Financial Markets

Highlights Indonesian domestic demand is struggling to recover in the face of a very tight policy settings. Exceptionally high real borrowing costs continue to hurt non-financial sectors. This will hurt banks too as credit is stymied and NPLs rise. Equity investors should fade the rebound and stay underweight Indonesia in an EM equity portfolio. Indonesia’s external accounts will deteriorate, as the Chinese slowdown weighs on resource prices. Softening commodity prices will herald a weakness in the rupiah. Currency investors should consider going short the rupiah versus the US dollar. Domestic bond investors should tactically downgrade Indonesia from neutral to underweight within an EM bond portfolio. Sovereign EM credit investors, however, should stay overweight Indonesia. Feature Chart 1Indonesian Stock Rebound Will Be Short-Lived After years of underperformance, Indonesian stocks have rebounded in absolute terms and inched up relative to the EM benchmark (Chart 1). Could this be the beginning of a sustainable outperformance? Our research indicates that the answer is no. The Indonesian economy is still struggling. Domestic demand remains lackluster, hamstrung as it is by very high real interest rates and a tight fiscal stance. A flexing export sector, the sole source of strength so far, is set to dissipate as well. Weaker exports will weigh on the nation's financial markets. A budding softness in EM financial markets – emanating from a slowing China and rising US bond yields – will be yet another headwind for Indonesian assets over the next several months. Investors therefore should fade the current rebound and remain underweight this bourse in EM equity portfolios. EM domestic bond portfolios should consider downgrading this market from neutral to underweight relative to its EM peers. Currency investors may consider shorting the rupiah versus the US dollar. Sovereign EM credit investors, however, should stay overweight Indonesia in an EM US dollar bond portfolio. Straightjacketed The main drag to Indonesia’s economic recovery is coming from prohibitively high interest rates in the country. Real borrowing costs for the private sector, of the order of 10% (Chart 2, top panel), are extremely restrictive for any economy to handle, let alone one trying to recover from a debilitating recession. The real rates in Indonesia are also much higher than anywhere else in Asia – for both the private sector as well as for the government (Chart 2, bottom panel). Chart 2The Economy Is Struggling In the Face Of Very High Real Interest Rates Chart 3Absence Of Fiscal Support Is Making The Recovery Harder The fiscal stance does not appear to be very supportive either. The government is planning to rein in the fiscal deficit next year to 4.8% of GDP from an expected 5.7% this year. The IMF projects that the cyclically- adjusted fiscal thrust in 2022 will be a negative 0.8% of potential GDP, and a further negative 1.5% in 2023 (Chart 3). The consequence of such restrictive settings is that domestic consumption and consumer confidence are languishing well below pre-pandemic levels (Chart 4). Consistently, loan demand is also very weak. Bank credit for both consumption and production purposes (both working capital and term loans) have barely risen after having shrunk outright last year (Chart 5). Chart 4Domestic Demand Is Soft As Consumer Confidence Remains Low Chart 5All Types Of Bank Credit Are Weak Chart 6Disinflationary Pressures Are Entrenched In The Economy Weak domestic demand is reinforcing deflationary forces. Inflation has been undershooting the lower band of the central bank target for almost two years now. Core and trimmed mean CPI measures have been averaging below 1% over the past year. Headline CPI is below the lower target band despite high oil and food prices (Chart 6, top panel). At the same time, nominal wages are barely rising (Chart 6, bottom panel). Hence, household income growth is subdued, which is sapping consumer demand. Notably, the very high real interest rates in Indonesia today are an outcome of monetary policy falling behind the disinflation curve. In the 2000s, the country’s consumer price inflation would often flare up to double digits, and the central bank used to keep interest rates consistently high. Over the past 10 years or so, however, inflationary pressures have gradually given way to deflationary forces. Even though the central bank has reduced its policy rate, it has not reduced it sufficiently enough to offset the drop in inflation. As a result, real interest rates have risen. Banks, on their part, also refused to fully pass along the rate cuts accorded by the central bank. As such, banks’ lending rates to the private sector, in both nominal and real terms, remained much higher compared to their peers elsewhere in Asia (Chart 2, above).  Part of the reason why the central bank has fallen behind the disinflation curve has to do with the exchange rate stability and Indonesia’s dependence on foreign debt capital inflows. The country needs to offer high real rates to continue to attract enough foreign capital so that it can finance the current account deficit. As long as the central bank has rupiah stability (as a means for price stability) as its mandate, it will not reduce real interest rates. Incidentally, a bill to include economic growth and employment within the central bank’s mandate was submitted to Parliament earlier this year. Discussion over the bill, however, has been delayed. This means that elevated real interest rates will prevail for now in Indonesia, hampering economic growth. Fading Bright Spot Chart 7The Surge In Exports Has Been All About Commodity Prices, Not Increasing Volumes In contrast to domestic demand, Indonesia’s exports did phenomenally well over the past few quarters. That said, there are signs that those heady days are coming to an end: The main reason exports did so well is that commodity prices went vertically up. Export volumes, on the other hand, stayed quite low. This is also evident in the case of coal and palm oil – Indonesia’s two main export items (Chart 7). Since it’s not the volume that drove up the export revenues, the latter is vulnerable to the whims of global commodity prices – of which Indonesia is a price-taker. And commodity prices, in general, have already begun to soften. China is by far the largest destination for Indonesian exports (22% of total), and demand in the Middle Kingdom has been among main reasons behind the recent surge in Indonesian exports. Yet, the fact that China’s credit and money impulses have turned negative is a major concern for Indonesian exports going forward. If history is of any guide, negative impulses will cause a contraction in Indonesian exports over the next year or so (Chart 8). Odds are therefore that the country’s trade surplus will roll over and the current account balance will slip back to a deficit (Chart 9, top panel). Chart 8Negative Chinese Credit And Money Impulses Will Cause Indonesian Exports To Shrink Chart 9Indonesia's Trade And Current Account Balances Have Peaked Chart 10A Slowing Chinese Credit & Fiscal Impulse Is Always A Bad Omen For The Rupiah Meanwhile, Indonesia’s financial account is struggling to stay in surplus as capital inflows have dwindled significantly over the past couple of years (Chart 9, middle panel). FDI inflows are also showing few signs of revival (Chart 9, bottom panel). This indicates that Indonesia’s envisioned reforms, under the ‘Omnibus bill’, are yet to gain much traction and produce meaningful improvements in the economy’s structural backdrop. All in all, the outlook for the country’s external accounts is much less sanguine in the months ahead. That will not bode well for the rupiah, which has benefitted from robust external accounts so far. A material drop in Chinese credit and fiscal impulse has never been positive for the Indonesian currency. In the months ahead, therefore, the path of least resistance for the rupiah appears to be down (Chart 10, top panel). The link is via commodity prices (Chart 10, bottom panel). Notably, most capital inflows into Indonesia are in the form of debt capital inflows. Equity inflows are paltry. The reason is straightforward: foreign bond investors like the extremely high real rates that the country has been offering, whereas the equity investors do not. Yet, in the past couple of years, even debt capital inflows have subsided (Chart 9, middle panel). Should foreign investors turn nervous about the rupiah outlook due to falling commodity prices and/or rising US interest rates, those debt inflows would further subside. Deteriorating capital inflows would cause further weakness in the rupiah in a self-fulfilling prophecy. Domestic Bonds Chart 11Indonesian Domestic Bonds' Outperformance Is Late Indonesian local currency bonds have significantly outperformed their EM counterparts over the past several months (Chart 11, top panel). We have been positive on Indonesian domestic bonds. Going forward, however, the nation’s local bonds will find it difficult to rally in absolute terms and will likely underperform their EM peers. One reason for this is that, given Indonesian yields are already close to post-pandemic lows, it will be harder for them to fall much more. The relative performance of domestic bonds versus their EM peers will also be beset by a vulnerable rupiah – as explained above. The bottom panel of Chart 11 shows that periods of a weaker rupiah are usually associated with Indonesia underperforming overall EM domestic bonds. This is because foreign investors (who hold 21% of Indonesian local bonds) usually head for the exit once the rupiah begins to depreciate. Finally, as was explained in our report last week, various EM assets classes are in for a period of volatility – prompted by a deepening slowdown in China and rising US bond yields. Periods of EM stress do not augur well for Indonesian local bonds’ relative performance vis-à-vis their EM brethren. This is because the relative yield differential of Indonesia with that of EM widens in such periods – as occurred during the 2013 taper tantrum, the 2015 EM slowdown, and the 2020 pandemic (Chart 11, bottom panel). Since another EM risk-off period is around the corner, investors will be well advised to book profits on Indonesian domestic bonds’ recent outperformance and tactically downgrade this market to underweight in an EM domestic bond portfolio. Sovereign Credit Unlike the case of local currency bonds, Indonesia's sovereign credit has metamorphosed into a defensive market over the past several years. Investors now consider Indonesian sovereign credit to be among the safest within EM. This is an upshot of low public debt, including very low foreign currency public indebtedness, and years of orthodox fiscal and monetary policies. Chart 12Indonesian Sovereign Bonds Now Outperform During Risk-Off Periods In previous risk-off periods (such as the GFC in 2008 and the taper tantrum in 2013), Indonesian sovereign credit would typically underperform their EM counterparts. Yet, in more recent episodes (such as the EM slowdown in 2015 and the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020), Indonesian sovereign credit massively outperformed the EM benchmark. These recent instances suggest that during the oncoming risk-off period investors should stay overweight Indonesian sovereign credit in an EM basket.  Notably, the regime change in Indonesia’s sovereign credit characteristics has led to its relative performance (versus overall EM) being decoupled from the rupiah (Chart 12). While the rupiah remains a cyclical currency, the significant improvement in sovereign creditworthiness has turned Indonesian credit markets into a defensive play within EM. Therefore, a weakness in the rupiah in the months ahead will not jeopardize its relative performance. Share Prices Chart 13Indonesian Bank Stocks Failed To Break Out, While Non-Banks Keep Falling The Indonesian equity market is structurally beset by an uneven playing field, where the country’s banking sector has benefitted at the expense of all others. This is a consequence of banks maintaining high real lending rates as well as very wide net interest rate margins for far too long. The outcome is evident in financial and non-financial sectors’ diverging performance over the past decade (Chart 13). Given that the bull market in bank stocks has been contingent on banks’ net interest margins (NIM), any reduction therein will hurt bank stocks (Chart 14). At the same time, maintaining current lending rates and net interest margins will continue to hurt non-financial sectors (i.e., borrowers). In other words, for non-financial sectors to benefit, it will have to come at the expense of banking sector. Since banks and the rest of the stock market have very similar weights in this bourse, this dynamic will make it hard for this market to rally overall in a sustainable manner. Notably, bank stocks have failed to breach their pre-pandemic highs. This is despite net interest margins being quite elevated. The reason is that high real borrowing costs in a weak economy not only discourage credit off-take, but also threaten to raise NPLs further. Indonesian bank stocks are quite expensive as well: their ‘price/book value’ ratio is 2.6 while that of their EM counterparts is 1.1. As such, they will be hard pressed to have another sustainable rally. The other half of Indonesian equity markets, non-financials, are expectedly doing worse in the face of persistently high borrowing costs. So are the small cap stocks – where non-financial firms make up 85% of the market cap (Chart 13, bottom two panels). Notably, since Indonesia is a commodity producer, Indonesian stock prices usually do well during periods of rising commodity prices. Yet, headwinds emanating from weak domestic demand prevented Indonesia from benefitting much from high commodity prices this past year (Chart 15). Going forward, with the dissipating commodity tailwind, the Indonesian market will likely falter anew. Chart 14Any Fall In The Elevated Net Interest Margins Will Hurt Bank Stocks Chart 15Extremely Restrictive Real Rates Prevented Indonesia From Benefitting From High Commodity Prices Furthermore, a period of overall EM volatility is also a negative for Indonesian stocks’ absolute and relative performances. Investment Conclusions An impending relapse in commodity prices will herald a weakness in the rupiah. Currency investors should consider going short the rupiah versus the US dollar. In view of the likely weakness in the rupiah, dedicated EM local currency bond portfolios should pare back their exposure to Indonesia and tactically downgrade this market from neutral to underweight. Expected softness in domestic demand in the face of high real rates, faltering commodity prices and an impending volatility in EM assets - all entail that investors should stay underweight this bourse in an EM equity portfolio.   Finally, given the new defensive stature of Indonesian sovereign credit, asset allocators should stay overweight Indonesia in dedicated EM US dollar bond portfolios. Rajeeb Pramanik Senior EM Strategist rajeeb.pramanik@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes

Highlights Fed: The Fed is embroiled in a debate about whether to move more quickly toward rate hikes. Our expectation is that the Fed will remain relatively dovish unless 5-year/5-year forward inflation expectations show signs of breaking out. We continue to expect liftoff in December 2022. TIPS: We recommend a neutral allocation to long-maturity (10-year+) TIPS versus nominal Treasuries and an underweight allocation to short-maturity TIPS versus nominal Treasuries. Investors should short 2-year TIPS outright, enter 2/10 inflation curve steepeners and 2/10 real (TIPS) curve flatteners. Corporate Bonds: The amount of debt relative to equity on corporate balance sheets is the lowest it has been in several years. We expect that corporate balance sheet health will start to deteriorate next year as capital spending and debt issuance ramp up. However, it will be some time before balance sheet health threatens higher defaults or wider corporate spreads. Stay overweight spread product in US bond portfolios. Should The Fed Take Out Some Insurance? Inflation has arrived much earlier in the cycle than usual and it has put the Fed in a tough spot. The so-called Misery Index – the sum of the unemployment and inflation rates – has moved in the wrong direction this year (Chart 1), and there is increasing disagreement about how the Fed should respond. Chart 1A Setback For The Fed The Case For Buying Insurance On the one hand, some people – both inside and outside the FOMC – are calling for the Fed to move more quickly toward tightening. One notable external voice is the former Chair of the Council of Economic Advisers Jason Furman who just published a report calling for the Fed to speed up the pace of tapering so that it can prepare markets for rate hikes starting in the first half of 2022.1 Such a policy shift would significantly impact bond markets, which are currently priced for Fed liftoff to occur at the July 2022 FOMC meeting and for 69 bps of rate hikes in total by the end of 2022 (Chart 2). This equates to 100% odds of two 25 basis point rate hikes in 2022, with a 92% chance of a third. Chart 22022 Rate Expectations Furman makes the point that the Fed has already achieved its new Flexible Average Inflation Target (FAIT). The PCE deflator has averaged more than 2% annual growth since the target was adopted in August 2020 and even since just before the pandemic (Chart 3). Inflation has still averaged only 1.7% annual growth during the post-Great Financial Crisis period, but FOMC participants have generally focused on shorter look-back periods when discussing the FAIT framework. Chart 3The Fed's Flexible Average Inflation Target In Action In addition to its FAIT framework, the Fed has articulated a three-pronged test for when it will lift rates. The Fed has promised to only lift rates once (i) PCE inflation is above 2%, (ii) PCE inflation is expected to remain above 2% for some time and (iii) labor market conditions have reached levels consistent with “maximum employment”. Furman argues that the Fed should abandon this three-pronged liftoff test on the grounds that it leaves no room for assessing how far inflation is from its goal. For example, Furman says that if we take the Fed’s guidance literally then “it would not lift rates in the face of a 10 percent inflation rate if the unemployment rate was even 0.2 percentage points above its full employment level.” Chart 4Short-term Inflation Expectations Effectively, Furman is arguing for the Fed to take out some insurance against the risk of long-lasting inflationary pressures. Inflation is high right now. It may come back down naturally, but it may not. Furman argues that it makes sense for the Fed to marginally tighten policy in the meantime to lessen the risk of falling behind the curve and having to play catch-up. Fed Governor Christopher Waller seems to agree with most of Furman’s arguments. Waller also argued for speeding up the pace of tapering in a recent speech, and while he didn’t go so far as to say that the Fed should abandon its maximum employment test for liftoff, he implied that his personal definition of “maximum employment” could be achieved very soon.2 Waller said that after “adjusting for early retirements, we are only 2 million jobs short of where we were in February 2020”. This would suggest that just four more months of +500k employment gains, like we saw in October, would be enough for Waller to argue for rate increases. In his speech, Waller also mentioned the risk he sees from rising inflation expectations. He specifically pointed to elevated readings from the 5-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate, the New York Fed Survey of Consumers’ 3-year expectation, and the University of Michigan Survey’s 1-year expectation (Chart 4). Waller cautioned that: [I]f these measures were to continue moving upward, I would become concerned that expectations would lead households to demand higher wages to compensate for expected inflation, which could raise inflation in the near term and keep it elevated for some time. This possibility is a risk to the inflation outlook that I’m watching carefully. The Case Against Insurance    San Francisco Fed President Mary Daly sits on the other side of the argument. She argued against the Fed taking preemptive action to tame inflation in a recent speech.3  Her main argument is that rate hikes would do little to lower inflation in the near-term and may end up harming the economy down the road: Chart 5Long-term Inflation Expectations Monetary policy is a blunt tool that acts with a considerable lag. So, raising rates today would do little to increase production, fix supply chains, or stop consumers from spending more on goods than on services. But it would curb demand 12 to 18 months from now. Should current high inflation readings and worker shortages turn out to be COVID-related and transitory, higher interest rates would bridle growth, slow recovery in the labor market and unnecessarily sideline millions of workers. Like Waller, Daly also pointed to possible risks from rising inflation expectations. If the high readings on inflation last long enough, they could seep into our psychology and change our expectations about future inflation. Households would then expect prices to keep rising and ask for higher wages to offset that. Businesses, of course, would pass those increases on to consumers in the form of higher prices, causing workers to ask for even higher wages. And on it would go, in a vicious wage-price spiral that would end well for no one. However, unlike Waller, Daly said that “there is little evidence” that such an expectations-driven spiral is starting to take hold. To make her point, Daly stressed that long-term inflation expectations remain well-anchored near levels consistent with the Fed’s target. This is certainly true. Five-to-ten year ahead inflation expectations, whether from survey responses or derived from TIPS prices, have been remarkably stable during inflation’s recent surge (Chart 5). This would seem to suggest that people generally believe that current high inflation will fade over time, and that the Fed’s medium-term inflation target is not at risk. The BCA View Our sense is that there are a number of FOMC participants in both the hawkish and dovish camps. But for the time being, the fact that 5-year/5-year forward inflation expectations remain well-anchored tips the scale in favor of the doves. As a result, the Fed will watch the incoming data as it tapers asset purchases between now and June. If 5-year/5-year forward inflation expectations remain stable during that period, the Fed will wait until its “maximum employment” goal is met before lifting rates. However, if the 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rate rises above 2.5%, the doves will capitulate and abandon the “maximum employment” liftoff target. The committee will move quickly toward tightening to stave off the sort of wage/price spiral described by both Waller and Daly. Our own view is that realized inflation will trend lower between now and next June. This will prevent 5-year/5-year forward inflation expectations from rising and will push down shorter-dated inflation expectations. As a result, the Fed will wait until its “maximum employment” target is met before lifting rates. We continue to think the first rate hike is most likely to occur at the December 2022 FOMC meeting, slightly later than what is currently priced in the market. On Inflation And TIPS Valuation We continue to recommend a neutral allocation to long-maturity (10-year+) TIPS versus nominal Treasuries. While there is a risk that a lengthy period of high inflation will eventually lead to a break-out in long-maturity TIPS breakeven inflation rates, that risk must be weighed against the fact that our TIPS Breakeven Valuation Indicator shows that the 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate is too high relative to different measures of underlying inflation (Chart 6). Chart 6TIPS Are Expensive Relative To Nominals Our TIPS Breakeven Valuation Indicator has a strong track record, with readings between -1 and -0.5 usually coinciding with a subsequent drop in the 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate (Table 1). Table 1TIPS Valuation Indicator Track Record Moreover, we continue to think that inflation is very likely to trend down during the next 6-12 months. The most important driver of today’s high inflation rate has been a remarkable surge in core goods inflation, from near 0% prior to the pandemic to 8.5% today (Chart 7). This jump in core goods prices is explained by a shift in the composition of consumer spending away from services and toward goods (Chart 8). This shift started during the worst of the pandemic when spending on services was not an option. Households diverted their spending toward goods at a time when COVID prevented factories from running at full capacity. Chart 7Goods Inflation Chart 8Consumer Spending: Goods v. Services Our sense is that as the impact of the pandemic fades, we will see the composition of spending shift back toward services and firms will also be able to increase capacity. The result will be a drop in core goods inflation during the next 6-12 months, one that is significant enough to send the overall inflation rate lower. In fact, there are already signs that inflation is close to peaking. The Baltic Dry Index – an index that measures the cost of transporting raw materials – has plunged (Chart 9), and other measures of the price of shipping containers are starting to top out (Chart 9, bottom 2 panels). All of these indicators tracked inflation’s recent rise and are now signaling an easing of bottlenecks in the goods supply chain. The upshot from an investment perspective is that falling inflation will keep a lid on long-maturity TIPS breakeven inflation rates during the next 6-12 months. It will also send short-maturity TIPS breakeven inflation rates lower, and we recommend an underweight allocation to TIPS versus nominal Treasuries at the front-end of the curve. The top panel of Chart 10 shows that the 2-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate has greatly exceeded the Fed’s target range. In contrast, the 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate is only slightly above target. If we assume a base case scenario where both rates trend toward the middle of the Fed’s target range during the next 12 months, and a base case scenario for nominal yields consistent with the Fed lifting rates in December 2022 and then hiking at a pace of 100 bps per year until reaching a 2.08% terminal rate (Chart 10, bottom panel), we see that the 2-year real yield has a lot of upside during the next 12 months (Chart 10, panel 2). This is true both in absolute terms and relative to the 10-year real yield. Chart 9Peak Shipping Costs Chart 10The Upside In Real Yields As a result, our view that inflationary pressures will ease during the next 6-12 months leads to the following investment recommendations: Short 2-year TIPS outright Enter 2/10 TIPS breakeven inflation curve steepeners Enter 2/10 real (TIPS) yield curve flatteners Corporate Balance Sheets Are In Great Shape Gross corporate leverage – the ratio of total corporate debt to pre-tax profits – has plunged during the past few quarters. This indicator is the backbone of our macro default rate model and, as such, its drop explains why there have been so few corporate defaults this year.4 Digging beneath the surface, we see that a great deal of leverage’s decline is explained by soaring profit growth, but a sharp drop in debt growth is also partly to blame (Chart 11). If we broaden our scope of corporate balance sheet indicators, the evidence further points to the fact that balance sheets are in great shape. Our Corporate Health Monitor – a composite indicator consisting of six different balance sheet metrics – is deep in “improving health” territory, aided by extremely high readings from the Free Cash Flow-to-Total Debt and Interest Coverage ratios (Chart 12). Chart 11Gross Leverage Is Falling Chart 12Corporate Health Monitor One thing that seems certain is that corporate profits will not continue to grow by more than 50%, as they did during the past four quarters. As such, we hesitate to make too big a deal out of balance sheet ratios that are directly tied to profit growth. However, even if we look at different measures of the amount of debt versus equity on corporate balance sheets, we arrive at the same conclusion that balance sheets are extremely healthy. The top panel of Chart 13 shows the ratio between total corporate debt and the market value of equity. This ratio is at its all-time low, but one could argue that it is being inappropriately flattered by elevated stock valuations. If we look at the ratio of total debt-to-net worth, where net worth is the difference between assets and liabilities with real estate assets valued at market value and non-real estate assets valued at replacement value, we also see a significant improvement and the lowest ratio since 2010 (Chart 13, panel 2). Finally, we also find the lowest ratio of debt-to-net worth since 2013 even if we value all non-financial corporate assets at historical cost (Chart 13, bottom panel). In other words, the message is clear. Corporate balance sheets have repaired themselves considerably since the pandemic and leverage ratios are the lowest they’ve been in years. This fact has not gone unnoticed by ratings agencies who’ve announced far more upgrades than downgrades so far this year (Chart 14). Chart 13Leverage Ratios Chart 14Upgrades Much Higher Than Downgrades What about the path forward for balance sheets? Our view is that balance sheet health will stop improving at the margin, but that it still has a long way to go before it poses a risk for defaults or corporate bond spreads. The recent spike in profit growth will recede in the coming quarters. This sort of large jump in profits following a recession is fairly typical, but it also tends to be short-lived (Chart 11, panel 2). Further, while corporate debt growth probably won’t surge next year it is likely that it will start to increase. At present, slow corporate debt growth is explained by the fact that company earnings have far outpaced capital investment requirements (Chart 15). This is partly because earnings have been strong and partly because capex requirements have been low. This is about to change. Inventory-to-sales ratios are near record lows and we have already seen a jump in core durable goods orders. All of this points to a capex resurgence in 2022 that will be partially financed by rising corporate debt. Chart 15Debt Growth Will Rise In 2022 Bottom Line: The amount of debt relative to equity on corporate balance sheets is the lowest it has been in several years. We expect that corporate balance sheet health will start to deteriorate next year as capital spending and debt issuance ramp up. However, it will be some time before balance sheet health threatens higher defaults or wider corporate spreads. Stay overweight spread product in US bond portfolios.   Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 https://www.piie.com/sites/default/files/documents/furman-2021-11-17.pdf 2 https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/waller20211119a.htm 3 https://www.frbsf.org/our-district/press/presidents-speeches/mary-c-daly/2021/november/policymaking-in-a-time-of-uncertainty/ 4 For more details on our Default Rate Model please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The Post-FOMC Credit Environment”, dated June 29, 2021. Recommended Portfolio Specification Other Recommendations Treasury Index Returns Spread Product Returns

Highlights On a 2-3 year horizon, stay overweight the US stock market, in absolute terms and relative to the non-US stock market… …and stay overweight the US dollar. A good model for the US stock market is the 30-year T-bond price multiplied by US profits. A good model for the non-US stock market is the 2-year T-bond price multiplied by non-US profits. A major long-term risk to the US stock market comes from the blockchain, which is set to return the ownership and control of our data and digital content back to us – from Facebook, Google, and the other tech behemoths that currently control, manipulate, and monetise it… …but this risk is only likely to manifest itself on a 5-10 year horizon. Fractal analysis: The Israeli shekel is overbought. Feature Chart of the WeekThe US Stock Market = The 30-Year T-Bond Multiplied By US Profits Fears that inflation will stay stubbornly high have lit a fuse under short-dated bond yields. But further along the curve, longer-dated bonds have remained an oasis of relative calm. Indeed, the 30-year T-bond yield stands 50 bps lower today than it stood in March. Given that long-duration bonds underpin the valuation of long-duration stocks, the relative calm of the 30-year bond yield explains the relative calm of the stock market in the face of higher short-term bond yields. The corollary is that substantially higher 30-year yields would threaten that calm. Inflation Will Crash Back To Earth In 2022 The relative calm of the 30-year bond yield is telling central banks: go ahead and hike rates if you want. You’ll just have to slash them again and, on average, keep them lower than you would if you didn’t hike them so soon. Rate hikes work by choking aggregate demand, but aggregate demand doesn’t need choking. Aggregate demand is barely on its pre-pandemic trend in the US, and remains far below its pre-pandemic trend in other major economies, such as the UK, Germany, and France. The pre-pandemic trend is important because it is our best estimate of potential supply. On this best estimate, aggregate demand is still below potential supply (Chart I-2). Chart I-2The 30-Year T-Bond Yield Sees That Aggregate Demand Is Fragile If aggregate demand is below potential supply, then what can explain the recent surge in inflation? The answer is the massive and unprecedented displacement of demand from services to goods, combined with modern manufacturing processes unable to meet even a 5 percent excess demand, let alone the 26 percent excess demand for durables recently experienced in the US (Chart I-3). Chart I-3The Booming Demand For Goods Is Crashing Back To Earth While Services Remain In Shortfall Yet as we highlighted last week in The Global Demand Shortfall Of 2022, the recent booming demand for goods is crashing back to earth while the demand for some services will remain structurally below the pre-pandemic trend. Combined with a tsunami of supply that will hit the global economy with a lag, inflation is also likely to crash back to earth by late 2022. The US Stock Market = The 30-Year T-Bond Multiplied By US Profits An important characteristic of any investment is its duration. If all an investment’s cashflows were converted into one ‘lump-sum’ cashflow, then the duration of the investment quantifies how far into the future that lump-sum cashflow would be. For a bond, the duration also equals the percentage change in its price for every 1 percent change in its yield.1 Interestingly, the durations of the US stock market and the 30-year T-bond are very similar, at around 25 years. Therefore, all else being equal, the US stock market should track the 30-year T-bond price. Of course, all else is not equal. The 30-year T-bond has fixed cashflows, whereas the stock market has cashflows that track profits. Allowing for this key difference, the US stock market should track: (The 30-year T-bond price) multiplied by (US profits) multiplied by (a constant) In which the constant connects current profits to the theoretical lump-sum payment 25 years ahead, thereby quantifying the structural growth of profits. But to the extent that the constant does not change, we can ignore it. Simplistic as this model appears, it does provide an excellent explanation for the US stock market’s evolution through the past 40 years (Chart of the Week and Chart I-4) – with deviations from the ‘fair-value’ giving a good gauge of the market’s over- or under-valuation. Chart I-4The US Stock Market = The 30-Year T-Bond Multiplied By US Profits Looking ahead, there are three ways in which the structural bull market could end: If the overvaluation (deviation from fair-value) became so extreme that a substantial decline in price was required to re-converge with the 30-year T-bond price multiplied by profits. If the 30-year T-bond price could no longer rise to counter a substantial decline in profits. If the constant that links current profits to future profits phase-shifted down, implying that the growth rate of US stock market profits had phase-shifted down – as happened for non-US stock market profits after the dot com bust (Chart I-5). Going through each of these, the US stock market’s current overvaluation of around 10 percent is not so extreme as to be a structural impediment. Chart I-5The Valuation Of The Non-US Stock Market Phase-Shifted Down Meanwhile, the 30-year T-bond yield has scope to decline by at least 150 bps, equating to a 40 percent counterweight to a decline in profits. Hence, this is not a structural impediment either, but will become one once the 30-year T-bond yield reaches 0.5 percent in the next deflationary shock. As for a phase-shift down in profit growth, this is a genuine long-term risk. The main risk comes from the blockchain and its threat to the pseudo-monopoly status that the US tech behemoths have in owning, controlling, manipulating, and monetising our data and the digital content that we create. The blockchain is set to return that ownership and control back to us, to the detriment of Facebook, Google, and the other behemoths of the US stock market. However, this is a long-term risk, likely to manifest itself on a 5-10 year horizon. We conclude that on a 2-3 year horizon, investors should own the US stock market. The Non-US Stock Market = The 2-Year T-Bond Multiplied By Non-US Profits We can extend the preceding analysis to the non-US stock market, with two differences. First, the non-US stock market has a much shorter duration given its much lower exposure to growing cashflows. A higher weighting to financials – which underperform when long yields are falling – further lowers the effective duration to just 2 years (empirically). Second, and obviously, the non-US stock market depends on non-US profits (Chart I-6). Chart I-6The Non-US Stock Market = The 2-Year T-Bond Multiplied By Non-US Profits It follows that the non-US stock market tracks: (The 2-year T-bond price) multiplied by (non-US profits) We can now decompose the post dot com performance of the US and non-US stock markets into their underlying structural components. The US stock market has received a massive tailwind: a 60 percent increase in the 30-year T-bond price plus a 200 percent increase in profits (Chart I-7). While the non-US stock market has received a lesser tailwind: a 10 percent increase in the 2-year T-bond price plus a 60 percent increase in profits (Chart I-8).2   Chart I-7The US Stock Market Has A Powerful Tailwind... Chart I-8...The Non-US Stock Market Has A Weak Tailwind Therefore, over the past two decades, the non-US stock market has been hampered by its low duration and by its profits that are fossilised, both metaphorically and literally. Metaphorically fossilised, because the non-US stock market is over-exposed to industries that are in structural decline such as financials and basic resources. And literally fossilised, because it is also over-exposed to the dying fossil fuel industry. Looking ahead, there are three ways that non-US stocks could outperform US stocks: If the relative valuation (deviation from respective fair-values) became extreme in favour of non-US stocks. If the 2-year T-bond price outperformed the 30-year T-bond price – effectively meaning that the 30-year T-bond price would have to fall far given that the 2-year T-bond is like cash. If non-US profits outperformed US profits. Going through each of these: both the US and non-US stock markets appear similarly overvalued versus their respective fair-values; the 30-year T-bond is unlikely to fall far given that it would destabilise the global financial system; and fossilised non-US profits are unlikely to outperform those in the US in the next few years. We conclude that on a 2-3 year horizon, investors should stay overweight the US stock market relative to the non-US stock market. One final consideration is the US dollar. Successive deflationary shocks – the 2008 GFC, the 2015 EM recession, and the 2020 pandemic – have taken the greenback to new highs as capital flows have flooded into US T-bonds (Chart I-9). It follows that the ultimate high in the dollar will coincide with the ultimate low in the 30-year T-bond yield. Chart I-9Successive Deflationary Shocks Take The Dollar To New Highs Stay structurally overweight the US dollar. The Israeli Shekel Is Overbought In this week’s fractal analysis, we note that the strong recent rally in ILS/GBP has reached the point of maximum fragility on its 130-day fractal structure that has signalled several previous reversals (Chart I-10). Chart I-10The Israeli Shekel Is Overbought On this basis, a recommended trade would be short ILS/GBP, setting a profit target and symmetrical stop-loss at 4.2 percent. Dhaval Joshi Chief Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Defined fully, the duration of an investment is the weighted average of the times of its cashflows, in which the weights are the present values of the cashflows. 2 From January 1, 2005. Fractal Trading System Fractal Trades 6-Month Recommendations Structural Recommendations Closed Fractal Trades Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields ##br##- Euro Area Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields ##br##- Europe Ex Euro Area Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields ##br##- Asia Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields ##br##- Other Developed   Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-5Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations  

Special Report

Highlights Why have Value stocks underperformed so much during the past decade? The rise in intangible assets is likely the most important reason since traditional valuation metrics are no longer an accurate measure of intrinsic value. Value stocks today have a larger negative tilt to Quality than they did in the past. This has hurt Value due to Quality's outperformance. Value's underperformance is not just the result of the relative performance of a few sectors or industries, although this has played a role. Falling interest rates have not been the main driver of Value’s underperformance as they can only account for a small portion of returns. “Migration”, or mean-reversion in and out of value buckets, has declined since the Great Financial Crisis, possibly because of an increase in monopoly power. But even this cannot fully account for the underperformance since 2012. We propose that investors who wish to invest in Value screen for Quality. They should also express their Value tilts in sectors with few intangibles, such as Energy or Materials. More sophisticated stock pickers can adjust earnings and book values for intangibles. Asset allocators who invest only in indices should stay away from a structural allocation to Value. Feature Chart 1No Premium From Value Stocks Over The Last Four Decades Betting on cheap stocks has been a cornerstone of equity investing for decades. The rationale is simple: Stocks which are undervalued, according to some measure of intrinsic value, will eventually converge up to their fair value, on average, while stocks that are overvalued will converge down, on average. Historically, this bet on mean-reversion has proven successful – low price-to-book stocks have outperformed high price-to-book stocks by more than 3% per annum since 1927. However, the recent decades have put Value investing to the test. The Value factor, as defined by Fama and French, has not provided a structural premium in the US large cap space since the late 1970s (Chart 1, panel 1). Commercial Value indices haven’t been any more successful: Value aggregates by MSCI, Russell, and S&P have either underperformed or performed in line with the market benchmark over the same time frame (Chart 1, panel 2). The current situation presents a difficult dilemma. On the one hand, buying Value could be a tremendous opportunity. By several measures, Value stocks are the most undervalued they have been since the end of the tech bubble, right before they went on a historic run (Chart 2). Academic work has argued that these deep value spreads tend to be positively correlated with long-term outperformance of Value stocks.1 In a world of sky-high valuations and with equities and bonds projected to deliver very low returns over the next decade, a cheap return stream would be a fantastic addition to most portfolios. Chart 2Value Stocks Are Really Cheap   And yet, Value has become so popular, that many investors are now worried that the Value premium may no longer exist. This worry is not without merit. Several studies have shown that factors lose a sizable portion of their premium once they appear in academic literature2  (Chart 3). Other issues, such as the inability of valuation metrics to properly account for intrinsic value in the modern economy, have also led some investors to seriously question whether buying Value indices will deliver excess returns in the future. So what is the right answer? Why has Value underperformed so much? Is the beaten down Value factor a generational buying opportunity? Or will it continue its decline going forward? In this report we try to answer these questions. Using a company-level dataset from our BCA Research Equity Analyzer (EA), as well as drawing on the latest academic research, we assess the evidence behind Five Theories On Value’s Underperformance. Once we determine which explanations have merit and which do not, we conclude by providing some guidelines on how investors should consider the Value factor going forward in our Investment Implications section. A word of caution: We have constructed our sample of companies to roughly resemble the sample used by MSCI World. Thus, the conclusions from our analysis based on the EA dataset should be relevant to Value indices in general. However, be advised that the methodology that EA uses is different from other commercial Value indices. Specifically, the EA methodology is more aggressive in its positioning and uses a wider array of metrics. For clarity, Table 1 shows the metrics used by EA compared to other Value indices. If you wish to know more on how the methodology works, please refer to the Appendix. Table 1Value Factor Methodologies Also, please note that our report will not deal with the cyclical outlook for Value. While it is entirely possible that a period of cyclical growth could help Value stocks outperform, the question we are trying to answer is whether buying cheap versus expensive stocks still provides a structural premium over the long term. While the Global Asset Allocation service does not use the Value versus Growth framework for equity allocation, our colleagues from our Global Investment Strategy service have written extensively on why they believe investors should pivot to Value on a cyclical basis.3 Five Theories On Value’s Underperformance Chart 4More To The Underperformance Of Value Than Sector Tilts Theory #1: The underperformance of Value indices is purely a result of their sector composition Some investors suggest that Value stocks’ large underweight of mega-cap tech, as well as their overweight in Financials and Energy, have been responsible for Value’s woes over the past decade. However, our research suggests that this theory is not entirely correct. A Value index with the same sector and industry weightings as the Developed Markets (DM) benchmark has still underperformed by more than 15% since 2010 (Chart 4, panel 1). Sector and industry composition have been responsible for about a third of the underperformance of the DM Value index. What about excluding the FAANGM stocks? Again, the story is similar. Even when omitting these stocks from our investment universe, Value stocks have still underperformed by almost the same amount as a regular Value composite (Chart 4, panel 2). Finally, we can also look at the performance of cheap versus expensive stocks within each industry. Chart 5A shows that cheap stocks have underperformed expensive stocks in 18 and 17 out the 24 GICS Level 2 industries in DM and in the US, respectively, since 2012 (roughly corresponding to the peak in relative performance in the EA Value index). Even on an equally-weighted basis, which eliminates the effects of large companies, cheap stocks have underperformed expensive stocks in both the average and median industry (Chart 5B). Verdict: Myth. The underperformance of cheap versus expensive stocks has been broad. While sector and industry dynamics have certainly been an important factor, Value's underperformance is not just the result of a few companies, sectors, or industries. Chart 6Value Likes Rising Yields... Theory #2: The decline in interest rates is to blame for the underperformance of Value Another reason used to explain the underperformance of Value is the secular decline in interest rates. The reasoning goes as follows: Cash flows from growth stocks are set to be received further into the future, while cash flows from Value stocks are closer to the present. Using a Discounted Cash Flow model, one can show that all else being equal, a decline in the discount rate should result in a relatively higher increase in the present value for Growth stocks versus Value stocks. There is some evidence in support of this theory. While prior to 2010, Value and interest rates had an inconsistent relationship, the beta of cheap stocks to the monthly change in the 10-year US Treasury yield has increased markedly over the past 10 years (Chart 6, panel 1). On the other hand, the beta of expensive stocks to yields has become increasingly more negative. A similar situation occurs when we use the yield curve. Cheap stocks tend to exhibit higher excess returns whenever it steepens, while expensive stocks do so when it flattens (Chart 6, panel 2). Importantly, these relationships are not purely a result of Value’s exposure to banks. Value stocks excluding financials also show a strong positive relationship to both the 10-year yield and yield curve slope versus their growth counterparts (Chart 7). But while this relationship is statistically significant, it fails to be economically significant. Our analysis shows that the betas to either interest rates or the slope of the yield curve only explain a small fraction of the performance of cheap or expensive stocks (Chart 8). This result is in line with the research from Maloney and Moskowitz, which showed that the vast majority of the decline in Value in recent years could not be explained by interest rates.4 Chart 7...Even When Excluding Financials... Chart 8...But Yields Don't Explain Much   Verdict: Myth. Cheap stocks have an increasingly positive beta to both the 10-year yield and the slope of the yield curve, whereas expensive stocks have an increasingly negative beta. However, while these betas are statistically significant, they can only account for a small portion of Value's underperformance. Theory #3: A decline in market mean-reversion is responsible for the underperformance of Value In a seminal paper, Fama and French describe the process of migration.5 Migration is when stocks move across different value buckets: For example, when stocks in the cheap bucket migrate to the neutral and expensive buckets, and when stocks in the expensive bucket migrate to the neutral or cheap buckets. Historically, this process of mean-reversion has provided a significant share of the Value premium. However, migration has declined significantly over the past decade (Chart 9, panel 1). The amount of market cap migrating each month as a percentage of total market cap has declined from over 12% before the GFC to less than 8% currently. Importantly, this decline in migration has been broad-based. Neither cheap, neutral, nor expensive stocks are moving to other valuation cohorts at the same rates that prevailed in the past (Chart 9, panel 2). The market has become much more ossified: Value stocks remain Value stocks, Neutral stocks remain Neutral stocks, and Growth stocks remain Growth stocks.5 Chart 9What Happens In Value Now Stays In Value Chart 10Market Concentration Could Be The Reason Why Migration Has Declined Why has migration declined? One theory is that industries have increasingly become more monopolistic, which means that it has become harder for new entrants to gain market share (Chart 10). Meanwhile market leaders are able to grow at an above-average pace thanks to their large network effects.6 What has been the role of this decreased migration in the performance of Value? A paper written by Arnott, Harvey, Kalesnik, and Linainmaa showed that while the returns attributable to migration have decreased over the past 15 years, this change is still not strong enough to explain the deep underperformance in Value.7 Our own research assigns it a relatively larger weight, with migration accounting for a little less than half of the underperformance of Value since 20128 (Table 2). Table 2Return Attribution Of Cheap And Expensive Stocks Verdict: Somewhat True. Migration has declined since the GFC, possibly because of an increase in monopoly power. While this decline has certainly played a role in the underperformance of Value, it explains, at most, less than half of the drawdown since 2012. Theory #4: Value has underperformed because it is increasingly a play on junk stocks It is a well-known empirical fact that cheap stocks tend to have lower Quality than expensive stocks. Conceptually this makes sense: Companies with higher profitability, more stability, and less leverage should trade at a valuation premium, whereas low income, high-debt companies should trade at a discount. However, this gap in Quality between cheap and expensive stocks is not always the same. Consider the composition of cheap and expensive stocks in 2000 – the eve of the tech bubble crash. About a third of expensive stocks were also junk (low quality), whereas 36% were quality stocks (Chart 11). Today, this composition is much different: Only about a fifth of the market capitalization of expensive stocks is junk, whereas quality stocks now make up 44% of the overall expensive cohort. On the other hand, the Quality of cheap stocks has deteriorated: Cheap junk stocks are now 37% of the cheap cohort versus 29% in 2000. Importantly, the difference in Quality between cheap and expensive stocks tends to be a good predictor for value returns (Chart 12). A big gap in the Quality factor often implies lower returns of cheap versus expensive stocks, whereas a small gap implies higher returns. These results are in line with similar research which has shown that Quality, or Quality proxies like profitability, can be used to enhance the Value factor.9 Chart 12Value Does Well When The Quality Gap Is Small Why is this the case? As we have discussed in the past, Quality has been one of the best performing factors over the past 30 years - likely driven by powerful behavioral biases as well as by the incentives in the money management industry.10 As a result, taking an overly negative position on this factor over a long enough period eventually eats away at the Value premium. Verdict: True. Value stocks today have a larger negative tilt to Quality than they did in the past. This negative tilt has hurt Value as excess returns of cheap stocks tend to be dependent on their Quality gap to expensive stocks. Theory #5: Value has underperformed because traditional valuation metrics are no longer a reliable indicator of intrinsic value How exactly to measure whether a company is cheap or expensive has been a matter of debate since the very beginnings of Value investing. Benjamin Graham famously cautioned against using book value as a measure of intrinsic value, preferring a more holistic approach. Today most index providers use a combination of traditional valuation metrics like price-to-book and price-to-earnings to build Value indices. It is fair to ask if these measures are still relevant for today’s companies. Intangible investment has become a much larger part of the economy, having surpassed tangible investment in the US in the late 1990s (Chart 13). However, both US GAAP and IFRS are very restrictive on the capitalization of R&D activities, which are known to originate valuable intangible assets.11 Other types of intangible capital such as unique production processes or customer lists are normally also expensed within SG&A expenses and are never capitalized unless there is an acquisition. This means that both the book value and earnings of intangible-heavy companies could be inadequate estimates of their true intrinsic value. Is there any evidence that this is the case? Using our EA dataset, we confirm that expensive companies generally have higher R&D expenditures as a percent of sales than cheap companies (Chart 14). Importantly, we see that the performance of Value within low R&D stocks is much better than the performance within high R&D stocks (Chart 15). This is line with the work of Dugar and Pozharny, who found that the value relevance for both earnings and book values has declined for high intangible companies, while it has stayed stable for low-intangible companies.12 This suggests that traditional valuation measures are losing their relevance as intangible-heavy companies become a larger part of the economy.13 Chart 14Growth Stocks Spend More On Intangibles Chart 15Are Traditional Metrics Underestimating Intrinsic Value In High-Intangible Companies? The effect of intangibles on traditional valuation metrics can also give us a clue as to why Value has performed well in some industries but not in others. Using a measure of intangible intensity derived by Dugar and Pozharny14 – which includes identifiable intangible assets, intellectual capital (as proxied by R&D spending), and organizational capital (as proxied by SG&A spending) – we can see that Value has done relatively better in industries with lower intangible intensity while it has performed relatively worse in industries with higher intangible intensity (Chart 16). Verdict: True. Value performs better when considering only companies with low R&D expenses or industries with low-intangible intensity. This suggests that the rise in intangible assets might be responsible for the underperformance of cheap stocks, as traditional valuation metrics may no longer be an accurate measure of intrinsic value in intangible-heavy companies or industries. Investment Implications Chart 17Investors Can Invest In Value Within Low-Intangible Sectors What does our analysis mean for investors? Aside from the most well-known practices to improve the performance of Value – for example, using a wide array of valuation metrics, exploiting value in small stocks, or using equal-weighted indices to avoid the effect of sector weightings or large companies15 – we would recommend investors first screen cheap stocks for quality to avoid Value traps. Investors should also account for the failure of traditional metrics to measure intangible assets. This can be done in two ways: The first is to take Value tilts only on intangible-light sectors such as Energy and Materials – for example, allocating only to the cheapest oil and materials stocks. For the last decade, the cheapest Energy and Materials companies have outperformed their respective sectors, even while overall Value has cratered (Chart 17). Alternatively, more sophisticated stock pickers can adjust valuation ratios to account for intangibles. There is some promise to this approach. Arnott, Harvey, Kalesnik, and Linainmaa showed that even a crude adjustment to the HML (High-Minus-Low) index consistently outperforms the regular value factor16 (Chart 18). What about asset allocators who invest only in broad indices? We would recommend that they stay away from structural allocations to commercial Value indices altogether. While it is true that sector rotations or interest-rate movements could benefit value on a short-term basis, in the long term, the negative Quality tilt of Value stocks should be a drag on returns. Additionally, it remains a big risk that indices based on traditional measures are underestimating intangible value. This underestimation will only get worse as the economy becomes more digitalized. Investors who wish to take advantage of trends like higher inflation or rising interest rates should just bet on cyclical sectors. So far this has been the right approach. Just this year, even though interest rates have increased by more than 60 basis points, and both Financials and Energy have outperformed IT by 13% and 30% respectively, Value stocks have underperformed Growth stocks (Chart 19). Chart 18Adjusting For Intangibles Improves Value Chart 19Rates Rose, Financials And Energy Outperformed IT, And Yet Value Underperformed Growth Appendix A Note On Methodology The Equity Analyzer service is a stock picking tool that applies a top-down approach to bottom-up stock picking. The crux of the platform is the BCA Score, which is a weighted composite of 30 cross sectionally percentile ranked factors. Within this report we focus on the value (price-to-earnings, price-to-book, price-to-cash, price-to-cash flow and price-to-sales) and quality (accruals, profitability, asset growth, and return on equity) factors used in the BCA Score model. Each of the factors are cross sectionally-percentile ranked, within the specified universe, where a score of 100% is best ranked stock according to that particular score. From here, we create the value and quality scores used in this report by equal-weighting and combining the scores from each value and quality factors. It is important to note that a high score does not mean the underlying value is high, but that it exhibits a better characteristic for forecasting future excess returns. For example, the stock with the highest value score would be considered the cheapest. The scores are re-calculated each period and applied on a one-period forward basis when calculating returns. To keep the analysis comparable the MSCI Data and relevant to our clients, we limit the universe of stocks to only those with a market capitalization greater than 1 billion USD. Also, unless otherwise specified, the scores are market-cap weighted when aggregated and all returns are in US dollars.   Juan Correa-Ossa, CFA Editor/Strategist juanc@bcaresearch.com Lucas Laskey Senior Quantitative Analyst lucasl@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1  Please see Clifford Asness, John M. Liew, Lasse Heje Pedersen, and Ashwin K Thapar, “Deep Value,” The Journal of Portfolio Management, 47-64 (11-40), 2021.2   2  Please see Andrew Y. Chen and Mihail Velikov, “Zeroing in on the Expected Returns of Anomalies,” Finance and Economic Discussion Series 2020-039, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve. 3 Please see Global Investment Strategy Report, “Pivot To Value,” dated September 18, 2020. 4 Please see Thomas Maloney and Tobias J. Moskowitz, “Value and Interest Rates: Are Rates to Blame for Value’s Torments?” The Journal of Portfolio Management, 47-6 (65-87), 2021. 5 Please see Eugene Fama and Kenneth French, “Migration,” Financial Analyst Journal, 63-3 (48-58), 2007. 6 Please see Robert D. Arnott, Campbell R. Harvey, Vitali Kalesnik and Juhani T. Linainmaa, “Reports of Value’s death May Be Greatly Exaggerated,” Financial Analyst Journal, 77-1 (44-67), 2021. 7  Please see Robert D. Arnott, Campbell R. Harvey, Vitali Kalesnik and Juhani T. Linainmaa (2021). 8  Much like us, Lev and Srivastava assign a relatively bigger role to the decline in migration. For more details, please see Baruch Lev and Anup Srivastava, “Explaining the Recent Failure of Value Investing,” NYU Stern School of Business (2019). 9  Please see Clifford Asness, Andrea Frazzini, Ronen Israel and Tobias Moskowitz, “Fact, Fiction, and Value Investing,” The Journal of Portfolio Management, 42-1 (34-52), 2015. 10 Please see Global Asset Allocation Special Report, “Junk Disposal: The Quality Factor In Equity Markets,” dated September 8, 2020. 11 US GAAP requires both Research and Development costs to be expensed. IFRS prohibits capitalization of Research cost but allows it for Development costs provided that some conditions are met. For a further discussion on the accounting treatment of intangibles, please see Amitabh Dugar and Jacob Pozharny, “Equity Investing in the Age of Intangibles,” Financial Analyst Journal, 77-2 (21-42), 2021. 12 Please see Amitabh Dugar and Jacob Pozharny (2021). 13This also follows from research from Lev and Srivastava which showed that while capitalizing intangibles did not improve the value factor in the 1970s, it increased returns substantially after the 1990s. For more details, please see Baruch Lev and Anup Srivastava (2019). 14This measure excludes Banks, Diversified Financials, and Insurance. For more details, please see Amitabh Dugar and Jacob Pozharny (2021). 15Please see Clifford Asness, Andrea Frazzini, Ronen Israel and Tobias Moskowitz (2015). 16Please see Robert D. Arnott, Campbell R. Harvey, Vitali Kalesnik and Juhani T. Linainmaa (2021).  

Highlights Despite strong economic activity throughout most of 2021, economic surprises have decreased considerably. This helped the US equity market outperform Europe. It also significantly contributed to the euro’s depreciation versus the dollar. Even though growth will slow in 2022, economic surprises should increase. Growth expectations are much lower than they were entering 2021, and some key headwinds will fade. This picture is not without risks. China’s credit slowdown and the US’s elevated inflation represent the greatest threats. Based on the outlook for economic surprises, the euro will stage a rebound next year and small-cap stocks are attractive. Feature Global economic activity has been exceptionally robust this year, boosted by the re-opening of the world economy, as well as by the considerable fiscal and monetary stimuli injected globally over the past 20 months. However, market participants also anticipated such a rebound; as a result, global economic surprises peaked in September 2020, and they are now in negative territory. Unanticipated developments have a substantial effect on market prices. Under this lens, the deterioration in economic surprises has had a strong impact on financial markets. It helps explain why the defensive US market has outperformed, why the dollar has been strong, and why bond yields have been flat since March 2021, even though inflation has risen, growth has been high by historical standards, and many major central banks have been eschewing their accommodative biases. Going forward, the evolution of economic surprises will remain crucial to market trends. While we anticipate global economic activity will decelerate in 2022, it will likely remain above trend and surprise to the upside, which will allow global economic surprises to recover. There are significant risks to this view, with large unanswered questions about the Chinese economy and the outlook for inflation in the US. In this context, despite near-term risks, we continue to expect EUR/USD to appreciate in 2022 and European small-cap stocks to outperform large-cap equities. Deteriorating Surprises Matter This year, the underperformance of global equities (both EM and Europe) relative to the US, the weakness in the euro, and the limited increase in yields have all caught investors off guard. At the beginning of 2021, investors were massively short the greenback and duration, while surveys showed a large preference for non-US equities. These views grew out of the expectation that global growth would be strong. Global growth turned out to be strong but began to disappoint expectations by the middle of the year. Expectations had become extremely lofty, suggesting that the bar had been set too high. Additionally, the tightening credit conditions in China and the growing supply constraints around the world caused growth to decelerate somewhat. The deterioration in short-term economic momentum and in surprises harmed European equities relative to the US. As Chart 1 highlights, the relative performance of European stocks is greatly affected by the earnings revision ratio of cyclicals stocks vis-à-vis defensive ones. This relationship reflects the greater pro-cyclicality of European equities compared to those of the US. Moreover, the earnings revision ratio of cyclical stocks relative to that of defensive equities mimics the fluctuations in economic surprises (Chart 1, bottom panel), as weaker-than-expected growth invites analysts to lower their relative earning expectations. The dynamics in the economic surprise index also weighed heavily on the FX market. The dollar is a highly counter-cyclical currency; therefore, it performs poorly when growth is not only increasing, but also doing so at a rate faster than anticipated. However, economic surprises did the exact opposite this year, which boosted the dollar’s appeal and pushed EUR/USD lower (Chart 2). While the strength in the dollar was accentuated by the increasingly aggressive pricing of Fed hikes in the OIS curve, relative interest rate expectations between the US and the Euro Area are also influenced by global economic activity because of the European economy’s greater cyclicality than that of the US. Chart 1Where Surprises Go, European Stocks Follow Chart 2Surprises Matter For The Dollar And The Euro Bottom Line: Global growth has been very strong in 2021, but it has begun to decelerate. Moreover, economic surprises are now in negative territory. The evolution of economic surprises this year was a key component of the strength in the dollar, the weakness of the euro, and the underperformance of European equities. Improving Surprises In 2022? We anticipate economic surprises to pick up in 2022. First, investors and analysts around the world rightfully expect a slowdown in global growth next year. This means that the bar for the economy to generate positive surprises is lower than it was in 2021. Second, we are already seeing signs that global economic surprises are trying to stabilize. A GDP-weighted aggregate of 48 countries is forming a trough at a low level, which historically precedes a pick-up in broader aggregate measures (Chart 3). Third, economic surprises move closely with the global PMI diffusion index. The diffusion index has fallen to levels historically associated with a rebound (Chart 4). Moreover, the share of countries whose Leading Economic Indicator is rising is still very depressed for a mid-cycle slowdown (Chart 4, bottom panel). As vaccination rates are improving around the world, including those in emerging markets, and as the global economy continues to re-open, we anticipate both the PMI and LEI diffusion indexes to improve next year, which will boost economic surprises. Chart 3A Budding Rebound? Chart 4The dispersion Of Growth Matters or Surprises Fourth, the global capex outlook remains very positive. Capex intentions in the US and in the Euro Area are highly elevated and cash flows are strengthening. Moreover, US and European credit standards are very loose (Chart 5). This combination suggests that companies have the desire and the wherewithal to increase their investments next year, especially as capacity constraints limit their ability to meet final demand. Additionally, companies around the world need to rebuild inventory levels, which are depressed relative to sales, while customer inventories are still woefully low (Chart 6). Chart 5Capex Tailwinds Chart 6Not Enough Inventories Chart 7Households Are Rich Fifth, households globally also have ample firepower to support their spending, despite some weakness in real income caused by rising inflation. As Chart 7 shows, household net worth in the US is up by 128% of GDP since December 2019. Additionally, the accumulated stocks of household excess savings have reached USD2.4 trillion in the US, EUR150 billion in German, EUR130 billion in France and GBP180 billion in the UK. With respect to the Eurozone specifically, fiscal and monetary policy will remain very accommodative. The fiscal thrust in 2022 will be negative 2.1%, which is significantly less onerous than the US’s -5.9% of GDP. Moreover, economies like Italy and Spain may have a negligible fiscal thrust because of the NGEU program’s disbursements. In addition, while the fiscal thrust will be slightly negative next year, government deficits will remain wide, which indicates that fiscal policy in Europe continues to support demand. Meanwhile, monetary policy still generates deeply negative interest rates on the continent, which sustains demand further. This view is not without risks. The first threat stems from the Chinese credit slowdown. BCA’s China strategists expect credit flows to bottom out by the second quarter of 2022, which implies that Chinese domestic activity should accelerate meaningfully in the second half of the year.  Already, we are seeing tentative signs that authorities in China are trying to curb the credit slowdown. For example, Beijing cut the reserve requirement ratio last summer and excess reserves in the banking system are moving back up as liquidity injections grow (Chart 8). The problem is that, so far, Chinese credit demand is not responding to these small measures designed to ease policy. More will be needed as the tightening in financial conditions for real estate developers points to significant downside ahead in construction activity (Chart 9). For now, it is difficult for Beijing to ease policy much more than it has done so far: PPI has reached a 25-year high at 13.5%. Chart 8Not Enough... Chart 9... Especially With Such A Drag These Chinese inflationary pressures are likely to decline in the first months of 2022, which will allow Beijing to become more aggressive in its support to economic activity. First, Chinese demand is weak, unlike demand in the US. Second, the surge in the PPI is mostly driven by a 17% increase in the energy PPI and a 66% surge in the mining component. These jumps are unlikely to repeat themselves, which will reduce overall inflationary numbers in that economy. The second major risk is global inflation, which is hurting real wages. As a case in point, US real wages are contracting at a 3.2% annual rate, or their deepest cut in six decades. In Europe too, real wages are weak because of the increase in inflation. While these inflationary pressures have had limited effect on European consumer confidence so far, US consumer confidence is breaking down (Chart 10), driven by a collapse in the willingness to buy. If this trend continues, we might see a significant deceleration in global real consumer spending. Chart 10Not All Is Dark On The Inflation Front We still expect the European inflationary risk to start dissipating in the first half of 2022. Unlike in the US, the spike in core CPI mostly reflects an increase in VAT and remains narrow, with trimmed-mean CPI lingering near record lows. Moreover, the 24-month rate of change of core CPI remains within the historical norm, which is not the case in the US. The US situation is more tenuous. Last week’s inflation data showed a broadening of inflationary pressures across major sectors of the economy unaffected by the pandemic, with shelter inflation being of particular concern. However, there are positives. Long-term inflation expectations, as approximated by the 5-year/5-year forward inflation breakeven rate, are still below the levels that prevailed before the oil price crash of 2014 (Chart 11, top panel). Additionally, shipping costs have started to ebb, with global container freight rates losing steam and the Baltic Dry index collapsing by 50% since beginning of October (Chart 11, bottom panel). Moreover, as health restrictions are being relaxed in Asia, Asian PMI’s are improving, while the production of semiconductors is rising again in the region (Chart 12). As a result, although there is still significant inflation risk over the next five years, 2022 is likely to witness a temporary pullback in CPI growth. Chart 11Not All Is Dark On The Inflation Front Chart 12Semiconductor Production Is Picking Up Bottom Line: Global investors are right to anticipate a decline in global growth next year. However, even if growth slows, it will remain above trend. Moreover, the considerable stimuli in the global economy and the decreased expectations of investors improve the odds that global economic surprises will increase in 2022. China’s domestic weakness and the rise in US inflation constitute the two greatest risks to this view. Investment Implications The level of the global economic surprise index as well as its evolution have important implications for many key European assets. Table 1 highlights the performance of various financial markets at three months, six months, and a year following various ranges of readings of the surprise index (the categories are based on one standard-deviation intervals from the mean). We highlight this methodology, because there remains significant uncertainty about the near-term outlook of the surprise index. Table 1Level Of Surprises And Subsequent Returns Currently, the global economic surprise index stands at -20, or between its -1-sigma and its historical average. This level offers limited clear results for investors when it comes to the performance of the Eurozone benchmark relative to the MSCI All Country World Index (ACWI), and no clear results in terms of the performance of value stocks relative to growth. However, the current reading of the surprise index is consistent with an outperformance of growth stocks relative to momentum over both the three- and six-month horizons. It is also showing a 74% probability of small-cap equities beating large-cap ones over a 12-month basis. Table 2 shows the performance of the same assets over the same windows, following three consecutive months or more of an improving global economic surprise index. This is consistent with our main hypothesis that global economic surprises are set to increase by early next year. Table 2Surprise Upticks And Subsequent Returns Using this method again shows no strong call for the Euro Area equity benchmark relative to the ACWI. There is a small improvement in performance, but Europe on average still underperforms, which reflects the thirteen years of a relative bear market in European equities. Similarly, results for European value stocks compared to growth equities are limited, as the sample is dominated by the structurally poor performance of value equities. However, this method highlights that the euro is likely to appreciate against the USD on both the three- and six-month investment horizon. This message is consistent with that of our Intermediate-Term Timing Model. Finally, this approach once again underscores the attractiveness of European small-cap equities on a three-, six-, and twelve-month investment horizon. Consequently, we maintain our buy recommendation on the euro. As we wrote three weeks ago, the near-term outlook for the common currency is fraught with risks and the low readings of the global economic surprise index confirm this reality.  Moreover, markets might enter a phase when they aggressively discount Fed rates hikes next year, which would further hurt the euro. However, the outlook for global growth will ultimately put a floor under EUR/USD. Chart 13Small-Caps: Almost There We also view European small-cap stocks as the premier equity vehicle in Europe over the coming 18 months because of their heightened pro-cyclicality.  However, the timing around shifting toward overweighing small-cap remains risky in the near-term, as they have not fully worked out the overbought conditions we flagged four weeks ago (Chart 13). Thus, we maintain small-cap equities on an upgrade alert, and we are looking to pull the trigger very soon.   Mathieu Savary, Chief European Strategist Mathieu@bcaresearch.com     Tactical Recommendations Cyclical Recommendations Structural Recommendations Closed Trades Currency Performance Fixed Income Performance Equity Performance

Highlights US growth will slow next year, not because demand will falter, but because supply-side constraints will prevent the economy from producing as much output as households and businesses want to buy. If aggregate demand exceeds aggregate supply, the price level will rise. We argue that the US aggregate demand curve is currently quite steep. This implies that the price level may need to rise a lot to restore balance to the economy. In fact, if the aggregate demand curve is not just steep but upward-sloping, which is quite possible, there may be no price level that brings aggregate demand in line with supply; the US economy could go supernova. When supply is the binding constraint to growth, investors need to throw the old playbook for dealing with growth slowdowns out the window. Rather than positioning for lower bond yields, investors should position for higher yields. Rather than expecting a stronger dollar, investors should expect a weaker one. Rather than favoring growth stocks, large caps, and defensives, investors should favor value stocks, small caps, and cyclicals. The Binding Constraint To Growth Is Now Supply After a post-Delta wave rebound in Q4, the US economy is expected to slow over the course of 2022. The Bloomberg consensus is for US growth to decelerate from 4.9% in 2021Q4 to 4.1% in 2022Q1, 3.9% in 2022Q2, 3.0% in 2022Q3, and 2.5% in 2022Q4. Growth in the first quarter of 2023 is expected to dip further to 2.3%. We agree that US growth will slow next year but think the market narrative around this slowdown is misguided. Chart 1Plenty Of Pent-Up Demand The standard market playbook for dealing with an economic slowdown is to position for lower bond yields, a stronger US dollar, and a decline in commodity prices. On the equity side, the playbook calls for shifting equity exposure from cyclicals to defensives, favoring large caps over small caps, and growth stocks over value stocks. There are two major problems with this narrative. First, growth is peaking at much higher levels than before and is unlikely to return to trend at least until the second half of 2023. Second, and more importantly, US growth will slow due to supply-side constraints rather than inadequate demand. US final demand will remain robust for the foreseeable future. Households are sitting on $2.3 trillion in excess savings, equivalent to 15% of annual consumption (Chart 1). The household deleveraging cycle is over. After initially plunging during the pandemic, credit card balances are rising (Chart 2). Banks are falling over themselves to make consumer loans (Chart 3). Chart 2Revolving Credit On The Rise Again Chart 3Banks Are Easing Credit Standards For Consumers Chart 4A Record Rise In Household Net Worth Household net worth has risen by over 100% of GDP since the start of the pandemic (Chart 4). As we discussed two weeks ago, the wealth effect alone could boost annual consumer spending by up to 4% of GDP. Investment demand should remain strong. Business inventories are near record low levels (Chart 5). Core capital goods orders, a leading indicator for corporate capex, have soared (Chart 6). Chart 5Business Inventories Are Near Record Low Levels Chart 6Rise In Durable Goods Orders Bodes Well For Capex Chart 7The Homeowner Vacancy Rate Is Signaling The Need For More Homebuilding The Dodge Momentum Index, which tracks planned nonresidential construction, rose to a 13-year high in October. The home­owner vacancy rate is at multi-decade lows, signifying the need for more homebuilding (Chart 7). While increased investment will augment the nation’s capital stock down the road, the short-to-medium term effect will be to inflate demand. Policy Won’t Tighten Enough To Cool The Economy What is the mechanism that will push down aggregate demand growth towards potential GDP growth? It is unlikely to be policy. While budget deficits will narrow over the next few years, the IMF still expects the US cyclically-adjusted primary budget deficit to be nearly 3% of GDP larger between 2022 and 2026 than it was between 2014 and 2019 (Chart 8). Chart 9The Fed And Investors Still Believe In Secular Stagnation   As Matt Gertken, BCA’s Chief Geopolitical Strategist, writes in this week’s US Political Strategy report, the passage of the $550 billion infrastructure bill has increased, not decreased, the odds of President Biden and the Democrats passing their social spending bill via the partisan budget reconciliation process. On the monetary side, the Federal Reserve will finish tapering asset purchases next June and begin raising rates shortly thereafter. However, the Fed has no intention of raising rates aggressively. Most FOMC members see the Fed funds rate rising to only 2.5% this cycle (Chart 9). The “dots” call for only one rate hike in 2022 and three rate hikes in both 2023 and 2024. Investors expect rates to rise even less by end-2024 than the Fed foresees (Chart 10).   The Inflation Outlook Hinges On The Slope Of The Aggregate Demand Curve If policy tightening will not suffice in cooling demand, the economy will overheat and inflation will rise. But by how much will inflation increase? The answer is of great importance to investors. It also hinges on a seemingly technical question: What is the slope of the aggregate demand curve? As Chart 11 illustrates, prices will rise more if the aggregate demand curve is steep than if it is flat. Chart 12Wages Rose Faster Than Prices During The Inflationary Late-60s and 70s It is tempting to think of the aggregate demand curve in the same way one might think of the demand curve for, say, apples. When the price of apples rises, there is both a substitution and an income effect. An increase in the price of apples will cause shoppers to substitute away from apples towards oranges. In addition, if apples are so-called “normal goods,” shoppers will buy fewer apples in response to lower real incomes. This chain of reasoning breaks down at the aggregate level. When economists say the price level has risen, they are referring to all prices; hence, there is no substitution effect. Moreover, since one person’s spending is another’s income, rising prices do not necessarily translate into lower overall real incomes. Granted, if nominal wages are sticky, as they usually are in the short run, an unanticipated increase in prices will reduce real wage income. However, this will be offset by higher business income. Over time, wages tend to catch up with prices. In fact, wage growth usually outstrips price growth during inflationary periods. For example, real wages rose during the late-1960s and 70s but fell during the disinflationary 1980s (Chart 12). Textbook Reasons For A Downward-Sloping Aggregate Demand Curve According to standard economic theory, there are three main reasons why aggregate demand curves are downward-sloping: The Pigou Effect: Higher prices erode the purchasing power of money, resulting in a negative wealth effect. The Keynes Effect: Higher prices reduce the real money supply. This pushes up real interest rates, leading to lower investment spending. The Mundell-Fleming Effect: Higher real rates push up the value of the currency, causing net exports to decline. None of these three factors are particularly important for the US these days. Chart 13Base Money Has Swollen Since The Subprime Crisis Strictly speaking, the Pigou wealth effect applies only to “base money,” also known as “outside money.” Outside money includes cash notes, coins, and bank reserves. Inside money such as bank deposits are not included in the Pigou effect because while an increase in consumer prices decreases the real value of bank deposits, it also decreases the real value of commercial bank liabilities.1  In the US, the monetary base has swollen from 6% of GDP in 2008 to 28% of GDP as a result of the Fed’s QE programs (Chart 13). Nevertheless, even if one were to generously assume a wealth effect of 10% from changes in monetary holdings, this would still imply that a 1% increase in consumer prices would reduce spending by only 0.03% of GDP. Simply put, the Pigou effect is just not all that big. In contrast to the Pigou effect, the Keynes effect has historically had a significant impact on the business cycle. However, the importance of the Keynes effect faded following the Global Financial Crisis as the Fed found itself up against the zero lower bound on interest rates. When interest rates are very low, there is little to distinguish money from bonds. Rather than holding money as a medium of exchange (i.e., for financing transactions), households and businesses end up holding money mainly as a store of wealth. In the presence of the zero bound, the demand for money becomes perfectly elastic with respect to the interest rate (Chart 14). As a result, changes in the real money supply have no effect on interest rates, and by extension, interest-rate sensitive spending. And if a decline in the real money supply does not push up interest rates, this undermines the Mundell-Fleming effect as well. Could The Aggregate Demand Curve Be Upward-Sloping? The discussion above, though rather theoretical in nature, highlights an important practical point: The aggregate demand curve may be quite steep. This means that the price level might need to rise a lot to equalize aggregate demand with aggregate supply. Chart 15US Real Bond Yields Hitting Record Lows In fact, one can easily envision a scenario where a rising price level boosts spending; that is, where the demand curve is not just steep but upward-sloping. One normally assumes that higher inflation will prompt central banks to raise rates by more than inflation has risen, leading to higher real rates. However, if the Fed drags its feet in hiking rates, as it is wont to do given its concerns about the zero bound, rising inflation will translate into a decline in real rates. Lower rates will boost demand, leading to higher inflation, and even lower real rates. In addition, lower real rates will benefit debtors, who tend to have a higher marginal propensity to spend than creditors. This, too, will also boost aggregate demand. It is striking in this regard that real bond yields hit a record low this week, with the 10-year TIPS yield falling to -1.17% and the 30-year yield drooping to -0.57% (Chart 15). Black Holes Vs. Supernovas In the case where the aggregate demand curve is upward-sloping, there is no stable equilibrium (Chart 16). If demand falls short of supply, demand will continue to shrink as the price level declines, leading to ever-rising unemployment. Unless policymakers intervene with stimulus, the economy will sink into a deflationary black hole. In contrast, if demand exceeds supply, demand will continue to rise as the price level increases exponentially. The economy will go supernova. Tick Tock Young stars fuse hydrogen into helium, releasing excess energy in the process. After the star has run out of hydrogen, if it is big enough, it will start fusing helium into heavier elements such as carbon and oxygen. The process of nucleosynthesis continues until it reaches iron. That is the end of the line. Fusing elements heavier than iron requires a net input of energy. Unable to generate enough external pressure through fusion, the star loses its battle to gravity. The core collapses, spewing material deep into interstellar space (a good thing since your body is mainly made from this stardust). Observing the star from afar, one would be hard-pressed to see anything abnormal until it explodes. The path to becoming a supernova is highly non-linear. The same is true for inflation. Just like a star with an ample supply of hydrogen, the Fed can burn through its credibility for a while longer. During the 1960s, it took four years for inflation to take off after the economy had reached full employment (Chart 17). By that time, the unemployment rate was two percentage points below NAIRU. Most of today’s inflation is confined to durable goods. This is not a sustainable source of inflation. The durable goods sector is the only part of the CPI where prices usually fall over time (Chart 18). Chart 17Inflation Spiked In The 1960s Only Once The Unemployment Rate Had Fallen Far Below Equilibrium Chart 18Inflation Has Been Concentrated In Durable Goods, A Sector Where Prices Usually Fall Over Time To get inflation to go up and stay up in modern service-based economies, wages need to rise briskly. While US wage growth has picked up, the bulk of the increase has been among low-wage workers, particularly in the services and hospitality sector (Chart 19). Chart 19Wage Growth Has Picked Up, But Mainly At The Bottom Of The Income Distribution The most likely scenario for next year is that firms will simply ration output, fearful that raising prices too quickly will hurt brand loyalty and trigger accusations of price gouging. Shortages will persist, but this time they will be increasingly concentrated in the service sector. Such a state of affairs will not last, however. Competition for workers will cause wages to rise much more than they have so far. Keen to protect profit margins, firms will start jacking up prices. A wage-price spiral will develop. The US economy could go supernova. Investment Conclusions Chart 20Long-Term Inflation Expectations Are Near The Bottom End Of The Fed's Comfort Zone US growth will slow next year, not because demand will falter, but because supply-side constraints will prevent the economy from producing as much output as households and businesses want to buy. This means that the old playbook for dealing with growth slowdowns needs to be thrown out the window. Rather than positioning for lower bond yields, investors should position for higher yields. Rather than expecting a stronger dollar, investors should expect a weaker one. Rather than favoring growth stocks, large caps, and defensives, investors should favor value stocks, small caps, and cyclicals. While inflation expectations have recovered from their pandemic lows, the 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rate is still near the bottom end of the Fed’s comfort zone (Chart 20). Rising inflation expectations will lift long-term bond yields, justifying a short duration stance in fixed-income portfolios. Higher bond yields will benefit value stocks. Chart 21 shows that there has been a strong correlation between the relative performance of growth and value stocks and the 30-year bond yield this year. Rising input prices will make the US export sector less competitive, leading to a weaker dollar. Historically, non-US stocks have done well when the dollar has been weakening (Chart 22). Chart 21The Relative Performance of Value Stocks Has Closely Tracked Bond Yields This Year Chart 22Non-US Stocks Tend To Do Best When The US Dollar Is Weakening As for the overall stock market, with the Fed still in the dovish camp, it is too early to turn negative on equities. An equity bear market is coming, but not until rising inflation forces the Fed to step up the pace of rate hikes. That will probably not happen until mid-2023. Short Gilt Trade Activated We noted last week that we would go short the 10-year UK Gilt if the yield broke below 0.85%. Our limit order was activated on November 5th and we are now short this security.   Peter Berezin Chief Global Strategist pberezin@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1  To distinguish between inside and outside money, one should ask where the liability resides. If the liability resides within the private sector, it is inside money. By convention, central bank reserves are classified as outside money. However, one could argue that since taxpayers ultimately own the central bank, an increase in the price level will benefit taxpayers by eroding the real value of the central bank’s liability. If one were to take this view, the Pigou effect would be even weaker. Global Investment Strategy View Matrix Special Trade Recommendations Current MacroQuant Model Scores