Economy

Special Report

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

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

Highlights Chart 1Employment Growth June’s employment report revealed that 850 thousand jobs were added to nonfarm payrolls during the month. This is well above the 416k to 505k threshold that is required to hit the Fed’s “maximum employment” target in time for a rate hike in 2022 (Chart 1). The bond market, however, didn’t see things this way. Treasury yields fell across the entire curve following the report’s release on Friday. This is likely because, in contrast to the establishment survey’s strong +850k print, the household employment survey showed a decline of 18k jobs and an uptick in the unemployment rate from 5.8% to 5.9%. Importantly, the household survey tends to be more volatile than the establishment survey, and we expect it will catch up in the coming months. We see the bond market as overly complacent in the face of what is shaping up to be a rapid labor market recovery that will only accelerate once schools re-open and expanded unemployment benefits lapse in September. US bond investors should maintain below-benchmark portfolio duration.   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 50 basis points in June, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +209 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 3/10 Treasury slope remains very steep and the 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rate is below the Fed’s 2.3% to 2.5% target range. The message from these two indicators is that the Fed is not yet ready for monetary conditions to turn restrictive. Despite the positive macro back-drop, investment grade valuations are extremely tight. The investment grade corporate index’s 12-month breakeven spread is at its lowest since 1995 (Chart 2). Last week’s report looked at what different combinations of Treasury slope and corporate spreads have historically signaled about corporate bond excess returns.1 We found that tight corporate spreads only correlate with negative excess returns once the 3/10 Treasury slope is below 50 bps. Though we retain a positive view of spread product as a whole, better value can be found outside of the investment grade corporate sector. Specifically, we recommend favoring high-yield over investment grade. We also prefer municipal bonds, USD-denominated EM sovereigns and USD-denominated EM corporates over investment grade US corporates with the same credit rating and duration. 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 122 basis points in June, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +468 bps. Last week’s report looked at the default expectations that are currently priced into the junk index and considered whether they are likely to be met.2 If we demand an excess spread of 100 bps and assume a 40% recovery rate on defaulted debt, then the High-Yield index embeds an expected default rate of 2.8% (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%, slightly below what the market currently discounts. This estimate assumes 7% real GDP growth (an input we use to forecast corporate profit growth) and corporate debt growth of between 0% and 8%. Notably, the corporate default rate is tracking at an annualized rate of roughly 1.8% through the first five months of the year, below the estimate generated by our macro model. At 267 bps, the average option-adjusted spread on the High-Yield index is at its lowest since 2007. However, our above analysis suggests that these spread levels are still consistent with earning positive excess returns versus duration-matched Treasuries because default losses will also be low. High-yield spreads also look relatively attractive compared to investment grade spreads. Investors still receive an additional 97 bps of spread as compensation for moving out of the Baa credit tier and into the Ba tier (panel 2). Given the accommodative macro environment, we advise investors to grab this extra spread. MBS: Underweight Chart 4MBS Market Overview Mortgage-Backed Securities underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 36 basis points in June, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to -45 bps. The nominal spread between conventional 30-year MBS and equivalent-duration Treasuries tightened 8 bps in June. The spread remains wide compared to recent history, but it is still tight compared to the pace of mortgage refinancings (Chart 4). The conventional 30-year MBS option-adjusted spread (OAS) widened 13 bps in June (panel 3), and it is now starting to look more competitive compared to other similarly risky spread sectors. The conventional 30-year MBS OAS sits at 34 bps, below the 49 bps offered by Aa-rated corporate bonds but above the 17 bps offered by Aaa-rated consumer ABS and the 30 bps offered by Agency CMBS. In a recent report we looked at MBS performance and valuation across the coupon stack.3 We noted that the higher convexity of high-coupon MBS makes them likely to outperform lower-coupon MBS in a rising yield environment. Higher coupon MBS also have greater OAS than lower coupons. This makes the high-coupon MBS more likely to outperform in a flat bond yield environment as well. Given our view that bond yields will rise during the next 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 outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 4 basis points in June, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +91 bps (Chart 5). Sovereign debt underperformed duration-equivalent Treasuries by 16 bps in June, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to +36 bps. Foreign Agencies outperformed the Treasury benchmark by 10 bps on the month, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +46 bps. Local Authority bonds outperformed by 31 bps in June, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +392 bps. Domestic Agency bonds underperformed by 1 bp, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to +26 bps. Supranationals outperformed by 3 bps, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +26 bps. USD-denominated Emerging Market (EM) Sovereign bonds continue to offer an attractive spread pick-up versus investment grade US corporate bonds with the same credit rating and duration. Attractive countries include: Qatar, UAE, Saudi Arabia, Mexico and Russia. Last week’s report looked at valuation within the investment grade USD-denominated EM corporate space.4 We found that EM corporates are attractively priced relative to US corporate bonds across the entire investment grade credit spectrum. We also found that EM corporates are attractive relative to EM sovereigns within the A and Baa credit tiers. EM sovereigns have the edge in the Aa credit tier. Municipal Bonds: Overweight Chart 6Municipal Market Overview Municipal bonds outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 22 basis points in June, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +309 bps (before adjusting for the tax advantage). We took a detailed look at municipal bond performance and valuation in a recent report and come to the following conclusions.5 First, the economic and policy back-drop is favorable for municipal bond performance. The recently enacted American Rescue Plan includes $350 billion of funding for state & local governments, a bailout that came after state & local government revenues already exceeded expenditures in 2020 (Chart 6). Second, Aaa-rated municipal bonds look expensive relative to Treasuries (top panel). Muni investors should move down in quality to pick up additional yield. Third, General Obligation (GO) and Revenue munis offer better value than investment grade corporates with the same credit rating and duration, particularly at the long-end of the curve. Revenue munis in the 12-17 year maturity bucket offer a before-tax yield pick-up versus corporates. GO munis offer a breakeven tax of just 6% (panel 2). Fourth, taxable munis offer a yield advantage over credit rating and duration-matched investment grade corporates that investors should grab (panel 3). Finally, high-yield muni spreads are reasonably attractive relative to high-yield corporates, offering a breakeven tax rate of 20% (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 underwent a massive re-shaping in June. Yields at the front-end of the curve rose significantly after the June FOMC meeting while longer-maturity yields declined. All told, the yield curve flattened dramatically on the month. The 2/10 slope flattened 24 bps to end the month at 120 bps. The 5/30 slope flattened 28 bps to end the month at 119 bps. As we wrote in a recent report, we believe that the June FOMC meeting marks an inflection point for the yield curve.6 Prior to the meeting, the yield curve up to the 10-year maturity point had generally been in a bear-steepening/bull-flattening regime, where the slope of the yield curve was positively correlated with the average level of yields (Chart 7). But bond investors appear to have left the June FOMC meeting with a sense that we are now marching toward a Fed rate hike cycle. In that new world, it makes more sense for the yield curve to be negatively correlated with the average level of yields: a bear-flattening/bull-steepening regime. Given that we expect the Fed to lift rates before the end of 2022, we are now sufficiently close to a tightening cycle that the yield curve should bear-flatten between now and then. We therefore recommend that investors short the 5-year bullet and go long a duration-matched barbell consisting of the 2-year and 10-year notes. This position offers a negative yield pick-up, but it looks modestly cheap on our fair value model (see Appendix A) and it will earn capital gains as the 2/10 slope flattens. TIPS: Neutral Chart 8TIPS Market Overview TIPS underperformed the duration-equivalent nominal Treasury index by 22 basis points in June, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to +461 bps. The 10-year and 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rates both fell 10 bps on the month. At 2.35%, the 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate is just within 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 2.18%, the 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rate is below where the Fed would like it to be (panel 3). We see some upside in long-maturity TIPS breakeven inflation rates during the next 6-12 months, as we expect that the 5-year/5-year forward breakeven will find its way back into the Fed’s target range before the first rate hike. However, once the Fed starts tightening it will have a strong incentive to keep long-maturity breakevens below 2.5%. This means that a long position in TIPS versus nominal Treasuries has limited upside. We also see the cost of short-maturity inflation protection falling somewhat during the next few months, as realized inflation is likely at its peak. This will lead to some modest steepening of the inflation curve (panel 4). We do expect, however, that the inflation curve will remain inverted. An inverted inflation curve is simply more consistent with the Fed’s Average Inflation Target than a positively sloped one, as the Fed will be attacking its inflation target from above rather than from below. ABS: Overweight Chart 9ABS Market Overview Asset-Backed Securities outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 6 basis points in June, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +39 bps. Aaa-rated ABS outperformed by 5 bps on the month, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +31 bps. Non-Aaa ABS outperformed by 14 bps on the month, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +84 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 by pushing the savings rate higher yet again (Chart 9). The extraordinarily large stock of household savings means that the collateral quality of consumer ABS is also extraordinarily high. Indeed, many households have been using their windfalls to pay down consumer debt (bottom panel). Investors should remain overweight consumer ABS and should also take advantage of the high quality of household balance sheets by moving down the quality spectrum.     Non-Agency CMBS: Neutral Chart 10CMBS Market Overview Non-Agency Commercial Mortgage-Backed Securities outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 20 basis points in June, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +183 bps. Aaa Non-Agency CMBS outperformed Treasuries by 4 basis points in June, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +82 bps. Non-Aaa Non-Agency CMBS outperformed Treasuries by 66 bps in June, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to a whopping +522 bps (Chart 10). Though returns have been strong and spreads remain attractive, particularly for lower-rated CMBS, we continue to recommend only a neutral allocation to the sector because of the structurally challenging environment for commercial real estate. Even with the economic recovery well underway, commercial real estate loan demand continues to contract and banks are not making lending standards more accommodative (panels 3 & 4). Agency CMBS: Overweight Agency CMBS underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 9 basis points in June, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to +116 bps. The average index option-adjusted spread widened 3 bps on the month and it currently sits at 30 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. 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 June 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 June 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 9 bps in the 5 over 2/10 cell means that we would only expect the 5-year to outperform the 2/10 if the 2/10 slope steepens by more than 9 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 June 30TH, 2021)   Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The Post-FOMC Credit Environment”, dated June 29, 2021. 2 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The Post-FOMC Credit Environment”, dated June 29, 2021. 3 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “A New Conundrum”, dated April 20, 2021. 4 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The Post-FOMC Credit Environment”, dated June 29, 2021. 5 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Making Money In Municipal Bonds”, dated April 27, 2021. 6 Please see US Bond Strategy / Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, “How To Re-Shape The Yield Curve Without Really Trying”, dated June 22, 2021.

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

Special Report

Highlights Barring major surprises, President Macron will be re-elected in 2022. Any dramatic reversal in the pandemic that leads to a new recession would benefit the opposition candidate. Otherwise, Macron will remain the frontrunner. A second term for President Macron would see a continuation of the structural reforms started in 2017, but with a longer process for coalition-building in the National Assembly. This is bullish for France. Reducing the size of the state will go a long way to improve France’s economic competitiveness over the long run. Tactically, favor the more defensive Spanish market over the highly cyclical French market. Underweight French consumer discretionary equities relative to their European and global peers. Longer term, overweight French industrials equities relative to German ones, and overweight French tech equities relative to European ones. Ahead of the election, buy the dip on any euro weakness and French OAT/German bund spread widening. Feature The French presidential election is nine months away, and it is already starting to catch investors’ attention as one of the main political events in Europe in 2022. In talks with clients, we’ve been asked repeatedly about the odds we assign to a Marine Le Pen victory and the market implications. Those concerns are understandable but overrated. Le Pen’s personal approval rating is on the rise, and, in most polls, the far-right candidate beats President Emmanuel Macron in the first round vote, although not the critical second round. Although the same polls see Macron being re-elected, the gap between the two has narrowed considerably since the 2017 election, which Macron won by 66 percent of the vote.   Still, Macron is favored for re-election. He has several strong advantages over Le Pen, and it is unlikely she will be able to close the gap further before the election. Macron’s first term has been eventful. Neoliberal structural reforms started with drums beating in the first 18 months of his term. But the pace and breadth of reform eventually became too ambitious or painful for France to bear, and protests erupted in 2018. First came the “Yellow Vest Movement,” and then came protests against pension reform. Macron tried to compromise and continue with his agenda, but COVID-19 forced his hand. Since then, Macron has focused on crisis management, benefiting from the large state sector’s role as an automatic stabilizer amid the downturn. A second term under President Macron would see a reboot of the structural reforms started in 2017, albeit without single-party rule in the National Assembly. Reforms aimed at reducing the size of the state, and its cost, would go a long way to improve France’s economic competitiveness over the long run. Therefore, the prospect of Macron’s reelection is bullish for France, even though the reality of his second term would be more complex. 2017 All Over Again? Yes And No At first glance, the 2022 election seems to be a repeat of 2017. Le Pen and Macron are likely to face off in the second round and the latter, the Europhile centrist candidate, is likely to win once more. However, everything surrounding this election has changed. The Incumbency Effect One of the major changes is favorable for Macron: he is the incumbent running for re-election. Macron had been part of President Francois Hollande’s government since 2014, so he was still viewed in 2017 as a political neophyte and dark horse candidate. His rapid rise to power, along with that of his upstart party, La République En Marche (LREM), was astounding. Chart 1Pro-Incumbency Effect Favors Macron There is a strong pro-incumbency effect in French presidential elections, especially in the first round (Chart 1). Since 1965, five incumbents have run for re-election, and all have made it to the second round. Importantly, four won first place in the first round, with a six percentage-point margin on average. The chief exception is Nicolas Sarkozy in 2012. The reason for Sarkozy’s loss, however, is well known: he attempted to pass an unpopular pension reform in the teeth of the Euro debt crisis, 12 months before facing re-election. The only other incumbent who failed at re-election was Valerie Giscard d’Estaing, who lost to Francois Mitterrand in 1981, when the whole world was in stagflation and upheaval. The incumbency effect is not as pronounced in the second round (Chart 1, bottom panel). However, when facing a far-right candidate, incumbents win by a wide margin. This was the case in 2002 and 2017. Today, Macron still has a 12-point lead on Le Pen. Macron compares well to his predecessors. Chart 2 shows the approval rating for all presidents sitting in office over the past 40 years. The number of people who intend to vote for Macron has increased, the first time this has happened for an incumbent president since 1988. Only three presidents had a higher approval rating at this stage of their term, albeit from a higher starting point. Macron’s approval rating has increased by 10% since February 2020, when the COVID-19 pandemic hit Europe. Chart 2Macron Compares Well To His Predecessors Table 1Incumbency And Recessions Under The Fifth Republic The shock of the pandemic and recession is the greatest change since 2017, and the biggest challenge facing Macron. Four incumbents have made a bid for re-election that was preceded by a recession within 12-24 months (Table 1). The results are mixed, and it is hard to establish a clear anti-incumbency effect. If anything, the timing and nature of this crisis are likely to help Macron rather than hurt him, since the vaccination campaign and easing of lockdown measures will enable the economy to normalize and improve ahead of April 10-24, 2022, when voters cast their first ballots. Nonetheless, another major shock (of any kind) could undermine the incumbent advantage. Economic Recovery Is The Top Priority While the Macron administration’s handling of the pandemic was questioned, public opinion was never aggressively hostile toward his handling of the economy. Macron was instrumental in securing a major European fiscal stimulus package (and joint debt issuance) with the German Chancellor, Angela Merkel. He enthusiastically adopted the crisis mentality of “whatever it takes” to wage war against COVID-19, enabling the oversized French state to deploy the most generous furlough scheme in Europe, shielding millions of workers and preventing businesses from going under. This will be one of his winning cards. Chart 3The Handling Of The Pandemic Dictates Macron's Popularity His approval rating began to rebound following the end of lockdowns (Chart 3). This trend should strengthen as the French economy reopens, supported by a government that will play an accommodative and reflationary economic role until the election. Public opinion wants him to focus on the labor market and the economic recovery in the months to come, and he will be happy to oblige. Public opinion also views Macron as the most qualified candidate when it comes to economic matters (Table 2). 42% of respondents think that Le Pen is not qualified “at all” on economic matters, her Achilles’ heel, a perception that was already entrenched when Macron crushed her in a televised debate before the second round of the 2017 election. Table 2Macron Is Perceived As The Most Qualified To Oversee The Economic Recovery Europhile Versus Eurosceptic? The central issue of the 2017 election was Europe and France’s role in it. Following the UK’s disruptive Brexit referendum in 2016, and a long tradition of Euroscepticism within her party, Le Pen campaigned on “Frexit” and the abandonment of the euro. Conversely, Macron embraced the EU and the monetary union as he ran for president and committed to having France play a more important role within the bloc if he won. Chart 4Le Pen And The EU: Not The Divorce We Expected Since then, Le Pen has drastically shifted her stance on the EU. She now claims that the benefits of the common currency and single market outweigh the costs. After all, 70% of the French public support the euro and EU membership (Chart 4). Like clockwork, her personal approval ratings have steadily gone up. This strategic shift aligns her with the median voter, and combined with the Covid crisis, it is the only reason to take her candidacy remotely seriously in 2022, despite Macron’s clear advantages. Nevertheless, Le Pen has not yet risen above her 2012 peak in popular support. She failed to do so between 2014 and 2015, when the lingering European debt crisis, the Syrian refugee crisis, multiple terrorist attacks in France, and sluggish economic growth should have boosted her popularity. Her shifting perspective on the euro was therefore necessary and might be just what she needs to break through her 37% ceiling of popular support. Le Pen’s policy agenda is now focusing on protectionism, immigration, and national security. It is a Trumpian mix. However, while her new stance is more mainstream, it also differentiates her less from the other center-right politicians in France, namely Xavier Bertrand, who recently made local electoral gains in Le Pen’s northern industrial base. Macron is as strong an advocate for Europe as ever. He convinced Germany to break the taboo on joint fiscal policy during the pandemic. Now, he is also mounting a bid to become the natural leader of Europe, given that Merkel is stepping down, and her party is likely to lose standing in the German election in September.  France is set to take over the rotating EU Council Presidency in the first half of 2022, under the theme “Recovery, power, belonging,” which provides Macron with a golden opportunity to pitch himself as Europe’s premier statesman and economic steward in the final months of the election campaign. One Thing Hasn’t Changed: The Outcome Of A Macron/Le Pen Duel Most opinion polls give Macron a 10-12 point lead on Le Pen in the second round of the election. This gap is wide enough to reassure investors that it is not a polling error. However, in 2017, Macron’s average lead over Le Pen was 22%, and he won the election with 66% of votes. It is the narrowing of that gap that raises eyebrows among investors. Table 3Ideological Blocs Also Favor Macron Still, Le Pen’s chances at closing the gap are overrated. She is not a political “unknown” anymore and has very little ability to “surprise” voters into rallying around her next year. She will have trouble persuading those who know all about her. Grouping French voters according to ideological blocs, that is, presidential preference by party affiliation, suggests that the biggest threat to Macron is a strong center-right candidate who can beat Le Pen, especially if this should coincide with a revival of the center-left (Table 3). Otherwise, as in 2017, Macron will be able to count on voters from other parties in the second round of the election (Table 4). While both candidates appeal to right-wing constituents and would have to share their ballots, Macron can count on the green EELV party, as well as left-wing voters, to join center-right voters to elect him. Macron has made environmental issues a part of his mandate, which should help him confront a green neophyte such as Le Pen. Table 4Voting Against Le Pen Implies Voting For Macron The results of the regional elections held last month confirm this analysis. The motivation to keep Le Pen and her Rassemblement National (National Rally) party out of power is still strong (see Box 1). The poor showing of the National Rally means she won’t be able to maintain her current momentum in her personal approval ratings.   Box 1 2021 Regional Elections: Bad Omen For Marine Le Pen In Revival Of The Center-Right? The regional elections took place on June 20 and 27. While limited in relevance for the 2022 presidential race, the result of extremely low voter turnout, regional elections offer a gauge of how constituents feel about the political offerings from anti-establishment parties. Le Pen’s party suffered a heavy blow. It had hoped to consolidate power and build momentum ahead of the presidential election, but it failed even to win in its stronghold of Southern France. Meanwhile, Macron’s party (La République En Marche!) also disappointed. This outcome is not surprising; the local elections last year yielded similar results, highlighting the lack of presence at the local and regional levels for the four-year-old party. The surprise came from the center-right. It managed to win seven of the thirteen regions, beating far-right candidates by wide margins. Importantly, Xavier Bertand, Valérie Pécresse, and Laurent Wauquiez, all predicted to run for president next year, held onto their seats.   Chart 5Strong Demographic Base In The Second Round Both candidates’ demographic bases have remained the same. Macron is still popular among Millennials, white collar workers, and the elderly (Chart 5). He also has a strong base in Paris (and the suburbs) as opposed to Le Pen, and he still outperforms Le Pen among rural voters in today’s polls. Macron also scores high among the employees of the public sector—even though he is in favor of a smaller public sector. Furthermore, the unemployed mostly favor him, which reinforces the perception that he is the best candidate to improve the French economy and cut the unemployment rate. What if Le Pen fails to make it into the second round of the election? We discuss this possibility in the next section. Risks To The Base Case Scenario The greatest risks to our view are a setback in the economic recovery, an outperformance from the center-right, and the emergence of a dark horse. The latest developments in the UK and Israel, where a large share of the population is fully vaccinated, suggest that the “Delta” variant of COVID-19 remains a threat, with the potential to send economies back into lockdowns. The consequences would be dire for Macron. His chances at re-election would likely evaporate if his government imposed new lockdown measures. What about presidential candidates other than Le Pen? Our base case scenario that Macron will win is based on two assumptions: (1) the center-left Socialist Party will remain in shambles, and (2) the center-right remains scattered under different banners and will therefore lack unity. There is very little chance that the center-left will make a comeback in time, but the results from the regional elections suggest that the center-right could surprise to the upside (see Box 1), especially if it decides to rally behind a single candidate ahead of the first round. Could this candidate be a dark horse? Former Prime Minister Edouard Philippe or outsider candidate Xavier Bertrand could make formidable opponents to both Macron and Le Pen. Philippe’s personal approval rating currently stands at 50%, the highest among French politicians. He also appeals to constituents of all political leanings (Chart 6). This scenario could reshuffle the likely outcomes of both the first and second round of the election. Both Bertand and Philippe could win over voters who decided to side with Le Pen in 2017, while Philippe can compete with Macron over LREM voters. Additionally, Xavier Bertrand cuts into Le Pen’s support since he has made blue collar workers and the middle-class a priority. However, Macron and Le Pen each enjoy a strong voters’ base. It is necessary to monitor whether Valérie Pécresse (Soyons libres) and Laurent Wauquiez (Les Républicains) can be brought to endorse Xavier Bertrand ahead of the first round in 2022. Chart 6Edouard Philippe: From Ally To Outcast To Challenger? Beyond The Election Aside from the presidency, the outstanding question is the makeup of the National Assembly in 2022. Macron is not likely to enjoy the strong single-party legislative majority of his first term or to gain control of the Senate. Consequently, he will be more constrained in the legislature in a second term. Nonetheless, the demand for a better economy and a healthier job market requires pro-productivity reforms, which the public knows, and Macron has made reform his banner. Other conventional parties will come under pressure to support Macron’s reform agenda, even though that agenda will be less ambitious than it was in his first term. Chart 7Strong Presence Of Right-Leaning Forces Efforts at cutting back the size of the state are still likely, even though the pandemic has helped rather than hurt statism. This is because the French median voter, who never witnessed the degree of neoliberal reform that took place in the Anglo-Saxon world, has grown weary of the economy’s inefficiencies, just as the Anglo-Saxons have grown weary of laissez-faire neoliberalism. Before the pandemic, the French people understood the need to reduce the size of the state. After all, a larger state implies a larger cost burden borne by both households and corporations. When faced with the choice between paying the bill for the government’s fiscal response to COVID-19 (through higher taxes), or undertaking reforms aiming at reducing the size of the state, the French people will pick the former. Moreover, centrist forces will hold sway in the legislature (Chart 7); hence, some kind of budget normalization is expected in 2023 or thereafter. Other structural reforms If Macron wins would include pension reforms. We should also expect measures to push French companies to bring activities back to France, as well as a greater focus on leading France on the green path. Bottom Line: Barring major surprises, President Macron will be re-elected in 2022. There is a risk to our view if a center-right candidate defeats Le Pen to make it to the second round of the election. Either Macron or a center-right presidency would see a continuation of the structural reforms started in 2017, but with a longer process for coalition-building in the National Assembly. Investment Implications The French economy is currently experiencing an economic upswing. Three factors explain this pick-up: ultra-accommodative monetary conditions in Europe, fiscal largesse, and considerable pent-up demand. In 2021, GDP is projected to expand by 5.75% in annual average terms, higher than the Euro Area average of 4.6%. It should then grow by 4% in 2022 and by 2% in 2023. We remain bullish on French equities on a secular basis, as long as the elections result in further incremental structural reforms over time. As the election draws nearer, investors should treat any French OAT/German Bund spread widening as a buying opportunity and purchase the euro on any election-related dip. French Equities The CAC40 and French equities have had a good run since the beginning of the year. In absolute terms, the CAC40 is one of the best performers year-to-date, up +17%, driven by the outperformance of French consumer discretionary and financials equities, both in absolute and relative terms. However, a period of turbulence is appearing on the horizon; the shift in global growth drivers, the beginning of the global liquidity withdrawal, and lingering COVID worries are creating headwinds for the cyclicals-to-defensives ratio this summer. As such, we recently recommended investors downgrade cyclical equities tactically in Europe from overweight to neutral. With 66% in cyclicals, the French MSCI equity index will underperform in this environment, especially relative to the more defensive Spanish market (Table 5). Table 5Cyclicals Versus Defensives In European Markets Chart 8Three Trade Ideas In fact, our Combined Mechanical Valuation Indicator (CMVI) shows that French consumer discretionary equities are expensive relative to both their European and global peers (Chart 8). Regarding the reform theme, we stick with our long French industrial equities / short German industrial equities on a long-term horizon (Chart 8, second and third panel). The idea is that French reforms should suppress unit labor costs and make French exports more competitive vis-à-vis their main competitor, Germany. The latter faces a leftward shift in policy in elections this September. Finally, we recommend investors go long French tech stocks relative to their European counterparts. This sector is cheap (Chart 8, bottom panel), and the French tech sector will be supported by additional government spending of EUR7 billion on digital investments over the next two years. Bond Markets & FX A dovish ECB is consistent with a continued overweight in European peripheral bonds and an underweight stance on French government bonds. Chart 9Just Buy The Dip What is more relevant with respect to the French election is the OAT/Bund spread. In the past, unusually wide spreads between the two represented a euro breakup premium. In early 2017, spreads widened when the approval rating of Le Pen increased (Chart 9). However, since “Frexit” and the abandonment of the euro are no longer part of Le Pen’s agenda, investors should view spread widening as a buying opportunity. Similarly, investors should buy the euro on any election-related dip, particularly following the first round. “Frexit” has been removed from the equation, hence the euro should not weaken on breakup risk this time around. Bottom Line: We remain bullish on French equities within a European portfolio on a secular basis. If our views on the cyclicals-to-defensives ratio materialize in the near-term, highly cyclical French equities will temporarily underperform, unlike the more defensive Spanish market. On a 3- to 12-month horizon, investors should short French consumer discretionary equities relative to both their European and global counterparts. Current valuations suggest that betting on the booming French tech sector at the expense of its European neighbors will be profitable. Once the election draws nearer, investors should treat any French OAT/German Bund spread widening as a buying opportunity and purchase the euro on any election-related dip.   Jeremie Peloso, Associate Editor JeremieP@bcaresearch.com