Equities

Listen to a short summary of this report.     Executive Summary Housing Activity Should Start To Stabilize By The End Of The Year Home prices in the US are set to decline, almost certainly in real terms and probably in nominal terms as well. Unlike in past episodes, the impact on construction from a drop in home prices should be limited, given that the US has not seen pervasive overbuilding. The drag on US consumption should also be somewhat muted. In contrast to what happened during the mid-2000s, outstanding balances on home equity lines of credit declined during the pandemic housing boom. US banks are on a strong footing today. This should limit the collateral damage from falling home prices on the financial system. Outside the US, the housing outlook is more challenging. This is especially the case in smaller developed economies such as Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and Sweden. It is also the case in China, where the property market may be on the verge of a Japanese-style multi-decade slide. ​​​​​ Bottom Line: Softening housing markets around the world will weigh on growth. However, against the backdrop of high inflation, that may not be an unambiguously bad thing. We expect global equities to rise into year end, and then retreat in 2023. The Canary in the Coalmine On the eve of the Global Financial Crisis, Ed Leamer delivered a paper at Jackson Hole with the prescient title “Housing IS the Business Cycle.” Leamer convincingly argued that monetary policy primarily operates through the housing market, and that a decline in residential investment is by far the best warning sign of a recession. Table 1 provides supporting evidence for Leamer’s conclusion. It shows that residential investment is not a particularly important driver of GDP growth during non-recessionary quarters but is the only main expenditure component that regularly turns down in the lead-up to recessions. Table 1A Decline In Residential Investment Typically Precedes Recessions US real residential investment was essentially flat in Q1 but then contracted at an annualized pace of 16% in Q2, shaving 0.83 percentage points off Q2 GDP growth in the process. The Atlanta Fed GDPNow model forecasts that real residential investment will shrink by 22% in Q3, largely reflecting the steep drop in housing starts and home sales observed over the past few months. Chart 1Housing Activity Should Start To Stabilize By The End Of The Year The recent decline in construction activity is a worrying indicator. Nevertheless, there are several reasons to think that the downturn in housing may not herald an imminent recession. First, the lag between when housing begins to weaken and when the economy falls into recession can be quite long. For example, residential investment hit a high of 6.7% of GDP in Q4 of 2005. However, the Great Recession did not start until Q4 of 2007, when residential investment had already receded to 4.2% of GDP. The S&P 500 peaked during the same quarter. Second, recent weakness in housing activity largely reflects the lagged effects of the spike in mortgage rates earlier this year. To the extent that mortgage rates have been broadly flat since April, history suggests that housing activity should start to stabilize by the end of this year (Chart 1). Third, unlike in the mid-2000s, there is no glut of homes in the US today: Residential investment reached 4.8% of GDP last year, about where it was during the late 1990s, prior to the start of the housing bubble (Chart 2). The construction of new homes has failed to keep up with household formation for the past 15 years (Chart 3). As a result, the homeowner vacancy rate stands at 0.8%, the lowest on record (Chart 4). Chart 2Residential Investment Is Well Below Levels Seen During The Housing Bubble Chart 3Home Construction Has Fallen Short Of Household Formation For The Past 15 Years Chart 4The Homeowner Vacancy Rate Is At Record Lows While new home inventories have risen, this mainly reflects an increase in the number of homes under construction. The inventory of finished homes is still 40% below pre-pandemic levels (Chart 5). The inventory of existing homes available for sale is also quite low, which suggests that a rising supply of new homes could be depleted more quickly than in the past. Chart 5While The Number Of Homes Under Construction Increased, The Inventory Of Newly Built And Existing Homes Remains Low Why Was Housing Supply Slow to Rise? In real terms, the Case-Shiller index is now 5% above its 2006 peak (Chart 6). Why didn’t housing construction respond more strongly to rising home prices during the pandemic? Part of the answer is that the memory of the housing bust curtailed the homebuilders’ willingness to expand operations. Supply shortages also limited the ability of homebuilders to construct new homes in a timely fashion. Chart 7 shows that the producer price index for construction materials increased by nearly 50% between January 2020 and July 2022, outstripping the rise in the overall PPI index. Chart 6Real House Prices Are Above Their 2006 Peak Chart 7Producer Prices For Construction Materials Shot Up During The Pandemic Chart 8Constraints On Home Building Caused The Housing Market To Clear Mainly Through Higher Prices Rather Than Increased Construction The lack of building materials and qualified construction workers caused the supply curve for housing to become increasingly steep (or, in the parlance of economics, inelastic). To make matters worse, pandemic-related lockdowns probably caused the supply curve to shift inwards, prompting homebuilders to curb output for any given level of home prices. As Chart 8 illustrates, this meant that the increase in housing demand during the pandemic was largely absorbed through higher home prices rather than through increased output.   A Bittersweet Outcome Chart 9Unlike During The Great Recession, Prices For New And Existing Homes Should Fall In Tandem This Time Around The discussion above presents a good news/bad news story about the state of the US housing market. On the one hand, with seasonally-adjusted housing starts now below where they were in January 2020, construction activity is unlikely to fall significantly from current levels. On the other hand, as the supply curve for housing shifts back out, and the demand curve shifts back in towards pre-pandemic levels, home prices are bound to weaken. We expect US home prices to decline, almost certainly in real terms and probably in nominal terms as well. Unlike during the Great Recession, when a wave of foreclosures caused the prices of existing homes to fall more than new homes, the decline in prices across both categories is likely to be similar this time around (Chart 9).   The Impact of Falling Home Prices To what extent will lower home prices imperil the US economy? Beyond the adverse impact of lower prices on construction activity, falling home prices can depress aggregate demand through a negative wealth effect as well as by putting strain on the banking system. The good news is that both these channels are less operative today than they were prior to the GFC. Perhaps because home prices rose so rapidly over the past two years, homeowners did not get the chance to spend their windfall. The personal savings rate soared during the pandemic and has only recently fallen below its pre-pandemic average (Chart 10). Households are still sitting on about $2.2 trillion in excess savings, most of which is parked in highly liquid bank accounts. Outstanding balances on home equity lines of credit actually fell during the pandemic, sinking to a 21-year low of 1.3% of GDP in Q2 2022 (Chart 11). All this suggests that the coming decline in home prices will not suppress consumption as much as it did in the past. Chart 10Household Savings Surged During The Pandemic Chart 11Despite Higher Home Prices, Households Are Not Using Their Homes As ATMs The drop in home prices during the GFC generated a vicious circle where falling home prices led to more foreclosures and fire sales, leading to even lower home prices. Such a feedback loop is unlikely to emerge today. As judged by FICO scores, lenders have been quite prudent since the crisis (Chart 12). The aggregate loan-to-value ratio for US household real estate holdings stands near a low of 30%, down from 45% in the leadup to the GFC (Chart 13). Banks are also much better capitalized than they were in the past (Chart 14). Chart 12FICO Scores For Residential Mortgages Have Improved Considerably Since The Pre-GFC Housing Bubble Chart 13This Is Not 2007 Chart 14US Banks Are Better Capitalized Than Before The GFC The final thing to note is that home prices tend to fall fairly slowly. It took six years for prices to bottom following the housing bubble, and this was in the context of a severe recession. Thus, the negative wealth effect from falling home prices will probably not become pronounced until 2024 or later. A Grimmer Picture Abroad The housing outlook is more challenging in a number of economies outside of the US. While home prices have increased significantly in the US, they have risen much more in smaller developed economies such as Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and Sweden (Chart 15). My colleague, Jonathan LaBerge, has also argued that overbuilding appears to be more of a problem outside the US (Chart 16). Chart 15Rising Rates Will Weigh On Developed Economies With Pricey Housing Markets Chart 16Canada And Several Other DM Countries Have Overbuilt Homes Since The Global Financial Crisis Chart 17Slightly More Than Half Of Canadians Opted For Variable Rate Mortgages Over The Past 12 Months The structure of some overseas mortgage markets heightens housing risks. In Canada, for example, more than half of homebuyers chose a variable-rate mortgage over the last 12 months (Chart 17). At present, about one-third of the total stock of mortgages are variable rate compared to less than 20% prior to the pandemic. Moreover, unlike in the US where 30-year mortgages are the norm, fixed-rate mortgages in Canada typically reset every five years. Thus, as the Bank of Canada hikes rates, mortgage payments will rise quite quickly.   China: Following Japan’s Path? In the EM space, China stands out as having the most vulnerable housing market. The five major cities with the lowest rental yields in the world are all in China (Chart 18). Home sales, starts, and completions have all tumbled in recent months (Chart 19). The bonds of Chinese property developers are trading at highly distressed levels (Chart 20). Chart 18Chinese Real Estate Shows Vulnerabilities… Chart 19...Activity And Prices Have Been Falling... Chart 20...And the Bonds of Property Developers Are Trading At Distressed Levels In many respects, the Chinese housing market resembles the Japanese market in the early 1990s. Just as was the case in Japan 30 years ago, Chinese household growth has turned negative (Chart 21). The collapse in the birth rate since the start of the pandemic will only exacerbate this problem. The number of births is poised to fall below 10 million this year, down more than 30% from 2019 (Chart 22). Chart 21China Faces A Structural Decline In The Demand For Housing Chart 22China's Baby Bust A few years ago, when inflation was subdued and talk of secular stagnation was all the rage, a downturn in the Chinese property sector would have been a major cause for concern. Things are different today. Global inflation is running high, and to the extent that investors are worried about a recession, it is because they think central banks will need to raise rates aggressively to curb inflation. A weaker Chinese property market would help restrain commodity prices, easing inflationary pressures in the process. As long as the Chinese banking system does not implode – which is highly unlikely given that the major banks are all state-owned – global investors might actually welcome a modest decline in Chinese property investment. Investment Conclusions The downturn in the US housing market suggests that we are in the late stages of the business-cycle expansion. However, given the long lags between when housing begins to weaken and when a recession ensues, it is probable that the US will only enter a recession in 2024. To the extent the stock market typically peaks six months before the outset of a recession, equities may still have further to run, at least in the near term. As we discussed last week, we recommend a neutral allocation on global stocks over a 12-month horizon but would overweight equities over a shorter-term 6-month horizon. In relative terms, the US housing market is more resilient than most other housing markets. We initiated a trade going long Canadian government bonds relative to US bonds on June 30, when the 10-year yield in Canada was 21 basis points above the comparable US yield. Today, the yield on both bonds is almost the same. We expect Canadian bonds to continue to outperform, given the more severe constraints the Bank of Canada faces in raising rates. Peter Berezin Chief Global Strategist peterb@bcaresearch.com Follow me on     LinkedIn & Twitter Global Investment Strategy View Matrix Special Trade Recommendations Current MacroQuant Model Scores      

Highlights The risk of a US recession has increased sharply over the past several months. We have not yet concluded that a recession over the coming year is inevitable, but substantial (further) supply-side and pandemic-related disinflation is likely needed for the US economy to avoid a contraction in output. The increased risk of a contraction has caused investors to ponder what the next recession might look like. One very important question concerns the likely behavior of short-term interest rates during the next recession, especially if it occurs sooner rather than later. The historical experience suggests that the Fed may cut interest rates to zero during the next recession, but that the re-establishment of a long-lasting zero interest rate policy and the associated resumption of large-scale asset purchases seem quite unlikely unless the recession is severe. In the post-WWII environment, severe US recessions have been accompanied by aggravating factors that appear to be missing in the current environment. In addition, there are several arguments pointing to the next US recession being a mild one. For fixed-income investors, the implication is that investors should not overstay their welcome in a long-duration position during the next US recession, and should be looking to reduce their duration exposure earlier rather than later. For equity investors, our findings underscore that meaningful downside risk exists for stocks even in a mild recession environment, because the decline in bond yields is not likely to offset a rise in the equity risk premium. Feature Over the past several months, investors have been faced with a sharp increase in the odds of a US recession. Gauging the risk of a recession has featured prominently in our recent reports, and we have concluded, for now, that a US recession over the coming year is not yet inevitable. Still, we acknowledge that the risks are quite elevated, and that substantial (further) supply-side and pandemic-related disinflation is likely needed for the US economy to avoid a contraction in output. Economic expansions do not last forever. This means that the US economy will eventually succumb to a recession at some point over the coming few years. One very important question for investors concerns the likely behavior of short-term interest rates during the next recession, especially if a contraction occurs sooner rather than later. A key aspect of this question is whether the Fed is likely to be forced back towards a zero or negative interest rate policy, and whether it will need to employ asset purchases as part of its stabilization efforts as it has during the last two recessions. If so, long-maturity bond yields are likely to fall significantly during the next recession; if not, investors may be surprised by how modestly long-maturity yields decline. In this report, we examine the historical record of short-term interest rates during recessions and discuss whether the next US recession is likely to be severe or mild. We conclude that the next US recession is more likely to be mild than severe, and that the 10-year Treasury yield is unlikely to fall below 2% during the recession (or fall below this level for very long). In the case of a more severe recession driven by unanchored inflation expectations, the implications would be clearly bearish for bonds. Within a fixed-income portfolio, one conclusion of our analysis is that investors should not overstay their welcome in a long-duration position during the next recession and should be looking to reduce their duration exposure earlier rather than later. For equity investors, our findings underscore that meaningful downside risk exists for stocks even in a mild recession environment, because the decline in bond yields is not likely to offset a rise in the equity risk premium. The Historical Recessionary Path Of Short-Term Interest Rates When projecting how the Fed funds rate is likely to evolve during the next US recession, most investors typically look to the average decline in short-term interest rates during previous recessions as a guide. Based on that approach, Table II-1 highlights that the Fed would likely have to cut rates into negative territory if a recession occurred over the coming 12-18 months, unless it is able to hike interest rates significantly more over the coming year than the market is currently expecting and the FOMC itself is projecting. But in our view, focusing on the historical recessionary decline in interest rates from their peak is not the right approach, because it ignores the fact that recessions typically occur when monetary policy is tight. If a recession occurs within the next 18 months, it will have happened in large part because of a collapse in real wage growth, not just because of the increase in interest rates that has occurred. Chart II-1 highlights that short-term interest rates remain well below potential GDP growth, highlighting that monetary policy would still be easy today – despite the quick pace of increase in short rates – if real wages were growing rather than contracting sharply. In our view, the right approach is to examine how much short-term interest rates have typically fallen during recessions relative to potential or average historical GDP growth. This method captures the degree to which monetary policy easing has typically been required relative to neutral levels to catalyze an economic recovery. Table II-1Based Only On The Historical Decline In Short-Term Interest Rates, The Fed Would Ostensibly Have To Cut Rates Into Negative Territory During The Next Recession Chart II-1Monetary Policy Would Still Be Easy Today If Real Wage Growth Was Positive Based on this approach, Chart II-2 highlights that the Fed might have to cut the target range for the Fed funds rate to 0-0.25% during the next recession, but there are some examples (like the 1990-1991 recession) that point to a cut to just 0.25-0.5%. The goal of this exercise is not to be specific about the exact level to which the Fed will have to cut the Fed funds rate, but rather whether the de facto re-establishment of a long-lasting zero interest rate policy and the associated resumption of large-scale asset purchases is likely. Chart II-2The Fed May Have To Cut To Zero During The Next Recession, But Probably Not Into Negative Territory Structural bond bulls might note that there are five recessions in the post-war era that could potentially point to that outcome based on Chart II-2. However, these episodes involved circumstances that we doubt would be present during the next US recession, especially if one were to emerge over the coming 12-18 months. The 1950s Recessions The recessions of 1953-54 and 1957-58 were fairly sizeable based on the total rise in the unemployment rate, but the monetary policy stance at that time was wildly stimulative in a way that is very unlikely to repeat itself today. In the 1950s, the level of interest rates was still an artifact of WWII (with the Treasury-Fed accord having only been agreed upon in March 1951). Monetary policy was both overly responsive to a period of pent-up disinflation following the initial burst of government spending associated with the Korean war and insufficiently responsive to a strongly positive output gap (Chart II-3). This was meaningfully compounded by a poor understanding of the size of the output gap at that time; the deviation of the unemployment rate from its 10-year average was significantly smaller than its deviation from today’s estimate of NAIRU (Chart II-4). In sum, the economic and monetary policy conditions that existed in the 1950s and that contributed to an interest rate level that was well below the prevailing rate of economic growth do not exist today. As such, we strongly doubt that the Fed’s response to the next US recession would resemble what occurred during that decade. Chart II-3We Strongly Doubt The Fed's Response To The Next US Recession Would Resemble What Occurred In The 1950s Chart II-4Low Interest Rates In The 1950s Were Partly Caused By Wrong Output Gap Estimates   1973-1975 The recession that began in 1973 occurred because of a huge energy shock that proved to be stagflationary in the true sense of the word. Excluding the 2020 recession, this was the third largest rise in the unemployment rate of any recession since WWII, following 2008/2009 and the 1981/1982 recessions. There are some parallels between this recession and the current economic environment, but the stability of inflation expectations so far does not point to a truly stagflationary outcome. As such, we do not see the 1973-74 recession as a reasonable parallel to today’s environment. In addition, manufacturing employment – which was heavily impacted by the permanent rise in oil prices due to the sector’s energy intensity – stood at 24% of total nonfarm employment in 1973, compared with 8% today. Finally, the weight of food and energy as a share of total consumer spending today is roughly half of what it was during the 1970s (Chart II-5). 2001 Of the five recessions potentially implying that the Fed may have to cut interest rates into negative territory during the next US recession, the 2001 recession is the most relevant parallel to today. It was a modern recession in which the Fed maintained very easy monetary policy for a significant amount of time, in response to concerns about a significant tightening in financial conditions and the impact of prior corporate sector excesses on aggregate demand. The total rise in the unemployment rate during this recession was not very large, but it took some time for the unemployment rate to return to NAIRU. Still, even though this justified a later liftoff, a Taylor rule approach makes it clear that the Fed overstimulated the economy in response to the recession – a view that is reinforced by the enormous rise in household debt that fueled the housing market bubble during that period (Chart II-6). The Fed was very concerned about the negative wealth effects of the bursting of the equity market bubble, which had been caused by a massive decline in the equity risk premium in the second half of the 1990s. These conditions are simply not present today. Chart II-5Today's US Economy Is Meaningfully Less Impacted By Energy And Food Prices Chart II-6The Fed Clearly Overstimulated In Response To The 2001 Recession 2008/2009 Chart II-7A Repeat Of The 2008/2009 Recession In The US Is A Totally Implausible Scenario Chart II-2 highlighted that the Fed would have to cut interest rates to -1% were the 2008/2009 recession to repeat itself, but we judge that to be a totally implausible scenario given the improvement in US household sector balance sheets and financial sector health since the global financial crisis (Chart II-7). As we discuss below, the next US recession is likely to be meaningfully less severe than the 2008/2009 and 2020 recessions, which we believe carries important significance for the path of interest rates and the response of long-maturity bond yields. The bottom line for investors is that, based on the historical experience of rate cuts during recessions, the Fed may end up cutting interest rates back to or close to the zero lower bound in response to the next recession. But the de facto re-establishment of a long-lasting zero interest rate policy and the associated resumption of large-scale asset purchases seems quite unlikely unless the recession is severe, which we do not expect. Will The Next US Recession Be Severe Or Mild? Chart II-8The Most Severe US Recessions Have Had Aggravating Factors That Do Not Appear To Be Present Today How drastically the Fed will be forced to cut interest rates during the next recession will be driven by its severity. Chart II-8 presents the total rise in the unemployment rate during post-WWII recessions (excluding 2020), in order to gauge whether the factors that have led to severe recessions in the past are likely to be present during the next contraction in output. From our perspective, the most severe US recessions in the post-WWII era have been driven by factors that are very unlikely to repeat themselves in the current environment. We noted above that a repeat of the 2008/2009 recession is a totally implausible scenario, leaving the 1981-1982, 1973-1975, and 1950s recessions as potential severe recession analogues. In three of these four cases we see clear signs of an aggravating factor that we do not (yet) believe will be present during the next US recession. Chart II-9Inflation Expectations Have Not Yet Unanchored To The Upside, In Sharp Contrast To The 1970s In the 1981-1982 recession, the unemployment rate rose significantly as the Federal Reserve confronted the fact that inflation expectations had become severely unanchored to the upside, causing a persistent wage/price spiral. While unanchored inflation expectations is a risk today, so far the evidence suggests that both households and market participants expect that currently elevated inflation will not persist over the long run (Chart II-9). If inflation expectations do become unanchored to the upside at some point over the coming 12-18 months (or beyond), we are very likely to change our view about the severity of the next recession. However, this would be a bond bearish outcome (at least initially), as it would imply sharply higher yields at both the short and long end of the yield curve in order to tame inflation and re-anchor inflation expectations. As noted above, in the 1973-74 recession, the unexpected and permanent rise in oil prices and outright energy shortages rendered a significant amount of capital and labor uneconomic, which is different than what has been occurring during the pandemic. Were the recent rise in natural gas prices to be permanent and no alternatives available, Europe’s current energy situation would be more reminiscent of the 1973-1974 recession than the pandemic-driven price pressures and supply shortages affecting the US and other developed economies. Chart II-10The US Is Currently Experiencing Fiscal Drag, But That Will Lessen Next Year Finally, while the 1957-58 recession appears to be somewhat of an anomaly driven by a mix of factors, the 1953-54 recession was clearly exacerbated by a sharp slowdown in government spending following the end of the Korean war. It is true that the US is currently experiencing fiscal drag (Chart II-10), but this has occurred against the backdrop of a strong labor market, and IMF forecasts imply that the drag will be significantly smaller over the coming year than what the US is currently experiencing. There are several additional points suggesting that the next US recession will be comparatively mild: Chart II-11The Milder US Recessions Were All Seemingly Triggered By Tight Monetary Policy (As Would Be The Case Today) Chart II-11 highlights that the milder recessions, those which have seen the unemployment rate rise by less than 3% from their previous low, have generally been the recessions that appear to have simply been triggered by monetary policy becoming tight or nearly tight. This would likely be the case during the next US recession. In the lead up to the 1970, 1990-91, and 2001 recessions, short-term interest rates approached or exceeded either potential growth or the rolling 10-year average growth rate of nominal GDP. The 1960-61 recession stands out slightly as an exception to this rule, in that interest rates were still moderately easy, which is based on our definition of the equilibrium short-term interest rate. But interest rates had risen close to 400 basis points from 1958 to 1960 (suggesting a change in addition to a level effect of interest rates on aggregate demand), and it is notable that the 60-61 recession was the mildest in post-war history, based on the total rise in the unemployment rate. Chart II-12Labor Scarcity May Mean That Firms Will Be Somewhat More Reluctant To Shed Labor During The Next Recession We argued in Section 1 of our report that monetary policy is not currently restrictive on its own, and that the recessionary risk currently facing the US is the result of a combination of the speed of adjustment in interest rates, the fact that real wages have fallen sharply, and the fact that the Fed is determined to see inflation quickly return to target levels. However, what this also highlights is that a recession would likely cause a rise in real wages via a significant slowdown in inflation (at least for a time); this would likely help stabilize aggregate demand and cause a comparatively mild rise in the unemployment rate. While the odds and magnitude of this effect are difficult to quantify, the fact that the labor market has been so tight over the past year and that the participation rate has yet to recover to its pre-pandemic levels suggests that some firms may be reluctant to shed labor during a recession (Chart II-12), suggesting that the total rise in unemployment in the next recession could be relatively small. Finally, Chart II-13 shows that the excess savings that have accumulated over the course of the pandemic, now primarily the result of reduced spending on services, dwarf the magnitude of precautionary savings that were generated in the prior three recessions as a % of GDP. We agree that the savings rate would likely still rise during the next recession, but the existence of excess savings implies that the rise in the savings rate may be surprisingly small – which would, in turn, imply a comparatively mild rise in the unemployment rate. We noted above that the household sector has deleveraged significantly, which is strong evidence against an outsized or long-lasting decline in consumer spending as a possible driver of an above-average rise in the unemployment rate during the next recession. One question that we often receive from clients is whether excessive corporate sector leverage could cause a more severe decline in economic activity once a recession emerges. Chart II-14 illustrates that the answer is “probably not.” The chart presents one estimate of the US nonfinancial corporate sector debt service ratio, based on national accounts data. The chart highlights that the current debt burden for the nonfinancial corporate sector is very low, underscoring that elevated corporate sector debt would not likely act as an aggravating factor driving an outsized rise in the unemployment rate were a recession to occur today. The chart also shows that even if the 10-year Treasury yield were to rise to 4% and corporate bond spreads were to widen in the lead up to a recession, the nonfinancial corporate sector debt service burden would rise to a lower peak than seen in the last three recessions. One key risk to a mild recession view is a scenario in which inflation does not return to or below the Fed’s target during the recession. In that kind of environment, the Fed would not likely cut interest rates to as low a level as they have in the past relative to potential growth. But the historical record is clear that recessions cause a deceleration in inflation, and if a recession emerges over the coming 12-18 months it will likely happen after supply-side and pandemic-related disinflation has already occurred. That means that inflation is likely to move back to or below the Fed’s target in a recessionary environment. We should note that this assessment differs somewhat from the scenario described by my former colleague Martin Barnes, who wrote a guest report on inflation published in our July Bank Credit Analyst.1 Chart II-13Today’s Pandemic-Related Excess Savings Dwarf Precautionary Savings During The Prior Three Recessions Chart II-14US Corporate Sector Debt Unlikely To Lead To A More Severe Recession, Even In A Higher Yield Environment   Long-Maturity Bond Yields And The Next US Recession What does our analysis imply for long-maturity bond yields and the duration call over the coming few years? In order to judge what is likely to happen to long-maturity bond yields in a recession scenario over the coming 12-18 months, we first project the fair value of the 5-year Treasury yield based on the following hypothetical circumstances: The onset of recession in March 2023 and a peak in the Fed funds rate at a target range of 3.75-4%. A recession duration of eight months, over which time the Fed steadily cuts the policy rate to 0-0.25%. An initial Fed rate hike in September 2024, nine months following the end of the recession, consistent with a relatively short return of the unemployment rate to NAIRU as an expansion takes hold. A rate hike pace of eight quarter-point hikes per year, with the Fed again raising rates to a peak of 4% A longer-term average Fed funds rate of 3%, which we regard as a low estimate. Chart II-15The 5-Year Treasury Yield Would Not Fall Enormously In A Mild Recessionary Scenario Chart II-15 highlights the fair value path for the 5-year Treasury yield in this scenario. Not surprisingly, the fair value today is lower than the current level of the 5-year yield, highlighting that a shift to a long duration stance will be warranted at some point over the coming year if the US economy enters a non-technical, typical income-statement recession. However, the chart also highlights that a long duration position is not likely to be warranted for very long, given that the lowest level of the 5-year fair value path is substantially higher than it was in 2020 and 2021 and is also higher than its 10-year average. Chart II-16 reveals the importance of forecasting the near-term path of interest rates when predicting the likely behavior of long-maturity bond yields. Even though near- and long-term interest rate expectations should be at least somewhat differentiated, the chart highlights that the real 5-year/5-year forward Treasury yield is very closely explained by the real 5-year Treasury yield and a 3-year lag of our adaptive inflation expectations model (which is highly consistent with BCA’s Golden Rule of bond investing framework). Chart II-16 shows that long-maturity bond yields should be higher than they are based on the current level of real 5-year yields and lagged inflation expectations, underscoring the point that we made in Section 1 of our report that significant upside risk exists for long-maturity bond yields in a non-recessionary outcome over the coming year. In a recessionary outcome, it is clear that bond yields will fall as the Fed cuts interest rates, as Chart II-15 demonstrated. But, Chart II-17 highlights that during recessions, there is little precedent for a negative 5-10 yield curve slope outside of the context of the persistently high inflation environment of the late 1960s and 1970s. Applying that template to the fair value path that we showed in Chart II-15 suggests that the 10-year Treasury yield will not fall below 2% during the next recession. As we noted in our August report,2 a 10-year Treasury yield decline to 2% would result in significant performance for long-maturity bonds, but it would not end the structural bear market in bonds that began two years ago – a fact that we suspect would be very surprising to bond-bullish investors. Chart II-165-Year Bond Yields Strongly Explain Yields 5-Years/5-Years Forward Chart II-17There Is Not Much Precedent For A Negative 5/10 Yield Curve During Modern Recessions, Suggesting 10-Year Yields Will Not Fall Below 2% During The Next Recession It is true that bond yields may deviate from the fair value levels shown in Chart II-15 if investors expect a different outcome for the path of the Fed funds rate than we described. However, it is worth noting that changes in our assumed post-recession peak Fed funds rate and the long-term average do not substantially change the outcome shown in Chart II-15. If investors instead assume that the Fed funds rate will peak at 3% during the next expansion, that lowers the fair value path for the 5-year yield by approximately 5 basis points. Changing the long-term average Fed funds rate to 2.4%, the Fed’s current neutral rate expectation, would reduce it by about 25 basis points. These levels would still be significantly above the lows reached in 2011-2013 and in 2020, underscoring that the length of the recession and the speed at which the Fed begins to raise interest rates will be far more important determinants of the path of US Treasury yields. We strongly suspect that investors will recognize that a comparatively mild recession will not result in the same hyper-accomodative monetary policy stance that occurred during the past two recessions, implying that long-maturity bond yields will have less downside during the next recession than may be currently recognized. Investment Conclusions As we have presented, the historical experience suggests that the Fed may cut interest rates to zero during the next recession, but that the re-establishment of a long-lasting zero interest rate policy and the associated resumption of large-scale asset purchases seem quite unlikely unless the recession is severe. In the post-WWII environment, severe US recessions have been accompanied by aggravating factors that appear to be missing in the current environment. In addition to this, there are several arguments pointing to the next US recession being a mild one. In a mild recession scenario, we doubt that the 10-year Treasury yield would fall below 2%, or fall below this level for very long. For fixed-income investors, while bond yields will fall for a time if a recession emerges, the implication is that investors should not overstay their welcome in a long-duration position during the recession and should be looking to reduce their duration exposure earlier rather than later. For equity investors, our findings underscore that meaningful downside risk exists for stocks even in a mild recession environment, because the decline in bond yields is not likely to offset a rise in the equity risk premium. We noted in our July report that if a recession occurred within the coming 6-12 months, that the S&P 500 would likely fall to 3100, even if the recession were average. A mild recession may see the S&P 500 decline less severely than this, but stocks are still likely to incur significant losses during the next recession unless investors price in a much shallower path for short-term interest rates than we believe will be warranted. As noted in Section 1 of our report, we have not yet concluded that a US recession is inevitable over the coming 6-12 months. Still, we acknowledge that the risks are quite elevated, and that substantial (further) supply-side and pandemic-related disinflation is likely needed for the US economy to avoid a contraction in output. Additional changes to our recommended cyclical allocation may thus occur over the coming few months, in response to incoming data, our assessment of the likely implications for monetary policy, and the response of long-maturity government bond yields. Jonathan LaBerge, CFA Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst   Footnotes 1  Please see The Bank Credit Analyst "Inflation Whipsaw Ahead," dated June 30, 2022, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 2  Please see The Bank Credit Analyst "August 2022," dated July 28, 2022, available at bca.bcaresearch.com

Highlights The odds of a Goldilocks outcome for the US economy increased somewhat in August, but the risks of a US recession over the coming year remain quite elevated. We continue to recommend that investors stay neutrally positioned towards equities within a global multi-asset portfolio. The disinflationary impulse from the July US CPI report is less compelling than it seems, in that it appears to have been mostly driven by declining energy prices. It is far from clear that energy prices will continue to decline over the coming months and are, in fact, likely to rise even if an Iranian deal takes place. This implies that investors may have jumped the gun in pricing in substantial disinflation and sharply higher odds of a Goldilocks economic outcome. The OIS curve is implying a reasonable path for the Fed funds rate for the remainder of this year, but it is too low 12 months from now based on the Fed’s median rate expectation for year-end 2023. This suggests that a further upward adjustment in the OIS curve is likely warranted, and that a modestly short duration stance is appropriate. Investors believe that the rate hike path priced into the OIS curve would not be recessionary, because short-term inflation expectations are pricing in a very substantial slowdown in headline inflation. From the perspective of market participants, this would both raise the recessionary threshold for interest rates (via stronger real wages) and could potentially allow the Fed to reduce interest rates closer to its (very likely wrong) estimate of neutral. We agree that the odds of a recession will decline if headline inflation does fall below 4% over the coming year, but it is not yet clear that this will occur. And if it does, the resulting improvement in real wages would ultimately allow the Fed to raise interest rates to a higher level before short-circuiting the economic expansion. As such, we expect real long-maturity government bond yields to rise meaningfully in a scenario where real wages recover significantly and a recession is avoided, which will put heavy pressure on equity multiples. This underscores that stock prices face risks in both a recessionary and non-recessionary environment. There are arguments pointing to a decline in the dollar beyond the near term, even within the context of elevated recessionary odds in the US and our recommended neutral stance towards global equities. Stay neutral for now, but look for opportunities to short the dollar beyond the coming few months. Jumping The Gun On Goldilocks The odds of a Goldilocks outcome for the US economy over the coming six to nine months increased somewhat in August. The July CPI report presented some evidence of supply-side and pandemic-related disinflation (Chart I-1), and we saw more resilient manufacturing production in the US – even after excluding the automotive sector – than many manufacturing indicators have been indicating (Chart I-2). In addition, the regional Fed manufacturing index in the especially manufacturing-sensitive state of Pennsylvania surprised significantly to the upside in July, although this was at least somewhat offset by a collapse in the New York and Dallas Fed’s general business conditions indexes (Chart I-3). Chart I-1There Is Now Some Evidence Of Supply-Side & Pandemic-Related Disinflation In The US Chart I-2US Manufacturing Production Has Been More Resilient Than Surveys Would Have Suggested Against the backdrop of significant recessionary risks, and a debate about whether negative growth in the first half of the year already constitutes a recession in the US, these developments have been positive. The Atlanta Fed’s GDPNow model is pointing to positive (albeit below-trend) growth of 1.4% in Q3, which is consistent with consensus forecasts. The Atlanta Fed’s model is also forecasting the strongest real consumption growth since Q4 2021 (Chart I-4). Equity investors responded to incrementally lower recession odds and a slower pace of inflation by bidding up the S&P 500 from roughly 3800 at the beginning of July to over 4200 in August. Chart I-3Mixed Messages From The Regional Fed Indicators Chart I-4The Atlanta Fed GDPNow Model Is Pointing To Positive Growth And Resilient Consumption In Q3   However, several other developments over the past month continue to highlight that the risks of a US recession over the coming year are quite elevated, which supports our recommendation that investors stay neutrally positioned towards equities within a global multi-asset portfolio: The August flash PMIs were fairly negative, especially for the services sector. The August flash S&P Global manufacturing PMI rose in Germany, but it fell in the US, France, and the UK. Services PMIs declined significantly in all four countries, especially in the US where survey participants noted that “hikes in interest rates and inflation dampened customer spending as disposable incomes were squeezed.” Survey respondents also noted that “new orders contracted at the steepest pace for over two years, as companies highlighted greater client hesitancy in placing new work.” Chart I-5The Conference Board's LEI Is Very Weak The Conference Board’s leading economic indicator dropped for a fifth month in a row in July, which has always been associated with a US recession (based on the indicator’s current construction). Chart I-5 highlights that the indicator’s market-based and real economy components are both very weak, and that the Conference Board’s coincident indicator has now fallen below its 12-month moving average. While the Philly Fed manufacturing index picked up in July, the new orders component of the regional Fed manufacturing PMIs broadly sank further into contractionary territory (Chart I-6). Chart I-6The Regional Fed New Orders Components Are Very Weak The Atlanta Fed model shown in Chart I-4 is pointing to a second quarter of negative growth from real residential investment, a component of GDP that reliably peaks in advance of economic contractions.1 Job openings are now pointing to a potential rise in unemployment. The relationship between job openings and unemployment is currently subject to heavy debate, as discussed in a recent report by my colleague Ryan Swift.2 However, abstracting from a theoretical discussion about movements along or shifts in the Beveridge curve, investors should note that the empirical record is fairly clear – Chart I-7 highlights that falling job vacancies occurred alongside a significant rise in the level of unemployment during the last two recessions. We acknowledge that the relationship has seen some deviations since 2018/2019, so this may highlight that a larger decline in job openings will be required for unemployment to trend higher. A 10% rise in the level of unemployment relative to its 12-month moving average has always been associated with a recession, implying that a sustained decline in job openings to 10M or lower would represent a likely recessionary signal – even if that recession proves to be a mild one (see Section 2 of this month’s report). Chart I-7Declining Job Openings Are Pointing To Potentially Higher Unemployment Table I-1 highlights that the disinflationary impulse from the July CPI report is less compelling than it seems, in that it appears to have been mostly driven by declining energy prices (particularly gasoline and fuel oil). Outside of the clear impact that falling fuel prices had on airline fares, there is not yet compelling evidence that core inflation is decelerating due to easing supply-side and pandemic-related effects, or due to slowing demand. As we will discuss below, it is far from clear that energy prices will continue to decline over the coming months and are, in fact, likely to rise even if an Iranian deal takes place. This implies that investors may have jumped the gun in pricing in substantial disinflation and sharply higher odds of a Goldilocks economic outcome. Table I-1The Disinflationary Impulse From The July CPI Report Is Less Compelling Than It Seems Inflation And The Fed As we discuss in Section 2 of our report, recessions occur because monetary policy becomes tight, a significant non-policy shock to aggregate demand or supply occurs, or some combination of both develops. We do not believe that monetary policy is currently restrictive on its own (Chart I-8), and we have not yet concluded that a US recession is inevitable. But when combined with the speed of adjustment in interest rates, the fact that real wages have fallen sharply (Chart I-9), and the fact that the Fed is determined to see inflation quickly return to target levels, it is clear that the odds of a recession over the coming 12-18 months remain elevated. Chart I-8Absent Declining Real Wages, The Current Level Of Interest Rates Would Not Be Restrictive Chart I-9But Real Wages Are Declining, And The Pace Of Tightening Has Been Extraordinarily Rapid Many investors do not appear to fully appreciate the fact that the Fed will continue to tighten policy until it sees clear and unequivocal signs that inflation is easing. Importantly, the minutes of the July FOMC meeting highlighted that this is likely to be true even if unambiguous signs of easing supply-side and pandemic-related inflation present themselves. During the July meeting, FOMC participants noted that “though some inflation reduction might come through improving global supply chains or drops in the prices of fuel and other commodities, some of the heavy lifting would also have to come by imposing higher borrowing costs on households and businesses”. They also emphasized that “a slowing in aggregate demand would play an important role in reducing inflation pressures”. The upshot is that the Fed was aware before the July CPI report that energy-related inflation might fall, but also understood that they would still have to tighten enough to slow aggregate demand to reduce underlying inflationary pressures. It is true that investors are pricing in additional rate hikes from the Fed, but there are two caveats for investors to consider. The first is that while the OIS curve is implying a reasonable path for the Fed funds rate for the remainder of this year, it is too low 12 months from now based on the Fed’s median rate expectation for year-end 2023 (Chart I-10). This suggests that a further upward adjustment in the OIS curve is likely warranted. Second, and more importantly, investors appear to be making the assumption that the rate hikes already built into the OIS curve will not be recessionary. Investors are making this assumption because short-term inflation expectations are pricing in a very substantial slowdown in headline inflation (Chart I-11), which would both raise the recessionary threshold for interest rates (via stronger real wages) and could potentially allow the Fed to reduce interest rates closer to its (very likely wrong) estimate of neutral. Chart I-10A Further Upward Adjustment In The OIS Curve Is Likely Warranted Chart I-11Short-Term Inflation Expectations Are Pricing In A Massive Deceleration In Headline Inflation We agree with investors that the odds of a recession will decline significantly, ceteris paribus, if headline inflation does drop below 4% over the coming year. But we noted above that it is not yet clear that this will occur. In addition, we disagree with investors that this would result in a reduction in short-term interest rates, because this belief is based on the view that monetary policy is currently in restrictive territory even without the negative impact of sharply lower real wages. Absent the negative real wage effect, our view is that monetary policy would still be stimulative at current interest rates, which is why we believe that the 2023 portion of the OIS curve is too dovish in a non-recessionary scenario. The Outlook for Stocks The equity market rally that began in early July has been based on the assumption that significant supply-side and pandemic-related disinflation is now a fait accompli. If it is, then the odds of a recession over the coming year are indeed meaningfully lower, and the risk to corporate profits is less than feared. We noted above that investors may have jumped the gun in pricing in substantial disinflation and sharply lower odds of a US recession. But even in a scenario in which the odds of recession do come in significantly, stocks still face risks from a significant rise in real bond yields. Chart I-12Long-Maturity TIPS Yields Would Likely Rise In A Non-Recessionary Scenario, Compressing Equity Multiples Investors have been focused on very elevated inflation as the driver of both rising inflation expectations and rising real bond yields, and have assumed that a meaningful slowdown in inflation (as forecast by short-term measures of inflation expectations) implies that the Fed funds rate will return to the Fed’s estimate of neutral. This belief, along with a lower projected Fed funds rate in 2024 than 2023 in the FOMC’s participant forecasts, is the basis for the 2023 “pivot” currently priced into the OIS curve. Given that the Fed funds rate has already reached the Fed’s neutral rate estimate, there is a meaningful chance that this estimate will be revised upwards by the Fed or challenged by investors if economic activity improves in response to a decline in inflation and a corresponding rise in real wages. Such a scenario would highlight to investors that the Fed’s estimate of neutral is likely too low, which would imply a significant increase in real 10-year TIPS yields (which are currently 160 basis points below their pre-2008 average). Chart I-12 highlights the impact that a rise in real long-maturity bond yields could have on equities, even in a non-recessionary scenario where 12-month forward earnings per share grows 8% over the coming year. A rise in 10-year TIPS yields to 1.5% by the middle of 2023 would cause a 16% contraction in the 12-month forward P/E ratio and a 10% decline in stock prices, assuming an unchanged 12-month forward equity risk premium (ERP). It is possible that the ERP could decline in a rising bond yield scenario. Chart I-13 highlights that the ERP is indeed negatively correlated with real bond yields (in part due to the methods that we use to calculate it). The counterpoint is that there are a number of risks that equity investors should be compensated for today that did not exist in the late 1990s or early 2000s, especially the risks of populist policies in many advanced economies and major geopolitical events (as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine recently highlighted). Chart I-14 illustrates that, since 1960, a long-term version of the equity risk premium, calculated using trailing earnings and our adaptive expectations proxy to deflate long-maturity bond yields, has been fairly well explained by the Misery Index (the sum of the unemployment and headline inflation rates). However, the chart also shows that the ERP has been structurally higher over the past decade than the Misery Index would have predicted. It is unclear if this is due to a riskier environment or the negative ERP/real yield correlation that we noted. Chart I-13The Equity Risk Premium Could Come Down As Bond Yields Rise, But That Is Not Guaranteed Chart I-14A Structurally Higher ERP Over The Past Decade Could Represent Needed Compensation For Structural Risks The conclusion is that investors do not yet appear to have a basis to bet on a declining ERP in a rising bond yield environment, underscoring that even a non-recessionary scenario poses a risk to stock prices. It is worth noting that this second risk facing stocks has essentially been caused by the Fed because of its maintenance of a very low neutral rate estimate that we feel is no longer economically justified. Bond Market Prospects Chart I-15Investors Should Stay Modestly Short Duration, For Now Over the past few months, the Bank Credit Analyst service has continued to recommend that investors maintain a modestly short duration stance even as we recommended reducing equity exposure. The recent rise in the 10-year Treasury yield back to 3% has validated that view (Chart I-15), and reinforces our view that there is significant upside risk to long-maturity bond yields in a non-recessionary scenario. Our expectation that the Fed will raise interest rates to a higher level over the next year than the OIS curve is currently discounting also argues for a modestly short stance, based on BCA’s “Golden Rule” framework. The “Golden Rule” states that investors should set their overall bond portfolio duration based on how their own 12-month fed funds rate expectations differ from the expectations that are priced into the market. As we detail in Section 2 of our report, the Fed has always cut interest rates in response to a recession in the post-WWII environment, so we would certainly recommend a long duration stance if a recession emerges. But given our view that a recession is still a risk rather than a likely event, we feel that a modestly short duration stance is currently appropriate. Chart I-16US Corporate Bond Value Has Improved, But Not Enough To Trump The Cycle As noted above in our discussion of the risks facing stock prices in a non-recessionary scenario, falling inflation that is not associated with a recession will ironically be a bearish signal for long-maturity bonds, because it means that the Fed will have greater capacity to raise interest rates without ending the recovery. The short end of the yield curve could be flat or move modestly lower in response to a significant easing in inflation, but the long end of the curve would be at serious risk of moving higher. We are thus very likely to recommend a short duration stance in response to solid evidence of true supply-side and pandemic-related disinflation, assuming it emerges outside of the context of a recession. Within the credit space, the rise in US corporate bond spreads since the start of the year has meaningfully improved the value of investment- and speculative-grade corporate bonds (Chart I-16), but not so much that it justifies a positive stance towards these assets relative to government bonds given the risks facing the US economy. We continue to recommend an underweight stance towards investment-grade and a neutral stance towards speculative-grade within a fixed-income portfolio. The Outlook For Energy Prices Chart I-17The EU's Oil Embargo Will Cause Russian Oil Production To Tank The likely path of commodity prices, particularly that of oil, is an extremely important determinant of whether the US is likely to experience a recession over the coming year. We are among those who have downplayed the significance of oil price shocks in driving contractions in economic output over the past two decades,3 but the current situation is unique given the role that very elevated inflation has played in driving real wages lower. In a recent Strategy Report from our Commodity & Energy Strategy service, my colleague Robert P. Ryan underscored the impact that the European Union’s embargo of Russian oil will likely have on the energy market. If fully implemented, ~ 2.3mm barrels/day of seaborne imports of Russian crude oil will be excluded from EU markets by year-end. EU, UK and US shipping insurance and reinsurance sanctions are also scheduled to be implemented in December, which means that “surplus” Russian oil production cannot be fully reoriented to other countries. Chart I-17 presents the likely impact on Russia’s crude oil output, namely a ~ 2mm barrels/day decline in oil output by the end of next year – nearly equal to the amount of oil set to be embargoed. Our base case view remains that supply and demand in the oil market will remain relatively balanced going into the winter, but the removal from the market of Russian oil production because of the various EU embargoes – even if it is offset by the return of 1mm b/d of Iranian exports on the back of a deal with the US – will ultimately push crude oil prices higher and inventories lower (Chart I-18). The price impact of this event could happen earlier than the immediate supply/demand balance would suggest, if investors have not fully priced in the extent of the decline in Russian oil production that our commodity team is forecasting. Our commodity team’s forecast serves as an important reminder that the economic consequences of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine may not be fully behind us. It also highlights that the recent disinflation observed in the US, which was mostly driven by lower energy prices in July, may not be sustained. Chart I-19 highlights what could happen to US gasoline prices based on the path for oil shown in Chart I-18, and how that forecast is sharply at odds with the current gasoline futures curve. Chart I-20 highlights that US gasoline stocks are currently below their 5-year average; the last time this occurred was in Q1 2021, which was an environment of rising gasoline prices to levels that were higher than what would usually be implied by crude oil prices. Chart I-18Oil Prices Are More Likely To Rise Than Fall Chart I-19Higher Oil Prices Would Cause Gasoline Prices To Deviate Significantly From Market Expectations Chart I-20Gasoline Stocks Are Low In The US, Underscoring The Upside Risk To Prices The upshot is that our commodity team expects oil prices to move higher over the coming 6-12 months, under the assumption that the EU’s embargo against Russian oil moves forward as announced. This poses a clear threat to imminent supply-side and pandemic-related disinflation, and underscores the risks to a Goldilocks economic outcome over the coming few months. The Dollar: Value, Technical Conditions, And The Cycle Chart I-21The Dollar Is Reliably Countercyclical, But It Has Registered Outsized Gains Over The Past Year The US dollar moved higher over the past month, after first retreating from its mid-July high for the year. We tempered our view about the likelihood of a falling dollar over the near term in last month’s report, but from a bigger picture perspective we have been surprised by the degree of dollar strength this year. The US dollar is a reliably countercyclical currency, so clearly some of the dollar’s strength has been the result of weakness in risky asset prices (Chart I-21). But the bottom panel of Chart I-21 highlights that the broad trade-weighted dollar has performed even better over the past year than returns to the S&P 500 would have implied, underscoring that the magnitude of the dollar’s strength has been atypical. The last two times that the US dollar performed substantially better than the trend in risky assets would have implied were in 2012 and 2015, years in which euro area breakup risk was a driving force in markets. Alongside the fact that EURUSD has fallen below parity and USDEUR has outperformed even more than the broad trade-weighted dollar has, “excess” dollar returns point strongly to Europe’s energy woes in the aftermath of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine as the key driver of outsized broad dollar strength. Chart I-22 highlights that European natural gas prices have exceeded the level that we had forecasted would occur in a complete cutoff scenario, meaning that Europe’s energy crunch is likely happening now, rather than in the winter. However, even considering the negative economic outlook facing the euro area, there are arguments pointing to a decline in the dollar beyond the near term – even within the context of elevated recessionary odds in the US and our recommended neutral stance towards global equities. First, Chart I-23 highlights that EURUSD has undershot what the trend in relative real interest rates would suggest, which has historically led changes in the euro. This implies that the euro has declined partly because of the introduction of a sizeable risk premium, which may dissipate after the winter. Chart I-22The Euro Has Been Heavily Impacted By Europe's Energy Crunch Chart I-23EURUSD Has Undershot What The Trend In Relative Real Interest Rates Would Suggest Second, Chart I-24 highlights that the US dollar is extremely overbought and is technically extended to a point that has historically been associated with reversals in the broad dollar trend. Finally, Chart I-25 highlights that the US dollar is extraordinarily expensive based on our valuation models, underscoring that an eventual decline in the dollar may be quite severe. We agree that valuation is not usually an effective market timing tool, but investors should place a greater weight on valuation measures as they are stretched further. Based either on our models or a more traditional PPP approach, the degree of US dollar overvaluation is extreme – arguing for a bearish bias on a 6-12 month timeline barring an unambiguous move towards recession in the US. Chart I-24US Dollar And Indicator The US Dollar Is Heavily Overbought Chart I-25The US Dollar Is Extremely Expensive         Investment Conclusions Considering the economic developments over the past month and the reaction of financial markets, the takeaway for investors seems clear. Market participants have eagerly shifted towards the Goldilocks economic and financial market outcome, based on (so far) incomplete evidence of supply-side and pandemic-related disinflation that has predominantly been driven by declining energy prices. Given significant potential upside risks to oil and US gasoline prices over the coming few months, investors should wait for more durable signs of significant disinflation before downgrading the odds of a US recession over the coming year. We would certainly recommend cutting global equity exposure to underweight were we to determine that the US is likely to experience an imminent recession, but the avoidance of a recession does not necessarily suggest that an overweight stance is warranted. Sharply lower inflation would reduce the odds of a recession, but it would also raise real wages and would ultimately allow the Fed to raise interest rates to a higher level before short-circuiting the economic expansion. As such, we expect real long-maturity government bond yields to rise meaningfully in a scenario where real wages recover significantly and a recession is avoided, which will put meaningful pressure on equity multiples. Barring a decline in the equity risk premium, US stocks could face a loss on the order of 10% over the coming year in such a scenario (even under the assumption of positive earnings growth), reinforcing our view that a neutral stance towards global equities is currently appropriate. In addition to a neutral global asset allocation stance, we recommend that investors maintain a neutral regional equity position and a neutral stance towards cyclicals versus defensives, although we do recommend a modest overweight towards value stocks given our view that a modestly short duration stance is appropriate. Although we recommend a neutral stance towards USD over the next few months, we also see ample scope for a decline in the dollar beyond the near term – even within the context of elevated recessionary odds in the US and our recommended neutral stance towards global equities. We believe that there are upside risks to energy prices, which our Commodity & Energy Strategy service recommends playing via the iShares GSCI Commodity Dynamic Roll Strategy (COMT) ETF. As a final point, we remain cognizant of the fact that financial markets rarely trend sideways over 6-to-12 month periods. We continue to regard a neutral global asset allocation stance as a temporary stepping stone either to a further downgrade of risky assets to underweight, or to an increase in risky asset exposure back to a high-conviction overweight. The latter is still possible, especially if we see unequivocal signs of a substantial and broad-based slowdown in the US headline inflation rate, and if long-maturity real bond yields are well-behaved in response or if we see clear signs of a declining equity risk premium. Thus, investors should note that additional changes to our recommended cyclical allocation may occur over the coming few months, in response to incoming data, our assessment of the likely implications for monetary policy, and the response of long-maturity government bond yields.   Jonathan LaBerge, CFA Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst August 25, 2022 Next Report: September 29, 2022 II. The Fed Funds Rate, Bond Yields, And The Next US Recession The risk of a US recession has increased sharply over the past several months. We have not yet concluded that a recession over the coming year is inevitable, but substantial (further) supply-side and pandemic-related disinflation is likely needed for the US economy to avoid a contraction in output. The increased risk of a contraction has caused investors to ponder what the next recession might look like. One very important question concerns the likely behavior of short-term interest rates during the next recession, especially if it occurs sooner rather than later. The historical experience suggests that the Fed may cut interest rates to zero during the next recession, but that the re-establishment of a long-lasting zero interest rate policy and the associated resumption of large-scale asset purchases seem quite unlikely unless the recession is severe. In the post-WWII environment, severe US recessions have been accompanied by aggravating factors that appear to be missing in the current environment. In addition, there are several arguments pointing to the next US recession being a mild one. For fixed-income investors, the implication is that investors should not overstay their welcome in a long-duration position during the next US recession, and should be looking to reduce their duration exposure earlier rather than later. For equity investors, our findings underscore that meaningful downside risk exists for stocks even in a mild recession environment, because the decline in bond yields is not likely to offset a rise in the equity risk premium. Over the past several months, investors have been faced with a sharp increase in the odds of a US recession. Gauging the risk of a recession has featured prominently in our recent reports, and we have concluded, for now, that a US recession over the coming year is not yet inevitable. Still, we acknowledge that the risks are quite elevated, and that substantial (further) supply-side and pandemic-related disinflation is likely needed for the US economy to avoid a contraction in output. Economic expansions do not last forever. This means that the US economy will eventually succumb to a recession at some point over the coming few years. One very important question for investors concerns the likely behavior of short-term interest rates during the next recession, especially if a contraction occurs sooner rather than later. A key aspect of this question is whether the Fed is likely to be forced back towards a zero or negative interest rate policy, and whether it will need to employ asset purchases as part of its stabilization efforts as it has during the last two recessions. If so, long-maturity bond yields are likely to fall significantly during the next recession; if not, investors may be surprised by how modestly long-maturity yields decline. In this report, we examine the historical record of short-term interest rates during recessions and discuss whether the next US recession is likely to be severe or mild. We conclude that the next US recession is more likely to be mild than severe, and that the 10-year Treasury yield is unlikely to fall below 2% during the recession (or fall below this level for very long). In the case of a more severe recession driven by unanchored inflation expectations, the implications would be clearly bearish for bonds. Within a fixed-income portfolio, one conclusion of our analysis is that investors should not overstay their welcome in a long-duration position during the next recession and should be looking to reduce their duration exposure earlier rather than later. For equity investors, our findings underscore that meaningful downside risk exists for stocks even in a mild recession environment, because the decline in bond yields is not likely to offset a rise in the equity risk premium. The Historical Recessionary Path Of Short-Term Interest Rates When projecting how the Fed funds rate is likely to evolve during the next US recession, most investors typically look to the average decline in short-term interest rates during previous recessions as a guide. Based on that approach, Table II-1 highlights that the Fed would likely have to cut rates into negative territory if a recession occurred over the coming 12-18 months, unless it is able to hike interest rates significantly more over the coming year than the market is currently expecting and the FOMC itself is projecting. But in our view, focusing on the historical recessionary decline in interest rates from their peak is not the right approach, because it ignores the fact that recessions typically occur when monetary policy is tight. If a recession occurs within the next 18 months, it will have happened in large part because of a collapse in real wage growth, not just because of the increase in interest rates that has occurred. Chart II-1 highlights that short-term interest rates remain well below potential GDP growth, highlighting that monetary policy would still be easy today – despite the quick pace of increase in short rates – if real wages were growing rather than contracting sharply. In our view, the right approach is to examine how much short-term interest rates have typically fallen during recessions relative to potential or average historical GDP growth. This method captures the degree to which monetary policy easing has typically been required relative to neutral levels to catalyze an economic recovery. Table II-1Based Only On The Historical Decline In Short-Term Interest Rates, The Fed Would Ostensibly Have To Cut Rates Into Negative Territory During The Next Recession Chart II-1Monetary Policy Would Still Be Easy Today If Real Wage Growth Was Positive Based on this approach, Chart II-2 highlights that the Fed might have to cut the target range for the Fed funds rate to 0-0.25% during the next recession, but there are some examples (like the 1990-1991 recession) that point to a cut to just 0.25-0.5%. The goal of this exercise is not to be specific about the exact level to which the Fed will have to cut the Fed funds rate, but rather whether the de facto re-establishment of a long-lasting zero interest rate policy and the associated resumption of large-scale asset purchases is likely. Chart II-2The Fed May Have To Cut To Zero During The Next Recession, But Probably Not Into Negative Territory Structural bond bulls might note that there are five recessions in the post-war era that could potentially point to that outcome based on Chart II-2. However, these episodes involved circumstances that we doubt would be present during the next US recession, especially if one were to emerge over the coming 12-18 months. The 1950s Recessions The recessions of 1953-54 and 1957-58 were fairly sizeable based on the total rise in the unemployment rate, but the monetary policy stance at that time was wildly stimulative in a way that is very unlikely to repeat itself today. In the 1950s, the level of interest rates was still an artifact of WWII (with the Treasury-Fed accord having only been agreed upon in March 1951). Monetary policy was both overly responsive to a period of pent-up disinflation following the initial burst of government spending associated with the Korean war and insufficiently responsive to a strongly positive output gap (Chart II-3). This was meaningfully compounded by a poor understanding of the size of the output gap at that time; the deviation of the unemployment rate from its 10-year average was significantly smaller than its deviation from today’s estimate of NAIRU (Chart II-4). In sum, the economic and monetary policy conditions that existed in the 1950s and that contributed to an interest rate level that was well below the prevailing rate of economic growth do not exist today. As such, we strongly doubt that the Fed’s response to the next US recession would resemble what occurred during that decade. Chart II-3We Strongly Doubt The Fed's Response To The Next US Recession Would Resemble What Occurred In The 1950s Chart II-4Low Interest Rates In The 1950s Were Partly Caused By Wrong Output Gap Estimates   1973-1975 The recession that began in 1973 occurred because of a huge energy shock that proved to be stagflationary in the true sense of the word. Excluding the 2020 recession, this was the third largest rise in the unemployment rate of any recession since WWII, following 2008/2009 and the 1981/1982 recessions. There are some parallels between this recession and the current economic environment, but the stability of inflation expectations so far does not point to a truly stagflationary outcome. As such, we do not see the 1973-74 recession as a reasonable parallel to today’s environment. In addition, manufacturing employment – which was heavily impacted by the permanent rise in oil prices due to the sector’s energy intensity – stood at 24% of total nonfarm employment in 1973, compared with 8% today. Finally, the weight of food and energy as a share of total consumer spending today is roughly half of what it was during the 1970s (Chart II-5). 2001 Of the five recessions potentially implying that the Fed may have to cut interest rates into negative territory during the next US recession, the 2001 recession is the most relevant parallel to today. It was a modern recession in which the Fed maintained very easy monetary policy for a significant amount of time, in response to concerns about a significant tightening in financial conditions and the impact of prior corporate sector excesses on aggregate demand. The total rise in the unemployment rate during this recession was not very large, but it took some time for the unemployment rate to return to NAIRU. Still, even though this justified a later liftoff, a Taylor rule approach makes it clear that the Fed overstimulated the economy in response to the recession – a view that is reinforced by the enormous rise in household debt that fueled the housing market bubble during that period (Chart II-6). The Fed was very concerned about the negative wealth effects of the bursting of the equity market bubble, which had been caused by a massive decline in the equity risk premium in the second half of the 1990s. These conditions are simply not present today. Chart II-5Today's US Economy Is Meaningfully Less Impacted By Energy And Food Prices Chart II-6The Fed Clearly Overstimulated In Response To The 2001 Recession 2008/2009 Chart II-7A Repeat Of The 2008/2009 Recession In The US Is A Totally Implausible Scenario Chart II-2 highlighted that the Fed would have to cut interest rates to -1% were the 2008/2009 recession to repeat itself, but we judge that to be a totally implausible scenario given the improvement in US household sector balance sheets and financial sector health since the global financial crisis (Chart II-7). As we discuss below, the next US recession is likely to be meaningfully less severe than the 2008/2009 and 2020 recessions, which we believe carries important significance for the path of interest rates and the response of long-maturity bond yields. The bottom line for investors is that, based on the historical experience of rate cuts during recessions, the Fed may end up cutting interest rates back to or close to the zero lower bound in response to the next recession. But the de facto re-establishment of a long-lasting zero interest rate policy and the associated resumption of large-scale asset purchases seems quite unlikely unless the recession is severe, which we do not expect. Will The Next US Recession Be Severe Or Mild? Chart II-8The Most Severe US Recessions Have Had Aggravating Factors That Do Not Appear To Be Present Today How drastically the Fed will be forced to cut interest rates during the next recession will be driven by its severity. Chart II-8 presents the total rise in the unemployment rate during post-WWII recessions (excluding 2020), in order to gauge whether the factors that have led to severe recessions in the past are likely to be present during the next contraction in output. From our perspective, the most severe US recessions in the post-WWII era have been driven by factors that are very unlikely to repeat themselves in the current environment. We noted above that a repeat of the 2008/2009 recession is a totally implausible scenario, leaving the 1981-1982, 1973-1975, and 1950s recessions as potential severe recession analogues. In three of these four cases we see clear signs of an aggravating factor that we do not (yet) believe will be present during the next US recession. Chart II-9Inflation Expectations Have Not Yet Unanchored To The Upside, In Sharp Contrast To The 1970s In the 1981-1982 recession, the unemployment rate rose significantly as the Federal Reserve confronted the fact that inflation expectations had become severely unanchored to the upside, causing a persistent wage/price spiral. While unanchored inflation expectations is a risk today, so far the evidence suggests that both households and market participants expect that currently elevated inflation will not persist over the long run (Chart II-9). If inflation expectations do become unanchored to the upside at some point over the coming 12-18 months (or beyond), we are very likely to change our view about the severity of the next recession. However, this would be a bond bearish outcome (at least initially), as it would imply sharply higher yields at both the short and long end of the yield curve in order to tame inflation and re-anchor inflation expectations. As noted above, in the 1973-74 recession, the unexpected and permanent rise in oil prices and outright energy shortages rendered a significant amount of capital and labor uneconomic, which is different than what has been occurring during the pandemic. Were the recent rise in natural gas prices to be permanent and no alternatives available, Europe’s current energy situation would be more reminiscent of the 1973-1974 recession than the pandemic-driven price pressures and supply shortages affecting the US and other developed economies. Chart II-10The US Is Currently Experiencing Fiscal Drag, But That Will Lessen Next Year Finally, while the 1957-58 recession appears to be somewhat of an anomaly driven by a mix of factors, the 1953-54 recession was clearly exacerbated by a sharp slowdown in government spending following the end of the Korean war. It is true that the US is currently experiencing fiscal drag (Chart II-10), but this has occurred against the backdrop of a strong labor market, and IMF forecasts imply that the drag will be significantly smaller over the coming year than what the US is currently experiencing. There are several additional points suggesting that the next US recession will be comparatively mild: Chart II-11The Milder US Recessions Were All Seemingly Triggered By Tight Monetary Policy (As Would Be The Case Today) Chart II-11 highlights that the milder recessions, those which have seen the unemployment rate rise by less than 3% from their previous low, have generally been the recessions that appear to have simply been triggered by monetary policy becoming tight or nearly tight. This would likely be the case during the next US recession. In the lead up to the 1970, 1990-91, and 2001 recessions, short-term interest rates approached or exceeded either potential growth or the rolling 10-year average growth rate of nominal GDP. The 1960-61 recession stands out slightly as an exception to this rule, in that interest rates were still moderately easy, which is based on our definition of the equilibrium short-term interest rate. But interest rates had risen close to 400 basis points from 1958 to 1960 (suggesting a change in addition to a level effect of interest rates on aggregate demand), and it is notable that the 60-61 recession was the mildest in post-war history, based on the total rise in the unemployment rate. Chart II-12Labor Scarcity May Mean That Firms Will Be Somewhat More Reluctant To Shed Labor During The Next Recession We argued in Section 1 of our report that monetary policy is not currently restrictive on its own, and that the recessionary risk currently facing the US is the result of a combination of the speed of adjustment in interest rates, the fact that real wages have fallen sharply, and the fact that the Fed is determined to see inflation quickly return to target levels. However, what this also highlights is that a recession would likely cause a rise in real wages via a significant slowdown in inflation (at least for a time); this would likely help stabilize aggregate demand and cause a comparatively mild rise in the unemployment rate. While the odds and magnitude of this effect are difficult to quantify, the fact that the labor market has been so tight over the past year and that the participation rate has yet to recover to its pre-pandemic levels suggests that some firms may be reluctant to shed labor during a recession (Chart II-12), suggesting that the total rise in unemployment in the next recession could be relatively small. Finally, Chart II-13 shows that the excess savings that have accumulated over the course of the pandemic, now primarily the result of reduced spending on services, dwarf the magnitude of precautionary savings that were generated in the prior three recessions as a % of GDP. We agree that the savings rate would likely still rise during the next recession, but the existence of excess savings implies that the rise in the savings rate may be surprisingly small – which would, in turn, imply a comparatively mild rise in the unemployment rate. We noted above that the household sector has deleveraged significantly, which is strong evidence against an outsized or long-lasting decline in consumer spending as a possible driver of an above-average rise in the unemployment rate during the next recession. One question that we often receive from clients is whether excessive corporate sector leverage could cause a more severe decline in economic activity once a recession emerges. Chart II-14 illustrates that the answer is “probably not.” The chart presents one estimate of the US nonfinancial corporate sector debt service ratio, based on national accounts data. The chart highlights that the current debt burden for the nonfinancial corporate sector is very low, underscoring that elevated corporate sector debt would not likely act as an aggravating factor driving an outsized rise in the unemployment rate were a recession to occur today. The chart also shows that even if the 10-year Treasury yield were to rise to 4% and corporate bond spreads were to widen in the lead up to a recession, the nonfinancial corporate sector debt service burden would rise to a lower peak than seen in the last three recessions. One key risk to a mild recession view is a scenario in which inflation does not return to or below the Fed’s target during the recession. In that kind of environment, the Fed would not likely cut interest rates to as low a level as they have in the past relative to potential growth. But the historical record is clear that recessions cause a deceleration in inflation, and if a recession emerges over the coming 12-18 months it will likely happen after supply-side and pandemic-related disinflation has already occurred. That means that inflation is likely to move back to or below the Fed’s target in a recessionary environment. We should note that this assessment differs somewhat from the scenario described by my former colleague Martin Barnes, who wrote a guest report on inflation published in our July Bank Credit Analyst.4 Chart II-13Today’s Pandemic-Related Excess Savings Dwarf Precautionary Savings During The Prior Three Recessions Chart II-14US Corporate Sector Debt Unlikely To Lead To A More Severe Recession, Even In A Higher Yield Environment   Long-Maturity Bond Yields And The Next US Recession What does our analysis imply for long-maturity bond yields and the duration call over the coming few years? In order to judge what is likely to happen to long-maturity bond yields in a recession scenario over the coming 12-18 months, we first project the fair value of the 5-year Treasury yield based on the following hypothetical circumstances: The onset of recession in March 2023 and a peak in the Fed funds rate at a target range of 3.75-4%. A recession duration of eight months, over which time the Fed steadily cuts the policy rate to 0-0.25%. An initial Fed rate hike in September 2024, nine months following the end of the recession, consistent with a relatively short return of the unemployment rate to NAIRU as an expansion takes hold. A rate hike pace of eight quarter-point hikes per year, with the Fed again raising rates to a peak of 4% A longer-term average Fed funds rate of 3%, which we regard as a low estimate. Chart II-15The 5-Year Treasury Yield Would Not Fall Enormously In A Mild Recessionary Scenario Chart II-15 highlights the fair value path for the 5-year Treasury yield in this scenario. Not surprisingly, the fair value today is lower than the current level of the 5-year yield, highlighting that a shift to a long duration stance will be warranted at some point over the coming year if the US economy enters a non-technical, typical income-statement recession. However, the chart also highlights that a long duration position is not likely to be warranted for very long, given that the lowest level of the 5-year fair value path is substantially higher than it was in 2020 and 2021 and is also higher than its 10-year average. Chart II-16 reveals the importance of forecasting the near-term path of interest rates when predicting the likely behavior of long-maturity bond yields. Even though near- and long-term interest rate expectations should be at least somewhat differentiated, the chart highlights that the real 5-year/5-year forward Treasury yield is very closely explained by the real 5-year Treasury yield and a 3-year lag of our adaptive inflation expectations model (which is highly consistent with BCA’s Golden Rule of bond investing framework). Chart II-16 shows that long-maturity bond yields should be higher than they are based on the current level of real 5-year yields and lagged inflation expectations, underscoring the point that we made in Section 1 of our report that significant upside risk exists for long-maturity bond yields in a non-recessionary outcome over the coming year. In a recessionary outcome, it is clear that bond yields will fall as the Fed cuts interest rates, as Chart II-15 demonstrated. But, Chart II-17 highlights that during recessions, there is little precedent for a negative 5-10 yield curve slope outside of the context of the persistently high inflation environment of the late 1960s and 1970s. Applying that template to the fair value path that we showed in Chart II-15 suggests that the 10-year Treasury yield will not fall below 2% during the next recession. As we noted in our August report,5 a 10-year Treasury yield decline to 2% would result in significant performance for long-maturity bonds, but it would not end the structural bear market in bonds that began two years ago – a fact that we suspect would be very surprising to bond-bullish investors. Chart II-165-Year Bond Yields Strongly Explain Yields 5-Years/5-Years Forward Chart II-17There Is Not Much Precedent For A Negative 5/10 Yield Curve During Modern Recessions, Suggesting 10-Year Yields Will Not Fall Below 2% During The Next Recession It is true that bond yields may deviate from the fair value levels shown in Chart II-15 if investors expect a different outcome for the path of the Fed funds rate than we described. However, it is worth noting that changes in our assumed post-recession peak Fed funds rate and the long-term average do not substantially change the outcome shown in Chart II-15. If investors instead assume that the Fed funds rate will peak at 3% during the next expansion, that lowers the fair value path for the 5-year yield by approximately 5 basis points. Changing the long-term average Fed funds rate to 2.4%, the Fed’s current neutral rate expectation, would reduce it by about 25 basis points. These levels would still be significantly above the lows reached in 2011-2013 and in 2020, underscoring that the length of the recession and the speed at which the Fed begins to raise interest rates will be far more important determinants of the path of US Treasury yields. We strongly suspect that investors will recognize that a comparatively mild recession will not result in the same hyper-accomodative monetary policy stance that occurred during the past two recessions, implying that long-maturity bond yields will have less downside during the next recession than may be currently recognized. Investment Conclusions As we have presented, the historical experience suggests that the Fed may cut interest rates to zero during the next recession, but that the re-establishment of a long-lasting zero interest rate policy and the associated resumption of large-scale asset purchases seem quite unlikely unless the recession is severe. In the post-WWII environment, severe US recessions have been accompanied by aggravating factors that appear to be missing in the current environment. In addition to this, there are several arguments pointing to the next US recession being a mild one. In a mild recession scenario, we doubt that the 10-year Treasury yield would fall below 2%, or fall below this level for very long. For fixed-income investors, while bond yields will fall for a time if a recession emerges, the implication is that investors should not overstay their welcome in a long-duration position during the recession and should be looking to reduce their duration exposure earlier rather than later. For equity investors, our findings underscore that meaningful downside risk exists for stocks even in a mild recession environment, because the decline in bond yields is not likely to offset a rise in the equity risk premium. We noted in our July report that if a recession occurred within the coming 6-12 months, that the S&P 500 would likely fall to 3100, even if the recession were average. A mild recession may see the S&P 500 decline less severely than this, but stocks are still likely to incur significant losses during the next recession unless investors price in a much shallower path for short-term interest rates than we believe will be warranted. As noted in Section 1 of our report, we have not yet concluded that a US recession is inevitable over the coming 6-12 months. Still, we acknowledge that the risks are quite elevated, and that substantial (further) supply-side and pandemic-related disinflation is likely needed for the US economy to avoid a contraction in output. Additional changes to our recommended cyclical allocation may thus occur over the coming few months, in response to incoming data, our assessment of the likely implications for monetary policy, and the response of long-maturity government bond yields. Jonathan LaBerge, CFA Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst III. Indicators And Reference Charts In contrast to the recent rally in equities, BCA’s equity indicators continue to paint a bearish outlook for stock prices. Our Monetary, Technical, and Speculative indicators have stopped falling, but they remain very weak. Meanwhile, the recent rally has pushed our valuation indicator back towards a level indicating stocks are considerably overvalued. While it is still a risk and not yet a likely event, the odds of a US recession over the next 12 months remain elevated. We maintain a neutral stance for stocks versus bonds over the coming year. Forward earnings are no longer being revised up, but bottom-up analysts’ expectations for earnings are likely still too optimistic. Although earnings growth will be positive over the coming year if a US recession is avoided, it will be in the mid-to-low single-digits given ongoing pressure on profit margins. Within a global equity portfolio, we maintain a neutral stance on cyclicals versus defensives, small caps versus large, and a neutral stance on regional equity allocation. We recommend a modest overweight towards value versus growth stocks, given our recommendation of a modestly short duration stance within a global fixed-income portfolio. Commodity prices have stopped falling, and our composite technical indicator now highlights that commodities are oversold. Our base-case view is that oil prices are likely to rise over the coming 12-months, barring a US recession. Global food prices have come down in the wake of deal between Russia and Ukraine to allow the latter to resume its agricultural exports. But the recent surge in European natural gas prices suggests that global food inflation may remain elevated, given that natural gas is used in the production of fertilizer. Ongoing weakness in the Chinese property market argues for a neutral stance towards industrial metals, until compelling signs of a more aggressive policy response emerge. US and global LEIs have now fallen into negative territory, underscoring that the risk of a global recession is elevated. Some indicators are easing back towards positive territory, such as our global LEI Diffusion Index and our US Financial Conditions Index, but it is not yet clear if they are heralding a reacceleration in economic activity or merely a less intense pace of decline. Jonathan LaBerge, CFA Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst Gabriel Di Lullo Research Associate EQUITIES: Chart III-1US Equity Indicators Chart III-2Willingness To Pay For Risk Chart III-3US Equity Sentiment Indicators Chart III-4US Stock Market Breadth Chart III-5US Stock Market Valuation Chart III-6US Earnings Chart III-7Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Chart III-8Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance FIXED INCOME: Chart III-9US Treasurys And Valuations Chart III-10Yield Curve Slopes Chart III-11Selected US Bond Yields Chart III-1210-Year Treasury Yield ComponentsChart III-13US Corporate Bonds And Health Monitor Chart III-14Global Bonds: Developed Markets Chart III-15Global Bonds: Emerging Markets CURRENCIES: Chart III-16US Dollar And PPP Chart III-17US Dollar And Indicator Chart III-18US Dollar Fundamentals Chart III-19Japanese Yen Technicals Chart III-20Euro Technicals Chart III-21Euro/Yen Technicals Chart III-22Euro/Pound Technicals COMMODITIES: Chart III-23Broad Commodity Indicators Chart III-24Commodity Prices Chart III-25Commodity Prices Chart III-26Commodity Sentiment Chart III-27Speculative Positioning ECONOMY: Chart III-28US And Global Macro Backdrop Chart III-29US Macro Snapshot Chart III-30US Growth Outlook Chart III-31US Cyclical Spending Chart III-32US Labor Market Chart III-33US Consumption Chart III-34US Housing Chart III-35US Debt And Deleveraging Chart III-36US Financial Conditions Chart III-37Global Economic Snapshot: Europe Chart III-38Global Economic Snapshot: China Footnotes 1     Please see The Bank Credit Analyst "Is The US Housing Market Signaling An Imminent Recession?" dated May 26, 2022, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 2     Please see US Bond Strategy "The Great Soft Landing Debate," dated August 2, 2022, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 3    Please see The Bank Credit Analyst "April 2022," dated March 31, 2022, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 4    Please see The Bank Credit Analyst "Inflation Whipsaw Ahead," dated June 30, 2022, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 5    Please see The Bank Credit Analyst "August 2022," dated July 28, 2022, available at bca.bcaresearch.com

Executive Summary US Companies Will Attempt To Raise Selling Prices To Protect Their Profit Margins China needs lower interest rates and a weaker currency to battle deflationary pressures. In the US, the main problem is elevated inflation. This heralds higher interest rates and a stronger currency. Hence, the Chinese yuan will depreciate against the greenback. When the RMB weakens versus the US dollar, commodity prices usually fall, and EM currencies and asset prices struggle. Faced with surging unit labor costs, US companies will continue to raise their prices to protect their profit margins and profitability. This will lead to one of the following two possible scenarios in the months ahead. Scenario 1: If customers are willing to pay considerably higher prices, nominal sales will remain robust, profits will not collapse, and a recession is unlikely. However, this also implies that the Fed will have to tighten policy by more than what is currently priced in by markets. Scenario 2: If customers push back against higher prices and curtail their purchases, then the economy will enter a recession. In this scenario, inflation will plummet, corporate margins will shrink, and their profits will plunge.  In both scenarios, the outlook for stocks is poor. However, one key difference is that scenario 1 is bearish for US Treasurys while scenario 2 is bond bullish. Bottom Line: On the one hand, the US has a genuine inflation problem. The upshot is that the Fed cannot pivot too early. The Fed’s hawkish rhetoric will support the US dollar. A strong greenback is bad for EM financial markets. On the other hand, the Chinese economy and global trade are experiencing deflation/recession dynamics. Cyclical assets underperform and the US dollar generally appreciates in this environment. This is also a toxic backdrop for EM financial markets.   Financial markets have been caught in contradictions. The reason is that investors cannot decide if the global economy is heading into a recession with deflationary forces prevailing, or whether a goldilocks economy or a period of inflation or stagflation will emerge in the foreseeable future. There are also plenty of contradictory data to support all the above scenarios.  As such, financial markets are volatile, swinging wildly as market participants absorb new economic data points. The S&P 500 index has rebounded from its 3-year moving average, which had previously served as a major support (Chart 1). Yet, the rebound has faltered at its 200-day moving average. Its failure to break decisively above this 200-day moving average entails that a new cyclical rally is not yet in the cards. Chart 1The S&P 500 Is Stuck Between Technical Resistance And Support Lines The S&P 500 index will remain between these resistance and support lines until investors make up their minds about the economic outlook. The EM equity index has been unable to rebound strongly alongside US stocks. A major technical support that held up in the 1998, 2001, 2002, 2008, 2015 and 2020 bear markets is about 15% below the current level (Chart 2). Hence, we recommend that investors remain on the sidelines of EM stocks. Chart 2EM Share Prices Are Still 15% Above Their Long-Term Technical Support Level BCA’s Emerging Markets Strategy team’s macro themes and views remain as follows: Related Report  Emerging Markets StrategyCharts That Matter In China, the main economic risk is deflation and the continuation of underwhelming economic growth. Core and service consumer price inflation are both below 1% and property prices are deflating. Falling prices amid high debt levels is a recipe for debt deflation. We discussed the government’s stimulus – including measures enacted for the property market – in the August 11 report. The latest announcement about the RMB 1 trillion stimulus does not change our analysis. In fact, we expected an additional RMB 1.5 trillion in local government bond issuance for the remainder of the current year. Yet, the government authorized only an additional RMB 0.5 trillion. This is substantially below what had been expected by analysts and commentators in recent months.   In Chinese and China-related financial markets, a recession/deflation framework remains appropriate. Onshore interest rates will drop further, the yuan will depreciate more, and Chinese stocks and China related plays will continue experiencing growth/profit headwinds. Meanwhile, the US economy has been experiencing stagflation this year. Chart 3 shows that even though the nominal value of final sales has expanded by 8-10%, sales and output have stagnated in real terms (close to zero growth). Hence, nominal sales and corporate profits have so far held up because companies have been able to raise prices by 8-9.5% (Chart 4). Is this bullish for the stock market? Not really. Chart 3US Stagflation: Strong Nominal Growth, But Small In Real Terms Chart 4US Corporate Profits Have Held Up Because Of Pricing Power/Inflation The fact that companies have been able to raise their selling prices at this rapid pace implies that the Fed cannot stop hiking rates. Besides, US wages and unit labor costs are surging (Chart 9 below). The implication is that inflation will be entrenched and core inflation will not drop quickly and significantly enough to allow the Fed to pivot anytime soon. Overall, US economic data releases have been consistent with our view that although real growth is slowing, the US economy is experiencing elevated inflations, i.e., a stagflationary environment. Critically, wages and inflation lag the business cycle and are also very slow moving variables. Hence, US core inflation will not drop below 4% quickly enough to provide relief for the Fed and markets. Is a US recession imminent? It depends. One thing we are certain of is that faced with surging unit labor costs, US companies will attempt to raise their prices to protect their profit margins and profitability. Our proxy for US corporate profit margins signals that they are already rolling over (Chart 5). Hence, business owners and CEOs will attempt to raise selling prices further. Chart 5US Companies Will Attempt To Raise Selling Prices To Protect Their Profit Margins This will lead to one of two possible scenarios for the US economy in the months ahead. Scenario 1: If customers (households and businesses) are willing to pay considerably higher prices, nominal sales will remain very robust, and profits will not collapse, reducing the likelihood of a recession. Yet, this means that inflation will become even more entrenched, and employees will continue to demand higher wages. A wage-price spiral will persist. The Fed will have to raise rates much more than what is currently priced in financial markets. This is negative for US share prices. Scenario 2: If customers push back against higher prices and curtail their purchases, output volume will relapse, i.e., the economy will enter a recession. In this scenario, inflation will plummet, corporate margins will shrink (prices received will rise much less than unit labor costs) and profits will plunge.  Suffering a profit squeeze, companies will lay off employees, wage growth will decelerate, and high inflation will be extinguished. In this scenario, bond yields will drop significantly but plunging corporate profits will weigh on share prices. We are not certain which of these two scenarios will prevail: it is hard to determine the point at which US consumers will push back against rising prices. Nevertheless, it is notable that in both scenarios, the outlook for stocks is poor.   Finally, as we have repeatedly written, global trade is about to contract. Charts 10-18 below elaborate on this theme. This is disinflationary/recessionary. Investment Conclusions On the one hand, the Chinese economy and global trade are experiencing deflation/recession dynamics. Cyclical assets struggle and the US dollar does well in this environment. This constitutes a toxic backdrop for EM financial markets. On the other hand, the US has a genuine inflation problem. The upshot is that the Fed cannot pivot too early. The Fed’s hawkish rhetoric will support the US dollar. A strong greenback is also bad for EM financial markets. Thus, we do not see any reason to alter our negative view on EM equities, credit and currencies. Investors should continue underweighting EM in global equity and credit portfolios. Local currency bonds offer value, but further currency depreciation and more rate hikes remain a risk to domestic bonds. We continue to short the following currencies versus the USD: ZAR, COP, PEN, PLN and IDR. In addition, we recommend shorting HUF vs. CZK, KRW vs. JPY, and BRL vs. MXN.   Arthur Budaghyan Chief Emerging Markets Strategist arthurb@bcaresearch.com Messages From Various US High-Beta / Cyclical Stock Prices US high-beta consumer discretionary, industrials, tech and early cyclical stocks have not yet broken out. The rebounds in high-beta tech and industrials have been rather muted. We are watching these and many other market signs and technical indicators to gauge if the recent rebounds can turn into a cyclical bull market. Chart 6 Chart 7 Falling Global Trade + Sticky US Inflation = US Dollar Overshot On the one hand, US household spending on goods ex-autos is already contracting and will drop further. The same is true for EU demand. The reasons are excessive consumption of goods over the past two years and shrinking household real disposable income. As a result, global trade is set to shrink, which is positive for the US dollar. On the other hand, surging US unit labor costs entail that core CPI will be very sticky at levels well above the Fed’s target. Hence, the Fed will likely maintain its hawkish bias for now, which is also bullish for the greenback. In short, the US dollar will continue overshooting.  Chart 8 Chart 9 Chinese Exports Will Contract, And Imports Will Fail To Recover Chinese export volume growth has come to a halt. Shrinking imports of inputs used for re-export (imports for processing trade) are pointing to an imminent contraction in the mainland’s exports. Further, Chinese import volumes have been contracting for the past 12 months. The value of imports has not plunged only because of high commodity prices. As commodity prices drop, import values will converge to the downside with import volumes. This is negative for economies/industries selling to China. Chart 10 Chart 11 Global Manufacturing / Trade Downtrend Is Intact China buys a lot of inputs from Taiwan that are used in its exports. That is why the mainland’s imports from Taiwan lead the global trade cycle. This is presently heralding a considerable deterioration in global trade.  In addition, falling freight rates and depreciating Emerging Asian (ex-China) currencies are all currently pointing to a further underperformance of global cyclicals versus defensive sectors. Chart 12 Chart 13 Chart 14 Taiwan Is A Canary In A Coal Mine Taiwanese manufacturing companies have seen their export orders plunge and their customer inventories surge. This has occurred in its overall manufacturing and semiconductor companies.  This corroborates our thesis that global export volumes will contract in the coming months. Chart 15 Chart 16 Korean Exporters Are Struggling Korean export companies are experience the same dynamics as their Taiwanese peers. Semiconductor prices and sales are falling hard in Korea. Export volume growth has come to a halt and will soon shrink. Chart 17 Chart 18 EM Equities: Cheap And Unloved? The EM cyclically adjusted P/E (CAPE) ratio has fallen to one standard deviation below its mean. Based on this measure, EM stocks are currently as cheap as they were at their bottoms in 2020, 2015 and 2008. EM share prices in USD deflated by US CPI are now at two standard deviations below their long-term time-trend. This is as bad as it got when EM stocks bottomed in the previous bear markets. The reason for EM stocks poor performance and such “cheapness” is corporate profits. EM EPS in USD has been flat, i.e., posting zero growth in the past 15 years. Besides, EM narrow money (M1) growth points to further EM EPS contraction in the months ahead. Chart 19 Chart 20 Chart 21 Chart 22 Commodity Prices Remain At Risk China needs lower interest rates and a weaker currency to battle deflationary pressures. In the US, the problem is inflation, which heralds higher interest rates and a stronger currency to fight rising prices. Hence, the yuan will depreciate versus the greenback. When the RMB depreciates versus the US dollar, commodity prices usually fall. Further, commodity currencies (an average of AUD, NZD and CAD) continue drafting lower. This indicator correlates with commodity prices and also presages further relapse in resource prices. Chart 23 Chart 24 Oil Prices: A Major Top In Place, But Geopolitics Will Drive Near-Term Fluctuations Chinese crude oil imports have been contracting for almost a year. Global (including US) demand for gasoline has relapsed. Meantime, Russia’s oil and oil product exports have fallen only by a mere 5% from their January level. This explains why oil prices have recently fallen. Oil lags business cycles: its consumption will shrink as global growth downshifts. However, geopolitics remain a wild card. Hence, we are uncertain about the near-term outlook for oil prices. That said, oil has made a major top and any rebound will fail to last much longer or push prices above recent highs. Chart 25 Chart 26 Chart 27 Chart 28 What Is Next For The Chinese RMB? The Chinese yuan will continue depreciating versus the US dollar. China needs lower interest rates and a weaker currency to battle deflationary pressures. While currency is moderately cheap, exchange rates tend to overshoot/undershoot and can remain cheap/expensive for a while. The CNY/USD has technically broken down. Interestingly, the periods of RMB depreciation coincide with deteriorating global US dollar liquidity and, in turn, poor performance by EM assets and commodities. Chart 29 Chart 30 Chart 31 Stay Put On Chinese Equities Odds are rising that Chinese platform companies will likely be delisted from the US as we have argued for some time. Hence, international investors will continue dampening US-listed Chinese stocks. The outlook for China’s economic recovery and profits is downbeat. This will weigh on non-TMT stocks and A shares. Within the Chinese equity universe, we continue to recommend the long A-shares / short Investable stocks strategy, a position we initiated on March 4, 2021. Chart 32 Chart 33 Chart 34 Chart 35 Messages For Stocks From Corporate Bonds Historically, rising US and EM corporate bond yields led to a selloff in US and EM share prices, respectively. Corporate bond yields are the cost of capital that matters for equities. Unless US and EM corporate bond yields start falling on a sustainable basis, their share prices will struggle. Corporate bond yields could increase because of either rising US Treasury yields or widening credit spreads. Chart 36 Chart 37 EM Currencies And Fixed-Income: An Unfinished Adjustment The profiles of EM FX and credit spreads suggest that their adjustment might not be complete. We expect further EM currency depreciation and renewed EM credit spread widening. EM domestic bond yields have risen significantly and offer value. However, if and as US TIPS yields rise and/or EM currencies continue to depreciate, local bond yields are unlikely to fall. To recommend buying EM local bonds aggressively, we need to change our view on the US dollar. Chart 38 Chart 39 Chart 40 Chart 41   Footnotes Strategic Themes (18 Months And Beyond) Equities Cyclical Recommendations (6-18 Months) Cyclical Recommendations (6-18 Months)

Executive Summary The Fed Versus The Market In today’s report, we summarize the arguments of bulls and bears to examine the possible longevity of the rally. The Bulls’ view is centered around several key themes:  Inflation has turned.  The Fed is less hawkish than initially assumed, and Jay Powell is not Paul Volcker.  The economy is resilient, and consumers are spending.  Corporate earnings will surprise on the upside thanks to consumer strength. Meanwhile, the bears argue that:  Growth is slowing and a soft landing is elusive, which will lead to earnings disappointment.  Valuations and Technicals are no longer attractive – the best part of the rally is likely over, and risk-reward is skewed to the downside.  Inflation is embedded and broad-based and it will take many months to reach the level that is palatable to the Fed. Bottom Line: The rally was expected, but its force and durability took us by surprise. Now, after a strong rebound, risks are skewed to the downside and the markets are fragile, but the rally may continue.  We offer our take on what can bring this rally to a halt, and the “danger” signs investors need to be on the lookout for. Feature The fast and furious rally off the June 16 lows has taken many investors by surprise. Over the past two months, the S&P 500 has rebounded by 17%, the NASDAQ is up 22%, while Growth has outperformed Value by 9%. Thematic small-cap growth ETFs have fared even better (Chart 1) with Cathie Wood’s ARKG and ARKK up nearly 50%. The Technology and Consumer Discretionary sectors are up 23% and 28% respectively, while Energy and Materials are relatively flat, showcasing a rotation away from the inflation winners to losers. In this week’s report, we will “dissect” the rally and its key drivers to better understand what can bring this rally to a halt. We will also summarize the arguments of the bulls and present our “bearish” rebuttal to some of the assumptions. Sneak Preview: After the powerful rebound, the market is fragile, and risks are skewed to the downside. By summarizing the arguments of bulls and bears, we are offering our take on what can bring this rally to a halt, i.e., hawkish Fed speeches, disappointing inflation readings, rising rates, and bad earnings. However, a positive surprise along each of these dimensions may also result in the next leg up. Chart 1ETF Universe Overview Anatomy Of The Rally To understand what fuels the rally, we need to understand what its key catalysts are. Oversold: First and foremost, in mid-June, US equities were severely oversold – the BCA Capitulation Indicator hit levels last seen in the spring of 2020 (Chart 2). The BoA institutional survey has also reported an extreme level of bearishness. Pull back in the price of energy: This created fertile ground for a rebound, but the catalyst came from the turn in commodities and energy prices. Extreme pessimism about global growth after the Fed’s aggressive response to a disappointing inflation print has triggered a sell-off in oil and metals. Since mid-June, the GSCI Commodities and the GSCI Energy index are in a bear market downtrend, 21% and 25% off their peaks. Inflation moderating: This disinflationary development has unleashed a positive reinforcement loop: Lower energy prices led to a turn in the CPI print. And many still believe that, after all, inflation is transitory: With supply disruptions clearing and prices of energy and commodities turning, inflation will dissipate just as fast as it arrived. We know this because inflation breakevens are currently at levels last seen a year ago (Chart 3). Chart 2Capitulated Chart 3Cooling Off : Back To 2021 Gentler Fed: That is when the market decided that easing price pressures in concert with slowing growth would compel the Fed to pursue a shallower and shorter path of interest rate increases than initially expected – rate increases derived from OIS started to undershoot the “dot plot” (Chart 4). Effectively, the bond market started to forecast that the Fed will end the year at 3.5% and ease as soon as early 2023. In other words, the Fed is nearing the end of the hiking cycle. Naturally, the long end of the Treasury curve has pulled back to April levels, despite a much higher Fed rate. One way or another, yields have stabilized. Lower rates are a boon for equities: As a long-duration asset, equity valuations are inversely correlated with long yields (Chart 5). A better-than-expected Q2 earnings season was the icing on the cake. Chart 4The Market Expects Cuts As Soon As Early 2023 Chart 5Falling Yields Propelled Equities Higher Was The Rally Surprising? The rally itself did not surprise us – after all, we did expect the market to turn on a dime at the earliest whiff of falling inflation (Chart 6). Admittedly, we were taken aback by its strength and longevity. With inflation turning, we also expected a change in leadership from the Energy and Materials sectors to Technology and Consumer Discretionary (Chart 7). We also predicted back in January in our “Are We There Yet?!” report that, based on the previous hiking cycles, Tech would rebound roughly three months after the first rate hike (Chart 8), which was taking us to June. Chart 6When Inflation Turns, Equities Rebound Chart 7Turn in Inflation Triggers A Change In Sector Leadership Chart 8A Closer Look At Technology In early July, we upgraded Growth to overweight as an asset that would benefit from an anticipated turn in CPI, rate stabilization, and slowing growth (Chart 9). We have also reaffirmed our overweight in Software and Services as a way to play Growth on a sector level. We have downgraded Energy to underweight to reduce exposure to Value. Chart 9Growth And Quality Lead Markets Higher When Inflation Abates What The Bulls Think Let’s summarize what the bulls think are the catalysts for the next leg up: Inflation has turned. Looking for further signs that inflation is easing. The Fed is less hawkish than initially assumed, and Jay Powell is not Paul Volcker. Looking for signs that the Fed is getting closer to the end of the hiking cycle. So far, the economy is resilient, and consumers are spending – excess savings and excess demand for labor will soften the blow. Looking for signs that the recession can be avoided. Corporate earnings will surprise on the upside thanks to consumer strength. In the next section, I will juxtapose these optimistic expectations with those of a bear, i.e., of yours truly. A full disclosure – I am not a perma-bear but even eight weeks into the best recovery rally ever, I can’t shake off my pessimism. After all, I am used to the markets going up on injections of liquidity and expect them to shudder when liquidity is mopped out of the system. What The Bears Think, Or A Litany Of Worries Inflation is embedded and broad-based Broad-based: While headline inflation is turning, mostly thanks to prices of energy and materials, it will take a long time for core inflation to revert to the desired 2% as it is broad-based. This is evident from trimmed and median CPI metrics, which continue their ascent. Inflation has also spilled into sticky service items, such as rent (Chart 10). Wage-price spiral: Then there is that pesky wage-price spiral that is manifesting itself in soaring labor costs (Chart 11), which companies pass on to their customers. In the meantime, productivity is falling, and unit labor costs are increasing at 9.5% per year, a rate of growth last seen in 1980s (Chart 12). Demand for labor still exceeds supply with 1.8 job openings for every job seeker, and much more tightening is required to bring supply and demand into balance. Chart 10Entrenched? Chart 11Wage-price Spiral Chart 12ULC Soaring Wages and service inflation are more important to structural inflation than energy. Rent and its equivalents constitute 30% of the CPI basket, while wages are roughly 50% of corporate sales and by far the largest component of the cost structure. Inflation is embedded and broad-based and it will take many months to reach the level that is palatable to the Fed. What Does The Fed Think? Fed minutes: Fortunately, we don’t need to guess. The Fed minutes state that "participants agreed that there was little evidence to date that inflation pressures were subsiding" and that inflation “would likely stay uncomfortably high for some time.” Further, “though some inflation reduction might come through improving global supply chains or drops in the prices of fuel and other commodities … Participants emphasized that a slowing in aggregate demand would play an important role in reducing inflation pressures," the minutes said. The Fed minutes state that in moving expeditiously to neutral and then into restrictive territory, “the Committee was acting with resolve to lower inflation to 2% and anchor inflation expectations at levels consistent with that longer-run goal.” In its previous communications, the Fed emphasized that its commitment to a 2% target is unconditional. Is powell more like burns or volcker? In addition, there is an ongoing debate between bulls and bears on the character of the Fed – is Jay Powell a strong-willed hawk like Paul Volker, or more of a waverer like Arthur Burns, who presided over the relentless march of inflation in the seventies? We think that the Chairman can channel Paul Volcker. After all, the Fed has surprised investors by acting swiftly and decisively. Back in March, the Fed dot plot indicated that by the end of the year, the target rate will reach a mere 1.75%. However, we hit a 2.25%-2.50% rate range as soon as July. Jay Powell is concerned about his legacy: He would not want to be remembered as a Chair who mishandled inflation by keeping rates too low despite historically low unemployment and resilient consumers whose accounts are padded with excess post-pandemic savings. The Fed is more hawkish than what the majority of market participants, unscathed by the inflation of the seventies and eighties, believe. The Fed dot plot, to which the Chairman referred on multiple occasions, projects a Fed funds rate of 4% at year-end and of 4.5-5.0% next year (Chart 13). Meanwhile, Fed funds futures are only pricing a rate of about 3.4% for December 2022, even after the hawkish talk from both ex-dove Kashkari and a hawk Bullard (3.75%-4.0% by year-end and 4.4% by the end of 2023). Further, the Fed itself states in its minutes that rates would have to reach a "sufficiently restrictive level" and remain there for "some time" to control inflation that was proving far more persistent than anticipated. The Chicago Fed President Charles Evans has also affirmed that the Fed is definitely not cutting rates in March 2023. Chart 13The Fed Versus The Market Doves latch on to comments from the meeting that the Fed will be data-driven, and that it is concerned about overtightening. To us, these are just the musings of the “responsible grown-ups.” Quantitative Tightening: Now let’s not forget another leg of the stool – Quantitative Tightening. QT has been very tame so far and, since the program commenced, the size of the Fed’s balance sheet, $8.9 trillion, has barely budged. In September, the Fed is scheduled to step up QT to a maximum pace of $95 billion from $47.5 billion— running off up to $60 billion in Treasuries, and $35 billion of mortgage securities. Shortages of securities available for run-off due to a dearth of refinancing may trigger a shift to outright selling, further tightening financial conditions. Equities are at odds with the Fed: Last, but not least, equity markets are on a collision course with the Fed. Since June, financial conditions have eased as opposed to tightened, making the Fed’s job so much harder (Chart 14). Chart 14The Rally Eased Financial Conditions The Fed may prove to be more hawkish than in the past as it is on a quest to combat inflation and takes its mission very seriously. “Don’t fight the Fed” the adage holds. Economic Growth Is Slowing The BCA Business Cycle Indicator signals that economic growth is slowing (Chart 15), which is also evident from a host of economic data releases, ranging from GDP growth to business surveys to housing data. One of the few data series that has defied gravity so far is the jobs report, but the job creation rate is a coincidental indicator at best, and a lagging one at worst. Jobs are usually lost after the start of a recession (Chart 16). Chart 15Economy Is Slowing Chart 16Unemployment Never "Just Ticks Up" Can consumers save the day? After all, $2.2 trillion in excess savings should help to handle the pressures of negative real wage growth and income growth that is below trend. Yes and no. Gasoline savings can certainly support increases in discretionary spending, all else equal. As for excess savings – adding this money back into the economy may ignite another bout of inflation, working against the Fed, and triggering more rate increases. Many clients ask us if we anticipate a recession. Broadly speaking we do, as the Fed has an arduous task ahead of it in balancing the supply and demand of labor. However, we do not expect a recession in 2022 or even early 2023. Can the Fed succeed by only reducing excess job openings from 1.8 to 1, thus avoiding a rise in unemployment? This is possible, but the probability of such an outcome is low as unemployment never “just ticks up” (Chart 16). However, what the market is pricing is also important. At the moment, the rally shows that it considers the current growth slowdown just a growth scare to be shrugged off. Will there be more disappointments? We think so, as the US economy is facing multiple headwinds from slowing demand for exports due to geopolitical turbulence and payback of overstimulated consumer demand at home. And it is not a recession per se, but a growth disappointment, that may take equities on the next leg down. Growth is slowing and a soft landing is illusive. Earnings Growth Will Continue Its March Towards Zero We believe that earnings growth will continue to slow into year-end – flagging consumer demand at home and abroad, a strong dollar, and soaring unit labor costs that can no longer be fully passed on to stretched consumers, as corporate pricing power is decelerating. Even in Q2-2022, ex-Energy EPS growth is already negative at -1.5%, with Consumer Discretionary, Financials, Communications, and Utilities reporting an earnings contraction. As we predicted back in October, the S&P 500 margins are also compressing, currently at 50bps off their peak, with consensus expecting them to lose another two points within the next 12 months as companies are grappling with rising costs (Chart 17). Analysts are finally in a downgrading mode (Chart 18), with growth over the next 12 months now expected to be 7.7% compared to 10% earlier this summer. Analyst downgrades will continue, and an earnings recession is highly probable as early as Q4-2022. Chart 17Profitability Is Under Pressure Chart 18Earnings Are Finally Being Downgraded In terms of the durability of the rally – earnings growth disappointment will be enough to cause equities to pull back. Earnings growth is slowing and more disappointments may be in store. Valuations And Technicals The S&P 500 is currently trading at 18x forward earnings, which is nearly a two-point rebound off the market trough of 15.8x. This is roughly where PE NTM was in April when the 10-year yield stood at 2.80%. Therefore, the multiple reverted on the back of falling rates, and the market is fairly valued considering where rates are now. And another factor to consider: Analysts are slashing earnings expectations, and with E in a P/E likely to be downgraded further – the “true” forward multiple is likely higher than it appears. The BCA Valuation Indicator is also flashing “overvalued” (Chart 19). From the equity risk premium standpoint, 3% is low by historical standards (Chart 20). And if we consider Shiller PE, it has come down from an eye-watering 38x to a still elevated 29x. Chart 19Pricey Again? Chart 20Equities Are No Longer Cheap By ERP Or Shiller PE Metrics Therefore, it is hard to call equities cheap at this point. But being generous, we will call them “fairly priced.” Regardless – at these levels of valuations, the best part of the rally is likely over, and risk-reward is no longer favorable. From a technical standpoint, this rally is broad-based with nearly 90% of the S&P 500 industries trading above their 50-day moving average (Chart 21). But according to the BCA Technical Indicator, equities are no longer oversold and have just crossed into neutral territory (Chart 22). Interestingly, once the Technical indicator starts to rise, it usually ascends for a while, making us wary to boldly call an immediate end to this rally. Chart 21Thrusting Chart 22No Longer Oversold? Valuations and Technicals are no longer attractive – the best part of the rally is likely over and risk-reward is skewed to the downside. Investment Implications Or Can This Rally Continue? Timing the market is hard at best, impossible at worst. After a 17% rise from the bottom, the S&P 500 is no longer cheap or oversold. Buying equities for valuations or technical reasons is too late – risks are skewed to the downside. Our working assumption is that the rally will pause waiting for the new data that will trigger a new leg up or down. Further, as we pointed out in the Fat and Flat report, the current period is reminiscent of the 1980-1982 Volcker era. So far, the market is following this pattern to a T (Chart 23). The problem is that each leg of the up-and-down market may take months. As such, being (eventually) right and principled does not pay off. After all, the economy is not a market. Therefore, until one of the following happens, the music will continue and the markets can keep dancing, which may be for a while. Chart 23Volcker Era Redux The rally will continue until: There is a communication from the Fed re-emphasizing its hawkish stance and determination to get inflation back to 2%. It may be as one of the FOMC member’s speeches broadcast at Jackson Hole. Long-term Treasury yields pick up either because of the Fed’s actions or speeches or because the economy is overheating. Negative inflation surprise – it may come as either a higher-than-expected inflation reading or evidence that inflation is entrenched, such as rising service or rent inflation, soaring wages, a pick-up in the price of oil or commodities, or a growth surprise out of China, to name but a few. Negative earnings surprise – guidance from a number of companies indicating that economic growth is slowing, and earnings will disappoint. A negative economic surprise may be perceived by the market as “bad news is good news.” We recommend the following: Maintain a well-diversified portfolio, with sufficient allocation to both cyclicals and defensives. Increase exposure to Growth sectors, such as Technology. We particularly favor Software and Services as it leverages the pervasive theme of digitization and migration to the cloud. Reduce allocation to Energy and Materials – these sectors tend to underperform when inflation turns. They are also quintessential value sectors. Maintain some allocation to cyclicals – we are overweight the Industrial sector as it leverages a long-term theme of onshoring and automation. We may be upgrading the Consumer Discretionary sector in the near future. We are also overweight Banks and Insurance for portfolio diversification – these sectors benefit from rising rates and positive growth surprise. Markets turn on a dime and it is good to be prepared. Allocate capital to long-term investment themes: Green and Clean and EV, benefiting from the funds allocated by the IRA bill, Cyber Security, and Defense. Bottom Line: The rally was expected, but its force and durability took us by surprise. Now, after a strong rebound, risks are skewed to the downside and the markets are fragile, but the rally may still continue. We offer our take on what can bring this rally to a halt, and the “danger” signs investors need to be on the lookout for. In the meantime, overweight Growth and maintain a well-diversified portfolio.     Irene Tunkel Chief Strategist, US Equity Strategy irene.tunkel@bcaresearch.com   Recommended Allocation   Recommended Allocation: Addendum 

Executive Summary Definitions Matter Year-to-date, cyclical stocks have underperformed their defensive counterparts. It is difficult to quantify this underperformance precisely considering the divergence in definitions of what makes a sector cyclical or defensive. We offer a novel way to classify sectors based on a combination of equity beta coefficients and correlations with global macro and financial variables. Importantly, we acknowledge the importance of granularity by looking at the GICS2 sectors. This new approach leads to a cyclicals/defensives equity performance that is superior and more in line with the global economic cycle. Bottom Line: A proper definition of what constitutes a cyclical and a defensive equity sector is essential – whether a recession is around the corner and investors adopt a more defensive portfolio tilt or markets are just responding to what might simply be a mid-cycle slowdown.   Investors around the globe are holding their breath over two questions: Has inflation peaked? And will the US and Europe enter a recession? A peak in inflation may be enough to avoid a hard landing, as it would allow the Federal Reserve and the ECB to moderate their policy tightening. However, if inflation is not peaking, central banks will be forced to engineer recessions. Related Report  European Investment StrategyPlenty Of Risks For Cyclical Stocks In turn, the answers to these questions will determine how cyclical equities perform relative to defensives. So far, the underperformance of cyclical sectors relative to defensives has mostly reflected a valuation squeeze. But if a recession takes place, relative profits will drive the next phase of this market cycle. For now, European defensive sectors are likely to retain the upper hand until EM/China economic activity recovers enough to provide a lift to cyclical sectors, and/or the US dollar rally reverses course on a sustained basis. Chart 1Definitions Matter Despite their recent rebound, Euro Area cyclical stocks have underperformed relative to their defensive counterparts over the past nine months. However, quantifying this underperformance depends on how one defines cyclicals and defensives (Chart 1). The aim of this Special Report is to address this issue. There is no perfect way to define a sector as a cyclical or a defensive. In this piece, we review the generally accepted definitions. We draw two conclusions from our assessment; (i) the GICS1 sectors are too broad to get an accurate representation of cyclicals/defensives, and (ii) the use of only one indicator of cyclicality, such as the OECD Composite Leading Indicator (LEI), is lacking. We propose a different approach, which looks at the GICS2 sectors and applies an average of the market beta and the correlations to a set of global macro as well as financial variables sensitive to the global economy. This novel approach leads to a cyclicals/defensives equity performance that is more properly aligned with the global economic cycle. Challenging the Accepted Approach Each of the definitions of the cyclicals/defensives split has its own merit. For example, our own preferred definition of cyclical equities excludes the tech sector, because it sports a negative correlation with interest rates.     Finance theory posits that companies (or sectors) may be categorized based on how they perform in different phases of the business cycle. Consequently, cyclical companies should perform better in the first stages of a new business cycle (especially coming out of a recession) and defensive companies should shine during downturns. Table 1Definitions Matter MSCI defines cyclical and defensive sectors by measuring the correlation between sectors’ relative annual performance to the annual change in the OECD Composite Leading Indicator (LEI) of the corresponding region.1 Table 1 presents the current MSCI classification. There are two issues with this approach. First, results differ substantially depending on the sample period (Table 2). GICS1 sectors match their definitions when using the full history available (from 1995 to present). However, on shorter samples, starting for example from 2005 or 2015, the correlations do not necessarily support the current MSCI classification; the communication services sector correlates negatively with the Euro Area OECD LEI from 2005 to present,2 while the energy sector displays a positive correlation since 2015. Table 2Cyclicality Changes Over Time Looking at the five-year moving correlation of the relative performance of European sectors to the annual change in OECD LEI, four things stand out (Chart 2). First, the energy sector displays a positive correlation, meaning that it behaves as a cyclical. Second, it is not clear that communication services should be labeled a cyclical sector. Third, although tech has on average displayed a five-year moving correlation with activity of around 0.5, it is increasingly behaving like a defensive sector. And fourth, over the past 20 years, all sectors have at one point or another moved from a positive (negative) correlation to a negative (positive) one. Chart 2Cyclicality Is Not Static The second issue with the MSCI approach is the use of the OECD LEIs. While the OECD LEIs are satisfactory at capturing the peaks and troughs in economic activity, we have some concerns over relying on this measure alone to label a sector as cyclical or defensive. Many of the country’s LEIs already include stock prices. Moreover, academic studies have found that the LEIs performed worse than some of their single component indicators, but displayed more accuracy – that is, fewer false signals. In particular, financial components used in some of the country’s LEIs, such as interest rates, spreads, and credit indicators, proved to be better classifiers of both growth and business cycles than the overall LEIs. Chart 3Global Growth Sensitivity Finally, many (if not most) of the components of the LEIs are domestic variables. As a result, they may not properly reflect how the global economic and trade cycles affect an economy such as that of the Euro Area. In fact, the correlation between the relative performance of Euro Area cyclicals versus defensives and the annual change in the US and Global LEIs is similar to the correlation between the cyclical/defensive split and the Euro Area LEI (Chart 3).3  Reclassifying Cyclicals And Defensives We may draw two conclusions from our earlier assessment; (i) the GICS1 sectors are too broad to secure an accurate definition of cyclicals/defensives, and (ii) the use of only one indicator of cyclicality, such as the OECD LEI, is insufficient. Granularity Holds The Key Many industries or sectors have experienced profound changes over the past decades. Industries evolve and new ones emerge that may disrupt the status quo. For instance, today’s tech sector shares few similarities with its past-self twenty years ago. Chart 4AMore Granularity Needed (I) Without getting to the company level, many GICS2 sectors already exhibit characteristics deviating substantially from those of the GICS1 sectors of which they are a part (Chart 4A & 4B). Most noticeably: Within industrials: commercial and professional services (9% weight) have a negative correlation with the LEI of -0.23 (Chart 4A, top panel). Within consumer discretionary: the correlation of the retailing sector with the LEI (15% weight) went from 0.75 in the early 2010s to -0.5 in 2018 and has since been trending toward 0 (Chart 4A, third panel). Within tech: software and services (46% weight) sport a negative moving correlation of -0.25, and highlight that this sector has effectively become akin to “digital utilities.” Meanwhile, technology hardware and equipment display a correlation close to 0 (Chart 4A, fourth panel). Chart 4BMore Granularity Needed (II) Within communication services: telecommunication services (78% weight) still behave like a defensive sector, and it appears that the cyclicality of the GICS1 sector is driven by media and entertainment stocks (Chart 4B, top panel). Within consumer staples: food beverage and tobacco (53% weight) now display a positive correlation of 0.1 with the LEI, whereas it used to have a -0.8 correlation until 2018 (Chart 4B, second panel). Within energy: GICS2 sectors have displayed positive correlations since 2015 (Chart 4B, third panel). For the remaining GICS1 sectors, namely materials, financials, utilities, and healthcare, except for large swings observed in the past, their respective GICS2 sub-sectors currently display correlation coefficients sharing the same sign as their broader aggregates. Thus, adding granularity by looking at the GICS2 sector level instead of the GICS1 classification when creating cyclical and defensive baskets offers a more accurate picture. Good Old Beta Is the market itself the best indicator of a stock’s cyclicality? The returns on the stocks of cyclical (defensive) sectors should reflect high (low) correlation with the market index’s returns. Table 3A presents the beta coefficients obtained from linearly regressing the monthly equity returns of European GICS1 sectors on the monthly equity returns of the All-Country World benchmark. We run into the same issue of getting different results based on the sample period. Historically, the energy sector has had a beta coefficient below 1, but, from 2005, its beta has risen to 1.12. Meanwhile, communication services has a beta coefficient below 1 across all three sample periods selected. Table 3AGICS1 Beta Coefficients We perform the same exercise at the European GICS2 sector level (Table 3B). The results reify the benefit of additional granularity when defining cyclicals and defensives. Table 3BGICS2 Beta Coefficients Combining Correlations With Macro And Financial Variables While stock prices are certainly anticipatory, at times they can also decouple from the business cycle. Equity markets and stock indices are becoming more concentrated, which means that measuring cyclicality through beta alone is no longer sufficient. We complement the use of the beta coefficients with a composite measure of cyclicality based on correlations with global macro and financial variables. We select the following global macro variables (Chart 5A):​​​​​​​ Global Manufacturing PMI Global Industrial Production G3 Capital New Orders Global Exports Chart 5AGlobal Macro Variables Selected Chart 5BFinancial Variables Selected And we opt for the following high-frequency financial variables (Chart 5B): Trade-weighted USD: The cyclicals-to-defensives ratio and the trade-weighted US dollar display a robust negative correlation. A strong dollar both tightens global financial conditions and indicates weaker economic growth. GS Commodity Price Index: Commodity prices reflect both global supply and demand dynamics. Strong economic activity usually lifts commodity prices, while a slowdown hurts commodity demand. US 10-year Treasury Yield: The relationship with the US 10-year Treasury yield is somewhat more complex. At the beginning of a new business cycle, higher yields reflect reflation and usually correlate with an outperformance of cyclical equities. However, if yields rise too much, they start hurting growth prospects and end up damaging cyclicals. If they fall, it usually reflects increasing growth fears, which is negative for cyclical shares. Junk Spreads: US high-yield corporate bond spreads and the cyclicals/defensives ratio have a strong negative correlation. Widening junk spreads coincide with the end of the business cycle when fears of rising default risk precede a recession. Although these financial variables are highly anticipatory, they are also prone to whipsaws. Consequently, they must be viewed in conjunction with macro variables. We also compute the five-year moving correlations between monthly equity returns of European sectors relative to the ACW benchmark and the two sets of macro and financial variables (Table 4A & 4B). The results are broadly consistent between the long-term correlations with macro and financial variables, as well as with the beta coefficients,4 which comforts us into using a simple average of the three. Table 4ACombining Coefficients For GICS1 Sectors Table 4BCombining Coefficients For GICS2 Sectors At the GICS1 sector level, our new approach indicates that the energy sector should be treated as a cyclical, not a defensive. In fact, it displays more cyclicality than the tech sector. Communication services should also be defined as cyclicals, although it is less of a clear cut than for the other sectors since the adjusted beta coefficient is the culprit behind the negative sign. Taking a closer look at the GICS2 sector level once again provides valuable insight. The computed mean correlation for cyclical GICS2 sectors is 0.34, with a variance of 0.04 and standard deviation of 0.2. For defensive GICS2 sectors, the computed mean correlation is -0.23, with a variance of 0.02 and a standard deviation of 0.13. Assessing This New Approach Having reclassified the GICS2 sectors as cyclicals or defensives, the next step is to assess how this approach performs compared to the MSCI definition of cyclicals/defensives. To do so, we use the average coefficients displayed on Table 4B to create a dynamic basket of cyclicals and defensives GICS2 sectors. These baskets are weighted by market capitalization and are updated monthly. Chart 6New Baskets Of Cyclicals/Defensives Chart 6 shows how the novel cyclical vs. defensives performs over time in the Euro Area relative to the other definitions. Next, we perform a simple back-testing exercise to assess the performance over time of the new cyclicals-to-defensives ratio, with the Global Manufacturing PMI as a control variable. A superior definition of cyclicals vs. defensives should lead to a better performance of cyclicals when the PMI is above its 50 boom/bust line and improving, and to a better performance of defensives when the PMI is below 50 and deteriorating. We look at coincident equity returns (Table 5A). Overall, the results indicate that our new approach is superior and more accurate, both on a 3- and 12-month time horizon. This is especially true when the global economy is deteriorating. When the PMI is below 50 and falling, our basket of defensives outperforms our basket of cyclicals on average by 20% on a 12-month horizon, compared to 14% using the MSCI definition. Table 5AAssessing The Performance (I) The subsequent performance of cyclicals relative to defensives following certain thresholds for the PMI also reinforces our new approach (Table 5B). Interestingly, our new basket of defensives is the only one to outperform cyclicals twelve months after the Global Manufacturing PMI deteriorated over several months and is below 50. Table 5BAssessing The Performance (II)​​​​​​​ Bottom Line: We are introducing a new approach to defining cyclical versus defensive equities. GICS1 sectors are too broad to achieve an accurate definition of cyclicality. However, the GICS2 classification offers the necessary level of granularity to do so. Moreover, we broaden the set of variables used to determine whether a GICS2 sector is cyclical or defensive. This new approach offers tighter links with the state of the global economy when selecting cyclical or defensive portfolio biases. For now, since EM economies and China remain under duress and the USD has yet to roll over clearly, we maintain our preference for defensive stocks over their cyclical counterparts within equity portfolios.   Jeremie Peloso, Editor/Strategist JeremieP@bcaresearch.com Amr Hanafy Associate Editor AmrH@bcaresearch.com Mathieu Savary, Chief European Strategist Mathieu@bcaresearch.com     Footnotes 1     Applied Research MSCI, “Index Performance in Changing Economic Environments,” 2014, p. 4. 2     Admittedly, communications services – formerly known as telecommunication services – was removed from the list of defensive sectors and classified as a cyclical one following the 2018 GICS structure adjustment. 3    In the remainder of the report, the relative equity performance of European sectors is measured against the ACW index. 4    We normalized the beta coefficients to have a mean of zero, to be comparable with correlation coefficients.

Executive Summary We continue to recommend overweighting risk assets in multi-asset portfolios over the next six months because we believe financial markets have prematurely priced in too much pessimism. Against a particularly uncertain macroeconomic backdrop, we think all investors should have reduced conviction in their views. Asking how one could be getting it wrong is especially relevant today. We identify seven prominent risks to our view, with unanchored inflation expectations and consumer retrenchment posing the biggest threats to our risk-friendly recommendations. The former would imply economic overheating that would prompt the Fed to squash the expansion; the latter would herald a period of insufficient growth. Inflation Expectations Are Still Contained Bottom Line: We are on the alert for several ways our glass-half-full view could be disappointed but none of them has yet emerged. We continue to recommend positioning a portfolio in line with it. Feature We will be taking our summer vacation this week and will not publish next Monday, August 29th. We will resume our regular publication schedule on September 5th. Chart 1Overdone We held our quarterly webcast last week, in which we reiterated three main points that will be familiar to US Investment Strategy readers. One, the demise of the American consumer has been greatly exaggerated. Two, monetary policy works with a lag. Three, stubbornly high inflation will bring about the end of the expansion and the bull markets in equities and credit, but not just yet. Those points reinforce our view that equities and credit will outperform Treasuries and cash over the rest of the year and place us at the more bullish end of the continuum inside and outside of BCA for the near term, though we are much more circumspect about the prospect for risk assets over the next twelve months and beyond. We also spent some time digging into the reasons that we are more constructive than the average bear. Those reasons largely revolved around the idea that financial markets prematurely discounted the negative effects that will follow sometime after the Fed flips monetary policy settings from easy to tight. After tightening sharply over the first half of the year (Chart 1, top panel), we think financial conditions are due for a break as Treasury yields settle into a well-defined range (Chart 1, second panel), credit spreads consolidate their retracement after sharply widening (Chart 1, third panel), the S&P 500 finds a footing and retraces more of its first half losses (Chart 1, fourth panel) and the dollar, cooling off after a torrid run (Chart 1, bottom panel), prepares to weaken over the intermediate term. We did not have time to answer all the questions from the webcast Q&A before the hour was up and we spent much of the week replying to them over email. Several of the questions asked what we are most worried about, or which indicators are most likely to signal that we are getting the outlook wrong. We ask ourselves these questions continuously and they are an ideal way to conclude a gathering like last Monday’s. Although we didn’t get to address them live, examining the biggest risks to our view as a coda in this week's bulletin is the next best thing. Risk #1: Unanchored Inflation Expectations We view a breakout in inflation expectations as the biggest risk to our view. If households, businesses and investors were to expect that inflation would inflect meaningfully higher over the long term, they would adjust their behavior in ways that could make high inflation beget still higher inflation. The ensuing self-reinforcing cycle would become much more difficult for the Fed to break and would presumably involve a stark repricing of Treasury securities and risk assets. Related Report  US Investment StrategyRisks To Our View We have been warily monitoring inflation expectations over the near term (0-2 years, top panel in Charts 2 and 3), the intermediate term (3-5 years, middle panel) and the long term (6-10 years, bottom panel), as has the Fed. We have become increasingly emboldened by the stability of the intermediate- and long-term series, even in the face of the highest measured inflation in 40-plus years. Now that near-term expectations have rolled over, some of the risk that elevated current inflation will begin to bleed into long-run expectations is fading. We remain relieved that businesses, investors and consumers (Chart 4) have not yet assumed high inflation will persist but if longer-run inflation expectations threaten to become unanchored, we will abandon our constructive take on the economy and risk assets. Chart 2High Reported Inflation ...​​​​​​ Chart 3... Has Yet To Translate Into ...​​​​​​ Chart 4... Meaningfully Higher Long-Run Inflation Expectations Risk #2: A Renewed COVID Breakout The other risks are not as significant as unmoored inflation expectations but they are meaningful nonetheless. A renewed COVID breakout that imposed the de facto equivalent of rolling blackouts in production and transportation would partially undo the supply chain improvements that have helped relieve some of the upward pressure on goods inflation while hampering global growth. That could have the doubly negative impact of squeezing S&P 500 earnings while rekindling inflation pressures, nudging the US and global economies toward stagflation. Effective vaccinations and treatments have rendered COVID little more than a nuisance in the States (Chart 5) and other developed nations, but if the pandemic surges back to life elsewhere in the world, we would have to reconsider our more constructive take. Chart 5Initially A Scourge, COVID Is Now An Annoyance Risk #3: Geopolitical Pressures Our in-house geopolitical experts were among the first to sound the alarm on Ukraine early in the year. A worsening of the conflict there, or anything that imperils Europe’s access to energy supplies or further restricts global supplies of grain, will also cloud the picture for risk assets. Our geopolitical team has long viewed the Taiwan Strait as a potential major geopolitical flashpoint and a sharp increase in Sino-American tensions would make us reconsider our thesis as well. Our in-house team warns that Iran could be another source of instability and we will have to remain aware of the potential for geopolitics to throw a wrench into otherwise neutral-to-bullish macro conditions. Risk #4: US Consumers Lose Their Nerve Though we haven’t tried to rank the risks beyond a breakout in inflation expectations, a big pickup in the savings rate is the second largest risk on our list. If households reverse field and start saving their disposable income at a rate above their post-crisis/pre-pandemic average (Chart 6), it would signal that their aggregate consumption decisions were beginning to match their gloomy responses to confidence surveys. That would erode our conviction that they will deploy their excess pandemic savings to keep consumption – and the US economy – expanding near its trend rate. If consumers begin to circle the wagons in paradox-of-thrift fashion, it would present a nearly insurmountable obstacle for our thesis. Chart 6A Massive Savings Cushion To Support Consumption ... Risk #5: Consumer Credit Deterioration As SIFI bank executives noted in last month’s second quarter earnings calls, consumer credit has performed spectacularly well. Credit card net charge-offs are hovering at all-time lows, mortgage foreclosure rates are microscopic, and the only signs of stress have emerged, faintly, at the lowest ends of the wealth and income distributions. The very gentle softening in consumer credit that lenders have seen so far (Chart 7) could turn into something more worrisome if inflation fails to moderate and/or the jobs market goes south. If consumer credit begins palpably deteriorating, it would signal that the excess savings buffer does not offer as much protection as we thought. Chart 7... And Consumer Credit Risk #6: A Softening Labor Market Chart 8Still A Lot Of Help Wanted An extremely robust labor market has helped solidify our conviction that a sizable moat protects the US economy from unwelcome near-term surprises. Despite evident deceleration in growth over the first half of the year, net payrolls have continued to grow at a rapid clip and ongoing demand for additional hires (Chart 8) remains strong. The labor market could soften more rapidly than it has so far or than we project it will in the near term. Risk assets’ window for outperformance will shorten the faster the labor demand moat shrinks. Risk #7: Technical Support Could Prove Fleeting We have been further encouraged by the ease with which the S&P 500 sliced through resistance around 4,175 on its second try last week and has remained above that level (Chart 9). We see 4,175 providing tactical support to the index, limiting its near-term downside. If the support were to fail a test, we will be forced to re-evaluate US equities’ near-term risk-reward profile. Chart 9The S&P 500 Appears To Have Some Near-Term Technical Support A client alerted us last week to a longer-term technical pattern that might serve to put a bottom under equities. Since 1950, no bear market has made new lows after retracing at least 50% of its decline. We explored the pattern beginning with the November 1968-May 1970 bear market and found that tests of the 50% retracement level were few and far between. The bear market action of the last 50-plus years by no means guarantees that the S&P 500 will encounter difficulty punching back through the 50% threshold (4,231.67) it crossed on Friday August 12th, but the index has gathered some positive technical omens during its two-month rally. Investment Implications There is no shortage of potential risks right now and we reiterate our heightened vigilance. Investors must contend with the combination of a once-in-a-century global pandemic, the unprecedented fiscal and monetary responses to its outbreak, the first major cross-border war in Europe since 1945 and four-decade highs in inflation across major developed economies. Our conviction levels are lower than normal and our inherent compulsion to ask where we could be getting it wrong now verges on paranoia. Though we are continuously looking over our shoulder, we are comforted by nearly unanimous glass-half-empty sentiment. We still believe that it won’t take much for corporate earnings and the economy to surprise to the upside. The latest iteration of the Bank of America Merrill Lynch portfolio manager survey revealed that sentiment is no longer “apocalyptically bearish,” but we still expect that relative performance pressures will prod many bearishly positioned managers to cover their risk asset underweights. We remain constructive on risk assets over the next six months, though we will likely take some chips off the table if the S&P 500 rallies into the 4,500-to-4,600 range as we expect. It is a core part of our process to seek out information that may invalidate our hypotheses and we don’t even have to venture beyond the confines of BCA to gather it right now. Our differences with our colleagues are not as large as they might seem in our daily BCA Live and Unfiltered live stream, however, as they boil down to timing. We are neutral-to-bearish twelve months out, as we anticipate another equity bear market will begin around the second half of next year once it becomes apparent that the FOMC will not stand down from its 2% inflation goal. We simply think there’s money to be made from the long side in the interim.   Doug Peta, CFA Chief US Investment Strategist dougp@bcaresearch.com  

Listen to a short summary of this report.     Executive Summary Back From The Future: An Investor’s Almanac Stocks will rally over the next six months as recession risks abate but then begin to swoon as it becomes clear the Fed will not cut rates in 2023. A second wave of inflation will begin in mid-2023, forcing the Fed to raise rates to 5%. The 10-year US Treasury yield will rise above 4%. While financial conditions are currently not tight enough to induce a recession, they will be by the end of next year. In the past, the US unemployment rate has gone through a 20-to-22 month bottoming phase. This suggests that a recession will start in early 2024. The US dollar will soften over the next six months but then get a second wind as the Fed is forced to turn hawkish again. Over the long haul, the dollar will weaken, reflecting today’s extremely stretched valuations.   Bottom Line: Investors should remain tactically overweight global equities but look to turn defensive early next year. Somewhere in Hilbert Space I have long believed that anything that can possibly happen in financial markets (as well as in life) will happen. Sometimes, however, it is useful to focus on a “base case” or “modal” outcome of what the world will look like. In this week’s report, we do just that, describing the evolution of the global economy from the perspective of someone who has already seen the future unfold. September 2022 – Goldilocks! US headline inflation continues to decline thanks to lower food and gasoline prices (Chart 1). Supply-chain bottlenecks ease, as evidenced by falling transportation costs and faster delivery times (Chart 2). Most measures of economic activity bottom out and then begin to rebound. The surge in bond yields earlier in 2022 pushed down aggregate demand, but with yields having temporarily stabilized, demand growth returns to trend. The S&P 500 moves up to 4,400. Chart 1ALower Food And Gasoline Prices Will Drag Down Headline Inflation (I) Chart 1BLower Food And Gasoline Prices Will Drag Down Headline Inflation (II)   October 2022 – Europe’s Prospects of Avoiding a Deep Freeze Improve: Economic shocks are most damaging when they come out of the blue. With about half a year to prepare for a cut-off of Russian gas, the EU responds with uncharacteristic haste: Coal-fired electricity production ramps up; the planned closure of Germany’s nuclear power plants is postponed; the French government boosts nuclear capacity, which had been running at less than 50% earlier in 2022; and, for its part, the Dutch government agrees to raise output from the massive Groningen natural gas field after the EU commits to establishing a fund to compensate the surrounding community for any damage from increased seismic activity. EUR/USD rallies to 1.06.  November 2022 – Divided Congress and Trump 2.0: In line with pre-election polling, the Democrats retain the Senate but lose the House (Chart 3). Markets largely ignore the outcome. To no one’s surprise, Donald Trump announces his candidacy for the 2024 election. Over the following months, however, the former president has trouble rekindling the magic of his 2016 bid. His attacks on his main rival, Florida governor Ron DeSantis, fall flat. At one rally in early 2023, Trump’s claim that “Ron is no better than Jeb” is greeted with boos. Chart 2Supply-Chain Pressures Are Easing Chart 3Democrats Will Lose The House But Retain The Senate   December 2022 – China’s “At Least One Child Policy”: The 20th Party Congress takes place against the backdrop of strict Covid restrictions and a flailing housing market. In addition to reaffirming his Common Prosperity Initiative, President Xi stresses the need for actions that promote “family formation.” The number of births declined by nearly 30% between 2019 and 2021 and all indications suggest that the birth rate fell further in 2022 (Chart 4). Importantly for investors, Xi says that housing policy should focus not on boosting demand but increasing supply, even if this comes at the expense of lower property prices down the road. Base metal prices rally on the news. Chart 4China's Baby Bust January 2023 – Putin Declares Victory: Faced with continued resistance by Ukrainian forces – which now have wider access to advanced western military technology – Putin declares that Russia’s objectives in Ukraine have been met. Following the playbook in Crimea and the Donbass, he orders referenda to be held in Zaporizhia, Kherson, and parts of Kharkiv, asking the local populations if they wish to join Russia. The legitimacy of the referenda is immediately rejected by the Ukrainian government and the EU. Nevertheless, the Russian military advance halts. While the West pledges to maintain sanctions against Russia, the geopolitical risk premium in oil prices decreases. February 2023 – Credit Spreads Narrow Further: At the worst point for credit in early July 2022, US high-yield spreads were pricing in a default rate of 8.1% over the following 12 months (Chart 5). By late August, the expected default rate has fallen to 5.2%, and by January 2023, it has dropped to 4.5%. Perceived default risks decline even more in Europe, where the economy is on the cusp of a V-shaped recovery following the prior year’s energy crunch. Chart 5The Spread-Implied Default Rate Has Room To Fall If Recession Fears Abate March 2023 – Wages: The New Core CPI? US inflation continues to drop, but a heated debate erupts over whether this merely reflects the unwinding of various pandemic-related dislocations or whether it marks true progress in cooling down the economy. Those who argue that higher interest rates are cooling demand point to the decline in job openings. Skeptics retort that the drop in job openings has been matched by rising employment (Chart 6). To the extent that firms have been converting openings into new jobs, the skeptics conclude that labor demand has not declined. In a series of comments, Jay Powell stresses the need to focus on wage growth as a key barometer of underlying inflationary pressures. Given that wage growth remains elevated, market participants regard this as a hawkish signal (Chart 7). The 10-year Treasury yield rises to 3.2%. The DXY index, having swooned from over 108 in July 2022 to just under 100 in February 2023, moves back to 102. After hitting a 52-week high of 4,689 the prior month, the S&P 500 drops back below 4,500. Chart 6Drop In Job Openings Is Matched By Rise In Employment Chart 7Wage Growth Remains Strong   April 2023 – Covid Erupts Across China: After successfully holding back Covid for over three years, the dam breaks. When lockdowns fail to suppress the outbreak, the government shifts to a mitigation strategy, requiring all elderly and unvaccinated people to isolate at home. It helps that China’s new mRNA vaccines, launched in late 2022, prove to be successful. By early 2023, China also has sufficient supplies of Pfizer’s Paxlovid anti-viral drug. Nevertheless, the outbreak in China temporarily leads to renewed supply-chain bottlenecks. May 2023 – Biden Confirms He Will Stand for Re-Election: Saying he is “fit as a fiddle,” President Biden confirms that he will seek a second term in office. Little does he know that the US will be in a recession during most of his re-election campaign. Chart 8Consumer Confidence And Real Wages Tend To Move Together June 2023 – Inflation: The Second Wave Begins: The decline in inflation between mid-2022 and mid-2023 sows the seeds of its own demise. As prices at the pump and in the grocery store decline, real wage growth turns positive. Consumer confidence recovers (Chart 8). Household spending, which never weakened that much to begin with, surges. The economy starts to overheat again, leading to higher inflation. After having paused raising rates at 3.5% in early 2023, the Fed indicates that further hikes may be necessary. The DXY index strengthens to 104. The S&P 500 dips to 4,300. July 2023 – Tech Stock Malaise: Higher bond yields weigh on tech stocks. Making matters worse, investors start to worry that many of the most popular US tech names have gone “ex-growth.” The evolution of tech companies often follows three stages. In the first stage, when the founders are in charge, the company grows fast thanks to the introduction of new, highly innovative products or services. In the second stage, as the tech company matures, the founders often cede control to professional managers. Company profits continue to grow quickly, but less because of innovation and more because the professional managers are able to squeeze money from the firm’s customers. In the third stage, with all the low-lying fruits already picked, the company succumbs to bureaucratic inertia. As 2023 wears on, it becomes apparent that many US tech titans are entering this third stage. August 2023 – Long-term Inflation Expectations Move Up: Unlike in 2021-22, when long-term inflation expectations remained well anchored in the face of rising realized inflation, the second inflation wave in 2023 is accompanied by a clear rise in long-term inflation expectations. Consumer expectations of inflation 5-to-10 years out in the University of Michigan survey jump to 3.5%. Whereas back in August 2022, the OIS curve was discounting 100 basis points of Fed easing starting in early 2023, it now discounts rate hikes over the remainder of 2023 (Chart 9). The 10-year yield rises to 3.8%. The 10-year TIPS yield spikes to 1.2%, as investors price in a higher real terminal rate. The S&P 500 drops to 4,200. The financial press is awash with comparisons to the early 1980s (Chart 10). Chart 9The Markets Expect The Fed To Cut Rates By Over 100 Basis Points Starting In 2023 Chart 10The Early-1980s Playbook October 2023 – Hawks in Charge: After a second round of tightening, featuring three successive 50 basis-point hikes, the Fed funds rate reaches a cycle peak of 5%. The 10-year Treasury yield gets up to as high as 4.28%. The 10-year TIPS yield hits 1.62%. The DXY index rises to 106. The S&P 500 falls to 4,050. November 2023 – Housing Stumbles: With mortgage yields back above 6%, the US housing market weakens anew. The fallout from rising global bond yields is far worse in some smaller developed economies such as Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, where home price valuations are more stretched (Chart 11). Chart 11Rising Rates Will Weigh On Developed Economies With Pricey Housing Markets January 2024 – Unemployment Starts to Rise: After moving sideways since March 2022, the US unemployment rate suddenly jumps 0.2 percentage points to 3.6%, with payrolls contracting for the first time since the start of the pandemic. The 22-month stretch of a flat unemployment rate is broadly in line with the historic average (Table 1). Table 1In Past Cycles, The Unemployment Rate Has Moved Sideways For Nearly Two Years Before A Recession Began February 2024 – The US Recession Begins: Although there was considerable debate about whether the US was entering a recession at the time, in early 2025, the NBER would end up declaring that February 2024 marked the start of the recession. The 10-year yield falls back below 4% while the S&P 500 drops to 3,700. Lower bond yields are no longer protecting stocks.  March 2024 – The Fed Remains in Neutral: Jay Powell says further rate hikes are unwarranted in light of the weakening economy, but with core inflation still running at 3.5%, the Fed is in no position to ease. April 2024 – The Global Recession Intensifies: The US unemployment rate rises to 4.7%. The economic downdraft is especially sharp in America’s neighbor to the north, where the Canadian housing market is in shambles. Back in June 2022, the Canadian 10-year yield was 21 basis points above the US yield. By April 2024, it is 45 basis points below. Europe and Japan also fall into recession. Commodity prices continue to drop, with Brent oil hitting $60/bbl. May 2024 – The Fed Cuts Rates: Reversing its position from just two months earlier, the Federal Reserve cuts rates for the first time since March 2020, lowering the Fed funds rate from 5% to 4.5%. The Fed funds rate will ultimately bottom at 2.5%, below the range of 3.5%-to-4% that most economists will eventually recognize as neutral. August 2024 – Republican National Convention: Unwilling to spend much of his own money on the campaign, and with most donations flowing to DeSantis, Trump’s bid to reclaim the White House fizzles. While the former president never formally bows out of the race, the last few months of his primary campaign end up being a nostalgia tour of his past accomplishments, interspersed with complaints about all the ways that he has been wronged. In the end, though, Trump makes a lasting imprint on the Republican party. During his acceptance speech, in typical Trumpian style, Ron DeSantis attacks Joe Biden for “eating ice cream while the economy burns” and declares, to thunderous applause, that “Americans are sick and tired of having woke nonsense hurled in their faces and then being dared to deny it at the risk of losing their jobs.” Chart 12The Dollar Is Very Overvalued October 2024 – The Stock Market Hits Bottom: While the unemployment rate continues to rise for another 12 months, ultimately reaching 6.4%, the S&P troughs at 3,200. The 10-year Treasury yield settles at 3.1% before starting to drift higher. The US dollar, which began to weaken anew after the Fed starts cutting rates, enters a prolonged bear market. As in past cycles, the dollar is unable to defy the gravitational force from extremely stretched valuations (Chart 12). November 2024 – President DeSantis: Against the backdrop of rising unemployment, uncomfortably high inflation, and a sinking stock market, Ron DeSantis cruises to victory in the 2024 presidential election. Unlike Trump, DeSantis deemphasizes corporate tax cuts and deregulation during his presidency, focusing instead on cultural issues. With the Democrats still committed to progressive causes, big US corporations discover that for the first time in modern history, neither of the two major political parties are willing to champion their interests. Peter Berezin Chief Global Strategist peterb@bcaresearch.com Follow me on LinkedIn & Twitter Global Investment Strategy View Matrix Special Trade Recommendations Current MacroQuant Model Scores