Euro Area

Executive Summary Our recommended model bond portfolio outperformed its custom index by a robust +48bps in Q1/2022 – an impressive performance given the significant uncertainties stemming from the Ukraine war, surging commodity prices and hawkish central banks. This outperformance came entirely from the rates side of the portfolio (+52bps) as global government bond yields surged, driven by a large underweight to US Treasuries. The credit side of the portfolio was largely unchanged versus the benchmark (-4bps). Looking ahead, we see global bond yields as being more rangebound over the next six months. A lot of rate hikes in 2022 are already discounted (most notably in the US) and global inflation is likely to decelerate in Q2 & Q3. As the global monetary tightening cycle evolves, positioning more defensively in global credit, rather than duration management, will provide the better opportunity to generate alpha in bond portfolios. GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Recommended Positioning For The Next Six Months Bottom Line: In our model bond portfolio, we are downgrading US investment grade corporates to underweight, and reducing high-yield exposure in the US and Europe to neutral. We are also reducing inflation-linked bond allocations in the US and euro area to underweight versus nominals. Feature The first three months were horrific for global bond markets. The Bloomberg Global Aggregate index delivered a total return of -6.2%, the second worst quarter since 1990. No sector, from government bonds to corporate debt to emerging market spread product, was immune to the pressures from soaring energy prices, war-driven uncertainty and hawkish central bankers belated responding to the worst bout of global inflation since the 1970s. Related Report  Global Fixed Income StrategyOur Model Bond Portfolio Strategy To Begin 2022: Choosing Our Battles Wisely That toxic cocktail for bond returns may lose some potency in the coming months if a de-escalation of the Ukraine tensions can be reached. However, the bigger drivers of bond market volatility – high global inflation and the monetary tightening necessary to combat it – are more likely to linger for longer than expected. Government bond yields are unlikely to fall much in this environment. Increasingly, global credit spreads, especially for corporate debt in the US, will face intensifying widening pressure as central banks rapidly dial back pandemic-era monetary accommodation, led by the US Federal Reserve. With that in mind, we present our quarterly review of the BCA Research Global Fixed Income Strategy (GFIS) model bond portfolio for the first quarter of 2022. We also present our recommended positioning for the portfolio for the next six months, as well as portfolio return expectations for our base case and alternative investment scenarios. As a reminder to existing readers (and to new clients), the model portfolio is a part of our service that complements the usual macro analysis of global fixed income markets. The portfolio is how we communicate our opinion on the relative attractiveness between government bond and spread product sectors. We do this by applying actual percentage weightings to each of our recommendations within a fully invested hypothetical bond portfolio. Q1/2022 Model Bond Portfolio Performance: Regional Allocation Drives Outperformance Chart 1Q1/2022 Performance: Big Gains From Rising Bond Yields The total return for the GFIS model portfolio (hedged into US dollars) in the third quarter was -4.6%, outperforming the custom benchmark index by +48bps (Chart 1).1 In terms of the specific breakdown between the government bond and spread product allocations in our model portfolio, the former generated +52bps of outperformance versus our custom benchmark index while the latter underperformed by -4bps. In an extremely negative quarter for fixed income both in terms of the breadth and depth of losses, our regional allocation choices helped us continue generating outperformance after we transitioned to a neutral overall portfolio duration stance in mid-February. Throughout the quarter, we maintained a significant underweight on US Treasuries in the portfolio, even after we tactically upgraded our duration tilt. We expected US government debt to still underperform that of other developed markets, even in an environment where the rise in global bond yields was due for a breather. Our rationale worked – admittedly helped by the inflationary shock of the Russian invasion of Ukraine - with the US Treasury part of our portfolio generating a whopping +63bps of outperformance (Table 1). Table 1GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q1/2022 Overall Return Attribution Meanwhile, our biggest government bond overweights were in Europe, a market we expected to perform defensively in a portfolio context. We were obviously caught offside on this call as energy prices and inflation expectations in Europe surged in response to the Ukraine conflict. In total, our portfolio lost -30bps in active return terms in euro area government bonds, with the losses spread evenly between the core and periphery. We did staunch the bleeding somewhat by reducing our allocation to the periphery in the last two weeks of the quarter and using the proceeds to fund an increased allocation to European investment grade corporates. The European corporate index spread has tightened -23bps since that switch. Turning to the credit side of the portfolio, the most successful position was our underweight tilt on emerging market (EM) USD-denominated corporates (+10bps) and sovereigns (+9bps) during a catastrophic quarter for EM risky assets driven by the conflict as well as weakness in the Chinese economy. We sustained losses from our overweight on US CMBS (-11bps) which was broadly offset by gains from our underweight on US MBS (+10bps). Lastly, while we were hurt by the sell-off in euro area high-yield (-13bps), where we were overweight to start 2022, we did scale back some of that exposure towards the end of the quarter when markets started to discount the risk of a “worst case” scenario of direct NATO intervention in Ukraine. The bar charts showing the total and relative returns for each individual government bond market and spread product sector in our model portfolio are presented in Charts 2 & 3. Chart 2GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q1/2022 Government Bond Performance Attribution Chart 3GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q1/2022 Spread Product Performance Attribution By Sector Biggest Outperformers: Underweight US Treasuries with a maturity greater than 10 years (+23bps) Underweight UK Gilts with a maturity greater than 10 years (+14bps) Underweight US treasuries with a maturity between 3 and 5 years (+12bps) Biggest Underperformers: Overweight euro area high-yield corporates (-13bps) Overweight US CMBS (-11bps) Overweight Spanish Bonos (-5bps) Chart 4 presents the ranked benchmark index returns of the individual countries and spread product sectors in the GFIS model bond portfolio for Q1/2022. Returns are hedged into US dollars (we do not take active currency risk in this portfolio) and adjusted to reflect duration differences between each country/sector and the overall custom benchmark index for the model portfolio. We have also color coded the bars in each chart to reflect our recommended investment stance for each market during Q1 (red for underweight, dark green for overweight, gray for neutral). Chart 4Ranking The Winners & Losers From The GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Universe In Q1/2022 Ideally, we would look to see more green bars on the left side of the chart where market returns are highest, and more red bars on the right side of the chart were returns are lowest. That pattern largely held true in Q1/2022, especially at the tail ends of the chart. During a quarter where all the major asset classes in our portfolio lost money on a hedged and duration-matched basis, we outperformed by selectively underweighting the worst performers. Notably, we were underweight UK Gilts (-1280bps) and EM Sovereigns (-1103bps) on the extreme right side of the chart. We were also underweight US Treasuries (-531bps) which, despite being in the middle of Chart 4, contributed hugely to our portfolio outperformance due to their large market cap weighting in the benchmark index. Broadly, this means that, except for Europe and Australia, our highest conviction calls worked in our favor during the quarter. Bottom Line: Our model bond portfolio outperformed its benchmark index in the third quarter of the year by +48bps – a positive result coming largely from underweight positions in US Treasuries, UK Gilts, and EM credit. Changes To Our Model Bond Portfolio Allocations The uncertainty stemming from the Russia/Ukraine conflict led us to temporarily neutralize many of the recommended exposures in the model bond portfolio. We not only moved to neutral on overall portfolio duration, we also neutralized individual country yield curve tilts and inflation-linked bond allocations. While the situation remains fluid, the worst-case scenarios of the conflict expanding beyond the borders of Ukraine appear to have been avoided. This leads us to reconsider where to once again take active risks on the rates side of the portfolio. Chart 5Our Duration Indicator Calling For Slowing Global Yield Momentum Duration On overall portfolio duration, we are maintaining a neutral (“at benchmark”) stance in the portfolio. Our Global Duration Indicator is currently signaling that the strong upward momentum of global bond yields should fade over the next few months (Chart 5). Slowing global growth expectations – a trend that was already in place prior to the Ukraine conflict - are the major reason why our Duration Indicator has turned lower. The war-fueled surge in energy prices has helped push global bond yields higher through rising inflation breakevens, which also prompted central banks – most notably the Fed and the Bank of England (BoE)- to signal a need for a faster pace of interest rate hikes in 2022 despite softening growth momentum. Looking ahead, that strong link between oil prices and bond yields will not be broken until there is some sort of de-escalation of the Ukraine conflict, which does not appear imminent. This supports a near-term neutral overall duration stance. Yield Curve Allocations In terms of yield curve exposure, we see some opportunities to adjust allocations (Chart 6). US curves have inverted and UK curves are flirting with inversion as markets are pricing in more Fed/BoE tightening, while curves in Germany and France have bear-steepened with longer-term inflation expectations going up faster than shorter-term interest rate expectations. In the US and UK, the yield curve flattening also reflects the “front loading” of Fed/BoE rate hike expectations. Overnight index swap (OIS) curves are pricing in 190bps of rate hikes in the US, and 134bps in the UK, by the end of 2022. This is followed quickly by rate cuts discounted in H2/2023 and 2024 in both countries. We see it as more likely that both central banks will deliver fewer hikes than discounted in 2022 and but will push rates to higher levels than priced by the end of 2024. That leads us to add a mild steepening bias into our US and UK government bond allocations in the model bond portfolio. We offset that by inserting a flattening bias in the German and French yield curve allocations to keep the overall portfolio duration at 7.5 years, matching that of the custom benchmark index (Chart 7). Chart 6Curve Flattening In The US & UK Is Overdone​​​​​ Chart 7Overall Portfolio Duration: Stay Neutral​​​​​ Chart 8No Change To Our Country Allocations To Begin Q2/22 Country Allocations Turning to our country allocations, we see no need to make major changes right now (Chart 8). We still prefer to maintain an underweight stance on countries that are more likely to see multiple central bank rate hikes in 2022 (the US, UK, Canada) versus those that are less likely (Germany, France, Japan, Australia). We are also staying neutral on Italian and Spanish government bonds with the ECB set to taper the pace of its asset purchases in Q2. Less ECB buying raises the risk that higher yields will be required to entice private sector buyers to buy Italian and Spanish debt with a smaller central bank backstop. Inflation-Linked Bonds Our Comprehensive Breakeven Inflation (CBI) indicators assess the potential for a significant move in 10-year breakeven inflation rates, based on deviations from variables that typically correlate with breakevens like oil prices or survey-based measures of inflation expectations. At the moment, none of the CBIs for the eight countries in our model bond portfolio are below zero (Chart 9), which would be a signal that breakevens are too low and can move higher. Chart 9Inflation-Linked Bond Exposure: Reduce Europe & The US, Increase Canada Canada has the lowest CBI, and last week, we added a tactical trade to go long 10-year Canadian inflation breakevens. We will add that position to our model bond portfolio this week, moving the Canadian “linkers” allocation to overweight versus nominal Canadian government bonds (within an overall underweight allocation to Canada in the model bond portfolio). On the other side of our CBI rankings are countries where the CBIs are well above zero and breakevens are more stretched: Germany, Italy, France and the US. We are currently neutral inflation-linked bonds in those four countries, but strictly as a hedge against the war-fueled risks of further increases in oil prices. Now, however, 10-year breakevens have widened to levels that already factor in more expensive oil, even with oil prices struggling to break out to new highs. As a result, we are downgrading the allocation to linkers in Germany, Italy, France and the US to underweight within the model bond portfolio (Chart 10). Corporate Bonds The most meaningful changes we are making to our model bond portfolio, and in our strategic investment recommendations, are to our corporate bond allocations: We are downgrading US investment grade corporate bond exposure from neutral to underweight (2 out of 5) We are downgrading US high-yield corporate bond exposure from overweight to neutral (3 out of 5) We are also downgrading euro area high-yield exposure from overweight to neutral (3 out of 5) Credit spreads across the developed market and EM space have fully unwound the surge seen after Russia invaded Ukraine on February 24 (Chart 11). We had turned more cautious on global spread product exposure in early March because of the war-fueled shock to energy prices and investor sentiment. We viewed this as a bigger issue for European and EM credit, with Europe heavily reliant on Russian energy supplies and EM market liquidity impacted by bans on trading of Russian assets. We therefore reduced exposures to European high-yield and EM hard currency debt in the model bond portfolio. Chart 10Our Inflation-Linked Bond Country Allocations Now, while markets have become more sanguine about the prospects of a long war that can more directly draw in Western forces, a bigger threat to financial market stability has emerged – more aggressive tightening of global monetary policy led by the Fed. Chart 11Global Credit Spreads Have Returned To Pre-Invasion Levels​​​​​​ Chart 12Global Monetary Backdrop Turning More Negative For Credit Already, the move away from quantitative easing by the Fed, ECB and BoE has led to a negative impulse for global credit returns (Chart 12). Excess returns for the Bloomberg Global Corporate and High-Yield indices are now essentially flat on a year-over-year basis, and the riskiest credit tiers of both indices are seeing the greater spread widening (bottom panel). Another indicator of tightening monetary policy, the flat US Treasury curve, is also signaling a poor environment for US credit market returns. Our colleagues at our sister service, BCA Research US Bond Strategy, have noted that when the 2-year/10-year US Treasury curve flattens below +25bps, the odds of US investment grade credit outperforming duration-matched Treasuries decline sharply. Dating back to 1973, the average excess return (over Treasuries) for the Bloomberg US investment grade index over the twelve months after the 2/10 curve flattens below +25bps is -0.56%. The 2/10 US Treasury curve is now inverted at -3bps, even with the Fed having only delivered a single +25bp rate hike so far in the current cycle. This is a highly unusual occurrence, as the Treasury curve typically inverts after the Fed has delivered multiple rate hikes in a tightening cycle. Bond investors are clearly “front-running” the Fed in discounting aggressive rate hikes in 2022 in response to US inflation near 8%. We think the Fed will deliver fewer hikes than markets are discounting this year, but will do more in 2023 and 2024. Yet the message from the now-inverted yield curve, and what it means for corporate bond performance, is too powerful to ignore. This underpins our decision to downgrade our recommended allocation to US investment grade to underweight. We do not, however, see a need to move the allocations for other corporate bond markets as aggressively. The credit spread widening seen so far in 2022 in the US and Europe – a trend that was already in place before the start of the Ukraine war – has restored more value to European corporate spreads compared to US equivalents. That can be seen when looking at our preferred measure of spread valuations, 12-month breakeven spreads.2 The historical percentile ranking of the 12-month breakeven spread is 63% for euro area investment grade and a much lower 23% for US investment grade (Chart 13). The absolute level of the euro area ranking justifies maintaining an overweight stance on euro area investment grade, both in absolute terms and relative to US investment grade. A smaller gap exists for high-yield, where the euro area 12-month breakeven spread percentile ranking is 50% versus 33% in the US. Those lower percentile rankings justify no higher than a neutral allocation to high-yield on either side of the Atlantic. On the surface, maintaining a higher allocation to US high-yield over US investment grade does appear counter-intuitive in an environment where the US Treasury curve is inverted and investors are growing increasingly worried that the Fed will need to engineer a major growth slowdown to cool inflation. However, that same high inflation helps to maintain a fast enough pace of nominal economic growth to limit the default risk for riskier borrowers. Moody’s estimates that the default rate for high-yield corporates will reach 3.1% in the US and 2.6% in Europe by year-end. Using those estimates, we can calculate a default-adjusted spread, or the current high-yield spread minus one-year-ahead expected default losses. That spread is currently 134bps in the US and 206bps in Europe, both well above the low end of the long-run range and closer to the long-run average (Chart 14). Those are levels that are consistent with a neutral allocation to high-yield in both regions, as current spreads offer a decent cushion in an environment of relatively low default risk. Chart 13More Attractive Spread Levels In Europe Vs. US​​​​​​ Chart 14Low Default Risk Helps Support High-Yield Valuations​​​​​​ Chart 15Persistent Headwinds To EM Credit Performance Emerging Markets Finally, we continue to see more reasons to be cautious on EM USD-denominated credit, given the lack of support from typical fundamental drivers (Chart 15). Weak Chinese growth, slowing commodity price momentum (on a year-over-year basis), and a firm US dollar are all factors that weigh on EM economic growth and the ability to service hard-currency debt. We are maintaining an underweight allocation to EM USD-denominated sovereign and corporate debt in our model bond portfolio. Indications that China is ready to introduce more fiscal and monetary stimulus, and/or if the Fed’s messaging turned less hawkish – and less US dollar bullish – would be the signals necessary for us to consider an EM upgrade. Summing It All Up The full list of our recommended portfolio allocations after making all of the above changes can be seen in Table 2. The changes leave the portfolio with the following high-level characteristics: Table 2GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Recommended Positioning For The Next Six Months Chart 16Overall Portfolio Allocation: Underweight Spread Product Vs Governments the overall duration exposure remains at-benchmark (i.e. neutral) the portfolio has now flipped to an underweight stance on the exposure of spread product to government bonds, equal to four percentage points of the portfolio (Chart 16) the tracking error of the portfolio, or its expected volatility in excess of that of the benchmark, is 80bps – a level similar to that before the changes were made and still well below our self-imposed 100bps tracking error limit (Chart 17) the portfolio now has a yield below that of the custom benchmark index, equal to 2.51% (Chart 18). Chart 17Overall Portfolio Risk: Moderate​​​​​​ Chart 18Overall Portfolio Yield: Below-Benchmark​​​​​​ The changes leave the portfolio much more exposed to a widening of global credit spreads than a rise in government bond yields – a desired outcome with bond yields already discounting a lot of tightening but credit spreads still at historically tight levels. Bottom Line: As the global monetary tightening cycle evolves, positioning more defensively in global credit, rather than duration management, will provide the better opportunity to generate alpha in bond portfolios. We are expressing that by cutting the exposure to corporate bonds in our model bond portfolio. Portfolio Scenario Analysis For The Next Six Months After making all the specific changes to our model portfolio weightings, which can be seen in the tables on pages 23-25, we now turn to our regular quarterly scenario analysis to determine the return expectations for the portfolio for the next six months. On the credit side of the portfolio, we use risk-factor-based regression models to forecast future yield changes for global spread product sectors as a function of four major factors - the VIX, oil prices, the US dollar and the fed funds rate (Table 3A). For the government bond side of the portfolio, we avoid using regression models and instead use a yield-beta driven framework, taking forecasts for changes in US Treasury yields and translating those in changes in non-US bond yields by applying a historical yield beta (Table 3B). Table 3AFactor Regressions Used To Estimate Spread Product Yield Changes Table 3BEstimated Government Bond Yield Betas To US Treasuries For our scenario analysis over the next six months, we use a base case scenario plus two alternate “tail risk” scenarios. In the current environment, our scenarios center around developments in the Ukraine/Russia conflict and the impacts on uncertainty and commodity-fueled inflation. Base Case There is no further escalation of the Ukraine/Russia conflict, possibly resulting in a temporary ceasefire. Oil prices pull back on a lower war risk premium, helping lower inflation expectations. Global realized inflation peaks during Q2/2022, alongside some moderation of global growth in lagged response to high energy prices. Within that slower pace of global growth, the US outperforms Europe while Chinese growth remains weak because of COVID lockdowns (although that will eventually lead to more stimulus from Chinese policymakers). The Fed delivers 100bps of rate hikes by July, starting with a 50bp increase at the May meeting, before pausing at the September meeting in response to slowing US inflation and growth. There is a mild bear flattening of the US Treasury curve, but yields remain broadly unchanged over the full six month scenario period with the Fed not hiking by more than currently discounted. The Brent oil price retreats by -10%, the US dollar modestly appreciates by 2%, the VIX stays close to current levels at 20 and the fed funds rate reaches 1.5%. Escalation Scenario The is no reduction in Ukraine war tensions, with increased Russian aggression resulting in greater NATO military involvement. The risk premium in oil prices increases, delaying the expected peak in global inflation until the second half of 2022. Inflation expectations remain elevated. Global growth weakens more than in the base case scenario because of higher energy prices, but with US growth still outperforming Europe. China’s economy remains weighed down by COVID lockdowns and an inadequate fiscal/monetary/credit policy response. The Fed is forced to be more aggressive because of high inflation expectations, delivering 150bps of hikes by September. The US Treasury curve bear-flattens, but with Treasury yields rising across the curve through wider TIPS breakevens and greater-than-expected rate hikes keeping real yields stable. The Brent oil price rises +25%, the VIX index climbs to 30, the US dollar appreciates by +5% thanks to slowing global growth and a more aggressive move by the Fed to push the funds rate to 2%. De-Escalation Scenario There is a full and lasting ceasefire between Russia and Ukraine. The war risk premium in oil prices collapses, allowing global inflation to peak in Q2 and then decline rapidly. Global growth sentiment improves because of lower energy prices and diminished worries about a wider world war. European growth outperforms US growth (relative to expectations) as European natural gas prices decline. China responds faster than expected to the latest COVID wave with more aggressive policy stimulus. Lower inflation allows the Fed to be more patient on rate hikes, delivering only 75bps of hikes by July before pausing. The Treasury curve moderately bull-steepens, although the absolute decline in nominal Treasury yields is fairly small as lower TIPS breakevens are partially offset by higher real yields (as growth sentiment improves). The Brent oil price falls -20%, the VIX index drifts down to 18, and the US dollar depreciates by -3% as global growth improves and the Fed pushes the funds rate to a less-than-expected 1.25% by July. The excess return scenarios for the model bond portfolio, using the above inputs in our simple quantitative return forecast framework, are shown in Table 4A. The US Treasury yield assumptions are shown in Table 4B. For the more visually inclined, we present charts showing the model inputs and Treasury yield projections in Chart 19 and Chart 20, respectively. Table 4AGFIS Model Bond Portfolio Scenario Analysis For The Next Six Months Table 4BUS Treasury Yield Assumptions For The 6-Month Forward Scenario Analysis Chart 19Risk Factor Assumptions For The Scenario Analysis​​​​​​ Chart 20US Treasury Yield Assumptions For The Scenario Analysis​​​​​​ Given our neutral overall portfolio duration stance, and the mild changes in nominal bond yields implied by our forecasts, it should not be surprising that the rates side of the portfolio is expected to not contribute any excess return in Q2 and Q3. However, Fed rate hikes – which push up yields on spread product in the forecasting regressions – result in negative credit returns in all scenarios (especially in the cases where the VIX is expected to rise). Thus, the return on the credit side of the model portfolio, where we are now underweight credit risk, will be the main driver of performance, delivering a range of excess return outcomes between +29bps and +53bps. Bottom Line: The next six months will be about locking in the significant gains in our model bond portfolio performance from rising bond yields, and transitioning to outperforming via wider credit spreads in US investment grade and EM hard currency debt.   Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com Shakti Sharma Senior Analyst ShaktiS@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1      The GFIS model bond portfolio custom benchmark index is the Bloomberg Barclays Global Aggregate Index, but with allocations to global high-yield corporate debt replacing very high-quality spread product (i.e. AA-rated). We believe this to be more indicative of the typical internal benchmark used by global multi-sector fixed income managers. 2     12-month breakeven spreads compare the option-adjusted spread (OAS) of a credit market or sector to its duration, using Bloomberg bond index data. The breakeven spread is the amount of spread widening that must occur over a one-year horizon to make the total return of a credit instrument equal to that of duration-matched risk-free government debt. GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Recommended Positioning     Active Duration Contribution: GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. Custom Performance Benchmark The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Global Fixed Income - Strategic Recommendations* Cyclical Recommendations (6-18 Months)  

Executive Summary Europe Is Russia's Key Gas Customer Full-on rationing of natural gas by Germany took a step closer to reality, as the standoff with Russia over its insistence on being paid in roubles for gas plays out. News that Germany initiated its first step toward rationing spiked European and UK natgas prices by more than 12% on Wednesday. Higher prices for coal, oil and renewable energy will follow, as these energy sources compete at the margin with natgas in Europe. Inflation and inflation expectations will move higher if Germany ultimately rations scarce natgas supplies. We are watching to see who blinks first – Germany or Russia. The risk of aluminum-smelter shut-downs in Europe once again is elevated. Other metals-refining operations also are at risk of shutdown if rationing is invoked. Trade difficulties arising from Russia's invasion of Ukraine and related sanctions will lead to further bottlenecks on base-metal exports from Russia, as Rusal warned this week. This will further confound the energy transition. Western governments will be forced to accelerate investments and subsidies in carbon-capture technology as fossil-fuel usage and prospects revive. Bottom Line: Fast-changing EU natural gas supply-demand dynamics are impacting competing energy and base metals markets.  This is throwing up confusion around the global renewable-energy transition and extending its timetable.  Fossil fuels fortunes are being revived, as a result. We remain long commodity index exposure and the equities of oil-and-gas producers and base-metals miners.   Feature Events in the EU natural gas markets are changing rapidly in the wake of fast-changing developments in the Russia-Ukraine war.  In the wake of these changes, economic prospects for Europe and Russia are rapidly evolving – both potentially negatively over the short run. Full-on rationing of natural gas by Germany took a step closer to reality, as its standoff with Russia over payment for gas in roubles plays out.  News Germany is preparing its citizens for rationing spiked European and UK natgas prices by more than 12% Wednesday. It's not clear whether Russia or Germany are bluffing on this score.  Russia's oil and gas exports last year accounted for close to 40% of the government's budget. According to Russia's central bank, crude and product revenue last year amounted to just under $180 billion, while pipeline and LNG shipments of natgas generated close to $62 billion last year.  Europe is Russia's biggest natgas market, accounting for ~ 40% of its exports.  However, as the relative shares of revenues indicate, natgas exports are less important to Russia than crude and liquids exports.  Losing this revenue stream for a year would amount to losing ~ $25 billion of revenue, all else equal.  In the event, however, the net loss might be lower, since this would put a bid under the natgas market ex-Europe, which would offset part or most of the lost natgas sales to Europe.  If Russia is able to re-market those lost volumes, it could offset the loss of European sales. Knock-On Effects The immediate knock-on effect of this news turns out to be higher prices for oil, UK and European natgas.  This is not unexpected, as gasoil competes at the margin with natgas in space heating markets, while competition across regions also can be expected to increase.  Once again, the risk of aluminum-smelter shut-downs in Europe is elevated if rationing is imposed by Germany.  Other metals-refining operations also are at risk of shutdown if rationing is invoked.  Lastly, fertilizer production in Europe would be materially impacted, given some 70% of fertilizer costs are accounted for by natgas. In addition to these endogenous EU effects, trade difficulties arising from Russia's invasion of Ukraine and related sanctions will lead to further bottlenecks on base-metal exports from Russia, as Rusal warned this week.1 This will further confound the energy transition as the world's third-largest aluminum smelter faces sanctions – official and self-imposed – and the loss of inputs from Western suppliers, along with reduced access to capital and funding from the West. If, over time, Russia's base metals industries are degraded by the lack of access to capital and technology as oil and gas will be, the global renewable-energy transition will be slowed considerably.   We already expect Russia's oil and gas production to fall over time due to the economic isolation created by Russia's invasion of Ukraine, rendering it a diminished member of OPEC 2.0.  Russia accounts for ~ 10% of global crude oil supplies, and is the second largest producer of crude oil in the coalition.  A long-term degradation of its production profile will exacerbate the persistent imbalance between demand relative to supply globally, which continues to force oil inventories lower (Chart 1). On the metals side, Russia accounts for 6%, 5% and 4% of global primary aluminum, refined nickel and copper production.  Persistent supply deficits have left inventories in these markets – particularly nickel and copper – tight and getting tighter (Chart 2).2 Chart 1Oil Inventories Remain Tight... Chart 2… As Do Metals Inventories Europe's Radical Pivot In a little over a month's time, the EU has been forced to abandon once-immutable post-Cold War beliefs shared by the electorate and politicians of all stripes.  Ever-deepening commercial ties with Russia did not ensure EU energy security, nor did they obviate what arguably is any state's primary responsibility: Protecting and defending its citizens.  Because of its failed engagement policy with Russia over the post-Cold War interval, the EU is forced to scramble to restore its energy production and expand its sources of energy imports.  In addition, it is repeatedly asserting its intent to "double down" of the speed of its renewable-energy transition.  And, last but certainly not least, it is forced to rapidly rearm itself in industrial commodity markets that are in the midst of prolonged physical deficits and inventory drawdowns.3 The Russian invasion of Ukraine spurred the EU to action on both the energy and defense fronts.  It is rushing head-long into eliminating its dependence on Russia for fuel, particularly natural gas, and will pursue re-arming its member states forthwith (Chart 3).  Chart 3Weaning EU Off Russian Gas Will Prove Difficult On the energy front, the EU adopted a two-prong approach to cleave itself from Russian natgas: 1) Diversify its sources of natural gas, which largely will be in the form of liquified natural gas (LNG), and 2) doubling down on renewable energy generation. EU officials are aiming to replace two-thirds of their Russian gas imports by the end of this year, which is an ambitious target.  Over the next two years or so, EU officials hope to fully wean themselves from Russian natgas via a combination of infrastructure buildouts and a renewed push to increase domestic production, which was being throttled back by earlier attempts to secure increased Russian supplies, and a strong focus on renewables. EU's US LNG Deal The EU signed a deal with the US to receive an additional 15 Bcm of natural gas in 2022, and 50 Bcm annually by 2030, which is equal to ~ 30% of the EU’s 2020 Russian gas imports.  How exactly this will be done is unknown. In 2021, the EU imported 155 bcm of natgas from Russia, or more than 3x the amount being discussed with the US; 14 bcm of that was LNG.4 Just exactly what meeting of the minds was achieved between the EU and US government is totally unclear at this point.  The US is not an LNG supplier, nor can it order private companies to renege on existing contacts.  The US government likely will use its good offices to attempt to persuade Asian buyers to allow their contracted volumes to be diverted to European buyers, but that would, in all likelihood, mean they would switch to another fuel (e.g., coal) as an alternative if they take that deal.  This would, we believe, require some sort of financial incentive to induce such behavior. US liquefaction capacity is also running at near full capacity (Chart 4). While there are projects in the pipeline, in the medium-term (2 – 5 years) the lack of export capacity will act as a constraint to the amount of LNG that can be shipped to the EU. Chart 4Europe Critical To Russia's Gas Industry For Russia, its shipments of gas to OECD-Europe represent more than 70% of its exports (Chart 5). Arguably, Europe is just as important to Russia as Russia is to Europe.  With the EU set on a course to sever ties completely, Russia will be forced to invest in pipeline capacity to take more of its gas to China via the Power of Siberia 2 pipeline. In the short-term, US LNG exports to the EU will face headwinds since much of Central and Eastern Europe rely on piped gas from Russia. As a result, many countries within Europe are not equipped with sufficient regasification facilities and are running at near peak utilization rates (Chart 6).  Germany does not have any such capacity.  Chart 5Not Much Room For US LNG Exports To Grow… Chart 6…Or For Additional European LNG Imports LNG import facilities that have additional intake capacity in the Iberian Peninsula and Eastern Europe do not have sufficient pipeline capacity to move gas inland.  This will require additional infrastructure investment as well.  To deal with this lack of infrastructure, Germany, Italy and the Netherlands are moving quickly to procure Floating Storage and Regasification (FSRUs) to convert LNG back to its gaseous state.  While not the five-year proposition a dedicated LNG train requires to bring on line, setting up FSRUs still could be a years-long process.5 How quickly these assets can be mobilized, and the volumes they can deliver remain to be seen. Investment Implications Fast-changing EU natural gas supply-demand dynamics are impacting competing energy and base metals markets.  This is throwing up confusion around the global renewable-energy transition and extending its timetable.  Fossil fuels fortunes are being revived, as a result. At this point it is impossible to handicap the odds of a cut-off of Russian natgas to Europe, or its duration if it does occur.  Either way, competitive suppliers to Russia – particularly US shale-gas producers selling into the LNG market and the vessels that transport it – will benefit regardless of the course taken by Germany and Russia on rationing. We remain long commodity index via the S&P GSCI and COMT ETF, and the equities of oil-and-gas producers and base-metals miners via the PICK, XME and XOP ETFs.   Commodity Round-Up Energy: Bullish Oil prices were whipsawed by new reports suggesting Russia would substantially reduce its military operations in Kyiv ahead of ceasefire talks with Ukraine, only to have that speculation dashed by US officials indicating nothing had changed in the status quo to warrant such a view.  Markets restored the risk premium that fell out of prices on the unwarranted speculation, with Brent prices once again above $110/bbl this week.  At present, the fundamental oil picture remains tight.  In the run-up to a decision from OPEC 2.0's March meeting today, we continued to expect  KSA, the UAE and Kuwait to increase production by up to 1.6mm b/d this year, and another 600k b/d next year.  To date, OPEC 2.0 has fallen short by ~ 1.2mm b/d since it started returning production taken off line during the pandemic.  In return for higher output, we continue to expect the US to deepen its commitment to defending the Gulf Co-operation Council (GCC) states making up core-OPEC 2.0.  If we do not see an increase in core-OPEC 2.0 production, we will have to re-assess our fundamental outlook on KSA's, the UAE's and Kuwait's ability to increase production.  We also will have to determine whether – even if the supply is available to return to the market – these states have embraced a revenue-maximization strategy, given the fiscal breakeven price for these states now averages ~ $64/bbl.  It also is possible that heavily discounted Russian crude oil – trading more than $30/bbl below Brent (vs. the standard $2.50/bbl Urals normally commands) – convinces core-OPEC 2.0 states that oil prices are not so high for large EM buyers like India and China as to create demand destruction.  We believe the latter view likely is prevailing at present.  We continue to expect Brent to average $93/bbl this year and next (Chart 7). Base Metals: Bullish BHP Group Ltd. will invest more than $10 billion to expand metals production over the next 50 years in Chile.  The metals giant aims to stay ESG compliant, provided there is a supportive investment environment provided by the Chilean government. Resource-rich Latin American countries such as Chile and Peru have elected left-leaning governments intent on redistributing mining profits and ensuring companies comply with the ESG framework. As Chile considers raising mining royalties and redrafts its constitution, mining investment in the country has stalled. Political uncertainty in these countries has coincided with low global copper inventories (Chart 8) and high demand. Chart 7 Chart 8     Robert P. Ryan Chief Commodity & Energy Strategist rryan@bcaresearch.com     Footnotes 1     Please see Aluminum Giant Rusal Flags Stark Risks Triggered by War in Ukraine published by Bloomberg on March 30, 2022. 2     Please see our Special Report entitled Commodities' Watershed Moment, published on March 10, 2022.  It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 3    Please see footnote 2. 4    Please see How Deep Is Europe's Dependence on Russian Oil? published by the Columbia Climate School on March 14, 2022. 5    Please see Europe battles to secure specialised ships to boost LNG imports published by ft.com 28 March 2022.  Germany appears to be most advanced in its procurement of FSRU capacity, and is close to concluding a deal that would allow it to regasify 27 bcm annually.   Investment Views and Themes Strategic Recommendations Trades Closed in 2021  

Executive Summary Refreshing Our Tactical Trade List Our current list of tactical trade recommendations centers around two broad themes that predate the Ukraine conflict – rising global inflation expectations and relatively stronger upward pressure on US interest rates. Both themes have been strengthened by the spillovers from the war in Eastern Europe, most notably the link between soaring commodity prices and rising inflation. We still see value in holding our recommended cross-country spread trades that will benefit from continued US bond underperformance (short US Treasuries versus government bonds in Germany, Canada and New Zealand, all at the 10-year maturity). We also maintain our bias to lean against the yield curve flattening trend in the US, but we now prefer to do it solely via our existing SOFR futures calendar spread position. Finding attractively valued inflation breakeven spread trades is more difficult after the latest oil-fueled run-up in developed market inflation expectations. Canadian breakevens, however, stand out as having the greatest upside potential according to our Comprehensive Breakeven Indicators. Bottom Line: Remain in US-Germany, US-Canada an US-New Zealand 10-year government bond yield spread widening trades. Maintain our recommended position in the US SOFR futures curve (long Dec/22 futures, short Dec/24 futures). Add a new inflation-linked bond trade, going long 10-year Canadian breakevens. Feature One month has passed since Russia invaded Ukraine, and investors are still struggling to sort out the financial market implications. Equity markets in the US and Europe have recovered the losses incurred immediately after the conflict began. Equity market volatility has also fallen back to pre-invasion levels according to the VIX index (and its European counterpart, the VStoxx index). That decline in equity volatility has also coincided with a narrowing of corporate credit spreads in both the US and Europe, with the former now fully back to pre-invasion levels. Yet while credit spread volatility has calmed down, government bond yield volatility remains elevated thanks to rising commodity prices putting upward pressure on expectations for inflation and monetary policy (Chart 1). Chart 1Global Bond Yields Are Above Pre-Invasion Levels​​​​​​ Table 1Refreshing Our Tactical Trade List We have already made some “wartime” adjustments to our global bond market cyclical recommendations, with those changes reflected in our model bond portfolio. This week, we review our shorter-term tactical trade recommendations. Our current list of tactical trades revolves around two broad themes that predate the Ukraine conflict – rising global inflation expectations and relatively stronger cyclical upward pressure on US interest rates. Both themes have been strengthened by the spillovers from the war in Eastern Europe, most notably the link between soaring commodity prices and rising inflation. We continue to see the value in holding on to most of our existing tactical trades, with only a couple of adjustments to be made to our US yield curve and global inflation-linked bond positions (Table 1). US Yield Curve Tactical Trades: Shift Focus To SOFR Steepeners We have recommended trades that lean against the aggressive flattening of the US Treasury curve discounted in forward rates since late 2021. Our view has been that markets were discounting too rapid a pace of Fed rate increases in 2022. With the Fed likely delivering fewer hikes than expected, Treasury curve steepening trades would benefit as the spot Treasury curve would flatten by less than implied by the forwards. Related Report  Global Fixed Income StrategyFive Reasons To Tactically Increase US Duration Exposure Now Needless to say, that view has not panned out as we anticipated. The spread between 10-year and 2-year US Treasury yields now sits at a mere +13bps, down from +104bps when we initiated our 2-year/10-year steepener trade last November. The forwards now discount an inversion of that curve starting in June of this year, which would be an extraordinary outcome by historical standards. Typically, the US Treasury curve inverts only after the Fed has delivered an extended monetary tightening cycle that delivers multiple rate hikes over at least a 1-2 year period (Chart 2). Today, the curve has nearly inverted with the Fed having only delivered only a single 25bp rate increase earlier this month. Chart 2The UST Curve Is Unusually Flat Right Now Of course, the Fed’s reaction function in the current cycle is different compared to the past. The Fed now follows an average inflation targeting framework that tolerates temporary inflation overshoots after periods when US inflation ran below the Fed’s 2% target. Now, however, the Fed has no choice but to respond to surging US inflation, which has been accelerating since September and is now at levels last seen in 1982. Chart 3Our SOFR Trade Is Similar To Our UST Curve Trade We still see the market pricing in too much Fed tightening this year and too few rate hikes in 2023/24. The US overnight index swap (OIS) curve now discounts 218bps of rate hikes in 2022, but 44bps of rate cuts between June 2023 and December 2024. We think a more likely scenario is the Fed doing less than discounted this year, as US inflation should show some deceleration in the latter half of 2022, but then continuing to raise rates in 2023 into 2024. We have expressed this view more specifically through an additional tactical trade that was initiated last month, going long the December 2022 3-month SOFR futures contract versus shorting the December 2024 3-month SOFR futures contract. This new trade is essentially a calendar spread trade between two futures contracts, but with a return profile that has looked quite similar to our 2-year/10-year US Treasury curve flattening trade (Chart 3). Having two tactical trades that are highly correlated, and which both are driven by the same theme of the Fed doing less this year and more over the next two years, is inefficient. We see the SOFR calendar spread trade as a more precise expression of our Fed policy view compared to the 2-year/10-year Treasury curve steepener. In addition, the SOFR trade now offers slightly better value after it has lagged the performance of the Treasury curve trade over the past couple of weeks. Thus, we are keeping this trade in our Tactical Overlay portfolio (see the table on page 15), while closing out our 2-year/10-year steepener at a loss of -92bps.1 Cross-Country Spread Trades: Keeping Betting On Relatively Higher US Yields In our Tactical Overlay portfolio, we currently have three recommended cross-country government bond spread trades that all have one thing in common – a sale of 10-year US Treasuries. The long side of the three trades are different (Germany, New Zealand and Canada), but the logic underlying all three trades is the same. The Fed will deliver more rate hikes than the central banks in the other countries. 10-year US Treasury-German Bund spread Chart 4UST-Bund Spread Is Too Low Expecting a wider US Treasury-German Bund spread remains our highest conviction view in G-10 government bond markets. This is a trade we have described as a more efficient way to position for rising US bond yields than a pure below-benchmark US duration stance. We have maintained that recommendation in both our model bond portfolio and our Tactical Overlay portfolio. For the latter, that trade was implemented using 10-year bond futures in both markets and is up 3.9% since initiation back in October 2021. The case for expecting even more Treasury-Bund spread widening remains strong, for several reasons: Underlying inflation remains higher in the US, particularly when looking at domestic sources of inflation like wages and service sector prices. Europe, which relies more heavily on Russia for its energy supplies than the US, is more at risk of a negative growth shock from the Ukraine conflict. Our fundamental model of the 10-year Treasury-Bund spread shows that the current level of the spread (+197bps) is about one full standard deviation below fair value, which itself is rising due to stronger US economic growth, faster US inflation and a more aggressive path for monetary tightening from the Fed relative to the ECB (Chart 4). The spread between our 24-month discounters in the US and Europe, which measure the amount of rate hikes priced into OIS curves for the two regions over the next two years, has proven to be good leading indicator of the 10-year Treasury-Bund spread. That discounter spread is currently at 99bps, levels last seen when the 10-year Treasury-Bund spread climbed to the 250-300bps range in 2017/18 (Chart 5). With the relative forward curves now discounting a slight narrowing of the US-German 10-year spread over the next year, betting on a wider spread does not suffer from negative carry. We are maintaining this trade in our Tactical Overlay portfolio with great conviction. 10-year US Treasury-Canada government bond spread We entered another cross-country spread trade involving a US Treasury short position earlier this month, in this case versus 10-year Canadian government bonds. This trade is a bet on relative monetary policy moves between the Fed and the Bank of Canada (BoC). Like the Fed, the BoC is facing a problem of high inflation and tight labor markets. Canadian core CPI inflation hit a 19-year high of 3.9% in January, while the Canadian unemployment rate is at a 3-year low of 5.5%. The US is facing even higher inflation and even lower unemployment, but one major difference between the two nations is the degree of household sector debt loads. Canada’s household debt/income ratio now stands at 180%, 55 percentage points higher than the equivalent US ratio, thanks to greater residential mortgage borrowing in Canada (Chart 6). Chart 5Stay Positioned For More UST-Bund Spread Widening The Canadian OIS curve is now discounting a peak policy rate of 3.1% in 2023, which is at the high end of the BoC’s estimated 1.75-2.75% range for the neutral policy rate. Chart 6The BoC Will Have Trouble Matching Fed Hawkishness​​​​​ Elevated household debt will limit the BoC’s ability to lift rates that high, as this would trigger a major retrenchment of housing demand and a significant cooling of house prices. While the US is also facing issues with robust housing demand and high house prices, this is less of a factor that would limit Fed tightening relative to the BoC because US household balance sheets are not as levered as their Canadian counterparts. We are keeping our short US/long Canada spread trade (implemented using bond futures) in our Tactical Overlay portfolio, with the BoC unlikely to keep pace with the expected Fed rate increases over the next year (Chart 7). Chart 7Stay Positioned For A Narrower Canada-US Spread 10-year US Treasury-New Zealand government bond spread The third cross-country trade in our Tactical Overlay is 10-year New Zealand-US spread widening trade. Chart 8A Big Gap In NZ-US Relative Interest Rate Expectations​​​​​​ Like the Germany and Canada spread trades, we expect the Fed to deliver more rate hikes than the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (RBNZ) which should push up US Treasury yields versus New Zealand equivalents. In the case of this trade, however, interest rate expectations in New Zealand are far more aggressive. Chart 9Stay Positioned For NZ-US Spread Tightening The RBNZ has already lifted its Official Cash Rate (OCR) by 75bps since starting the tightening cycle in mid-2021. The New Zealand OIS curve is now discounting an additional 253bps of rate hikes in this cycle, eventually reaching a peak OCR of 3.5% in June 2023. This would put the OCR into slightly restrictive territory based on the range of neutral rate estimates from the RBNZ’s various quantitative models (Chart 8). This contrasts to the pricing in the US OIS curve that places the peak in the fed funds rate at 2.8% next year before falling back to the low end of the FOMC’s 2.0-3.0% range of neutral estimates in 2024. Both the US and New Zealand are suffering from similarly high rates of inflation, with New Zealand headline inflation reaching 5.9% in the last available data from Q4/2021. However, while markets are already pricing in restrictive monetary settings in New Zealand, markets are yet to price in a similarly restrictive move in the fed funds rate. We continue to see scope for a narrowing of the New Zealand-US 10-year bond yield spread over at least the next six months. There has already been meaningful compression of the 2-year yield spread as US rate expectations have converged towards New Zealand levels (Chart 9) – we expect the 10-year spread to follow suit. Inflation Breakeven Trades: Swap Canada For Australia We currently have one inflation-linked bond (ILB) trade in our Tactical Overlay portfolio, betting on higher inflation breakevens in Australia. We initiated this trade last October, largely based on the signal from our suite of Comprehensive Breakeven Indicators (CBI) for the major developed economy ILB markets. The CBIs contain three components: the deviation from fair value from our 10-year breakeven spread models, the distance between realized headline inflation and the central bank target, and the gap between the 10-year breakeven and survey-based measures of longer-term inflation expectations. Those three measures are standardized and aggregated to form the CBI. Countries with lower CBIs have more upside potential for breakevens, and their ILBs should be favored over those from nations with higher CBIs. Chart 10Breaking Down Our Comprehensive Breakeven Inflation Indicators Chart 11Favor Canadian Inflation-Linked Bonds Vs. Australia Given the latest run-up in global inflation breakevens on the back of soaring oil prices, there are now no countries in our CBI universe that have a negative CBI (Chart 10). Canada has the lowest CBI, and thus the highest upside potential for breakeven spread widening. We are taking a modest profit of +40bps in our Australian breakeven trade, as we are approaching the self-imposed six-month holding period limit on our tactical trades and our Australian CBI is not indicating major upside for Australian breakevens.2 Based on the message from our indicators, we see a better case for entering a new tactical spread widening position in 10-year Canadian ILBs. A comparison of the CBIs between Canada and Australia shows that the Canadian 10-year inflation breakeven is well below our model-implied fair value, which incorporates both oil prices and currency levels (Chart 11). This contrasts to the Australian breakeven which is now well above fair value. A similar divergence appears when comparing breakeven spreads to survey-based measures of inflation expectations, with Canadian breakevens looking too “undervalued” compared to Australia. While realized headline inflation is above the respective central bank targets, especially in Canada, the valuation cushion makes the ILBs of the latter the better bargain of the two. The details of our new Canadian 10-year breakeven trade, where we go long the cash ILB and sell 10-year Canadian bond futures against it, are shown in our Tactical Overlay table on page 15.   Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1      The Treasury curve trade is actually a “butterfly” trade, where we have included an allocation to US 3-month Treasury bills (cash) to make the curve steepener duration-neutral. Thus, the trade is more specifically a position where we are long a 2-year US Treasury bullet and short a cash/10-year US Treasury barbell with a duration equal to that of the 2-year. 2     We have recently discovered an error in our how we have calculated the returns on the 10-year Australian futures leg of our Australian 10-year inflation breakeven widening trade. The final total return for our trade shown in the Tactical Overlay table on page 15 corrects for our error, and fortunately shows a significantly higher return than we have published in past reports. GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Recommended Positioning     Active Duration Contribution: GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. Custom Performance Benchmark The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Global Fixed Income - Strategic Recommendations* Cyclical Recommendations (6-18 Months) Tactical Overlay Trades

Executive Summary Ebbing Stagflation Fear Will Prompt Rerating European inflation will rise further before peaking this summer. Core CPI will reach between 2.8% and 3.2% by year-end before receding. The combination of stabilizing growth and the eventual peak in inflation will cause stagflation fears to recede. European assets have greater upside. Cyclicals, small-caps, and financials will be major beneficiaries of declining stagflation fears. The underperformance of UK small-cap stocks is nearing its end. UK large-cap equities are a tactical sell against Eurozone and Swedish shares. TACTICAL INCEPTION DATE RETURN SINCE INCEPTION (%) COMMENT EQUITIES Buy European & Swedish Equities / Sell UK Large Caps Stocks 03/21/2022     Bottom Line: Stagflation fears are near an apex as commodity inflation recedes. A peak in these fears will allow European asset prices to perform strongly over the coming quarters.     Despite a glimmer of hope that Ukraine and Russia may find a diplomatic end to the war, the reality on the ground is that the conflict has intensified. Although the hostilities are worsening and the European Central Bank (ECB) surprised the markets with its hawkish tone, European assets have begun to catch a bid. The crucial question for investors is whether this rebound constitutes a new trend or a counter-trend move? Our view about Europe is optimistic right now. The path is not a direct line upward. The recent optimism about the outcome of the Russia-Ukraine talks is premature; however, we are getting to the point when markets are becoming desensitized to the war and energy prices are losing steam. Moreover, the increasing number of statements by Chinese economic authorities pointing toward greater stimulus and support to alleviate the pain created by China’s stringent zero-COVID policy are another positive omen. Higher Inflation For Some Time European headline inflation is set to exceed 7% this summer and core CPI will increase between 2.8% and 3.2% by the end of 2022. Related Report  European Investment StrategySpring Stagflation The main force that will push inflation higher in Europe remains commodity prices. Energy inflation is extremely strong at already 32% per annum (Chart 1). It will increase further because of both the recent jump in Brent prices to EUR122/bbl on March 8 and the upsurge in natural gas prices, which were as high as EUR212/MWh on the same day before settling to EUR106/MWh last Friday. The impact of energy prices will not be limited to headline inflation and will filter through to core CPI (Chart 1, bottom panel). The average monthly percentage change in the Eurozone core CPI inflation stands at 0.25% for the past six months (compared to an average of 0.09% over the past ten years), or the period when energy-prices inflation has been the strongest. Assuming monthly inflation remains at such an elevated level, annual core CPI will hit 3.3% in the Eurozone by the end of 2022 (Chart 2). Chart 2Core CPI to Rise Further Chart 1Energy Inflation: Alive And Well The picture is not entirely bleak. Many forces suggest that these inflationary forces will recede before year-end in Europe. Energy prices are peaking, which is consistent with a diminishing inflationary impulse from that space. We showed two weeks ago that the massive backwardation of oil curves, the heavy bullish sentiment, and the high level of risk-reversals were consistent with a severe but transitory adjustment in the energy market. Oil markets will experience further volatility, as uncertainty around peace/ceasefire negotiations continues to evolve in Ukraine. Nonetheless, the peak in energy prices has most likely been reached. BCA’s energy strategists expect Brent to average $93/bbl in 2022 and in 2023. The potential for a decline in headline CPI after the summer is not limited to energy prices. Dramatic moves in the commodity market, from metals to agricultural resources, have made headlines. Yet, the rate of change of commodity prices is decelerating, hence, the commodity impulse to inflation is slowing sharply. As Chart 3 shows, this is a harbinger of a slowdown in European headline CPI. Related Report  European Investment StrategyFallout From Ukraine Looking beyond commodity markets, the recent deceleration in European economic activity also suggests weaker inflation in the latter half of 2022. Germany will likely suffer a recession because it already registered a negative GDP growth in Q4 2021. Q1 2022 growth will be even worse because of the country’s high exposure to both China and fossil fuel prices. More broadly, the recent deceleration in the rate of change of both the manufacturing and services PMIs is consistent with an imminent peak in the second derivative of goods and services CPI (Chart 4). Chart 3Commodity Impulse Is Peaking Chart 4Inflation's Maximum Momentum Is Now Underlying drivers of inflation also remain tame in Europe. European negotiated wages are only expanding at a 1.5% annual rate, which translates into unit labor costs growth of 1% (Chart 5). This contrast with the US, where wages are expanding at a 4.3% annual rate. A peak in inflation, however, does not mean that CPI readings will fall below the ECB’s 2% threshold anytime soon. The European economy continues to face supply shortages that the Ukrainian conflict exacerbates (Chart 6). Moreover, the recent wave of COVID-19 in China increases the risk of disruptions in supply chains, as highlighted by the closure of Foxconn factories in Shenzhen. Finally, inflation has yet to peak; mathematically, it will take a long time before it falls back below levels targeted by Frankfurt. Chart 5The European Labor Market Is Not Inflationary Chart 6Not Blemish-Free Bottom Line: European headline inflation will peak this summer, probably above 7%. Additionally, core CPI is likely to reach between 2.8% and 3.2% in the second half of 2022. As a result of a decline in the commodity impulse, inflation will decelerate afterward, but it will remain above the ECB’s 2% target for most of 2023. Hopes For Growth Two weeks ago, we wrote that Europe was facing a stagflation episode in the coming one to two quarters, but that, ultimately, economic activity will recover well. Recent evidence confirms that assessment. Chart 7A Coming Chinese Tailwind? The tone of Chinese policymakers is becoming more aggressive, in favor of supporting the economy. On March 16, Vice-Premier Liu He highlighted that Beijing was readying to support property and tech shares and that it will do more to stimulate the economy. True, this response was made in part to address the need to close cities affected by the sudden spike of Omicron cases around China. Nonetheless, the global experience with Omicron demonstrates that, as spectacular and violent the surge in cases may be, it is short-lived. Meanwhile, the impact of stimulus filters through the economy over many months. As a result, Europe will experience the impact of China’s Omicron-induced slowdown, while it also suffers from the growth-sapping effects of the Ukrainian conflict; however, it will also enjoy the positive effect on growth of a rising credit impulse over several subsequent quarters (Chart 7). Beyond China, the other themes we have discussed in recent weeks remain valid. First, European fiscal policy will become looser, as governments prepare to fight the slowdown caused by the war, while also increasing infrastructure spending to wean Europe off Russian energy. Moreover, European military spending is well below NATO’s 2% objective. This will not remain the case, as military expenditure may leap from less than EUR100bn per year to nearly EUR400bn per year over the coming decade. Second, European spending on consumer durable goods still lags well behind the trajectory of the US. With the energy drag at its apex today, consumer spending on durable goods will be able to catch up in the latter half of the year, especially with the household savings rate standing at 15% or 2.5 percentage points above its pre-COVID level. Bottom Line: European growth will be very low in the coming quarters. Germany is likely to face a technical recession as Q1 2022 data filters in. Nonetheless, Chinese stimulus, European fiscal support, pent-up demand, and a declining energy drag will allow growth to recover in the latter half of the year. As a result, we agree with the European Commission estimates that European growth will slow markedly this year. Market Implications In the context of a transitory shock to European economic activity and a coming peak in inflation, European stock prices have likely bottomed. Chart 8Depressed Sentiment To Help Beta Sentiment has reached levels normally linked with a durable market floor. The NAAIM Exposure Index has fallen to a point from which global markets often recover. Europe’s high beta nature increases the odds that European equities will greatly benefit in that context (Chart 8). Valuations confirm that sentiment toward European assets has reached a capitulation stage. The annual rate of change of the earnings yields in the earnings yields has hit 73%, which is consistent with a market bottom (Chart 9). More importantly, the change in European forward P/E tracks closely our European Stagflation Sentiment Proxy (ESSP), based on the difference between the Growth and Inflation Expectations’ components of the ZEW survey (Chart 10). For now, our ESSP indicates that stagflation fears in Europe have never been so widespread, but these fears will likely dissipate as energy inflation declines. This process will lift European earnings multiples. Chart 9Bad News Discounted? Chart 10Ebbing Stagflation Fear Will Prompt Rerating Earnings revisions will likely bottom soon as well. The ESSP is currently consistent with a dramatic decline in European net earnings revisions (Chart 10, bottom panel). It will take a few more weeks for lower earnings revisions to be fully reflected. However, they follow market moves and, as such, the 17% decline in the MSCI Europe Index that took place earlier this year already anticipates their fall. Consequently, as stagflation fears recede, earnings revisions will rise in tandem with equity prices. Chart 11Maximum Pressure On Corporate Spreads A decline in stagflation fears is also consistent with a decrease in European credit spreads in the coming months (Chart 11). This observation corroborates the analysis from the Special Report we published jointly with BCA’s Global Fixed-Income Strategy team last week.  In terms of sectoral implications, a decline in stagflation fears is often associated with a rebound in the performance of small-cap equities relative to large-cap ones (Chart 12, top panel). This reflects the greater sensitivity of small-cap equities to domestic economic conditions compared to large-cap stocks. Moreover, small-cap equities had been oversold relative to their large-cap counterparts but now, momentum is improving (Chart 12). As a result, it is time to buy these equities. Similarly, financials have suffered greatly from the recent events associated with the Ukrainian conflict. European financial institutions have not only been penalized for their modest exposure to Russia, they have also historically declined when stagflation fears are prevalent (Chart 13). This relationship reflects poor lending activity when the economy weakens, and the risk of a policy-induced recession caused by high inflation. Financials will continue their sharp rebound as stagflation fears dissipate. Chart 13Financials Have Suffered Enough Chart 12Small-Caps Time To Shine The dynamics in inflation alone are very important. As Table 1 highlights, in periods of elevated inflation over the past 20 years, financials underperform the broad market by 11.3% on average. It is also a period of pain for small-cap equities and cyclicals. Logically, exiting the current environment will offer opportunities in European cyclical equities and for financials in particular. Table 1Who Suffers From High Inflation? Chart 14Long Industrials & Materials / Short Energy Finally, a pair trade buying industrials and materials at the expense of energy makes sense today. Materials and industrials suffer relative to energy equities when stagflation rises, especially in periods when these fears reflect rising energy pressures (Chart 14). A reversal in relative earnings revisions in favor of materials and industrials will propel this position higher. Bottom Line: Sentiment toward European assets reached a selling climax in recent weeks. Stagflation fears in Europe have reached an apex, and their reversal will lift both multiples and earnings revisions in the subsequent quarters. Diminishing stagflation fears will also boost the appeal of European corporate credit, contributing to an easing in financial conditions. Small-cap stocks, cyclicals, and financials will reap the greatest benefits from this adjustment. Going long materials and industrials at the expense of energy stocks is an attractive pair trade. Key Risk: A Policy Mistake The view above is not without risks. The number one threat to European growth and assets is a policy mistake from the ECB. On March 10, 2022, the ECB’s policy statement and President Christine Lagarde’s press conference showed that the Governing Council (GC) will decrease asset purchases faster than anticipated. Chart 15Will The ECB Repeat It Past Mistakes? It is important to keep in mind the dynamics of 2011. Back then, the ECB opted to increase interest rates as European headline CPI was drifting toward 2.6% on the back of rising energy prices. According to our ESSP, the April 2011 interest rates hike took place at the greatest level of stagflation fears recorded until the current moment (Chart 15). Lured by rising inflation, the ECB ignored underlying weaknesses in European economic activity, which wreaked havoc on European financial markets and growth. If the ECB were to increase rates as growth remains soft, a similar outcome would take place. For now, the ECB’s communications continue to de-emphasize the need for rate hikes in the near term, which suggests that the GC is cognizant of the risk created by weak growth over the coming months. Waiting until next year, when activity will be stronger and the output gap will be closed, will offer the ECB a better avenue to lift rates durably. This risk warrants close monitoring of the ECB’s communication over the coming months. If headline inflation does not peak by the summer, the ECB is likely to repeat its past error, which will substantially hurt European assets. Our optimism is tempered by this threat. UK Outperformance Long In The Tooth? Last week, the Bank of England (BoE) increased the Bank Rate by 25bps to 0.75%, in a move that was widely expected. Yet, the pound fell 0.7% against the euro and gilt yields fell 6 bps. This market reaction reflected the BoE’s choice to temper its forward guidance. The central bank is now expected to increase interest rates to 2.2% next year, before they decline in 2024. The dovish projection of the BoE shows the MPC’s concerns over the impact of higher energy costs and rising National Insurance contributions on household spending. In the BoE’s opinion, the economy is very inflationary right now, but it will slow, which will mitigate the inflationary impact down the road. We share the BoE’s worries about the UK’s near-term economic outlook. The combination of higher taxes, higher interest rates, and rising energy costs will have an impact on growth. However, the rapid decline in small-cap stocks, which have massively underperformed their large cap-counterparts, already discounts considerable bad news (Chart 16). Additionally, small-cap equities relative to EPS have begun to stabilize, while relative P/E and price-to-book ratios have also corrected their overvaluations. In this context, UK small-cap equities are becoming attractive. Chart 17UK vs Eurozone: A Stagflation Bet Chart 16UK Small-Cap Stocks Have Purged Their Excesses In contrast to small-cap stocks, UK large-cap equities have greatly benefited from the global stagflation scare. The UK large-cap benchmark had the right sector mix for the current environment, overweighting defensive names as well as energy and resources. It is likely that when stagflation fears recede, UK equities will undo their outperformance (Chart 17). Technically, UK equities are massively overbought against Euro Area and Swedish stocks, both of which have been greatly impacted by stagflation fears and their pro-cyclical biases (Chart 18 & 19). An attractive tactical bet will be to sell UK large-cap stocks while buying Eurozone and Swedish equities, as energy inflation declines and as China’s stimulus boosts global industrial activity in the latter half of 2022 Bottom Line: Move to overweight UK small-cap stocks within UK equity portfolios. Go long Euro Area and Swedish equities relative to UK large-cap stocks as a tactical bet. Chart 18UK Overbought Relative To Euro Area... Chart 19… And Sweden   Mathieu Savary, Chief European Strategist Mathieu@bcaresearch.com Tactical Recommendations Cyclical Recommendations Structural Recommendations Closed Trades

Executive Summary On a tactical (3-month) horizon, the inflationary impulse from soaring energy and food prices combined with the choke on growth from sanctions will weigh on both the global economy and the global stock market. As such, bond yields could nudge higher, the global stock market has yet to reach its crisis bottom, and the US dollar will rally. But on a cyclical (12-month) horizon, the short-term inflationary impulse combined with sanctions will be massively demand-destructive, at which point the cavalry of lower bond yields will charge to the rescue. Therefore: Overweight the 30-year T-bond and the 30-year Chinese bond, both in absolute terms and relative to other 30-year sovereign bonds. Overweight equities. Overweight long-duration US equities versus short-duration non-US equities. Fractal trading watchlist: Brent crude oil, and oil equities versus banks equities. The DAX Has Sold Off ##br##Because It Expects Profits To Plunge… …But The S&P 500 Has Sold Off ##br##Because The Long Bond Has Sold Off   Bottom Line: In the Ukraine crisis, the protection from lower bond yields and fiscal loosening will not come as quickly and as powerfully as it did during the pandemic. If anything, the fixation on inflation and sanctions may increase short-term pain for both the economy and the stock market, before the cavalry of lower bond yields ultimately charges to the rescue. Feature Given the onset of the largest military conflict in Europe since the Second World War, with the potential to escalate to nuclear conflict, you would have thought that the global stock market would have crashed. Yet since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine on February 24 to the time of writing, the world stock market is down a modest 4 percent, while the US stock market is barely down at all. Is this the stock market’s ‘Wile E Coyote’ moment, in which it pedals hopelessly in thin air before plunging down the chasm? Is this the stock market’s ‘Wile E Coyote’ moment, in which it pedals hopelessly in thin air before plunging down the chasm? Admittedly, since the invasion, European bourses have fallen – for example, Germany’s DAX by 10 percent. And stock markets were already falling before the invasion, meaning that this year the DAX is down 20 percent while the S&P 500 is down 12 percent. But there is a crucial difference. While the DAX year-to-date plunge is due to an expected full-blooded profits recession that the Ukraine crisis will unleash, the S&P 500 year-to-date decline is due to the sell-off in the long-duration bond (Chart I-1 and Chart I-2). This difference in drivers will also explain the fate of these markets as the crisis evolves, just as in the pandemic.   Chart I-1The DAX Has Sold Off Because It Expects Profits To Plunge...   Chart I-2...But The S&P 500 Has Sold Off Because The Long Bond Has Sold Off During The Pandemic, Central Banks And Governments Saved The Day… We can think of a stock market as a real-time calculator of the profits ‘run-rate.’ In this regard, the real-time stock market is several weeks ahead of analysts, whose profits estimates take time to collect, collate, and record. For example, during the pandemic, the stock market had already discounted a collapse in profits six weeks before analysts’ official estimates (Chart I-3 and Chart I-4). Chart I-3The German Stock Market Is Several Weeks Ahead Of Analysts Chart I-4The US Stock Market Is Several Weeks Ahead ##br##Of Analysts We can also think of a stock market as a bond with a variable rather than a fixed income. Just as with a bond, every stock market has a ‘duration’ which establishes which bond it most behaves like when bond yields change. It turns out that the long-duration US stock market has the same duration as a 30-year bond, while the shorter-duration German stock market has the same duration as a 7-year bond. Pulling this together, and assuming no change to the very long-term structural growth story, we can say that: The US stock market = US profits multiplied by the 30-year bond price (Chart I-5 and Chart I-6). The German stock market = German profits multiplied by the 7-year bond price (Chart I-7 and Chart I-8). Chart I-5US Profits Multiplied By The 30-Year Bond Price... Chart I-6...Equals The US Stock Market Chart I-7German Profits Multiplied By The 7-Year Bond Price... Chart I-8...Equals The German Stock Market When bond yields rise – as happened through December and January – the greater scope for a price decline in the long-duration 30-year bond will hurt the US stock market both absolutely and relatively. But when bond yields decline – as happened at the start of the pandemic – this same high leverage to the 30-year bond price can protect the US stock market. When bond yields decline, the high leverage to the 30-year bond price can protect the US stock market. During the pandemic, the 30-year T-bond price surged by 35 percent, which more than neutralised the decline in US profits. Supported by this surge in the 30-year bond price combined with massive fiscal stimulus that underpinned demand, the pandemic bear market lasted barely a month. What’s more, the US stock market was back at an all-time high just four months later, much quicker than the German stock market. …But This Time The Cavalry May Take Longer To Arrive Unfortunately, this time the rescue act may take longer. One important difference is that during the pandemic, governments quickly unleashed tax cuts and stimulus payments to shore up demand. Whereas now, they are unleashing sanctions on Russia. This will choke Russia, but will also choke demand in the sanctioning economy. Another crucial difference is that as the pandemic took hold in March 2020, the Federal Reserve slashed the Fed funds rate by 1.5 percent. But at its March 2022 meeting, the Fed will almost certainly raise the interest rate (Chart I-9). Chart I-9As The Pandemic Took Hold, The Fed Could Slash Rates. Not Now. As the pandemic was unequivocally a deflationary shock at its outset, it was countered with a massive stimulatory response from both central banks and governments. In contrast, the Ukraine crisis has unleashed a new inflationary shock from soaring energy and food prices. And this on top of the pandemic’s second-round inflationary effects which have already dislocated inflation into uncomfortable territory. Our high conviction view is that this inflationary impulse combined with sanctions will be massively demand-destructive, and thereby ultimately morph into a deflationary shock. Yet the danger is that myopic policymakers and markets are not chess players who think several moves ahead. Instead, by fixating on the immediate inflationary impulse from soaring energy and food prices, they will make the wrong move. In the Ukraine crisis, the big risk is that the protection from lower bond yields and fiscal loosening will not come as quickly and as powerfully as it did during the pandemic. If anything, the fixation on inflation and sanctions may increase short-term pain for both the economy and the stock market. Compared with the pandemic, both the sell-off and the recovery will take longer to play out. In the Ukraine crisis, the big risk is that the protection from lower bond yields and fiscal loosening will not come as quickly and as powerfully as it did during the pandemic. One further thought. The Ukraine crisis has ‘cancelled’ Covid from the news and our fears, as if it were just a bad dream. Yet the virus has not disappeared and will continue to replicate and mutate freely. Probably even more so, now that we have dismissed it, and Europe’s largest refugee crisis in decades has given it a happy hunting ground. Hence, do not dismiss another wave of infections later this year. The Investment Conclusions Continuing our chess metaphor, a tactical investment should consider only the next one or two moves, a cyclical investment should be based on the next five moves, while a long-term structural investment (which we will not cover in this report) should visualise the board after twenty moves. All of which leads to several investment conclusions: On a tactical (3-month) horizon, the inflationary impulse from soaring energy and food prices combined with the choke on growth from sanctions will weigh on both the global economy and the global stock market. As such, bond yields could nudge higher, the global stock market has yet to reach its crisis bottom, and the US dollar will rally (Chart I-10). Chart I-10When Stock Markets Sell Off, The Dollar Rallies But on a cyclical (12-month) horizon, the short-term inflationary impulse combined with sanctions will be massively demand-destructive, at which point the cavalry of lower bond yields will charge to the rescue. Therefore: Overweight the 30-year T-bond and the 30-year Chinese bond, both in absolute terms and relative to other 30-year sovereign bonds. Overweight equities. Overweight long-duration US equities versus short-duration non-US equities. How Can Fractal Analysis Help In A Crisis? When prices are being driven by fundamentals, events and catalysts, as they are now, how can fractal analysis help investors? The answer is that it can identify when a small event or catalyst can have a massive effect in reversing a trend. In this regard, the extreme rally in crude oil has reached fragility on both its 65-day and 130-day fractal structures. Meaning that any event or catalyst that reduces fears of a supply constraint will cause an outsized reversal (Chart I-11). Chart I-11The Extreme Rally In Crude Oil Is Fractally Fragile Equally interesting, the huge outperformance of oil equities versus bank equities is reaching the point of fragility on its 260-day fractal structure that has reliably signalled major switching points between the sectors (Chart I-12). Given the fast-moving developments in the crisis, we are not initiating any new trades this week, but stay tuned. Chart I-12The Huge Outperformance Of Oil Equities Versus Banks Equities Is Approaching A Reversal Fractal Trading Watchlist Biotech To Rebound US Healthcare Vs. Software Approaching A Reversal Norway's Outperformance Could End Greece’s Brief Outperformance To End Dhaval Joshi Chief Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com Fractal Trading System Fractal Trades 6-Month Recommendations Structural Recommendations Closed Fractal Trades Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields ##br##- Euro Area Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields ##br##- Europe Ex Euro Area Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields ##br##- Asia Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields ##br##- Other Developed   Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-5Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations  

Executive Summary Will The War Stall The Expected Downturn In Inflation This Year? The Russia/Ukraine conflict is impacting financial markets across numerous channels – uncertainty, risk aversion, growth expectations & inflation expectations – but all have a common link through soaring commodity prices, most notably for oil. For global bond investors, allocations to inflation-linked bonds are a necessary hedge to the war and the associated commodity shock, particularly with breakevens in most countries re-establishing the link to oil prices. We recommend investors maintain neutral allocations to inflation-linked bonds versus nominal government bonds across the developed world until there is greater clarity on future global oil production. Markets are discounting a peak in interest rates at the low end of the Bank of Canada’s neutral range, which is reasonable given high household debt levels in Canada. This creates an opportunity for bond investors to go long Canadian government bonds versus US Treasuries. Bottom Line: The supply premium on global oil prices will persist until there are signs of more global oil production or less chaos in the Ukraine – neither of which is imminent. Maintain neutral allocations to inflation-linked bonds versus nominal government debt across the developed markets. Feature Chart 1A Broad-Based Surge In Commodity Prices The Russia/Ukraine war has sent an inflationary shock though the world through a very traditional source – rising commodity prices. Energy prices are getting most of the attention, with oil prices back to levels last seen in 2008 and US gasoline prices now above $4 per gallon. The commodity rally is not just in energy, though. Industrial metals prices have also gone up substantially, with the spot prices for copper and aluminum hitting an all-time-high and 16-year-high, respectively (Chart 1). Agricultural commodities have seen even larger increases, with the price of wheat up 22% and the price of corn up 11% since the Russian invasion began on February 24th. Europe is acutely exposed to the war-driven spike in energy prices given its reliance on Russia for natural gas supplies. Natural gas prices in Europe have spiked a staggering 117% since the invasion started, exacerbating a sharp demand/supply imbalance dating back to the reopening of Europe’s economy from COVID lockdowns one year ago (Chart 2). To date, booming energy prices have fueled a huge rise in headline inflation rates in the euro area – producer prices were up 31% on a year-over-year basis in January – but with little trickle down to core inflation which was only up 2.3% in January. High energy prices are not only a problem for global growth and inflation, but also for the future policy moves by central banks. Inflation rates boosted over the past year by commodity supply squeezes and supply chain disruptions were set to decline this year, but the Ukraine shock has thrown that into question. If the benchmark Brent oil price were to hit $150/bbl, this would end the decelerating trend for energy price inflation momentum, on a year-over-year basis, that has been in place since mid-2021 (Chart 3). That means a higher floor for the energy component of inflation indices, and thus overall headline inflation rates, throughout the major economies in the coming months. Chart 2Europe's Reliance On Russian Natural Gas Is A Big Problem​​​​​ Chart 3Will The War Stall The Expected Downturn In Inflation This Year?​​​​​ Chart 4The Oil Price Spike Makes Life More Difficult for CBs How will bond markets respond to higher-than-expected inflation? Rate hike expectations have been highly correlated to the trend of headline inflation in the US, Europe, UK, Canada and Australia over the past year (Chart 4). Currently, overnight index swap (OIS) curves are still discounting between 5-6 rate hikes from the Fed, the Bank of England, the Bank of Canada and the Reserve Bank of Australia before the end of 2022. A single rate hike is still priced into the European OIS curve, even with the Ukraine shock. Global bond yields have been volatile, but surprisingly resilient despite the worries about war and commodity inflation. The 10-year Treasury yield has been trading in a range between 1.7% and 2% since the Russian offensive began, while the 10-year German Bund yield has hovered around 0%. Bond markets are pricing in a stagflation-type outcome of slowing growth and rising inflation, as multiple rate hikes are still discounted despite the geopolitical risks from the war. That reduces the value of using increased duration exposure to position for risk-off moves in a bond portfolio. At the same time, real bond yields are falling and breakeven rates are rising for global inflation-linked bonds – a part of the fixed income universe that looks to offer good protection against the uncertainties of war. Inflation-Linked Bonds – A Good Hedge Against War Risks Since the Russian invasion began, breakeven inflation rates on 10-year inflation-linked bonds have moved higher in the US (+13bps), Canada (+19bps), Australia (+15bps) and even Japan (+15bps). The moves have been even more significant on the European continent – 10-year breakevens have shot up in the UK (+23bps), Germany (+45bps), France (+31bps) and Italy (+36bps). Chart 5Inflation Breakevens Are Rising, Especially In Europe The absolute levels of breakevens in Europe are high in the context of recent history (Chart 5). However, breakevens also look a bit stretched in other countries like the US. Our preferred metric to evaluate the upside potential for inflation-linked bonds is our Comprehensive Breakeven Indicators (CBI). The CBI for each country is comprised of three components: the deviation of 10-year breakevens from our model-implied fair value, the spread between 10-year breakevens and longer-term survey-based inflation expectations (the “inflation risk premium”) and the gap between actual inflation and the central bank inflation target. Those three components are all standardized and added together with equal weights to come up with the CBI. A higher CBI reading suggests less potential for inflation breakevens to widen, and vice versa. Currently, the CBIs for the eight countries in our Model Bond Portfolio universe are close to or above zero, suggesting more limited scope for breakevens to widen further (Chart 6). Only in Canada is the CBI below zero, and only slightly so as high realized Canadian inflation is offset by breakevens trading below both fair value and survey-based measures of inflation (Chart 7). Chart 6Global Inflation Breakeven Valuations Are Not That Cheap In the US, the CBI is above zero mostly because of high realized US inflation. In Europe, the CBIs of the UK, Germany and Italy all are well above zero, while in France the CBI is close to zero. The UK has the highest CBI in our eight-country universe, with all three components contributing roughly equally (Chart 8). The Japanese CBI is also just above the zero line. Chart 7Some Mixed Signals On Inflation Breakeven Valuations​​​​​​ Chart 8European Breakevens Have Adjusted Sharply To The Energy Shock​​​​​​ We have been recommending a relative cautious allocation to global breakeven bonds in recent months. We saw the upside potential on breakevens as capped given the dearth of “cheap” signals on breakevens from our CBIs, especially with central banks moving towards monetary tightening in response to elevated inflation – moves intended to restore inflation-fighting credibility with bond markets. Yet the Ukraine commodity shock has boosted inflation breakevens even in countries with modest underlying (non-commodity) inflation like Japan and the euro area. We now see greater value in owning inflation-linked bonds in global bond portfolios as a hedge against the inflation risks stemming from the Ukraine and the worsening geopolitical tensions between the West and Russia. This is true even without the typical positive signal for breakevens from having CBIs below zero. We recommend that fixed income investors maintain a neutral allocation to inflation-linked bonds in dedicated government bond portfolios across the entire developed market “linker” universe. In our model bond portfolio, we had been allocating to linkers based off the signal from the CBIs, but in the current stagflationary war environment, we see country allocations as secondary to having neutral exposure to linkers in all countries. The new weightings to inflation-linked bonds are shown in the model bond portfolio tables on pages 12-14.1 Bottom Line: For global fixed income investors, allocations to inflation-linked bonds are a necessary hedge to the war and the associated commodity shock, particularly with breakevens in most countries re-establishing the link to oil prices. Canada Update: BoC Liftoff At Last The Bank of Canada (BoC) raised its policy interest rate by 25bps to 0.5% last week, commencing the start of the first rate hike cycle since 2018. The move was no surprise after BoC Governor Tiff Macklem signaled at the January monetary policy meeting that the start of a rate hiking cycle was imminent. The Canadian Overnight Index Swap (OIS) curve is discounting another 171bps of hikes in 2022, with a peak rate of 1.98% reached by March 2023 - near the low-end of the BoC’s range of neutral rate estimates between 1.75% and 2.75% (Chart 9). Chart 9Markets Discounting A Shallow BoC Rate Hiking Cycle, Even With High Inflation The BoC noted that the Canadian economy was recovering faster than expected from the effects of the Omicron variant and the associated restrictions on activity, coming off a robust 6.7% annualized real GDP growth rate in Q4/2021. The BoC now estimates that economic slack created by the pandemic shock has been fully absorbed, with the unemployment rate at 6.5%. Canadian headline inflation reached a 32-year high of 5.1% in January (Chart 10) – a level that Governor Macklem bluntly called “too high” in a speech the day following the rate hike. The BoC’s CPI-trim measure that excludes the most volatile components is also at an elevated reading of 4%, suggesting that the higher inflation is broad based. The BoC sees persistent high inflation as a risk to the stability of medium-term inflation expectations, thus justifying tighter monetary policy. According the latest BoC Survey of Consumer Expectations, Canadians expect inflation to be 4.1% over the next two years and 3.5% over the next five years, both of which are above the BoC’s 1-3% inflation target band. So with a robust economy, tight labor market, inflation well above the BoC target and elevated consumer inflation expectations showing no signs of settling, why is the OIS curve discounting such a relatively low peak in the BoC policy rate? The answer lies with Canada’s housing bubble and the associated high household debt levels. In a recent Special Report, our colleagues at The Bank Credit Analyst estimated that the neutral rate in Canada was no higher than 1.75%- the previous peak in rates during the 2017-2018 tightening cycle. A big reason for that was the high level of Canadian household debt, which now sits at 180% of disposable income. This compares to the equivalent measure in the US of 124%, showing that unlike their southern neighbors, Canadian households had little appetite for deleveraging after the 2008 financial crisis (Chart 11). Chart 10Good Reasons For A More Aggressive BoC​​​​​​ Chart 11A Big Reason For A Less Aggressive BoC​​​​​​ Chart 12Position For Narrower Canada-US Bond Spreads The Bank Credit Analyst report estimated that if the BoC hiked rates to 2.5% over the next two years – just below the high end of the BoC neutral range – the Canadian household debt service ratio would climb to a new high of 15.5% (bottom panel). This would greatly restrict Canadian consumer spending and likely trigger a sharp pullback in both housing demand and real estate prices. The conclusion: the neutral interest rate in Canada is likely closer to the peak seen during the previous 2018/19 hiking cycle around 1.75%. We have been recommending an underweight stance on Canadian government bonds in global fixed income portfolios dating back to the spring of 2021. However, with markets now discounting a peak in rates within plausible estimates of neutral, the window for additional underperformance of Canadian government bonds may be closing - but not equally versus all developed economies. We have found that a useful leading indicator of 10-year cross-country government bond yield spreads is the differential between our 24-month discounters. The discounters measure the cumulative amount of short-term interest rate increases over the next two years priced into OIS curves. Currently the “discounter gaps” are signaling room for Canadian spread widening versus the UK and Japan and, to a lesser extent, core Europe (Chart 12). However, the discounter gap is pointing to significant potential for narrowing of the Canada-US 10-year spread over the next year (top panel). This would occur even if the BoC follows the Fed with rate hikes in 2022, as the Fed is likely to deliver more increases in 2023/24 than the BoC. This week, we are introducing two new recommended positions to benefit from narrower Canada-US government bond spreads: We are reducing the size of our underweight position in our model bond portfolio in half, offset by a reduction in the allocation to US Treasuries (see the table on page 13). We are introducing a new trade in our Tactical Overlay, going long Canadian 10-year government bond futures versus selling 10-year US Treasury futures on a duration-matched basis (the specific details of the trade can be found in the table on page 15) We are maintaining our cyclical underweight recommendation on Canada, in a global bond portfolio context, given the potential for Canadian yield spreads to widen versus core Europe, Japan and the UK. That underweight recommendation will be more concentrated versus countries relative to the US. Bottom Line: Markets are discounting a peak in interest rates at the low end of the Bank of Canada’s neutral range, which is reasonable given high household debt levels in Canada. This creates an opportunity for bond investors to go long Canadian government bonds versus US Treasuries.   Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1      The allocations to inflation-linked bonds shown in the model bond portfolio reflect both the recommended country weights and the recommended weighting of linkers versus nominal bonds within each country.  For example, we are neutral US TIPS versus nominal bonds within the US Treasury component of the portfolio, but since we are also underweight the US as a country allocation, the TIPS allocation is below the custom benchmark index weight. GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Recommended Positioning     Active Duration Contribution: GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. Custom Performance Benchmark The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Global Fixed Income - Strategic Recommendations* Cyclical Recommendations (6-18 Months) Tactical Overlay Trades

Executive Summary Nuclear Worries Take Center Stage Vladimir Putin has now committed himself to orchestrating a regime change in Kyiv. Anything less would be seen as a defeat for him. Assuming he succeeds, and it is far from obvious that he will, the resulting insurgency will drain Russian resources. Along with continued sanctions, this will lead to a further deterioration in Russian living standards and growing domestic discontent. If Putin concludes that he has no future, the risk is that he will decide that no one else should have a future either. Although there is a huge margin of error around any estimate, subjectively, we would assign an uncomfortably high 10% chance of a civilization-ending global nuclear war over the next 12 months. These odds place some credence on Brandon Carter’s highly controversial Doomsday Argument. Even if World War III is ultimately averted, markets could experience a freak-out moment over the next few weeks, similar to what happened at the outset of the pandemic. Google searches for nuclear war are already spiking. Despite the risk of nuclear war, it makes sense to stay constructive on stocks over the next 12 months. If an ICBM is heading your way, the size and composition of your portfolio becomes irrelevant. Thus, from a purely financial perspective, you should largely ignore existential risk, even if you do care about it greatly from a personal perspective. Bottom Line: The risk of Armageddon has risen dramatically. Stay bullish on stocks over a 12-month horizon. All In on Sanctions In the criminal justice system, there is a reason why the punishment for armed robbery is lower than for murder. If the punishment were the same, an armed robber would have a perverse incentive to kill his victim in order to better conceal his crime. The same logic applies, or at least used to apply, to geopolitics: You do not impose maximum sanctions from the get-go because that removes your ability to influence your enemy with the threat of further sanctions. Following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the West chose to go all in on sanctions, levying every type imaginable with the exception of those entailing a big cost to the West (such as cutting off Russian energy exports). Most notably, many Russian banks have been blocked from the SWIFT messaging system while the Russian central bank’s foreign exchange reserves have been frozen. Even FIFA has barred Russia from international competition, just weeks before it was set to participate in the qualifying rounds of the 2022 World Cup. At this point, there is not much more that can be done on the sanctions front. This leaves military intervention as the only avenue available to further pressure Russia. A growing chorus of Western pundits, some of whom could not have picked out Ukraine on a map two weeks ago, have begun clamoring for regime change… this time, in Moscow. As one might imagine, this is not something that sits well with Putin. Last week, he declared that “No matter who tries to stand in our way or … create threats for our country and our people, they must know that Russia will respond immediately, and the consequences will be such as you have never seen in your entire history.” To ensure there was no uncertainty about what he was talking about, he proceeded to place Russia’s nuclear forces on “special regime of combat duty.” Yes, It’s Possible The Putin regime has used nuclear weapons of a sort in the past. The FSB likely orchestrated the poisoning of Alexander Litvinenko with polonium-210 in 2006, leaving traces of the radioactive substance scattered in dozens of places across London. As former US presidential advisor and Putin biographer Fiona Hill said in a recent interview with Politico, “Every time you think, “No, he wouldn’t, would he?” Well, yes, he would.” Admittedly, there is a big difference between dropping polonium into a cup of tea at the Millennium hotel in Mayfair and dropping a 10-megaton nuclear bomb on London or any other major Western city. Still, if Putin feels that he has no future, he may try to take everyone down with him. The collapse in the ruble, and what is sure to be a major plunge of living standards across Russia, could foment internal opposition to Putin. A quiet retirement is not an option for him. Based on the latest exchange rates, Russia’s GDP is smaller than Mexico’s and barely higher than that of Illinois (Chart 1). While denying gas to Europe is a very real threat, it has a limited shelf life. Europe will aggressively build out infrastructure to process LNG imports. Chart 1Russia's Economic Power Has Faded In a few years, the one viable weapon that Russia will have at its disposal is its nuclear arsenal. As Dutch historian Jolle Demmers has said, “It is precisely the decline and contraction of Russian power, coupled with the possession of nuclear weapons and a tormented repressive president, that poses great risks.” Some of the world’s most prominent strategic thinkers flagged these risks before the invasion, but with little effect. The Mother of All Risks In simulated war games, it is generally difficult to get participants to cross the nuclear threshold, but once they do, a full-blown nuclear exchange usually ensues.1 The idea of “limited” nuclear war is a mirage.  How high are the odds of such a full-blown war? I must confess that my own feelings on the matter are heavily colored by my writings on existential risk. As I argued in Section XII of my special report, “Life, Death, and Finance in the Cosmic Multiverse,” we are probably greatly understating existential risk, especially when we look prospectively into the future. Although there is a huge margin of error around any estimate, subjectively, we would assign an uncomfortably high 10% chance of a civilization-ending global nuclear war over the next 12 months. These odds place some credence on Brandon Carter’s highly controversial Doomsday argument (See Box 1). A Paradox for Investors For investors, existential risk represents a paradoxical concept. If an ICBM is heading your way, the question of whether you are overweight or underweight stocks would be pretty far down on your list of priorities. And even if you were inclined to think about your portfolio, how would you alter it? In a full-blown global nuclear war, most stocks would go to zero while governments would probably be forced to default or inflate away their debt. Gold might retain some value – provided that you kept it in your physical possession – but even then, you would still have trouble exchanging it for anything of value if nothing of value were available to purchase. This means that from a purely financial perspective, you should largely ignore existential risk, even if you do care greatly about it from a personal perspective. What, then, can we say about the current market environment? I touched on many of the key issues in Monday’s Special Alert, in which we tactically downgraded global equities from overweight to neutral. I encourage readers to consult that report for our latest market views. In the remainder of today’s report, allow me to elaborate on a couple of key themes. A Freak-Out Moment Is Coming Chart 2Nuclear Worries Take Center Stage The market today reminds me of early 2020. We wrote a report on February 21 of that year entitled “Markets Too Complacent About The Coronavirus,” in which we noted that a full-blown pandemic “could lead to 20 million deaths worldwide,” and that “This would likely trigger a global downturn as deep as the Great Recession of 2008/09, with the only consolation being that the recovery would be much more rapid than the one following the financial crisis.” Many saw that report as alarmist, just as they saw our subsequent decision to upgrade stocks in March as cavalier.  Even if you knew in February 2020 that the S&P 500 would reach an all-time high later that year, you should have still shorted equities aggressively on a tactical basis. I feel the same way about the present. Google searches for nuclear war are spiking (Chart 2). A freak-out moment is coming, which will present a good buying opportunity for investors. Just to be on the safe side, I picked up a couple of bottles of Potassium Iodide earlier this week. When I checked the pharmacy again yesterday, all the bottles were sold out. They are now being hawked on Amazon for ten times the regular price. From Cold War to Hot Economy? The spike in commodity prices – especially energy prices – will have a negative near-term impact on global growth, while also limiting the ability of central banks to slow the pace of planned rate hikes (Chart 3). In general, inflation expectations and oil prices move together (Chart 4).   Chart 3Central Banks: Caught Between A Rock And A Hard Place   Chart 4Inflation Expectations And Oil Prices Go Hand-In-Hand Assuming the geopolitical situation stabilizes in a few months, oil prices should come down. The forward curve for oil is heavily backwardated now: The spot price for Brent is $111/bbl while the December 2022 price is $93/bbl (Chart 5). BCA’s commodity strategists expect the price of Brent oil to fall to $88/bbl by year-end. The decline in energy prices should provide some relief to global growth and risk assets in the back half of the year, which is one reason we are more constructive on equities over a 12-month horizon than a 3-month horizon. Looking out beyond the next year or two, the new cold war will lead to higher, not lower, interest rates. Increased spending on defense and alternative energy sources will prop up aggregate demand, especially in Europe where the need to diversify away from Russian gas is greatest. As Chart 6 shows, capex in the euro area cratered following the euro debt crisis. Capital spending via the Recovery Fund and other sources will rise significantly over the next few years. Chart 5The Brent Curve Is Heavily Backwardated Chart 6European Capex Is Poised To Increase In addition, the shift to a multipolar world will expedite the retreat from globalization. Rising globalization was an important force restraining inflation – and interest rates – over the past few decades. Lastly, the ever-present danger of war could prompt households to reduce savings. It does not make sense to save for a rainy day if that day never arrives. Lower savings implies a higher equilibrium rate of interest. As we discussed in our recent report entitled “A Two-Stage Fed Tightening Cycle,” after raising rates modesty this year, the Fed will resume hiking rates towards the end of 2023 or in 2024, as it becomes clear that the neutral rate in nominal terms is closer to 3%-to-4% rather than the 2% that the market assumes. The secular bull market in equities will likely end at that point. In summary, equity investors should be somewhat cautious over the next three months, more optimistic over a 12-month horizon, but more cautious again over a longer-term horizon of 2-to-5 years. Box 1The Doomsday Argument In A Nutshell Peter Berezin Chief Global Strategist peterb@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1     For example, an article from the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation discusses a Reagan administration war game called “Proud Prophet,” an exercise the Americans hatched to test the theory of limited nuclear strikes. The result of this exercise was that the “Soviet Union perceived even a low-yield nuclear strike as an attack, and responded with a massive missile salvo.” Global Investment Strategy View Matrix Special Trade Recommendations Current MacroQuant Model Scores

Executive Summary Upgrade Global Duration Exposure To Neutral The Russian invasion of Ukraine is a stagflationary shock that comes at a difficult time for developed market central banks that have been laying the groundwork for a tightening cycle. We tactically upgraded our recommended duration exposure in the US to neutral last week, as the market was pricing in too much Fed tightening in 2022. We are doing similar upgrades in non-US government bonds this week for the same reason. We are maintaining our cyclical country allocations, however, as those remain in line with interest rate pricing beyond 2022. We are underweight markets where terminal rate expectations remain too low (the US, UK & Canada) and overweight countries where markets are discounting too many rate hikes in 2023/24 (Germany, Japan, Australia). In light of the instability caused by the Russian invasion of Ukraine, we are reducing weightings in our model bond portfolio to credit sectors highly exposed to the war - European high-yield and emerging market hard currency debt. Bottom Line: The Ukraine war comes at a time when global growth momentum was already starting to roll over and with global inflation momentum set to peak soon. Upgrade duration exposure to neutral from underweight in global bond portfolios. Feature Among the tail risks that investors contemplated in their planning for 2022, World War III was likely not ranked too highly on the list. The horrific images of the Russian invasion of Ukraine – and the sharp response of the West to isolate Russia through unprecedented economic and financial sanctions - have shocked global financial markets that had been focused on relatively mundane concerns like the timing of interest rate hikes. BCA sent a short note to all clients late last week that discussed the investment implications of the invasion for several asset classes. In this report, we consider the bond market ramifications of war in Eastern Europe. Our main conclusion is that the Ukraine situation will produce a brief “stagflationary” shock that will boost global inflation and slow global growth, on the margin. High energy prices will be the main driver of that stagflation, given the uncertainties over the availability of Russian oil and natural gas supplies (Chart 1). Tighter financial conditions - beyond what has already occurred so far this year as global equity and credit markets have sold off (Chart 2) – will also contribute to the moderation of the pace of global growth. Chart 1A Mild Inflationary Shock From The Russian Invasion​​​​​​ Chart 2The Ukraine War Is Adding To 2022 Risk-Off Trends​​​​​​ The stagflation shock should be relatively short, perhaps 3-6 months. BCA’s Commodity & Energy Strategy service expects OPEC to eventually supply more oil to the global market – a move that was already likely before the Russian invasion – helping to reduce the Russian supply premium in oil prices. Putin will likely have to be satisfied with claiming eastern Ukraine rather than being stuck in a protracted battle with fierce Ukrainian resistance while Russia suffers under crippling sanctions. BCA’s Geopolitical Strategy service does not expect the conflict to spread beyond Ukraine’s borders, as neither Russia nor NATO have an interest in war with each other (despite the nuclear saber-rattling by Russian President Putin in response to Western sanctions). A mild bout of stagflation will only delay, and not derail, the cyclical move towards tighter global monetary policies in response to elevated inflation and tightening labor markets, particularly in the US. This will take some of the upward pressure off global bond yields as central banks will be less hawkish than expected in 2022, but does not change the outlook for higher bond yields in 2023 and 2024. In terms of changes to our fixed income investment recommendations, and the allocations to our Model Bond Portfolio, we come to the following three conclusions. Upgrade Tactical Non-US Duration Exposure To Neutral We recently upgraded our recommended tactical duration exposure in the US to neutral, with the Fed likely to deliver fewer rate hikes this year than what is discounted by markets. The Ukraine situation makes it even more likely that the Fed will underwhelm expectations. A 50bp rate hike at the March FOMC meeting is now off the table, as the equity and credit market selloffs in response to the conflict have tightened US (and global) financial conditions on the margin. However, the war is not enough of a negative shock to US growth to derail the Fed from starting a gradual tightening process this month with a 25bp hike. Our decision to change our US duration stance was largely predicated on a view that US inflation will soon peak and slow significantly over the rest of 2022. However, there is a strong case to increase non-US duration exposure, as well. Our Global Duration Indicator - comprised of leading cyclical growth indicators and which itself leads the year-over-year change in our “Major Countries” GDP-weighted aggregate of 10-year government bond yields by around six months - peaked back in February 2021 (Chart 3). The Global Duration Indicator is now at a “neutral” level consistent with more stable bond yield momentum. Declines in the ZEW economic expectations survey in the US and Europe, and in our global leading economic indicator, are the main culprits behind the fall in the Global Duration Indicator (Chart 4). Chart 3Upgrade Global Duration Exposure To Neutral​​​​​​ Chart 4Growth Expectations Have Turned Less Bond Bearish ... For Now​​​​​ While the ZEW series have rebounded in the first two months of 2022, which could set the stage for a move back to higher yields later this year, the Ukraine situation will likely hurt economic expectations (particularly in Europe) in the near-term. We expect our Global Duration Indicator to continue signaling a more neutral backdrop for global bond yields over the next few months. In our Model Bond Portfolio on pages 13-14, we are expressing our view change by increasing the duration for all countries such that the overall duration of the portfolio is in line with the custom benchmark index (7.5 years). Importantly, we view this as only a tactical view change for the next few months, as developed economy interest rate markets are still discounting too few rate hikes – and in some countries like the UK and US, actual rate cuts – in 2023/24 (Chart 5). Chart 5Priced For Short, Shallow Hiking Cycles Maintain Cyclical Government Bond Country Allocations That Favor Lower Inflation Regions Chart 6Oil Is Inflationary Now, Will Be Disinflationary Later While we are neutralizing our global duration stance over a tactical time horizon (0-6 months), we are sticking with our current recommended cyclical (6-18 months) government bond country allocations. These are based on underlying inflation trends and the expected monetary policy response over the next couple of years. As noted earlier, BCA’s commodity strategists expect oil prices to fall from current war-elevated levels in response to increased supply from OPEC. The benchmark Brent oil price is forecasted to reach $88/bbl at the end of this year and $87/bbl and the end of 2023. The result will be a sharp decline in the year-over-year growth rate of oil prices that will help bring down headline inflation in all countries (Chart 6). Lower energy inflation, however, will not be the only factor reducing overall inflation across the developed world. Goods price inflation should also slow from current elevated levels over the next 6-12 months, as consumer spending patterns shift away from goods towards services with fewer pandemic-related restrictions on activity. Less goods spending will help ease some of the severe supply chain disruptions that have fueled the surge in global goods price inflation over the past year. That process has likely already begun – indices of global shipping costs have peaked and supplier delivery times have been shortening according to global manufacturing PMI surveys. The shift from less goods spending towards more services spending will lead to trends in overall inflation being determined more by services prices than goods prices. The central banks in countries that have higher underlying inflation, as evidenced by faster services inflation, will be under more pressure to tighten policy over the next couple of years. Therefore, our current cyclical recommended country allocations (and our Model Bond Portfolio weightings) within developed market government bonds reflect the relative trends in services inflation. We are currently recommending underweights in the US, UK and Canada where services inflation is currently close to 4%, well above the central bank 2% inflation targets (Chart 7). At the same time, we are recommending overweights in core Europe (Germany and France) and Australia, where services inflation is around 2.5%, and Japan where services prices are deflating (Chart 8). Chart 7Higher Underlying Inflation In Our Recommended Underweights​​​​​​ Chart 8Lower Underlying Inflation In Our Recommended Overweights​​​​​​ Chart 9Faster Wage Growth In Our Recommended Underweights The trends in services inflation are also reflected in wage growth in those same groups of countries – much higher in the US, UK and Canada compared to Australia, the euro area and Japan (Chart 9). We expect these relative trends to continue over the next 12-24 months, with higher underlying inflation pressures forcing the Fed, the Bank of England (BoE) and the Bank of Canada (BoC) to be much more hawkish, on a relative basis, than the European Central Bank (ECB), the Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) and the Bank of Japan (BoJ). Our current bond allocations not only fit with underlying inflation trends, but also with market-based interest rate expectations. In Table 1, we show the pricing of interest rate expectations over the next few years, taken from Overnight Index Swap (OIS) forwards. We show the OIS projection for 1-month interest rates 12 months from now and 24 months from now. We also include 5-year/5-year forward OIS rates as a measure of market expectations of the terminal rate, a.k.a. the peak central bank policy rate over the next tightening cycle. In the table, we also added neutral policy rate estimates taken from central bank sources.1 Table 1Medium-Term Interest Rate Expectations Still Too Low In The US & UK In the US and UK, the OIS rate projections two years out, as well as the 5-year/5-year forward rate, are below the range of neutral rate estimates. This justifies an underweight stance on both US Treasuries and UK Gilts with both the Fed and BoE now in tightening cycles. In Japan and Australia, the OIS projections are already within the range of neutral rate estimates, but the RBA and, especially, the BoJ are not yet signaling a need to begin normalizing the level of policy rates. This justifies an overweight stance on Australian government bonds and Japanese government bonds. In the euro area, OIS projections are below the range of neutral rate estimates, but the ECB is now signaling that any monetary tightening actions will need to be delayed because of the growth uncertainties stemming from the Ukraine conflict and high energy prices. Thus, an overweight stance on core European government debt is still warranted. In Canada, the OIS projections are within the range of neutral rate estimates, but the BoC has been preparing markets for a series of rate hikes. This makes our underweight stance on Canadian government bonds a more “mixed” call, although we remain confident that Canadian bonds will underperform in a global bond portfolio context versus European and Japanese government bonds. In sum, we see our recommended country allocations as the most efficient way to express our cyclical (medium-term) central bank views, given the strong link between forward interest rate expectations and longer-term bond yields (Chart 10). This is why we are not making changes to our country allocation recommendations alongside our move to tactically upgrade our global duration stance to neutral. Chart 10Too Much Tightening Priced Over The Next Year​​​​​ Chart 11Bond Markets Not Priced For A Relatively More Hawkish Fed​​​​​ Given our high-conviction view that markets are underestimating how high the Fed will need to lift interest rates in the upcoming tightening cycle – likely more than any other major developed economy central bank - positioning for US Treasury market underperformance on a 1-2 year horizon still looks like an attractive bet with forward rates priced for little change in US/non-US bond spreads (Chart 11). A wider US Treasury-German Bund spread remains our highest conviction cross-country spread recommendation. Reduce Spread Product Exposure In Europe & Emerging Markets Chart 12Cut EM & European High-Yield Exposure, But Stay O/W Italian BTPs The geopolitical uncertainty stemming from the Ukraine war and the stagflationary near-term impact of high energy prices are negatives for all risk assets, on the margin. That leads us to tactically reduce the allocation to spread product to neutral versus government debt in our Model Bond Portfolio. We are implementing this by cutting allocations to riskier fixed income sectors that are most impacted by the Russia/Ukraine conflict – European high-yield corporate debt and emerging market (EM) USD-denominated hard currency debt (Chart 12). We had already been cautious on EM debt before the Russian invasion, with an underweight allocation to both USD-denominated sovereigns and corporates, so the latest moves just increase the size of the underweight. European high-yield, on the other hand, had been one of our highest conviction overweight positions – particularly versus US high-yield - entering 2022. However the Ukraine war is likely to have a bigger negative impact on the European economy than the US economy, thus we are cutting our recommended exposure to European high-yield only. The uncertainty of a war on European soil, combined with the spike in energy prices (especially natural gas), is negative for European growth momentum, reducing 2022 euro area real GDP growth by as much as 0.4 percentage points according to ECB estimates. This raises the hurdle for any ECB monetary tightening this year. An early taper of bond buying in the ECB’s Asset Purchase Program, an outcome that ECB officials claim is a required precursor to rate hikes, is now highly unlikely. Fears of reduced ECB bond buying had weighed on the relative performance of Italian government bonds last month, but a more dovish ECB policy stance should lead to lower Italian yields and a narrowing of the BTP-Bund spread (bottom panel). We continue to recommend a cyclical overweight stance on Italian government debt. A Final Thought We need to reiterate that the recommended changes made in this report – increasing global duration exposure to neutral and cutting EM and European high-yield – are over a tactical time horizon, largely in response to the Ukraine conflict. This is more of a “risk management” exercise, rather than a change in our fundamental cyclical views. We still believe global growth will remain above trend in 2022 and likely 2023, which will prevent a complete unwind of last year’s inflation surge, particularly in the US. We expect global bond yields to begin climbing again later this year and into 2023, and we envision an eventual return to a below-benchmark duration stance.   Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1      The sources of the neutral rate estimates are listed in the footnotes of Table 1. GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Recommended Positioning     Active Duration Contribution: GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. Custom Performance Benchmark The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Global Fixed Income - Strategic Recommendations* Tactical Overlay Trades

Dear client, In addition to this weekly report, we sent you a Special Report from our Geopolitical Strategy service, highlighting the risk from the Russo-Ukrainian conflict. Kind regards, Chester Executive Summary The Ukraine crisis will lead to a period of strength for the DXY. Countries requiring foreign capital will be most at risk from an escalation in tensions. Portfolio flows have reaccelerated into the US, on the back of a rise in Treasury yields. This will be sustained in the near term. The euro area on the other hand has already witnessed significant portfolio outflows, on the back of Russo-Ukrainian tensions and an energy crisis. Countries with balance of payment surpluses like Switzerland and Australia are good havens amidst the carnage. Oil-producing countries such as Norway and Canada have also seen an improvement in their balance of payments, on the back of a strong terms-of-trade tailwind. This will be sustained in the near term. Balance Of Payments Across The G10 Bottom Line: The dollar is king in a risk-off environment. That said, the US and the UK sport the worst balance of payments backdrops, while Norway, Switzerland, and Sweden have the best. This underpins our long-term preference for Scandinavian currencies in an FX portfolio. In the near term, we think the DXY will peak near 98-100, but volatility will swamp fundamental biases. Feature Chart 1The US Runs A Sizeable Deficit The Russia-Ukraine conflict continues to dictate near-term FX movements. With Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the risk of escalation and/or a miscalculation has risen. FX volatility is increasing sharply, and with it, the risk of a further selloff in currencies dependent on foreign capital inflows. As a reserve currency, the dollar has also been strong. It is difficult to ascertain how this imbroglio will end. However, in this week’s report, we look at which currencies are most vulnerable (and likely to stay vulnerable) from a balance of payments standpoint. Chart 1 plots the basic balance – the sum of the current account balance and foreign investment – across G10 countries. It shows that at first blush, Norway, Switzerland, Sweden, and Australia are the most resilient from a funding standpoint, while New Zealand, the UK, and the US are the most vulnerable. In Chart 2, we rank G10 currencies on eight different criteria: The basic balance, which we highlighted above. Real interest rate differentials, using the 10-year tenor and headline inflation. Relative growth fundamentals, as measured by the Markit manufacturing PMI. Three fair value models which we use in-house. The first is our Purchasing Power Parity model, which adjusts consumption basket weights across the G10 to reflect a more apples-to-apples comparison. The second is our long-term fair value model (LTFV), which adjusts for productivity differentials between countries; and the final is our intermediate-term timing model (ITTM), which separates procyclical from safe-haven currencies by including a risk factor such as corporate spreads. All three models are equally weighted in our rankings. The net international investment position (NIIP), which highlights currencies that are most likely to witness either repatriation flows or a positive income balance in the current account. Finally, net speculative positioning, which tells us which currencies have crowded long positions, and which ones sport a consensus sell. Chart 2The Scandinavian Currencies Are Attractive The conclusions from this chart are similar to our basic balance scenario – NOK, SEK, AUD, CHF, and JPY stand out as winners while GBP, NZD, and USD are the least attractive. The US dollar is a special case given its reserve currency status, with a persistent balance of payments deficit. The rise in the greenback amidst market volatility is a case in point. However, portfolio flows into the dollar also tend to be cyclical, so a resolution in the Ukraine/Russia conflict will put a cap on inflows. Equity portfolio flows had dominated financing of the US current account deficit but are relapsing (Chart 3). Bond portfolio flows have rebounded on the back of rising US yields, but US TIPS yields remain very low by historical standards (Chart 4). If they do not improve much further, specifically relative to other developed markets, it will be tough to justify further inflows into US Treasurys. Chart 3Equity Portfolio Flows Into The US Are Relapsing Chart 4Bond Portfolio Flows Into The US Are Strong In this week’s report, we look at the key drivers of balance of payments dynamics across the G10, starting with the US, especially amidst a scenario where the forfeit of foreign capital could come to the fore. United States Chart 5US Balance Of Payments The US trade deficit continues to hit record lows at -$80.7 billion for the month of December. Over the last few years, it has become increasingly difficult to fund this widening trade deficit via foreign purchases of US Treasurys. A positive net income balance has allowed a slower deterioration in the US current account balance, though at -$214.8 billion for Q3, it remains close to record lows. The overall picture for both the trade and current account balance is more benign as a share of GDP, given robust GDP growth (Chart 5). That said, as a share of GDP, the trade balance stands at -3.5%, the worst in over a decade. Foreign direct investment into the US has been improving of late. This probably reflects an onshoring of manufacturing, triggered by the Covid-19 crisis. That said, despite this improvement, the US still sports a negative net FDI backdrop. In a nutshell, the basic balance in the US (the sum of the current account and foreign direct investment) is still deteriorating. The dollar tends to decline on a multi-year basis when the basic balance peaks and starts worsening.       Euro Area Chart 6Euro Area Balance Of Payments The trade balance in the euro area has significantly deteriorated in recent quarters, on the back of an escalating energy crisis. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine marks the cherry on top. On a rolling 12-month basis, the trade surplus has fallen to 1% of GDP (Chart 6). This is particularly telling since for the month of December, the trade balance came in at €-4.6 billion, the worst since the euro area debt crisis. The current account continues to post a surplus of 2.6% of GDP, on the back of a positive income balance. However, FDI inflows are relapsing. After about two decades of underinvestment in the euro area, FDI inflows were at their highest level, to the tune of about 2% of GDP in 2021. Those have now completely reversed on the back of uncertainty. The combination of an energy crisis and dwindling FDI is crushing the euro area’s basic balance surplus. A rising basic balance surplus has been one of the key pillars underpinning a bullish euro thesis. Should the deterioration continue, it will undermine our longer-term bullish stance on the euro. It is encouraging that portfolio investments have turned less negative in recent quarters, as bond yields in the euro area are rising. Should this continue, it will be a good offset to the deterioration in FDI.   Japan Chart 7Japan Balance Of Payments Like the euro area, the trade balance in Japan continues to be severely hampered by rising energy imports. The trade deficit in January deteriorated to a near record of ¥2.2 trillion, even though export growth remained very robust. Income receipts from Japan’s large investment positions abroad continue to buffer the current account, but a resolution to the energy crisis will be necessary to stem Japan’s basic balance from deteriorating (Chart 7). The process of offshoring has sharply reversed since the Covid-19 crisis. While FDI is still deteriorating, it now stands at -2.4% of GDP, compared to -4.3% just before the pandemic. Net portfolio investments are also accelerating, especially given the rise in long-term interest rates in Japan, positive real rates, and the value bias of Japanese equities. We are buyers of the yen over the long term, but a further rise in global yields and energy prices are key risks to our view.             United Kingdom Chart 8UK Balance Of Payments The UK has the worst trade balance in the G10, and the picture has not improved much since the pandemic (currently at -6.7% of GDP). Similar to both the euro area and Japan, much of the drag on the trade balance has been due to rising import costs from energy and fuels. This puts the UK at risk of an escalation in the conflict between Ukraine and Russia. Meanwhile, the improvement in the income balance over the last few years has started to deteriorate, as transfer payments under the Brexit withdrawal agreement kick in. As a result, the current account balance is deteriorating anew (Chart 8). Both portfolio and direct investment in the UK were robust in the post-Brexit environment but have started to deteriorate. This is critical since significant foreign investment is necessary to boost productivity in the UK and prevent the pound from adjusting much lower. With bond yields in the UK rising, and the FTSE heavy in cyclical stocks, this should limit further deterioration in the UK’s financial account. A significant drop in the estimated path of settlement payments for Brexit will also boost the income balance. The key for the pound over the coming years remains how fast the UK can improve productivity, which will convince foreign investors that the return on capital for UK assets will increase. Canada Chart 9Canada Balance Of Payments Canada’s domestic economy has been relatively insulated from the geopolitical shock in Europe, but its export sector is benefiting tremendously from it. Rising oil prices are boosting Canadian terms of trade. As a result, the current account has turned into a surplus for the first time since 2009, in part driven by an improving trade balance (Chart 9). Outside of trade, part of the improvement in the Canadian current account balance is specifically driven by income receipts from Canada’s positive net international investment position. At C$1.5 trillion, income receipts are becoming an important component of the current account balance. Foreign direct investment into Canada continues to remain robust, given strong commodity prices. This is boosting our basic balance measure, which today sits at a surplus of 2.4% of GDP and should continue to improve. Finally, because of Canada’s improving balance-of-payments backdrop, it is no longer reliant on foreign capital as it had been in the past, which supports the loonie.         Australia Chart 10Australia Balance Of Payments Australia continues to sport the best improvement in both its trade and current account balances over the last few years. As a result, the basic balance has eclipsed 4% of GDP for the first time since we have been measuring this series (Chart 10). The story for Australia remains improving terms of trade, specifically in the most desirable commodities – copper, high-grade iron ore, liquefied natural gas, and to a certain extent, high-grade coal. Foreign direct investment in Australia has eased significantly. Investment in projects in the resource space are now bearing fruit, easing the external funding constraint. Meanwhile, domestic savings can now be easily recycled for sustaining capital investment. In fact, foreign direct investment turned negative in Q4 2021. This also explains the drop in net portfolio investment since Australians now need to build a positive net international investment position. We have a limit buy on the Aussie dollar at 70 cents, as we are bullish the currency over a medium-term horizon.         New Zealand Chart 11New Zealand Balance Of Payments For the third quarter of 2021, New Zealand’s current account balance hit record lows, despite robust commodity (agricultural) prices. Imports of fertilizers, crude oil, and vaccines have led to a widening trade deficit. A drop in the exports of wood also affected the balance. With a negative net international investment position of about 48% of GDP, the income balance also subtracted from the current account total (Chart 11). From a bigger-picture perspective, New Zealand’s basic balance has been negative for many years, as coupon and dividend payments to foreign investors, as well as valuation adjustments from net foreign liabilities, have kept the current account in structural deficit. However, as the prices of key agricultural goods head higher, New Zealand can begin to benefit from a terms-of-trade boom that will limit its external funding requirement. In that respect, portfolio investments are also improving. New Zealand has the highest bond yield in the G10, on the back of the highest policy rate so far (the RBNZ raised interest rates again this week). New Zealand’s defensive equity market has also corrected sharply amidst the general market riot. As such, foreign investors could begin to favor this market again based on high yields and a reset in valuations. Going forward, New Zealand should continue to see further improvement in its basic balance relative to the US, supporting the kiwi. Switzerland Chart 12Switzerland Balance Of Payments The Swiss trade balance remains in a structural surplus, with a post Covid-19 boom that has led a new high as a share of   GDP (Chart 12). Global trade has been rather resilient due to high demand for goods. While Switzerland has a large net international investment position, income flows this quarter were hampered by servicing costs for foreign direct investments. The net international investment position did improve by CHF27 billion on a quarter-over-quarter basis in Q3, on the back of a net increase in foreign asset purchases. Currency movements also had little impact on the portfolio in Q3, which is atypical. The SNB will always have to contend with a structural trade surplus that puts upward pressure on the currency. This will keep the Swiss franc well bid, especially in times of crisis when the positive balance-of-payments backdrop makes the CHF a safe haven.             Norway Chart 13Norway Balance Of Payments Q3 2021 saw a strong recovery in Norway’s trade account that is likely to carry over to this year. A recovery in crude oil and natural gas prices was a welcome boon. The lack of tourism also boosted the services account (Norwegians travel and spend less abroad than foreigners visiting Norway). The ongoing electricity crisis in Europe was also an opportune export channel for Norway, which for the first time, opened its 450-mile-long, 1400-megawatt North Sea cable link to the UK. Positive income flows also benefit the current account and the krone (Chart 13). With one of the largest NIIPs in the world heavily skewed towards equity dividends, the NOK benefits when yields rise, even though the domestic fixed-income market is highly illiquid. While a resolution of the Russian-Ukrainian crisis could sap the geopolitical risk premium from oil, the reopening of the global economy will benefit Norwegian exports of oil and gas. Tepid investment in global oil and gas exploration will also ensure Norway’s terms of trade remain robust.       Sweden Chart 14Sweden Balance Of Payments The Swedish current account balance has deteriorated slightly in the last few quarters, on the back of supply-side bottlenecks. Particularly, exports of cars have been hampered amidst a semiconductor shortage. That said, the primary income surplus remains a key pillar of the current account, keeping the basic balance at a healthy surplus of about 6% of GDP (Chart 14). Portfolio inflows into Sweden have dwindled, like most other European economies. If this has been due to geopolitical tensions in Europe, it will eventually prove to be fleeting. That said, the Riksbank remains one of the most dovish in the G10 and the OMX is also one of the most cyclical stock markets, which may have spooked short-term foreign investments. The Swedish krona has been the weakest G10 currency year-to-date. Given that we expect most of the headwinds to be temporary, and the basic balance backdrop remains solid, we will go long SEK versus both the euro and the US dollar.   Chester Ntonifor Foreign Exchange Strategist chestern@bcaresearch.com Trades & Forecasts Strategic View Cyclical Holdings (6-18 months) Tactical Holdings (0-6 months) Limit Orders Forecast Summary

Feature This week, we present the third edition of the BCA Research Global Fixed Income Strategy (GFIS) Global Credit Conditions Chartbook – a review of central bank surveys of bank lending standards and loan demand. The data from lending surveys during the last quarter of 2021 were mixed, with business credit standards easing in the US, Japan, Canada, and New Zealand while remaining mostly unchanged in the euro area and UK (Chart 1). Supply chain disruptions have had a two-pronged effect on borrowing. While they have hurt business confidence and prospects, they have also created loan demand as firms look to replenish depleted inventory stocks. The overall picture is one of solid economic fundamentals that are nonetheless perturbed by inflation concerns and lingering uncertainty regarding Covid-19 infections. Chart 1Credit Standards Eased In Most Developed Markets In Q4/2021 An Overview Of Global Credit Conditions Surveys Chart 2Credit Standards And Spreads Are Correlated After every quarter, major central banks compile surveys to assess prevailing credit conditions. The purpose is to obtain from banks an assessment of how their lending standards and demand for loans, for both firms and consumers, changed over the previous quarter. Most surveys also ask questions about the key factors driving these changes and expectations for the next quarter.1 For fixed income investors, these surveys are valuable for a few reasons. Firstly, data on consumer lending is a window into consumer health while business loan demand sheds light on the investment picture. These help derive a view on the path of future economic growth and interest rates and thus, the appropriate duration stance of a bond portfolio. Also, credit standards can tell us about the pass-through from fiscal and monetary policy measures to realized financial conditions (i.e. corporate borrowing rates). Most importantly, credit standards exhibit a direct correlation with corporate bond spreads (Chart 2). As they have access to detailed, non-public information on a large number of borrowers, loan officers are uniquely positioned to evaluate corporate health. When banks are tightening standards, they see an issue with the credit quality of either current or future loans, which impacts borrowing costs in the corporate bond market. Tightening standards indicate a worsening borrowing backdrop and weaker growth, which then pushes up corporate spreads. Vice-versa, easing standards imply a favorable backdrop and plentiful liquidity—both bullish signs for spread product. US In the US, a net percentage of domestic respondents to the Fed’s Senior Loan Officer Survey, reported easing standards for commercial and industrial (C&I) loans to firms of all sizes over Q4/2021 (Chart 3). This marks the fourth consecutive quarter of easing standards. However, banks did report a slower pace of easing, which correlates with tighter financial conditions on the margin (top panel). While we are still in a period of easy financial conditions in absolute terms, this could soon start to change as hot inflation prints and booming economic data cause the Fed to turn increasingly hawkish. Despite this, banks expect to ease standards further over 2022, indicating confidence that underlying economic fundamentals and corporate health will be able to weather monetary tightening. US banks also reported stronger C&I loan demand from all firms in Q4, marking three consecutive quarters of improvement (middle panel). The picture was optimistic, with banks attributing increased loan demand to inventory financing, mergers & acquisitions, and fixed investment. Meanwhile, only 4.2% and 12.5% of banks saw a decrease in internal funds and increasing precautionary demand, respectively, as somewhat important. Inventories accounted for all but 2% of the 6.9% annualized GDP growth in Q4. With inventory stocks still depressed in absolute terms, we expect inventory restocking will continue to buoy demand over 2022. Chart 3US Credit Conditions​​​​​ Chart 4US Loan Demand Outlook For 2022 On the consumer side, banks reported easier standards across the board, with standards easing for credit card, auto, and other consumer loans (bottom panel). However, the pace of easing, which has historically been good at calling turning points in consumer confidence (on a rate-of-change basis), appears to have peaked. Consumer sentiment has already been battered by rampant inflation and falling real wage expectations; tighter credit standards down the road could prove to be a further headwind. As part of the one-off special questions in this edition of the survey, respondents were asked about the reasoning behind their outlook for loan demand over 2022 (Chart 4). Of those that expected higher demand, 70% cited higher spending and investment demand from borrowers as their income prospects improved. Meanwhile, only 33% thought that precautionary demand for liquidity would be a factor. Lenders thought that both, a worsening or an improvement in supply chain disruptions, could contribute to increased demand. 53% expected that continued disruption would create greater inventory financing needs. Meanwhile, 55% expected that easing supply chain troubles would boost demand as product availability concerns faded. Of those that expected weaker loan demand, interest rates were by-and-large the biggest factor, with an overwhelming 96% believing that rising rates would quell loan demand. This was followed by concerns that supply chain disruptions would keep prices high and product availability scarce (70%). On the whole, the responses capture a US economy that is at a tipping point, with market participants watching to see how it weathers an aggressive rate hiking cycle from the Fed. While underlying economic variables such as growth and employment remain strong, it still remains to be seen how much of a tightening in financial conditions the markets can bear. Euro Area In the euro area, banks on net reported a very slight tightening of standards to enterprises for the second consecutive quarter in Q4/2021 (Chart 5). Effectively, standards were unchanged as 96 of the 100 respondents to the survey reported no change from Q3. Slightly lower risk tolerance from banks contributed to tightening while lower risk perceptions related to the general economic outlook and the value of collateral had an easing effect. As in the US, standards in the euro area do show a correlation to overall financial conditions. Those have already tightened noticeably since the February 3rd meeting of the European Central Bank (ECB) Governing Council where President Lagarde set a more hawkish tone. While banks do expect a slight easing of standards over Q1/2022, that is unlikely given high inflation and geopolitical uncertainties which will negatively impact risk perceptions. Chart 5Euro Area Credit Conditions​​​​​​ Chart 6Credit Demand In Major Euro Area Economies​​​​​​ Loan demand growth from enterprises was remarkably strong in Q4, with 18% of firms reporting increased demand for loans (middle panel). The main driver was increased demand for inventories, followed closely by fixed investment and merger & acquisition needs. Loan demand leads realized growth in inventories, which has been already been picking up. In Q1, banks expect continued growth in loan demand, albeit at a slower pace. On the consumer side, however, loan demand only increased slightly, with the pace of growth slowing from the previous quarter (bottom panel). This was in line with consumer confidence taking a hit from rising inflation and the Omicron variant in the fourth quarter. The generally low level of interest rates had a small positive impact, while durable goods spending had a slight negative impact on consumer credit demand. Lenders expect moderate growth in consumer credit demand in Q1. Moving to the four major euro area economies, demand for loans to enterprises picked up in Germany, France, and Italy, while remaining unchanged in Spain (Chart 6). Fixed investment needs made a positive contribution across the board. This is corroborated by data on total lending, which is still growing on a year-on-year basis, even though the pace of growth is slowing in all the major euro area economies except Spain. UK In the UK, overall corporate credit standards eased slightly in Q4/2021, marking the fourth straight quarter of easing (Chart 7). However, there was dispersion along firm size. Large private non-financials accounted for all the easing and standards for small and medium firms actually tightened slightly. Going forward, lenders expect a further easing in standards in Q1, about on par with the easing seen in Q4. Chart 7UK Credit Conditions​​​​​ Chart 8UK Lenders Expect A Robust Growth To Ease Credit Availability​​​​​​ On the demand side, lenders reported slightly weaker corporate demand for lending in Q4. Again, the results were uneven across firm size – loan demand from large firms strengthened moderately, while demand from small and medium firms weakened. On average, lenders expect a slight pickup in corporate demand over Q1. Moving to the UK consumer, demand for unsecured lending continued to rise at a brisk pace, hovering around the highest levels since Q4/2014 (bottom panel). Going forward, lenders expect a continued increase in demand, but at a much slower pace. The strong developments in loan growth are seemingly at odds with the GfK consumer confidence index which has declined a total of 12 points since its July peak. Although the Bank of England does not survey respondents on the factors driving household unsecured lending demand, the divergence between confidence and loan demand suggests that precautionary demand for liquidity is playing a role. This lines up with the GfK survey, where expectations for the general economic situation over the next year are in freefall with consumers bracing for high inflation and further Bank Rate increases. Pivoting back to the drivers of corporate lending, the leading factor behind increased credit availability was an improvement in the overall economic outlook, followed by market share objectives (Chart 8). In contrast to the UK consumer, lenders are bullish on the economic outlook and believe it will continue to drive further easing over Q1/2022. On the demand side, investment in commercial real estate, which has seen steady improvement since Q3/2020, was the leading factor. This was followed by merger & acquisition and inventory financing needs. Capital investment needs, meanwhile, were a drag on demand. Moving forward, real estate investment and inventory restocking needs are expected to drive demand. Japan In Japan, credit standards to firms and households continued to ease in Q4/2021 (Chart 9). However, more than 90% of respondents in each case reported that standards were basically unchanged, and there were no reported instances of tightening among the sample of 50 lenders. Those that did report easier standards cited aggressive competition from other banks and strengthened efforts to grow the business. The vast majority of lenders expect standards to remain unchanged over Q1, but there is a slight easing expected on a net percentage basis. Chart 9Japan Credit Conditions Business loan demand on the whole was unchanged in Q4 although small and medium firms did increase demand slightly (middle panel). In contrast to other regions, business loan demand tends to behave counter-cyclically in Japan, with businesses borrowing more on a precautionary basis when they are pessimistic and vice-versa. Those dynamics were at play in Q4, with lenders attributing increased demand to a fall in firms’ internally generated funds. Banks expect a slight net pickup in demand next quarter, in line with business confidence which has fallen from its September peak on the back of concerns about Covid-19 infections, supply chain disruptions, and rising input prices. On the consumer side, loan demand was basically unchanged, with a very small net percentage of banks reporting weaker demand (bottom panel). The key reason for decreased demand was a decrease in household consumption, which is in line with retail sales, where the pace of growth has been falling. Even though core inflation in Japan is low, consumers are still exposed to rising energy prices, which might cause them to tighten other parts of their budgets. Canada Chart 10Canada Credit Conditions In Canada, business lending standards continued to ease at a slightly slower pace in Q4/2021 (Chart 10). This marks the fourth consecutive quarter of easing conditions, coming amid booming economic activity, high capacity utilization, and buoyant sentiment. Both, price and non-price lending conditions eased at roughly the same pace. On the consumer side, non-mortgage lending conditions continued to ease, but at a slower pace (middle panel). 1-year ahead consumer spending growth expectations, sourced from the Bank of Canada’s (BoC) Survey Of Consumer Expectations, and non-mortgage lending conditions typically display an inverse correlation, with expected spending growth increasing when standards are getting easier on the margin and vice-versa. The divergence in Q4 is explained in part by excess savings accumulated during the pandemic that have yet to be spent down, and in part by expected price increases over the coming year. In either case, it demonstrates that nominal spending has room to grow even in an environment where consumer credit availability is worsening. We also saw mortgage standards ease at a slightly slower pace in Q4, with both price and non-price lending conditions easing (bottom panel). While the BoC has made a hawkish pivot, underlying conditions are still easy – the conventional 5-year mortgage rate is still flat at 4.79%, the same level as Q3/2020. However, house price growth has peaked, and rate hikes this year will help prices moderate further. New Zealand Chart 11New Zealand Credit Conditions In New Zealand, business credit standards eased in the six month period ended September 2021 (Chart 11). However, the real impact of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand’s (RBNZ) tightening is being felt in the housing market, where actual standards entered tightening territory. More importantly, a net 23.1% of respondents expect mortgage credit availability to erode by the end of March; if realized, this figure would be a series high. Banks reporting less credit availability cited regulatory changes and risk perceptions. On the mortgage loan demand side, banks continued to see increased demand even after the record spike in March 2021 (middle panel). Going forward, demand is expected to moderate and fall from current levels. These dynamics have already made their mark on house prices which have already peaked, indicating that the RBNZ’s push is working as intended. Business loan demand does not appear to have been much affected by higher rates, with demand picking up slightly and expected to increase going forward (bottom panel). However, confidence has been falling since September 2021, with businesses feeling the twin bite of supply chain disruptions and labor shortages.   Shakti Sharma Senior Analyst ShaktiS@bcaresearch.com Appendix: Where To Find The Bank Lending Surveys A number of central banks publish regular surveys of bank lending conditions in their domestic economies. The surveys, and the details on how they are conducted, can be found on the websites of the central banks: US Federal Reserve: https://www.federalreserve.gov/data/sloos.htm European Central Bank: https://www.ecb.europa.eu/stats/ecb_surveys/bank_lending_survey/ Bank of England: https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/credit-conditions-survey/2021/2021-q4 Bank of Japan: https://www.boj.or.jp/en/statistics/dl/loan/loos/index.htm/ Bank of Canada: https://www.bankofcanada.ca/publications/slos/ Reserve Bank of New Zealand: https://www.rbnz.govt.nz/statistics/c60-credit-conditions-survey   Footnotes 1      The weblinks to each individual survey for the US, euro area, UK, Japan, Canada and New Zealand can be found in the Appendix on page 12. GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Recommended Positioning     Active Duration Contribution: GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. Custom Performance Benchmark The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Global Fixed Income - Strategic Recommendations* Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Overlay Trades