportedly exits pro-inflation positions and the money markets now call for two-and-a-half rate hikes by mid-2023 (Chart 2). More volatility could be in store amidst a shift in the Fed consensus as markets pull forward or push back their expected liftoff date and the expected pace of hikes speeds up or slows down. Investment Implications With the moves in measured inflation and inflation expectations seeming to have met the FOMC’s first two criteria for hiking rates (Table 1), a return to full employment looms as the final hurdle to liftoff. We reiterate our view that hiring progress is the swing factor that investors should be watching to anticipate the coming shift in monetary policy settings. Net payrolls expanded by 850,000 in June, topping estimates and putting the three-month moving average, 567,000, ahead of the 375-485,000 pace required to return the economy to full employment by the second half of 2022.1 That may sound like an overly ambitious target on its face, but we contend that annualized monthly payroll expansion of 4% for fourteen months or 3.1% for eighteen months is attainable given the magnitude of the pandemic job losses (Chart 9). Table 1A Checklist For Liftoff Transitioning Away From Auto-Pilot Transitioning Away From Auto-Pilot Chart 9A 2H22 Return To Full Employment Is Entirely Possible A 2H22 Return To Full Employment Is Entirely Possible A 2H22 Return To Full Employment Is Entirely Possible Our outlook for sustained net payroll expansion remains near the optimistic end of the expectations continuum, though the money market consensus has lately caught up with our sometime-before-the-end-of-2022 liftoff date view (Chart 10). Given that we expect that the yield curve will steepen as the hiring strength shows itself, we advise maintaining below-benchmark duration in Treasury portfolios. The optimism embedded in our hiring view implies robust growth over the next twelve months and we therefore recommend overweighting spread product within fixed income portfolios via a high-yield overweight, and overweighting equities within multi-asset portfolios. Hot growth will eventually induce the Fed to start pumping the monetary brakes, slowing the economy and investment returns, but the twelve-month outlook remains favorable for risk assets. Chart 10Looking For At Least One Hike By The End Of 2022 Looking For At Least One Hike By The End Of 2022 Looking For At Least One Hike By The End Of 2022 Doug Peta, CFA Chief US Investment Strategist dougp@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1 Making the simplifying (and overly conservative) assumption that returning to full employment will require recovering February 2020’s level of nonfarm payrolls, the US is currently short 6.8 million jobs. Regaining those jobs by August 2022 (14 months from now) will require a monthly average of 485,000 net job gains; regaining them by December 2022 (18 months hence) will require a 375,000 monthly average.

Highlights Three distinct forces are likely to make South Asia’s geopolitical risks increasingly relevant to global investors. First, India’s tensions with China stem from China’s growing foreign policy assertiveness and India’s shift away from traditional neutrality toward aligning with the US and its allies. This creates a security dilemma in South Asia, just as in East Asia. Second, India’s economy is sputtering in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, adding fuel to nationalism and populism in advance of a series of important elections. India will stimulate the economy but it could also become more reactive on the international scene. Third, the US is withdrawing from Afghanistan and negotiating a deal with Iran in an effort to reduce the US military presence in the Middle East and South Asia. This will create a scramble for influence across both regions and a power vacuum in Afghanistan that is highly likely to yield negative surprises for India and its neighbors. Traditionally geopolitical risks in South Asia have a limited impact on markets. India’s growth slowdown and forthcoming fiscal stimulus are more relevant for investors. However, a sharp rise in geopolitical risk would undermine India’s structural advantages as the West diversifies away from China. Stay short Indian banks. Feature Geopolitical risks in South Asia are slowly but surely rising. India-Pakistan and China-India are well-known “conflict-dyads” or pairings. Historically, these two sets have been fighting each other over their fuzzy Himalayan border with limited global financial market consequences. But now fundamental changes are afoot that are altering the geopolitical setting in the region. Specifically, the coming together of three distinct forces could trigger a significant geopolitical event in South Asia. The three forces are as follow: Force #1: Sino-Indian Tensions Get Real About a year ago, Indian and Chinese troops clashed in Ladakh, a disputed territory in the Kashmir region. Following these clashes China reduced its military presence in the Pangong Tso area but its presence in some neighboring areas remains meaningful. Besides the troop build-up along India’s eastern border, China is building more air combat infrastructure in its India-facing western theatre. China’s major air bases have historically been concentrated in China’s eastern region, away from the Indian border (Map 1). Consequently, India has historically enjoyed an advantage in airpower. But China appears to be working to mitigate this disadvantage. Map 1Most Of China’s Major Aviation Units Are Located Away From India South Asia: A Slowdown And A Showdown South Asia: A Slowdown And A Showdown Owing to China’s increased military focus along the Sino-India border, India’s threat perception of China has undergone a fundamental change in recent years. Notably, India has diverted some of its key army units away from its western Indo-Pak border towards its eastern border with China. India could now have nearly 200,000 troops deployed along its border with China, which would mark a 40% increase from last year.1 Turning attention to the Indo-Pak border, India’s problems with Pakistan appear under control for now. This is owing to the ceasefire agreement that was renewed by the two countries in February 2021. However, this peace cannot possibly be expected to last. This is mainly because core problems between the two countries (like Pakistan’s support of militant proxies and India’s control over Kashmir) remain unaddressed. History too suggests that bouts of peace between the two warring neighbors rarely last long. These bouts usually end abruptly when a terrorist attack takes place in India. With both political turbulence and economic distress in Pakistan rising, the fragile ceasefire between India and Pakistan could be upended over the next six months. In fact, two events over the last week point to the fragility of the ceasefire: Two drones carrying explosives entered an Indian air force station located in Jammu and Kashmir (i.e. a northern territory that India recently reorganized, to Pakistan’s chagrin). Even as no casualties were reported, this attack marks a turning point for terrorist activity in India as this was the first-time terrorists used drones to enter an Indian military base. Hours later, another drone attack struck an Indian base at the Ratnuchak-Kaluchak army station, the site of a major terrorist attack in 2002. Chart 1China, Pakistan And India Cumulatively Added 41 Nuclear Warheads Over 2020 South Asia: A Slowdown And A Showdown South Asia: A Slowdown And A Showdown Given that the ceasefire was agreed recently, any further increase in terrorist activity in India over the next six months would suggest that a more substantial breakdown in relations is nigh. Distinct from these recent tensions, China’s troop deployment along India’s eastern arm and Pakistan’s presence along India’s western arm creates a strategic “pincer” that increasingly threatens India. India is naturally concerned. China and Pakistan are allies who have been working closely on projects including the strategic China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC). The CPEC is a collection of infrastructure projects in Pakistan that includes the development of a port in Gwadar where a future presence of the People's Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) is envisaged. Gwadar has the potential of providing China land-based access to the Indian Ocean. Trust in the South Asian region is clearly running low. Distinct from troop build-ups and drone-attacks, China, Pakistan, and India cumulatively added more than 40 nuclear warheads over the last year (Chart 1). China is reputed to be engaged in an even larger increase in its nuclear arsenal than the data show.2 From a structural perspective, too, geopolitical risks in the South Asian peninsula are bound to keep rising. When it comes to the conflicting Indo-Pak dyad, India’s geopolitical power has been rising relative to that of Pakistan in the 2000s. However, the geopolitical muscle of the Sino-Pak alliance is much greater than that of India on a standalone basis (Chart 2). Chart 2India Has Aligned With The QUAD To Counter The Sino-Pak Alliance South Asia: A Slowdown And A Showdown South Asia: A Slowdown And A Showdown China’s active involvement in South Asia is responsible for driving India’s increasing desire to abandon its historical foreign policy stance of non-alignment. India’s membership in the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (also known as the QUAD, whose other members include the US, Japan, and Australia) bears testimony to India’s active effort to develop closer relations with the US and its allies (Chart 2). India’s alignment with the US is deepening China’s and Pakistan’s distrust of India. Conventional and nuclear military deterrence should prevent full-scale war. But the regional balance is increasingly fluid which means geopolitical risks will slowly but surely rise in South Asia over the coming year and years. Force #2: A Growth Slowdown Alongside India’s Loaded Election Calendar The pandemic has hit the economies of South Asia particularly hard. South Asia historically maintained higher real GDP growth rates relative to Emerging Markets (EMs). But in 2021, this region’s growth rate is set to be lower than that of EM peers (Chart 3). History is replete with examples of a rise in economic distress triggering geopolitical events. South Asia is characterized by unusually low per capita incomes (Chart 4) and the latest slowdown could exacerbate the risk of both social unrest and geopolitical incidents materialising. Chart 3South Asian Economies Have Been Hit Hard By The Pandemic South Asia: A Slowdown And A Showdown South Asia: A Slowdown And A Showdown Chart 4South Asia Is Characterized By Very Low Per Capita Incomes South Asia: A Slowdown And A Showdown South Asia: A Slowdown And A Showdown To complicate matters a busy state elections calendar is coming up in India. Elections will be due in seven Indian states in 2022. These states account for about 25% of India’s population. State elections due in 2022 will amount to a high-stakes political battle. During state elections in 2021, the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) was the incumbent in only one of the five states. In 2022, the BJP is the incumbent party in most of the states that are due for elections, which means it has the advantage but also has a lot to lose, especially in a post-pandemic environment. Elections kick off in the crucial state of Uttar Pradesh next February. Last time this state faced elections Prime Minister Narendra Modi was willing to go to great lengths to boost his popularity ahead of time. Specifically, he upset the nation with a large-scale and unprecedented de-monetization program. Given the busy state election calendar in 2022, we expect the BJP-led central government to focus on policy actions that can improve its support among Indian voters. Two policies in particular are likely to come through: Fiscal Stimulus Measures To Provide Economic Relief: India has refrained from administering a large post-pandemic stimulus thus far. As per budget estimates, the Indian central government’s total expenditure in FY22 is set to increase only by 1% on a year-on-year basis. But the expenditure-side restraint shown by India’s central government could change. With elections and a pandemic (which has now claimed over 400,000 lives in India), the central government could consider a meaningful increase in spending closer to February 2022. Map 2Northern India Views Pakistan Even More Unfavorably Than Rest Of India South Asia: A Slowdown And A Showdown South Asia: A Slowdown And A Showdown India’s Finance Minister already announced a fiscal stimulus package of $85 billion (amounting to 2.8% of GDP) earlier this week. Whilst this stimulus entails limited fresh spending (amounting to about 0.6% of India’s GDP), we would not be surprised if the government follows it up with more spending closer to February 2022. Assertive Foreign Policy To Ward-Off Unfriendly Neighbors: India’s northern states are known to harbor unfavorable views of Pakistan (Map 2). The roots of this phenomenon can be traced to geography and the bloody civil strife of 1947 that was triggered by the partition of British-ruled India into the two independent dominions of India and Pakistan. Given the north’s unfavorable views of Pakistan and given looming elections, Indian policy makers may be forced to adopt a far more aggressive foreign policy response, to any terrorist strikes from Pakistan or territorial incursions by China. This kind of response was observed most recently ahead of the Indian General Elections in April-May 2019. An Indian military convoy was attacked by a suicide-bomber in early February 2019 and a Pakistan-based terrorist group claimed responsibility. A fortnight later the Indian air force launched unexpected airstrikes across the Line of Control which were then followed by the Pakistan air force conducting air strikes in Jammu and Kashmir. While the next round of Pakistani and Indian general elections is not due until 2023 and 2024, respectively, it is worth noting that of the seven state elections due in India in 2022, four are in the north (Uttar Pradesh, Punjab, Uttarakhand, and Himachal Pradesh). Force #3: Power Vacuum In Afghanistan The final reason to be wary of the South Asian geopolitical dynamic is the change in US policy: both the Iran nuclear deal expected in August and the impending withdrawal from Afghanistan in September. The US public has now elected three presidents on the demand that foreign wars be reduced. In the wake of Trump and populism the political establishment is now responding. Therefore Biden will ultimately implement both the Iran deal and the Afghan withdrawal regardless of delays or hang-ups. But then he will have to do damage control. In the case of Iran, a last-minute flare-up of conflict in the region is likely this summer, as the US, Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Iran underscore their red lines before the US and Iran settle down to a deal. Indeed it is already happening, with recent US attacks against Iran-backed Shia militias in Syria and Iraq. A major incident would push up oil prices, which is negative for India. But the endgame, an Iranian economic opening, is positive for India, since it imports oil and has had close relations with Iran historically. In the case of Afghanistan, the US exit will activate latent terrorist forces. It will also create a scramble for influence over this landlocked country that could lead to negative surprises across the region. The first principle of the peace agreement between the US and Afghanistan states that the latter will make all efforts to ensure that Afghan soil is not used to further terrorist activity. However, the enforceability of such a guarantee is next to impossible. Notably, the US withdrawal from Afghanistan will revive the Taliban’s influence in the region. This poses major risks for India, which has a long history of being targeted by Afghani terrorist groups. The Taliban played a critical role in the release of terrorists into Pakistan following the hijacking of an Indian Airlines flight in 1999. Furthermore, the Haqqani network, which has pledged allegiance to the Taliban, has attacked Indian assets in the past. Any attack on India deriving from the power vacuum in Afghanistan would upset the precarious regional balance. Whilst there are no immediate triggers for Afghani groups to launch a terrorist attack in India, the US withdrawal will trigger a tectonic shift in the region. Negative surprises emanating from Afghanistan should be expected. Investment Conclusions Chart 5Indian Banks Appear To Have Factored In All Positives Indian Banks Appear To Have Factored In All Positives Indian Banks Appear To Have Factored In All Positives We reiterate the need to pare exposure to Indian assets on a tactical basis. India’s growth engine is likely to misfire over the second half of the Indian financial year. Macroeconomic headwinds pose the chief risk for investors, but major geopolitical changes could act as a negative catalyst in the current context. So we urge clients to stay short Indian Banks (Chart 5). Financials account for the lion’s share of India’s benchmark index (26% weight). India could opt for an unexpected expansion in its fiscal deficit soon. Whilst we continue to watch fiscal dynamics closely, we expect the fiscal expansion to materialize closer to February 2022 when India’s most populous state (i.e. Uttar Pradesh) will undergo elections. Over the long run, India’s sense of insecurity will escalate in the context of a more assertive China, stronger Sino-Pakistani ties, and a power vacuum in Afghanistan. For that reason, New Delhi will continue to shed its neutrality and improve relations with the US-led coalition of democratic countries, with an aim to balance China. This process will feed China’s insecurity of being surrounded and contained by a hegemonic American system. This security dilemma is a source of South Asian geopolitical risk that will become more globally relevant over time. China’s conflict with the US and western world should create incentives for India to attract trade and investment. However, its ability to do so will be contingent upon domestic political factors and regional geopolitical factors.   Ritika Mankar, CFA Editor/Strategist ritika.mankar@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1 Sudhi Ranjan Sen, ‘India Shifts 50,000 Troops to China Border in Historic Move’, Bloomberg, June 28, 2021, bloomberg.com. 2 Joby Warrick, “China is building more than 100 missile silos in its western desert, analysts say,” Washington Post, June 30, 2021, washingtonpost.com.