Policy

Highlights The Fed’s independence from politics is illusory. President Biden has the potential to reshape the Fed’s Board of Governors through three personnel picks, two of which are due by January 2022. While monetary policy could only get marginally more dovish, the Democratic Party’s goals would be furthered by new appointments. If Biden retains Powell then he is convinced that Powell is fully committed to today’s ultra-dovish monetary policy strategy. If he does not, then the new Fed chair will be still more dovish. Nevertheless the excessive expansion of the US money supply is reminiscent of the Arthur Burns era and suggests that any Fed chair faces a sea of troubles from 2022-26. For now stay long TIPS, infrastructure plays, cyclicals, and value stocks. Feature I do not recall a single instance where somebody in the political realm said, “We need to raise rates, they’re too low.”                         -Alan Greenspan, CNBC, October 18, 2018 Just before the 2020 election I held a call with a client in New York and the question arose of whether the expected winner, then candidate Joe Biden, would reappoint Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell when his term expired on January 31, 2022. I argued that the odds of Biden keeping Powell in place were higher than one might think. After all, Powell reversed his stance on rate hikes in the winter of 2018-19 and then oversaw the Fed’s adoption of a new monetary policy strategy that deliberately targets an inflation overshoot. Powell would be a reliable dove for a president who would seek economic recovery above all things. The client drily responded, “There is no way that is going to happen.”   We still do not know what President Biden will decide with seven months before the decision is due. Personnel appointments are a matter of information and intelligence, not political or macroeconomic analysis. From a macro point of view all that can be said is that Biden does not face the situation President Trump faced: Biden has entered early in the business cycle, under a new, ultra-easy average inflation targeting regime at the Fed. Trump entered in the middle of a business cycle, while the Fed was hiking rates (Chart 1). Chart 1Biden's and Powell's Context Biden's and Powell's Context Biden's and Powell's Context Almost any new Fed chair will be largely constrained by the policy consensus on the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC). Biden is an establishment player whose appointments so far suggest that he is unlikely to nominate a maverick capable of bucking the entire FOMC. But personalities can still make a difference at critical junctures. Nobody should be surprised if Biden opts to replace Powell with a candidate who is marginally more committed to keeping rates lower for longer.   Investors should bet on dovish surprises for three reasons. First, the Fed as an institution has reached a consensus on its current policy framework, which is geared toward an inflation overshoot. Second, Powell may wish to retain his job. Third, the aforementioned client could be right and Biden may replace Powell with a more fervent proponent of ultra-easy policy. The takeaway is bullish for the time being. The Dependency Of Central Banks Central banks are part of the political bureaucracy of the nation state. Insofar as they achieve policy autonomy, or independence, it is at the forbearance of the executive or legislative branch. The ability to contain personal influences shows institutional maturity but institutions can never be fully independent. Fiscal policy is controlled by the ruling party, which will legislate in its interest. The “political business cycle” is an empirical phenomenon in which policymakers attempt to manipulate fiscal policy ahead of elections either to help or hurt the incumbent. A “political monetary cycle” also exists but its prevalence is debatable. It is more widely observed in developing countries.1 Politics in the developed world are more democratic and institutionalized so central banks have achieved considerable autonomy. In many cases their independence is enshrined in law, although the legal basis is often questionable and exaggerated.2  Not only are there checks and balances but they are reinforced by asynchronous cycles between the institutions. Term limits constrict politicians as much as or more so than monetary policymakers. Federal Reserve chairmen William McChesney Martin, Arthur F. Burns, and Jerome H. Powell were not immune to political influence but were able in their own ways to “wait out” the tenure of manipulative presidents Lyndon B. Johnson, Richard M. Nixon, and Donald J. Trump. Still, the latter examples highlight that developed markets cannot claim to be purely rationalist in their conduct of monetary policy. President Trump publicly asked, “Who is our bigger enemy, Jay Powell or Chairman Xi?” Yet this was mild compared to the treatment that Nixon gave Burns and especially that Johnson gave Martin. Johnson physically shoved Martin around a private room demanding policy easing and accused him of not caring about the lives of young American soldiers dying in Vietnam. Martin held his ground and hiked rates in 1966 despite the war.3 Arthur Burns was subjected to a relentless campaign of public and private verbal abuse by Nixon and his staffers. Nixon was convinced that he lost the 1960 election because of overly tight Fed policies and was determined not to let it happen again in 1972. Greenspan kept rates low during the Iraq war and inflated the housing bubble. Plenty of unsavory examples of political influence and interference can be drawn from other developed markets.4 All governments and monetary systems are built and run by humans and therefore fallible. Even aside from individuals and anecdotes, structural forms of central bank manipulation within the developed world include: (1)  Debt accommodation: Central banks face an inexorable pressure to provide liquidity to governments running irresponsible fiscal deficits. The consequences if they refused could be devastating (Chart 2). Chart 2The Fed's Biggest Political Constraint: Debt The Fed's Biggest Political Constraint: Debt The Fed's Biggest Political Constraint: Debt (2)  Appointments: Presidents and executives appoint and remove leaders. In the US, the tendency for members of the Board of Governors to resign often gives the president substantial influence even aside from picking the Fed chairman, who can indeed be removed at will.5 (3)  Bureaucracy: Administrative structures exert a powerful influence over the personnel, policy frameworks, and behavior of central bank leadership and staff. The candidates for top positions are heavily filtered – and once they achieve high office, their options are constrained.6 Today’s Federal Reserve supports these three points: it is highly accommodative toward the US’s soaring federal debt and its leadership consists of a tight coterie of experts and academics who share a robust consensus regarding the appropriate theory and practice of monetary policy. The outstanding question stems from item number two, appointments, where President Biden has the opportunity to influence the Fed’s board. But the third point mostly controls the available personnel. Still, the choice of the Fed chair could prove decisive under unforeseen circumstances. Historical accounts of the Fed show that the chairman exerts substantial influence over monetary policy decisions.7 Most investors know from experience that individuals and leaders can still exert an outsized influence at critical junctures. For example, premature monetary tightening occurred with negative consequences in the US in 1937, Japan in 2000, and Europe in 2011. Investors are safest to bet on institutions rather than individuals. But the choice of the Fed chair can hardly be ignored. The current context features an extraordinary expansion of the money supply, and “excess money supply,” comparable only to the inflationary 1970s (Chart 3). The Fed chair in the coming years faces an unstable and difficult sea of troubles to navigate.  Chart 3Excess Money Supply Unseen In Modern Memory Excess Money Supply Unseen In Modern Memory Excess Money Supply Unseen In Modern Memory Fed Chairs Care About Their Careers But Not Midterm Elections Political influence over monetary policy is measurable. A substantial body of academic literature reveals not only the above structural political factors but also that ideological affiliation – i.e. the political party whose president appointed the Fed chair – influences interest rates. So do elections and the career interests of Fed chairmen. Consider the following findings:  Abrams and Iossifov show evidence of abnormally expansionary monetary policy if the president and the chair are affiliated with the same political party.8 Gamber and Hakes show evidence of a lowered federal funds rate if the Fed chair stands for reappointment in the two years following a national election – i.e. Fed chairmen accommodate political pressures in the latter part of term to increase odds of reappointment.9 Dentler shows that while the Fed funds rate does not fall in advance of elections to help presidents in general, it is found to fall when the Fed chair and president have the same partisan affiliation, especially when the Fed chair’s reappointment is looming. Also the Fed funds rate is abnormally high before elections if the Fed chair hails from the opposite party of the incumbent president.10 Dentler shows specifically that Fed chair career motivations matter. If you omit career considerations, then it is not so much partisan affiliation as partisan opposition that can influence monetary policy. In effect, there is a potential increase in policy rate before elections. Dentler calls this a “reverse political monetary policy cycle.”11 In essence, a Fed chair is more likely to lean into his partisan affiliation as an incumbent president seeks reelection. It is hard to prove this behavior is partisan because it conforms with the idea of a staunchly independent central bank. Now let us look at the data first hand. In the following analysis we focus on the nominal Fed funds rate alongside (1) the headline consumer price index and (2) an implied policy rate following a simple Taylor Rule using potential GDP, the core PCE deflator, and the unemployment rate.12 We chose the nominal Fed funds rate and headline consumer price index because they should provide an indication of how the US president and public perceived interest rates and inflation. These factors are critical for the president’s decisions as to whether to reappoint or replace sitting Fed chairmen. However, we also use the Taylor Rule as a proxy for the correct or appropriate policy rate at the time, recognizing that headline CPI is insufficient. We observe the following: Burns worked closely with President Nixon and his tenure has always been controversial. The simple evidence shown here suggests that he accommodated Nixon in 1972 but did not accommodate President Ford’s bid for the presidency in 1976. He might have stayed easy a bit longer than necessary in 1977 ahead of President Carter’s decision on whether to reappoint him (Chart  4).  Chart 4AArthur Burns As Fed Chair Arthur Burns As Fed Chair Arthur Burns As Fed Chair Chart 4BArthur Burns As Fed Chair Arthur Burns As Fed Chair Arthur Burns As Fed Chair Miller’s tenure was marred by stagflation. He did not accommodate the Democrats during the 1978 midterm election and probably could not have done so. Carter promoted him to Treasury Secretary as a way of removing him from the Fed chair. The episode is a reminder that the president can remove the Fed chair – as the best constitutional studies show – but he may need to get creative about how to do it to avoid a political storm (Chart 5). Volcker may have accommodated Carter somewhat but not entirely in 1980. His actions are debatable around Reagan’s election in 1984. But Volcker laid inflation low and his reappointment by Reagan in 1983 makes sense in the context of that triumph (Chart 6).  Chart 5William Miller As Fed Chair William Miller As Fed Chair William Miller As Fed Chair Chart 6Paul Volcker As Fed Chair Paul Volcker As Fed Chair Paul Volcker As Fed Chair Greenspan cannot really be said to have accommodated Bush in 1992 though rates fell. He cracked down on inflation regardless of the 1994 midterm election, which turned out badly for President Clinton and the Democrats. But Clinton did not hold it against him – inflation had been brought down without a recession. Greenspan was tame during Clinton’s reelection bid in 1996 despite rising inflation – he hiked rates immediately thereafter. Clinton reappointed him in the midst of a rate-hike cycle justified by rising inflation, regardless of any risk to the Democratic bid in the 2000 election (Chart 7).   Chart 7AAlan Greenspan As Fed Chair Alan Greenspan As Fed Chair Alan Greenspan As Fed Chair Chart 7BAlan Greenspan As Fed Chair Alan Greenspan As Fed Chair Alan Greenspan As Fed Chair Bernanke’s tenure was dominated by the subprime mortgage crisis and Great Recession. He cannot be said to have accommodated the Republicans in 2008, though they were doomed anyway. President Obama’s decision to reappoint him in 2009 was a clear example of an urgent need to maintain policy continuity. Obama announced his replacement in 2013, after the crisis had passed (Chart 8). Chart 8ABen Bernanke As Fed Chair Ben Bernanke As Fed Chair Ben Bernanke As Fed Chair Chart 8BBen Bernanke As Fed Chair Ben Bernanke As Fed Chair Ben Bernanke As Fed Chair Yellen’s decision to pause hiking interest rates in 2016 is debatable and can be said to have accommodated the Democratic Party that year. She was replaced by President Trump in the midst of a rate-hike cycle justified by conditions (Chart 9). Powell hiked rates four times in 2018 despite the onset of a trade war with China. Powell cannot be said to have accommodated the Republicans in the 2018 midterm election. His behavior in 2020 was dominated by the COVID-19 crisis (Chart 10). Chart 9Janet Yellen As Fed Chair Janet Yellen As Fed Chair Janet Yellen As Fed Chair Chart 10Jerome Powell As Fed Chair Jerome Powell As Fed Chair Jerome Powell As Fed Chair The point is not to claim that politics is the driving factor behind monetary policy but rather to observe the cruxes in which personal and political motivations are at least mixed with technocratic and institutional decisions. Incidentally our observations largely corroborate the relevant academic literature.  If there is one solid rule that emerges from this analysis, it is that Fed chairmen and chairwomen do not accommodate midterm elections. There are no exceptions in the data shown here. If anything they are more hawkish. At the same time, it is true (though sometimes exaggerated) that rate hikes tend to be put on pause during presidential election years. And this tendency is observable not only during times in which a crisis makes rate hikes impossible. Furthermore a close examination of these charts supports the contention that Fed chairs tend to avoid or delay rate hikes prior to the president’s decision whether to reappoint them. There are exceptions but the charts do not disconfirm the hypothesis, which is intuitive because it fits with the central banker’s self-interest.  Biden Faces Zero Risk From A New Chair Or Some Risk From Powell A flat application of the rules of thumb in the previous section would suggest that Powell will push for easier policy than necessary ahead of Biden’s decision whether to reappoint him. It would also suggest that, if reappointed, Powell will not make any special accommodation for the Democrats in the critical 2022 midterms or in 2023. Obviously the reality might work out differently this time. But it is legitimate to suggest that retaining Powell poses a risk to the Democrats’ control of the economy ahead of the 2024 elections, even though we know we will get hate mail for saying it. Investors should not assume that there is a powerful norm in favor of the president’s retaining the sitting Fed chair in the name of continuity and “doing no harm.” The modern period of the Federal Reserve begins with the Fed-Treasury Accord in 1951. There have been seven changes of the Fed chair since that time and three of them occurred because of a change of political party in the White House (Martin to Burns, Burns to Miller/Volcker, and Yellen to Powell). While President Obama retained Bernanke, the reappointment came in early 2009, in the midst of a historic crisis. Biden has much greater flexibility than that today. And while Clinton retained Greenspan, the above analysis suggests that Democrats may warn Biden against doing the same. Most importantly Biden is president at a period of peak polarization in the US, when most of his Democratic Party and the US political establishment believe that democracy itself is at risk of dying at the hands of the Trumpist populism that is overtaking the Republican Party. If this is the view then even marginal risks to Democratic election prospects over the next four years should not be willingly taken. Biden’s dilemma can be illustrated easily by game theory. If he retains Powell he runs some risk of a hawkish surprise, however small, whereas if he replaces Powell he can avoid that risk. Powell regains some individual discretion if he is reappointed and therefore a hawkish surprise cannot be ruled out. The game theory implies that Biden will opt to remove Powell, but obviously that is up to Biden. Note that there is no stable equilibrium as Powell’s decision is shown as data-dependent and indifferent to the outcome (which may not truly be the case) (Diagram 1).   Diagram 1Game Theory: Will The President Reappoint The Fed Chair? Will Biden Re-Appoint Powell? Does It Matter? Will Biden Re-Appoint Powell? Does It Matter? Biden must also choose a replacement for Vice Chair Richard Clarida, whose term expires in January 2022. Later, in June 2023, John Williams’s tenure on the board will expire (Diagram 2). With three new appointments Biden would be able to remake the board both slightly more dovish and considerably more diverse. Diversity and inclusiveness in top government positions are key aspects of Biden’s and the Democrats’ overall agenda.  Diagram 2Biden Could Replace At Least Three Fed Governors Will Biden Re-Appoint Powell? Does It Matter? Will Biden Re-Appoint Powell? Does It Matter? The history of the Fed shows that leaders tend to be captured by the institution. Powell is fully absorbed into the new Fed consensus and his personal legacy depends on executing the new ultra-dovish monetary policy strategy that he himself ushered into being. While Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) has made great strides, it is not easy for Biden to get a true believer confirmed in the Senate. In this sense, it does not matter whether Biden replaces Powell – the result will be largely the same and in line with the Fed’s current policy framework. We have a lot of sympathy with this argument. It emphasizes the checks and balances on the individual policymaker, which is the method we use to analyze US politics. The Fed has given very explicit criteria for lifting rates off the zero lower bound that are tied to specific economic outcomes. They have removed a lot of the discretion from that decision. Anyone qualified to take up the Fed chair would understand that it would be very risky to deviate from that specific guidance: the Fed would lose a lot of credibility. It would have to be a very non-mainstream pick to do that. That is not likely to happen. But again – personalities can matter at inflection points. Some would argue that Biden will not be able to find any credible candidates who can pass Senate confirmation and still be significantly more dovish than Powell (the Senate being divided equally between the two parties). However, Lael Brainard, Raphael Bostic, and Neel Kashkari are all Fed insiders who would be likely to pass the Senate and marginally more dovish than Powell, albeit supporters of the current policy framework. They would also advance the diversity agenda in different ways. They are more likely nominees than other potential candidates (Table 1).   Table 1Potential Successors To Powell As Fed Chair Will Biden Re-Appoint Powell? Does It Matter? Will Biden Re-Appoint Powell? Does It Matter? Note that the focus on inclusiveness is not only about personnel but also about the inclusiveness of the economy and hence it could affect monetary policy decisions. Inclusiveness as well as climate change and inequality are concerns outside of the Fed’s official mandate, where monetary policy will have a limited effect, but any influence of these issues whatsoever would point to dovish surprises. Biden can advance this agenda without legislative change through appointments.   Investment Takeaways The Fed chair appointment is a misleading win-win situation for markets. If Biden retains Powell, it is because Powell has proved thoroughly committed to the Fed’s new ultra-dovish monetary policy strategy, whereas if Biden replaces him, the replacement will be ultra-dovish. However, this win-win is misleading because beyond the near term the Fed will have to normalize policy. The Fed will ultimately remain data-dependent and the rapid closing of the output gap combined with a historic increase in excess money supply will push up inflation and require Fed responses regardless of the future chairman or chairwoman (Chart 11). Our US Bond Strategist Ryan Swift emphasizes that the Fed’s policy framework is very explicit. In order to normalize policy it needs to see inflation above the 2% target, the economy at maximum employment, and a convincing inflation overshoot (Table 2). The first goal is already met, with 12-month PCE inflation above target. An inflation overshoot will necessarily follow from the first goal combined with the second goal. Therefore the focal point for investors should be the second goal, “maximum employment,” i.e. the unemployment rate and labor participation rate (Chart 12). Positive data surprises on the employment front will accelerate the time frame. Chart 11Output Gap To Close Rapidly Output Gap To Close Rapidly Output Gap To Close Rapidly Table 2Checklist For Fed Liftoff Will Biden Re-Appoint Powell? Does It Matter? Will Biden Re-Appoint Powell? Does It Matter? Chart 12Charting The Checklist For Fed Liftoff Charting The Checklist For Fed Liftoff Charting The Checklist For Fed Liftoff For now we remain long TIPS relative to duration-matched nominal Treasuries in expectation of dovish policy surprises. We may modify this trade in the near future. The upside is limited now that ten-year breakevens and five-year/five-year forward breakevens have reached the point where they are consistent with the Fed’s goal of well-anchored inflation expectations. But the above analysis supports this trade. Of course, the Fed’s actions should be taken into context with fiscal policy as well as external events and the US dollar. In the near term we continue to advise a cautious approach given that the US dollar is resting at a critical juncture, around 90 on the DXY. If the dollar breaks down beneath this level then it could fall substantially further. From a macro perspective this is what we would expect given the standing of budget deficit and real interest rates. Today’s historic combination of loose fiscal, loose monetary policy is dollar-bearish (Chart 13). The implication is positive for equities, especially cyclical and value sectors, so we maintain our current positioning.  Chart 13Loose Monetary, Loose Fiscal Policy Threaten The Dollar Loose Monetary, Loose Fiscal Policy Threaten The Dollar Loose Monetary, Loose Fiscal Policy Threaten The Dollar Our sister Geopolitical Strategy highlights China among other foreign policy challenges to the bearish dollar view and global risk appetite. This summer should provide some clarity on whether global policy uncertainty will rise and reinforce the dollar’s floor (Chart 14).     Chart 14Geopolitical Risk And Policy Uncertainty Put Floor Under Dollar? Geopolitical Risk And Policy Uncertainty Put Floor Under Dollar? Geopolitical Risk And Policy Uncertainty Put Floor Under Dollar? Biden is still highly likely to pass an infrastructure bill this year (80% subjective odds). Any failure of bipartisan talks with Republicans will simply result in an all-Democratic bill via budget reconciliation. West Virginia Senator Joe Manchin will not prevent the passage of a bipartisan infrastructure bill and/or Biden’s next reconciliation bill (the American Jobs Plan). Manchin’s current tensions with the Democratic caucus center on the so-called “For The People” voting rights bill and the Senate filibuster, not the question of infrastructure and corporate tax hikes. Indeed Manchin may be forced to accept a higher corporate tax rate than his preferred 25% if he wants to make peace with his party. It is not inconceivable that he could defect from his party – the Republicans lost a 50-seat majority in the Senate this way as recently as 2001. But we have long argued that Manchin will support Biden’s signature legislative achievement. The market may be temporarily disappointed by stimulus hiccups but we view the infrastructure bill as a “buy the rumor, sell the news” dynamic for US cyclicals. While a fiscal policy weak spot will develop late in 2021 and early 2022, after the American Rescue Plan Act’s provisions expire but before new funds arrive from the American Jobs Plan, nevertheless the recovery of the private economy both at home and abroad should provide a bridge. The implication of the above analysis is to stay invested in the stock market and maintain a constructive outlook over the cyclical (12-month) time horizon while exercising near-term caution due to the dollar and geopolitical risk.   Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com   Appendix Table A1USPS Trade Table Will Biden Re-Appoint Powell? Does It Matter? Will Biden Re-Appoint Powell? Does It Matter? Table A2Political Risk Matrix Will Biden Re-Appoint Powell? Does It Matter? Will Biden Re-Appoint Powell? Does It Matter? Table A3Political Capital Index Will Biden Re-Appoint Powell? Does It Matter? Will Biden Re-Appoint Powell? Does It Matter? Table A4APolitical Capital: White House And Congress Will Biden Re-Appoint Powell? Does It Matter? Will Biden Re-Appoint Powell? Does It Matter? Table A4BPolitical Capital: Household And Business Sentiment Will Biden Re-Appoint Powell? Does It Matter? Will Biden Re-Appoint Powell? Does It Matter? Table A4CPolitical Capital: The Economy And Markets Will Biden Re-Appoint Powell? Does It Matter? Will Biden Re-Appoint Powell? Does It Matter?   Footnotes 1     For political monetary cycles see Edward N. Gamber and David R. Hakes, “The Federal Reserve’s response to aggregate demand and aggregate supply shocks: Evidence of a partisan political cycle,” Southern Economic Journal 63:3 (1997), 680-91. For developed versus developing market political monetary cycles, see S. Alpanda and A. Honig, “The impact of central bank independence on political monetary cycles in advanced and developing nations,” Journal of Money, Credit and Banking 41:7 (2009), 1365-1389. 2     In the US, the Fed’s independence rests on dubious constitutional and legal supports but is nevertheless well-established in legal and political practice. See Peter Conti-Brown, “The Institutions of Federal Reserve Independence,” Yale Journal on Regulation 32 (2015), 257-310. 3    Lawrence Bauer and Alex Faseruk, “Understanding Political Pressures, Monetary Policy, and the Independence of the Federal Reserve in the United States from 1960-2019,” Journal of Management Policy and Practice 21:3 (2020), 41-63. 4    Kuttner and Posen (2007) demonstrate that financial markets respond to newsworthy developments with central bankers across the developed world. See footnote 7 below. 5    See Conti-Brown, footnote 2 above. See also Kelly H. Chang, Appointing Central Bankers: The Politics of Monetary Policy in the United States and European Union (Cambridge: CUP, 2003). 6    See Alexander W. Salter and Daniel J. Smith, “Political economists or political economists? The role of political environments in the formation of Fed policy under Burns, Greenspan, and Bernanke,” The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance 71 (2019), 1-13. 7     See Dentler, 241. See also Ellen E. Mead, “The FOMC: Preferences, Voting, and Consensus,” Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Reivew 87:2 (2005), 93-101; Kenneth N. Kuttner and Adam S. Posen, “Do Markets Care Who Chairs the Central Bank?” National Bureau of Economic Research, Working Paper 13101 (May 2007), nber.org.  8    B. A. Abrams and P. Iossifov, “Does the Fed contribute to a political business cycle?” Public Choice 129 (2006), 249-62. 9    Gamber and Hakes, “The Taylor rule and the appointment cycle of the chairperson of the Federal Reserve,” Journal of Economics and Business 58 (2006), 55-66. 10   Alexander Dentler, “Did the Fed raise interest rates before elections?” Public Choice 181 (2019), 239-73. 11    Dentler, 259, characterizes the Fed chairs as follows: “We believe that Martin was more susceptible to political infuences than his colleagues, but he never worked in opposition to a president in our sample period. Neither did Arthur Burns; however, we find him to be a moderating force with respect to ideological biases, though he appears to have been vulnerable to threats regarding his career. We find Volcker to respond more strongly than most other chairs to ideological motives and career incentives. Greenspan, on the other hand, did not fall prey to biased behavior that characterizes the other chairs. Bernanke’s tenure is probably the most difficult to interpret.” 12    Real Potential GDP Growth + Core PCE Deflator + 0.5 * (Core PCE Deflator – 2% Target) - 0.5 * (Unemployment Rate – NAIRU). We prefer real potential GDP to estimates of the real neutral rate because it is simpler and more transparent.  

Highlights Bond Market Performance: Government bonds in the developed economies are currently trapped in ranges, consolidating the sharp upward moves seen in the first quarter of 2021. This is only a pause in the broader cyclical uptrend, however, with central banks under increasing pressure to turn less dovish amid surging inflation and tightening labor markets. Oversold USTs: Technical indicators of yield/price momentum and investor sentiment/positioning suggest that US Treasuries are oversold. Working off this condition can take another 2-3 months, based on an analysis of past oversold episodes. Beyond that, higher yields loom with the Fed starting to prepare the markets for a taper in 2022. Stay underweight Treasuries in global bond portfolios on a cyclical basis. RBA Checklist: Only one of the five components of our “RBA Checklist” – designed to measure the pressures that would force the Reserve Bank of Australia to turn less dovish – is flashing such a signal. We are upgrading our recommended allocation for Australian government bonds to overweight on a tactical (0-6 months) investment horizon. Feature Dear Client, Next week, in lieu of our regularly weekly report, I will be hosting a webcast on Tuesday, June 15 where I will discuss the outlook for global fixed income markets in the second half of 2021. Following that, we will be jointly publishing our bi-annual Global Central Bank Monitor Chartbook with our colleagues at BCA Research Foreign Exchange Strategy on Friday, June 18th. We will return to our regular publishing schedule on Tuesday, June 29th. Best Regards, Rob Robis Chart of the WeekA Tale Of Two Quarters A Summer Nap For Global Bond Yields A Summer Nap For Global Bond Yields The performance of government bond markets in the developed world so far in 2021 has been a tale of two quarters. In Q1, yields were rising steadily on the back of upside surprises in global growth and emerging signs of the biggest inflation upturn seen in nearly a generation. The Bloomberg Barclays Global Treasury index delivered a total return of -2.7% (hedged into US dollars) during the quarter, with no country escaping losses (Chart of the Week). The biggest declines were seen in the UK (-7.5%) the US (-4.3%), with the smallest losses occurring in Japan (-0.3%) and Italy (-0.7%). Chart 2Lower Vol Means High Yielders Outperform Low Yielders Lower Vol Means High Yielders Outperform Low Yielders Lower Vol Means High Yielders Outperform Low Yielders Q2 has been a different story, however. Yields have retreated somewhat from the year-to-date peaks seen at the end of Q1, leading to positive returns so far in Q2 in the UK (+0.8), the US (+1.2%) and Australia (+1.1%). The laggards are the low yielding euro area markets, most notably Italy (-0.7%) and France (-0.9%), that have seen yields move higher on the back of accelerating European growth. The Q2 returns look very much like a carry-driven market, with higher-yielding markets outperforming lower-yielding ones. That trend can persist if the current backdrop of low market volatility persists (Chart 2), although this calm will eventually be broken by a shift towards less dovish monetary policies. Some countries will make that shift at a faster pace than others, leading to relative value opportunities for bond investors in the latter half of 2021. This week, we discuss one such opportunity – Australia versus the US. US Treasuries: Oversold & Trendless – For Now After reaching a 2021 intraday high of 1.77% back on March 30, the benchmark 10-year US Treasury yield has traded in a narrow 15bp range between 1.55% and 1.70%. From a fundamental perspective, US yields are lacking direction because inflation expectations have already made a major upward adjustment to the more inflationary backdrop, but real yields have remained depressed by the continued dovish messaging from the Fed – for now - with regards to the timing of tapering or future rate hikes. From a technical perspective, however, the sideways pattern for US Treasury yields is also consistent for a market that trying to work off an oversold condition. Most of the technical indicators for the US Treasury market that we monitor regularly were at or close to the most bearish/oversold extremes seen since 2000 (Chart 3): Chart 3US Treasuries Are Working Off An Oversold Condition US Treasuries Are Working Off An Oversold Condition US Treasuries Are Working Off An Oversold Condition The 10-year Treasury yield is 39bps above its 200-day moving average, but that gap was as high as 84bps on March 19; The 26-week total return of the 10-year Treasury is -4.7%, after reaching a low of -8.8% on March 19; The JP Morgan client survey of bond managers and traders shows some of the largest underweight duration positioning in the 19-year history of the series; The Market Vane index of sentiment for Treasuries is in the bottom half of the range that has prevailed since 2000; The CFTC data on positioning in 10-year Treasury futures is the only one of our indicators that is not signaling an oversold market, with a small net long position of +3% (scaled by open interest). The overall message of these indicators suggests that price momentum and positioning reached such a bearish extreme by mid-March that some pullback in Treasury yields was inevitable. However, a look back at past periods when Treasuries became heavily oversold since the turn of the century shows that the duration and magnitude of such a pullback is highly variable – anywhere from two months to ten months. The main determining factors are the trends in economic growth and inflation in the US, and the Fed’s expected policy response to both. To show this, we conducted a simple study, updating work we first presented in a 2018 report.1 We looked at “oversold episodes” since 2000, which began when the 10-year Treasury yield was trading at least 50bps above its 200-day moving average. We then defined the end of the oversold episode as simply the point when the 10-year Treasury yield subsequently converged back to its 200-day moving average. We then looked at the length of the episode (in days), and the change in bond yields, for each oversold episode. There were nine such episodes since the year 2000, not counting the current one which has not yet ended. In Table 1, we rank the episodes by the number of days it took to complete each one, based on our simple moving average rule. We also show the change in both the 10-year Treasury yield and its 200-day moving average during each episode, to show how the convergence between the two unfolds. Table 1A Look At Prior Episodes Of An Oversold Treasury Market A Summer Nap For Global Bond Yields A Summer Nap For Global Bond Yields To describe the US economic backdrop during each episode, we looked at the change in the ISM manufacturing index and core PCE inflation during those oversold periods. We also show changes in two important determinants of the level of Treasury yields: inflation expectations using 10-year TIPS breakeven rates, and Fed rate hike expectations using our 12-month Fed discounter which measures the expected change in interest rates - one year ahead - priced into the US overnight index swap (OIS) curve. At the bottom of the table, we show the average for all nine oversold episodes, as well as the averages for the episodes were the ISM was rising and where core PCE inflation was rising. Chart 4US Treasury Market Oversold Episodes: 2003-2007 US Treasury Market Oversold Episodes: 2003-2007 US Treasury Market Oversold Episodes: 2003-2007 There are a few messages gleaned from the results in Table 1: The longest correction of an oversold Treasury market since 2000 took place between February 2018 and December 2018, when 305 days passed before the 10-year yield fell back to its 200-day moving average; The shortest correction was between June 2007 and August 2007, where only 52 days elapsed; Treasury yields typically decline during oversold periods, with two notable exceptions: 2018 and 2013/14, which were also the two longest episodes; During all of the oversold periods, markets reduced the amount of expected Fed tightening by an average of 26bps. However, that was entirely concentrated in four of the nine episodes - including three of the four shortest episodes – and is typically associated with a decline in inflation expectations. Growth momentum appears to be a bigger factor than inflation momentum in determining the length of an oversold episode, with longer episodes typically occurring alongside a rising ISM index, and vice versa. The notable exception was the longest episode in 2018, where the ISM declined by six points, although the bulk of that decline occurred in a single month at the end of the period (November 2018). For the more visually oriented, we present the time series for all the data in Table 1, shaded for the oversold periods, in Chart 4 (for the 2003-2007 period), Chart 5 (2008-2012), Chart 6 (2013-2017) and Chart 7 (2018 to today). We’ve added one additional variable – our Fed Monitor, designed to signal the need for tighter or looser US monetary policy – in the bottom panel of each of those charts. Chart 5US Treasury Market Oversold Episodes: 2008-2012 US Treasury Market Oversold Episodes: 2008-2012 US Treasury Market Oversold Episodes: 2008-2012 Chart 6US Treasury Market Oversold Episodes: 2013-2017 US Treasury Market Oversold Episodes: 2013-2017 US Treasury Market Oversold Episodes: 2013-2017 Chart 7US Treasury Market Oversold Episodes: 2018 To Today US Treasury Market Oversold Episodes: 2018 To Today US Treasury Market Oversold Episodes: 2018 To Today What does this look back tell us about looking ahead? The current episode, at only 105 days old, is still 62 days “younger” than the average oversold period, and 76 days “younger” than the average period where core inflation was rising. This would put the end of the current episode sometime in August. The ISM is essentially unchanged over the current episode so far, making it difficult to draw conclusions based on growth momentum – although the longest episode in 2018 shows that yields can trade sideways for a long time, even in the absence of a big slowing of growth, if the Fed is in a rate hiking cycle. However, the current episode differs dramatically from others in this analysis on two critical fronts. Core inflation has surged 1.6 percentage points since the oversold period began in February, far more than any other episode, while the gap between a rapidly increasing Fed Monitor and a flat 12-month Fed Discounter is also unique among post-2000 oversold periods. In other words, the Treasury market is still vulnerable to a repricing of Fed tightening expectations, especially with positioning and sentiment measures like the Market Vane survey and net futures positioning not yet at fully bearish extremes. Bottom Line: The current oversold condition in the US Treasury market can take another 2-3 months to unwind, based on an analysis of past oversold episodes. Beyond that, higher yields loom with the Fed starting to prepare the markets for a taper in 2022. Stay underweight Treasuries in global bond portfolios on a cyclical basis. RBA Checklist Update: No Case For A Hawkish Turn Yet Australia has been one of the top performing government bond markets within the developed economies, as discussed earlier. This performance has occurred even with strong acceleration of both Australian economic momentum and market-based inflation expectations (Chart 8). Despite our RBA Monitor flashing pressure on the RBA to tighten, and the Australian OIS curve already discounting 48bps of rate hikes over the next two years, Australian bond yields have remained very well behaved during the “calm” second quarter for global fixed income. Chart 8RBA Policies Limiting Rise In Bond Yields RBA Policies Limiting Rise In Bond Yields RBA Policies Limiting Rise In Bond Yields Chart 9RBA Stimulus Takes Many Forms RBA Stimulus Takes Many Forms RBA Stimulus Takes Many Forms The continued dovish messaging from the Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) is the main reason for the solid Australia bond performance. The central bank is signaling no imminent shift in its combination of 0.1% nominal policy rates, deeply negative real rates, yield curve control on 3-year bonds and quantitative easing on longer-maturity bonds (Chart 9). Other central banks are starting to inch towards reining in the massive monetary accommodation of the past year. Could the RBA be next? In a Special Report published back in January of this year, we outlined a list of variables to watch to determine when the Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) could be expected to turn less dovish.2 This checklist would also inform our country allocation view on Australian government bonds, which has remained neutral. A quick update on the latest readings from the RBA Checklist shows little pressure on the RBA to begin preparing markets for tighter monetary policy. 1. The vaccination process goes quickly and smoothly We are NOT placing a checkmark next to this part of our RBA Checklist. Australia has weathered COVID-19 far better than most other Western countries in terms of actual cases and deaths, but the vaccine rollout Down Under has been underwhelming. Only 16% of the population has received at least one vaccine jab, while a mere 2% is fully vaccinated. These are numbers that are more comparable to pandemic-ravaged emerging market countries like India and Brazil where access to vaccines is an issue (Chart 10). Chart 10A Slow Vaccine Rollout Down Under A Summer Nap For Global Bond Yields A Summer Nap For Global Bond Yields The slow vaccine rollout is less worrisome in light of the Australian government having secured enough vaccine doses to inoculate the entire population, and with the domestic economy facing limited remaining COVID-19 restrictions. The issue has been distribution and that is now occurring at a quickening pace. Until a much greater share of the population is vaccinated, however, Australia will continue to maintain aggressive COVID-related international travel restrictions – the government just announced that borders will remain shut until mid-2022 - that will be a major drag on the economically-important tourism sector. 2. Private sector demand accelerates alongside fiscal stimulus (✔) We ARE placing a checkmark next to this part of our RBA Checklist. Australia’s fiscal stimulus in response to the pandemic was one of the largest in the developed world. The stimulus was heavily focused on wage subsidies and income support measures like the JobSeeker program, which expired back in March. As the expensive stimulus programs are unwound, it is critical that the domestic economy can stand on its own without support. On that front, the news is good. Australia’s economy grew by 1.8% during Q1/2021, lifting the level of real GDP above the pre-pandemic peak (Chart 11). Both consumer spending and business investment posted solid growth during the quarter, fueled by surging confidence with the NAB business outlook measure hitting a record high in May (bottom panel). As a sign that the domestic economy is benefitting from a return to pre-pandemic habits, Q1 saw a 15% increase in spending in hotels, cafes and restaurants. That strength looked to extend into the Q2, with retail sales rising 1.1% in April, suggesting that Australian domestic demand is enjoying strong upward momentum. Chart 11A Confidence-Led Recovery In Domestic Demand A Confidence-Led Recovery In Domestic Demand A Confidence-Led Recovery In Domestic Demand Chart 12China Is A Drag On Australian Exports China Is A Drag On Australian Exports China Is A Drag On Australian Exports 3. China reins in policy stimulus by less than expected We are NOT placing a checkmark next to this part of our RBA Checklist. China is by far Australia’s largest trading partner, so Chinese demand is always an important contributor to Australian economic growth. This is why we included a China element in our RBA Checklist. Specifically, we deemed the outcome that would potentially turn the RBA more hawkish would be Chinese policymakers pulling back monetary and fiscal stimulus by less than expected in 2021 after the big policy support in 2020. The combined fiscal and credit impulse for China has already slowed by 9% of GDP since December 2020, signaling a meaningful cooling of Chinese growth in the latter half of 2021 that should weigh on demand for imports from Australia (Chart 12). However, Chinese import demand has already been severely impacted because of worsening China-Australia political tensions, which has led Beijing to impose restrictions on Australian imports for a variety of products, include coal, wine, beef, barley and cotton. The result is that there has been no growth in Australian total exports to China over the past year – an outcome that was flattered by the surge in iron ore prices - which has weighed on overall Australian export growth. Given this weak starting point for Chinese demand for Australian goods, the sharp reduction in the China stimulus is, on the margin, a factor that will not force the RBA to turn less dovish sooner than expected. 4. Inflation, both realized and expected, returns to the RBA’s 2-3% target We are NOT placing a checkmark next to this part of our RBA Checklist. Australian inflation remains well below the RBA’s 2-3% target range, with the headline CPI and the less volatile trimmed mean CPI both expanding at only a 1.1% annual rate in Q1/2021 (Chart 13). The RBA is forecasting a brief boost to both measures in Q2, before settling back below 2% to the end of 2022. Chart 13No Bond-Bearish RBA Policy Shift Without More Inflation No Bond-Bearish RBA Policy Shift Without More Inflation No Bond-Bearish RBA Policy Shift Without More Inflation Chart 14Diminishing Financial Stability Risks From Housing Diminishing Financial Stability Risks From Housing Diminishing Financial Stability Risks From Housing The RBA’s message on the inflation outlook has been very consistent. A sustainable move of realized inflation back to the 2-3% target range – that would prompt a normalization of monetary policy – cannot occur without a significant tightening of labor markets that drives wage growth back to 3% from the Q1/2021 reading of 1.5%. The RBA currently does not expect that outcome to occur before 2024. The RBA believes that the full employment NAIRU is between 4-4.5%, well below the OECD’s latest estimate of 5.4%. Given the sharp drop in Australian unemployment already seen over the past few quarters, there is the potential for an upside surprise in the wage data that could lead the RBA to change its policy bias. The central bank would need to see a few quarters of such wage surprises, however, before altering its forward guidance on the timing of future rate hikes. 5. House price inflation begins to accelerate We are NOT placing a checkmark next to this part of our RBA Checklist. Given Australia’s past history with periods of surging home values, signs that housing markets were overheating could prompt the RBA to consider tighten monetary policy. The annual growth of median house prices has dipped from +8% in Q1 2020 to +4% in Q4 2020, despite robust housing demand as evidenced by the 40% growth in building approvals. At the same time, housing valuations have become less stretched with the ratio of median home prices to median household incomes falling -9% from the 2017 peak according to data from the OECD (Chart 14). The RBA remains sensitive to the potential financial stability risks from overvalued housing. The latest trends in the house price data, however, suggest that the central bank does not yet to have the use the blunt tool of tighter monetary policy to cool off an overheated housing market. Chart 15Upgrade Australia To Overweight (Vs. USTs) Upgrade Australia To Overweight (Vs. USTs) Upgrade Australia To Overweight (Vs. USTs) In sum, the majority of items in our RBA Checklist are signaling no immediate pressure on the central bank to tighten policy. The first 25bp rate hike is not discounted in the Australian OIS curve until April 2023, a little ahead of RBA guidance but still consistent with a very dovish policy bias. The inflation data, in our view, will be the critical factor that could prompt the markets to pull forward expected monetary tightening, leading to a surge in Australian bond yields. With the RBA already expecting a surge in inflation in the Q2/2020 data, the central bank would likely want to see at least a couple of more quarterly inflation prints – both for the CPI and wage price index - before signaling a more hawkish policy shift. Thus, the RBA will likely stay dovish over the latter half of 2021 Therefore, we are moving to an overweight recommended stance on Australian government bonds on a tactical (0-6 months) basis. In our model bond portfolio on pages 16-17, we are “funding” that shift to an above-benchmark weighting in Australia out of US Treasury exposure. Given our view that the Fed will soon begin to signal a 2022 taper of its asset purchases, relative policy dovishness should lead Australian government bonds to outperform US Treasuries in the latter half of this year. In addition, Australian bonds have a lower yield beta to changes in US Treasury yields, relative to the high beta to changes in non-US developed market yields (Chart 15), making allocations out of the US into Australia attractive from a risk management perspective in a global bond portfolio. Bottom Line: Only one of the five components of our “RBA Checklist” – designed to measure the pressures that would force the Reserve Bank of Australia to turn less dovish – is flashing such a signal. We are upgrading our recommended allocation to Australian government bonds to overweight on a tactical investment horizon.   Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 See BCA Research Global Fixed Income Strategy Report, "Bond Markets Are Suffering Withdrawal Symptoms", dated March 20, 2018. 2 See BCA Research Global Fixed Income Strategy/Foreign Exchange Strategy Special Report, "Australia: Regime Change For Bond Yields & The Currency?", dated January 20, 2021. Recommendations The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index A Summer Nap For Global Bond Yields A Summer Nap For Global Bond Yields Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

Highlights Chart 1Tracking Nonfarm Payrolls Tracking Nonfarm Payrolls Tracking Nonfarm Payrolls With 12-month PCE inflation already above the Fed’s 2% target, it is progress toward the Fed’s “maximum employment” goal that will determine both the timing of Fed liftoff and whether bond yields rise or fall. On that note, the bond market is currently priced for Fed liftoff in early 2023. We also calculate that average monthly nonfarm payroll growth of between 378k and 462k is required to meet the Fed’s “maximum employment” goal by the end of 2022, in time for an early-2023 rate hike. It follows from this analysis that any monthly employment print above +462k should be considered bond-bearish and any print below +378k should be considered bond-bullish (Chart 1). In that light, May’s +559k print is bond-bearish, and we anticipate further bond-bearish employment reports in the coming months as COVID fears fade and people return to a labor market that is already awash with demand. Investors should maintain below-benchmark portfolio duration in US bond portfolios and also continue to favor spread product over duration-matched Treasuries. Feature Table 1Recommended Portfolio Specification It’s All About Employment It’s All About Employment Table 2Fixed Income Sector Performance It’s All About Employment It’s All About Employment Investment Grade: Neutral Chart 2Investment Grade Market Overview Investment Grade Market Overview Investment Grade Market Overview Investment grade corporate bonds outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 47 basis points in May, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +159 bps. The combination of above-trend economic growth and accommodative monetary policy supports positive excess returns for spread product versus Treasuries. At 142 bps, the 2/10 Treasury slope is very steep and the 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rate sits at 2.27% - almost, but not quite, within the 2.3% to 2.5% range that the Fed considers “well anchored”.1 The message from these two indicators is that the Fed is not yet ready for monetary conditions to turn restrictive. Despite the positive macro back-drop, investment grade corporate valuations are extremely tight. The investment grade corporate index’s 12-month breakeven spread is almost at its lowest since 1995 (Chart 2). Though we retain a positive view of spread product as a whole, tight valuations cause us to recommend only a neutral allocation to investment grade corporates. We prefer high-yield corporates, municipal bonds and USD-denominated Emerging Market Sovereigns. Last week, the Fed announced that it will wind down its corporate bond portfolio over the coming months. The corporate bond purchase facility has not been operational since December 2020, meaning that the corporate bond market has been functioning without an explicit Fed back-stop for all of 2021. The portfolio itself is also quite small compared to the size of the corporate bond market. As a result, we anticipate no material impact on spreads. Table 3ACorporate Sector Relative Valuation And Recommended Allocation* It’s All About Employment It’s All About Employment Table 3BCorporate Sector Risk Vs. Reward* It’s All About Employment It’s All About Employment High-Yield: Overweight Chart 3High-Yield Market Overview High-Yield Market Overview High-Yield Market Overview High-Yield outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 8 basis points in May, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +343 bps. In a recent report, we looked at the default expectations that are currently priced into the junk index and considered whether they are likely to be met.2 If we demand an excess spread of 100 bps and assume a 40% recovery rate on defaulted debt, then the High-Yield index embeds an expected default rate of 3.3% (Chart 3). Using a model of the speculative grade default rate that is based on gross corporate leverage (pre-tax profits over total debt) and C&I lending standards, we can estimate a likely default rate for the next 12 months using assumptions for profit and debt growth. The median FOMC forecast of 6.5% real GDP growth in 2021 is consistent with 31% corporate profit growth. We also assume that last year’s corporate debt binge will moderate in 2021. According to our model, 30% profit growth and 2% debt growth is consistent with a default rate of 3.4%, very close to what is priced into junk spreads. Given that the large amount of fiscal stimulus coming down the pike makes the Fed’s 6.5% real GDP growth forecast look conservative, and the fact that the combination of strong economic growth and accommodative monetary policy could easily cause valuations to overshoot in the near-term, we are inclined to maintain an overweight allocation to High-Yield bonds. MBS: Underweight Chart 4MBS Market Overview MBS Market Overview MBS Market Overview Mortgage-Backed Securities underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 36 basis points in May, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to -9 bps. The nominal spread between conventional 30-year MBS and equivalent-duration Treasuries widened 7 bps in May. The spread remains wide compared to recent history, but it is still tight compared to the pace of mortgage refinancings (Chart 4). The conventional 30-year MBS option-adjusted spread (OAS) currently sits at 24 bps. This is considerably below the 51 bps offered by Aa-rated corporate bonds and the 27 bps offered by Agency CMBS. It is only slightly more than the 18 bps offered by Aaa-rated consumer ABS. All in all, value in MBS is not appealing compared to other similarly risky sectors. In a recent report, we looked at MBS performance and valuation across the coupon stack.3 We noted that the higher convexity of high-coupon MBS makes them likely to outperform lower-coupon MBS in a rising yield environment. Higher coupon MBS also have greater OAS than lower coupons. This makes the high-coupon MBS more likely to outperform in a flat bond yield environment as well. Given our view that bond yields will be flat-to-higher during the next 6-12 months, we recommend favoring high coupons over low coupons within an overall underweight allocation to Agency MBS. Government-Related: Neutral Chart 5Government-Related Market Overview Government-Related Market Overview Government-Related Market Overview The Government-Related index outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 15 basis points in May, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +87 bps (Chart 5). Sovereign debt outperformed duration-equivalent Treasuries by 32 bps in May, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +53 bps. Foreign Agencies outperformed the Treasury benchmark by 2 bps on the month, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +37 bps. Local Authority bonds outperformed by 30 bps in May, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +360 bps. Domestic Agency bonds and Supranationals both outperformed by 8 bps, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +27 bps and +24 bps, respectively. We recently took a detailed look at USD-denominated Emerging Market (EM) Sovereign valuation.4 We found that, on an equivalent-duration basis, EM Sovereigns offer a spread advantage over investment grade US corporates. Attractive countries include: Qatar, UAE, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, Mexico, Russia and Colombia. We prefer US corporates over EM Sovereigns in the high-yield space where there is still some value left in US corporate spreads and where the EM space is dominated by distressed credits like Turkey and Argentina. Municipal Bonds: Overweight Chart 6Municipal Market Overview Municipal Market Overview Municipal Market Overview Municipal bonds underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 21 basis points in May, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to +286 bps (before adjusting for the tax advantage). We took a detailed look at municipal bond performance and valuation in a recent report and came to the following conclusions.5 First, the economic and policy back-drop is favorable for municipal bond performance. The recently enacted American Rescue Plan includes $350 billion of funding for state & local governments, a bailout that comes after state & local government revenues already exceeded expenditures in 2020 (Chart 6). President Biden has also proposed increasing income tax rates. However, there may not be time to pass these tax hikes before the 2022 midterm elections. Second, Aaa-rated municipal bonds look expensive relative to Treasuries (top panel). Muni investors should move down in quality to pick up additional yield. Third, General Obligation (GO) and Revenue munis offer better value than investment grade corporates with the same credit rating and duration, particularly at the long-end of the curve. Revenue munis in the 12-17 year maturity bucket offer a before-tax yield pick-up versus corporates. GO munis offer a breakeven tax rate of just 7% (panel 2). Fourth, taxable munis offer a yield advantage over investment grade corporates that investors should take advantage of (panel 3). Finally, high-yield muni spreads are reasonably attractive relative to high-yield corporates, offering a breakeven tax rate of 22% (panel 4). But despite the attractive spread, we recommend only a neutral allocation to high-yield munis versus high-yield corporates as the deep negative convexity of high-yield munis makes them prone to extension risk if bond yields gap higher. Treasury Curve: Buy 5-Year Bullet Versus 2/30 Barbell Chart 7Treasury Yield Curve Overview Treasury Yield Curve Overview Treasury Yield Curve Overview Treasury yields fell in May, with the 5-10 year part of the curve benefiting the most. The 7-year yield fell 8 bps in May while the 5-year and 10-year yields both fell 7 bps. Yield declines were smaller for shorter (< 5-year) and longer (> 10-year) maturities. The 2/10 Treasury slope flattened 5 bps to end the month at 144 bps. The 5/30 Treasury slope steepened 3 bps to end the month at 147 bps (Chart 7). We recently changed our recommended yield curve position from a 5 over 2/10 butterfly to a 5 over 2/30 butterfly.6 In making the switch we noted that the slope of the Treasury curve has behaved differently since bond yields peaked in early April. Prior to April, the rise in bond yields was concentrated at the very long-end (10-year +) of the curve. During the past two months, the belly of the curve (5-7 years) has seen more volatility. We conclude that we are now close enough to an expected Fed liftoff date that further significant increases in yields will be met with a flatter curve beyond the 5-year maturity point and that the 5-year and 7-year notes are likely to benefit the most if bond yields dip. We also observe an exceptional yield pick-up of +33 bps in the 5-year bullet over a duration-matched 2/30 barbell. Given our view that bond yields will be flat-to-higher during the next 6-12 months, we recommend buying the 5-year bullet over a duration-matched 2/30 barbell to take advantage of the strong positive carry in a flat yield environment, and as a hedge against our below-benchmark portfolio duration stance. TIPS: Neutral Chart 8TIPS Market Overview TIPS Market Overview TIPS Market Overview TIPS outperformed the duration-equivalent nominal Treasury index by 86 basis points in May, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +484 bps. The 10-year and 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rates rose 1 bp and 2 bps on the month, respectively. At 2.42%, the 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate is near the top-end of the 2.3% to 2.5% range that is consistent with inflation expectations being well anchored around the Fed’s target (Chart 8). Meanwhile, at 2.27%, the 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rate is just below the target band (panel 3). With long-maturity breakevens already consistent (or close to consistent) with the Fed’s target, they have limited upside going forward. The Fed has so far welcomed rising TIPS breakeven inflation rates, but it will have an increasing incentive to lean against them if they continue to move up. We also think that the market has priced-in an overly aggressive inflation outlook at the front-end of the curve. The 1-year and 2-year CPI swap rates stand at 3.76% and 3.12%, respectively. There is a good chance that these lofty inflation expectations will not be confirmed by the actual data. With all that in mind, investors should maintain a neutral allocation to TIPS versus nominal Treasuries and also a neutral posture towards the inflation curve (panel 4). The inflation curve could steepen somewhat in the near-term if short-maturity inflation expectations moderate, but we expect the curve to remain inverted for a long time yet. An inverted inflation curve is more consistent with the Fed’s Average Inflation Target than a positively sloped one, and it should be considered the natural state of affairs moving forward. ABS: Overweight Chart 9ABS Market Overview ABS Market Overview ABS Market Overview Asset-Backed Securities outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 13 basis points in May, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +33 bps. Aaa-rated ABS outperformed by 13 bps on the month, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +26 bps. Non-Aaa ABS outperformed by 12 bps on the month, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +70 bps. The stimulus from last year’s CARES act led to a significant increase in household savings when individual checks were mailed in April 2020. This excess savings has still not been spent and, already, the most recent round of stimulus checks is pushing the savings rate higher again (Chart 9). The extraordinarily large stock of household savings means that the collateral quality of consumer ABS is also extraordinarily high. Indeed, many households have been using their windfalls to pay down consumer debt (bottom panel). Investors should remain overweight consumer ABS and should also take advantage of the high quality of household balance sheets by moving down the quality spectrum.     Non-Agency CMBS: Neutral Chart 10CMBS Market Overview CMBS Market Overview CMBS Market Overview Non-Agency Commercial Mortgage-Backed Securities outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 41 basis points in May, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +163 bps. Aaa Non-Agency CMBS outperformed Treasuries by 27 bps in May, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +78 bps. Non-Aaa Non-Agency CMBS outperformed by 84 bps, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +453 bps (Chart 10). Though returns have been strong and spreads remain attractive, particularly for lower-rated CMBS, we continue to recommend only a neutral allocation to the sector because of the structurally challenging environment for commercial real estate. Even with the economic recovery well underway, commercial real estate loan demand continues to weaken and banks are not making lending standards more accommodative (panels 3 & 4). Agency CMBS: Overweight Agency CMBS outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 37 basis points in May, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +125 bps. The average index option-adjusted spread tightened 7 bps on the month and it currently sits at 27 bps (bottom panel). Though Agency CMBS spreads have completely recovered their pre-COVID levels, they still look attractive compared to other similarly risky spread products. Stay overweight. Appendix A: Butterfly Strategy Valuations The following tables present the current read-outs from our butterfly spread models. We use these models to identify opportunities to take duration-neutral positions across the Treasury curve. The following two Special Reports explain the models in more detail: US Bond Strategy Special Report, “Bullets, Barbells And Butterflies”, dated July 25, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com US Bond Strategy Special Report, “More Bullets, Barbells And Butterflies”, dated May 15, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Table 4 shows the raw residuals from each model. A positive value indicates that the bullet is cheap relative to the duration-matched barbell. A negative value indicates that the barbell is cheap relative to the bullet. Table 4Butterfly Strategy Valuation: Raw Residuals In Basis Points (As Of May 28TH, 2021) It’s All About Employment It’s All About Employment Table 5 scales the raw residuals in Table 4 by their historical means and standard deviations. This facilitates comparison between the different butterfly spreads. Table 5Butterfly Strategy Valuation: Standardized Residuals (As Of May 28TH, 2021) It’s All About Employment It’s All About Employment Table 6 flips the models on their heads. It shows the change in the slope between the two barbell maturities that must be realized during the next six months to make returns between the bullet and barbell equal. For example, a reading of 57 bps in the 5 over 2/10 cell means that we would only expect the 5-year to outperform the 2/10 if the 2/10 slope steepens by more than 57 bps during the next six months. Otherwise, we would expect the 2/10 barbell to outperform the 5-year bullet. Table 6Discounted Slope Change During Next 6 Months (BPs) It’s All About Employment It’s All About Employment Appendix B: Excess Return Bond Map The Excess Return Bond Map is used to assess the relative risk/reward trade-off between different sectors of the US bond market. It is a purely computational exercise and does not impose any macroeconomic view. The Map’s vertical axis shows 12-month expected excess returns. These are proxied by each sector’s option-adjusted spread. Sectors plotting further toward the top of the Map have higher expected returns and vice-versa. Our novel risk measure called the “Risk Of Losing 100 bps” is shown on the Map’s horizontal axis. To calculate it, we first compute the spread widening required on a 12-month horizon for each sector to lose 100 bps or more relative to a duration-matched position in Treasury securities. Then, we divide that amount of spread widening by each sector’s historical spread volatility. The end result is the number of standard deviations of 12-month spread widening required for each sector to lose 100 bps or more versus a position in Treasuries. Lower risk sectors plot further to the right of the Map, and higher risk sectors plot further to the left. Chart 11Excess Return Bond Map (As Of May 28TH, 2021) It’s All About Employment It’s All About Employment Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 For further discussion of how we assess the state of monetary policy vis-à-vis spread product please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Lower For Longer, Then Faster Than You Think”, dated May 25, 2021. 2 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “That Uneasy Feeling”, dated March 30, 2021. 3 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “A New Conundrum”, dated April 20, 2021. 4 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Searching For Value In Spread Product”, dated January 26, 2021. 5 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Making Money In Municipal Bonds”, dated April 27, 2021. 6 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Entering A New Yield Curve Regime”, dated May 11, 2021.

Highlights The Norwegian economy will continue to grow above trend for the next two years or so. Norwegian inflation will firm up. Among Advanced Economies, the Norges Bank will lead the way in terms of policy tightening; however, money markets already embed this view. Nonetheless, the Norwegian krone remains an appealing value play, a result of its pronounced pro-cyclicality. USD/NOK and EUR/NOK will depreciate over the next 24 months. Norwegian equities face structural headwinds, but they should outperform their US and Euro Area counterparts. However, Norwegian stocks will lag behind Swedish equities. Buy Norwegian stocks / sell Dutch ones. Feature Norway remains an example of how to handle the pandemic successfully. Since the onset of the COVID-19 crisis, Norway has registered the lowest rate of infections per capita, in part aided by its early decision to close its borders. Fiscal stimulus was prompt and finely tailored to the sectors most in need of emergency funds. Moreover, the Norges Bank cut interest rates to zero for the first time since its founding in 1816. As nations across the world coordinated monetary and fiscal accommodation during the pandemic, Nordic economies had already mastered this paradigm. Thus, counter-cyclical buffers worked like a charm in Norway. For example, the contraction in Norwegian GDP was the most subdued within the G10, and the recovery is also impressive. Today, Norwegian GDP is 2% above pre-pandemic levels, inflation is near the target rate of 2%, and the central bank will be among the first to lift interest rates. In this Special Report, we explore whether or not conditions remain ripe for strong performances by both Norwegian equities and the NOK. In our view, the global environment and the continued economic strength of Norway will create potent tailwind for Norwegian assets over the coming two years or so. A Robust Economic Outlook The Norwegian economy is set to continue growing at a robust above-trend pace and inflation will remain above the Norges Bank’s target. The Pandemic Norway has moved largely beyond the COVID-19 pandemic. The number of cases per 100 is a mere 2, which compares favorably to the US at 10, Germany at 4, France at 8, or its neighbor Sweden at 10. Norway closed its borders on March 12, 2020, to limit the entry of the virus on its territory, as health authorities opted for rapid containment measures. As a direct result of these policies, Norwegian consumers and workers gained greater peace of mind in their day-to-day dealings, and economic activity recovered rapidly. This process led to Norway’s GDP contracting by only 4.6% in Q2 2020, which compares favorably to contractions of 19.5% in the UK, 9.7% in Germany and 7.8% in Sweden. Norway’s vaccination campaign is also gaining momentum. At first, the country’s inoculation performance lagged. However, Norwegian procurement of vaccines has improved, and the pace of inoculation is accelerating (Chart 1, top panel). The result is that the share of the population that is fully vaccinated is inching toward 20% and accelerating. Authorities expect greater relaxation of containment measures this summer, which will allow mobility to improve (Chart 2). The local service sector will therefore receive a welcome fillip. Chart 1Norway's Vaccination Progress Norway's Vaccination Progress Norway's Vaccination Progress Chart 2Mobility Will Pick Up Mobility Will Pick Up Mobility Will Pick Up   Fiscal Policy Fiscal policy remains an important complement to national health directives. During the crisis, the fiscal deficit reached 3.4% of GDP, which generated a fiscal thrust of 6% of GDP. Moreover, the drawdown from the Norwegian Oil Fund amounted to 12.5% of GDP. These provided targeted supports to industries, such as tourism and transport, while a furlough scheme protected household income. Thus, these programs effectively alleviated the pain on the sectors of the economy most affected by the pandemic. Going forward, Norway will also suffer from one of the smallest fiscal drag in the G10 for the remainder of 2021 and 2022 (Chart 3). Chart 3Norway's Advantageous Fiscal Backdrop Norway's Advantageous Fiscal Backdrop Norway's Advantageous Fiscal Backdrop The Banking System The credit channel in Norway remains open and fluid, as a resilient banking system withstood the economic fallout from the pandemic. According to the Norges Bank, credit losses have been limited; they peaked at 1% of lending and are already declining. Additionally, banks have restricted exposure to the sectors hardest hit by the pandemic, such as travel and tourism, personal services, and transport (Chart 4). Moreover, the profitability of the banking system decreased, as global yields fell last year, but RoE remains around 10% and net interest margins hover near 2.5% and 1.5% for non-financial corporate loans and households lending, respectively. Crucially, the Norwegian banking system sports a regulatory Tier-1 capital-to-risk weighted-assets ratio of 20%, well above Basel III criteria or that of the Eurozone banks (Chart 4, bottom panel). Chart 4Norwegian Banks Are Faring Well The Norwegian Method The Norwegian Method Household Consumption Household consumption will remain a source of strength over the coming quarters. Household net worth is growing robustly as a result of the rapid appreciation of house prices across the country (Chart 5, top panel). Moreover, the share of debt held by households with a high debt-to-income ratio or a low debt-servicing capacity remains low, which suggests household balance sheets are firming (Chart 5, middle panel). Employment is also recovering well. After peaking at 9.5% in March 2020, the headline unemployment rate fell to 3.3% last month (Chart 5, bottom panel). Meanwhile, the number of employed workers bottomed in July 2020 and has been steadily recovering ever since. The only blemish is that, as of Q4 2020, the rate of underemployment among the prime-age population remains at 3.5%, which is somewhat elevated by national standards. This balance sheet and employment backdrop confirms the Norges Bank’s projection: the household savings rate will decline significantly over the coming two years (Chart 6, top panel). Hence, the marked pick-up in consumer confidence should translate into a major recovery in real consumption growth (Chart 6, bottom panel). Nonetheless, the service sector will likely be the main beneficiary of this improvement, as real retail sales are already well above their historical trend Chart 5Positive Household Fundamentals Positive Household Fundamentals Positive Household Fundamentals Chart 6Consumption Will Improve Further Consumption Will Improve Further Consumption Will Improve Further   Net Exports Chart 7Years Of Underinvestment In Oil & Gas The Norwegian Method The Norwegian Method The external sector will create another tailwind for the Norwegian economy. Prior to the pandemic, 71% of Norway’s exports flowed to Europe. Moreover, oil and gas represented 53% of shipments, and cyclically sensitive exports amounted to 74% of total or 24% of GDP. Thus, even if China’s economy slows, Europe’s economic re-opening will raise the Norwegian trade balance, which sits near a multi-decade low.1 Moreover, greater mobility in Europe and around the world will elevate demand for petroleum. In light of the tepid pace of investment in global oil and gas extraction over the past five years, our commodity strategists forecast further oil and gas price appreciation2 (Chart 7), which will boost Norway’s terms of trade. The national income will therefore expand smartly, especially because oil and gas shipments will increase thanks to growing production from the new Johan Sverdrup field. Capital Spending This context suggests that capital spending, which accounts for 26% of Norway’s output (Chart 8), will constitute an important tailwind to domestic activity. Capex is even more important to the Norwegian economy than it is for other Nordic economies or even Germany (Chart 9). Chart 8Capital Spending Is Important For Norway Capital Spending Is Important For Norway Capital Spending Is Important For Norway Chart 9The Capex Share Of GDP Is Higher In Norway The Capex Share Of GDP Is Higher In Norway The Capex Share Of GDP Is Higher In Norway Norwegian capex is highly cyclical. Capital formation tracks our BCA Global Nowcast indicator (a combination of high-frequency economic and financial variables that proxy the global industrial cycle), as well as the domestic manufacturing PMI. These indicators suggest that capex should increase by 10-15% in the coming quarters (Chart 10). A Norges Bank survey of capex intentions, which are firming, corroborates this view. Chart 10Capex Will Recover Strongly Capex Will Recover Capex Will Recover Strongly Capex Will Recover Capex Will Recover Strongly Capex Will Recover On the energy front, the new Johan Sverdrup oil and gas discovery marks a major turnaround in capital spending for Norway. According to the Norges Bank, real petroleum investment will increase from approximately NOK 175bn in 2021 to NOK 198bn by 2024 (Chart 11). Moreover, years of global underinvestment in oil extraction suggests Norway will gain market share in exports as production accelerates. Total petroleum production is slated to increase by 10% over the next 4 years. More importantly, by 2025, over 50% of production from Norwegian oil fields will be natural gas and associated liquids (Chart 12). Demand for natural gas and NGLs will be more inelastic than demand for crude because the latter is threatened by the rising electrification of vehicles, while the former faces more sustainable demand as China, among others, moves to replace its coal polluting plants with cleaner alternatives. Chart 11Real Petroleum Investment Will Increase By 13% In 2024 The Norwegian Method The Norwegian Method Chart 12Gas Production Is Rising In Importance The Norwegian Method The Norwegian Method Inflation This positive economic outlook suggests that Norwegian inflation will remain above the central bank’s target of 2%. Already, headline CPI stands at 3%. Meanwhile, core inflation is at 2%, but it is decelerating. However, this slowdown should be temporary. According to a Norges Bank survey, both long-term and near-term inflation expectations among economists, business leaders, and households are rising, which indicates that a deflationary mentality has not taken root in Norway. Moreover, wage expectations have quickly normalized following the trauma of 2020 (Chart 13). Capacity constraints further reinforce the notion that inflation has upside. The Norges Bank Regional Network survey shows that capacity and labor supply constraints are tighter than they were in the 2014 to 2017 period, when inflation averaged 2.3% and the policy rate fell to 0.5% (Chart 14). Moreover, according to the same survey, selling prices are also stronger than they were during the 2016 oil collapse (Chart 14, bottom panel) Chart 13No Signs Of A Deflation Mentality No Signs Of A Deflation Mentality No Signs Of A Deflation Mentality Chart 14Capacity Doesn’t Point To Falling Inflation The Norwegian Method The Norwegian Method Bottom Line: The Norwegian economy will continue to grow above its trend rate of 1.5%, at least through to 2022. The acceleration in vaccination numbers will allow a reopening of the economy, while the fiscal drag will be limited and the banking system remains resilient. The outlook for households remains positive and employment is firming, which will lead to stronger consumption. Meanwhile, exports and capex have significant upside ahead. As a result, we anticipate Norwegian inflation will remain above target for the foreseeable future. The Norges Bank Will Lead The Pack The Norges Bank’s response to the pandemic was swift and all encompassing: It cut interest rates in the spring of 2020 from 1.5% to zero, the lowest level since the formation of the bank in 1816. It set up extraordinary F-loans at very generous interest rates, to provide ample liquidity to commercial banks. The longest maturity loan of 12 months had a prevailing interest rate of just 30 basis points. It also relaxed collateral requirements for these loans. It introduced swap lines with the Federal Reserve to provide US dollar funding to Norwegian firms. Since then, our Norges Bank monitor has rebounded powerfully from very depressed levels, which suggests that emergency policy settings have become unnecessary. Moreover, the Norwegian Central Bank Monitor towers above that of other G10 countries, which indicates that the Norges Bank should lead the pack in normalizing policy rates (Chart 15). Chart 15The Norges Bank Should Lead The Tightening Cycle The Norges Bank Should Lead The Tightening Cycle The Norges Bank Should Lead The Tightening Cycle Chart 16The Growth Component Of Our Monitor Has Exploded Higher The Growth Component Of Our Monitor Has Exploded Higher The Growth Component Of Our Monitor Has Exploded Higher The Growth Component Of Our Monitor Has Exploded Higher The Growth Component Of Our Monitor Has Exploded Higher The biggest improvement in our Norges Bank Monitor comes from its growth component, which has surged to its highest levels in over two decades. This improvement surpasses those that followed the global financial crisis and the burst of the dot-com bubble (Chart 16). In essence, the growth component of the Monitor signals that the Norwegian economy has achieved escape velocity. Norway’s robust economic turnover is increasing the velocity of money, which points to the need for higher interest rates. Money velocity can be regarded as the equilibrating mechanism between money supply and nominal output, from the classical Fisher equation MV=PQ (where M is the money supply, P is prices, Q is real output, and V is money velocity). Thus, rising money velocity (when PQ expands faster than M) signifies that the economy needs higher interest rates to encourage savings. In Norway’s case, the velocity of money is surging through 2021, which confirms that the Norges Bank may depart from its current emergency policy setting (Chart 17). Chart 17Money Velocity Is Rising In Norway Money Velocity Is Rising In Norway Money Velocity Is Rising In Norway The OIS curve already reflects this reality. At the last central bank meeting in March, Governor Øystein Olsen stated that interest rates would increase in the second half of this year. Already, the central bank’s balance sheet has been expanding more slowly than that of its peers (Chart 18). In response to this messaging, investors now expect the Norges Bank to lead the Fed, ECB, Riksbank, and BoE in lifting interest rates (Chart 19). Chart 18The Norges Bank's Balance Sheet Impulse Has Rolled Over The Norges Bank's Balance Sheet Impulse Has Rolled Over The Norges Bank's Balance Sheet Impulse Has Rolled Over Chart 19Money Markets Already Expect The Norges Bank To Tighten First Money Markets Already Expect The Norges Bank To Tighten First Money Markets Already Expect The Norges Bank To Tighten First The Norges Bank must nonetheless manage a tough balancing act. Lifting rates too soon or too fast could torpedo the recovery, if the currency and bond yields increase too rapidly and tighten financial conditions in a disruptive fashion. However, not removing accommodation fast enough could lead to economic overheating. Bottom Line: The Norges Bank will be the first DM central bank to increase interest rates, most likely as soon as this September. The OIS curve already reflects this outlook; it prices in over 6 hikes by the end of 2023, more than any other DM money market curve. This pricing seems appropriate; thus, Norwegian money markets offer no compelling investment opportunity.  Norway’s Problem: Sagging Productivity Both the OECD and the IMF view weak productivity growth as Norway’s biggest long-term hurdle. Despite the bright economic outlook for the next two years or so, we agree. Since 2004-2005, Norwegian productivity has sharply decelerated. At the turn of the millennium, the Norwegian’s mainland labor productivity was growing at 2.5%, or a percentage point above the average of the OECD. Today, labor productivity growth is a paltry 0.5%, placing Norway last among Nordic economies (Chart 20, left panel). Total factor productivity tells a similar story. After recording the fastest productivity expansion among G10 nation from 1990 to 2005, Norway’s TFP declined 11% and is now situated at the same level as it was in 1995. This deterioration is comparable to Italy’s TFP (Chart 20, left panel). Chart 20From Best To Last The Norwegian Method The Norwegian Method According to the most recent OECD country report, one of the roots of Norway’s productivity problem is an absence of low-hanging fruit. Norway sports one of the highest GDP per hours worked in the world. This nation essentially sits near the global productivity frontier. Its product market regulations are generally not onerous (Chart 21, top panel). Likewise, more than 60% of both the service sector and the manufacturing sector’s workforce use ICT tools, which is at the highest level among OECD countries. Additionally, the jobs at risk of a negative impact from automation or technological changes represent a significantly smaller share of total employment than in most OECD nations (Chart 21, bottom panel). Chart 21Doing Things Right The Norwegian Method The Norwegian Method The Dutch Disease, the hollowing out of the manufacturing sector due to a capital hungry resource sector, is the second root of Norway’s productivity problem. Historically and across countries, manufacturing is the sector that records the greatest productivity gains. However, since 1979, the oil and gas and the housing sectors have experienced the largest capital investments expansion in Norway. Meanwhile, the share of capex generated by the manufacturing sector has declined to a paltry 5% (Chart 22). Moreover, oil and gas represents a larger share of capex than the contribution of its gross value added to GDP. The same holds true for housing, whose share of capex doubled over the past 27 years. Meanwhile, manufacturing’s share of capex has consistently lagged its representation in GDP, which has steadily declined (Chart 23). These are the typical symptoms of the Dutch Disease; as long as oil prices remain in a secular decline, any cyclical improvement in productivity will prove to be transitory. Chart 22The Dutch Disease, Part I The Dutch Disease, Part I The Dutch Disease, Part I Chart 23The Dutch Disease, Part II The Dutch Disease, Part II The Dutch Disease, Part II Bottom Line: Despite an upbeat cyclical outlook, Norway’s deteriorating productivity trend constitutes a formidable structural headwind. There are no easy solutions, because Norway already sits near the global productivity frontier. Moreover, Norway suffers from a pronounced case of the Dutch Disease. For decades, the oil and gas sector has absorbed a share of capital that is greater than its role in the economy, starving the productivity-generating manufacturing sector from investments. With the oil sector entering a structural decline due to ESG concerns, this trend will not change without a significant change in the allocation of the Norwegian capital stock. Investment Implications The cyclical outlook (12 to 24 months) for the Norwegian currency and stock market remains appealing. The NOK’s Outlook Chart 24The Krone Is Undervalued On A PPP Basis The Krone Is Undervalued On A PPP Basis The Krone Is Undervalued On A PPP Basis While money markets do not offer any compelling opportunities to play the Norges Bank’s hiking cycle, the krone remains attractive from a cyclical perspective. Over the next 12-18 months, the NOK should appreciate compared to both the US dollar and the euro on the back of four key pillars. On a purchasing power parity basis, the Norwegian krone is undervalued by 14%. This compares favorably with both the euro, which is undervalued by 12%, and the US dollar, which is overvalued by 12% (Chart 24). More importantly, our PPP model adjusts the consumption basket across countries, allowing for a more apples-to-apples comparison. The Norwegian krone is highly procyclical and will benefit from any improvement in the global backdrop. The performance of NOK/USD, NOK/EUR, and NOK/JPY moves in lockstep with global equities (Chart 25). Norwegian equities have greatly underperformed global bourses over the last decade, but, as we argue below, there is some room for mean reversion. Inflows into the Norwegian equity market should benefit the krone (Chart 26). Chart 25NOK Is A Procyclical ##br##Currency NOK Is A Procyclical Currency NOK Is A Procyclical Currency Chart 26NOK Moves With A Rerating In Norwegian Shares NOK Moves With A Rerating In Norwegian Shares NOK Moves With A Rerating In Norwegian Shares From a more fundamental perspective, the krone will benefit from positive income flows, given Norway’s large net international investment position (NIIP). In fact, ever since the first Norwegian oil fields began producing light sweet crude in the North Sea in the 1970s, Norway has maintained a structural trade surplus with most of its trading partners. This has allowed the country to build one of the biggest NIIP in the world (Chart 27), trailing only behind Hong Kong and Singapore. This large NIIP generates large income receipts that skew heavily toward equity dividends. This characteristic of the Norwegian balance of payment strengthens the bond between the NOK and global equities. Over the next few years, Norway’s trade balance should also get a boost, not only from rising oil and gas production, but also from an improvement in terms of trade, as we argued above. The trade balance has historically been the biggest driver of cross-border inflows into Norway, and that should remain positive for the basic balance and the NOK (Chart 28) Chart 28Norway's Basic Balance Should Improve Norway Balance Of Payments Norway's Basic Balance Should Improve Norway Balance Of Payments Norway's Basic Balance Should Improve Norway Balance Of Payments Chart 27Norway Has A Large Net International Investment Position Norway Has A Large Net International Investment Position Norway Has A Large Net International Investment Position On a structural basis, however, the Norwegian krone faces challenges. Declining productivity suggests that economic growth in Norway will be more inflationary. This will lower the fair value of the real exchange rate. Therefore, while we are positive on the NOK over the next 18 to 24 months, we will be cognizant not to overstay our welcome. Finally, as for NOK/SEK, the pair should rise as both oil and gas prices remain firm in the near term, but any structural challenges to both oil and/or Norwegian productivity will favor the SEK over the longer term (Chart 29).    Chart 29NOK/SEK Will Track Crude Prices NOK/SEK Will Track Crude Prices NOK/SEK Will Track Crude Prices The Equity Market Outlook Norwegian equities remain challenged as long-term holdings, but they are attractive on a cyclical basis. The poor profitability of Norwegian equities is their main long-term problem. Unlike Swedish stocks, Norwegian shares sport a return on equity in line with that of the Eurozone, not that of the US. Norway’s profit margins are weak and its asset turnover rivals that of the Euro Area (Chart 30). Additionally, the country’s poor productivity performance argues against a sudden reversal in RoEs. Chart 30Norway Is More Like The Eurozone Than Swden Norway Is More Like The Eurozone Than Swden Norway Is More Like The Eurozone Than Swden Sectoral composition creates another structural handicap for the Norwegian market. Oslo overweighs Energy and Financials (Table 1). Energy stocks can experience periodic rallies, but their long-term outlook is bleak in a world moving away from carbon-based power. Meanwhile, financials are also likely to remain structural laggards. The regulatory legacy of the Great Financial Crisis has curtailed leverage, which is depressing the RoE of the banking sector. Greater competition and the emergence of the fintech industry are further undermining fee income. None of these factors will change anytime soon. Table 1Sectoral Breakdown The Norwegian Method The Norwegian Method That being said, Norwegian equities remain a compelling opportunity for the next two years or so, despite their long-term problems. Norwegian stocks have an extremely negative beta to the US dollar. The historical sensitivity of the NOK to the USD in part explains this attribute, the other part being their elevated cyclicality. The dollar is one of the most counter-cyclical currencies in the world; thus, its weakness correlates with strong Norwegian forward earnings, which are heavily influenced by commodity prices and the global industrial cycle. This process also lifts Norwegian stock prices (Chart 31). Hence, BCA’s positive outlook on the global business cycle, as well as our negative stance on the dollar, points to significantly stronger Norwegian share prices.3 The slowdown in China’s economy is one risk that could cause some near-term tremors in Norwegian assets, which investors should use to build positions. In response to Beijing’s efforts to limit systemic risk, the Chinese credit impulse has slowed from 1.1% of GDP to 0.3%, and could flirt with the zero line. The ensuing investment slowdown will weigh on the global industrial sector and cause a temporary pullback in commodity prices. As Chart 32 illustrates, this will be negative for Norwegian equities; historically, following declines in Chinese yields, Norwegian forward earnings and stock prices weaken. However, global energy demand will remain robust even as China slows; therefore, correcting Norwegian equities create a buying opportunity. Chart 31Norwegian Stocks Are A Dollar-Bearish Bet Norwegian Stocks Are A Dollar-Bearish Bet Norwegian Stocks Are A Dollar-Bearish Bet Chart 32A Chinese Slowdown Is A Risk A Chinese Slowdown Is A Risk A Chinese Slowdown Is A Risk Norwegian stocks should also outperform US and Eurozone equities. Nonetheless, Norwegian equities enjoy their greatest appeal against the US benchmark. Norwegian stocks trade at valuation discounts ranging from 38% to 54% compared to their US counterparts. Meanwhile, Norway’s net earnings revisions remain depressed compared to the US. Most importantly, Norwegian stocks are more pro-cyclical and sensitive to EM and global financial conditions than US shares are. Consequently, Oslo outperforms New York when the broad trade-weighted dollar depreciates, EM currencies appreciate, and the global yield curve slope steepens (Chart 33). We expect these trends to intensify over the remainder of the business cycle. Chart 33Oslo Beats New York Oslo Beats New York Oslo Beats New York Norwegian equities are also more responsive than Eurozone equities to global business-cycle oscillations. Norwegian equities outperform those of the Eurozone when the dollar depreciates (Chart 34). Additionally, a simple modelling exercise reveals that rising oil prices and global yields result in higher relative share prices in favor of Norway (Chart 35). Chart 34Norway Outperforms The Eurozone When The Dollar Weakens Norway Outperforms The Eurozone When The Dollar Weakens Norway Outperforms The Eurozone When The Dollar Weakens Chart 35Favor Norway Over ##br##The Euro Area Favor Norway Over The Euro Area Favor Norway Over The Euro Area Sweden is the one market that maintains a hedge over Norway.4 Swedish stocks not only sport a RoE nine percentage point above that of Norway, they are also sensitive to the global business cycle. However, the main advantage of Swedish equities is their sectoral breakdown. Sweden has an enormous overweight in industrials (38% of the benchmark), while Norway greatly overweighs materials. In an environment in which China is likely to decelerate, but global capex and infrastructure spending will remain firm, Sweden’s industrials’ weighting gives it a powerful advantage over its neighbor’s stock market. Finally, we recommend the following high-octane trade: Long Norwegian / short Dutch stocks. The Amsterdam bourse has a 47% allocation to tech stocks and a greater “growth” bias than the S&P 500. This means that the relative performance of Norwegian stocks compared to Dutch equities is even more sensitive to the global business cycle, oil prices, and bond yields. As a result, our simple model incorporating both Brent prices and yields currently sends a strong buy signal in favor of Norway (Chart 36). Chart 36Time To Buy Norway And Sell The Netherlands Time To Buy Norway And Sell The Netherlands Time To Buy Norway And Sell The Netherlands Bottom Line: The NOK will perform strongly against both the USD and the EUR over the coming 18 to 24 months. Norwegian equities are not an appealing long-term bet; however, they will experience significant upside over the coming two years, both in absolute terms and relative to the US and Euro Area stocks. While Oslo is unlikely to outperform Stockholm over this period, we recommend buying Norwegian stocks and selling the Dutch index. Mathieu Savary Chief European Investment Strategist Mathieu@bcaresearch.com Chester Ntonifor Foreign Exchange Strategist chestern@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see European Investment Strategy Report, "A Surprising Dance," dated May 10, 2021. 2 Please see Commodity & Energy Strategy Report, "OPEC’s 2.0 Production Strategy In Focus," dated May 20, 2021. 3 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Report, "Explaining Recent Weakness In The US Dollar," dated May 14, 2021. 4 Please see European Investment Strategy Report, "Take A Chance On Sweden," dated May 03, 2021.

Highlights The Norwegian economy will continue to grow above trend for the next two years or so. Norwegian inflation will firm up. Among Advanced Economies, the Norges Bank will lead the way in terms of policy tightening; however, money markets already embed this view. Nonetheless, the Norwegian krone remains an appealing value play, a result of its pronounced pro-cyclicality. USD/NOK and EUR/NOK will depreciate over the next 24 months. Norwegian equities face structural headwinds, but they should outperform their US and Euro Area counterparts. However, Norwegian stocks will lag behind Swedish equities. Buy Norwegian stocks / sell Dutch ones. Feature Norway remains an example of how to handle the pandemic successfully. Since the onset of the COVID-19 crisis, Norway has registered the lowest rate of infections per capita, in part aided by its early decision to close its borders. Fiscal stimulus was prompt and finely tailored to the sectors most in need of emergency funds. Moreover, the Norges Bank cut interest rates to zero for the first time since its founding in 1816. As nations across the world coordinated monetary and fiscal accommodation during the pandemic, Nordic economies had already mastered this paradigm. Thus, counter-cyclical buffers worked like a charm in Norway. For example, the contraction in Norwegian GDP was the most subdued within the G10, and the recovery is also impressive. Today, Norwegian GDP is 2% above pre-pandemic levels, inflation is near the target rate of 2%, and the central bank will be among the first to lift interest rates. In this Special Report, we explore whether or not conditions remain ripe for strong performances by both Norwegian equities and the NOK. In our view, the global environment and the continued economic strength of Norway will create potent tailwind for Norwegian assets over the coming two years or so. A Robust Economic Outlook The Norwegian economy is set to continue growing at a robust above-trend pace and inflation will remain above the Norges Bank’s target. The Pandemic Norway has moved largely beyond the COVID-19 pandemic. The number of cases per 100 is a mere 2, which compares favorably to the US at 10, Germany at 4, France at 8, or its neighbor Sweden at 10. Norway closed its borders on March 12, 2020, to limit the entry of the virus on its territory, as health authorities opted for rapid containment measures. As a direct result of these policies, Norwegian consumers and workers gained greater peace of mind in their day-to-day dealings, and economic activity recovered rapidly. This process led to Norway’s GDP contracting by only 4.6% in Q2 2020, which compares favorably to contractions of 19.5% in the UK, 9.7% in Germany and 7.8% in Sweden. Norway’s vaccination campaign is also gaining momentum. At first, the country’s inoculation performance lagged. However, Norwegian procurement of vaccines has improved, and the pace of inoculation is accelerating (Chart 1, top panel). The result is that the share of the population that is fully vaccinated is inching toward 20% and accelerating. Authorities expect greater relaxation of containment measures this summer, which will allow mobility to improve (Chart 2). The local service sector will therefore receive a welcome fillip. Chart 1Norway's Vaccination Progress Norway's Vaccination Progress Norway's Vaccination Progress Chart 2Mobility Will Pick Up Mobility Will Pick Up Mobility Will Pick Up   Fiscal Policy Fiscal policy remains an important complement to national health directives. During the crisis, the fiscal deficit reached 3.4% of GDP, which generated a fiscal thrust of 6% of GDP. Moreover, the drawdown from the Norwegian Oil Fund amounted to 12.5% of GDP. These provided targeted supports to industries, such as tourism and transport, while a furlough scheme protected household income. Thus, these programs effectively alleviated the pain on the sectors of the economy most affected by the pandemic. Going forward, Norway will also suffer from one of the smallest fiscal drag in the G10 for the remainder of 2021 and 2022 (Chart 3). Chart 3Norway's Advantageous Fiscal Backdrop Norway's Advantageous Fiscal Backdrop Norway's Advantageous Fiscal Backdrop The Banking System The credit channel in Norway remains open and fluid, as a resilient banking system withstood the economic fallout from the pandemic. According to the Norges Bank, credit losses have been limited; they peaked at 1% of lending and are already declining. Additionally, banks have restricted exposure to the sectors hardest hit by the pandemic, such as travel and tourism, personal services, and transport (Chart 4). Moreover, the profitability of the banking system decreased, as global yields fell last year, but RoE remains around 10% and net interest margins hover near 2.5% and 1.5% for non-financial corporate loans and households lending, respectively. Crucially, the Norwegian banking system sports a regulatory Tier-1 capital-to-risk weighted-assets ratio of 20%, well above Basel III criteria or that of the Eurozone banks (Chart 4, bottom panel). Chart 4Norwegian Banks Are Faring Well The Norwegian Method The Norwegian Method Household Consumption Household consumption will remain a source of strength over the coming quarters. Household net worth is growing robustly as a result of the rapid appreciation of house prices across the country (Chart 5, top panel). Moreover, the share of debt held by households with a high debt-to-income ratio or a low debt-servicing capacity remains low, which suggests household balance sheets are firming (Chart 5, middle panel). Employment is also recovering well. After peaking at 9.5% in March 2020, the headline unemployment rate fell to 3.3% last month (Chart 5, bottom panel). Meanwhile, the number of employed workers bottomed in July 2020 and has been steadily recovering ever since. The only blemish is that, as of Q4 2020, the rate of underemployment among the prime-age population remains at 3.5%, which is somewhat elevated by national standards. This balance sheet and employment backdrop confirms the Norges Bank’s projection: the household savings rate will decline significantly over the coming two years (Chart 6, top panel). Hence, the marked pick-up in consumer confidence should translate into a major recovery in real consumption growth (Chart 6, bottom panel). Nonetheless, the service sector will likely be the main beneficiary of this improvement, as real retail sales are already well above their historical trend Chart 5Positive Household Fundamentals Positive Household Fundamentals Positive Household Fundamentals Chart 6Consumption Will Improve Further Consumption Will Improve Further Consumption Will Improve Further   Net Exports Chart 7Years Of Underinvestment In Oil & Gas The Norwegian Method The Norwegian Method The external sector will create another tailwind for the Norwegian economy. Prior to the pandemic, 71% of Norway’s exports flowed to Europe. Moreover, oil and gas represented 53% of shipments, and cyclically sensitive exports amounted to 74% of total or 24% of GDP. Thus, even if China’s economy slows, Europe’s economic re-opening will raise the Norwegian trade balance, which sits near a multi-decade low.1 Moreover, greater mobility in Europe and around the world will elevate demand for petroleum. In light of the tepid pace of investment in global oil and gas extraction over the past five years, our commodity strategists forecast further oil and gas price appreciation2 (Chart 7), which will boost Norway’s terms of trade. The national income will therefore expand smartly, especially because oil and gas shipments will increase thanks to growing production from the new Johan Sverdrup field. Capital Spending This context suggests that capital spending, which accounts for 26% of Norway’s output (Chart 8), will constitute an important tailwind to domestic activity. Capex is even more important to the Norwegian economy than it is for other Nordic economies or even Germany (Chart 9). Chart 8Capital Spending Is Important For Norway Capital Spending Is Important For Norway Capital Spending Is Important For Norway Chart 9The Capex Share Of GDP Is Higher In Norway The Capex Share Of GDP Is Higher In Norway The Capex Share Of GDP Is Higher In Norway Norwegian capex is highly cyclical. Capital formation tracks our BCA Global Nowcast indicator (a combination of high-frequency economic and financial variables that proxy the global industrial cycle), as well as the domestic manufacturing PMI. These indicators suggest that capex should increase by 10-15% in the coming quarters (Chart 10). A Norges Bank survey of capex intentions, which are firming, corroborates this view. Chart 10Capex Will Recover Strongly Capex Will Recover Capex Will Recover Strongly Capex Will Recover Capex Will Recover Strongly Capex Will Recover On the energy front, the new Johan Sverdrup oil and gas discovery marks a major turnaround in capital spending for Norway. According to the Norges Bank, real petroleum investment will increase from approximately NOK 175bn in 2021 to NOK 198bn by 2024 (Chart 11). Moreover, years of global underinvestment in oil extraction suggests Norway will gain market share in exports as production accelerates. Total petroleum production is slated to increase by 10% over the next 4 years. More importantly, by 2025, over 50% of production from Norwegian oil fields will be natural gas and associated liquids (Chart 12). Demand for natural gas and NGLs will be more inelastic than demand for crude because the latter is threatened by the rising electrification of vehicles, while the former faces more sustainable demand as China, among others, moves to replace its coal polluting plants with cleaner alternatives. Chart 11Real Petroleum Investment Will Increase By 13% In 2024 The Norwegian Method The Norwegian Method Chart 12Gas Production Is Rising In Importance The Norwegian Method The Norwegian Method Inflation This positive economic outlook suggests that Norwegian inflation will remain above the central bank’s target of 2%. Already, headline CPI stands at 3%. Meanwhile, core inflation is at 2%, but it is decelerating. However, this slowdown should be temporary. According to a Norges Bank survey, both long-term and near-term inflation expectations among economists, business leaders, and households are rising, which indicates that a deflationary mentality has not taken root in Norway. Moreover, wage expectations have quickly normalized following the trauma of 2020 (Chart 13). Capacity constraints further reinforce the notion that inflation has upside. The Norges Bank Regional Network survey shows that capacity and labor supply constraints are tighter than they were in the 2014 to 2017 period, when inflation averaged 2.3% and the policy rate fell to 0.5% (Chart 14). Moreover, according to the same survey, selling prices are also stronger than they were during the 2016 oil collapse (Chart 14, bottom panel) Chart 13No Signs Of A Deflation Mentality No Signs Of A Deflation Mentality No Signs Of A Deflation Mentality Chart 14Capacity Doesn’t Point To Falling Inflation The Norwegian Method The Norwegian Method Bottom Line: The Norwegian economy will continue to grow above its trend rate of 1.5%, at least through to 2022. The acceleration in vaccination numbers will allow a reopening of the economy, while the fiscal drag will be limited and the banking system remains resilient. The outlook for households remains positive and employment is firming, which will lead to stronger consumption. Meanwhile, exports and capex have significant upside ahead. As a result, we anticipate Norwegian inflation will remain above target for the foreseeable future. The Norges Bank Will Lead The Pack The Norges Bank’s response to the pandemic was swift and all encompassing: It cut interest rates in the spring of 2020 from 1.5% to zero, the lowest level since the formation of the bank in 1816. It set up extraordinary F-loans at very generous interest rates, to provide ample liquidity to commercial banks. The longest maturity loan of 12 months had a prevailing interest rate of just 30 basis points. It also relaxed collateral requirements for these loans. It introduced swap lines with the Federal Reserve to provide US dollar funding to Norwegian firms. Since then, our Norges Bank monitor has rebounded powerfully from very depressed levels, which suggests that emergency policy settings have become unnecessary. Moreover, the Norwegian Central Bank Monitor towers above that of other G10 countries, which indicates that the Norges Bank should lead the pack in normalizing policy rates (Chart 15). Chart 15The Norges Bank Should Lead The Tightening Cycle The Norges Bank Should Lead The Tightening Cycle The Norges Bank Should Lead The Tightening Cycle Chart 16The Growth Component Of Our Monitor Has Exploded Higher The Growth Component Of Our Monitor Has Exploded Higher The Growth Component Of Our Monitor Has Exploded Higher The Growth Component Of Our Monitor Has Exploded Higher The Growth Component Of Our Monitor Has Exploded Higher The biggest improvement in our Norges Bank Monitor comes from its growth component, which has surged to its highest levels in over two decades. This improvement surpasses those that followed the global financial crisis and the burst of the dot-com bubble (Chart 16). In essence, the growth component of the Monitor signals that the Norwegian economy has achieved escape velocity. Norway’s robust economic turnover is increasing the velocity of money, which points to the need for higher interest rates. Money velocity can be regarded as the equilibrating mechanism between money supply and nominal output, from the classical Fisher equation MV=PQ (where M is the money supply, P is prices, Q is real output, and V is money velocity). Thus, rising money velocity (when PQ expands faster than M) signifies that the economy needs higher interest rates to encourage savings. In Norway’s case, the velocity of money is surging through 2021, which confirms that the Norges Bank may depart from its current emergency policy setting (Chart 17). Chart 17Money Velocity Is Rising In Norway Money Velocity Is Rising In Norway Money Velocity Is Rising In Norway The OIS curve already reflects this reality. At the last central bank meeting in March, Governor Øystein Olsen stated that interest rates would increase in the second half of this year. Already, the central bank’s balance sheet has been expanding more slowly than that of its peers (Chart 18). In response to this messaging, investors now expect the Norges Bank to lead the Fed, ECB, Riksbank, and BoE in lifting interest rates (Chart 19). Chart 18The Norges Bank's Balance Sheet Impulse Has Rolled Over The Norges Bank's Balance Sheet Impulse Has Rolled Over The Norges Bank's Balance Sheet Impulse Has Rolled Over Chart 19Money Markets Already Expect The Norges Bank To Tighten First Money Markets Already Expect The Norges Bank To Tighten First Money Markets Already Expect The Norges Bank To Tighten First The Norges Bank must nonetheless manage a tough balancing act. Lifting rates too soon or too fast could torpedo the recovery, if the currency and bond yields increase too rapidly and tighten financial conditions in a disruptive fashion. However, not removing accommodation fast enough could lead to economic overheating. Bottom Line: The Norges Bank will be the first DM central bank to increase interest rates, most likely as soon as this September. The OIS curve already reflects this outlook; it prices in over 6 hikes by the end of 2023, more than any other DM money market curve. This pricing seems appropriate; thus, Norwegian money markets offer no compelling investment opportunity.  Norway’s Problem: Sagging Productivity Both the OECD and the IMF view weak productivity growth as Norway’s biggest long-term hurdle. Despite the bright economic outlook for the next two years or so, we agree. Since 2004-2005, Norwegian productivity has sharply decelerated. At the turn of the millennium, the Norwegian’s mainland labor productivity was growing at 2.5%, or a percentage point above the average of the OECD. Today, labor productivity growth is a paltry 0.5%, placing Norway last among Nordic economies (Chart 20, left panel). Total factor productivity tells a similar story. After recording the fastest productivity expansion among G10 nation from 1990 to 2005, Norway’s TFP declined 11% and is now situated at the same level as it was in 1995. This deterioration is comparable to Italy’s TFP (Chart 20, left panel). Chart 20From Best To Last The Norwegian Method The Norwegian Method According to the most recent OECD country report, one of the roots of Norway’s productivity problem is an absence of low-hanging fruit. Norway sports one of the highest GDP per hours worked in the world. This nation essentially sits near the global productivity frontier. Its product market regulations are generally not onerous (Chart 21, top panel). Likewise, more than 60% of both the service sector and the manufacturing sector’s workforce use ICT tools, which is at the highest level among OECD countries. Additionally, the jobs at risk of a negative impact from automation or technological changes represent a significantly smaller share of total employment than in most OECD nations (Chart 21, bottom panel). Chart 21Doing Things Right The Norwegian Method The Norwegian Method The Dutch Disease, the hollowing out of the manufacturing sector due to a capital hungry resource sector, is the second root of Norway’s productivity problem. Historically and across countries, manufacturing is the sector that records the greatest productivity gains. However, since 1979, the oil and gas and the housing sectors have experienced the largest capital investments expansion in Norway. Meanwhile, the share of capex generated by the manufacturing sector has declined to a paltry 5% (Chart 22). Moreover, oil and gas represents a larger share of capex than the contribution of its gross value added to GDP. The same holds true for housing, whose share of capex doubled over the past 27 years. Meanwhile, manufacturing’s share of capex has consistently lagged its representation in GDP, which has steadily declined (Chart 23). These are the typical symptoms of the Dutch Disease; as long as oil prices remain in a secular decline, any cyclical improvement in productivity will prove to be transitory. Chart 22The Dutch Disease, Part I The Dutch Disease, Part I The Dutch Disease, Part I Chart 23The Dutch Disease, Part II The Dutch Disease, Part II The Dutch Disease, Part II Bottom Line: Despite an upbeat cyclical outlook, Norway’s deteriorating productivity trend constitutes a formidable structural headwind. There are no easy solutions, because Norway already sits near the global productivity frontier. Moreover, Norway suffers from a pronounced case of the Dutch Disease. For decades, the oil and gas sector has absorbed a share of capital that is greater than its role in the economy, starving the productivity-generating manufacturing sector from investments. With the oil sector entering a structural decline due to ESG concerns, this trend will not change without a significant change in the allocation of the Norwegian capital stock. Investment Implications The cyclical outlook (12 to 24 months) for the Norwegian currency and stock market remains appealing. The NOK’s Outlook Chart 24The Krone Is Undervalued On A PPP Basis The Krone Is Undervalued On A PPP Basis The Krone Is Undervalued On A PPP Basis While money markets do not offer any compelling opportunities to play the Norges Bank’s hiking cycle, the krone remains attractive from a cyclical perspective. Over the next 12-18 months, the NOK should appreciate compared to both the US dollar and the euro on the back of four key pillars. On a purchasing power parity basis, the Norwegian krone is undervalued by 14%. This compares favorably with both the euro, which is undervalued by 12%, and the US dollar, which is overvalued by 12% (Chart 24). More importantly, our PPP model adjusts the consumption basket across countries, allowing for a more apples-to-apples comparison. The Norwegian krone is highly procyclical and will benefit from any improvement in the global backdrop. The performance of NOK/USD, NOK/EUR, and NOK/JPY moves in lockstep with global equities (Chart 25). Norwegian equities have greatly underperformed global bourses over the last decade, but, as we argue below, there is some room for mean reversion. Inflows into the Norwegian equity market should benefit the krone (Chart 26). Chart 25NOK Is A Procyclical ##br##Currency NOK Is A Procyclical Currency NOK Is A Procyclical Currency Chart 26NOK Moves With A Rerating In Norwegian Shares NOK Moves With A Rerating In Norwegian Shares NOK Moves With A Rerating In Norwegian Shares From a more fundamental perspective, the krone will benefit from positive income flows, given Norway’s large net international investment position (NIIP). In fact, ever since the first Norwegian oil fields began producing light sweet crude in the North Sea in the 1970s, Norway has maintained a structural trade surplus with most of its trading partners. This has allowed the country to build one of the biggest NIIP in the world (Chart 27), trailing only behind Hong Kong and Singapore. This large NIIP generates large income receipts that skew heavily toward equity dividends. This characteristic of the Norwegian balance of payment strengthens the bond between the NOK and global equities. Over the next few years, Norway’s trade balance should also get a boost, not only from rising oil and gas production, but also from an improvement in terms of trade, as we argued above. The trade balance has historically been the biggest driver of cross-border inflows into Norway, and that should remain positive for the basic balance and the NOK (Chart 28) Chart 28Norway's Basic Balance Should Improve Norway Balance Of Payments Norway's Basic Balance Should Improve Norway Balance Of Payments Norway's Basic Balance Should Improve Norway Balance Of Payments Chart 27Norway Has A Large Net International Investment Position Norway Has A Large Net International Investment Position Norway Has A Large Net International Investment Position On a structural basis, however, the Norwegian krone faces challenges. Declining productivity suggests that economic growth in Norway will be more inflationary. This will lower the fair value of the real exchange rate. Therefore, while we are positive on the NOK over the next 18 to 24 months, we will be cognizant not to overstay our welcome. Finally, as for NOK/SEK, the pair should rise as both oil and gas prices remain firm in the near term, but any structural challenges to both oil and/or Norwegian productivity will favor the SEK over the longer term (Chart 29).    Chart 29NOK/SEK Will Track Crude Prices NOK/SEK Will Track Crude Prices NOK/SEK Will Track Crude Prices The Equity Market Outlook Norwegian equities remain challenged as long-term holdings, but they are attractive on a cyclical basis. The poor profitability of Norwegian equities is their main long-term problem. Unlike Swedish stocks, Norwegian shares sport a return on equity in line with that of the Eurozone, not that of the US. Norway’s profit margins are weak and its asset turnover rivals that of the Euro Area (Chart 30). Additionally, the country’s poor productivity performance argues against a sudden reversal in RoEs. Chart 30Norway Is More Like The Eurozone Than Swden Norway Is More Like The Eurozone Than Swden Norway Is More Like The Eurozone Than Swden Sectoral composition creates another structural handicap for the Norwegian market. Oslo overweighs Energy and Financials (Table 1). Energy stocks can experience periodic rallies, but their long-term outlook is bleak in a world moving away from carbon-based power. Meanwhile, financials are also likely to remain structural laggards. The regulatory legacy of the Great Financial Crisis has curtailed leverage, which is depressing the RoE of the banking sector. Greater competition and the emergence of the fintech industry are further undermining fee income. None of these factors will change anytime soon. Table 1Sectoral Breakdown The Norwegian Method The Norwegian Method That being said, Norwegian equities remain a compelling opportunity for the next two years or so, despite their long-term problems. Norwegian stocks have an extremely negative beta to the US dollar. The historical sensitivity of the NOK to the USD in part explains this attribute, the other part being their elevated cyclicality. The dollar is one of the most counter-cyclical currencies in the world; thus, its weakness correlates with strong Norwegian forward earnings, which are heavily influenced by commodity prices and the global industrial cycle. This process also lifts Norwegian stock prices (Chart 31). Hence, BCA’s positive outlook on the global business cycle, as well as our negative stance on the dollar, points to significantly stronger Norwegian share prices.3 The slowdown in China’s economy is one risk that could cause some near-term tremors in Norwegian assets, which investors should use to build positions. In response to Beijing’s efforts to limit systemic risk, the Chinese credit impulse has slowed from 1.1% of GDP to 0.3%, and could flirt with the zero line. The ensuing investment slowdown will weigh on the global industrial sector and cause a temporary pullback in commodity prices. As Chart 32 illustrates, this will be negative for Norwegian equities; historically, following declines in Chinese yields, Norwegian forward earnings and stock prices weaken. However, global energy demand will remain robust even as China slows; therefore, correcting Norwegian equities create a buying opportunity. Chart 31Norwegian Stocks Are A Dollar-Bearish Bet Norwegian Stocks Are A Dollar-Bearish Bet Norwegian Stocks Are A Dollar-Bearish Bet Chart 32A Chinese Slowdown Is A Risk A Chinese Slowdown Is A Risk A Chinese Slowdown Is A Risk Norwegian stocks should also outperform US and Eurozone equities. Nonetheless, Norwegian equities enjoy their greatest appeal against the US benchmark. Norwegian stocks trade at valuation discounts ranging from 38% to 54% compared to their US counterparts. Meanwhile, Norway’s net earnings revisions remain depressed compared to the US. Most importantly, Norwegian stocks are more pro-cyclical and sensitive to EM and global financial conditions than US shares are. Consequently, Oslo outperforms New York when the broad trade-weighted dollar depreciates, EM currencies appreciate, and the global yield curve slope steepens (Chart 33). We expect these trends to intensify over the remainder of the business cycle. Chart 33Oslo Beats New York Oslo Beats New York Oslo Beats New York Norwegian equities are also more responsive than Eurozone equities to global business-cycle oscillations. Norwegian equities outperform those of the Eurozone when the dollar depreciates (Chart 34). Additionally, a simple modelling exercise reveals that rising oil prices and global yields result in higher relative share prices in favor of Norway (Chart 35). Chart 34Norway Outperforms The Eurozone When The Dollar Weakens Norway Outperforms The Eurozone When The Dollar Weakens Norway Outperforms The Eurozone When The Dollar Weakens Chart 35Favor Norway Over ##br##The Euro Area Favor Norway Over The Euro Area Favor Norway Over The Euro Area Sweden is the one market that maintains a hedge over Norway.4 Swedish stocks not only sport a RoE nine percentage point above that of Norway, they are also sensitive to the global business cycle. However, the main advantage of Swedish equities is their sectoral breakdown. Sweden has an enormous overweight in industrials (38% of the benchmark), while Norway greatly overweighs materials. In an environment in which China is likely to decelerate, but global capex and infrastructure spending will remain firm, Sweden’s industrials’ weighting gives it a powerful advantage over its neighbor’s stock market. Finally, we recommend the following high-octane trade: Long Norwegian / short Dutch stocks. The Amsterdam bourse has a 47% allocation to tech stocks and a greater “growth” bias than the S&P 500. This means that the relative performance of Norwegian stocks compared to Dutch equities is even more sensitive to the global business cycle, oil prices, and bond yields. As a result, our simple model incorporating both Brent prices and yields currently sends a strong buy signal in favor of Norway (Chart 36). Chart 36Time To Buy Norway And Sell The Netherlands Time To Buy Norway And Sell The Netherlands Time To Buy Norway And Sell The Netherlands Bottom Line: The NOK will perform strongly against both the USD and the EUR over the coming 18 to 24 months. Norwegian equities are not an appealing long-term bet; however, they will experience significant upside over the coming two years, both in absolute terms and relative to the US and Euro Area stocks. While Oslo is unlikely to outperform Stockholm over this period, we recommend buying Norwegian stocks and selling the Dutch index. Mathieu Savary Chief European Investment Strategist Mathieu@bcaresearch.com Chester Ntonifor Foreign Exchange Strategist chestern@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see European Investment Strategy Report, "A Surprising Dance," dated May 10, 2021. 2 Please see Commodity & Energy Strategy Report, "OPEC’s 2.0 Production Strategy In Focus," dated May 20, 2021. 3 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Report, "Explaining Recent Weakness In The US Dollar," dated May 14, 2021. 4 Please see European Investment Strategy Report, "Take A Chance On Sweden," dated May 03, 2021. Trades & Forecasts Forecast Summary Core Portfolio Tactical Trades Limit Orders Closed Trades

Highlights Political and corporate climate activism will increase the cost of developing the resources required to produce and deliver energy going forward – e.g., oil and gas wells; pipelines; copper mines, and refineries. Over the short run, the fastest way for investor-owned companies (IOCs) to address accelerated reductions in CO2 emissions imposed by courts and boards is to walk away from the assets producing them, which could be disruptive over the medium term. Longer term, state-owned companies (SOCs) not facing the constraints of IOCs likely will be required to provide an increasing share of the resources needed to produce and distribute energy. The real difficulty will come in the medium term. Capex for critical metals like copper languishes, just as the call on these metals steadily increases over the next 30 years (Chart of the Week). The evolution to a low-carbon future has not been thought through at the global policy level. A real strategy must address underinvestment in base metals and incentivize the development of technology via a carbon tax – not emissions trading schemes – so firms can innovate to avoid it. We remain long energy and metals exposures.1 Feature And you may ask yourself, "Well … how did I get here?" David Byrne, Once In A Lifetime Energy markets – broadly defined – are radically transforming from week to week. The latest iteration of these markets' evolution is catalyzed by climate activists, who are finding increasing success in court and on corporate boards – sometimes backed by major institutional investors – and forcing oil and gas producers to accelerate CO2 emission-reduction programs.2 Climate activists' arguments are finding increasing purchase because they have merit: Years of stiff-arming investors seeking clarity on the oil and gas producers' decarbonization agendas, coupled with a pronounced failure to provide returns in excess of their cost of capital, have given activists all of the ammo needed to argue their points. Chart of the WeekCall On Metals For Energy Will Increase A Perfect Energy Storm On The Way A Perfect Energy Storm On The Way This activism is not limited to the courts or boardrooms. Voters in democratic societies with contested elections also are seeking redress for failures of their governments to effectively channel mineral wealth back into society on an equitable basis, and to protect their environments and the habitats of indigenous populations. This voter activism is especially apparent in Chile and Peru, where elections and constitutional conventions likely will result in higher taxes and royalties on metals IOCs operating in these states, which will increase production costs and ultimately be passed on to consumers.3 These states account for ~ 40% of world copper output. IOCs Walk Away Earlier this week, Exxon walked away from an early-stage offshore oil development project in Ghana.4 This followed the unfavorable court rulings and boardroom setbacks experienced by Royal Dutch Shell, Chevron and Exxon recently (referenced in fn. 2). While the company had no comment on its abrupt departure, its action shows how IOCs can exercise their option to put a project back to its host government, thus illustrating one of the most readily available alternatives for energy IOCs to meet court- or board-mandated CO2 emissions targets. If these investments qualify as write-offs, the burden will be borne by taxpayers. As climate activism increases, state-owned companies (SOCs) not facing the constraints of IOCs likely will be required to provide an increasing share of the resources – particularly oil and gas – needed to produce and distribute energy going forward. This is not an unalloyed benefit, as the SOCs still face stranded-asset risks, if they invest in longer-lived assets that are obviated by a successful renewables + grid buildout globally. That is a cost that will have to be compensated, when the SOCs work up their capex allocations. Still, if legal and investor activism significantly accelerates IOCs' capex reductions in oil and gas projects, the SOCs – particularly those in OPEC 2.0 – will be able to expand their position as the dominant supplier in the global oil market, and could perhaps increase their influence on price levels and forward-curve dynamics (Chart 2).5 Chart 2OPEC 2.0s Could Expand If Investor Activism Increases OPEC 2.0s Could Expand If Investor Activism Increases OPEC 2.0s Could Expand If Investor Activism Increases Higher Call On Metals At present, there is a lot of talk about the need to invest in renewable electricity generation and the grid structure supporting it, but very little in the way of planning for this transition. Other than repeated assertions of its necessity, little is being said regarding how exactly this strategy will be executed given the magnitude of the supply increase in metals required. Nowhere is this more apparent than in the refined copper market, which has been in a physical deficit – i.e., production minus consumption is negative – for the last 6 years (Chart 3). Physical copper markets in China, which consumes more than 50% of refined output, remain extremely tight, as can be seen in the ongoing weakness of treating charges and refining charges (TC/RC) for the past year (Chart 4). These charges are inversely correlated to prices – when TC/RCs are low, it means there is surplus refining capacity for copper – unrefined metal is scarce, which drives down demand for these services. Chart 3Coppers Physical Deficit Likely Persist Coppers Physical Deficit Likely Persist Coppers Physical Deficit Likely Persist Chart 4Chinas Refined Copper Supply Remains Tight Chinas Refined Copper Supply Remains Tight Chinas Refined Copper Supply Remains Tight Theoretically, high prices will incentivize higher levels of production. However, after the last decade’s ill-timed investment in new mine discoveries and expansions, mining companies have become more wary with their investments, and are using earnings to pay dividends and reduce debt. This leads us to believe that mining companies will not invest in new mine discoveries but will use capital expenditure to expand brownfield projects to meet rising demand. In the last decade, as copper demand rose, capex for copper rose from 2010-2012, and fell from 2013-2016 (Chart 5). During this time, the copper ore grade was on a declining trend. This implies that the new copper brought online was being mined from lower-grade ore, due to the expansion of existing projects(Chart 6). Chart 5Copper Capex Growth Remains Weak A Perfect Energy Storm On The Way A Perfect Energy Storm On The Way Chart 6Copper Ore-Quality Declines Persist Through Capex Cycle A Perfect Energy Storm On The Way A Perfect Energy Storm On The Way Capex directed at keeping ore production above consumption will not be sufficient to avoid major depletions of ore supplies beginning in 2024, according to Wood Mackenzie. The consultancy foresees a cumulative deficit of ~ 16mm MT by 2040. Plugging this gap will require $325-$500 billion of investment in the copper mining sector.6 The Case For A Carbon Tax The low-carbon future remains something of a will-o'-the-wisp – seen off in the future but not really developed in the present. Most striking in discussions of the low-carbon transition is the assumption of resource availability – particularly bases metals –in, e.g., the IEA's Net Zero by 2050, A Roadmap for the Global Energy Sector, published last month. In the IEA's document, further investment in hydrocarbons is not required beyond 2025. The copper, aluminum, steel, etc., required to build the generation and supporting grid infrastructure will be available and callable as needed to build all the renewable generation the world requires. The document is agnostic between carbon trading and carbon taxes as a way to price carbon and incentivize the technology that would allow firms and households to avoid a direct cost on carbon. A real strategy must address the fact that most of the world will continue to rely on fossil fuels for decades, as development goals are pursued. Underinvestment in base metals and its implications for the buildout of generation and grids has to be a priority if these assets are to be built. Given the 5-10-year lead times base metals mines require to come online, it is obvious that beyond the middle of this decade, the physical reality of demand exceeding supply will assert itself. A good start would be a global effort to impose and collect carbon taxes uniformly across states.7 This would need to be augmented with a carbon club, which restricts admission and trading privileges  to those states adopting such a scheme. Harmonizing the multiple emissions trading schemes worldwide will be a decades-long effort that is unlikely to succeed. Such schemes also can be gamed by larger players, producing pricing distortions. A hard and fast tax that is enforced in all of the members of such a carbon club would immediately focus attention on the technology required to avoid paying it – mobilizing capital, innovation and entrepreneurial drive to make it a reality. This would support carbon-capture, use and storage technologies as well, thus extending the life of existing energy resources as the next generation of metals-based resources is built out. In addition, a carbon tax raises revenue for governments, which can be used for a variety of public policies, including reducing other taxes to reduce the overall burden of taxation. Lastly, a tax eliminates the potential for short-term price volatility in the pricing of carbon – as long as households and firms know what confronts them they can plan around it.  Tax revenues also can be used to reduce the regressive nature of such levies. Investment Implications The lack of a coherent policy framework that addresses the very real constraints on the transition to a low-carbon economy makes the likelihood of a volatile, years-long evolution foreordained. We believe this will create numerous investment opportunities as underinvestment in hydrocarbons and base metals production predisposes oil, natural gas and base metals prices to move higher in the face of strong and rising demand. We remain long commodity index exposure – the S&P GSCI and GSCI Commodity Dynamic Roll Strategy ETF (COMT), which is optimized to take advantage of the most backwardated commodity forward curves in the index. These positions were up 5.3% and 7.2% since inception on December 7, 2017 and March 12, 2021, respectively, at Tuesday's close. We also remain long the MSCI Global Metals & Mining Producers ETF (PICK), which is up 33.9% since it was put on December 10, 2020. Expecting continued volatility in metals – copper in particular – we will look for opportunities to re-establish positions in COMEX/CME Copper after being stopped out with gains. A trailing stop was elected on our long Dec21 copper position established September 10, 2020, which was closed out with a 48.2% gain on May 21, 2021. Our long calendar 2022 vs short calendar 2023 COMEX copper backwardation trade established April 22, 2021, was closed out on May 20, 2021, leaving us with a return of 305%.   Robert P. Ryan Chief Commodity & Energy Strategist rryan@bcaresearch.com Ashwin Shyam Research Associate Commodity & Energy Strategy ashwin.shyam@bcaresearch.com   Commodities Round-Up Energy: Bullish OPEC 2.0 offered no surprises to markets this week, as it remained committed to returning just over 2mm b/d of production to the market over the May-July period, 70% of which comes from the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA), according to Platts. While Iran's return to the market is not a given in OPEC 2.0's geometry, we have given better than even odds it will return to the market beginning in 3Q21 and restore most of the 1.4mm b/d not being produced at present to the market over the course of the following year. OPEC itself expects demand to increase 6mm b/d this year, somewhat above our expectation of 5.3mm b/d. Stronger demand could raise Brent prices above our average $63/bbl forecast for this year (Chart 7). Brent was trading above $71/bbl as we went to press. Base Metals: Bullish BHP declared operations at its Escondida and Spence mines were running at normal rates despite a strike by some 200 operations specialists. BHP is employing so-called substitute workers to conduct operation, according to reuters.com, which also reported separate unions at both mines are considering strike actions in the near future. Precious Metals: Bullish The Fed’s reluctance to increase nominal interest rates despite indications of higher inflation will reduce real rates, which will support higher gold prices (Chart 8). We agree with our colleagues at BCA Research's US Bond Strategy that the Fed is waiting for the US labor market to reach levels consistent with its assessment of maximum employment before it makes its initial rate hike in this interest-rate cycle. Subsequent rate changes, however, will be based on realized inflation and inflation expectations. In our opinion, the Fed is following this ultra-accommodative monetary policy approach to break the US liquidity trap, brought about by a rise in precautionary savings due to the pandemic. In addition, we continue to expect USD weakness, which also will support gold and precious metals prices. We remain long gold, expecting prices to clear $2,000/oz this year. Ags/Softs: Neutral Corn prices fell more than 2% Wednesday, following the release of USDA estimates showing 95% of the corn crop was planted by 31 May 2021, well over the 87% five-year average. This was in line with expectations. However, the Department's assessment that 76% of the crop was in good-to-excellent condition exceeded market expectations. Chart 7 By 2023 Brent Trades to $80/bbl By 2023 Brent Trades to $80/bbl Chart 8 Gold Prices Going Up Gold Prices Going Up Footnotes 1     Please see Trade Tables below. 2     Please see OPEC, Russia seen gaining more power with Shell Dutch ruling and EXCLUSIVE BlackRock backs 3 dissidents to shake up Exxon board -sources published by reuters.com June 1, 2021 and May 25, 2021. 3    Please see Chile's govt in shock loss as voters pick independents to draft constitution published by reuters.com May 17, 2021, and Peru’s elite in panic at prospect of hard-left victory in presidential election published by ft.com June 1, 2021.  Peru has seen significant capital flight on the back of these fears.  See also Results from Chile’s May 2021 elections published by IHS Markit May 21, 2021 re a higher likelihood of tax increases for the mining sector.  The risk of nationalization is de minimis, according to IHS. 4    Please see Exxon walks away from stake in deepwater Ghana block published by worldoil.com June 1, 2021. 5    Please see OPEC 2.0's Production Strategy In Focus, which we published on May 20, 2021, for a recap our how we model OPEC 2.0's strategy.  It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 6    Please see Will a lack of supply growth come back to bite the copper industry?, published by Wood Mackenzie on March 23, 2021. 7     Please see The Challenges and Prospects for Carbon Pricing in Europe published by the Oxford Institute for Energy Studies last month for a discussion of carbon taxes vs. emissions trading schemes.     Investment Views and Themes Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed in 2021 Summary of Closed Trades Higher Inflation On The Way Higher Inflation On The Way

Highlights Asset Management Regulation (AMR) represents a critical and successful structural reform that is defusing risks in the most hazardous parts of China’s credit system. This bodes well for long-term sustainability of the nation’s financial system and, hence, its long-term economic outlook. That said, the sheer size of risky products and shadow banking makes it impossible to reduce systemic risk without hampering overall credit origination. AMR will dampen bank and shadow banking credit growth further and the credit impulse will be negative by year-end. As a result, China's growth will decelerate. The risk-reward profile of Chinese stocks remains poor. Favor Chinese local currency government bonds as yields will drop further. Feature Chart 1China’s Growth Is Set To Decelerate China's Growth Is Set To Decelerate China's Growth Is Set To Decelerate China’s broad credit and money growth have relapsed substantially. Given that they have historically been reliable leading indicators of business cycles (Chart 1), the question is: how far will credit growth decelerate. When gauging the magnitude of a money/credit slowdown, one should not only look at borrowing costs but also at the willingness and capacity of creditors to extend credit. In this context, it is essential to examine the impact of Asset Management Regulation (AMR) in China on both bank and non-bank credit growth. Please refer to Box 1 below for a more detailed discussion on AMR.     BOX 1 What Is AMR? AMR (Asset Management Regulation) was introduced in 2018 to mitigate financial system risks, increase transparency of financial products, and, hence, enhance investor protection. Financial institutions (banks and non-banks) were originally obliged to meet AMR requirements by the end of 2020. However, after the pandemic broke out, this term was extended to the end of 2021. The main objectives of AMR are: To restrict financial institutions from dodging financial regulations and prevent them from engaging in regulatory arbitrage. To prohibit financial institutions from providing other financial organizations with “channels” for evading regulatory requirements. To preclude banks from investing in high-risk assets. To forbid financial institutions from providing explicit or implicit guarantees for the principal and return on asset management products. AMR non-compliant products need to be either terminated or revamped to become AMR compliant before December 31, 2021. Assessing the value of outstanding AMR non-compliant products will help to gauge the actual impact of AMR on credit growth over the course of this year. A portion of banks’ wealth management products (WMP) and single fund trust products are AMR non-compliant and will need to be terminated or revamped. Commercial banks’ WMPs represent fund investment and management plans developed, designed and sold by commercial banks to individuals or institutions. In China, individual investors are the main customers for banks’ WMPs. In 2020, individual investors accounted for more than 99% in number of investors and 87% in investment amounts.1 The outstanding amount of WMPs is presently RMB 25 trillion. Single fund trusts have one investor – usually a bank or another financial institution. Given the disclosure regulation for single fund trusts is much looser than other fund trusts, it was prevalently used by financial institutions, including banks, to channel funds into investments to achieve regulatory arbitrage. Chart 2China Has Not Yet Deleveraged China Has Not Yet Deleveraged China Has Not Yet Deleveraged AMR represents regulatory tightening and will negatively affect bank and non-bank credit growth over the course of this year. In this report we examine what its impact will be on broad credit growth as banks and shadow banking attempt to comply with AMR by end of December this year. Authorities in China have been conducting well-thought-out surgical reforms – AMR being the cornerstone of these – to curb and restructure the risky elements of the credit system. By doing so, they have already dramatically reduced systemic risk in the financial system. Regardless of how deft and precise these reforms have been, they will continue to weigh on bank and shadow banking credit growth. The basis is that the sheer size of risky products and shadow banking makes it impossible to reduce systemic risk without hampering overall credit origination. It should also be noted that China has not yet deleveraged (Chart 2). How Large Are AMR Non-Compliant Assets? We reckon that AMR’s effect on broad credit is mainly through its impact on commercial banks’ Wealth Management Products (WMP) and single fund trusts. S&P Global2 estimates that by the end of 2020, banks will still have RMB 8.5 trillion in off-balance sheet WMP to restructure.  Single fund trusts’ assets stood at RMB 7.7 trillion in March 2021. However, to avoid double counting, flows from banks to trust funds (“bank-trust cooperation”) should be deducted from this value. The basis is that channeling funds by banks via trust companies is already captured in banks’ WMP statistics. Overall, non-compliant AMR assets that need to be revamped by year-end are as follows: Banks’ non-compliant WPM          8.5 trillion Single fund trust assets excluding “bank-trust cooperation”                   1.2 trillion Total                                          RMB 9.7 trillion This RMB 9.7 trillion represents 3.6% of total social financing (TSF) excluding equity issuance and 4.2% of private credit. The latter is defined as TSF excluding equity and central and local government bond issuance as well as special bonds.  Chart 3China: Various Borrowing Costs China: Various Borrowing Costs China: Various Borrowing Costs SP Global2 estimates that around RMB 5 trillion WMP will be revamped and made AMR compliant during this year. To put this figure into perspective, banks revamped RMB 4.8 trillion in 2020 and RMB 5.7 trillion in 2019. This will leave RMB 3.5 trillion of non-compliant WMP that banks are likely to take on their balance sheet before year-end. Even in the case of revamped WMP and single fund trusts, there will be unintended consequences for borrowers. In particular, the cost of borrowing could rise and/or the maturity of loans could be shortened. Both will weigh down on economic activity in general, and investment in the real economy in particular.   With full transparency and no implicit guarantee from banks, investors will require higher interest rates to invest in these products (Chart 3). In addition, investors will opt for shorter maturities of these products. Impact On Bank Credit… Chart 4China: Bank Loan Approvals And Bank Credit Impulse China: Bank Loans Approvals And Bank Credit Impulse China: Bank Loans Approvals And Bank Credit Impulse As banks take these AMR non-compliant WMP onto their balance sheets, their assets will automatically expand even though they will not originate new loans/provide financing to the real economy. The estimated RMB 3.5 trillion of WMP is equivalent to 1.5% of commercial bank broad credit and 1.2% of their assets. Hence, AMR will reinforce the deceleration in new credit origination. Both bank assets and broad bank credit will slow and their impulses will contract further (Chart 4).   Importantly, bringing these assets onto their balance sheet will require banks to both (1) allocate more capital to support these new assets and (2) increase provisions for the portion of these assets that are non-performing. The non-performing share of these AMR-non-compliant assets could be significant given that funds from off-balance sheet WMP were often invested in high-risk, high-return projects. These often represent claims on risky businesses, including property developers and local government financing vehicles (LGFV). In brief, there were reasons why banks did not initially put these assets on their balance sheets and doing so now will not be inconsequential. Overall, this move will hinder commercial banks’ ability and willingness to originate new credit, i.e., to provide new funding to the real economy (Chart 4). …And Shadow Banking Chart 5 demonstrates that shadow banking credit – comprised of trust loans, entrust loans, and unrealized banker acceptance bills – has been contracting. Outstanding shadow banking credit at RMB 23.9 trillion makes up 9% of TSF excluding equity issuance. Single fund trust loans – please refer to Box 1 above for more information – are the most vulnerable part of shadow banking to AMR. Despite their having contracted since 2017, single fund trust assets excluding “bank-trust cooperation” still amount to RMB 1.2 trillion or 0.5% of TSF, excluding equity issuance (Chart 6). Chart 5China’s Shadow Banking Continues To Shrink China's Shadow Banking Continues To Shrink China's Shadow Banking Continues To Shrink Chart 6Single Fund Trusts Are The Most Vulnerable To AMR Regulation Single Fund Trusts Are The Most Vulnerable To AMR Regulation Single Fund Trusts Are The Most Vulnerable To AMR Regulation     This type of financing will continue to shrink, weighing on aggregate credit flow. Although investors in these products might reinvest their funds in AMR-compliant funds, they will demand higher interest rates to offset higher credit risk. The basis is that full transparency will inform them that the trust companies and banks can neither guarantee principal nor interest on their investments. Higher interest rates demanded by investors in trust funds or their reduced financing will affect borrowers that rely on funding from this source. Specifically, trust funds investment in property developers and LGFV has been and will continue to shrink (Chart 7).      Impact On Property Developers And LGFV Property developers and LGFV are among the most vulnerable segments to reduced financing because of AMR. Trust companies have meaningful exposure to both real estate developers and LGFV. RMB 2.3 trillion in trust funds are invested in real estate and RMB 1.2 trillion in government projects, mostly representing claims on LGFV. Trust companies’ claims to both segments have been and will continue contracting (Chart 7). Property developers and LGFV are not only vulnerable to curtailed funding due to AMR but also from authorities’ campaign to limit their debt. Three Red Lines policy for property developers imposes caps on their debt. In addition, bank regulators have imposed limits on banks’ claims on property developers as well as residential mortgages (Chart 8, top panel). Loans are capped at 40% for the largest state-owned lenders, while banks’ mortgage lending should be no more than 32.5% of large banks’ outstanding credit. The regulations are even more rigorous for smaller banks. For smaller banks, caps on loans to real estate and mortgage loans are 27.5% and 20%, respectively.3 Banks’ credit to property developers and household mortgages are growing at a historically low pace and will likely decelerate further (Chart 8, bottom panel). To sum up, banks and shadow banking will curtail their exposure to property developers and LGFV. Consequently, these credit-intensive sectors will have to shrink their capital spending and construction activity. The latter will have ramifications for raw materials and industrial sectors exposed to traditional infrastructure and construction. Chart 7Trust Funds’ Exposure To Property Developers And LGFVs Trust Funds' Exposure To Property Developers And LGFVs Trust Funds' Exposure To Property Developers And LGFVs Chart 8Banks’ Exposure To Property Developers And Residential Mortgages Banks' Exposure To Property Developers And Residential Mortgages Banks' Exposure To Property Developers And Residential Mortgages   Investment Conclusions On the positive side, AMR represents critical and successful structural reform that is defusing risks in the most hazardous parts of China’s credit system. This bodes well for long-term sustainability of the nation’s financial system and, hence, its long-term economic outlook. Nevertheless, this regulatory tightening along with clampdown on the property market and local government debt will weigh on the Chinese business cycle over the next six-to-nine months: Private credit growth will continue downshifting and its impulse will turn negative, weighing on credit-exposed sectors (Chart 9). Although the private credit impulse is unlikely to reach -10% of GDP like it did in 2018, it will likely turn negative by year-end. Our guess it might be negative 3-4 % of GDP later this year. Chart 9China: Private Credit Impulse Will Turn Negative By Year-End China: Private Credit Impulse Will Turn Negative By Year-End China: Private Credit Impulse Will Turn Negative By Year-End Chart 10China: Fiscal Spending Impulse Will Be Modestly Positive In 2021 China: Fiscal Spending Impulse Will Be Modestly Positive In 2021 China: Fiscal Spending Impulse Will Be Modestly Positive In 2021   Public sector credit – measured as borrowing by central and local government, including special-purpose bonds – will continue decelerating according to bond quotas for this year. Still, higher government revenue will offset the slump in government borrowing so that government spending will grow in 2021 from a year ago. In aggregate, the fiscal spending impulse for all of 2021 will be positive at 1.6% of GDP (Chart 10). Overall, the fiscal spending impulse of 1.6% of GDP in 2021 will not offset the private credit impulse that we reckon to be about negative 3-4% of GDP. The upshot will be a modestly negative aggregate credit and fiscal spending impulse. The latter will be slightly worse than the readings of this indicator during the 2011 and 2014-15 slowdowns but more positive than in 2018 (please refer to Chart 1 above). This heralds a non-trivial business cycle slowdown. The latter will be concentrated in areas that usually benefit from credit and fiscal stimulus. Construction activity and traditional infrastructure spending are the most vulnerable areas. This entails that Chinese demand for raw materials will disappoint and base metals prices are vulnerable. With regard to investment strategy, investors should continue favoring Chinese local currency government bonds over stocks. As the economy decelerates, bond yields will drift lower. Share prices remain vulnerable. Chart 11 illustrates that net EPS revisions for the MSCI China A-share index has rolled over but has not yet dropped to their previous lows. Our hunch that EPS slowdown is not yet fully priced into the Chinese onshore equity market. Concerning MSCI China Investable non-TMT stocks, they have rolled over at their previous high (Chart 12). Given the negative corporate profit outlook, the risk-reward is unattractive both in absolute terms and relative to global equities. Chart 11Chinese Stocks: EPS Growth Expectations Will Downshift Further Chinese Sotkcs: EPS Growth Expectations Will Downshift Further Chinese Sotkcs: EPS Growth Expectations Will Downshift Further Chart 12An Intermediate-Term Top In Chinese Non-TMT Stocks? An Intermediate-Term Top In Chinese Non-TMT Stocks? An Intermediate-Term Top In Chinese Non-TMT Stocks?   In the long run, however, the de-risking of the credit system is bullish for Chinese share prices. Declining systemic financial risks entail a lower equity risk premium. Consequently, equity valuations will ultimately be re-rated. Arthur Budaghyan Chief Emerging Markets Strategist arthurb@bcaresearch.com Qingyun Xu Associate Editor Qingyun@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1 2020 Bank’s Wealth Management Product Report 2 Source: SP Global "China Banks May Still Have RMB3 Trillion In Shadow Assets By Year-End Deadline." 3 https://www.cbirc.gov.cn/cn/view/pages/ItemDetail.html?docId=955074&ite…   Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations