Gov Agencies

The growth and inflation profiles of the three central European countries are set to diverge. The outlook for Polish and Hungarian Bonds are not attractive anymore. Book profits on them. Instead, initiate a new trade: pay Polish / receive Czech 10-year swap rates.

Listen to a short summary of this report.       Executive Summary Second Fastest Hiking Cycle Ever? Can the Fed achieve a soft landing, bringing inflation back to its 2% target without causing growth to slow significantly below trend? It has managed this only once in the past (in 2004). Every other cycle triggered a recession or, at best, a fall in the PMI to below 50. Recession is not a certainty. A higher neutral rate than in the past – partly due to the build-up of household savings – means the economy may be unusually robust this time. But the risk is high. We recommend a neutral weighting in equities, with a tilt to more defensive positioning: Overweight the US, and a focus on quality and defensive growth sectors. China’s slowdown is particularly worrying. We expect the RMB to fall, which will put downward pressure on other Emerging Markets. Bottom Line: Investors should maintain low-risk portfolio positioning until the outcome of the sharp tightening of financial conditions is clearer.     Recommended Allocation The key to the performance of financial markets over the next year is whether the Fed and other central banks can kill inflation without killing economic growth. This is not impossible. But the risk that aggressive tightening of monetary policy triggers a recession – or at best a sharp slowdown – is high. Investors should maintain relatively low-risk portfolio positioning. If the Fed raises rates in line with what the futures market is projecting – by 286 basis points over the next 12 months – it will be the second fastest tightening on record, after only the “full Volcker” of 1980-1981 (Chart 1). Other central banks, even in countries and regions with much weaker growth than the US, are predicted to tighten almost as aggressively (Table 1). At the same time, the Fed will start to run down its balance-sheet rapidly; we estimate its holdings of US Treasurys will fall by more than $1 trillion by end-2023 (Chart 2). What was the impact on the economy of previous Fed hiking cycles? It varied, but on only one occasion in the past 50 years (2004) was there neither a recession nor a fall of the Manufacturing ISM to below 50 in the two years or so following the first hike (Table 2).1 The ISM (and other global PMIs) falling to below 50 is important because that is typically the dividing line between equities outperforming bonds and vice versa (Chart 3). Chart 1Second Fastest Hiking Cycle Ever? Table 1Futures Projected Interest Rate Hikes Chart 2Fed Balance-Sheet Will Shrink Rapidly Too Table 2What Happened To The Economy In Fed Hiking Cycles Chart 3Will PMIs Fall Below 50?  A recent paper by Alex Domash and Larry Summers showed that, since 1955, when US inflation was above 4% and unemployment below 5%, there was a 73% probability of recession over the next four quarters, and 100% over the next eight quarters (Table 3). On each of the three occasions when inflation was above 5% and unemployment below 4% (as is the case now), recession followed within a year. How could the Fed avoid a hard landing? Inflation could come down quickly, which would allow the Fed to ease back on tightening. As consumption switches back to services from durables, and the supply side succeeds in increasing production, the price of manufactured goods could fall (Chart 4). There were signs of this happening already in March, when US durables prices fell by 0.9% month-on-month. The problem, however, is that because of rising energy costs and lockdowns in China, the supply-side response has been delayed. The fall in semiconductor and shipping costs, which we previously argued would happen this year, is not yet clearly coming through (Chart 5). There are also signs of a price-wage spiral, with US wages rising (with a lag) in line with prices (Chart 6). Table 3This Level of Inflation And Unemployment Usually Leads To Recession Chart 4Can The Price Of Durables Now Fall? Chart 5Supply-Side Recovery Delayed? The economy could be more robust than in the past, leaving it unscathed by higher rates. Our model of the equilibrium level of short-term rates is 3.2%, well above the Fed’s estimate of 2.4% (Chart 7). Our colleague Peter Berezin has argued that the neutral rate could be as high as 4%.2 In particular, the $2 trillion-plus of excess US household savings (equal to 10% of GDP) could support consumption for some years even if real wage growth is negative (Chart 8). However, there are already signs that higher rates are hurting the housing market, the most interest-rate sensitive part of the economy. The average US 30-year fixed-rate mortgage rate has risen to 5.1% from 3.2% since the start of the year. This is negatively impacting home sales and mortgage applications (Chart 9). Moreover, even if the Fed can succeed in raising rates without killing the expansion, the markets – for a while – will worry that it cannot. Chart 6A Price-Wage Spiral? Chart 7Rates Are Still A Long Way Below Neutral Chart 8Excess Savings Could Support The Economy Chart 9Higher Rates Already Impacting Home Sales There are clear signs of a slowdown in the global economy. Europe may already be in recession, with sentiment indicators collapsing to recessionary levels (Chart 10). More esoteric indicators, which have historically signaled slowing growth ahead, such as the Swedish new orders/inventories ratio, are also flashing a warning signal (Chart 11). Global financial conditions have tightened at the fastest pace since 2008 (Chart 12). Corporate earnings forecasts have started to be revised down for the first time in this cycle (Chart 13). Chart 10Is Europe Already In Recession? Chart 1111. Signs Of Trouble Ahead Chart 12Financial Conditions Have Tightened Significantly Chart 13Corporate Earnings Forecasts Being Revised Down But what of the argument that investors have already turned ultra-pessimistic and that all the bad news is in the price? Global equities are down only 14% from their historic peak, barely in correction territory. It is true that sentiment (historically a contrarian indicator) is very poor, with twice as many respondents to the American Association of Individual Investors’ weekly survey expecting the stock market to fall over the next six months as expect it to rise (Chart 14). But, despite investor pessimism, there are few signs that investors have made their portfolios more defensive. The same AAII survey shows little decline in equity weightings, and no big shift into cash (Chart 15). Chart 14Investors Are Very Pessimistic... Chart 15...But Haven't Moved More Defensive Equities: The US is the best house on a tough street. Growth is likely to remain more robust than in the euro area or Japan. The US stock market has a lower beta (Chart 16). And, while the US is more expensive, valuations do not drive the 12-month relative performance of stocks and, anyway, the US premium valuation can be justified by higher ROE and the lower volatility of profits (Chart 17). Emerging markets continue to look vulnerable to the slowdown in China and tighter US financial conditions (Chart 18). We remain underweight. Chart 16US Stocks Are Lower Risk Chart 17US Premium Valuation Is Justified Chart 18Tightening Financial Conditions Are Bad For EM Chart 19Consumer Staples Are Defensive Chart 20IT Earnings Will Continue To Grow Strongly Within sectors, our preference remains for quality and defensive growth. Consumer staples tend to outperform when PMIs are falling (Chart 19) and are supported by attractive dividend yields. Information Technology is a more controversial overweight, given that it is expensive and sensitive to rising rates. Nevertheless, investment in tech hardware and software is likely to continue, giving the sector strong structural earnings growth in coming years (Chart 20). Currencies: The dollar has risen by 7.3% year-to-date driven by interest-rate differentials and the Fed being expected to be more aggressive than other central banks. But we are only neutral, since the Fed will probably not raise rates by as much as the market is pricing in, and because the dollar looks very overvalued (Chart 21). We lower our recommendation on the Chinese yuan to underweight. Interest-rate differentials with the US clearly point to it falling further – also the outcome desired by the authorities to help bolster growth (Chart 22). The likely CNY weakness will put further downward pressure on other EM currencies, particularly in Asia, given their high correlation to the Chinese currency (Chart 23). Chart 21The Dollar Is Very Overvalued Chart 22Rate Differentials Point To A Weaker RMB... Chart 23...Which Is Bad News For Other EM Currencies Fixed Income: With the 10-year US Treasury yield at 2.9% and that in Germany at 0.9%, there is a stronger argument for marginally raising weightings in government bonds. We are neutral on government bonds within the (underweight) fixed-income category. Remember, though, that real yields are still negative: -0.1% in the US and -2.1% in Germany. We do not expect long-term rates to rise much over the next 6-9 months, and so remain neutral on duration. The “golden rule of bond investing” says that government bond returns are driven by whether the central bank is more or less hawkish than expected over the next 12 months (Chart 24). We would expect the Fed to be slightly less hawkish than currently forecast. US high-yield bonds offer an attractive yield pick-up – as long as US growth does not collapse. In a way, HY bonds are like defensive equities, given their high correlation with equities but beta only one-third that of equities (Chart 25). Chart 24Will The Fed Be More Or Less Hawkish Than Expected? Chart 25High Yield Bonds Are Like MinVol Equities Chart 26Russian Oil Is Going Cheap Commodities: Oil prices are likely to fall back to around $90 a barrel by year-end, as demand softens and increased supply (from Saudi Arabia, UAE, and North American shale, and maybe from Venezuela and Iran) enters the market. But the risk is to the upside if this extra supply does not emerge. In particular, possible bans on Russian oil and gas into the European Union (or Russia blocking sales) could disturb the market. It will take time for Russia’s 11 million b/d of oil production, which used to go mainly to Europe, to be rerouted to Asia. This is why the Urals benchmark is at a 30% discount to Brent (Chart 26). The long-term story for industrial commodities remains good, but there is downside risk – especially for iron ore and steel – from China’s slowdown (Chart 27). Gold is an obvious hedge against geopolitical risks and high inflation. But over the past 20 years, it has been negatively correlated to real interest rates and the US dollar, suggesting upside is capped. There is a chance, however, that the relationship between rates and gold breaks down, as it did in the 1970s and 1980s (Chart 28). We, therefore, remain neutral on gold, believing that a moderate holding is a good diversifier for portfolios. Chart 27Chinese Slowdown Is Negative For Commodities Chart 28Will Gold Start To Behave As It Did Before 1990? Garry Evans, Senior Vice President Global Asset Allocation garry@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1         In 2015, the ISM was already below 50 when the Fed hiked in December. 2         Please see Global Investment Strategy Report, “Is A Higher Neutral Rate Good Or Bad For Stocks?” dated March  18, 2022. Recommended Asset Allocation Model Portfolio (USD Terms)

Special Report

Highlights There is no evidence of a decline in US corporate credit or bank lending spreads over the past few decades, meaning that any excess savings effect structurally depressing interest rates is occurring in the Treasury market. We note the possible mechanisms of action for excess savings to lower government bond yields, by lowering the current policy rate, expectations for the policy rate in the future, or the term premium on long-maturity bonds. To investigate the impact that excess savings may be having on bond yields, we define historical periods of abnormal yields based on the gap between long-maturity Treasury yields and the potential rate of economic growth. This reflects our view that potential growth is the equilibrium interest rate under normal economic conditions. Since 1960, there have been three major episodes when the difference between bond yields and economic growth was large and persistent, but the first two seem to be easily explained by the stance of US monetary policy rather than by a savings/investment imbalance. The excess savings story better fits the facts after 2000. We do find evidence that a global savings glut lowered bond yields during the early-2000s, and it may have even modestly contributed to the excessive household credit demand that ultimately caused the global financial crisis. But as a deviation from equilibrium, the effect of the global savings glut was relatively insignificant compared to what has prevailed over the past decade. Excess savings did certainly play a role in lowering long-term investor expectations for the Federal funds rate during the last economic cycle, but it did so for cyclical reasons that spanned several years rather than as a result of demographic effects or other structural factors unrelated to the business cycle. That is an important distinction, as long-term investor expectations for the Fed funds rate remained low in the second half of the last economic expansion despite a reduction in savings and significantly stronger growth. The historical impact of FOMC meetings on the structural decline in long-maturity US Treasury yields strongly implies that fixed-income investors have been guided by the Fed to expect a lower average Fed funds rate. It is our view that the Fed has a backward-looking neutral rate outlook, informed by an incomplete understanding of the economic circumstances of the latter half of the last expansion. A low neutral rate narrative has become entrenched in the minds of investors and the Fed itself, and we regard this as the primary factor anchoring yields at the long-end of the maturity spectrum. This phenomenon is only likely to dissipate once short-term interest rates rise and a recession does not materialize. While the nearer-term outlook more likely favors a neutral or at best modestly short duration stance within a fixed-income portfolio, investors should remain structurally short duration in response to a potentially rapid shift in long-term interest rate expectations from the Fed and fixed-income investors over the coming few years. Feature Chart II-110-Year US Treasury Yields Are The Lowest Relative To Headline Inflation In Over 60 Years For many investors, one of the most striking features of the pandemic, especially over the past year, is how low US long-maturity government bond yields have remained in the face of the highest headline consumer price inflation in four decades (Chart II-1). To many investors, this has provided even further evidence of a structural “excess savings” effect that has kept interest rates well below the prevailing rate of economic activity. The theory of secular stagnation, revived by Larry Summers in late 2013, is a related concept, but many investors believe that interest rates will remain low even in a world in which the US economy is growing at or even above its trend. The fundamental basis for this view is the idea that over the longer term, the real rate of interest is determined by the balance (or imbalance) between desired savings and investment, and that advanced economies have and will continue to experience excess savings – defined as a chronically high level of desired savings relative to the investment opportunities available. According to this view, in order for the actual level of savings to equal investment, interest rates must fall. Chart II-2Do Excess Savings Explain This Gap? (Spoiler: No) This report challenges the view that excess savings are mostly responsible for the current level of long-term bond yields in the US. We agree that excess savings have played a role in explaining changes in long-term bond yields at different points over the past 20 years; we also agree that it is normal for interest rates in advanced economies to trend down over time in response to a demographically-driven decline in potential growth. But our goal is not to explain the downtrend in interest rates over time. Instead, we aim to explain the gap between the level of long-term bond yields today and the prevailing rate of economic activity, or consensus forecasts of the trend rate of growth (Chart II-2). We do not believe that this gap is economically justified, nor do we believe that it is driven by excess savings. We conclude that the Fed’s backward-looking neutral rate outlook is the primary factor anchoring US Treasury yields at the long-end of the maturity spectrum. This is only likely to change once short-term interest rates rise and a recession does not materialize; it suggests that investors should remain structurally short duration in response to a potentially rapid shift in long-term interest rate expectations from the Fed and fixed-income investors over the coming few years. Excess Savings And Interest Rates: Defining A “Mechanism Of Action” Households, businesses, and governments can directly purchase debt securities in capital markets, but they do not typically provide loans directly to borrowers. Direct lending usually occurs through the banking system, which means that excess savings would only lower interest rates in the economy through one of the following ways: By lowering the Fed funds rate By lowering long-maturity government bond yields relative to the Fed funds rate, by reducing either the term premium or investors’ expectations for the average Fed funds rate in the future By lowering corporate bond yields relative to duration-matched government bond yields By lowering lending rates on bank loans relative to banks’ cost of borrowing Charts II-3-II-5 highlight that there is no evidence of a structural decline in corporate credit spreads or bank lending rates relative to the Fed funds rate, so we can rule out this effect as a mechanism of action for excess savings to have structurally lowered interest rates. Chart II-6 highlights that interest paid on bank deposits lags the Fed funds rate, so we can also rule out the idea that excess deposits force the Fed to keep the effective Fed funds rate low. Chart II-3No Evidence Of A Structural Decline In Corporate Credit Spreads… Chart II-4…Or Auto Loan Rate Spreads… Chart II-5…Or Personal Loan Rate Spreads… Chart II-6...Or Bank Deposit Rate Spreads This means that if excess savings are depressing interest rates in the US, that the effect is truly occurring in the Treasury market. As noted, this could occur by lowering the current policy rate, expectations for the policy rate in the future, or the term premium on long-maturity bonds. Related Report  The Bank Credit AnalystR-star, And The Structural Risk To Stocks All of these effects are certainly possible. Keynes’ paradox of thrift highlights that excess savings can manifest itself as a chronic shortfall in aggregate demand, which would persistently lower the Fed funds rate as the Fed responds to a long period of high unemployment. This could also lower the term premium on long-maturity bond yields in a scenario in which the Fed repeatedly engages in asset purchases to help stabilize aggregate demand. As well, domestic excess savings could lower the term premium on long-maturity bond yields, as aging savers directly purchase government securities as part of their retirement portfolios. Finally, foreign capital inflows could also cause this effect, especially if they originate from countries with chronic current account surpluses that use an increase in US dollar reserves to purchase long-maturity US government securities. Table II-1 summarizes these possible mechanisms of action for excess savings to lower US government bond yields. With these mechanisms in mind, we review the past 60 years to identify periods of “abnormal” bond yields, with the goal of understanding whether excess savings appear to explain major gaps. Table II-1Possible Mechanisms Of Action For Excess Savings To Lower Long-Term Government Bond Yields Identifying Periods Of “Abnormal” Long-Maturity Bond Yields Chart II-7There Have Been Three Distinct Periods Of Abnormal Long-Maturity Bond Yields Chart II-7 shows the difference between nominal 10-year US Treasury yields and nominal potential GDP growth. Panel 2 shows an alternative version of this series using the ten-year median annualized quarterly growth rate of nominal GDP in lieu of estimates of potential growth, which highlights a generally similar relationship. This approach to defining “abnormal” long-maturity bond yields reflects our view that the potential rate of economic growth is the equilibrium interest rate under normal economic conditions. To see why, given that GDP also effectively represents gross domestic income, an interest rate that is persistently below the potential growth rate of the economy would create a strong incentive to borrow on the part of households and especially firms. Chart II-7 makes it clear that the relationship has been mean-reverting over time, but that there have been three major episodes when the difference between bond yields and economic growth was large and persistent. The first episode occurred from 1960 to the late 1970s, and saw government bond yields average well below the prevailing rate of economic growth. We do not see this period as having been caused by an excess of desired savings relative to investment. As we discussed in our November Special Report,1 this gap represented a period of persistently easy monetary policy which contributed to excessive aggregate demand and a structural rise in inflation. The second major episode is also easily explained, as it occurred in response to the first. Following a decade of high inflation, Fed chair Paul Volcker raised interest rates aggressively beginning in 1979 to combat inflationary expectations, which led to a two-decade period of generally tight monetary policy. Like the first period, this was not caused by an imbalance between desired savings and investment. The third episode has prevailed since the late-1990s, and has seen a negative yield/growth gap on average – albeit one that has been smaller than what occurred in the 1960s and 1970s. From 2000 to 2007, the gap was generally negative, although it turned positive by the end of the economic cycle. It was modestly negative on average from 2008 to 2010, and only became persistently negative starting in 2011. The gap fell to a new low during the COVID-19 pandemic, and remains wider today than at any point during the last economic recovery. It is these post-2000 periods of a persistently negative yield/growth gap that should be closely investigated for evidence of an excess savings effect. The Global Savings Glut As noted, prior to 2000, the yield/growth gap in the US seems clearly explained by the Fed’s monetary policy stance, not by an excess savings effect. So the question is whether there is any evidence of excess savings having caused this negative gap since 2000. In our view, the answer is yes, but the effect was relatively small compared to what prevails today. We do find evidence of a global savings glut during the early-2000s. Chart II-8 highlights that the private and external sector savings/investment balances in China and emerging markets more generally were persistently positive during the 2000s. Chart II-9 highlights that multiple estimates of the term premium declined around that time – especially during Greenspan’s “conundrum” period of between 2004 and 2005. Chart II-8There Was A Global Savings Glut Prior To The Global Financial Crisis Chart II-9The Global Savings Glut Does Seem To Have Lowered The Term Premium On US 10-Year TreasurysChart II-10 breaks down the components of the 10-year yield into the 5-year yield and the 5-year/5-year forward yield, and highlights that the negative correlation between the two components lasted for only one year. Overall, the 10-year Treasury yield was lower than potential growth for roughly two years as a result of the global savings glut effect.       Chart II-10Still, The Global Savings Glut Effect Did Not Last Long And Was Not Especially Large In Magnitude This was a significant event, and it may even have modestly contributed to the excessive household credit demand that ultimately caused the global financial crisis. But as a deviation from equilibrium, it was relatively insignificant compared to what has prevailed over the past decade. Excess Savings And US Household Deleveraging Chart II-11Most Of The Post-2007 Decline In 10-Year Yields Is Attributable To Lower Long-Term Fed Funds Rate Expectations Chart II-11 highlights that, relative to June 2007 levels, the vast majority of the cumulative decline in the 10-year Treasury yield has occurred because of a decline in implied long-term expectations for the Fed funds rate, rather than a major decline in the term premium. The chart also shows that almost all the decline in implied long-term interest rate expectations since 2007 occurred during the 2008/2009 recession. This normally occurs during a recession as investors price in a low average Fed funds rate at the short end of the curve; the anomaly is that these expectations remained permanently low even as the economy recovered and as the Fed raised interest rates from 2015 to 2018. To us, Chart II-11 also underscores that the Fed’s asset purchases are not the main culprit behind low long-maturity bond yields today, given that the decline in long-term expectations for the Fed funds rate persisted even as the Fed stopped purchasing assets in 2014. It is not difficult to see why investors lowered their long-term Fed funds rate expectations in the immediate aftermath of the global financial crisis, even as economic recovery took hold. Chart II-12 highlights that the “balance sheet” nature of the 2008/2009 recession unleashed the longest period of US household deleveraging in the post-WWII period, and Chart II-13 highlights that this occurred despite extremely low interest rates – and in contrast to other countries like Canada that did not experience the same loss in household net worth. Chart II-12Household Deleveraging Did Lower The Neutral Rate For Several Years Following The Global Financial Crisis Chart II-13The US Balance Sheet Recession Structurally Impaired Credit Demand For Several Years After 2008     Given that interest rates represent the price of borrowing, it is entirely unsurprising that a US balance sheet recession led to a persistent period in which credit growth was essentially unresponsive to interest rates, as households struggled to rebuild wealth lost during the recession and were unable to, or uninterested in, releveraging. This is another way of saying that the neutral rate of interest fell during that period, which we agree did occur. It is also accurate to characterize the US as having experienced a sharp increase in desired savings over that period, as highlighted by the explosion in the US private sector financial balance in the initial years of the last economic recovery (Chart II-14). Chart II-14Excess Savings Surged After 2008, But Eventually Normalized. Long-Term Rate Expectations Ignored The Normalization. So excess savings did certainly play a role in lowering long-term investor expectations for the Federal funds rate during the last economic cycle, but it did so because of cyclical reasons that spanned several years rather than because of demographic effects or other structural factors unrelated to the business cycle. That is an important distinction, because while Chart II-14 shows that this excess savings effect eventually waned in importance, long-term investor expectations for the Fed funds rate remained low in the second half of the last economic expansion. Chart II-15Growth Was Historically Weak Last Cycle, But Only Because Of The First Few Years Of The Expansion Chart II-15 highlights that the cumulative annualized growth in real per capita GDP during the last economic cycle was significantly below that of the average of previous expansions, but this was only the case because of the very slow growth period between 2008 and 2014. Per capita growth during the latter half of the expansion was comparable to that of previous expansions, and this occurred while the Fed was raising interest rates. And yet, investors only modestly raised their long-term interest rate expectations during that period. In our view, it is this fact that holds the key to understanding why investors’ long-term rate expectations are still low today. An Alternative Explanation For Today’s Extremely Low Long-Maturity Bond Yields Chart II-16Fixed-Income Investors Have Been Guided By The Fed To Expect A Low Average Fed Funds Rate Chart II-16 highlights that, since 1990, all of the structural decline in US 10-year Treasury yields has occurred within a three-day window on either side of FOMC meetings. This strongly suggests that fixed-income investors have been guided by the Fed to expect a low average Fed funds rate, which is consistent with how similar 5-year/5-year forward US Treasury yields are in relation to published FOMC and market participant estimates of the average longer-run Fed funds rate (as shown in Chart II-2). This raises the important question of why the Fed did not revise up its expectation for the neutral rate during or following the second half of the last economic expansion, when growth was much stronger than during the first half. In our view, one of the clearest articulations of the Federal Reserve’s understanding of the neutral rate of interest was presented in a 2015 speech by Lael Brainard at the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research. Brainard noted the following: “The neutral rate of interest is not directly observable, but we can back out an estimate of the neutral rate by relying on the observation that output should grow faster relative to potential growth the lower the federal funds rate is relative to the nominal neutral rate. In today’s circumstances, the fact that the US economy is growing at a pace only modestly above potential while core inflation remains restrained suggests that the nominal neutral rate may not be far above the nominal federal funds rate, even now. In fact, various econometric estimates of the level of the neutral rate, or similar concepts, are consistent with the low levels suggested by this simple heuristic approach.”2 Chart II-17The Fed, Wrongly, Sees The 2019 Experience As Having Confirmed A Low Neutral Rate... Given how the Fed determines the neutral rate is, two factors explain why the Fed’s estimates of the neutral rate have not increased (and, in fact, fell modestly in March). First, core inflation remained below 2% from 2015-2019, despite the fact that the economy was clearly growing at an above-trend pace during this period in the face of Fed rate hikes. We have noted in previous reports the role that the 2014 collapse in oil prices had on household inflation expectations. The latter were already vulnerable to a disinflationary shock, given how negative the output gap had been in the first half of the expansion.3 We do not think that the decline in inflation expectations that occurred following the 2014 collapse in oil prices reflects a low neutral rate, but rather we believe that the Fed saw this as a conundrum that supported the expectation of a low average Fed funds rate. The second event explaining the Fed’s persistently low long-term rate expectations is the fact that the Fed was forced to cut interest rates in 2019, which we believe it saw as confirmation that the stance of monetary policy had become either meaningfully less easy or openly tight. From the Fed’s point of view, this perspective was also supported by recessionary indicators, such as the inversion of the 2-10 yield curve (Chart II-17), and popular (but now discontinued) econometric estimates of the real neutral rate of interest, such as those calculated by the Laubach-Williams model (panel 3). Chart II-18...Without Appreciating The Damaging Impact The China-US Trade War Had On Global Activity However, this view entirely ignores the fact that the US and global economies were negatively impacted in 2018 and 2019 by a politically-motivated nonmonetary shock to aggregate demand: the China-US trade war, which also impacted or targeted several major advanced economies. Chart II-18 highlights that global trade uncertainty exploded during this period, which severely damaged business confidence around the world and caused a slowdown in global industrial production. Tighter Chinese policy also likely contributed to the slowdown in global activity, but the bottom line is that factors other than US monetary policy contributed to economic weakness during this period, and that it is incorrect to infer from the 2018/2019 experience that interest rates rose to or exceeded the neutral rate of interest. In short, it is our view that the Fed has simply become backward-looking in how it perceives the neutral rate of interest; it has not yet observed a period when the Fed funds rate has risen to its estimate of neutral but is unambiguously still easy. Fixed-income investors, having demonstrably anchored their own assessments to those of the Fed over the past 30 years, have had no basis to come to a meaningfully different conclusion. We believe that the Fed’s backward-looking low neutral rate outlook has now become entrenched in the minds of investors and the Fed itself, and is the primary factor anchoring yields at the long-end of the maturity spectrum. This will probably only change once short-term interest rates rise and a recession does not materialize. As a final point, we clearly acknowledge that private savings increased massively during the pandemic. Investors who are inclined to see excess savings as the primary driver of low bond yields will point to this fact. But this was a forced increase in savings, rather than a desired one. The rise in household sector savings occurred mostly because of a substantial reduction in services spending, as pandemic restrictions and forced changes in behavior prevented the consumption of many services. The household savings rate has already returned to its pre-pandemic level in the US, and 5-year/5-year forward Treasury yields have risen to a higher point than they were prior to the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. US households are likely to deploy a portion of their enormous stock of excess savings, as the pandemic continues to recede in importance, which is one of the main reasons to expect that the US economy will not succumb to a recession over the coming 12-18 months – and why investors and the Fed may soon be presented with evidence that warrants an increase in their long-term interest rate expectations. Investment Conclusions There are two important investment implications of the view that the Fed’s backward-looking neutral rate projection is the primary factor anchoring yields at the long end of the maturity spectrum. As we noted in Section 1 of our report, the first implication is that investors will likely be faced with a recession scare as the 2-10 yield curve durably inverts and as rate sensitive sectors of the economy, such as housing, inevitably slow in response to the extremely sharp rise in mortgage rates that has occurred over the past three months. We believe that it is ultimately the level of interest rates that matters for economic activity, rather than the change in interest rates. Large changes over short periods of time, however, create a degree of uncertainty about the trajectory of rates that temporarily impacts economic activity. This underscores that investors should not maintain an aggressively overweight stance toward global equities in a multi-asset portfolio, as it is likely that concerns about corporate profits will increase significantly at some point this year. The second investment implication is that US long-maturity bond yields could increase to much higher levels over the coming 12-24 months than many investors expect, in a scenario in which pandemic-driven price pressure dissipates, real wages recover, and no major politically-driven nonmonetary policy shocks emerge. We acknowledge that long-term interest rate expectations are unlikely to change until hard evidence of the economy’s capacity to tolerate interest rates above the Fed’s implied current estimate of the neutral rate emerges. This is a case, however, when we believe that investors should heed the now-famous words of Rüdiger Dornbusch: “In economics, things take longer to happen than you think they will, and then they happen faster than you thought they could.” As such, while the nearer-term outlook more likely favors a neutral or at best modestly short duration stance within a fixed-income portfolio, investors should remain structurally short duration in response to a potentially rapid shift in long-term interest rate expectations from the Fed and fixed-income investors over the coming few years. Jonathan LaBerge, CFA Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst   Footnotes 1 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst "Gauging The Risk Of Stagflation," dated October 29, 2021, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 2 Lael Brainard, Normalizing Monetary Policy When The Neutral Rate Is Low, December 2015 3 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst "The Modern-Day Phillips Curve, Future Inflation, And What To Do About It," dated December 18, 2020, available at bca.bcaresearch.com

Special Report

Dear Client, This week, the US Bond Strategy service is hosting its Quarterly Webcast (February 15 at 10:00 AM EST, 15:00 PM GMT, 16:00 PM CET). In addition, we are sending this Quarterly Chartpack that provides a recap of our key recommendations and some charts related to those recommendations and other areas of interest for US bond investors. Please tune in to the Webcast and browse the Chartpack at your leisure, and do let us know if you have any questions or other feedback. To view the Quarterly Chartpack PDF please click here. Best regards, Ryan Swift, US Bond Strategist

Highlights 2022 Key Views & Allocations: Translating our 2022 global fixed income Key Views into recommended positioning within our model bond portfolio results in the following conclusions to begin the year. Target a moderate level of overall portfolio risk, maintain below-benchmark overall duration exposure, make developed market government bond country allocations based on relative expected central bank hawkishness (underweight the US, UK and Canada; overweight Germany, France, Italy, Australia, Japan), and be selective on allocations to global spread product (overweight high-yield with a bias toward Europe over the US, neutral global investment grade, underweight emerging market hard currency debt). Specific Allocation Changes: Much of the current positioning in our model bond portfolio already reflects our 2022 investment themes. The only significant changes we make to begin the year are reducing emerging market USD-denominated corporate bond exposure to underweight, and shifting some high-yield corporate bond exposure from the US to Europe. Feature In our last report of 2021, we published our 2022 Key Views, outlining the themes and investment implications of the 2022 BCA Outlook for global fixed income markets. In this report, our first of the new year, we translate those views into more specific recommendations and allocations within the BCA Research Global Fixed Income Strategy model bond portfolio. The main takeaways are that another year of expected above-trend global growth, even after the risks to start the year from the Omicron variant, will further absorb spare capacity across the developed economies. Realized inflation will slow from the elevated readings of 2021, but will remain high enough to force central banks – led by the US Federal Reserve – to incrementally remove highly accommodative monetary policies put in place during the pandemic. The backdrop for global bond markets will turn far less friendly as a result, with higher bond yields (led by US Treasuries), flatter yield curves and much weaker returns on spread products that have benefited from easy monetary policies like investment grade corporate debt and emerging market (EM) hard currency debt. Against this challenging backdrop for overall fixed income returns, bond investors will need to focus more on relative exposures between countries, sectors and credit ratings to generate outperformance versus benchmarks. Our recommended portfolio allocations to begin 2022 reflect that shift (Table 1). Table 1GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Recommended Positioning For The Next Six Months A Review Of The Model Bond Portfolio Performance In 2021 Chart 12021 Performance: A Positive, Yet Volatile, Year Before we begin our discussion of the model bond portfolio for 2022, we will take a final look back at the performance of the portfolio in 2021. Last year, the model bond portfolio delivered a small negative total return (hedged into US dollars) of -0.51%, but this still outperformed its custom benchmark index by +36bps (Chart 1).1 It was a very challenging year for global fixed income markets, in aggregate, with significant swings in bond yields (i.e. US Treasuries were up in Q1, down in Q2/Q3, up then down in Q4) and credit spreads (US high-yield spreads fell in H1/2021 and were rangebound in H2/2021, while EM hard currency spreads were stable in H1/2021 before steadily widening during the rest of the year). Over the full year, the government bond portion of the portfolio outperformed the custom benchmark index by +27bps while the spread product segment outperformed by +9bps (Table 2). The bulk of that government bond outperformance occurred during the first quarter of the year when global bond yields surged higher as COVID-19 vaccines began to be distributed and economic optimism improved in response – trends that benefited the below-benchmark duration tilt within the portfolio. The credit market outperformance was more evenly spread out during the final nine months of the year. Table 2GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Full Year 2021 Overall Return Attribution In terms of specific country exposures on government debt (Chart 2), our underweight stance on US Treasuries (both in allocation and duration exposure) generated virtually all of the full-year outperformance of the government bond portion of the portfolio (+38bps versus the benchmark). The biggest underperformer was the UK (-9bps), concentrated at the very end of the year as Gilt yields declined on the back of the Omicron surge, to the detriment of our underweight stance. All other country allocations provided little excess return, in aggregate, over the full year in 2021 – although there was significant variance of those returns during the year. Within spread product (Chart 3), the biggest gains were seen in US high-yield (+19bps) where we remained overweight throughout 2021. The largest drag on performance came from UK investment grade corporates (-9bps), although this all came in Q1/2021 where we maintained an overweight stance at the time and spreads widened. Other spread product sectors delivered little in the way of excess return, although that should not be a surprise as we maintained a neutral stance on US and euro area investment grade corporates – which have a combined 18% weighting within the model bond portfolio custom benchmark index – throughout 2021. In the end, our recommended portfolio tilts during 2021 were generally on the right side of the market, with our overweights outperforming in an overall down year for bond returns (Chart 4). The numbers would have been even better without the drag on performance in the fourth quarter (-17bps for the entire portfolio). That came entirely from our two biggest government bond underweights – US Treasuries and UK Gilts – which saw significant bond yield declines in response to the emergence of the Omicron variant. (the detailed breakdown of the Q4/2021 performance can be found in the Appendix on pages 19-23). Importantly, the surge in bond yields seen in the first week of 2022 has already resulted in a full recovery of that Q4/2021 underperformance, providing a good start to the new year for our model portfolio. Top-Down Bond Market Implications Of Our Key Views We now present the specific fixed income investment recommendations that derive from those themes, described along the following lines: overall portfolio risk, overall duration exposure, country allocations within government bonds, yield curve allocations within countries, and corporate credit allocations by country and credit rating. Overall Portfolio Duration Exposure: BELOW BENCHMARK As we concluded in our 2022 Key Views report, longer-maturity government bond yields are now too low given the mix of very high inflation and very low unemployment seen in many countries. While we expect inflation to come down this year from the very rapid pace of 2021, it will not be by enough to force central banks off the path towards rate hikes that already began at the end of last year in places like the UK and New Zealand. The Fed is now signaling that multiple US rate hikes are likely in 2022, while even some European Central Bank (ECB) officials are expressing concern over very high European inflation. Longer maturity bond yields remain too low, in our view, because investors are discounting very low terminal rates – the peak level of policy rates to be reached in the next monetary tightening cycle. (Chart 5). An upward adjustment of global interest rate expectations is likely this year as central banks like the Fed and the Bank of England (BoE) deliver on expected rate hikes, with more tightening necessary beyond 2022. This will be the primary driver of the rise in global bond yields that we expect this year - an outcome that has already begun in the first week of 2022. Chart 5Global Government Bond Yields Vulnerable To Hawkish Repricing​​​​​​ Chart 6Staying Below-Benchmark On Overall Duration Exposure​​​​​​ We ended 2021 with a model bond portfolio duration that was -0.65 years below that of the custom performance benchmark (Chart 6). We feel comfortable maintaining that position, in that size, to begin the new year. Government Bond Country Allocation: OVERWEIGHT THE EURO AREA (CORE & PERIPHERY), JAPAN & AUSTRALIA; UNDERWEIGHT THE US, UK & CANADA Our country allocation decisions within our model bond portfolio entering 2022 are based on a simple framework. We are overweighting countries where central banks are less likely to raise rates this year, and vice versa. We expect the largest increase in developed market bond yields in 2022 to occur in the US, as markets are still not priced for the cumulative tightening that the Fed will likely deliver over the next couple of years. Markets are also underpricing how much the Bank of England and Bank of Canada will need to raise rates over the full tightening cycle, even with multiple hikes discounted for 2022. We see the necessary upward repricing of post-2022 rate expectations in all three of those countries – the US, UK and Canada – justifying underweight allocations in our model portfolio. Chart 7Our Recommended DM Government Bond Allocations To Start 2022 The opposite is true in core Europe and Australia. Overnight index swap (OIS) curves are discounting multiple rate hikes this year from the Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) and even an ECB rate hike later in 2022. As we discussed in our Key Views report, there is still not enough evidence pointing to rapid wage growth in Australia or Europe that would force the RBA and ECB to turn more hawkish than their current forward guidance which calls for no rate hikes in 2022. While both central banks may talk about the possibility that monetary policy will need to be tightened, we expect the actual rate hikes to occur in 2023 and not 2022. Thus, both markets justify overweight allocations in our model bond portfolio. We are also maintaining an overweight to Japanese government bonds, as Japanese inflation remains far too low – even in an environment of high energy prices and global supply chain disruption – for the Bank of Japan to contemplate any tightening of monetary policy. The country allocations within the model portfolio as of the end of 2021 all fit with the above analysis, thus we see no major changes that need to be made to begin 2022 (Chart 7).2 The only significant move made was to slightly bump up the size of the overweights in Italy and Spain, to be funded by the reduction in EM corporate bond exposure (as we discuss below). We continue to see a positive case for owning Peripheral European government bonds for the relatively high yields within Europe, with the ECB maintaining an overall dovish policy stance in 2022 even as it scales back the size of its bond buying activity starting in March. Inflation-Linked Bond Allocations: MAINTAIN A NEUTRAL OVERALL ALLOCATION TO GLOBAL LINKERS Chart 8Our Recommended Inflation-Linked Bond Allocations To Start 2022 Inflation-linked bonds have been a necessary part of bond investors' portfolios since the lows in global inflation breakeven spreads were seen in mid-2020. Now, with inflation expectations at or above central bank inflation targets in most developed market countries, and with realized inflation likely to subside from current levels this year, the backdrop no longer justifies structural overweights to linkers across all countries. We are sticking with our end-2021 overall neutral allocation to global inflation-linked bonds, focusing more on country allocations based on our inflation breakeven valuation indicators, as discussed in our 2022 Key Views report (Chart 8). This means maintaining a neutral stance on US TIPS and linkers (vs. nominal government bonds) in Canada, Australia and Japan. We are also staying with underweight positions in linkers (vs. nominals) in the UK, Germany, France and Italy where breakevens appear too high based on our indicators. Spread Product Allocation: MAINTAIN A SMALL OVERWEIGHT TO GLOBAL SPREAD PRODUCT FOCUSED ON EUROPEAN & US HIGH-YIELD CORPORATES, WHILE UNDERWEIGHTING EM CREDIT Chart 9Negative Real Yields: Global Bonds' Biggest Vulnerability Our expectation of above-trend global growth in 2022, with still relatively high inflation (compared to pre-pandemic levels), should be positive for spread products like corporate bonds that benefit from strong nominal economic (and revenue) growth. However, the less accommodative global monetary policy backdrop we also expect is a potential negative for credit market performance - specially as rate hikes put upward pressure on deeply negative real interest rates, most notably in the US (Chart 9). Thus, we are entering 2022 with a cautious, but still positive, overall position on spread product in our model bond portfolio. We are focusing more on credit valuation, however - both in absolute terms and between countries and sectors – to try and generate outperformance for the credit portion of the portfolio. We are maintaining a neutral stance on investment grade corporates in the US, euro area and UK given the tight spread valuations in those markets. We prefer to focus our corporate credit exposure on overweights to high-yield bonds in the US and Europe, but with a marginal preference for European junk bonds over US equivalents as we discussed in our 2022 Key Views report (Chart 10). Within EM USD-denominated credit, we remain cautious entering 2022 given the poor fundamental backdrop for EM credit: slowing momentum of Chinese economic growth and global commodity prices, a firmer US dollar, and a less-accommodative global monetary policy backdrop (Chart 11). Thus, an underweight stance on EM credit is appropriate within the portfolio to start the year. Chart 10Increase Euro High-Yield Exposure Vs US High-Yield Chart 11Reduce EM USD-Denominated Corporate Debt Exposure To Underweight​​​​​​   Finally, we are entering 2022 with the same relative tilt within US mortgage-backed securities (MBS) that we maintained during the latter half of 2021, with an overweight stance on agency commercial MBS and an underweight on agency residential MBS. Based on our outlook for 2022, we are immediately making two marginal changes to the spread product allocations to the model bond portfolio: Reducing the size of our US high-yield overweight and using the proceeds to increase the size of the European high-yield overweight Reducing our EM USD-denominated corporate bond allocation to underweight from neutral, and placing the proceeds into Italian and Spanish government bonds (hedged into USD) to limit the reduction in the portfolio yield from the EM downgrade. The above moves will lower our overall credit overweight versus government bonds from 5% to 4%, all coming from the EM to Italy/Spain switch (Chart 12). Overall Portfolio Risk: MODERATE The changes made to our spread product allocations had no material impact on the estimated tracking error of the model portfolio – the relative volatility versus that of the benchmark. The tracking error is 78bps, still below our self-imposed limit of 100bps but above the lows seen in early 2021 (Chart 13). That higher tracking error is likely related to our underweight stance on US Treasuries, given the rise in bond volatility evident in measures like the MOVE index (bottom panel). Nonetheless, a moderate level of portfolio risk is reasonable given the combination of solid global economic growth, but with tighter global monetary policy, that we expect in 2022. Chart 13Keeping Overall Portfolio Risk At Moderate Levels​​​​​​ Chart 14Positive Portfolio Carry Via Selective Spread Product Overweights​​​​​​ The overweights to US high-yield, European high-yield and Italian government bonds all contribute to the model bond portfolio having a yield that begins 2022 modestly higher (+14bps) than that of the benchmark index (Chart 14). Portfolio Scenario Analysis For The Next Six Months After making all the changes to our model portfolio allocations, which can be seen in the tables on pages 24-25, we now turn to our regular quarterly scenario analysis to determine the return expectations for the portfolio during the first half of 2022. On the credit side of the portfolio, we use risk-factor-based regression models to forecast future yield changes for global spread product sectors as a function of four major factors - the VIX, oil prices, the US dollar and the fed funds rate (Table 2A). For the government bond side of the portfolio, we avoid using regression models and instead use a yield-beta driven framework, taking forecasts for changes in US Treasury yields and translating those in changes in non-US bond yields by applying a historical yield beta (Table 2B). For our scenario analysis over the next six months, we use a base case scenario plus two alternate “tail risk” scenarios, based on the following descriptions and inputs: Base Case Omicron related economic weakness is visible in some major economies (euro area, Canada), but the US stays resiliently strong and the US labor market continues to tighten. China is a growth laggard, but this will lead to policymakers providing more macro stimulus (credit, monetary, fiscal) starting in Q2/2022. Inflation pressures from supply chain disruption remain stubbornly strong and realized global inflation rates stay elevated for longer. Developed market central banks continue dialing back pandemic-era monetary policy accommodation, led by Fed tapering and a June 2022 liftoff of the funds rate. There is a mild initial bear steepening of the US Treasury curve with additional widening of US inflation breakevens in Q1/2022, leading to bear flattening in Q2 in the run-up to liftoff – the net effect is a parallel shift higher in the entire yield curve. The VIX index stays near current levels at 20, both the US dollar and oil prices are broadly unchanged and the fed funds rate is increased to 0.25%. Hawkish Fed The Omicron wave is short-lived with limited impact on global growth, which remains well above trend. Global inflation only declines moderately from current elevated levels, both from persistent supply squeezes and faster wage growth. China loosens monetary/credit policies and announces new fiscal stimulus in late Q1/2022 – a positive surprise for global growth expectations. Developed economy central banks turn even more hawkish. Fed liftoff is in March, with another hike in June. The US Treasury curve bear-flattens as US inflation breakevens reach their cyclical peak. The VIX index climbs to 25, the US dollar depreciates by -3% (pulled in opposing directions by strong global growth but relatively higher US interest rates), oil prices climb +10% and the fed funds rate is increased to 0.5%. Pessimistic Scenario The Omicron wave persists in many major countries (including the US) and leads to extended lockdowns and weaker consumer spending. Global growth momentum slows sharply. China does not signal adequate stimulus to offset its slowdown, while a weakened Biden administration passes much smaller US fiscal stimulus. Supply chain disruptions persist and are made worse by Omicron, keeping inflation elevated even as growth slows (stagflation). Developed economy central banks, stuck between slowing growth and elevated inflation, are unable to ease in response to economic weakness. The Fed goes for a slower taper that still ends in June, but liftoff is delayed until at least September. The US Treasury curve bull steepens modestly as the front end prices out 2022 hikes. US inflation breakevens remain sticky due to persistent realized inflation. The VIX index climbs to 30, the US dollar appreciates by +5% on a safe haven bid, oil prices fall -10% and the fed funds rate remains at 0%. The excess return scenarios for the model bond portfolio, using the above inputs in our simple quantitative return forecast framework, are shown in Table 3A. The US Treasury yield assumptions are shown in Table 3B. For the more visually inclined, we present charts showing the model inputs and Treasury yield projections in Chart 15 and Chart 16, respectively. Chart 15Risk Factor Assumptions For The Scenario Analysis​​​​​ Chart 16US Treasury Yield Assumptions For The Scenario Analysis​​​​​ The model bond portfolio is expected to deliver an excess return over its performance benchmark during the next six months of +54bps in the Base Case and +31bps in the Hawkish Fed scenario, but is projected to underperform by -9bps in the Pessimistic scenario. Importantly, there is virtually no expected excess return from the credit side of model bond portfolio in the Hawkish Fed scenario, even with strong global growth. A faster-than-expected pace of Fed rate hikes in the first half of 2022 would be a clear signal to downgrade exposure to the riskier parts of the fixed income universe like US high-yield. Although in that Hawkish Fed scenario, greater-than-expected China stimulus and a weaker US dollar would also represent signals to begin adding back emerging market credit exposure.   Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1      Our model bond portfolio custom benchmark index is the Bloomberg Barclays Global Aggregate Index, but with allocations to global high-yield corporate debt and USD-denominated emerging market debt replacing very high quality spread product (i.e. AA-rated). We believe this to be more indicative of the typical internal benchmark used by global multi-sector fixed income managers. 2     We also made very slight adjustments within the US, Japan, Germany and France allocations to refine our allocations across the various maturity buckets while keeping the overall portfolio duration unchanged entering 2022. Appendix Recommendations Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Recommended Positioning     Active Duration Contribution: GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. Custom Performance Benchmark The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index

Highlights Chart 1Curve Flattening Is Overdone Fed Chair Jay Powell made big news last month. During Senate testimony, Powell not only signaled that the Fed is likely to accelerate the pace of asset purchase tapering when it meets in December, he also suggested that the Fed won’t necessarily wait until “maximum employment” is achieved before lifting rates. Powell’s comments suggest that the first Fed rate hike could come as early as June 2022 and as late as December 2022, and the exact timing will depend on how inflation and inflation expectations move during the next few months. The front-end of the Treasury curve is fairly priced for either scenario. The 2-year Treasury yield is currently 0.60%. If we assume that the Fed eventually lifts rates at a pace of 100 bps per year until reaching a 2.08% terminal rate, we calculate a fair value range for the 2-year yield of 0.39% to 0.74%, depending on whether Fed liftoff occurs in June or December. In contrast, the same assumptions give us a fair value range of 1.69% to 1.79% for the 10-year Treasury yield, well above its current level of 1.40% (Chart 1). The investment implications are clear. Investors should maintain below-benchmark portfolio duration and put on Treasury curve steepeners, overweight the 2-year note and underweight the 10-year. Feature Table 1Recommended Portfolio Specification Table 2Fixed Income Sector Performance Investment Grade: Neutral Chart 2Investment Grade Market Overview Investment grade corporate bonds underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 89 basis points in November, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to +102 bps. The index option-adjusted spread widened 12 bps on the month and our quality-adjusted 12-month breakeven spread is now at its 7th percentile since 1995. This indicates that valuations remain stretched even after the recent widening (Chart 2). The back-up in spreads was driven by the combination of the Fed’s shift toward a more hawkish policy stance and concerns about the new omicron COVID variant. This led to a large flattening of the yield curve in addition to wider corporate bond spreads. The slope of the yield curve is a critical indicator for our corporate bond call. We are very comfortable owning corporate bonds when the 3-year/10-year Treasury slope is above 50 bps, but our work suggests that returns to credit risk take a significant step down once the slope flattens into a range of 0 – 50 bps.1  The 3-year/10-year Treasury slope currently sits at 49 bps, just below our 50 bps threshold. However, our range of fair value estimates suggests that the 3/10 slope should be between 63 bps and 86 bps today, and that it should only break below 50 bps between March and September of next year (bottom panel). All in all, we expect the pace of Treasury curve flattening to abate during the next couple of months and this will allow spreads to tighten back to their recent lows. We will turn more cyclically defensive on corporate bonds next year when the break below 50 bps in the 3/10 slope is confirmed by our fair value readings. Table 3ACorporate Sector Relative Valuation And Recommended Allocation* High-Yield: Overweight Chart 3High-Yield Market Overview High-Yield underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 121 basis points in November, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to +444 bps. The index option-adjusted spread widened 50 bps on the month, leading to a significant rise in the spread-implied default rate. The spread-implied default rate is the 12-month default rate that is priced into the junk index, assuming a 40% recovery rate on defaulted debt and an excess spread of 100 bps. At present, the spread-implied default rate sits at 3.8% (Chart 3). For context, defaults have come in at an annualized rate of 1.6% so far this year and we showed in a recent report that corporate balance sheets are in excellent shape.2  Specifically, the ratio of total debt to net worth for the nonfinancial corporate sector has fallen to 41%, the lowest ratio since 2010 (bottom panel). We conclude that the default rate will be comfortably below 3.8% during the next 12 months, allowing high-yield bonds to outperform duration-matched Treasuries. We recommend that investors favor high-yield over investment grade corporate bonds, and we expect that last month’s spread widening will reverse in relatively short order. However, as noted on page 3, we will turn more defensive on credit risk (including high-yield bonds) next year once we are confident that the 3/10 Treasury curve has sustainably moved into a flatter regime (0 – 50 bps). MBS: Underweight Chart 4MBS Market Overview Mortgage-Backed Securities underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 46 basis points in November, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to -90 bps. The zero-volatility spread for conventional 30-year agency MBS widened 13 bps on the month, driven by an 11 bps widening of the option-adjusted spread and a 2 bps increase in the compensation for prepayment risk (option cost) (Chart 4). We wrote in last week’s report that MBS’ recent poor performance is attributable to an option cost that is too low relative to the pace of mortgage refinancings, noting that the MBA Refinance Index has been slow to fall this year despite the back-up in yields.3 The robust pace of home price appreciation has been an important factor boosting refis, as homeowners have been increasingly incentivized to tap the equity in their homes. With no indication that cash-out refi activity is about to slow, we expect refi activity will remain sticky going forward. This will put upward pressure on MBS spreads. We recommend adopting an up-in-coupon bias within an overall underweight allocation to MBS. Higher coupon MBS exhibit more attractive option-adjusted spreads and higher convexity than lower coupon MBS. This makes high-coupon MBS (4%, 4.5%) more likely to outperform low-coupon MBS (2%, 2.5%, 3%) in an environment where bond yields are flat or rising (bottom panel).  Government-Related: Neutral Chart 5Government-Related Market Overview The Government-Related index underperformed the duration-neutral Treasury index by 35 basis points in November, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to +33 bps. Sovereign debt underperformed duration-equivalent Treasuries by 157 basis points in November, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to -220 bps. Foreign Agencies underperformed the Treasury benchmark by 9 bps on the month, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to +36 bps. Local Authority bonds underperformed by 16 bps in November, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to +406 bps. Supranationals outperformed by 2 bps, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +18 bps. The investment grade Emerging Market Sovereign bond index outperformed the equivalent-duration US corporate bond index by 42 bps in November. The Emerging Market Corporate & Quasi-Sovereign index underperformed duration-matched US corporates by 16 bps (Chart 5). Both EM indexes continue to offer significant yield advantages versus US corporate bonds with the same credit rating and duration. We continue to recommend overweighting USD-denominated EM sovereigns and corporates versus investment grade US corporates with the same credit rating and duration.4 Within EM sovereigns, attractive countries include: Russia, Mexico, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, UAE and Qatar. Municipal Bonds: Maximum  Overweight Chart 6Municipal Market Overview Municipal bonds outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 29 basis points in November, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +371 bps (before adjusting for the tax advantage). The economic and policy back-drop remains favorable for municipal bond performance. Trailing 4-quarter net state & local government savings are incredibly high (Chart 6) and 2021’s federal spending splurge will support state & local government coffers for some time. A recent report showed that the average duration of municipal bond indexes has fallen significantly during the past few decades, a trend that has implications for how we should perceive municipal bond valuation.5 Specifically, the trend makes municipal bonds more attractive relative to both Treasury securities and investment grade corporates. Long-maturity bonds are especially compelling. We calculate that 12-17 year maturity Revenue Munis offer a breakeven tax rate of 14% relative to credit rating and duration matched US corporate bonds. 12-17 year General Obligation Munis offer a breakeven tax rate of 22% versus corporates (panel 2). High-yield muni spreads are reasonably attractive compared to high-yield corporates (panel 4), but we recommend only a neutral allocation to high-yield munis versus high-yield corporates. The deep negative convexity of high-yield munis makes them susceptible to extension risk if bond yields rise. Treasury Curve: Buy 2-Year Bullet Versus Cash/10 Barbell Chart 7Treasury Yield Curve Overview The Treasury curve flattened dramatically in November. Increasingly hawkish rhetoric from the Fed pushed front-end yields higher as news about the omicron COVID strain pressured long-dated yields lower. The 2-year/10-year Treasury slope flattened 16 bps on the month, it currently sits at 75 bps. The 5-year/30-year Treasury slope flattened 11 bps on the month, it currently sits at 56 bps. As noted on the front page, long-dated Treasury yields have fallen to well below levels consistent with a reasonable Fed rate hike cycle. This drop in long-maturity yields has pushed the 2/5/10 butterfly spread to extremely high levels, both in absolute terms and relative to our model’s fair value (Chart 7). This signals that 2/10 yield curve steepeners are incredibly cheap. Indeed, we observe that the 2/10 slope has already flattened to below the levels that were witnessed on the last two Fed liftoff dates in 2015 and 2004 (panel 4). A trade long the 5-year bullet and short a duration-matched 2/10 barbell does indeed look attractive in this environment. However, we note that the 2/5 Treasury slope has also flattened to below levels seen on the prior two Fed liftoff dates (bottom panel). In other words, the 2/5 slope also has room to steepen during the next 6-12 months, and we prefer to focus our long positions on the 2-year Treasury note rather than the 5-year. This leads us to recommend a position long the 2-year note and short a duration-matched barbell consisting of cash and the 10-year note. We also advise investors to own a position long the 20-year bond versus a duration-matched barbell consisting of the 10-year note and 30-year bond. This latter position offers a very attractive duration-neutral yield advantage of 24 bps. TIPS: Neutral Chart 8TIPS Market Overview TIPS performed in line with the duration-equivalent nominal Treasury index in November, leaving year-to-date excess returns unchanged at +739 bps. The 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate fell 8 bps on the month while the 2-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate rose 17 bps. The 10-year and 2-year rates currently sit at 2.44% and 3.24%, respectively. The Fed’s preferred 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rate rose 8 bps on the month. It currently sits at 2.16%, below the Fed’s 2.3% - 2.5% target range. Our valuation indicator shows that 10-year TIPS are slightly expensive compared to 10-year nominal Treasuries (Chart 8), and we retain a neutral allocation to TIPS versus nominals at the long-end of the curve. We acknowledge the risk that a prolonged period of high inflation could lead to a break-out in long-dated TIPS breakevens, but this now looks less likely given the Fed’s increasing hawkishness. We see better trading opportunities at the front-end of the TIPS curve, where the 2-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate remains well above the Fed’s target range (panel 4). Short-maturity breakevens are more sensitive to swings in CPI than those at the long-end. Therefore, the 2-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate has considerable downside during the next 6-12 months, assuming inflation moderates as we expect it will. We recommend an underweight allocation to TIPS versus nominals at the front-end of the curve. Given our view that CPI inflation will be lower in 6-12 months, we recommend shorting 2-year TIPS outright, positioning in 2/10 TIPS breakeven inflation curve steepeners (bottom panel) and 2/10 TIPS (real) yield curve flatteners. All three trades will profit from falling short-maturity inflation expectations. ABS: Overweight Chart 9ABS Market Overview Asset-Backed Securities underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 9 basis points in November, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to +26 bps. Aaa-rated ABS underperformed by 11 bps on the month, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to +13 bps. Non-Aaa ABS performed in line with Treasuries in November, keeping year-to-date excess returns steady at +93 bps. During the past two years, substantial federal government support for household incomes has caused US households to build up an extremely large buffer of excess savings. During this period, many households have used their windfalls to pay down consumer debt and credit card debt levels have fallen to well below pre-COVID levels (Chart 9). The result is that the collateral quality backing consumer ABS is exceptionally high. Investors should remain overweight consumer ABS and should take advantage of the high quality of household balance sheets by moving down the quality spectrum, favoring non-Aaa rated securities over Aaa-rated ones.     Non-Agency CMBS: Neutral Chart 10CMBS Market Overview Non-Agency Commercial Mortgage-Backed Securities underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 40 basis points in November, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to +155 bps. Aaa Non-Agency CMBS underperformed Treasuries by 30 bps in November, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to +63 bps. Non-Aaa Non-Agency CMBS underperformed Treasuries by 70 bps, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to +469 bps (Chart 10). Though returns have been strong this year and spreads remain attractive, particularly for lower-rated CMBS, we continue to recommend only a neutral allocation to the sector because of the structurally challenging environment for commercial real estate. Agency CMBS: Overweight Agency CMBS underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 47 basis points in November, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to +58 bps. The average index option-adjusted spread widened 9 bps on the month. It currently sits at 40 bps (bottom panel). Though Agency CMBS spreads have recovered to well below their pre-COVID levels, they still look attractive compared to other similarly risky spread products. Stay overweight.     Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Appendix A: Butterfly Strategy Valuations The following tables present the current read-outs from our butterfly spread models. We use these models to identify opportunities to take duration-neutral positions across the Treasury curve. The following two Special Reports explain the models in more detail: US Bond Strategy Special Report, “Bullets, Barbells And Butterflies”, dated July 25, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com US Bond Strategy Special Report, “More Bullets, Barbells And Butterflies”, dated May 15, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Table 4 shows the raw residuals from each model. A positive value indicates that the bullet is cheap relative to the duration-matched barbell. A negative value indicates that the barbell is cheap relative to the bullet. Table 5 scales the raw residuals in Table 4 by their historical means and standard deviations. This facilitates comparison between the different butterfly spreads. Table 6 flips the models on their heads. It shows the change in the slope between the two barbell maturities that must be realized during the next six months to make returns between the bullet and barbell equal. For example, a reading of -62 bps in the 5 over 2/10 cell means that we would expect the 5-year to outperform the 2/10 if the 2/10 slope flattens by less than 62 bps during the next six months. Otherwise, we would expect the 2/10 barbell to outperform the 5-year bullet. Table 4Butterfly Strategy Valuation: Raw Residuals In Basis Points (As Of November 30th, 2021) Table 5Butterfly Strategy Valuation: Standardized Residuals (As Of November 30th, 2021) Table 6Discounted Slope Change During Next 6 Months (BPs) Appendix B: Excess Return Bond Map The Excess Return Bond Map is used to assess the relative risk/reward trade-off between different sectors of the US bond market. It is a purely computational exercise and does not impose any macroeconomic view. The Map’s vertical axis shows 12-month expected excess returns. These are proxied by each sector’s option-adjusted spread. Sectors plotting further toward the top of the Map have higher expected returns and vice-versa. Our novel risk measure called the “Risk Of Losing 100 bps” is shown on the Map’s horizontal axis. To calculate it, we first compute the spread widening required on a 12-month horizon for each sector to lose 100 bps or more relative to a duration-matched position in Treasury securities. Then, we divide that amount of spread widening by each sector’s historical spread volatility. The end result is the number of standard deviations of 12-month spread widening required for each sector to lose 100 bps or more versus a position in Treasuries. Lower risk sectors plot further to the right of the Map, and higher risk sectors plot further to the left. Footnotes 1   Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Expected Returns In Corporate Bonds”, dated September 21, 2021. 2  Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The Fed’s Inflation Problem”, dated November 23, 2021. 3  Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The Omicron Impact”, dated November 30, 2021. 4  Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Damage Assessment”, dated September 28, 2021. 5  Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The Best & Worst Spots On The Yield Curve”, dated October 26, 2021.

Highlights Chart 1Buy The 2-Year, Sell The 10-Year Treasury yields have been volatile of late, but the biggest move has been a flattening of the yield curve led by a sell-off at the front-end. Our recommended yield curve positioning (short the 5-year bullet / long a duration-matched 2/10 barbell) was well suited to profit from this move but has now run its course. The solid lines in the bottom panel of Chart 1 show the paths discounted in the forward curve for the 2-year and 10-year yields. The dashed lines show the fair value paths for each yield in a scenario where the Fed starts hiking in December 2022 and proceeds at a pace of 100 bps per year until reaching a 2.08% terminal rate. We can see that the 2-year yield looks a bit too high relative to fair value and the 10-year looks too low. Taken together, our fair value estimates show that the 2/10 Treasury slope should flatten during the next 12 months, but not by as much as is currently discounted in the forward curve (Chart 1, top panel). Investors should maintain below-benchmark portfolio duration but should shift out of 2/10 flatteners and into steepeners. Specifically, we close our prior yield curve trade and open a new one: Long the 2-year note, short a duration-matched barbell consisting of cash and the 10-year note.   Feature Table 1Recommended Portfolio Specification Table 2Fixed Income Sector Performance Investment Grade: Neutral Chart 2Investment Grade Market Overview Investment grade corporate bonds performed in line with the duration-equivalent Treasury index in October, leaving year-to-date excess returns unchanged at +193 bps (Chart 2). The combination of above-trend economic growth and accommodative monetary policy continues to support positive excess returns for spread product versus Treasuries. The recent flattening of the yield curve is a strong reminder that the window of outperformance for corporate bonds will eventually close, but the curve will need to be a lot flatter before we start to worry. Specifically, we are targeting a level of 50 bps for the 3-year/10-year Treasury slope as a level where we will turn more cautious on spread product relative to Treasuries. This slope currently sits at 80 bps and the pace of flattening should moderate during the next few months. A recent report presented the results of a scenario analysis for investment grade corporate bond returns during the next 12 months.1 We concluded that investment grade corporate bond total returns will be close to zero or negative during the next 12 months and that excess returns versus duration-matched Treasuries are capped at 85 bps. With that in mind, we advise investors to seek out higher returns in junk bonds, municipal bonds and USD-denominated Emerging Market sovereign and corporate bonds. We also recommend favoring long-maturity corporate bonds and those corporate sectors with elevated Duration-Times-Spread.2 High-Yield: Overweight Chart 3High-Yield Market Overview High-Yield outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 14 basis points in October, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +572 bps. A recent report looked at the default expectations that are currently priced into the junk index and considered whether they are likely to be met.3 If we demand an excess spread of 100 bps and assume a 40% recovery rate on defaulted debt, then the High-Yield index embeds an expected default rate of 3.1% (Chart 3). Using a model of the 12-month trailing speculative grade default rate that is based on gross corporate leverage (pre-tax profits over total debt) and C&I lending standards, we estimate that the 12-month default rate will fall between 2.3% and 2.8%, below what the market currently discounts. Notably, the corporate default rate is tracking at an annualized rate of roughly 1.6% through the first nine months of the year, well below the estimate generated by our model. Another recent report considered different plausible scenarios for junk bond returns during the next 12 months.4 We concluded that junk bond total returns will fall into a range of -0.29% to +1.80% during the next 12 months and that excess returns versus duration-matched Treasuries will be between +0.94% and +1.84%.     MBS: Underweight Chart 4MBS Market Overview Mortgage-Backed Securities underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 1 basis point in October, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to -44 bps. The nominal spread between conventional 30-year MBS and equivalent-duration Treasuries tightened 16 bps in October. The spread looks tight relative to levels seen during the past year and relative to the pace of mortgage refinancings (Chart 4). The conventional 30-year MBS option-adjusted spread (OAS) tightened 3 bps in October to reach 29 bps (panel 3). This is only just above the 28 bps offered by Aaa-rated consumer ABS but below the 54 bps offered by Aa-rated corporate bonds and the 30 bps offered by Agency CMBS. In a recent report we looked at MBS performance and valuation across the coupon stack.5 We noted that the higher convexity of high-coupon MBS makes them likely to outperform lower-coupon MBS in a rising yield environment. Higher coupon MBS also have greater OAS than lower coupons. This makes the high-coupon MBS more likely to outperform in a flat bond yield environment as well. Given our view that bond yields will be higher in 6-12 months, we recommend favoring high coupons (4%, 4.5%) over low coupons (2%, 2.5%, 3%) within an overall underweight allocation to Agency MBS.  Government-Related: Neutral Chart 5Government-Related Market Overview The Government-Related index performed in-line with the duration-equivalent Treasury index in October, leaving year-to-date excess returns unchanged at 68 bps. Sovereign debt outperformed duration-equivalent Treasuries by 23 basis points October, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to -65 bps. Foreign Agencies underperformed the Treasury benchmark by 5 bps on the month, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to +44 bps. Local Authority bonds outperformed by 16 bps in October, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +423 bps. Domestic Agency bonds underperformed by 15 bps, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to +9 bps. Supranationals underperformed by 11 bps, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to +16 bps. The investment grade Emerging Market Sovereign bond index outperformed the equivalent-duration US corporate bond index by 35 bps in October. The Emerging Market Corporate & Quasi-Sovereign index delivered 8 bps of outperformance versus duration-matched US corporates (Chart 5). Despite this outperformance, both indexes continue to offer significant yield advantages versus US corporate bonds with the same credit rating and duration. We continue to recommend overweighting USD-denominated EM sovereigns and corporates versus investment grade US corporates with the same credit rating and duration.6 Within EM sovereigns, attractive countries include: Russia, Mexico, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, UAE and Qatar. Municipal Bonds: Overweight Chart 6Municipal Market Overview Municipal bonds outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 48 basis points in October, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +341 bps (before adjusting for the tax advantage). The economic and policy back-drop remains favorable for municipal bond performance. Trailing 4-quarter net state & local government savings are incredibly high (Chart 6) and individual tax hikes will only increase the attractiveness of tax-exempt munis if they are included in the upcoming reconciliation bill. Last week’s report showed that the average duration of municipal bond indexes has fallen significantly during the past few decades, a trend that has implications for how we should perceive municipal bond valuation.7 Specifically, the trend makes municipal bonds more attractive relative to both Treasury securities and investment grade corporates. Long-maturity municipal bonds are especially compelling. We calculate that 17-year+ maturity General Obligation Munis offer a before-tax yield pick-up relative to credit rating and duration-matched corporate credit. The same goes for 17-year+ Revenue bonds. High-yield muni spreads are reasonably attractive relative to high-yield corporates (panel 4), but we recommend only a neutral allocation to high-yield munis versus high-yield corporates. The deep negative convexity of high-yield munis makes them susceptible to extension risk if bond yields rise. Treasury Curve: Buy 2-Year Bullet Versus Cash/10 Barbell Chart 7Treasury Yield Curve Overview The Treasury curve bear-flattened dramatically in October. The 2-year/10-year Treasury slope flattened 17 bps to end the month at 107 bps. The 5-year/30-year slope flattened 35 bps to end the month at 75 bps. As is mentioned on the first page of this report, the large flattening of the yield curve has led us to take profits on our prior 2/10 flattener (short 5-year bullet versus 2/10 barbell) and to initiate a 2/10 curve steepener (long 2-year bullet versus cash/10 barbell). We also noted on the front page that we still expect the 2/10 slope to flatten during the next 12 months, just not by as much as what is currently priced into the forward curve. The 2/5/10 butterfly spread has risen a lot during the past few weeks and it now looks extremely high, both in absolute terms and relative to our fair value model (Chart 7). The 2/5/10 butterfly spread can rise because of either 2/5 steepening or 5/10 flattening. We contend that the current elevated 2/5/10 butterfly is mostly the result of a 5/10 slope that is too flat, not a 2/5 slope that is too steep. The bottom two panels of Chart 7 show the 2/5 and 5/10 slopes along with dashed lines indicating where those slopes were on prior Fed liftoff dates in 2015 and 2004. We see that the 2/5 slope is not unusually steep compared to those prior liftoff dates, but the 5/10 slope is unusually flat. For this reason, we want long exposure to the 2-year note and short exposure to the 10-year note between now and Fed liftoff in late-2022. The best way to achieve this exposure is to buy the 2-year note and short a duration-matched barbell consisting of the 10-year note and cash. TIPS: Neutral Chart 8TIPS Market Overview TIPS outperformed the duration-equivalent nominal Treasury index by 106 basis points in October, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +740 bps. The 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate rose 15 bps on the month and the 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rate fell 10 bps. At 2.54%, the 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate is now slightly above the 2.3% to 2.5% range that is consistent with inflation expectations being well-anchored around the Fed’s target (Chart 8). Meanwhile, at 2.14%, the 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rate has dipped below the Fed’s target range (panel 3). The divergence between 10-year and 5-year/5-year breakeven rates underscores the flatness of the inflation curve (bottom panel). Near-term inflation expectations are extremely high, but they decline sharply further out the curve. Our view is that inflationary pressures will wane during the next 6-12 months and this will lead to a steep decline in short-maturity TIPS breakeven inflation rates.8 Breakeven rates at the long-end should remain relatively close to the Fed’s target range. We recommend positioning for this outcome by entering inflation curve steepeners or real yield curve (aka TIPS curve) flatteners. We also advise entering an outright short position in 2-year TIPS. The 2-year TIPS yield has a lot of room to rise as the cost of 2-year inflation compensation falls and the 2-year nominal yield remains close to its fair value. ABS: Overweight Chart 9ABS Market Overview Asset-Backed Securities underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 7 basis points in October, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to +35 bps. Aaa-rated ABS underperformed by 8 bps on the month, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to +25 bps. Non-Aaa ABS underperformed by 5 bps, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to +93 bps. The stimulus from last year’s CARES Act led to a significant increase in household savings when individual checks were mailed in April 2020. That excess savings has still not been spent and the most recent round of stimulus checks has only added to the stockpile (Chart 9). The extraordinarily large stock of household savings means that the collateral quality of consumer ABS is also extraordinarily high. Indeed, many households have been using their windfalls to pay down consumer debt (bottom panel). Investors should remain overweight consumer ABS and should also take advantage of the high quality of household balance sheets by moving down the quality spectrum.     Non-Agency CMBS: Neutral Chart 10CMBS Market Overview Non-Agency Commercial Mortgage-Backed Securities outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 1 basis point in October, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +196 bps. Aaa Non-Agency CMBS underperformed Treasuries by 3 bps in October, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to +93 bps. Non-Aaa Non-Agency CMBS outperformed Treasuries by 17 bps, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +543 bps (Chart 10). Though returns have been strong and spreads remain attractive, particularly for lower-rated CMBS, we continue to recommend only a neutral allocation to the sector because of the structurally challenging environment for commercial real estate. Agency CMBS: Overweight Agency CMBS outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 12 basis points in October, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +105 bps. The average index option-adjusted spread tightened 3 bps on the month. It currently sits at 30 bps (bottom panel). Though Agency CMBS spreads have recovered to well below their pre-COVID levels, they still look attractive compared to other similarly risky spread products. Stay overweight. Appendix A: Butterfly Strategy Valuations The following tables present the current read-outs from our butterfly spread models. We use these models to identify opportunities to take duration-neutral positions across the Treasury curve. The following two Special Reports explain the models in more detail: US Bond Strategy Special Report, “Bullets, Barbells And Butterflies”, dated July 25, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com US Bond Strategy Special Report, “More Bullets, Barbells And Butterflies”, dated May 15, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Table 4 shows the raw residuals from each model. A positive value indicates that the bullet is cheap relative to the duration-matched barbell. A negative value indicates that the barbell is cheap relative to the bullet. Table 4Butterfly Strategy Valuation: Raw Residuals In Basis Points (As Of October 29th, 2021) Table 5 scales the raw residuals in Table 4 by their historical means and standard deviations. This facilitates comparison between the different butterfly spreads. Table 5Butterfly Strategy Valuation: Standardized Residuals (As Of October 29th, 2021) Table 6 flips the models on their heads. It shows the change in the slope between the two barbell maturities that must be realized during the next six months to make returns between the bullet and barbell equal. For example, a reading of -60 bps in the 5 over 2/10 cell means that we would expect the 5-year to outperform the 2/10 if the 2/10 flattens by less than 60 bps during the next six months. Otherwise, we would expect the 2/10 barbell to outperform the 5-year bullet. Table 6Discounted Slope Change During Next 6 Months (BPs) Appendix B: Excess Return Bond Map The Excess Return Bond Map is used to assess the relative risk/reward trade-off between different sectors of the US bond market. It is a purely computational exercise and does not impose any macroeconomic view. The Map’s vertical axis shows 12-month expected excess returns. These are proxied by each sector’s option-adjusted spread. Sectors plotting further toward the top of the Map have higher expected returns and vice-versa. Our novel risk measure called the “Risk Of Losing 100 bps” is shown on the Map’s horizontal axis. To calculate it, we first compute the spread widening required on a 12-month horizon for each sector to lose 100 bps or more relative to a duration-matched position in Treasury securities. Then, we divide that amount of spread widening by each sector’s historical spread volatility. The end result is the number of standard deviations of 12-month spread widening required for each sector to lose 100 bps or more versus a position in Treasuries. Lower risk sectors plot further to the right of the Map, and higher risk sectors plot further to the left.   Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Expected Returns In Corporate Bonds”, dated September 21, 2021. 2 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The Collapsing Credit Risk Premium”, dated July 20, 2021. 3 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The Post-FOMC Credit Environment”, dated June 29, 2021. 4 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Expected Returns In Corporate Bonds”, dated September 21, 2021. 5 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “A New Conundrum”, dated April 20, 2021. 6 For more details please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Damage Assessment”, dated September 28, 2021. 7 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The Best & Worst Spots On The Yield Curve”, dated October 26, 2021. 8 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Right Price, Wrong Reason”, dated October 19, 2021.

Special Report

Dear Client, Owing to BCA’s Annual Investment Conference next week, there will be no report on Wednesday, October 20. We will return to our regular publication schedule on Wednesday, October 27. Please note that there will be a China Outlook panel discussion at 9 AM on Thursday, October 21. We hope you will join us for the event. Best regards, Jing Sima China Strategist   Highlights In the next six to nine months, the long-end of the yield curve will likely drop as investors start to price in weaker-than-expected economic growth amid measured stimulus. China’s 10-year government bond yields are set to structurally shift to a lower bound as domestic demand decelerates along with the nation’s total population. Policymakers will favor lower borrowing costs to reduce stress due to high debt levels among companies, central and local governments, and households. National savings are not a constraint for a country to lower domestic bond yields. China will continue to open domestic financial markets to global investors. The country’s large foreign exchange reserves limit the risk to its internal markets from extreme volatility in foreign fund flows. Feature In the past two decades policy rates in advanced economies have been brought close to zero and bond yields have dropped to extremely low levels. The yields on China’s government bonds, however, have remained well above their peers in advanced economies and in neighboring countries (Chart 1). Chart 1China's Government Bond Yields Far Above Other Major Economies Moreover, despite China’s growth slowing from double to mid-single digits, yields on China’s 10-year government bonds have remained at around 2006 levels. China’s working-age population continues to decline and its total population is estimated to start falling in the next five years. China’s demographic headwinds, combined with high leverage in the private sector at around 220% of GDP, will cap the upside in yields. In this report we share our views on China’s short rates and long-term bond yields on a cyclical basis (next six to nine months) and in the next five years. The Cyclical Outlook The yield curve will likely flatten with China’s long-term government bond yields dropping more than short-term rates in next six to nine months. This will occur in the expectation of a further growth slowdown in at least the next two quarters. Meanwhile, the downside is limited on the short-end of the curve, given it is more sensitive to the PBoC’s guidance and monetary authorities will ease policy only gradually. Stimulus in the next two quarters may also disappoint. Credit growth will bottom in Q4 this year, but the rebound will be modest. Stronger issuance in local government bonds in the next two quarters will be offset by sluggish bank loan impulse. Chinese policymakers will refrain from using stimulus for the property market as a counter-cyclical policy tool to revive the economy. Restrictions will be maintained on bank lending to the real estate sector including mortgages and these controls will limit the rebound in credit expansion. Furthermore, infrastructure investment will improve modestly in the next two quarters, but local governments remain under pressure to deleverage, which will limit their incentive and capacity to spend. Chart 2Stimulus In 2018/19 Was Very Measured We maintain our view that the current policy backdrop is shaping up to resemble that of H2 2018 and 2019. At that time, even though the central bank maintained an accommodative monetary policy stance and kept liquidity conditions ample, the size of the stimulus was measured and the economy was lackluster (Chart 2). Recent liquidity injections by the PBoC through open market operations should not be viewed as monetary easing because they represent the bank’s efforts to keep policy rates steady, at best (Chart 3). The central bank provided the interbank system with substantial financing to avoid liquidity crunches following the May 2019 Baoshang Bank takeover and the November 2020 Yongcheng Coal company debt default (Chart 4). In both cases, 10-year bond yields did not fall by as much as short rates, reflecting investors’ expectations that the liquidity injections and resulting drop in short rates were not long-lasting. Chart 3Recent PBoC Liquidity Injections Intended To Keep Policy Rates Steady Chart 4APBoC Also Injected Liquidity After Previous High-Profile Defaults Chart 4BPBoC Also Injected Liquidity After Previous High-Profile Defaults Our view on China’s bond yields will not change with the liftoff of US Fed policy rates,  even if the Fed hikes rates earlier and by more than anticipated. The Fed’s policy has little bearing on China’s long-dated yields, which are driven by domestic business cycles and monetary policy (Chart 5). Concerning the exchange rate, we believe that the RMB will modestly depreciate in the next six to nine months, given that the China-US nominal and real interest rate differentials will narrow (Chart 6). While some depreciation in the currency is modestly reflationary for China’s exporters, it will not be enough to offset weaknesses in domestic demand. Chart 5Domestic Economic Fundamentals Drive Yields On China's Government Bonds Chart 6China-US Rate Differentials Are Set To Narrow Chart 7Pipeline Inflationary Pressures in China Remain Elevated Inflation remains a risk to our cyclical view on the 10-year bond yield. While the economy is weakening, pipeline inflationary pressures remain elevated (Chart 7).  We do not foresee that the PBoC will change its modestly dovish policy stance because of inflationary pressures stemming from supply-side bottlenecks. However, supply constraints will not abate soon and consequently, pipeline inflationary pressures and producer price inflation may not subside in the next six months. Thus, fixed-income investors may start to price in higher inflation, which could prevent long-duration bond yields from declining by much. Bottom Line: In the coming months, the long-end of the yield curve will likely drop as investors start to price in weaker-than-expected economic growth and very measured stimulus. The short-end of the curve will have limited downside potential because there is only a slim chance of aggressive monetary easing. Bond Yields Are On A Structural Downtrend Bond yields in China will likely downshift in the next three to five years. Our secular outlook for government bond yields is based on the country’s demographic trends, inflation, productivity growth and debt levels. While China’s long-term bond yields have persistently averaged below nominal GDP growth, in the past decade the gap has significantly narrowed as economic growth slowed while yields remained within a tight range (Chart 8).  This contrasts with other manufacturing and export-oriented Asian economies where interest rates have moved to a lower range in proportion with economic growth rates (Chart 9). Chart 8China's Economic Growth Has Downshifted But Yields Have Not... Chart 9...In Contrast With Other Asian Manufacturing-Based Economies China’s long-dated bond yields will also downshift in the next three to five years given the nation’s declining long-term potential output growth, based on the following: Chart 10Wages Have Risen In China A shrinking workforce can be inflationary due to higher labor costs and we expect Chinese workers’ compensation will continue to increase in the next five years (Chart 10). However, wage inflation will likely be offset by labor productivity, which has remained robust. The nation’s unit-labor cost (ULC), measured by the wages paid for each employee to produce one unit of output, has been flat to slightly down in the past decade despite strong wage growth (Chart 11). Similarly, ULC has sagged in Japan and is muted in South Korea (countries with shrinking labor forces) due to fast-growing labor productivity. This contrasts with the US, where ULC has risen even though the labor force has expanded in the past 10 years (Chart 12) China’s labor productivity will not likely undergo a significant decline in the next five years, particularly if China successfully maintains the manufacturing sector’s share in its aggregate economy, because productivity growth in this sector is usually higher than in others. Chart 11ULC Has Been Relatively Flat Chart 12ULC Muted In Asian Economies Compared With US   Meanwhile, China’s total population will shrink within the next five years, which will likely bring powerful disinflationary forces that will more than offset price increases created by labor shortages. Disinflation will cap the upside in interest rates/bond yields. Chart 13Japan's Household Consumption Share Fell Sharply When Total Population Started Shrinking A shrinking total population can significantly reduce demand, as evidenced in Japan in the past two decades. Japan’s working-age population started falling in the early 1990s, but the country’s household consumption share in GDP fell sharply after its total population peaked in 2010 and the urban population growth started contracting (Chart 13). In other words, Japan’s rapidly falling demand more than offset a muted increase in wage growth. China’s housing demand may have already peaked and the decline will gather speed in the next five years (Chart 14). Long-term growth in household consumption moves in tandem with housing and, therefore, will also downshift in the coming years (Chart 15). In the next five years or longer, China’s de-carbonization efforts will require shutting down production of many old economy enterprises.  Policymakers may keep low interest rates to accommodate such a transformation. Furthermore, amid the geopolitical confrontation with the US, Beijing will need lower interest rates to support the manufacturing sector and to undertake an industrial upgrade. Chart 14China's Demand For Housing Is On A Structural Downshift... Chart 15...Along With Consumption The main risk to our view is that China’s total factor productivity1 growth could accelerate to more than offset a declining total population. This would boost real per capita income and result in higher potential growth in the economy. In this scenario, long-duration bond yields could climb.  However, total factor productivity growth will need to outpace the rate of a shrinking labor pool and capital formation to prop up growth in the aggregate economy (Chart 16A and 16B). This is a daunting mission that Japan and South Korea, where productivity growth has been on par with China, have failed to accomplish. Chart 16AChina's Neighbors Have Not Accelerated Their Productivity Gains To Structurally Boost Economic Growth Chart 16BChina's Neighbors Have Not Accelerated Their Productivity Gains To Structurally Boost Economic Growth Chart 17China Cannot Drastically Improve Its Productivity Growth In The Next Five Years It is unrealistic to expect that China will drastically improve its productivity growth.  Productivity level is much higher now than it was 10-20 years ago when China’s manufacturing sector accounted for more than 40% of GDP (Chart 17). Even though China’s manufacturing share in the economy will stabilize and even increase from the current 27% of the economy, it cannot boost the sector drastically, particularly because its export market share cannot expand much further due to rising geopolitical tensions. In short, sectors of the economy where productivity gains have been most rapid – manufacturing sector including exports that drove China’s productivity in the past 20 years - cannot fully offset the deceleration in other growth drivers going forward. The service sector will grow, but it is much more difficult to achieve fast productivity gains in the service sector. All in all, productivity and economic growth will moderate as China’s growth model shifts from capital-intensive infrastructure and real estate to services. Bottom Line: In the next five years, China’s 10-year government bond yields are more likely to structurally move to a lower bound as final demand falls along with the nation’s total population. Savings, Debt And Interest Rates China’s national savings rate is one of the highest in the world, but it will drop as the population ages. Thus, some economists may argue that a structural decline in the national savings rate will lead to higher interest rates in the long run. Chart 18Lower Savings Rates Do Not Necessarily Herald Higher Interest Rates However, there is no empirical evidence that national savings drive interest rates. There has not been an inverse relationship between national savings rates and government bond yields in either Japan or the US, as illustrated in the middle and bottom panels of Chart 18.  There are more periods of positive rather than negative correlation between savings rates and bond yields. Note that China’s national savings rate and its interest rates also are not inversely related; a rising saving rate does not lead to lower interest rates and vice versa (Chart 18, top panel). This empirical evidence is in line with special reports published by BCA’s Emerging Markets Strategy that concluded the following: Banks cannot and do not lend out or intermediate national or households “savings.” In an economy with banks, one does not need to save in the form of a deposit in a bank in order for a bank to lend money to another entity. In any economy, new money originates by commercial banks “out of thin air” when they lend to or buy assets from non-banks. Hence, there is little relationship between national savings (flow concept in economics) and money supply growth (a flow variable too) (Chart 19). The term “savings” in macroeconomics denotes an increase in the economy’s capital stock, not deposits at banks. China’s banking system has an enormous amount of deposits, created by the banks “out of thin air” and not from households’ savings. The above factors explain why Japan’s government bond yields and national savings rate have been falling since 1990 (Chart 18 on Page 12, bottom panel). A lack of demand for borrowing was not why bond yields fell. A reason why China’s bond yields will likely be in a secular decline is that commercial banks will purchase government and corporate bonds en masse as they have done in the past 10 years (Chart 20). To do so, commercial banks will not use existing deposits, but rather they will create new deposits/money “out of thin air.” Chart 19There Is Little Relationship Between National Savings And Money Growth Chart 20China's Commercial Banks Will Continue To Purchase Government And Corporate Bonds The same is true for the banks’ purchases of corporate bonds. In China, commercial banks own about 75% of government (including local government) bonds and 20% of onshore corporate bonds. To avoid a spike in bond yields, Chinese regulators could relax the limitations on commercial banks to purchase government and corporate bonds. The upshot will be a lack of crowding out and no upward pressure on bond yields despite a large bond issuance. Chart 21China's Debt-To-GDP Ratio And Service Costs Have More Than Doubled In The Past 10 Years What are the implications of high indebtedness on interest rates? China’s domestic debt-to-GDP ratio has jumped from 120% of GDP in 2008 to 260% (Chart 21, top panel). This includes local currency borrowing by/debt of government, enterprises and households. Critically, the debt-service ratio2 for enterprises and households has more than doubled from 10% of disposable income in 2008 to over 20% (Chart 21, bottom panel). China cannot afford much higher interest rates because enterprises and households will struggle and will not be able to service their debts. Mortgage rates in China are at around 5.5%, the one-year prime lending rate for companies is 3.85% and onshore corporate bond yields are 3.7%. These are not particularly low borrowing costs given both high indebtedness and the outlook for structurally slower economic growth. Onshore borrowing costs may be brought down further in the years ahead to rule out debt distress among households, enterprises and local governments. Since 2015 and prior to the pandemic, China’s debt-service ratio has been mostly flat despite a rising debt-to-GDP ratio.3 This has been achieved through declining interest rates. In the next five years policymakers will likely maintain a stable debt-to-GDP ratio. Hence, lower bond yields are all but inevitable to decrease the debt-servicing burden. In addition, China’s “common prosperity” policy means larger government spending/deficits. However, to cap the government debt-to-GDP ratio, bond yields should be kept down. This is another reason why China’s will opt for lower interest rates/bond yields. Bottom Line: The high level of debt among local governments, companies and households means that borrowing costs in China will be reduced in the years ahead. National savings are not a constraint in any country for commercial banks to expand credit and/or to buy bonds. China will encourage its banks to buy government and corporate bonds to trim yields amid continuous heavy bond issuance. Will China’s Financial Opening Continue? In the current environment which geopolitical tensions are rising between China and the West, many global investors are concerned whether China will impose tighter capital controls and even seize foreign assets. Despite these challenges, China has continued to make progress opening its domestic markets. The nation seems to be sticking to its key policy goals of attracting foreign capital and internationalizing the RMB; both aspects require open access and repatriation of foreign capital. In addition, the share of foreign holdings in onshore securities is very low and thus, poses limited risk to China’s onshore financial markets during global economic or geopolitical crises. China’s current exposure to foreign capital flows is much smaller than its Asian neighbors during the 1997 Asian Financial Crisis, as well as Russia during the geopolitical standoff in 2014-2016 following the capture of Crimea.4 Despite years of easing access to financial markets, foreign ownership (mostly concentrated in government bonds) remains at only around 3-4% of China’s entire onshore bond market. Furthermore, unlike other Asian economies in 1997-98, China has large foreign exchange reserves to buffer shocks from foreign fund flows. In recent years its capital control mechanism has also been successful in preventing implicit capital outflows and stabilizing the RMB exchange rate. We expect Chinese policymakers to feel confident in continuing their financial opening because they have the capability and sufficient funds to safeguard the economy against retrenchments by global investors. Bottom Line: China will continue to open its domestic financial markets, albeit gradually, to global investors. The country’s domestic financial markets have limited exposure to the extreme volatility of foreign capital flows. Investment Conclusions Chart 22The RMB Still Has Upside Structurally, But Will Modestly Depreciate On A Cyclical Basis We are constructive on China’s government bonds, both cyclically and structurally. In the next six to nine months, the yield curve will likely flatten, with long-duration bond yields dropping faster than the short-end. China’s 10-year government bond yield will structurally shift to a lower range in the next five years, driven by the impact of falling population on domestic demand, and the country’s rising debt levels and debt-servicing costs. Although the RMB still has upside structural potential, in the next 6 to 12 months the currency will likely modestly depreciate against the US dollar (Chart 22).   Jing Sima China Strategist jings@bcaresearch.com Qingyun Xu, CFA Associate Editor qingyunx@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1Total Factor Productivity (TFP) is a measure of productive efficiency,  determining how much output can be produced from a certain amount of inputs. 2Defined by BIS as the ratio of interest payments plus amortizations to income. 3Despite a rising debt load, debt-servicing costs were contained due to (1) LGFV debt swap as new provincial government bonds had lower yields than LGFV bonds and (2) a large decline in the prime lending rate and mortgage rates. 4Foreign investors held more than 40% of local currency bonds in Indonesia, and over 20% in Malaysia. Foreign ownership accounted for 26% of Russia’s local currency bonds in 2014. Market/Sector Recommendations Cyclical Investment Stance

  Highlights Chart 1Bond Yields Still Track The "Re-Opening" Trade Bond yields rose notably in September, with the bulk of the move coming in the days after the Fed teased an upcoming tapering of its asset purchases and revealed slightly hawkish revisions to its interest rate projections. Interestingly, some of the details of the bond market move don’t mesh nicely with the mildly hawkish policy surprise that the Fed delivered. For example, the Treasury curve steepened on the month and long-maturity TIPS breakeven inflation rates rose. Our sense is that September’s market moves were less driven by the Fed and more by a revival of the reflation (or re-opening) trade from earlier this year. The daily new US COVID case count ticked down and, while overall S&P 500 returns were negative on the month, a basket of equities designed to profit from the end of the pandemic soundly beat a basket of “COVID winners” (Chart 1). With the delta COVID wave receding, we remain confident that economic growth will be sufficiently strong for the Fed to launch a new rate hike cycle in December 2022. The Treasury curve will bear-flatten as that outcome gets priced in.   Feature Table 1Recommended Portfolio Specification Table 2Fixed Income Sector Performance Investment Grade: Neutral Chart 2Investment Grade Market Overview Investment grade corporate bonds outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 26 basis points in September, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +193 bps. The combination of above-trend economic growth and accommodative monetary policy supports continued positive excess returns for spread product versus Treasuries. At 99 bps, the 3-year/10-year Treasury slope remains steep. This is a strong signal that monetary conditions are accommodative. But despite the positive macro back-drop, investment grade valuations are extremely tight (Chart 2). A recent report presented the results of a scenario analysis for investment grade corporate bond returns during the next 12 months.1 We concluded that investment grade corporate bond total returns will be close to zero or negative during the next 12 months and that excess returns versus duration-matched Treasuries are capped at 85 bps. With that in mind, we advise investors to seek out higher returns in junk bonds, municipal bonds and USD-denominated Emerging Market sovereign and corporate bonds. We also recommend favoring long-maturity corporate bonds and those corporate sectors with elevated Duration-Times-Spread.2 Table 3ACorporate Sector Relative Valuation And Recommended Allocation* Table 3BCorporate Sector Risk Vs. Reward* High-Yield: Overweight Chart 3High-Yield Market Overview High-Yield outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 53 basis points in September, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to 558 bps. A recent report looked at the default expectations that are currently priced into the junk index and considered whether they are likely to be met.3 If we demand an excess spread of 100 bps and assume a 40% recovery rate on defaulted debt, then the High-Yield index embeds an expected default rate of 3.2% (Chart 3). Using a model of the 12-month trailing speculative grade default rate that is based on gross corporate leverage (pre-tax profits over total debt) and C&I lending standards, we estimate that the 12-month default rate will fall to between 2.3% and 2.8%, below what the market currently discounts. Notably, the corporate default rate is tracking at an annualized rate of roughly 1.7% through the first eight months of the year, well below the estimate generated by our macro model. Another recent report considered different plausible scenarios for junk bond returns during the next 12 months.4 We concluded that junk bond total returns will fall into a range of -0.29% to +1.80% during the next 12 months and that excess returns versus duration-matched Treasuries will be between +0.94% and +1.84%. MBS: Underweight Chart 4MBS Market Overview Mortgage-Backed Securities outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 24 basis points in September, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to -43 bps. The nominal spread between conventional 30-year MBS and equivalent-duration Treasuries tightened 19 bps in September. The spread is wide compared to recent history, but it remains tight compared to the recent pace of mortgage refinancings (Chart 4). The conventional 30-year MBS option-adjusted spread (OAS) tightened 6 bps in September to reach 31 bps (panel 3). This is above the 22 bps offered by Aaa-rated consumer ABS but below the 52 bps offered by Aa-rated corporate bonds and the 33 bps offered by Agency CMBS. In a recent report we looked at MBS performance and valuation across the coupon stack.5 We noted that the higher convexity of high-coupon MBS makes them likely to outperform lower-coupon MBS in a rising yield environment. Higher coupon MBS also have greater OAS than lower coupons. This makes the high-coupon MBS more likely to outperform in a flat bond yield environment as well. Given our view that bond yields will be higher in 6-12 months, we recommend favoring high coupons (4%, 4.5%) over low coupons (2%, 2.5%, 3%) within an overall underweight allocation to Agency MBS. Government-Related: Neutral Chart 5Government-Related Market Overview The Government-Related index underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 15 basis points in September, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to +69 bps (Chart 5). Sovereign debt underperformed duration-equivalent Treasuries by 95 bps in September, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to -87 bps. Foreign Agencies outperformed the Treasury benchmark by 5 bps on the month, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +49 bps. Local Authority bonds outperformed by 24 bps in September, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +406 bps. Domestic Agency bonds underperformed by 7 bps, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to +24 bps. Supranationals underperformed by 4 bps, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to +27 bps. Last week’s report looked at performance and valuation trends for Emerging Market sovereign and corporate bonds relative to US corporates.6 The recent underperformance of EM bonds versus US corporates has led to attractive relative valuations in the sector. We see investment grade EM sovereign and corporate bonds both outperforming investment grade US corporates during the next 12 months. The outperformance will be the result of better starting valuations and an acceleration of EM growth in 2022. The bonds of Colombia, Russia, Mexico, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, UAE and Qatar look particularly attractive within the USD-denominated EM sovereign space. Municipal Bonds: Overweight Chart 6Municipal Market Overview Municipal bonds outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 29 basis points in September, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +292 bps (before adjusting for the tax advantage). The economic and policy back-drop remains favorable for municipal bond performance. Trailing 4-quarter net state & local government savings were already positive through the end of Q1 2021 and they received another significant boost in Q2 as funds from the American Rescue Plan were doled out (Chart 6). With state & local government balance sheets in such good shape, we are comfortable moving down in quality within municipal bonds. A move down in quality is especially compelling because of tight Aaa muni valuations relative to Treasuries (top panel). Valuation is more compelling in the lower investment grade credit tiers, especially at the long-end of the curve.7 Both General Obligation (GO) and Revenue munis in the 12-17 year maturity bucket offer a before-tax yield pick-up versus corporate bonds with the same credit rating and duration (panel 2). Finally, high-yield muni spreads are reasonably attractive relative to high-yield corporates, offering a breakeven tax rate of 25% (panel 4). But despite the attractive spread, we recommend only a neutral allocation to high-yield munis versus high-yield corporates as the deep negative convexity of high-yield munis makes them susceptible to extension risk if bond yields rise. Treasury Curve: Buy 2/10 Barbell Versus 5-Year Bullet Chart 7Treasury Yield Curve Overview The Treasury curve bear-steepened in September, with yields moving sharply higher – especially in the 5-10 year maturity space. The 2-year/10-year Treasury slope steepened 14 bps to end the month at 124 bps. The 5-year/30-year slope flattened 5 bps to end the month at 110 bps. We expect bond yields to be higher in 6-12 months, but we also anticipate that the next significant move higher in bond yields will coincide with curve flattening, not steepening. At 2.08%, the 5-year/5-year forward Treasury yield is already within our target fair value range of 2% - 2.25%. In a recent report, we demonstrated that yield curve steepening only occurs when either the Fed is cutting rates or the 5-year/5-year forward yield rises.8 This means that the 2/10 Treasury curve is more likely to flatten than steepen during the next 6-12 months, even as bond yields move higher. Similarly, we observe that the overnight index swap (OIS) curve is priced for the fed funds rate to be 0.30% in one year’s time and 1.62% in five years (Chart 7). The latter rate has 131 bps of upside if it converges all the way back to its 2018 high, but this pales in comparison to the 256 bps of upside in the 12-month forward rate. The yield curve will flatten as the 12-month forward OIS rate converges with the 5-year forward rate (panel 3). Investors should position in yield curve flatteners on a 6-12 month horizon. Specifically, we recommend shorting the 5-year bullet versus a duration-matched 2/10 barbell. TIPS: Neutral Chart 8TIPS Market Overview TIPS outperformed the duration-equivalent nominal Treasury index by 47 basis points in September, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +627 bps. The 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate rose 3 bps on the month, while the 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rate rose 5 bps. At 2.41%, the 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate is near the middle of the 2.3% to 2.5% range that is consistent with inflation expectations being well anchored around the Fed’s target (Chart 8). Meanwhile, at 2.26%, the 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rate is only just below target (panel 3). With long-dated inflation expectations close to the Fed’s target levels, we see limited upside on a 6-12 month horizon. We also see the cost of short-maturity inflation protection falling during the next few months as realized inflation moderates from its extremely high level. This will lead to a steepening of the inflation curve (bottom panel). We recommend that investors position for a steeper 2/10 inflation curve, or alternatively for a flatter 2/10 real Treasury curve. We noted in last week’s report that the combination of nominal curve flattening and inflation curve steepening will lead to a large flattening of the 2/10 real curve during the next 6-12 months.9The 2-year TIPS yield, in particular, has a lot of upside.                         ABS: Overweight Chart 9ABS Market Overview Asset-Backed Securities outperformed the duration-equivalent nominal Treasury index by 3 basis points in September, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +43 bps. Aaa-rated ABS outperformed by 2 bps on the month, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +32 bps. Non-Aaa ABS outperformed by 7 bps, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +99 bps. The stimulus from last year’s CARES Act led to a significant increase in household savings when individual checks were mailed in April 2020. That excess savings has still not been spent and the most recent round of stimulus checks has only added to the stockpile (Chart 9). The extraordinarily large stock of household savings means that the collateral quality of consumer ABS is also extraordinarily high. Indeed, many households have been using their windfalls to pay down consumer debt (bottom panel). Investors should remain overweight consumer ABS and should also take advantage of the high quality of household balance sheets by moving down the quality spectrum.     Non-Agency CMBS: Neutral Chart 10CMBS Market Overview Non-Agency Commercial Mortgage-Backed Securities outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 2 basis points in September, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +195 bps. Aaa Non-Agency CMBS outperformed Treasuries by 4 bps in September, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +96 bps. Non-Aaa Non-Agency CMBS underperformed Treasuries by 4 bps on the month, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to +525 bps (Chart 10). Though returns have been strong and spreads remain attractive, particularly for lower-rated CMBS, we continue to recommend only a neutral allocation to the sector because of the structurally challenging environment for commercial real estate. Agency CMBS: Overweight Agency CMBS outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 3 basis points in September, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +94 bps. The average index option-adjusted spread tightened 1 bp on the month. It currently sits at 33 bps (bottom panel). Though Agency CMBS spreads have recovered to well below pre-COVID levels, they still look attractive compared to other similarly risky spread products. Stay overweight.   Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Appendix A: Butterfly Strategy Valuations The following tables present the current read-outs from our butterfly spread models. We use these models to identify opportunities to take duration-neutral positions across the Treasury curve. The following two Special Reports explain the models in more detail: US Bond Strategy Special Report, “Bullets, Barbells And Butterflies”, dated July 25, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com US Bond Strategy Special Report, “More Bullets, Barbells And Butterflies”, dated May 15, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Table 4 shows the raw residuals from each model. A positive value indicates that the bullet is cheap relative to the duration-matched barbell. A negative value indicates that the barbell is cheap relative to the bullet. Table 4Butterfly Strategy Valuation: Raw Residuals In Basis Points (As Of September 30th, 2021) Table 5 scales the raw residuals in Table 4 by their historical means and standard deviations. This facilitates comparison between the different butterfly spreads. Table 5Butterfly Strategy Valuation: Standardized Residuals (As Of September 30th, 2021) Table 6 flips the models on their heads. It shows the change in the slope between the two barbell maturities that must be realized during the next six months to make returns between the bullet and barbell equal. For example, a reading of -17 bps in the 5 over 2/10 cell means that we would expect the 5-year to outperform the 2/10 if the 2/10 flattens by less than 17 bps during the next six months. Otherwise, we would expect the 2/10 barbell to outperform the 5-year bullet. Table 6Discounted Slope Change During Next 6 Months (BPs) Appendix B: Excess Return Bond Map The Excess Return Bond Map is used to assess the relative risk/reward trade-off between different sectors of the US bond market. It is a purely computational exercise and does not impose any macroeconomic view. The Map’s vertical axis shows 12-month expected excess returns. These are proxied by each sector’s option-adjusted spread. Sectors plotting further toward the top of the Map have higher expected returns and vice-versa. Our novel risk measure called the “Risk Of Losing 100 bps” is shown on the Map’s horizontal axis. To calculate it, we first compute the spread widening required on a 12-month horizon for each sector to lose 100 bps or more relative to a duration-matched position in Treasury securities. Then, we divide that amount of spread widening by each sector’s historical spread volatility. The end result is the number of standard deviations of 12-month spread widening required for each sector to lose 100 bps or more versus a position in Treasuries. Lower risk sectors plot further to the right of the Map, and higher risk sectors plot further to the left. Chart 11Excess Return Bond Map (As Of September 30th, 2021) Footnotes 1  Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Expected Returns In Corporate Bonds”, dated September 21, 2021. 2  Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The Collapsing Credit Risk Premium”, dated July 20, 2021. 3  Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The Post-FOMC Credit Environment”, dated June 29, 2021. 4  Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Expected Returns In Corporate Bonds”, dated September 21, 2021. 5  Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “A New Conundrum”, dated April 20, 2021. 6  Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Damage Assessment”, dated September 28, 2021. 7  Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The Collapsing Credit Risk Premium”, dated July 20, 2021. 8  Please see US Bond Strategy / Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, “A Bump On The Road To Recovery”, dated July 27, 2021. 9  Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Damage Assessment”, dated September 28, 2021.