Financial Markets

Executive Summary Spreads Near 2017-19 Average The main indicators that determine corporate bond performance are valuation, the cyclical/monetary environment and corporate balance sheet health. US corporate bond valuation is quite expensive. Spreads are off their post-COVID lows, but consistent with the 2017-19 average. The flat 2-year/10-year Treasury curve indicates that the cyclical/monetary backdrop is relatively poor. What’s more, the yield curve could easily invert within the next few months as the Fed tightens. This would send an even more negative signal for corporate bond returns.  Corporate balance sheets are currently in excellent shape, but their health will deteriorate within the next 12 months as profit growth slows and interest rates rise. Relative valuation favors high-yield over investment grade corporates, and high-yield has a track record of outperformance during periods of restrictive monetary conditions and strong corporate balance sheets. Bottom Line: Investors should cyclically reduce exposure to US corporate bonds while retaining a preference for high-yield over investment grade. We recommend downgrading investment grade corporates from neutral (3 out of 5) to underweight (2 out of 5) and high-yield corporates from overweight (4 out of 5) to neutral (3 out of 5). Feature Chart 1A Rapid Recovery US corporate bonds have had a very good run since the March 2020 peak in spreads. Investment grade corporates outperformed a duration-matched position in US Treasuries by 23% during the first 12 months of the recovery, the best 12-month excess return since 2010 (Chart 1). That same period also saw an extremely rapid re-normalization of credit spreads. It took just 11 months for the investment grade corporate index option-adjusted spread (OAS) to reach 90 bps following its March 2020 peak, and the index delivered an annualized excess return of 26% during that period. In contrast, it took 109 months for the index OAS to reach 90 bps following the 2008 recession and corporates only beat duration-matched Treasuries by an annualized 4% during that time (Table 1). Table 1US Investment Grade Corporate Bond Returns From Spread Peak Until 90 BPs The outlook for US corporate bond returns looks much different today. Spreads are tighter and the Fed is rapidly removing policy accommodation. Against this backdrop, we decided last week to cyclically reduce our corporate bond exposure.1  Specifically, we recommended downgrading investment grade corporates from neutral (3 out of 5) to underweight (2 out of 5) and high-yield corporates from overweight (4 out of 5) to neutral (3 out of 5) within US bond portfolios. This Special Report discusses the rationale for our recent decision. First, we examine trends in the main indicators that determine corporate bond performance. These indicators fall into three categories: (i) valuation, (ii) cyclical/monetary indicators and (iii) balance sheet health. We then discuss the outlook for the relative performance of high-yield versus investment grade corporates. Valuation Starting with a simple examination of the average investment grade index OAS, we see that the spread has widened somewhat off its pre- and post-pandemic lows, but remains close to the average level seen between 2017 and 2019 (Chart 2). The index OAS is a reasonable gauge of value relative to recent history, but for a longer historical perspective we should adjust the index to account for its changing average credit rating and duration. To do this, we first re-weight the index to maintain a constant distribution between the different credit rating buckets. Next, we control for the index’s changing duration by calculating a 12-month breakeven spread. The 12-month breakeven spread is the spread widening that must occur during the next 12 months for the corporate index to perform in line with a duration-matched position in Treasuries. It can be approximated by dividing the index OAS by average index duration. Finally, Chart 3 presents the 12-month breakeven spread as a percentile rank since 1995. It shows that, after controlling for credit rating and duration, the investment grade corporate index has only been more expensive than current levels 24% of the time since 1995. Notice that the spread bounced off the 0% line in late-2021, indicating that it had reached all-time expensive levels. Chart 2Spreads Near 2017-19 Average Chart 3Investment Grade Valuation All in all, we can conclude that investment grade corporate bonds are quite expensive. Spreads aren’t so low that they would justify an underweight allocation in a supportive cyclical/monetary environment. But they are tight enough that it makes sense to proceed cautiously in a neutral or negative cyclical/monetary environment, like the one we are in today.   Cyclical/Monetary Indicators The slope of the yield curve is the key variable we use to assess the current state of the cyclical/monetary environment. A very flat or inverted yield curve signals a relatively restrictive monetary policy backdrop, and we have shown that such a backdrop tends to coincide with poor excess corporate bond returns. Conversely, we have found that corporate bonds perform best early in the economic recovery when the yield curve is very steep. This steep yield curve signals that monetary conditions are highly accommodative, and thus supportive of credit spread tightening. Today, the yield curve is sending a somewhat confusing message. The 2-year/10-year Treasury slope briefly inverted last week, and it remains flat at 22 bps. Meanwhile, the 3-month/10-year Treasury slope is very steep, up above 200 bps (Chart 4)! Chart 4Conflicting Signals From The Yield Curve We discussed how to interpret the signals from different yield curve segments in a recent Special Report.2 We found that the 2-year/10-year Treasury slope sends the most useful signal for corporate bond excess returns, and we therefore view current cyclical/monetary conditions as negative for corporate bonds. In Table 2 we split each of the past six economic cycles into phases based on the 2-year/10-year Treasury slope. We define Phase 1 of the cycle as the period from the end of the prior recession until the 2-year/10-year slope breaks below 50 bps. Phase 2 of the cycle encompasses the time when the slope is between 0 bps and 50 bps. Phase 3 of the cycle spans from when the yield curve inverts until the start of the next recession. Table 2US Corporate Bond Performance In Different Phases Of The Cycle The table shows annualized excess returns for both investment grade and high-yield corporate bonds in each of the three phases, and those returns exhibit a clear pattern. Returns are best in Phase 1 when the yield curve is steep. They take a step down in Phase 2 when the slope is between 0 bps and 50 bps, though they usually stay positive. Negative returns are most likely in Phase 3, after the yield curve inverts. Chart 5Limited Room For Curve Steepening With the 2-year/10-year Treasury slope at 22 bps, we are firmly in Phase 2 of the cycle. However, we could easily see the 2-year/10-year slope invert within the next few months while a breakout above 50 bps seems less likely. In fact, there are only two ways in which the 2-year/10-year Treasury slope can steepen further from current levels. First, the market could bid up its expectation of the long-run neutral fed funds rate, pushing long-dated bond yields higher. Second, expectations for the pace of near-term Fed tightening could diminish, pulling short-dated yields down. At the long-end, the 5-year/5-year forward Treasury yield is already above survey estimates of the long-run neutral rate (Chart 5). At the front-end, the market is discounting a rapid pace of 272 bps of tightening during the next 12 months (Chart 5, bottom panel), but that pace has limited room to fall given current extremely high inflation readings. Turning back to a comparison of the signals from the 2-year/10-year slope and 3-month/10-year slope, it is worth pointing out that the 3-month/10-year slope is influenced by yield movements at the very front-end of the curve. Meanwhile, the 2-year/10-year slope is purely a function of rate expectations beyond the next two years. As a result, we can view the 3-month/10-year slope as sending a timelier signal about Fed rate hikes and cuts, while the 2-year/10-year slope gives a better reading of how the market views the ultimate economic impact of Fed actions. For example, the 3-month/10-year Treasury slope inverted in 2019 just before the Fed started cutting rates (Chart 6A). The 2-year/10-year slope, however, only briefly dipped below zero. The message from the market was that the Fed would cut rates, but those cuts would be sufficient to sustain the economic recovery. As a result, corporate bonds performed well during this period, consistent with the message from the 2-year/10-year slope. Another interesting example occurred in early 2000 (Chart 6B). This time, the 2-year/10-year Treasury slope inverted while the 3-month/10-year slope remained steep. In this case, the 3-month/10-year slope was telling us that Fed rate hikes would continue, while the 2-year/10-year slope was telling us that those hikes would eventually kill the economic recovery. Once again, corporate bonds took their cues from the 2-year/10-year Treasury slope and performed poorly during this period. Chart 6AStrong Performance In 2019 Chart 6BPoor Performance In 2000 Obviously, the current situation looks more like 2000 than 2019, but with the 2-year/10-year slope still positive there remains scope for positive excess corporate bond returns in the near-term. That said, with high odds of 2-year/10-year curve inversion within the next few months and spreads at relatively tight levels, it makes sense to scale back exposure today in advance of the worst phase of the cycle. Balance Sheet Health The final factor we consider is the health of nonfinancial corporate sector balance sheets, and in fact, this is currently the lone bright spot for corporate bond investors. Our Corporate Health Monitor (CHM), a composite indicator of six key balance sheet ratios, is deep in “improving health” territory (Chart 7). This positive signal is driven by exceptionally high Interest Coverage (Chart 7, panel 2) and Free Cash Flow-To-Debt that is just off its highs (Chart 7, panel 3). Return On Capital is up sharply since 2020 but has not recovered its previous peak (Chart 7, bottom panel). Chart 7Balance Sheets Are In Great Shape While corporate balance sheets are in excellent shape right now, their health will certainly deteriorate going forward as profit growth comes down off its highs and interest rates rise. The only question is whether this deterioration will happen slowly or quickly. Turning to history, two relevant periods stand out (Chart 8). First is the mid-1990s when investment grade corporate bond excess returns peaked in July 1997, 16 months before our CHM moved into “deteriorating health” territory. Conversely, the CHM sent a negative signal before the excess return peak in 2007. But even then, investment grade corporates only outperformed Treasuries by an annualized 0.8% between when the 2-year/10-year slope fell below 50 bps in 2005 and when the CHM moved above zero in 2006. In other words, investors didn’t sacrifice much return by heeding the yield curve’s signal even when the CHM was deep in “improving health” territory. Chart 8Cyclical Corporate Bond Performance Investment Conclusions In summary, we view corporate bond valuations as expensive, and the flat 2-year/10-year Treasury slope suggests that the economic recovery is in its mid-to-late stages. Corporate balance sheets are currently in excellent shape, but they will deteriorate going forward as profit growth slows and interest rates rise. The above three factors suggest that corporate bonds could continue to outperform duration-matched Treasuries in the near-term. However, with spreads already at tight levels, we likely aren’t sacrificing much in the way of excess returns by turning cyclically defensive today. This move also ensures that we will not be invested when the credit cycle eventually turns and corporate bond spreads move significantly wider. Retain A Preference For High-Yield Versus Investment Grade While we recommend downgrading allocations for both investment grade (from neutral to underweight) and high-yield (from overweight to neutral), we think investors should still retain a preference for high-yield corporates over investment grade. To see why, let’s return to the 2005-06 period we looked at in the previous section. The yield curve dipped below 50 bps in 2005 when the CHM was still deep in “improving health” territory, and while investment grade corporate bond returns were low during the time between the signal from the yield curve and the signal from the CHM, junk excess returns were very strong (Chart 9). This makes some sense intuitively. Higher-rated investment grade corporates responded negatively to the Federal Reserve’s removal of monetary policy accommodation, but lower-rated junk spreads stayed well bid because actual default risk was benign. It wasn’t until after the CHM rose above zero that junk bonds started to underperform. In terms of present-day valuations, much like for investment grade, junk spreads are up off their 2021 lows. However, they remain close to their pre-pandemic trough (Chart 10). We also note that the differential between high-yield and investment grade spreads was much tighter in 2006-07. Given the similarities between that period and today, we wouldn’t be surprised to see junk spreads compress further relative to investment grade. Chart 9The Bullish Case For Junk Chart 10High-Yield Valuation Another way to approach high-yield bond valuation is through the lens of our Default-Adjusted Spread. The Default-Adjusted Spread is the difference between the junk index OAS and 12-month default losses, and we have shown that it has a strong correlation with excess returns (Table 3). Specifically, a Default-Adjusted Spread above 100 bps usually coincides with positive excess junk returns versus Treasuries, and higher spreads tend to coincide with higher returns. Table 3The Default-Adjusted Spread & High-Yield Excess Returns To estimate the Default-Adjusted Spread for the next 12 months we need assumptions for the default and recovery rates (Chart 11). To do this, we model the 12-month speculative grade default rate as a function of gross nonfinancial corporate leverage – total debt over pre-tax profits – and lagged C&I lending standards. We then model the 12-month recovery rate based on the default rate itself. Chart 11Default And Recovery Rate Models Corporate pre-tax profit growth was exceptionally strong during the past 12 months, and we expect it to slow significantly going forward. Profit growth can be modeled as a function of nominal GDP growth and unit labor costs (Chart 12). If we assume that nominal GDP growth comes in at 7.3% this year (the Fed’s median 2.8% real GDP estimate plus 4.5% inflation) and that unit labor cost growth rises to 6%, then profit growth will fall to 0.5% during the next 12 months. If we assume that corporate debt growth remains close to its current level (Chart 12, bottom panel), then we calculate that gross leverage will rise to 6.5 during the next 12 months. Chart 12Profit Growth Will Slow Significantly Table 4 shows the output from our default and recovery rate models under the base case assumption described above. It also shows results for an optimistic case where leverage is 6.0 and a pessimistic case where it is 7.0. The Default-Adjusted Spread is fairly low in the base and pessimistic cases, but it is comfortably above the key 100 bps threshold in all three scenarios. This suggests that junk bonds should deliver positive excess returns versus duration-matched Treasuries during the next 12 months. Table 4Default-Adjusted Spread Scenarios   Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see US Bond Strategy Portfolio Allocation Summary, “The Beginning Of The End”, dated April 5, 2022. 2 Please see US Bond Strategy / US Investment Strategy / US Equity Strategy Special Report, “The Yield Curve As An Indicator”, dated March 29, 2022. Treasury Index Returns Spread Product Returns Recommended Portfolio Specification Other Recommendations

Executive Summary The Ukraine war reinforces our key view that commodity producers will use their geopolitical leverage this year. The market is growing complacent again about Russian risks. Iran is part of the same dynamic. If US-Iran talks fail, as we expect, the Middle East will destabilize and add another energy supply risk on top of the Russian risk. The Ukraine war also interacts with our other two key views for 2022: China’s reversion to autocracy and the US’s policy insularity. Both add policy uncertainty and weigh on risk sentiment. The war also reinforces our strategic themes for the 2020s: Great Power Rivalry, Hypo-Globalization, and Populism/Nationalism. Stagflation Cometh Trade Recommendation Inception Date Return Cyclically Long Global Defensives Versus Cyclicals 2022-01-20 10.8% Bottom Line: Tactically stay long global defensives and large caps. Cyclically stay long gold, US equities, aerospace/defense, and cyber security. Feature In our annual outlook, “The Gathering Storm,” we argued that the post-pandemic world economy would destabilize due to intensifying rivalry among the leading nations. We argued that China’s reversion to autocracy, US domestic divisions, and Russia’s commodity leverage would produce a toxic brew for global investors in 2022. By January 27 it was clear to us that Russia would invade Ukraine, so the storm was arriving sooner than we thought, and we doubled down on our defensive and risk-averse market positioning. We derived these three key views from new cyclical trends and the way they interact with our underlying strategic themes – Great Power Rivalry, Hypo-Globalization, and Populism/Nationalism (Table 1). These themes are mutually reinforcing, rooted in solid evidence over many years, and will not change easily. Table 1Three Geopolitical Strategic Themes Related Report  Geopolitical Strategy2022 Key Views: The Gathering Storm The Ukraine war reinforces them: Russia took military action to increase its security relative to the US and NATO; the West imposed sanctions that reduce globalization with Russia and potentially other states; Russian aggression stemmed from nationalism and caused a spike in global prices that will spur more nationalism and populism going forward. In this report we examine how these trends will develop in the second quarter and beyond. We see stagflation taking shape and recommend investors prepare for it by continuing to favor defensive sectors, commodities, and value plays. Checking Up On Our Russia View For 2022 Our third key view for 2022 – that oil producers like Russia and Iran possessed immense geopolitical leverage and would most likely use it – is clearly the dominant geopolitical trend of the year, as manifested in the Russian invasion of Ukraine.1 Russia first invaded Ukraine in 2014 and curtailed operations after commodity prices crashed. It launched a new and larger invasion in 2022 when a new commodity cycle began (Chart 1). Facing tactical setbacks, Russia has begun withdrawing forces from around the Ukrainian capital Kyiv. But it will redouble its efforts to conquer the eastern Donbas region and the southern coastline. The coast is the most strategic territory at stake (Map 1). Chart 1Russia's Commodity-Enabled Aggression Map 1Russian Invasion Of Ukraine, 2022 The most decisive limitation on Russia’s military effort would come from a collapse of commodity exports or prices, which has not happened yet. Europe continues to buy Russian oil and natural gas, although it is debating a ban on the $4.4 billion worth of coal that it imports. With high energy prices making up for a drop in export volumes, Russian armed forces can still attempt a summer and fall campaign (Chart 2). The aim would be to conquer remaining portions of Donetsk and Luhansk, the “land bridge” to Crimea, and potentially the stretch of land between the Dnieper river and eastern Moldova, where Russian troops are already stationed. Chart 2Russia’s War Financing Ukraine’s military neutrality is the core Russian objective. Ukraine is offering neutrality in exchange for security guarantees in the current ceasefire talks. Hence a durable ceasefire is possible if the details of neutrality are agreed – Ukraine forswears joining NATO and hosting foreign military infrastructure while accepting limitations on military exercises and defense systems. The security guarantees that Ukraine demands are mostly symbolic, as the western powers that would be credible guarantors are already unwilling to use military force against Russia (e.g. the US, UK, NATO members). However, Russia’s withdrawal from Kyiv will embolden the Ukrainians, so we do not expect a durable ceasefire in the second quarter. Global investors will be mistaken if they ignore Ukraine in the second quarter, at least until core problems are resolved. What matters most is whether the war expands beyond Ukraine: The likelihood of a broader war is low but not negligible. So far the Russian regime is behaving somewhat rationally: Moscow attacked a non-NATO member to prevent it from joining NATO; it limited the size of the military commitment; and it is now accepting reality and withdrawing from Kyiv while negotiating on Ukrainian neutrality. But a major problem emerges if Russia’s military fails in the Donbas while Ukraine reneges on offers of neutrality. Any ceasefire could fall apart and the war could re-escalate. Russia could redouble its attacks on the country or conduct a limited attack outside of Ukraine to trigger a crisis in the western alliance. Moreover, if sanctions keep rising until Russia’s economy collapses, Moscow could become less rational. Finland and Sweden have seen a shift of public opinion in favor of joining NATO. Any intention to do so would trigger a belligerent reaction from Russia. These governments are well aware of the precarious balance that must be maintained to prevent war, so war is unlikely. But if their stance changes then Russia will threaten to attack. Russia would threaten to bomb these states since it cannot now credibly threaten invasion by land (Charts 3A & 3B). Chart 3ANordic States Joining NATO Would Trigger Larger War​​​​​ Chart 3BNordic States Joining NATO Would Trigger Larger War​​​​​​ The Black Sea is vulnerable to “Black Swan” events or military spillovers. Russia is re-concentrating its military efforts in the Donbas and land bridge to Crimea. Russia could expand its offensive to Odessa and the Moldovan border. Or Russia could attempt to create a new norm of naval dominance in the Black Sea. Or ships from third countries could hit mines or become casualties of war. For these and other reasons, investors should not take on additional risk in their portfolios on the basis that a durable ceasefire will be concluded quickly. Russia’s position is far too vulnerable to encourage risk-taking. Moscow could escalate tensions to try to save face. It is also critical to ensure that Russia and Europe maintain their energy trade: Neither side has an interest in total energy cutoff. Russia needs the revenue to finance its war and needs to discourage Europe from fulfilling its pledges to transition rapidly to other sources and substitutes. Europe needs the energy to avoid recession, maintain some tie with Russia, and enable its energy diversification strategy. So far natural gas flows are continuing (Chart 4). Chart 4Natural Gas Flows Continuing (So Far)​​​​​​ Chart 5Global Oil Supply/Demand Balance​​​​​​ However, risks to energy trade are rising. Russia is threatening to cut off energy exports if not paid in rubles, while the EU is beginning to entertain sanctions on energy. Russia can reduce oil or gas flows incrementally to keep prices high and prevent Europe from rebuilding stockpiles for fall and winter. Partial energy cutoff is possible. Europe’s diversification makes Russia’s predicament dire. Substantial sanction relief is highly unlikely, as western powers will want to prevent Russia from rebuilding its economy and military. Russia could try to impose significant pain on Europe to try to force a more favorable diplomatic solution. A third factor that matters is whether the US will expand its sanction enforcement to demand strict compliance from other nations, at pain of secondary sanctions: Secondary sanctions are likely in the case of China and other nations that stand at odds with the US and help Russia circumvent sanctions. In China’s case, the US is already interested in imposing sanctions on the financial or technology sector as part of its long-term containment strategy. While the Biden administration’s preference is to control the pace of escalation with China, and thus not to slap sanctions immediately, nevertheless substantial sanctions cannot be ruled out in the second quarter. Secondary sanctions will be limited in the case of US allies and partners, such as EU members, Turkey, and India. Countries that do business with Russia but are critical to US strategy will be given waivers or special treatment. Russia is not the only commodity producer that enjoys outsized geopolitical leverage amid a global commodity squeeze. Iran is the next most critical producer. Iran is also critical for the stability of the Middle East. In particular, the consequential US-Iran talks over whether to rejoin the 2015 nuclear deal are likely to come to a decision in the second quarter. Chart 6Failure Of US-Iran Talks Jeopardizes Middle East Oil Supply If the US and Iran agree to a strategic détente, then regional tensions will briefly subside, reducing global oil disruption risks and supply pressures. Iran could bring 1.3 million barrels per day of oil back online, adding to President Biden’s 1 million per day release of strategic petroleum reserves. The combination would amount to 2.3% of global demand and more than cover the projected quarterly average supply deficit, which ranges from 400k to 900k barrels per day for the rest of 2022 (Chart 5). If the US and Iran fail to agree, then the Middle East will suffer another round of instability, adding a Middle Eastern energy shock on top of the Russian shock. Not only would Iran’s 1.3 million barrels per day be jeopardized but so would Iraq’s 4.4 million, Saudi Arabia’s 10.3 million, the UAE’s 3.0 million, or the Strait of Hormuz’s combined 24 million per day (Chart 6). This gives Iran leverage to pursue nuclear weaponization prior to any change in US government that would strengthen Israel’s ability to stop Iran. We would not bet on an agreement – but we cannot rule it out. The Biden administration can reduce sanctions via executive action to prevent a greater oil shock, while the Iranians can accept sanction relief in exchange for easily reversible moves toward compliance with the 2015 nuclear deal. But this would be a short-term, stop-gap measure, not a long-term strategic détente. Conflict between Iran and its neighbors will revive sooner than expected after the deal is agreed, as Iran’s nuclear ambitions will persist. OPEC states are already producing more oil rapidly, suggesting no quick fix if the US-Iran deal falls apart. While core OPEC states have 3.5 million barrels per day in spare capacity to bring to bear, a serious escalation of tensions with Iran would jeopardize this solution. Finally, if commodity producers have geopolitical leverage, then commodity consumers are lacking in leverage. This is clear from Europe’s inability to prevent Russia’s attack or ban Russian energy. It is clear from the US’s apparent unwillingness to give up on a short-term deal with Iran. It is clear from China’s inability to provide sufficient monetary and fiscal stimulus as it struggles with Covid-19. Turkey, Egypt, and Pakistan are geopolitically significant importers of Russian and Ukrainian grain that are likely to face food insecurity and social unrest. We will address this issue below under our Populism/Nationalism theme. Bottom Line: Investors should not be complacent. Russia’s military standing in Ukraine is weak, but its ability to finance the war has not yet collapsed, which means that it will escalate the conflict to save face. What About Our Other Key Views For 2022? Our other two key views for 2022 are even more relevant in the wake of the Ukraine re-invasion. China’s reversion to autocracy is a factor in China’s domestic and foreign policy: Domestically China needs economic and social stability in the advance of the twentieth national party congress, when President Xi Jinping hopes to clinch 10 more years in power. In pursuit of this goal China is easing monetary and fiscal policy. However, with depressed animal spirits, a weakening property sector, and high debt levels, monetary policy is proving insufficient. Fiscal policy will have to step up. But even here, inflation is likely to impose a limitation on how much stimulus the authorities can utilize (Chart 7). Chart 7China Stimulus Impaired By Inflation​​​​​​ Chart 8Chinese Supply Kinks To Persist Due To Covid-19 China is also trying but failing to maintain a “Covid Zero” policy. The more contagious Omicron variant of the virus is breaking out and slipping beyond the authorities’ ability to suppress cases of the virus to zero. Shanghai is on lockdown and other cities will follow suit. China will attempt to redouble its containment efforts before it will accept the reality that the virus cannot be contained. Chinese production and shipping will become delayed and obstructed as a result, putting another round of upward pressure on global prices (Chart 8). Stringent pandemic restrictions could trigger social unrest. China is ripe for social unrest, which is why it launched the “Common Prosperity” program last year to convince citizens that quality of life will improve. But this program is a long-term program that will not bring immediate relief. On the contrary, the economy is still suffering and the virus will spread more widely, as well as draconian social restrictions. The result is that the lead up to the national party congress will not be as smooth as the Xi administration had hoped. Global investors will remain pessimistic toward Chinese stocks. In foreign affairs, China’s reversion to autocracy is reinforced by Russia’s clash with the West and the need to coordinate more closely. Xi hosted Putin in Beijing on February 4, prior to the invasion, and the two declared that their strategic partnership ushers in a “new era” of “multipolarity” and that their cooperation has “no limits,” which really means that military cooperation is not forbidden. China agreed to purchase an additional 10 billion cubic meters of Russian natural gas over 30-years. While this amount would only replace 3% of Russian natural gas exports to Europe, it would mark a 26% increase in Russian exports to China. More importantly it acts as a symbol of Chinese willingness to substitute for Europe over time. There is a long way to go for China to replace Europe as a customer (Chart 9). But China knows it needs to convert its US dollar foreign exchange reserves, vulnerable to US sanctions, into hard investments in supply security within the Eurasian continent. Chart 9Long Way To Go For China NatGas Imports To Replace EU China is helping Russia circumvent sanctions. China’s chief interest is to minimize the shock to its domestic economy. This means keeping Russian energy and commodities flowing. China could also offer military equipment for Russia. The US has expressly warned China against taking such an action. China could mitigate the blowback by stipulating that the assistance cannot be used in Ukraine. This would be unenforceable but would provide diplomatic cover. While China is uncomfortable with the disturbance of the Ukraine war – it does not want foreign affairs to cause even larger supply shocks. At the same time, China does not want Russia to lose the war or Putin’s regime to fall from power. If Russia loses, Taiwan and its western allies would be emboldened, while Russia could pursue a détente with the West, leaving China isolated. Since China faces US containment policy regardless of what happens in Russia, it is better for China to have Putin making an example out of Ukraine and keeping the Americans and Europeans preoccupied. Chart 10China Strives To Preserve EU Trade Ties China must also preserve ties with Europe. Diplomacy will likely succeed in the short run since Europe has no interest or desire to expand sanctions to China. The Biden administration will defer to Europe on the pace of sanctions – it is not willing or able to force Europe to break with China suddenly. Eventually Europe and China may sever relations but not yet – China has a powerful incentive to preserve them (Chart 10). China will also court India and other powers in an attempt to hedge its bets on Russia while weakening any American containment. Beyond the party congress, China will be focused on securing the economic recovery and implementing the common prosperity agenda. The first step is to maintain easy monetary and fiscal policy. The second step is to “let 100 flowers bloom,” i.e. relaxing social and regulatory controls to try to revive entrepreneurship and animal spirits, which are heavily depressed. Xi will have the ability to do this after re-consolidating power. The third step will be to try to stabilize economic relations with Europe and others (conceivably even the US temporarily, though no serious détente is likely). The remaining key view for 2022 is that the Biden administration’s domestic focus will be defensive and will invite foreign policy challenges. The Ukraine war vindicates this view but the question now is whether Biden has or will change tack: The Biden administration is focused on the midterm elections and the huge risk to the Democratic Party’s standing. Biden has not received a boost in opinion polls from the war. He is polling even worse when it comes to handling of the economy (Chart 11). While he should be able to repackage his budget reconciliation bill as an energy security bill, his thin majorities in both houses make passage difficult. Chart 11Biden And Democrats Face Shellacking In Midterm Election Biden’s weak standing – with or without a midterm shellacking – raises the prospect that Republicans could take back the White House in 2024, which discourages foreign nations from making any significant concessions to the United States in their negotiations. They must assume that partisanship will continue to contaminate foreign policy and lead to abrupt policy reversals. In foreign policy, the US remains reactive in the face of Russian aggression. If Russia signs a ceasefire, the US will not sabotage it to prolong Russian difficulties. Moreover Biden continues to exempt Europe and other allies and partners from enforcing the US’s most severe sanctions for fear of a larger energy shock. Europe’s avoidance of an energy ban is critical and any change in US policy to try to force the EU to cut off Russian energy is unlikely. China will not agree to structural reform or deep concessions in its trade negotiations, knowing that former President Trump could come back. The Biden administration’s own trade policy toward China is limited in scope, as the US Trade Representative Katherine Tai admitted when she said that the US could no longer aim to change China’s behavior via trade talks. Biden’s only proactive foreign policy initiative, Iran, will not bring him public kudos if it is achieved. But American inconstancy is one of the reasons that Iran may walk away from the 2015 nuclear deal. Why should Iran’s hawkish leaders be expected to constrain their nuclear program and expose their economy to future US sanctions if they can circumvent US sanctions anyway, and Republicans have a fair chance of coming back into power as early as January 2025? Biden’s unprecedented release of strategic petroleum reserves will not be able to prevent gasoline prices from staying high given the underlying supply pressures at home and abroad. This is especially true if the Iran talks fail as we expect. Even if inflation abates before the election, it is unlikely to abate enough to save his party from a shellacking. That in turn will weaken the global impression of his administration’s staying power. Hence Biden will focus on maintaining US alliances, which means allowing Europe, India, and others to proceed at a more pragmatic and dovish pace in their relations with Russia and China. Bottom Line: China’s reversion to autocracy and America’s policy insularity suggest that global investors face considerable policy uncertainty this year even aside from the war in Europe. Checking Up On Our Strategic Themes For The 2020s Russia’s invasion strongly confirmed our three strategic themes of Great Power Rivalry, Hypo-Globalization, and Populism/Nationalism. These themes are mutually reinforcing: insecurity among the leading nation-states encourages regionalization rather than globalization, while populism and nationalism encourage nations to pursue economic and security interests at the expense of their neighbors. First, the Ukraine war confirms and exacerbates Great Power Rivalry: Chart 12China And Russia Both Need To Balance Against US Preponderance Russia’s action vindicates the “realist” school of international relations (in which we count ourselves) by forcing the world to wake up to the fact that nations still care primarily about national security defined in material ways, such as armies, resources, and territories. The paradox of realism is that if at least one of the great nations pursues its national self-interest and engages in competition for security, then all other nations will be forced to do the same. If a nation neglects its national security interests in pursuit of global economic engagement and cooperation, then it will suffer, since other nations will take advantage of it to enhance their security. Hence, as a result of Ukraine, nations will give a higher weight to national security relative to economic efficiency. The result will be an acceleration of decisions to use fiscal funds and guide the private economy in pursuit of national interests – i.e. the Return of Big Government. Since actions to increase deterrence will provoke counteractions for the same reason, overall insecurity will rise. For example, the US and China will take extra precautions in case of future sanctions and war. But these precautions will reduce trust and cooperation and increase the probability of war over the long run. For the same reason, China cannot reject Russia’s strategic overture – it cannot afford to alienate and isolate Russia. China and Russia have a shared interest in countering the United States because it is the only nation that could conceivably impose a global empire over all nations (Chart 12). The US could deprive Beijing and Moscow of the regional spheres of influence that they each need to improve their national security. This is true not only in Ukraine and Taiwan but in other peripheral areas such as Belarus, the Caucasus, Central Asia, and Southeast Asia. China has much to gain from Russia. Russia is offering China privileged overland access to Russian, Central Asian, and Middle Eastern resources and markets. This resource base is vital to China’s strategic needs, given its import dependency and vulnerability to US maritime power (Chart 13). Chart 13China’s Maritime Vulnerability Forces Eurasian Strategy, Russian Alliance Investors should understand Great Power Rivalry in a multipolar rather than bipolar sense. As Russia breaks from the West, investors are quick to move rapidly to the bipolar Cold War analogy because that is what they are familiar with. But the world today has multiple poles of political power, as it did for centuries prior to the twentieth. While the US is the preponderant power, it is not hegemonic. It faces not one but two revisionist challengers – Russia and China. Meanwhile Europe and India are independent poles of power that are not exclusively aligned with the US or China. For example, China and the EU need to maintain economic ties with each other for the sake of stability, and neither the US nor Russia can prevent them from doing so. The same goes for India and Russia. China will embrace Russia and Europe at the same time, while hardening its economy against US punitive measures. India will preserve ties with Russia and China, while avoiding conflict with the US and its allies (the maritime powers), whom it needs for its long-term strategic security in the Indian Ocean basin. Ultimately bipolarity may be the end-game – e.g. if China takes aggressive action to revise the global order like Russia has done – but the persistence of Sino-European ties and Russo-Indian ties suggest we are not there yet. Second, the Ukraine war reinforces Hypo-Globalization: Since the pandemic we have argued that trade would revive on the global economic snapback but that globalization – the deepening of trade integration – would ultimately fall short of its pre-2020 and pre-2008 trajectory. Instead we would inhabit a new world of “hypo-globalization,” in which trade flows fell short of potential. So far the data support this view (Chart 14). Chart 14Globalization Falling Short Of Potential The Ukraine war has strengthened this thesis not only by concretely reducing Russia’s trajectory of trade with the West – reversing decades of integration since the fall of the Soviet Union – but also by increasing the need for nations to guard against a future Chinese confrontation with the Western world. Trust between China and the West will further erode. China will need to guard against any future sanctions, and thus diversify away from the US dollar and assets, while the US will need to do a better job of deterring China against aggression in Asia, and will thus have to diversify away from Chinese manufacturing and critical resources like rare earths. While China and Europe need each other now, the US and China are firmly set on a long-term path of security competition in East Asia. Eventually either the US or China will take a more aggressive stance and Europe will be forced to react. Since Europe will still need US support against a decaying and aggressive Russia, it will likely be dragged into assisting the US against China. Third, the Ukraine war reflects and amplifies Populism/Nationalism: Populism and nationalism are not the same thing but they both stem from the slowing trend of global income growth, the rise of inequality, the corruption of the elite political establishments, and now the rise in inflation. Nations have to devote more resources to pacifying an angry populace, or distracting that populace through foreign adventures, or both. The Ukraine war reflects the rise in nationalism. First, the collapse of the Soviet Union ushered in a period in which Moscow lost control of its periphery, while the diverse peoples could pursue national self-determination and statehood. The independence and success of the Baltic states depended on economic and military cooperation with the West, which eroded Russian national security and provoked a nationalist backlash in the form of President Putin’s regime. Ukraine became the epicenter of this conflict. Ukraine’s successful military resistance is likely to provoke a dangerous backlash from Moscow until either policy changes or the regime changes. American nationalism has flared repeatedly since the fall of the Soviet Union, namely in the Iraq war. The American state has suffered economically and politically for that imperial overreach. But American nationalism is still a potent force and could trigger a more aggressive shift in US foreign policy in 2024 or beyond. European states have kept nationalism in check and tried to subsume their various nationalist sentiments into a liberal and internationalist project, the European Union. The wave of nationalist forces in the wake of the European debt crisis has subsided, with the exception of the United Kingdom, where it flowered in Brexit. The French election in the second quarter will likely continue this trend with the re-election of President Emmanuel Macron, but even if he should suffer a surprise upset to nationalist Marine Le Pen, Europe’s centripetal forces will prevent her from taking France out of the EU or euro or NATO (Chart 15). Over the coming decade, nationalist forces will revive and will present a new challenge to Europe’s ruling elites – but global great power competition strongly supports the EU’s continued evolution into a single geopolitical entity, since the independent states are extremely vulnerable to Russia, China, and even the US unless they unite and strengthen their superstructure. Chart 15Macron Favored, Le Pen Would Be Ineffective In fact the true base of global nationalism is migrating to Asia. Chinese and Indian nationalism are very potent forces under President Xi Jinping and Prime Minister Narendra Modi. Xi is on the verge of clinching another ten years in power while Modi is still favored for re-election in 2024, so there is no reason to anticipate a change anytime soon. The effects are various but what is most important for investors is to recognize that as China’s potential GDP has fallen over the past decade, the Communist Party has begun to utilize nationalism as a new source of legitimacy, and this is expressed through a more assertive foreign policy. President Xi is the emblem of this shift and it will not change, even if China pursues a lower profile over certain periods to avoid provoking the US and its allies into a more effective coalition to contain China. Chart 16Food Insecurity Will Promote Global Unrest, Populism The surge in global prices will destabilize regimes that lack food security and contribute to new bouts of populism and nationalism. Turkey is the most vulnerable due to a confluence of political, economic, and military risks that will unsettle the state. But Egypt is vulnerable to an Arab Spring 2.0 that would have negative security implications for Israel and add powder to the Middle Eastern powder keg. Pakistan is already witnessing political turmoil. Investors may overlook any Indonesian unrest due to its attractiveness in a world where Russia and China are scaring away western investment (Chart 16). All three of these strategic themes are mutually reinforcing – and they tend to be inflationary over the long run. Great powers that redouble the pursuit of national interest – through defense spending and energy security investments – while simultaneously being forced to expand their social safety nets to appease popular discontent, will drive up budget deficits, consume a lot of natural resources, and purchase a lot of capital equipment. They will also more frequently engage in economic or military conflicts that constrain supply (Chart 17). Chart 17War And Preparation For War Are Inflationary Bottom Line: The Ukraine war is a powerful confirmation of our three strategic themes. It is also a confirmation that these themes have inflationary macroeconomic implications. Investment Takeaways Chart 18Global Investors Still Flee To US For Safety Now that great power rivalry is intensifying immediately and rapidly, and yet China’s and Europe’s economies are encountering greater difficulties, we expect stagflation to arrive sooner rather than later. High headline and core inflation, the Ukraine war, tacit Chinese support for Russia, persistent Chinese supply kinks, US and EU sanctions, US midterm elections, and a potential US-Iran diplomatic breakdown will all weigh on risk sentiment in the second quarter. In Ukraine, Russia’s position is too weak to give comfort for investors, who should continue to favor defensive over cyclical equities and US stocks over global stocks. Russia’s break with the West, and the West’s use of sanctions to prevent Russia from accessing its foreign exchange reserves, has raised new questions about the global currency reserve system and the dollar’s status within that system. Over the coming years China will redouble the efforts it began in the wake of the Great Recession to reduce its dependency on US dollar assets within its reserve basket, while also recycling new current account surpluses into non-dollar assets. However, the evidence does not suggest that King Dollar will suffer a structural breakdown. First, the world lacks alternative safe-haven assets to US Treasuries – and net foreign purchases of US bonds rose in the face of the Ukraine war (Chart 18). Second, the return of war to Europe will weaken the perceived long-term security of European currency and government bonds relative to US counterparts. Even if the Ukraine war is contained in the short run, as we expect, Russia is in structural decline and will remain a disruptive player for some time. We are not at all bearish on the euro or European bonds but we do not see the Ukraine war as increasing their value proposition, to put it lightly. The same logic extends to Japanese bonds, since China, like Russia, is an autocratic and revisionist state that threatens to shake up the security order in its neighborhood. Japan is relatively secure as a nation and we are bullish on the yen, but China’s de facto alliance with Russia weakens Japan’s security outlook over the very long run, especially relative to the United States. Thus, on a cyclical basis the dollar can depreciate, but on a structural basis the US dollar will remain the dominant reserve currency. The US is not only the wealthiest and most secure country in the world but also the largest oil producer. Meanwhile Chinese potential growth, domestic political stability, and foreign relations are all worsening. The US-Iran talks are the most critical geopolitical dynamic in the second quarter aside from Russia’s clash with the West. The fate of the 2015 nuclear deal will be decided soon and will determine whether an even bigger energy shock begins to emanate from the Middle East. We would not bet on a new US-Iran deal but we cannot rule it out. Any deal would be a short-term, stop-gap deal but would prevent an immediate destabilization of the Middle East this year. As such it would reduce the risk of stagflation. Since we expect the deal to fail, we expect a new energy shock to emerge. We see stagflation as more likely than the BCA House View. It will be difficult to lift productivity in an environment of geopolitical and political uncertainty combined with slowing global growth, rising interest rates, and a worsening commodity shock (Chart 19). We will gladly revise this stance if Biden clinches an Iran deal, China relaxes its Covid Zero policy and stabilizes domestic demand, Russia and Europe maintain energy trade, and commodity prices fall to more sustainable levels for global demand. Chart 19Stagflation Cometh Strategically we remain long gold, overweight US equities, overweight UK equities, long British pound and Japanese yen, long aerospace/defense stocks and cyber security stocks. We remain short Chinese renminbi and Taiwanese dollar and short emerging European assets. Our short Chinese renminbi trade and our short Taiwanese versus Korean equity trade are our worst-performing recommendations. However, the above analysis should highlight – and the Ukraine war should underscore – that these two economies face a fundamentally negative geopolitical dynamic. Both Chinese and Taiwanese stocks have been underperforming global peers since 2021 and our short TWD-USD trade is in the money. While we do not expect war to break out in Taiwan this year, we do expect various crisis events to occur, particularly in the lead up to the crucial Taiwanese and American 2022 midterms and 2024 presidential election. We also expect China to depreciate the renminbi when inflation peaks and commodity prices subside. Cyclically we remain long North American and Latin American oil producers and short Middle Eastern producers, based on our pessimistic read of the Iran situation. The Americas are fundamentally better protected from geopolitical risks than other regions, although they continue to suffer from domestic political risks on a country-by-country basis. Cyclically we continue to take a defensive positioning, overweighting defensive sectors and large cap equities.   Matt Gertken Chief Geopolitical Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1      That the Russian threat fell under our third key view for 2022 implies that we did not get our priorities straight. However, consider the timing: shortly after publishing our annual outlook on December 15, the Russians issued an ultimatum to the western powers demanding that NATO stop expanding toward Russia. Diplomats from Russia and the West met on January 12-13 but Russia’s demands were not met. We upgraded the odds that Russia would invade Ukraine from 50% to 75% on January 27. Shuttle diplomacy ensued but failed. Russia invaded on February 24. Strategic Themes Open Tactical Positions (0-6 Months) Open Cyclical Recommendations (6-18 Months) Regional Geopolitical Risk Matrix "Batting Average": Geopolitical Strategy Trades () Section II: Special (EDIT this Header) Section III: Geopolitical Calendar

Executive Summary Fed policy and the US stock market are on a collision course. US core inflation will not fall below 3.5% unless the economy slows considerably below its potential for a few quarters. As long as US share prices do not fall considerably, i.e., financial conditions do not tighten substantially, the Fed has no reason to halt its tightening and revert its hawkish posture. Odds are that US profit margins and equity multiples will compress, leading to lower share prices in the coming months. In China, monetary and fiscal stimulus have so far been insufficient to produce an economic recovery given the headwinds from the property sector and the rolling lockdowns. A broad-based EM rally will occur only when a commodity bull market is demand driven. The recent spike in commodity prices has been due to supply curtailment. Unit Labor Costs Are The Key To Core Inflation Bottom Line: Maintain an underweight position in EM equities and credit in global equity and credit portfolios, respectively. EM local currency bonds are becoming attractive. We are waiting to buy EM local bonds later this year using the potential weakness in their currencies.     After a two-year hiatus, I traveled to the US last week for in-person meetings with clients. This report summarizes the key questions and points of discussion that emerged during these exchanges. Question: What are the key risks to EM markets at the moment? Answer: First, Fed policy and the US stock market are on a collision course. This is in fact a threat to global risk assets – not just US ones. Second, rolling lockdowns in China and the property market slump will delay the recovery of the mainland economy. Third, after the latest rebound in risk assets, geopolitical risks are underestimated. Before the situation in Ukraine stabilizes, President Putin will likely escalate the conflict to obtain a better negotiating position. The combination of these three risks warrants a cautious stance on EM assets. Chart 1The 1960s: US Inflation Outbreak And Negative Stock Price-To-Bond Yield Correlation Question: Let’s start with the Fed. Why do you think US share prices and the Fed are on a collision course? Historically, there were episodes during which the S&P 500 rallied even though the Fed was hiking rates. Why is this time different? Answer: Extremely elevated US core inflation, rising inflation expectations as well as very expensive equity valuations make this current episode different from those periods in the 1990s, 2000s and even 2010s when US equities advanced amid Fed tightening.  In fact, share prices and bond yields were negatively correlated for 30 years between 1966 and 1997. The current episode is reminiscent of the late 1960s when core inflation spiked, and equity prices became negatively correlated with Treasury yields (Chart 1). As to the interaction between the Fed and financial markets, our reasoning is as follows: As long as US share prices do not fall and US credit spreads do not widen considerably, i.e., financial conditions do not tighten substantially, then the Fed has no reason to halt its tightening and revert its hawkish posture. The basis is that US core inflation is well above target, and inflation expectations are ratcheting up and could become entrenched. Question: Do you expect US inflation to moderate and in turn allow the Fed to go on hold? Answer: Investors and policymakers should differentiate between the annual inflation rate (a statistical measure) and a genuine inflation outbreak. The annual inflation rate is too high, and will likely drop in H2 this year. Chart 2Super Core US Consumer Inflation Is At 5% However, US inflationary pressures are genuine and broad-based. If these pressures are not contained, they will spiral out of control. Our measure of US average core inflation is currently around 5% (Chart 2). This series is an average of seven measures of core consumer price inflation from the Fed: core CPI and PCE, median CPI, market-based core PCE, trimmed-mean CPI and PCE, and sticky core CPI. Hence, this measure is not influenced by price movements of individual components. The annual rate of core CPI will drop in the US but we do not expect core CPI and PCE to fall below 3.5% unless the economy slows considerably below its potential for a few quarters, and labor market conditions deteriorate leading to lower wage growth. The reasoning is that underlying inflationary pressures have spilled over into the labor market, and the wage-price spiral has probably unraveled. Therefore, inflation cannot be contained without bringing economic growth down below potential growth and weakening the labor market.  Chart 3US Wage Growth Is Between 4.3% and 7.7% The labor market is presently very tight, and wage growth will continue accelerating. Given that real wages have shrunk dramatically in the past 12 months, labor will be demanding wage increases that are on par or above the inflation rate. With sales still strong, companies will have to pay higher wages to maintain and attract skilled employees. US nominal wage growth is presently ranging between 4.3-7.7%, depending on the measure (Chart 3). With US underlying productivity growth unlikely to be more than 2% at best, unit labor costs are therefore rising at a rate of 2.5-5.5% and will accelerate further. Chart 4 illustrates that unit labor costs have been a major driver of core consumer price inflation in the US over the past 60 years. If unit labor costs accelerate, core inflation will not drop much from its current elevated levels. As core inflation proves to be sticky and does not fall rapidly below 3.5%, the Fed will have no choice but to keep raising interest rates… until something breaks. Chart 4Unit Labor Costs Are The Key To Core Inflation Question: What will be the first thing to break? Do you think Fed rate hikes will push the US economy into recession? Answer: Equity markets will be the first to break. It is hard to make a judgement about whether US real GDP will contract, but odds are high that US/global share prices will drop as the Fed tightens. The S&P 500 can drop 20-25% from its early January high without a recession in the American economy. Drivers of this selloff will be compressing equity multiples and shrinking profit margins. Chart 5Rising Rates = Lower Equity Multiples First, there are three drivers of equity returns – the top line, profit margins and valuation multiples. We believe that two of these three – profit margins and multiples – will be negative for the US market in the coming months. Valuation multiples will compress as US interest rates rise further (Chart 5).  Profit margins will shrink as wage growth accelerates well above productivity gains, i.e., unit labor costs spike. Even if corporates’ top-line growth stays robust, the negative impact of compressing valuation multiples and lower profit margins will be overwhelming for equities. Hence, corporate profits could shrink mildly and share prices would drop materially even as real GDP does not contract. Second, it is important to mention that equity returns could be negative outside reccessions. Let’s recall what happened in 2000-2001 in the US. Nominal growth was robust, real GDP contracted only slightly, household spending in real terms did not contract at all, and the housing market was booming (Chart 6, top panel). Yet, the S&P 500 EPS plunged by 30% and the stock index was down by 50% (Chart 6, bottom two panels). We do not mean that US profits are about to crash by 30% and share prices will plunge by 50% like they did in the bear market of 2000-2002. The point is that profits could experience a mild contraction despite solid consumer spending. Chart 6S&P 500 EPS Can Shrink Even If Nominal GDP Growth Is Solid, As Happened In 2001 Chart 7US Real Consumption Of Goods: A Mean Reversion Ahead? Third, there is chance of a stagflation scare. US purchases of goods ex-autos have been extremely strong due to generous fiscal transfers to households and pandemic dynamics that discouraged service spending and boosted goods purchases. Americans’ real spending on goods ex-autos has been running well above its pre-pandemic trend and is likely to experience some sort of mean reversion (Chart 7).  A shift in consumption away from goods ex-autos will weigh down on goods producers globally. Notably, manufacturers rather than service providers dominate equity markets outside the US. Hence, a period when US inflation is sticky, and the Fed is tightening while the global manufacturing cycle is slowing is a possibility. This will upset investors and lead them to pare back their equity holdings. Question: As we all know, the US dollar is very important for EM economies and financial markets. So, what is the outlook for the greenback? Answer: As long as the Fed sounds hawkish and continues tightening, the US dollar will strengthen. The motive is that when the central bank is willing to tighten and the economy does not collapse, the currency tends to appreciate. Even as the S&P 500 sells off, the risk-off phase is also positive for the US currency. The trade-weighted dollar will put a major top and will start depreciating only when the Fed does a dovish tilt. Odds are that this will take place later this year when the S&P 500 is down 25% or so. Yet, US inflation will still be entrenched. In other words, the Fed will fall behind the inflation curve. A central bank falling behind the inflation curve is bearish for the currency. Chart 8Mainstream EM Currencies: An Air Pocket? Concerning mainstream EM (excluding China, Korea and Taiwan) currencies, the total return index (including carry) versus the US dollar has hit a technical resistance (Chart 8). We expect a near-term relapse in EM exchange rates as a mirror image of US dollar strength and the risk-off trade in global markets. However, a major buying opportunity in EM currencies and fixed-income markets as well as EM equity markets will transpire later this year when the US dollar peaks. Question: Let’s turn to China. Growth continues to be disappointing. The COVID-related lockdowns are depressing economic activity. Have authorities stimulated enough for the business cycle to recover soon? Answer: We believe that monetary and fiscal stimulus have so far been insufficient to produce a major economic recovery given the headwinds from the property sector and the harsh lockdowns. The enacted fiscal stimulus is sizable (Chart 9), but it has not yet fully entered the economy. On the monetary front, the credit impulse – excluding local government bond issuance (which is counted in our fiscal spending impulse) – has not yet bottomed (Chart 10). Chart 9China's Fiscal Stimulus Is In The Pipeline Chart 10China: Corporate and Household Credit Impulse Has Not Bottomed Yet With rolling lockdowns impairing service employment and, hence, denting household income, and without sizable fiscal transfers to consumers, the economy will struggle to recover. Local government finances are squeezed by lack of revenues from land sales and their borrowing is limited by quotas set by the central government. So, only the central government is in a position to provide meaningful fiscal support to households, but it has not yet done so. Question: You mentioned that the current geopolitical climate remains a risk to financial markets as Putin will likely escalate before de-escalating. Is this not bullish for commodities? Also, you have argued over the years that commodity prices positively correlate with EM equity performance. Yet, there has been a major decoupling between commodity prices and EM equity absolute and relative performance (Chart 11). How do you explain this phenomenon? Chart 11Decoupling Between EM Stocks And Commodity Prices Answer: Re-escalation on the part of the Kremlin will be bullish for commodities in the short run. In the medium term however, as we argued in a report in early March, commodity prices will be very volatile, with upside risks for some (like wheat) but not for all of them. It all depends on how much of its resource exports Russia can sell/ship abroad. It is hard to forecast this in view of sanctions by Western governments and their private sectors, as well as the breakdown in existing market infrastructures (such as payment systems, freight, insurance, etc.). The breakdown between commodity prices and EM absolute and relative share prices is due to the following: When commodity prices rise due to demand from the real economy, EM stocks tend to rally and outperform. This is especially true when it is China’s demand that is driving commodity prices higher. The reason is that China is important for overall EM economies, and robust demand growth in China is bullish for EM assets. In such a scenario (a demand-driven commodity bull market), not only do commodity producers rally (Latin America) but also commodity consumers (Asia) perform well in absolute terms. The recent spike in commodity prices has been due to supply curtailment rather than demand strength. That has benefited commodity producers (Latin America) but not commodity consumers (Asia). Finally, TMT stocks have come to make up a large share of EM markets in recent years. So wild swings in their performance have distorted the correlation between the EM equity index and commodity prices. Question: Will equity and currency markets of commodity producers continue rallying? Answer: The key signals to monitor are the trend in the US dollar and the global risk-on/risk-off environment. If a risk-off move transpires and the US dollar firms (as we expect), share prices and currencies in commodity-producing countries will relapse in absolute terms. Also, Chart 12 illustrates net long positions in ZAR, BRL and MXN among asset managers and leveraged funds are elevated. In short, investors are already very long, and these currencies could correct. Finally, the prices of some commodities for which Russia and Ukraine are not major producers, like platinum, have already been relapsing. In fact, platinum prices correlate well with EM non-TMT share prices in US dollar terms and are currently pointing to downside risks (Chart 13). Chart 12Investors Are Very Long EM Commodity Currencies Chart 13Not All Commodity Prices Are Rising Question: Could high food and energy prices heighten political risks in some developing countries? How serious is this risk? Answer: This risk has already manifested itself in some countries, with protests in Peru and the 15% devaluation in Egypt. More countries could experience public demonstrations and political turbulence. An overarching theme for many developing nations will be a drag on growth from high food and energy prices. Unlike the US, wages in emerging economies are not rising fast, and labor markets are not tight. As a result, employees have no bargaining power, and their wages will shrink in real terms (adjusted for headline inflation). Given that food and energy make up a larger share of the consumer basket in emerging economies, high energy and food prices will meaningfully reduce household income available for discretionary spending. Consequently, EM household spending will disappoint. In light of lackluster consumer demand, business investment will not pick up much either. Finally, monetary and fiscal policies in EM are reasonably tight. In Latin America, the credit and fiscal spending and monetary impulses are pointing to economic weakness ahead (Chart 14).  Overall, potential political volatility and disappointing domestic demand are risks to EM financial markets. Chart 14Latin American Economies Will Decelerate Chart 15A Buying Opportunity in EM Domestic Bonds Will Occur Later This Year Question: What is your recommended investment strategy for EM overall and country allocation? Answer: We continue recommending an underweight position in EM equities and credit in global equity and credit portfolios, respectively. EM local currency bonds are becoming attractive as their yields have spiked (Chart 15). We are waiting to buy EM local bonds later this year using the potential weakness in their currencies. For now, we have the following positions in individual local rates: long 10-year Brazilian bonds, currency unhedged; receiving 10-year swap rates in China and Malaysia; betting on yield curve flattening in Mexico; receiving 10-year Czech / paying 10-year Polish swap rates. The list of country allocation for EM equity, credit and domestic bond portfolios is presented in Table 1. Table 1Our Country Allocation Across Asset Classes​​​​​​​   Arthur Budaghyan Chief Emerging Markets Strategist arthurb@bcaresearch.com    

Executive Summary Long Small Cap Energy Versus Large Cap President Biden has not received a boost in opinion polls from the Ukraine war. If he has not by now then it is increasingly unlikely that he will do so. Yet Biden performs worse in polls for his handling of economic policy than foreign policy, despite falling unemployment and rising real wages. The economy should help stabilize his approval rating but not in time to prevent Democrats from losing the Senate as well as the House this fall.  Biden’s decision to tap the strategic petroleum reserve exemplifies our 2022 trend of executive action. However, the oil outlook still depends on Biden’s Iran talks and OPEC’s reaction. Recommendation Inception Level Inception Date Return Long Small Vs. Large Cap Energy 0.56 26-Jan-22 14.9% Bottom Line: The return of gridlock is bad for stocks in 2022 but good in 2023. Feature Investors need answers to three questions about US policy at the moment: 1.   Will President Biden’s reaction to the Ukraine war exacerbate the hit to the global and US economy? 2.   Will Biden’s domestic agenda revive? If so, how will it impact corporate earnings expectations? 3.   Will Biden’s foreign and domestic policies cause any changes to the midterm election outlook and hence US policy in 2023-24? In recent reports we have answered these questions as follows. Related Report  US Political StrategySecond Quarter Outlook: Gridlock Looms First, Biden will continue to pursue a defensive or reactive foreign policy, meaning that he will not force Europe or other allies to adopt Russia sanctions beyond their near-term economic and political capabilities. If Europe wants to boycott Russian energy then that is fine but it is Europe’s decision. In fact, Europe is pursuing gradual rather than immediate diversification. Russia needs the funds. So Europe is unlikely to experience a sharp energy cutoff that plunges its economy into recession. Nevertheless, the risk is substantial enough that we remain long DXY and defensive US sectors on a tactical time frame. Second, Biden’s congressional agenda is getting back on track, with the war providing Democrats with a basis for redesigning and rebranding their budget reconciliation bill. Therefore we did not downgrade our 65% subjective odds that Congress will pass a bill. The bill will be close to deficit neutral and focused especially on energy policy. The Senate version of the bill is not yet available but we will examine the likeliest policy options in a forthcoming special report with our US Equity Strategy. Third – our focus for this report – current political changes do not substantially alter the midterm election odds, which suggest Republicans will retake Congress. Gridlock will return – and is the norm in US policy. In an inflationary context gridlock may well be positive for equities in 2023 since it will curb fiscal spending. However, uncertainty is negative for equities this year. We remain tactically defensive. We recommend renewable energy, cyber stocks, defense stocks, and infrastructure stocks as cyclical plays. Biden’s Approval Stabilizing At Low Level Foreign policy shocks are likely to hurt the ruling party – especially if the nature of the shock exacts a toll on the voter’s pocketbook. We showed evidence to this effect just before Russia re-invaded Ukraine. We concluded that Biden would experience a bounce in opinion polls as the nation rallied around him in the face of the Russian menace but the likely rise in gasoline prices would end up hurting the Democratic Party in the midterm elections.  Yet 40 days after Russia’s attack Biden’s general job approval is still at the lowest of his presidency, in the 41-42% range, while his disapproval is still high, in the 52-53% range. So far the war has not given him an appreciable boost, outside of his own party (where the boost has still been small). The results are even worse when it comes to his handling of the economy. Here his approval is 39% and disapproval 54%. In foreign policy, Biden’s approval stands at 40% and disapproval at 52% (Chart 1). Presidential approval has a big influence on the midterm election – as does perception of the two parties. Republicans have taken the lead in the generic congressional ballot, at 43.7% support versus 42.2% for Democrats. The war has blunted the Republican rally but nothing more. The economy is the likeliest source of good news for Biden and the Democrats over the coming six months but even here there is not a basis for optimism among Democrats, as we will see in the next section.  Chart 1No ‘War Bounce’ For Biden Jobs And Wages Not Boosting Biden Either Our Political Capital Index shows that the Biden administration now has weak or moderate political capital in every category except economic conditions and financial markets (Appendix). Yet economic conditions are still mixed. While they will likely improve before November, they do not look to improve enough to change the election outlook: Both Republicans and Democrats are viewing the economy more negatively. Republican economic sentiment declined by 16% in March, while Democrat economic sentiment declined by 6%. The partisan gap widened, which means Republicans will remain motivated to vote (Chart 2). Manufacturing activity is slowing down (though not shrinking). The reading slipped lower than its level in November 2020, when Biden took office. This drop is the first sign of the negative effect of inflation and geopolitical risk on the economy. New manufacturing orders declined while inventories increased. The new-orders-to-inventories ratio, which should be a leading indicator of economic activity, fell by 15.7% compared to its February reading. It is now the weakest since May 2020 (Chart 3). Chart 2Economic Sentiment Declines For Both Parties The budget deficit is “normalizing” and weighing on demand. The fiscal thrust – or change in the budget deficit – turned negative as the stimulus of 2020 waned. The intensity of the drag is now lessening, both on the federal and state level, but it would require a massive new crisis for the US to outdo the stimulus of 2020, so the drag will persist for the foreseeable future (Chart 4). Any last-minute reconciliation bill from congressional Democrats would reduce the drag further, but not generate positive thrust, and not in time to affect the election. To pass the bill, Democrats need to reduce the deficit impact in the face of inflation and paper-thin congressional majorities. Chart 3First Sign Of Inflation, Geopolitics Hitting Manufacturing Chart 4US Fiscal Drag In Wake Of 2020 Stimulus Most worrisome for President Biden, his approval rating has suffered despite a tight labor market and real wage growth. The headline unemployment rate declined to 3.6% in March, down 3.1 percentage points since November 2020. The ISM manufacturing employment index stands at the highest point since March of 2021, and 17% higher than in November 2020 (Chart 5). Inflation is apparently eating away the benefits of low unemployment. Real wages grew by 3.3% on an annual basis in February, up from 2.5% in January. This wage growth is higher than that of November 2020, at 2.2%. Biden’s approval rating is probably in the process of stabilizing, if we assume that unemployment stays low and real wages keep growing. But it is stabilizing at a low level and not perking up as a result of the Russian menace. The likeliest culprit for Biden’s troubles is inflation. Fortunately for the Democrats inflation is likely to fall in the coming months. However, voters are likely to respond to year-on-year rather than month-on-month inflation. And voters make up their minds early in midterm election years. Plus, if inflation does not subside, or if Biden is perceived as making a foreign policy mistake, then his approval rating will not stabilize. Bottom Line: Biden’s approval rating is not perking up despite a foreign threat. His approval on economic policy is even worse than on foreign policy, despite low unemployment and real wage growth higher than when he took office. A drop in inflation would improve his fortunes but taken together the evidence suggests that the war has not helped, and may have hurt, the Democrats’ chances this fall. Chart 5Will Jobs And Real Wages Stabilize Presidential Approval? Biden Taps Strategic Oil Reserve But Implications Depend On Iran One of our key views for 2022 (reiterated in our Q2 outlook) is the Biden administration’s transition from congressional to executive action. Biden’s decision to tap the strategic petroleum reserve (SPR) on March 31 exemplifies this trend. Gasoline prices have spiked to $4.20 per gallon, which is more than double the level in November 2020 (Chart 6). Biden’s SPR order aims to mitigate the rise in prices. Biden ordered the release of 1 million barrels per day of crude oil over the next 180 days (six months). This would constitute the largest release since the SPR came into being in 1975 (Chart 7).1 Chart 6Prices At The Pump Trigger Red Alert In White House Chart 7Biden Taps Strategic Petroleum Reserve The Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) originated in the wake of the Arab oil embargo to protect the US from supply shocks. Faced with “severe petroleum supply interruptions” the president can authorize a maximum drawdown of 396 million barrels over 90 days, which begin reaching the market roughly 13 days after the decision. The current inventory is 570 million barrels of sweet and sour crude, which could last 92 days of crude imports and 72 days of crude and petroleum product imports (Chart 8). Unlike during the 1970s, today the US is the world’s largest oil and refined products producer. It is a net exporter as well. However, it is still vulnerable to external shocks. It imports 6.3 million barrels per day and has already cut off 283 thousand barrels per day of imports from Russia (Chart 9). Global price shocks still affect the US prices at the pump, as Chart 6 above shows in the relationship between domestic gasoline prices and Brent crude. Chart 8SPR Can Be Tapped For Six-To-Nine Months Easily Chart 9US Energy Independent But Still Vulnerable To Shocks The Ukraine crisis is just the sort of geopolitical crisis that the SPR was invented to address – but the magnitude of Biden’s action is larger than normal. The SPR was tapped for 21 million barrels in 1990-91, during the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, and for 30 million barrels in 2011, when Libyan production fell to zero amid the revolution. However, because of US net exporter status, Biden has much more room for maneuver. The SPR would be tapped for 180 million barrels if Biden’s current plan is fully implemented. The SPR can be released at a rate of 4.4 million barrels per day for about 90 days, though after that the drawdown rate begins to decline for technical reasons (e.g. contaminants). Biden’s 180 days would end in early October, a month before the midterm election. If the SPR has at least 282 million barrels left (90 days of US net crude imports in 2021), the president can continue to release oil from it. The minimum storage level is 282 million barrels of crude. Thus at the end of Biden’s current order, he would have 390 million barrels left and would still be able to release 1 million barrels per day for 108 days.  There are various interpretations of Biden’s decision to tap the SPR today: Currently the Russians and Europeans are in a standoff over energy flows. Russia is demanding payment in rubles and Europe is rejecting Russia’s demands while threatening to ban Russian coal imports. Since crude oil is generally interchangeable, an EU-Russia breakdown in crude trade would not prevent Russian barrels from reaching global markets eventually (Chart 10). In short Biden did not tap the SPR in anticipation of a breakdown. Biden could have tapped the SPR because of difficulties convincing the core OPEC states to increase production. Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Kuwait are rapidly increasing production already, though their 90-day spare capacity enables them to bring out as much as 3.5 million additional barrels per day. But on March 31 they ruled out any massive near-term adjustments. Their relations with the US under the Biden administration have been strained, namely as Biden is still trying to rejoin the 2015 Iranian nuclear deal. If the US and Iran rejoin the 2015 deal, the US would lift sanctions and Iran could quickly bring about 1.3 million barrels per day back to global markets. Biden’s SPR release is roughly equal to this amount, which means it could be insurance for a failure to do a deal (Chart 11). Chart 10Russian Oil Exports To Europe And World An Iran deal on top of the SPR release would add 2.3 million barrels per day in positive supply surprises, while reducing the short-term risk of a military conflict in the Persian Gulf. This would have a significant short-term negative impact on oil prices this year. Chart 11Biden Struggles For Help From OPEC What is clear is that our Geopolitical Strategy’s base case of a failure of US-Iran talks would imply a significantly higher risk of oil disruptions in the Middle East over the short and long run. In that case the OPEC states would need to change their position and increase production or else a new supply shock would be added on top of the Russian shock. Biden’s SPR release would make up for production bottled up in Iran but regional supply disruptions would intensify and Iran would threaten the Strait of Hormuz. Biden’s executive action to tap the SPR removes one option from the table. The ultimate impact of this move depends on whether Biden also uses executive action to do a deal with Iran. We cannot rule it out, because Biden has the authority to lift sanctions unilaterally, but we would not bet on it. Bottom Line: Market fundamentals suggest that Brent prices will fall from their current $105 per barrel toward their likely average of $93 per barrel this year and in 2023. Quant Model Points To Republican Senate Last week we highlighted that our Senate election model flipped from predicting the status quo to predicting a Republican victory, in line with our subjective view of the situation. The latest model findings, using data from the state coincident economic indicators released on April 5, suggests that Republicans have a 51.6% chance of gaining control of the Senate (Chart 12). Democrats only need to lose a single seat to slip from 50 to 49 seats and thus yield the majority. The model suggests they will lose two seats, in Arizona and Georgia. The result is a Republican majority of 52-48 seats. Chart 12Senate Election Model Flips To Republicans Our presidential election model still shows Democrats holding onto the White House in 2024 with 308 electoral college votes but their chances are declining. Specifically Democrats’ odds of retaining the White House have fallen from 54.9% to 54.7% now that the March data is taken into account (Chart 13). North Carolina is still considered a toss-up state, with a 45% probability that Democrats win it, but that means that a single percentage point drop puts it firmly in the Republican camp, along with Arizona and Georgia. Democrats’ odds are falling in Florida, Pennsylvania, and Nevada especially, although they are improving in Wisconsin and Minnesota. Chart 13Presidential Election Model Still Slightly Favors Democrats Florida presents an interesting difference between the two models: the Senate model gives Florida to the Republicans, while the presidential model gives it to the Democrats. This requires some explanation: The incumbent advantage plays a role. Biden did not win Florida in 2020 but that does not stop the model from ascribing Democrats a good chance of winning Florida given that they are the incumbent party. Incumbency would be punished if Democrats held the White House for eight years due to the variable that accounts for the public sentiment that it is “time for change.” The Senate model works differently. The model only helps the party that controls a state Senate seat by means of the partisan leaning of the state in recent elections. This is helpful for Republicans in the model’s 2022 prediction. Meanwhile the model only punishes an incumbent party if it has held control of the US Senate for three or more terms, which is not the case today. Our sample periods across the two election models are the same (1984-2020), but in this period, Democrats only held Senate seats for three out of nine changes. There have been nine different senators from Florida since 1989, three of which have been Democrats. The last Democratic senator was Bill Nelson but he was beaten by Republican Rick Scott in 2018. The other Senate seat has been held by a Republican since around 2004, most recently Marco Rubio, who is up for re-election in 2022. So the model will “lean” more Republican based on total outcomes and how recently recurring they were. Finally, a caveat: we should be careful about explicitly comparing the two election models. Although they are both Probit models, the variables are not all the same. Some are shared but their interaction with one another and the election outcome (dependent variable) should not be assumed to be exactly the same. There can be little doubt in the model’s outlook for the Florida Senate race. Senator Marco Rubio is a young incumbent, has strong name recognition, and is up for re-election in a favorable year for Republicans. As of February he was leading his top Democratic opponent Val Demings by 12 percentage points in opinion polls. Confirming the state’s Republican leaning, Governor Ron DeSantis was leading his Democratic opponent Charlie Crist by 21 percentage points in February polls, with over 50% favoring DeSantis. (Other than former President Trump, DeSantis is currently the favored Republican nominee for 2024.) Moreover the presidential model is catching up to the Senate model, with the odds of a Democratic win in Florida dropping from 59% to 55% over the past month alone. If the odds fall beneath 50% then the model naturally awards all of Florida’s 29 electoral votes to the Republicans. This would leave Democrats hanging by a thread at 279 votes. What is clear is that the 2024 election is a long way off. Democrats benefit from an incumbent advantage as a political party, aside from whether President Biden runs again. Yet the quantitative model suggests that the US will experience another hotly contested presidential election. Bottom Line: Republicans are now tipped to take the Senate in our quantitative model as well as our subjective judgment. Meanwhile Democrats are still favored to win the 2024 election but only slightly, and their odds are falling. These views support the market consensus but in general US investors will remain risk averse ahead of the midterm election.  Investment Takeaways Stay tactically long the US dollar and defensive stocks like in the health care sector. Russia is threatening to cut off energy exports to Europe, which is considering a ban on Russian coal. Until this dispute is resolved, risk appetite will suffer, the euro will be limited, and the dollar will stay strong. Stay long renewable energy, cyber security stocks, infrastructure stocks, defense stocks, oil and gas distribution, and small cap energy stocks (Chart 14). Chart 14Investment Takeaways Matt Gertken Senior Vice President Chief US Political Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com Jesse Anak Kuri Associate Editor jesse.kuri@bcaresearch.com Guy Russell Senior Analyst guyr@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1     See White House, “FACT SHEET: President Biden’s Plan to Respond to Putin’s Price Hike at the Pump,” March 31, 2022, whitehouse.gov; Department of Energy, “Strategic Petroleum Reserve: Providing Energy Security For America,” March 28, 2022, energy.gov; and Heather L. Greenley, “The Strategic Petroleum Reserve: Background, Authorities, and Considerations,” Congressional Research Service, R46355, May 13, 2020, crsreports.congress.gov.   Appendix Strategic View Open Tactical Positions (0-6 Months) Open Cyclical Recommendations (6-18 Months)   Table A2Political Risk Matrix Table A3US Political Capital Index Chart A1Presidential Election Model Chart A2Senate Election Model Table A4APolitical Capital: White House And Congress Table A4BPolitical Capital: Household And Business Sentiment Table A4CPolitical Capital: The Economy And Markets  

Highlights Chart 1Reduce Credit Exposure Corporate bond spreads staged a nice rally during the past month. The average index spread for investment grade corporates is only 22 bps above its pre-COVID low and 33 bps above last year’s trough. The average High-Yield index spread is 5 bps above its pre-COVID low and 49 bps above last year’s trough (Chart 1). This rally occurred even as inflation data continued to surprise to the upside and employment data confirmed that the US labor market is extremely tight. With the economic data justifying the Fed’s hawkish pivot, the Treasury curve has flattened dramatically, and both the 2-year/10-year and 3-year/10-year slopes are now inverted (Chart 1, bottom panel). An inverted yield curve is a reliable late-cycle indicator, and we think current spread levels offer a good opportunity to reduce corporate bond exposure. This week, we downgrade investment grade corporates from neutral (3 out of 5) to underweight (2 out of 5) and high-yield corporates from overweight (4 out of 5) to neutral (3 out of 5), placing the proceeds into Treasuries. We also downgrade our recommended allocations EM Sovereigns (see page 8) and TIPS (see page 11), upgrade our recommended allocation to CMBS (see page 13) and adjust our recommended yield curve positioning (see page 10). Feature Table 1Recommended Portfolio Specification Table 2Fixed Income Sector Performance Investment Grade: Underweight Chart 2Investment Grade Market Overview Investment grade corporate bonds outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 86 basis points in March, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to -154 bps. Our quality-adjusted 12-month breakeven spread shifted down to its 21st percentile since 1995 (Chart 2). As noted on the first page of this report, corporate spreads have rallied to within striking distance of their pre-COVID lows at the same time as the yield curve has become inverted beyond the 2-year maturity. We showed in last week’s report that an inversion of the 2-year/10-year Treasury slope is not necessarily a harbinger of imminent recession, but it does typically coincide with very low (and often negative) excess corporate bond returns.1 The combination of reasonably tight spreads and an inverted yield curve causes us to recommend downgrading investment grade corporate bond allocations from neutral (3 out of 5) to underweight (2 out of 5). It’s important to note that corporate balance sheets remain healthy (bottom panel) and we see no indication that a recession or default cycle will unfold during the next 6-12 months. That said, we must acknowledge that an inverted yield curve signals that the economic recovery is entering its late stages. Economic growth will be slower going forward and corporate spreads are unlikely to tighten much, especially from current depressed levels. Against this backdrop it makes sense to be more cautious on credit, sacrificing small positive excess returns in the near-term to ensure that we aren’t invested when the next downturn hits. Table 3ACorporate Sector Relative Valuation And Recommended Allocation* Table 3BCorporate Sector Risk Vs. Reward* High-Yield: Neutral Chart 3High-Yield Market Overview High-Yield outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 119 basis points in March, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to -96 bps. The 12-month spread-implied default rate – the default rate that is priced into the junk index assuming a 40% recovery rate on defaulted debt and an excess spread of 100 bps – shifted down to 3.7% (Chart 3). An inverted yield curve sends the same negative signal for high-yield excess returns as it does for investment grade. However, high-yield valuation is currently more attractive. The option-adjusted spread differential between Ba-rated bonds and Baa-rated bonds remains elevated at 86 bps, 41 bps above its pre-COVID low (panel 3). It is also likely that economic growth will remain sufficiently strong for defaults to come in below the spread-implied threshold of 3.7% during the next 12 months (bottom panel). The greater attractiveness of high-yield valuations relative to investment grade causes us to maintain a higher allocation to the sector, even as we downgrade our portfolio’s overall credit risk exposure. We therefore recommend a neutral (3 out of 5) allocation to high-yield corporates.     MBS: Underweight Chart 4MBS Market Overview Mortgage-Backed Securities underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 14 basis points in March, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to -74 bps. The zero-volatility spread for conventional 30-year agency MBS tightened 3 bps on the month as a 4 bps tightening of the option-adjusted spread (OAS) was partially offset by a 1 bp increase in the compensation for prepayment risk (option cost) (Chart 4). We wrote in a recent report that MBS’ poor performance in 2021 was attributable to an option cost that was too low relative to the pace of mortgage refinancings, noting that the MBA Refinance Index was slow to fall in 2021 despite the back-up in yields.2 This valuation picture is starting to change. The option cost is now up to 40 bps, its highest level since 2016, and refi activity is slowing as the Fed lifts rates. At 28 bps, the index OAS remains unattractive. However, the elevated option cost raises the possibility that the OAS may be over-estimating the pace of mortgage refinancings for the first time in a while. If these trends continue, it may soon make sense to increase exposure to agency MBS.       Emerging Market Bonds (USD): Underweight Chart 5Emerging Markets Overview Emerging Market bonds underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 23 basis points in March, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to -505 bps. EM Sovereigns outperformed the Treasury benchmark by 40 bps on the month, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to -609 bps. The EM Corporate & Quasi-Sovereign Index underperformed by 62 bps, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to -439 bps. The EM Sovereign Index underperformed the duration-equivalent US corporate bond index by 7 bps in March. This comes on the heels of a sharp underperformance in February that was driven by Russian bonds which have since been removed from the index. Russian bonds have also been purged from the EM Corporate & Quasi-Sovereign Index, and this index underperformed duration-matched US corporates by 11 bps in March (Chart 5). The yield differential between EM sovereigns and duration-matched US corporates remains negative. As such, we downgrade our recommended allocation to EM sovereigns from underweight (2 out of 5) to maximum underweight (1 out of 5). In sharp contrast, the EM Corporate & Quasi-Sovereign Index continuous to offer a significant yield advantage (panel 4). We retain our neutral (3 out of 5) recommendation for EM Corporates & Quasi-Sovereigns. Municipal Bonds: Overweight Chart 6Municipal Market Overview Municipal bonds outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 5 basis points in March, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to -122 bps (before adjusting for the tax advantage). While the war in Ukraine has introduced a great deal of uncertainty into the economic outlook, the municipal bond sector should be better placed than most to deal with the fallout. Trailing 4-quarter net state & local government savings are incredibly high (Chart 6) and 2021’s federal spending splurge will continue to support state & local government coffers for some time. On the valuation front, munis have cheapened up relative to both Treasuries and corporates during the past two months. The 10-year Aaa Muni / Treasury yield ratio is currently at 94%, up significantly from its 2021 trough of 55%. The yield ratios between 12-17 year munis and duration-matched corporate bonds are also up significantly off their lows (panel 2). We reiterate our overweight allocation to municipal bonds within US fixed income portfolios, and we continue to have a strong preference for long-maturity munis. The yield ratio between 17-year+ General Obligation Municipal bonds and duration-matched corporates is 93%. The same measure for 17-year+ Revenue bonds stands at 101%, meaning that Revenue bonds carry a before-tax yield advantage versus duration-matched corporates. Treasury Curve: Buy 5-Year Bullet Versus 2/10 Barbell Chart 7Treasury Yield Curve Overview The Treasury curve’s bear-flattening trend continued through March. The 2-year/10-year Treasury slope flattened 35 bps on the month and the 5-year/30-year Treasury slope flattened 44 bps. These slopes are now both inverted, sitting at -6 bps and -12 bps respectively. In last week’s report we noted the unusually wide divergence between very flat slopes at the long end of the yield curve and very steep slopes at the front end.3 For example, the 5-year/10-year Treasury slope is -18 bps but the 3-month/5-year slope is 204 bps. This divergence is happening because the market has moved quickly to price-in a rapid near-term pace of rate hikes that will end in roughly one year. However, so far, the Fed has only delivered 25 bps of those hikes and this is holding down the very front-end of the curve. The oddly shaped curve presents us with an excellent trading opportunity. Specifically, we recommend buying the 5-year Treasury note versus a duration-matched barbell consisting of the 2-year and 10-year notes. This trade looks attractive on our model (Chart 7) and will profit if the rate hike cycle moves more slowly than what is currently priced in the market but lasts longer, as is our expectation. By entering our new 5-year bullet over 2-year/10-year barbell trade we also close our previous 2-year bullet over cash/10-year barbell trade at a loss. We continue to recommend a position long the 20-year bullet versus a duration-matched 10/30 barbell as an attractive carry trade. TIPS: Underweight Chart 8TIPS Market Overview TIPS outperformed the duration-equivalent nominal Treasury index by 143 basis points in March, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +271 bps. The 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate rose 22 bps on the month and the 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rate rose 21 bps. Since last May we have been recommending that clients maintain a neutral allocation to TIPS versus nominal Treasuries at the long end of the curve and an underweight allocation to TIPS at the front end. This recommendation was premised on the view that the breakeven curve would steepen as falling inflation put downward pressure on short-maturity TIPS breakevens and long-dated breakevens remained at levels close to the Fed’s target. Recently, the 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate has shot up to levels well above the Fed’s 2.3%-2.5% target range (Chart 8) and our TIPS Breakeven Valuation Indictor has shifted into “expensive” territory (panel 2). Further, while inflation has remained high for longer than we expected, it still seems more likely than not that it will roll over between now and the end of the year as pandemic fears fade and consumers shift their spending patterns away from goods and toward services. As such, we think investors should take this opportunity to further reduce exposure to TIPS versus nominal Treasuries at both the short and long ends of the curve. That is, within our overall underweight allocation to TIPS we continue to recommend positioning in breakeven curve steepeners and in real yield curve flatteners. We also continue to recommend an outright short position in 2-year TIPS. ABS: Overweight Chart 9ABS Market Overview Asset-Backed Securities underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 26 basis points in March, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to -31 bps. Aaa-rated ABS underperformed by 21 bps on the month, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to -27 bps. Non-Aaa ABS underperformed by 49 bps on the month, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to -51 bps. During the past two years, substantial federal government support for household incomes has caused US households to build up an extremely large buffer of excess savings. During this period, many households have used their windfalls to pay down consumer debt and credit card debt levels have fallen to well below pre-COVID levels (Chart 9). Though consumer credit growth has rebounded, debt levels are still low. This indicates that the collateral quality backing consumer ABS remains exceptionally strong. This also indicates that while surging gasoline prices will weigh on consumer activity in the coming months, household balance sheets are starting from such a good place that we don’t expect a meaningful increase in consumer credit delinquencies. Investors should remain overweight consumer ABS and should take advantage of the high quality of household balance sheets by moving down the quality spectrum, favoring non-Aaa rated securities over Aaa-rated ones. Non-Agency CMBS: Overweight Chart 10CMBS Market Overview Non-Agency Commercial Mortgage-Backed Securities outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 20 basis points in March, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to -78 bps. Aaa Non-Agency CMBS outperformed Treasuries by 25 bps on the month, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to -67 bps. Non-Aaa Non-Agency CMBS underperformed by 5 bps on the month, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to -110 bps. CMBS spreads remain wide compared to other similarly risky spread products. Further, commercial real estate (CRE) lending standards have recently shifted into “net easing” territory and demand for CRE loans is strengthening (Chart 10). In light of today’s downgrade of corporate credit, non-agency CMBS look like an attractive alternative to add some spread to a portfolio. Increase exposure from neutral (3 out of 5) to overweight (4 out of 5). Agency CMBS: Overweight Agency CMBS underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 17 basis points in March, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to -39 bps. The average index option-adjusted spread widened 5 bps on the month. It currently sits at 48 bps, not that far from its average pre-COVID level (bottom panel). Agency CMBS spreads also continue to look attractive compared to other similarly risky spread products. Stay overweight.   Appendix A: The Golden Rule Of Bond Investing We follow a two-step process to formulate recommendations for bond portfolio duration. First, we determine the change in the federal funds rate that is priced into the yield curve for the next 12 months. Second, we decide – based on our assessments of the economy and Fed policy – whether the change in the fed funds rate will exceed or fall short of what is priced into the curve. Most of the time, a correct answer to this question leads to the appropriate duration call. We call this framework the Golden Rule Of Bond Investing, and we demonstrated its effectiveness in the US Bond Strategy Special Report, “The Golden Rule Of Bond Investing”, dated July 24, 2018. Chart 11 illustrates the Golden Rule’s track record by showing that the Bloomberg Barclays Treasury Master Index tends to outperform cash when rate hikes fall short of 12-month expectations, and vice-versa. At present, the market is priced for 255 basis points of rate hikes during the next 12 months. Chart 11The Golden Rule's Track Record We can also use our Golden Rule framework to make 12-month total return and excess return forecasts for the Bloomberg Barclays Treasury index under different scenarios for the fed funds rate. Excess returns are relative to the Bloomberg Barclays Cash index. To forecast total returns we first calculate the 12-month fed funds rate surprise in each scenario by comparing the assumed change in the fed funds rate to the current value of our 12-month discounter. This rate hike surprise is then mapped to an expected change in the Treasury index yield using a regression based on the historical relationship between those two variables. Finally, we apply the expected change in index yield to the current characteristics (yield, duration and convexity) of the Treasury index to estimate total returns on a 12-month horizon. The below tables present those results, along with excess returns for a front-loaded and a back-loaded rate hike scenario. Excess returns are calculated by subtracting assumed cash returns in each scenario from our total return projections. Appendix B: Butterfly Strategy Valuations The following tables present the current read-outs from our butterfly spread models. We use these models to identify opportunities to take duration-neutral positions across the Treasury curve. The following two Special Reports explain the models in more detail: US Bond Strategy Special Report, “Bullets, Barbells And Butterflies”, dated July 25, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com US Bond Strategy Special Report, “More Bullets, Barbells And Butterflies”, dated May 15, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Table 4 shows the raw residuals from each model. A positive value indicates that the bullet is cheap relative to the duration-matched barbell. A negative value indicates that the barbell is cheap relative to the bullet. Table 4Butterfly Strategy Valuation: Raw Residuals In Basis Points (As Of March 31, 2022) Table 5 scales the raw residuals in Table 4 by their historical means and standard deviations. This facilitates comparison between the different butterfly spreads. Table 5Butterfly Strategy Valuation: Standardized Residuals (As Of March 31, 2022) Table 6 flips the models on their heads. It shows the change in the slope between the two barbell maturities that must be realized during the next six months to make returns between the bullet and barbell equal. For example, a reading of -55 bps in the 5 over 2/10 cell means that we would expect the 5-year to outperform the 2/10 if the 2/10 slope flattens by less than 55 bps during the next six months. Otherwise, we would expect the 2/10 barbell to outperform the 5-year bullet. Table 6Discounted Slope Change During Next 6 Months (BPs) Appendix C: Excess Return Bond Map The Excess Return Bond Map is used to assess the relative risk/reward trade-off between different sectors of the US bond market. It is a purely computational exercise and does not impose any macroeconomic view. The Map’s vertical axis shows 12-month expected excess returns. These are proxied by each sector’s option-adjusted spread. Sectors plotting further toward the top of the Map have higher expected returns and vice-versa. Our novel risk measure called the “Risk Of Losing 100 bps” is shown on the Map’s horizontal axis. To calculate it, we first compute the spread widening required on a 12-month horizon for each sector to lose 100 bps or more relative to a duration-matched position in Treasury securities. Then, we divide that amount of spread widening by each sector’s historical spread volatility. The end result is the number of standard deviations of 12-month spread widening required for each sector to lose 100 bps or more versus a position in Treasuries. Lower risk sectors plot further to the right of the Map, and higher risk sectors plot further to the left. Chart 12Excess Return Bond Map (As Of March 31, 2022)   Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see US Bond Strategy / US Investment Strategy / US Equity Strategy Special Report, “The Yield Curve As An Indicator”, dated March 29, 2022. 2 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The Omicron Impact”, dated November 30, 2021. 3 Please see US Bond Strategy / US Investment Strategy / US Equity Strategy Special Report, “The Yield Curve As An Indicator”, dated March 29, 2022.   Recommended Portfolio Specification Other Recommendations Treasury Index Returns Spread Product Returns

Executive Summary Tighter Financial Conditions May Affect Growth Inflation Outlook: Inflation is becoming entrenched, spreading beyond a few pandemic-related items to “sticky price” categories. A wage-price spiral and unmoored inflation expectations translate into upside risk to the 2.5% consensus core PCE forecast. Consumer Spending: Americans are being forced to allocate a larger proportion of income towards food and gas, shifting consumption away from discretionary spending. As such, consumer spending alone may not be able to keep the economy afloat. On a 50bps hike: The rate hike increments are less important than the message the Fed is sending out to the market: Talking up 50 bp rate rises, the Fed is signaling that is it laser-focused on inflation, which is reassuring. Tightening and the economy: Aggressive monetary tightening will lead to slower economic growth, but this is not yet reflected in consensus economic growth forecasts. Recession Coming? Economic growth is slowing but off high levels, and recession is not imminent.  Our recession indicator does not flash danger. However, we are watching out for a growth disappointment. Bottom Line: In a commentary to our bi-monthly sector chart pack report, we provide answers to the most frequently asked questions on the state of the US economy.  Feature Performance Markets never cease to surprise. In March, US equities staged an unexpected rally despite the backdrop of a hawkish Fed, raging inflation, surging energy prices, and a war in the heart of Europe. The reversal was broad-based, not leaving a single sector in the red (Chart I-1). The S&P 500 has regained 9% since the market bottom on March 8, 2022 and is only 5.5% off its all-time high. The NASDAQ has rebounded 13%. Is this rally sustainable? In a report a couple of weeks ago, we aimed to answer this question. We recommended patience, although many ingredients, such as attractive valuations and oversold technical conditions, were already in place. Our reasons for patience were that: Economic growth expectations are still elevated and bottom-up earnings growth forecasts need to come down, to reflect slowing growth, a tighter monetary regime, and higher commodities and energy prices. Our view is unchanged. This week was a busy one: A media interview with The Deep Dive, and two virtual conferences in Australia, one run by Insider Network and the other by Equity Forum. In today’s cover report for our sector chartpack, we answer questions we received from the media and conference audience, that we believe will be of interest to clients. Chart I-1Powerful Rebound Questions And Answers The Consumer Price Index (CPI) increased by 7.9% and the PCE price index, the Fed’s preferred measure of inflation, came in at 6.4% in February – readings not seen since 1982. What is your outlook on inflation? Inflation will come down, assisted by the arithmetic of the base effect. However, it is unlikely to revert to levels that the Fed and the US consumer will consider acceptable. Moreover, inflation could surprise further to the upside. The concern is that inflation is becoming entrenched. It has spread beyond a few pandemic-related items to goods for which prices are usually sticky (Chart I-2). There are also clear signs that price increases are feeding through to wage increases. Real wage growth remains negative at -2%, while demand for labor is robust – there are 1.7 open jobs per job seeker, and companies are raising wages to retain talent (Chart I-3). Subsequently, they will raise prices to pass on cost increases to customers. These are fertile conditions for a wage-price spiral, with inflation becoming even more entrenched. Chart I-2Even Sticky Prices Are Now Rising Chart I-3Rising Wages Are In Lockstep With Rising Prices Further, inflation expectations have become unmoored: According to a University of Michigan survey, consumers expect prices to rise by 5.5% over the next year, and by more than 3% a year over five to 10 years (Chart I-4). Concerningly, the upward adjustment in inflation expectations is relentless. The war in Ukraine exacerbates many causes of inflation: Its indirect effects are shortages of raw materials, energy, and shipping disruptions (Chart I-5). Chart I-4Inflation Expectations Are Unmoored Chart I-5Supply Chains Remain Disrupted Consensus forecasts for US core PCE inflation see it coming down to 2.5% by next year. The risk is that it could exceed that. Bottom Line: Inflation will come down but may not normalize any time soon. What is the effect of food and energy inflation on consumer spending? Negative real wage growth bites into consumer purchasing power, sapping confidence (Chart I-6). It does not help that food and energy prices are up by 8% and 14% respectively year over year (Chart I-7). However, the rising price of necessities has the most pronounced effect on low earners: Food accounts for more than a quarter of the after-tax income of the lowest quintile of earners, falling to just over five percent of income for top earners (Chart I-8). As many Americans are forced to allocate a larger proportion of income towards food and gas, they have to shift consumption away from discretionary spending. Thus, a high price for gasoline does not necessarily suppress demand for gasoline but rather reduces demand for, say, fast-food meals. Chart I-6High Inflation Saps Consumer Confidence Chart I-7Food And Energy Prices Have Surged This change in a spending basket explains a slowdown in consumer spending: PCE increased only 0.2% month-on-month in February, which is underwhelming compared to the 0.7% expected. It also explains rising credit-card balances (Chart I-9). Chart 8Rising Cost Of Food Cuts Into Discretionary Spending... Chart I-9Many Consumers Are Struggling At the same time, we know that US consumers have $2.3 trillion in excess savings – which are clearly not uniformly distributed across income groups. This nice stash of cash provides a solid consumer spending cushion for the US economy, but it may not be up to the challenge of keeping the economy afloat single-handedly. Bottom Line: For now, the US consumer is in good shape but there are cracks in the foundation as lower-income Americans are clearly struggling with rising food and gas prices. Fed Chair Jerome Powell noted last week that the Fed could raise rates from the traditional 25 basis points per meeting to 50 basis points if necessary. Do you think 50 basis points will have much of an impact on inflation or on the real economy? The Fed has gotten way behind the curve. In retrospect, it should have raised rates last summer – and it now understands its error. Its first hike this cycle came only when the economy had already over-heated (Chart I-10). At long last, the Fed, despite its dual objective, is laser-focused on inflation. As with most central banks, signaling is presumably more important than action – remember the famous Mario Draghi’s “whatever it takes.” Talking up 50 bp rate rises, the Fed is signaling that “the inflation cop is back in town.”  And while it will be hard for the Fed to put the inflation genie back in the bottle, it is reassuring that it will at least try. As for a potential 50-basis-point rate rise, for now it does not present an immediate threat to the real economy: Real rates remain negative and monetary conditions are fairly loose, while the neutral rate (that elusive r-star) is still quite a ways off from where the rates are now (Chart I-11). Bottom Line: The rate hike increments are less important than the message the Fed is sending out to the market. Chart I-10The Fed Is Behind The Curve Chart I-11The Market Expects The Fed To Move Aggressively To Combat Inflation What will be the effect of monetary tightening on economic growth? Related Report  US Equity StrategyHave US Equities Hit Rock Bottom? While early on, rate hikes can be shrugged off by a strong economy, over time, tighter financial conditions necessary to combat inflation, augur badly for growth. While financial conditions are still loose, they have already tightened on the back of higher long-term rates, widening credit spreads, and a strengthening dollar. The Goldman Sachs Financial Conditions Index points to the ISM Manufacturing Index falling below 50 later this year (Chart I-12).  However, as we have pointed out in our “Have We Hit Rock Bottom Yet?” report, GDP growth forecasts do not reflect tighter monetary conditions and higher commodity prices (Chart I-13). The Atlanta Fed Nowcast points to only 0.9% annualized growth in Q1, yet consensus expectations have barely budged. Bottom Line: Aggressive monetary tightening will lead to slower economic growth. Chart I-12Tighter Financial Conditions May Affect Growth Chart I-13The GDP Forecasts Have Not Been Revised Down To Reflect New Challenges Investors are increasingly worried that the US is heading for a recession. What are your views?  As my colleague, US Investment Strategist Doug Peta has put it: “Fed Chair Powell is attempting to steer the US economy between the Scylla of a recession and the Charybdis of entrenched high inflation.” Indeed, the Fed has a narrow margin of error for achieving a “soft landing.” The war in Ukraine makes the Fed’s objective even more challenging. Alan Blinder, a former Fed economist and current Princeton University professor who has a forthcoming book on monetary and fiscal policy history over the past 60 years, says the Fed has just once in the last 11 tightening periods nailed a “perfect soft landing” – in the early 1990s. But twice more, in the mid-1960s and early 1980s, the central bank raised interest rates without sparking an official recession—and such “soft-ish” landings, he said in a recent presentation, are not all that rare.1 This is a track record we find disturbing. However, we share Powell’s view that “the probability of a recession within the next year is not particularly elevated… all signs are that this is a strong economy and, indeed, one that will be able to flourish… in the face of less accommodative monetary policy.” We concur. A recession is unlikely in the next 12 months or so. The US economy is in the midst of a classic slowdown stage of the business cycle: Growth is still strong albeit slowing, inflation is elevated, liquidity is (still) abundant, capacity utilization is high, and the unemployment rate is low (Table 1). The American consumer is unhappy but has not tightened purse strings much yet. Importantly, growth is slowing off high levels so this stage can take a long time (Chart I-14). Table I-1Stages Of The Business Cycle Doug Peta’s simple recession indicator, built from components that have reliably provided an advance warning, reinforces this conclusion. The 3-month/10-year segment of the yield curve is not yet close to inverting (Chart I-15). Chart I-14The Business Cycle Indicator Signals Slowdown Chart I-1510-Year Treasury Yield Less 3-Months Treasury Bills Segment Is Not Inverted The year-over-year change in the Conference Board’s Leading Economic Index is way above the zero line that has signaled past recessions (Chart I-16). The ISM Manufacturing PMI is well above 50. The Fed funds rate is nowhere near its equilibrium/neutral level, which we judge to be north of 3%, and it is highly unlikely to get there by the end of the year (Chart I-17). Chart I-16The LEI YoY% Is Way Above Zero Chart I-17The Fed Funds Rate Is Far From Neutral Excluding the pandemic, recessions over the last 50-plus years have occurred only when all three components sound the alarm; not one is flashing red now and not one is likely to do so during 2022. Bottom Line: We are watching out not for a recession, but for a growth disappointment.   Irene Tunkel Chief Strategist, US Equity Strategy irene.tunkel@bcaresearch.com       S&P 500 Chart II-1Macroeconomic Backdrop Chart II-2Profitability Chart II-3Valuations And Technicals Chart II-4Uses Of Cash Communication Services Chart II-5Macroeconomic Backdrop Chart II-6Profitability Chart II-7Valuations And Technicals Chart II-8Uses Of Cash Consumer Discretionary Chart II-9Macroeconomic Backdrop Chart II-10Profitability Chart II-11Valuations And Technicals Chart II-12Uses Of Cash Consumer Staples Chart II-13Macroeconomic Backdrop Chart II-14Profitability Chart II-15Valuations And Technicals Chart II-16Uses Of Cash Energy Chart II-17Macroeconomic Backdrop Chart II-18Profitability Chart II-19Valuations And Technicals Chart II-20Uses Of Cash Financials Chart II-21Macroeconomic Backdrop Chart II-22Profitability Chart II-23Valuations And Technicals Chart II-24Uses Of Cash Health Care Chart II-25Sector vs Industry Groups Chart II-26Profitability Chart II-27Valuations And Technicals Chart II-28Uses Of Cash Industrials Chart II-29Macroeconomic Backdrop Chart II-30Profitability Chart II-31Valuations And Technicals Chart II-32Uses Of Cash Information Technology Chart II-33Macroeconomic Backdrop Chart II-34Profitability Chart II-35Valuations And Technicals Chart II-36Uses Of Cash Materials Chart II-37Macroeconomic Backdrop Chart II-38Profitability Chart II-39Valuations And Technicals Chart II-40Uses Of Cash Real Estate Chart II-41Macroeconomic Backdrop Chart II-42Profitability Chart II-43Valuations And Technicals Chart II-44Uses Of Cash Utilities Chart II-45Macroeconomic Backdrop Chart II-46Profitability Chart II-47Valuations And Technicals Chart II-48Uses Of Cash Table II-1Performance Table II-2Valuations And Forward Earnings Growth Footnotes 1     "Recession Risks Are Rising. Can the Fed Stick a Soft Landing?" Barron's (barrons.com)   Recommended Allocation Recommended Allocation: Addendum 

Executive Summary US inflation is running at its highest level in over four decades. Although we expect it will soon peak, it appears certain to remain above the Fed’s 2% target level for an extended period. The war in Ukraine and COVID’s assault on China could give rise to a new round of supply disruptions that keep inflation at very high levels even after the initial wave of bottlenecks is cleared. Long-term price stability may best position an economy to achieve its potential, but real S&P 500 earnings have grown twice as fast when CPI inflation is above its mean than they have when it is below its mean. Historically, inflation has only begun to squeeze nominal earnings growth at two-standard-deviation extremes. Meaningful equity de-rating has been a feature when inflation exceeds its mean, however, and investors will have to be alert for any signs that TINA might be losing its grip on financial markets. We do not think that low-to-no-yield Treasuries or cash yet offer an appealing alternative, but animal spirits are always subject to change. Bumping Up Against Tactical Limits Bottom Line: The question of how to navigate an inflationary environment is likely to be with investors across 2022 and beyond. We continue to recommend overweighting equities over our cyclical 6-12-month timeframe, but risks are heightened and we will change course if conditions dictate. Feature With consumer prices rising at a clip not seen in over 40 years, inflation is a hot-button topic for anyone with even a passing interest in the US economy. The relentless series of upside inflation surprises have investors preoccupied with finding havens. To help get a handle on where to invest against varying inflation backdrops, we divided inflation into five regimes since the consumer price index (CPI) was launched in 1947: extreme inflation (an annualized quarter-over-quarter rate more than two standard deviations above its mean), high inflation (more than one but less than or equal to two standard deviations above the mean), moderate inflation (up to one standard deviation above the mean), moderately low inflation (one standard deviation below the mean up to the mean) and deflation (two standard deviations below the mean up to one standard deviation below the mean). Related Report  US Investment StrategyThe Last Line Of Inflation Defense (Is Holding Fast) We reviewed the performance of S&P 500 operating earnings, earnings multiples and returns in each CPI regime to see how equities have responded to inflation over the last 75 years. We then reviewed the available total return data for Treasuries, investment-grade corporate bonds and high-yield corporate bonds and analyzed them alongside equity total returns. The empirical record enhances our confidence in earnings growth, but the S&P 500 currently trades at nearly 20 times forward four-quarter earnings, and it is especially vulnerable to de-rating, given that contracting valuations have been the driver of underperformance when inflation exceeds its mean. We find it hard to contemplate overweighting fixed income over the next year when nominal yields are so far below the rate of inflation. It may require a modest leap of faith to believe that equity multiples can maintain their cruising altitude, but the odds are very long that a 10-year Treasury note yielding 2.4% will protect its owner’s purchasing power when prices might rise by 3.5% to 4.5% over the next year. The positive real returns that Treasuries have delivered in high-inflation environments since 1984 were achieved over a lengthy stretch in which inflation compensation at the date of purchase repeatedly topped actual inflation to maturity. Today it appears as if ex-ante inflation compensation is likely to prove woefully inadequate and we are skeptical that bonds can live up to their historical return patterns. 75 Years Of Inflation Data Chart 1 shows 299 quarters of annualized inflation data in standard deviation increments since the CPI was constructed in 1947. The shape of the distribution bears out the notion that prices are sticky to the downside; the population mean is well above the median as the high-inflation right tail is longer and fatter than the deflationary left tail. Across the CPI’s entire history, inflation has averaged 3.52% on an annualized quarter-over-quarter basis with a standard deviation (“sigma”) of 3.55%. Based on those parameters, we define extremely high inflation as CPI increases above 10.62% (17 instances), high inflation as 7.08% to 10.62% (22 instances), moderately high inflation as 3.53% to 7.07% (82 instances), moderately low inflation as -0.02% to 3.52% (155 instances), disinflation as -3.57% to -0.03% (21 instances) and deflation as less than -3.57% (2 instances). Chart 1The Complete Annualized CPI Distribution Inflation And Equities We examined movements in operating earnings, trailing multiples and closing prices for the S&P 500 in each of the six inflation regimes, though we discarded the outlier deflation bucket for insufficient data. In the extreme (greater-than-two-sigma) inflation scenario, S&P 500 earnings initially surged amidst the early postwar period’s pent-up demand explosion before going backwards in the Korean War inflation, the sharp 1973-75 recession and the Volcker double dip (Chart 2, dark solid line). An expanding P/E multiple (dashed line) helped to mitigate the blow from shrinking earnings, but equity investors endured sharp real declines (bottom panel, light solid line). Chart 2Extreme Inflation Squashes Earnings The one-to-two-sigma high-inflation scenario is a mirror image of the extreme inflation scenario. Nominal earnings growth surged (Chart 3, top panel) and managed to hold up well in real terms (Chart 3, bottom panel), but the index’s multiple de-rated at a vicious 15.5% annualized rate, sticking investors with double-digit real losses. 70% of this regime played out from 1973 to 1982 and it also spanned some of 1990-91 and great recessions. The last two data points occurred in 2021, when flat multiples allowed equities to benefit from robust earnings growth, but previously melting multiples illustrate the peril for equities if monetary tightening induces a hard landing. Chart 3High Inflation: Surging Nominal Earnings, Fierce De-Rating The zero-to-one-sigma moderate-inflation scenario has fostered such robust earnings growth that even a steady de-rating headwind cannot hold back equity returns (Chart 4). Despite spanning the entire 1973-74 recession and the early stages of the global financial crisis, the moderate-inflation regime has been solidly conducive to growth. Chart 4Moderate Inflation Is Great For Growth Just over half of the quarters have met our minus-one-to-zero-sigma moderately low inflation standard. They have featured subpar nominal earnings growth, but a benign inflation backdrop has helped them close the gap with mean real growth and a re-rating tailwind has pushed real annualized S&P 500 price returns above 7% (Chart 5). Most of the post-crisis period has unfolded against a moderately low inflation backdrop, which has been good for equity investors even as concerns about tepid growth lingered. Chart 5Moderately Low Inflation Is The Enduring Equity Sweet Spot The minus-two-to-minus-one-sigma deflationary backdrop in which the price level contracts has featured even weaker aggregate growth, but a 10% annualized re-rating boost has allowed equities to deliver double-digit returns (Chart 6). One would expect growth to wither when the price level is deflating but ex-1Q20, when the pandemic halted activity in its tracks, growth in this phase has topped growth in every other phase. That counterintuitive result illustrates that inflation is a lagging indicator that exerts a heavy influence on monetary policy, which impacts the economy with a lag, while markets are forward looking. The ends of the inflation distribution are likely to mark inflection points where momentum reverses. Chart 6Once Prices Deflate, The Danger Has Already Passed Our survey of equity performance across inflation regimes has shown that inflation is much better for earnings growth than disinflation/deflation until it reaches extreme levels. Nominal earnings have grown three times as fast and real earnings have grown twice as fast when inflation is above its 3.52% mean than when it’s below it (Table 1). The fundamental tailwind that comes with perky inflation is almost entirely offset by multiple contraction, however, just as the growth drag from low inflation is offset by multiple expansion. We don’t think investors should be unduly worried that inflation will squash growth this year, but they do need to be alert to anything that might presage de-rating. Table 1Inflation And Earnings, Multiples, And Returns Inflation And Bonds To fill out the asset allocation picture, we also reviewed the performance of the Bloomberg US Treasury, US Corporate and US High Yield Total Return Indices. Table 2 tracks annual nominal and real total returns for all three indices, along with the S&P 500, since the second half of 1983, when the high-yield index was launched. The distribution of CPI changes from 1983 forward is more concentrated about the mean than the entire population distribution beginning in 1947 and nearly 80% of observations fall within one standard deviation of the mean, so the tail distributions have comparatively few observations. Table 2Inflation, Treasuries And Spread Product Nonetheless, the extant tail observations suggest that high yield’s positive carry failed to generate positive excess returns over Treasuries in high-inflation environments while spread widening and increased defaults caused them to lag Treasuries amidst extreme deflation. Investment grade also lagged Treasuries in the tails, albeit by a smaller margin than high yield. High yield comfortably outperformed within the core minus-one-to-plus-one-sigma range, when equities also shined. The bottom line is that Treasuries have provided welcome ballast to multi-asset portfolios in both high-inflation and deflationary episodes over the last 40 years. They were even bigger winners from late 1972, when the Treasury and corporate indexes began, through late 1983, sporting annualized real returns that beat those of high-grade corporates and the S&P 500 by five and eight percentage points, respectively, when inflation exceeded its mean. We question the applicability of the empirical record in the current environment, however, as ex-ante inflation compensation routinely outstripped ex-post inflation over the four-plus decades that it was compiled. Even as the 10-year yield has recently flirted with 2.5%, we expect that the inflation compensation embedded in long-duration bonds will prove inadequate to preserve bondholders’ purchasing power over the bonds’ remaining life. Portfolio Construction The findings from our inflation review do not spur us to make any changes to the ETF portfolio. We continue to believe that the near-term foundations of the US economy are strong and will support above-trend growth over our six- to twelve-month investment timeframe. US growth is at risk from the war in Ukraine and the ongoing COVID-19 revival and aggressive Fed tightening could stifle the effects of past fiscal and monetary stimulus measures that have not yet been felt. We are actively monitoring global geopolitical and public health developments, along with the Fed, though we think it will be difficult for Chair Powell and company to surprise hawkishly over the rest of this year. We believe the moves we made four weeks ago, when we temporarily closed out our equity overweight, reduced our cyclicals-over-defensives positioning, dialed back our value and small-cap overweights, initiated direct exposure to the metals and mining space via the XME ETF and trimmed our Treasury underweight, will protect the portfolio adequately against ongoing inflationary surges and sporadic growth headwinds. The direct homebuilder exposure we took on via the ITB ETF at that time has weighed on performance, but we are sticking with it as we believe the widespread pessimism about the industry’s prospects has gotten way overdone. The labor market remains robust, as the March employment report and the February JOLTS release reiterated last week, less pecunious households are flush with excess pandemic savings and the wealthy are reveling in an unprecedented surge in household net worth. The global situation merits tactical caution, and it looks as if the S&P 500 has hit the top of its near-term range (Chart 7, top panel) while the VIX may have reached a near-term bottom (Chart 7, bottom panel), but our sanguine cyclical view remains intact. Chart 7Equities May Have Reached Another Short-Term Turning Point ETF Portfolio Review - March The cyclical ETF portfolio returned 1.26% in March (Appendix Table), outperforming its benchmark by a modest 8 basis points (“bps”). Our bond underweight was auspicious as yields rose across all maturities last month. Overweighting the riskier segments of the fixed-income market – junk bonds and preferred stocks via the VRP ETF – generated 14 bps of relative performance. However, our equity positioning chipped away at those gains. We underweighted Utilities, March’s top performing sector, and overweighted value, which lagged. Our large Energy overweight mitigated those drags, leaving us with positive net alpha. Since inception two months ago, the portfolio’s value-added stands at 18 bps.   Doug Peta, CFA Chief US Investment Strategist dougp@bcaresearch.com Jennifer Lacombe Associate Editor JenniferL@bcaresearch.com Cyclical ETF Portfolio

Executive Summary Equities Are Still Attractive Versus Bonds Macroeconomic Outlook: Global growth will reaccelerate in the second half of this year provided a ceasefire in Ukraine is reached. Inflation will temporarily come down as the dislocations caused by the war and the pandemic subside, before moving up again in late 2023. Equities: Maintain a modest overweight in stocks over a 12-month horizon, favoring non-US equities, small caps, and value stocks. Look to turn more defensive in the second half of 2023 in advance of another wave of inflation. Fixed income: The neutral rate of interest in the US is around 3.5%-to-4%, which is substantially higher than the consensus view. Bond yields will move sideways this year but will rise over the long haul. Overweight Germany, France, Japan, and Australia while underweighting the US and the UK in a global bond portfolio. Credit: Corporate debt will outperform high-quality government bonds over the next 12 months. Favor HY over IG and Europe over the US. Spreads will widen again in late 2023. Currencies: As a countercyclical currency, the US dollar will weaken later this year, with EUR/USD rising to 1.18. We are upgrading our view on the yen from bearish to neutral due to improved valuations. The CNY will strengthen as the Chinese authorities take steps to boost domestic demand. Commodities: Oil prices will dip in the second half of 2022 as the geopolitical premium in crude declines and more OPEC supply comes to market. However, oil and other commodity prices will start moving higher by mid-2023. Bottom Line: The cyclical bull market in stocks that began in 2009 is running long in the tooth, but the combination of faster global growth later this year and a temporary lull in inflation should pave the way for one final hurrah for equities.   Dear Client, Instead of our regular report this week, we are sending you our Quarterly Strategy Outlook, where we explore the major trends that are set to drive financial markets in the rest of 2022 and beyond. Next week, please join me for a webcast on Monday, April 11 at 9:00 AM EDT (2:00 PM BST, 3:00 PM CEST, 9:00 PM HKT) where I will discuss the outlook. Best regards, Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist P.S. You can now follow me on LinkedIn and Twitter.   I. Overview We continue to recommend overweighting global equities over a 12-month horizon. However, we see downside risks to stocks both in the near term (next 3 months) and long term (2-to-5 years). In the near term, stocks will weaken anew if Russia’s stated intentions to scale back operations in Ukraine turn out to be a ruse. There is also a risk that China will need to temporarily shutter large parts of its economy to combat the spread of the highly contagious BA.2 Omicron variant. While stocks could suffer a period of indigestion in response to monetary tightening by the Fed and a number of other central banks, we doubt that rates will rise enough over the next 12 months to undermine the global economy. This reflects our view that the neutral rate of interest in the US and most other countries is higher than widely believed. If the neutral rate ends up being between 3.5% and 4% in the US, as we expect, the odds are low that the Fed will induce a recession by raising rates to 2.75%, as the latest dot plot implies (Chart 1). Chart 1The Market Sees The Fed Raising Rates To Around 3% And Then Backing Off The downside of a higher neutral rate is that eventually, investors will need to value stocks using a higher real discount rate. How fast markets mark up their estimate of neutral depends on the trajectory of inflation. We were warning about inflation before it was cool to warn about inflation (see, for example, our January 2021 report, Stagflation in a Few Months?; or our February 2021 report, 1970s-Style Inflation: Yes, It Could Happen Again). Our view has been that inflation will follow a “two steps up, one step down” pattern. We are currently near the top of those two steps: US inflation will temporarily decline in the second half of this year, as goods inflation drops but service inflation is slow to rise. The decline in inflation will provide some breathing room for the Fed, allowing it to raise rates by no more than what markets are already discounting over the next 12 months. Unfortunately, the respite in inflation will not last long. By the end of 2023, inflation will start to pick up again, forcing the Fed to resume hiking rates in 2024. This second round of Fed tightening is not priced by the markets, and so when it happens, it could be quite disruptive for stocks and other risk assets. Investors should overweight equities on a 12-month horizon but look to turn more defensive in the second half of 2023.    II. The Global Economy War and Pestilence Are Near-Term Risks BCA’s geopolitical team, led by Matt Gertken, was ringing the alarm bell about Ukraine well before Russia’s invasion. Recent indications from Russia that it will scale back operations in Ukraine could pave the way for a ceasefire; or they could turn out to be a ruse, giving Russia time to restock supply lines and fortify its army in advance of a new summertime campaign against Kyiv. It is too early to tell, but either way, our geopolitical team expects more fighting in the near term. The West is not keen to give Putin an easy off-ramp, and even if it were, it is doubtful he would take it. The only way that Putin can salvage his legacy among his fan base in Russia is to decisively win the war in order to ensure Ukraine’s military neutrality.  For his part, Zelensky cannot simply agree to Russia’s pre-war demands that Ukraine demilitarize and swear off joining NATO unless Russian forces first withdraw. To give in to such demands without any concrete security guarantees would raise the question of why Ukraine fought the war to begin with.   The Impact of the Ukraine War on the Global Economy The direct effect of the war on the global economy is likely to be small. Together, Russia and Ukraine account for 3.5% of global GDP in PPP terms and 1.9% in dollar terms. Exports to Russia and Ukraine amount to only 0.2% of G7 GDP (Chart 2). Most corporations have little direct exposure to Russia, although there are a few notable exceptions (Chart 3). Chart 2Little Direct Trade Exposure To Russia And Ukraine In contrast to the direct effects, the indirect effects have the potential to be sizable. Russia is the world’s second largest oil producer, accounting for 12% of annual global output (Chart 4). It is the world’s top exporter of natural gas. About half of European natural gas imports come from Russia. Russia is also a significant producer of nickel, copper, aluminum, steel, and palladium. Chart 3Only A Handful Of Firms Have Significant Sales Exposure To Russia Chart 4Russia is The World's Second Largest Oil Producer Russia and Ukraine are major agricultural producers. Together, they account for a quarter of global wheat exports, with much of it going to the Middle East and North Africa (Chart 5). They are also significant producers of potatoes, corn, sugar beets, and seed oils. In addition, Russia produces two-thirds of all ammonium nitrate, the main source of nitrogen-based fertilizers. Largely as a result of higher commodity prices and other supply disruptions, the OECD estimates that the war could shave about 1% off of global growth this year, with Europe taking the brunt of the hit (Chart 6). At present, the futures curves for most commodities are highly backwardated (Chart 7). While one cannot look to the futures as unbiased predictors of where spot prices are heading, it is fair to say that commodity markets are discounting some easing in prices over the next two years. If that does not occur, global growth could weaken more than the OECD expects. Chart 5Developing Economies Buy The Bulk Of Russian And Ukrainian Wheat Chart 6The War In Ukraine Could Shave One Percentage Point Off Of Global Growth Chart 7Futures Curves For Most Commodities Are Backwardated     Another Covid Wave Two years after “two weeks to flatten the curve,” the world continues to underappreciate the power of exponential growth. Suppose that it takes five days for someone with Covid to infect someone else. If everyone with Covid infects an average of six people, the cumulative number of Covid cases would rise from 1,000 to 10 million in around four weeks. Suppose you could cut the number of new infections in half to three per person. In that case, it would take about six weeks for 10 million people to be infected. In other words, mitigation measures that cut the infection rate by half would only extend how long it takes for 10 million people to be infected by two weeks. That’s not a lot.  The point is that any infection rate above one will generate an explosive rise in cases. In the pre-Omicron days, keeping the infection rate below one was difficult, but not impossible for countries with the means and motivation to do so. As the virus has become more contagious, however, keeping it at bay has grown more difficult. The latest strain of Omicron, BA.2, appears to be 40% more contagious than the original Omicron strain, which itself was about 4-times more contagious than Delta. BA.2 is quickly spreading around the world. The number of cases has spiked across much of Europe, parts of Asia, and has begun to rise in North America (Chart 8). In China, the authorities have locked down Shanghai, home to 25 million people. Chart 8Covid Cases Are On The Rise Again The success that China has had in suppressing the virus has left its population with little natural immunity; and given the questionable efficacy of its vaccines, with little artificial immunity as well. Moreover, as is the case in Hong Kong, a large share of mainland China’s elderly population remains completely unvaccinated. Chart 9New Covid Drugs Are Set To Hit The Market This presents the Chinese authorities with a difficult dilemma: Impose severe lockdowns over much of the population, or let the virus run rampant. As the logic of exponential change described above suggests, there is not much of a middle ground. Our guess is that the Chinese government will choose the former option. China has already signed a deal to commercialize Pfizer’s Paxlovid. The drug is highly effective at preventing hospitalization if taken within five days from the onset of symptoms. Fortunately, Paxlovid production is starting to ramp up (Chart 9). China will probably wait until it has sufficient supply of the drug before relaxing its zero-Covid policy. While beneficial to growth later this year, this strategy could have a negative near-term impact on activity, as the authorities continue to play whack-a-mole with Covid.   Chart 10Inflation Is Running High, Especially In The US Central Banks in a Bind Standard economic theory says that central banks should adjust interest rates in response to permanent shocks, while ignoring transitory ones. This is especially true if the shock in question emanates from the supply side of the economy. After all, higher rates cool aggregate demand; they do not raise aggregate supply. The lone exception to this rule is when a supply shock threatens to dislodge long-term inflation expectations. If long-term inflation expectations become unanchored, what began as a transitory shock could morph into a semi-permanent one. The problem for central banks is that the dislocations caused by the Ukraine war are coming at a time when inflation is already running high. Headline CPI inflation reached 7.9% in the US in February, while core CPI inflation clocked in at 6.4%. Trimmed-mean inflation has increased in most economies (Chart 10). Fortunately, while short-term inflation expectations have moved up, long-term expectations have been more stable. Expected US inflation 5-to-10 years out in the University of Michigan survey stood at 3.0% in March, down a notch from 3.1% in January, and broadly in line with the average reading between 2010 and 2015 (Chart 11). Survey-based measures of long-term inflation expectations are even more subdued in the euro area and Japan (Chart 12). Market-based inflation expectations have risen, although this partly reflects higher oil prices. Even then, the widely-watched 5-year, 5-year forward TIPS inflation breakeven rate remains near the bottom of the Fed’s comfort range of 2.3%-to-2.5% (Chart 13).1  Chart 11Long-Term Inflation Expectations Remain Contained In The US...​​​​​​ Chart 12... And In The Euro Area And Japan Chart 13The Market's Long-Term Inflation Expectations Are Near The Bottom Of The Fed's Comfort Zone Goods versus Services Inflation Most of the increase in consumer prices has been concentrated in goods rather than services (Chart 14). This is rather unusual in that goods prices usually fall over time; but in the context of the pandemic, it is entirely understandable. Chart 14Goods Prices Have Been A Major Driver Of Overall Inflation The pandemic caused spending to shift from services to goods (Chart 15). This occurred at the same time as the supply of goods was being adversely affected by various pandemic-disruptions, most notably the semiconductor shortage that is still curtailing automobile production.   Chart 15AGoods Inflation Should Fade As Consumption Shifts Back Towards Services (I) Chart 15BGoods Inflation Should Fade As Consumption Shifts Back Towards Services (II) Looking out, the composition of consumer spending will shift back towards services. Supply chain bottlenecks should also abate, especially if the situation in Ukraine stabilizes. It is worth noting that the number of ships on anchor off the coast of Los Angeles and Long Beach has already fallen by half (Chart 16). The supplier delivery components of both the manufacturing and nonmanufacturing ISM indices have also come off their highs (Chart 17). Even used car prices appear to have finally peaked (Chart 18). Chart 16Shipping Delays Are Abating Chart 17Delivery Times Are Slowly Coming Down Chart 18Used Car Prices May Have Finally Peaked On the Lookout for a Wage-Price Spiral Could rising services inflation offset any decline in goods inflation this year? It is possible, but for that to happen, wage growth would have to accelerate further. For now, much of the acceleration in US wage growth has occurred at the bottom end of the income distribution (Chart 19). It is easy to see why. Chart 20 shows that low-paid workers have not returned to the labor market to the same degree as higher-paid workers. However, now that extended unemployment benefits have lapsed and savings deposits are being drawn down, the incentive to resume work will strengthen. Chart 19Wage Growth Has Picked Up, But Mostly At The Bottom End Of The Income Distribution Chart 20More Low-Wage Employees Should Return To Work Chart 21More Workers Will Return To Their Jobs Once The Pandemic Ends The end of the pandemic should allow more workers to remain at their jobs. In January, during the height of the Omicron wave, 8.75 million US workers (5% of the total workforce) were absent from work due to the virus (Chart 21).   How High Will Interest Rates Eventually Rise? If goods inflation comes down swiftly later this year, and services inflation is slow to rise, then overall inflation will decline. This should allow the Fed to pause tightening in early 2023. Whether the Fed will remain on hold beyond then depends on where the neutral rate of interest resides. Chart 22The Yield Curve Inverted in Mid-2019 But Growth Accelerated The neutral rate, or equilibrium rate as it is sometimes called, is the interest rate consistent with full employment and stable inflation. If the Fed pauses hiking before interest rates have reached neutral, the economy will eventually overheat, forcing the Fed to resume hiking. In contrast, if the Fed inadvertently raises rates above neutral, unemployment will start rising, requiring the Fed to cut rates. Markets are clearly worried about the latter scenario. The 2/10 yield curve inverted earlier this week. With the term premium much lower than in the past, an inversion in the yield curve is not the powerful harbinger of recession that it once was. After all, the 2/10 curve inverted in August 2019 and the economy actually strengthened over the subsequent six months before the pandemic came along (Chart 22). Nevertheless, an inverted yield curve is consistent with markets expectations that the Fed will raise rates above neutral. That is always a dangerous undertaking. Raising rates above neutral would likely push up the unemployment rate. There has never been a case in the post-war era where the 3-month moving average of the unemployment rate has risen by more than 30 basis points without a recession occurring (Chart 23). Chart 23When Unemployment Starts Rising, It Usually Keeps Rising   As discussed in the Feature Section below, the neutral rate of interest is probably between 3.5% and 4% in the US. This is good news in the short term because it lowers the odds that the Fed will raise rates above neutral during the next 12 months. It is bad news in the long run because it means that the Fed will find itself even more behind the curve than it is now, making a recession almost inevitable. The Feature Section builds on our report from two weeks ago. Readers familiar with that report should feel free to skip ahead to the next section. III. Feature: A Higher Neutral Rate Conceptually, the neutral rate is the interest rate that equates the amount of investment a country wants to undertake at full employment with the amount of savings that it has at its disposal.2  Anything that reduces savings or increases investment would raise the neutral rate (Chart 24). Chart 24The Savings-Investment Balance Determines The Neutral Rate Of Interest A number of factors are likely to lower desired savings in the US over the next few years: Households will spend down their accumulated pandemic savings. US households are sitting on $2.3 trillion (10% of GDP) in excess savings, the result of both decreased spending on services during the pandemic and the receipt of generous government transfer payments (Chart 25). Household wealth has soared since the start of the pandemic (Chart 26). Conservatively assuming that households spend three cents of every additional dollar in wealth, the resulting wealth effect could boost consumption by 4% of GDP. Chart 25Plenty Of Pent-Up Demand Chart 26Net Worth Has Soared Since The Pandemic The household deleveraging cycle has ended (Chart 27). Household balance sheets are in good shape. After falling during the initial stages of the pandemic, consumer credit has begun to rebound. For the first time since the housing boom, mortgage equity withdrawals are rising. Banks are easing lending standards on consumer loans across the board. Chart 27US Household Deleveraging Pressures Have Abated Chart 28Baby Boomers Have Amassed A Lot Of Wealth Baby boomers are retiring. They hold over half of US household wealth, considerably more than younger generations (Chart 28). As baby boomers transition from being savers to dissavers, national savings will decline. Government budget deficits will stay elevated. Fiscal deficits subtract from national savings. While the US budget deficit will come down over the next few years, the IMF estimates that the structural budget deficit will still average 4.9% of GDP between 2022 and 2026 compared to 2.0% of GDP between 2014 and 2019 (Chart 29).Chart 29Fiscal Policy: Tighter But Not Tight On the investment front: The deceleration in trend GDP growth, which depressed investment spending, has largely run its course.3 According to the Congressional Budget Office, real potential GDP growth fell from over 3% in the early 1980s to about 1.9% today. The CBO expects potential growth to edge down only slightly to 1.7% over the next few decades (Chart 30). After moving broadly sideways for two decades, core capital goods orders – a leading indicator for capital spending – have broken out to the upside (Chart 31). Capex intention surveys remain upbeat (Chart 32). The average age of the nonresidential capital stock currently stands at 16.3 years, the highest since 1965 (Chart 33). Chart 30Much Of The Deceleration In Potential Growth Has Already Happened Chart 31Positive Signs For Capex (I) Chart 32Positive Signs For Capex (II) Chart 33An Aging Capital Stock Similar to nonresidential investment, the US has been underinvesting in residential real estate (Chart 34). The average age of the housing stock has risen to a 71-year high of 31 years. The homeowner vacancy rate has plunged to the lowest level on record. The number of newly finished homes for sale is half of what it was prior to the pandemic. Chart 34US Housing Is In Short Supply   The New ESG: Energy Security and Guns The war in Ukraine will put further upward pressure on the neutral rate, especially outside of the United States. After staging a plodding recovery following the euro debt crisis, European capital spending received a sizable boost from the launch of the NextGenerationEU Recovery Fund (Chart 35). As Mathieu Savary points out in his latest must-read report on Europe, capital spending will rise further in the years ahead as European governments accelerate efforts to make their economies less reliant on Russian energy. Germany has already announced plans to construct three new LNG terminals. The push to build out Europe’s energy infrastructure is coming at a time when businesses are looking to ramp up capital spending. As in the US, Europe’s capital stock has aged rapidly over the past decade (Chart 36). Chart 35European Capex Should Recover Chart 36European Machines Need More Than Just An Oil Change   Chart 37The War In Ukraine Calls For More Spending Across Europe Meanwhile, European governments are trying to ease the burden from rising energy costs. For example, France has introduced a rebate on fuel. It is part of a EUR 20 billion package aimed at cutting heating and electricity bills. European military spending will rise. Military spending currently amounts to 1.5% of GDP, well below NATO’s threshold of 2% (Chart 37). Germany has announced that it will spend EUR 100 billion more on defense. European governments will also need to boost spending to accommodate Ukrainian refugees. The UN estimates that four million refugees have left Ukraine, with the vast majority settling in the EU.   A Smaller Chinese Current Account Surplus? The difference between what a country saves and invests equals its current account balance. Historically, China has been a major exporter of savings, which has helped depress interest rates abroad. While China’s current account surplus has declined as a share of its own GDP, it has remained very large as a share of global ex-China GDP, reflecting China’s growing weight in the global economy (Chart 38). Many analysts assume that China will double down on efforts to boost exports in order to offset the drag from falling property investment. However, there is a major geopolitical snag with that thesis: A country that runs a current account surplus must, by definition, accumulate assets from the rest of the world. As the freezing of Russia’s foreign exchange reserves demonstrates, that is a risky proposition for a country such as China. Rather than increasing its current account surplus, China may seek to bolster its economy by raising domestic demand. This could be achieved by either boosting domestic infrastructure spending or raising household consumption. Notably, China’s credit impulse appears to have bottomed and is set to increase in the second half of the year. This is good news not just for Chinese growth but growth abroad (Chart 39). Chart 38Will China Be A Source Of Excess Savings? Chart 39China's Credit Impulse Appears To Have Bottomed The IMF’s latest projections foresee China’s current account surplus falling by more than half between 2021 and 2026 as a share of global ex-China GDP. If this were to happen, the neutral rate in China and elsewhere would rise. IV. Financial Markets A. Portfolio Strategy Chart 40The Markets Wobbled And Then Recovered After The Beginning Of The Last Four Fed Rate Cycles As noted in the overview, if the neutral rate turns out to be higher than currently perceived, the Fed is unlikely to induce a recession by raising rates over the next 12 months. That is good news for equities. A look back at the past four Fed tightening cycles shows that stocks often wobble when the Fed starts hiking rates, but then usually rise as long as rates do not move into restrictive territory (Chart 40). Unfortunately, a higher neutral rate also means that investors will eventually need to value stocks using a higher discount rate. It also means that any decline in inflation this year will not last. The US economy will probably start to overheat again in the second half of 2023. This will set the stage for a second, and more painful, tightening cycle in 2024. Admittedly, there is a lot of uncertainty over our “two steps up, one step down” forecast for inflation. It is certainly possible that the “one step down” phase does not last long and that the resurgence in inflation we are expecting in the second half of next year occurs earlier. It is also possible that investors will react negatively to rising rates, even if the economy is ultimately able to withstand them. As such, only a modest overweight to equities is justified over the next 12 months, with risks tilted to the downside in the near term. More conservative asset allocators should consider moving to a neutral stance on equities already, as my colleague Garry Evans advised clients to do in his latest Global Asset Allocation Quarterly Portfolio Outlook.   B. Fixed Income Stay Underweight Duration Over a 2-to-5 Year Horizon Our recommendation to maintain below-benchmark duration in fixed-income portfolios panned out since the publication of our Annual Outlook in December, with the US 10-year Treasury yield rising from 1.43% to 2.38%. We continue to expect bond yields in the US to rise over the long haul. Conceptually, the yield on a government bond equals the expected path of policy rates over the duration of the bond plus a term premium. The term premium is the difference between the return investors can expect from buying a long-term bond that pays a fixed interest rate, and the return from rolling over a short-term bill. The term premium has been negative in recent years. Investors have been willing to sacrifice return to own long-term bonds because bond prices usually rise when the odds of a recession go up. The fact that monthly stock returns and changes in bond yields have been positively correlated since 2001 underscores the benefits that investors have received from owning long-term bonds as a hedge against unfavorable economic news (Chart 41). However, now that inflation has emerged as an increasingly important macroeconomic risk, the correlation between stock returns and changes in bond yields could turn negative again. Unlike weak economic growth, which is bad for only stocks, high inflation is bad for both bonds and stocks. Chart 41Correlation Between Stock Returns And Bond Yields Could Turn Negative If bond yields start to rise whenever stock prices fall, the incentive to own long-term bonds will decline. This will cause the term premium to increase. Assuming the term premium rises to about 0.5%, and a neutral rate of 3.5%-to-4%, the long-term fair value for the 10-year US Treasury yield is 4%-to-4.5%. This is well above the 5-year/5-year forward yield of 2.20%.   Move from Underweight to Neutral Duration Over a 12-Month Horizon Below benchmark duration positions usually do well when the Fed hikes rates by more than expected over the subsequent 12 months (Chart 42). Chart 42The Golden Rule Of Bond Investing Given our view that US inflation will temporarily decline later this year, the Fed will probably not need to raise rates over the next 12 months by more than the 249 basis points that markets are already discounting. Thus, while a below-benchmark duration position is advisable over a 2-to-5-year time frame, it could struggle over a horizon of less than 12 months. Our end-2022 target range for the US 10-year Treasury yield is 2.25%-to-2.5%. Chart 43Bond Sentiment And Positioning Are Bearish Supporting our decision to move to a neutral benchmark duration stance over a 12-month horizon is that investor positioning and sentiment are both bond bearish (Chart 43). From a contrarian point of view, this is supportive of bonds.   Global Bond Allocation BCA’s global fixed-income strategists recommend overweighting German, French, Australian, and Japanese government bonds, while underweighting those of the US and the UK. They are neutral on Italy and Spain given that the ECB is set to slow the pace of bond buying. The neutral rate of interest has risen in the euro area, partly on the back of more expansionary fiscal policy across the region. In absolute terms, however, the neutral rate in the euro area is still quite low, and possibly negative. Unlike in the US, where inflation has risen to uncomfortably high levels, much of Europe would benefit from higher inflation expectations, as this would depress real rates across the region, giving growth a boost. This implies that the ECB is unlikely to raise rates much over the next two years. As with the euro area, Japan would benefit from lower real rates. The Bank of Japan’s yield curve control policy has been put to the test in recent weeks. To its credit, the BoJ has stuck to its guns, buying bonds in unlimited quantities to prevent yields from rising. We expect the BoJ to stay the course. Unlike in the euro area and Japan, inflation expectations are quite elevated in the UK and wage growth is rising quickly there. This justifies an underweight stance on UK gilts. Although job vacancies in Australia have climbed to record levels, wage growth is still not strong enough from the RBA’s point of view to justify rapid rate hikes. As a result, BCA’s global fixed-income strategists remain overweight Australian bonds. Finally, our fixed-income strategists are underweight Canadian bonds but are contemplating upgrading them given that markets have already priced in 238 basis points in tightening over the next 12 months. Unlike in the US, high levels of consumer debt will also limit the Bank of Canada’s ability to raise rates.   Modest Upside in High-Yield Corporate Bonds Credit spreads have narrowed in recent days but remain above where they were prior to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Since the start of the year, US investment-grade bonds have underperformed duration-matched Treasurys by 154 basis points, while high-yield bonds have underperformed by 96 basis points (Chart 44). The outperformance of high-yield relative to investment-grade debt can be explained by the fact that the former has more exposure to the energy sector, which has benefited from rising oil prices. Looking out, falling inflation and a rebound in global growth later this year should provide a modestly supportive backdrop for corporate credit. High-yield spreads are still pricing in a default rate of 3.8% over the next 12 months (Chart 45). This is well above the trailing 12-month default rate of 1.3%. Our fixed-income strategists continue to prefer US high-yield over US investment-grade. Chart 44Spreads Have Narrowed Over The Past Two Weeks But Remain Above Pre-War Levels Chart 45Spread-Implied Default Rate Is Too High   European credit is attractively priced and should benefit from any stabilization in the situation in Ukraine. Our fixed-income strategists prefer both European high-yield and investment-grade bonds over their US counterparts. As with equities, the bull market in corporate credit will end in late 2023 as the Fed is forced to resume raising rates in 2024 in the face of an overheated economy.   C. Currencies Chart 46Widening Interest Rate Differentials Have Supported The Dollar The US Dollar Will Weaken Starting in the Second Half of 2022 Since bottoming last May, the US dollar has been trending higher. While the dollar could strengthen further in the near term if the war in Ukraine escalates, the fundamental backdrop supporting the greenback is starting to fray. If US inflation comes down later this year, the Fed is unlikely to raise rates by more than what markets are already discounting over the next 12 months. Thus, widening rate differentials will no longer support the dollar (Chart 46). The dollar is a countercyclical currency: It usually weakens when global growth is strengthening and strengthens when global growth is weakening (Chart 47). The dollar tends to be particularly vulnerable when growth expectations are rising more outside the US than in the US (Chart 48). Chart 47The Dollar Is A Countercyclical Currency Chart 48Better Growth Prospects Abroad Will Weigh On The US Dollar Global growth should rebound in the second half of the year once the pandemic finally ends and the situation in Ukraine stabilizes. Growth is especially likely to recover in Europe. This will support the euro, a dovish ECB notwithstanding. Chester Ntonifor, BCA’s Foreign Exchange Strategist, expects EUR/USD to end the year at 1.18.   The Dollar is Overvalued The dollar’s ascent has left it overvalued by more than 20% on a Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) basis (Chart 49). The PPP exchange rate equalizes the price of a representative basket of goods and services between the US and other economies. PPP deviations from fair value have done a reasonably good job of predicting dollar movements over the long run (Chart 50). Chart 49USD Remains Overvalued Chart 50Valuations Matter For FX Long-Term Returns Reflecting the dollar’s overvaluation, the US trade deficit has widened sharply (Chart 51). Excluding energy exports, the US trade deficit as a share of GDP is now the largest on record. Equity inflows have helped finance America’s burgeoning current account deficit (Chart 52). However, these inflows have ebbed significantly as foreign investors have lost their infatuation with US tech stocks. Chart 51The US Trade Deficit Has Widened Chart 52Net Inflows Into US Equities Have Dried Up Dollar positioning remains stretched on the long side (Chart 53). That is not necessarily an obstacle in the short run, given that the dollar tends to be a momentum currency, but it does suggest that the greenback could weaken over a 12-month horizon as more dollar bulls jump ship.     The Yen: Cheaper but Few Catalysts for a Bounce The trade-weighted yen has depreciated by 6.4% since the start of the year. The yen is 31% undervalued relative to the dollar on a PPP basis (Chart 54). In a nod to these improved valuations, we are upgrading our 12-month and long-term view on the yen from bearish to neutral. Chart 53Still A Lot of Dollar Bulls Chart 54The Yen Has Gotten Cheaper       While the yen is unlikely to weaken much from current levels, it is unlikely to strengthen. As noted above, the Bank of Japan has no incentive to abandon its yield curve control strategy. Yes, the recent rapid decline in the yen is a shock to the economy, but it is a “good” shock in the sense that it could finally jolt inflation expectations towards the BoJ’s target of 2%. If inflation expectations rise, real rates would fall, which would be bearish for the currency.   Favor the RMB and other EM Currencies The Chinese RMB has been resilient so far this year, rising slightly against the dollar, even as the greenback has rallied against most other currencies. Real rates are much higher in China than in the US, and this has supported the RMB (Chart 55). Chart 55Higher Real Rates In China Have Supported The RMB Chart 56The RMB Is Undervalued Based On PPP   Despite the RMB’s strength, it is still undervalued by 10.5% relative to its PPP exchange rate (Chart 56). While productivity growth has slowed in China, it remains higher than in most other countries. The real exchange rates of countries that benefit from fast productivity growth typically appreciates over time. China holds about half of its foreign exchange reserves in US dollars, a number that has not changed much since 2012 (Chart 57). We expect China to diversify away from dollars over the coming years. Moreover, as discussed earlier in the report, the incentive for China to run large current account surpluses may fade, which will result in slower reserve accumulation. Both factors could curb the demand for dollars in international markets. Chart 57Half Of Chinese FX Reserves Are Held In USD Assets A resilient RMB will provide a tailwind for other EM currencies. Many EM central banks began to raise rates well before their developed market counterparts. In Brazil, for example, the policy rate has risen to 11.75% from 2% last April. With inflation in EMs likely to come down later this year as pandemic and war-related dislocations subside, real policy rates will rise, giving EM currencies a boost.   D. Commodities Longer-Term Bullish Thesis on Commodities Remains Intact BCA’s commodity team, led by Bob Ryan, expects crude prices to fall in the second half of the year, before moving higher again in 2023. Their forecast is for Brent to dip to $88/bbl by end-2022, which is below the current futures price of $97/bbl. Chart 58Dearth Of Oil Capex Will Put A Floor Under Oil Prices The risk to their end-2022 forecast is tilted to the upside. The relationship between the Saudis and the US has become increasingly strained. This could hamper efforts to bring more oil to market. Hopes that Iranian crude will reach global markets could also be dashed if, as BCA’s geopolitical strategists expect, the US-Iran nuclear deal falls through.  A cut-off of Russian oil could also cause prices to rise. While Urals crude is being sold at a heavy discount of $30/bbl to Brent (compared to a discount of around $2/bbl prior to the invasion), it is still leaving the country. In fact, Russian oil production actually rose in March over February. An escalation of the war would make it more difficult for Russia to divert enough oil to China, India, and other countries in order to evade Western sanctions. Looking beyond this year, Bob and his team see upside to oil prices. They expect Brent to finish 2023 at $96/bbl, above the futures price of $89/bbl. Years of underinvestment in crude oil production have led to tight supply conditions (Chart 58). Proven global oil reserves increased by only 6% between 2010 and 2020, having risen by 26% over the preceding decade.   Stay Positive on Metals As with oil, there has been little investment in mining capacity in recent years. While a weaker property market in China will weigh on metals prices, this will be partly offset by increased infrastructure spending. The shift towards green energy will also boost metals prices. The typical electric vehicle requires about four times as much copper as a typical gasoline-powered vehicle. Huge amounts of copper will also be necessary to expand electrical grids.   Favor Gold Over Cryptos After breaking above $2,000/oz, the price of gold has retreated to $1,926/oz. In the near term, gold prices will be swayed by geopolitical developments. Longer term, real rates will dictate the direction of gold prices. Chart 59 shows that there is a very strong correlation between the price of gold and TIPS yields. If we are correct that the neutral rate of interest is 3.5%-to-4% in the US, real bond yields will eventually need to rise from current levels. Gold prices are quite expensive by historic standards, which represents a long-term risk (Chart 60). Chart 59Strong Correlation Between Real Rates And Gold Chart 60Gold Is Quite Pricey From A Historical Perspective That said, we expect the bulk of the increase in real bond yields to occur only after mid-2023. As mentioned earlier, the Fed will probably not have to deliver more tightening that what markets are already discounting over the next 12 months. Thus, gold prices are unlikely to fall much in the near term. In any case, we continue to regard gold as a safer play than cryptocurrencies. As we discussed in Who Pays for Cryptos?, the long-term outlook for cryptocurrencies remains daunting. Many of the most hyped blockchain applications, from DeFi to NFTs, will turn out to be duds. Concerns that cryptocurrencies are harming the environment, contributing to crime, and enriching a small group of early investors at the expense of everyone else will lead to increased regulatory scrutiny. Our long-term target for Bitcoin is $5,000.   E. Equities Equities Are Still Attractively Priced Relative to Bonds Corporate earnings are highly correlated with the state of the business cycle (Chart 61). A recovery in global growth later this year will bolster revenue, while easing supply-chain pressures should help contain costs in the face of rising wages. It is worth noting that despite all the shocks to the global economy, EPS estimates in the US and abroad have actually risen this year (Chart 62). Chart 61The Business Cycle Drives Earnings Chart 62Global EPS Estimates Have Held Up Reasonably Well Chart 63Equities Are Still Attractive Versus Bonds As Doug Peta, BCA’s Chief US Strategist has pointed out, the bar for positive earnings surprises for Q1 is quite low: According to Refinitiv/IBES, S&P 500 earnings are expected to fall by 4.5% in Q1 over Q4 levels. Global equities currently trade at 18-times forward earnings. Relative to real bond yields, stocks continue to look reasonably cheap (Chart 63). Even in the US, where valuations are more stretched, the earnings yield on stocks exceeds the real bond yield by 570 basis points. At the peak of the market in 2000, the gap between earnings yields and real bond yields was close to zero.   Favor Non-US Markets, Small Caps, and Value Valuations are especially attractive outside the US. Non-US equities trade at 13.7-times forward earnings. Emerging markets trade at a forward P/E of only 12.1. Correspondingly, the gap between earnings yields and real bond yields is about 200 basis points higher outside the US. In general, non-US markets fare best in a setting of accelerating growth and a weakening dollar – precisely the sort of environment we expect to prevail in the second half of the year (Chart 64). US small caps also perform best when growth is strengthening and the dollar is weakening (Chart 65). In contrast to the period between 2003 and 2020, small caps now trade at a discount to their large cap brethren. The S&P 600 currently trades at 14.4-times forward earnings compared to 19.7-times for the S&P 500, despite the fact that small cap earnings are projected to grow more quickly both over the next 12-months and over the long haul (Chart 66). Chart 64A Weaker Dollar And Stronger Global Economy Are Tailwinds For Non-US Stocks Chart 65US Small Caps Usually Fare Well When The Economy Is Strengthening And The Dollar Is Weakening Globally, growth stocks have outperformed value stocks by 60% since 2017. However, only one-tenth of that outperformance has come from faster earnings growth (Chart 67). This has left value trading nearly two standard deviations cheap relative to growth. Chart 66Small Caps Look Attractive Relative To Large Caps Chart 67Value Remains Cheap Chart 68Higher Yields Tend To Flatter Bank Stocks And Usually Weigh On Tech Tech stocks are overrepresented in growth indices, while banks are overrepresented in value indices. US banks have held up relatively well since the start of the year but have not gained as much as one would have expected based on the significant increase in bond yields (Chart 68). With the deleveraging cycle in the US coming to an end, US banks sport both attractive valuations and the potential for better-than-expected earnings growth. European banks should also recover as the situation in Ukraine stabilizes. They trade at only 7.9-times forward earnings and 0.6-times book. On the flipside, structurally higher bond yields will weigh on tech shares. Moreover, as we discussed in our recent report entitled The Disruptor Delusion, a cooling in pandemic-related tech spending, increasing market saturation, and concerns about Big Tech’s excessive power will all hurt tech returns.   Peter Berezin Chief Global Strategist peterb@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1     The Federal Reserve targets an average inflation rate of 2% for the personal consumption expenditures (PCE) index. The TIPS breakeven is based on the CPI index. Due to compositional differences between the two indices, CPI inflation has historically averaged 30-to-50 basis points higher than PCE inflation. This is why the Fed effectively targets a CPI inflation rate of about 2.3%-to-2.5%. 2     These savings can either by generated domestically or imported from abroad via a current account deficit. 3    Theoretically, there is a close relationship between trend growth and the equilibrium investment-to-GDP ratio. For example, if real trend growth is 3% and the capital stock-to-GDP ratio is 200%, a country would need to invest 6% of GDP net of depreciation to maintain the existing capital stock-to-GDP ratio. In contrast, if trend growth were to fall to 2%, the country would only need to invest 4% of GDP. Global Investment Strategy View Matrix Special Trade Recommendations   Current MacroQuant Model Scores

Listen to a short summary of this report.       Executive Summary Tighter Financial Conditions May Affect Growth It is still possible that equities can outperform bonds over the next 12 months, but the risks to this are rising. Inflation may surprise further to the upside, amid rising commodity prices, pushing the Fed to tighten aggressively.  Tighter financial conditions augur badly for growth (see Chart).  We cut our recommendation for global equities to neutral and increase our allocation to cash. We continue to prefer the lower-beta US stock market over the euro zone and Emerging Markets. We are overweight defensive and structural growth sectors: Healthcare, Consumer Staples, IT and Industrials. Government bond yields have limited upside from here to year-end. We are neutral duration. US high-yield bonds are attractive: They are pricing in a big rise in defaults this year, which we see as unlikely. Recommendation Changes   Bottom Line: Rising uncertainty warrants a more defensive stance. Prudent investors should have only a benchmark weight in equities, and look for other hedges against downside risk. Overview Recommended Allocation Rather like Arnold Toynbee’s definition of history, markets in the past few months have been hit by “just one damned thing after another”. But, despite war in Ukraine, big upward surprises to inflation, and a swift aggressive turn by the Fed, global equities are only 6% off their all-time high. It is still possible that equities may outperform bonds over the next 12 months and that the global economy will avoid recession (Chart 1). But the risks to this are rising. We recommend, therefore, that prudent investors reduce their equity holdings to benchmark weight and generally have somewhat defensive portfolio positioning. We put the money raised from going neutral on equities into cash, not bonds. What are the risks? Inflation could surprise further to the upside. Inflation has spread beyond a few pandemic-related items to goods where prices are usually sticky (Chart 2). There are now clear signs that price rises are feeding through to wage increases in the US, UK and Canada – though not yet in the euro area, Japan or Australia (Chart 3). The supply response that we expected to see emerge later this year may be delayed because of Covid lockdowns in China and disruptions in supply from Russia and Ukraine (Chart 4). Consensus forecasts for US core PCE inflation see it coming down to 2.5% by next year. The risk is that it could exceed that. The Fed has got way behind the curve. In retrospect, it should have raised rates last summer – and it now understands its error. Its first hike this cycle came only when the economy had already overheated (Chart 5). The Fed may, therefore, be tempted to get rates up very quickly – something the futures market is now pricing in, since it implies that the year-end Fed Funds Rate will be 2.5%. An aggressive Fed cycle – propelled by inflation fears – is not a good environment for risk assets. Chart 1Can Stocks Keep On Outperforming Bonds? Chart 2Even Sticky Prices Are Now Rising Chart 3Price Rises Feeding Through To Wages In Some Regions Chart 4Supply Chains Remain Disrupted Financial conditions had already tightened before the Fed hiked because of higher long-term rates, widening credit spreads, and a strengthening dollar. The Goldman Sachs Financial Conditions Index points to the ISM Manufacturing Index falling below 50 later this year (Chart 6). That is the level that historically has been the dividing line between stocks outperforming bonds year-over-year (Chart 7). In particular, the sharp rise in long-term rates (the US 10-year Treasury yield has risen by 110 BPs, and the German yield by 93 BPs over the past seven months) could start to put some pressure on housing markets (Chart 8). Chart 5The Fed Hiked Too Late Chart 6Tighter Financial Conditions May Affect Growth Chart 7Will PMIs Fall Below 50? Chart 8Rising Rates Might Dampen The Housing Market The war in Ukraine is unlikely to be a risk in itself. BCA Research’s geopolitical strategists think it very improbable that the conflict will spill beyond the borders of Ukraine – though there remains tail risk of a mistake. But the war is having a big impact on energy prices, especially electricity prices in Europe (Chart 9). The oil price could remain high while Russian oil, which used to be consumed in Europe, is diverted elsewhere. Our Commodity & Energy Strategy service expects that increased supply from OPEC members will bring Brent crude down to around $90 a barrel by year-end. But, as our Client Question on page 14 details, that calculation relies on many assumptions, and the risk is that the oil price stays high. A doubling of the oil price year-on-year (which currently equates to $120/barrel) has historically often been followed by recession (Chart 10). Chart 9Europe's Electricity Prices Have Soared Chart 10Oil Price Is Close To The Risk Level China has been easing fiscal and monetary policy. But it is questionable how effective its stimulus will be this time. Confidence in the real estate market remains damaged. And the pick-up in credit growth has been limited to local government bond issuance; there is little sign that the private sector has appetite to borrow (Chart 11). Already some of these risks are affecting economic data. Consumer confidence has collapsed, presumably because of the rising cost of living (Chart 12). Although US activity indicators such as the manufacturing ISM remain elevated (see Chart 6 above), data in Europe is showing notable weakness (Chart 13).   Chart 11China's Stimulus Not Helping The Private Sector Chart 12Consumer Confidence Has Been Hit The yield curve is also getting close to signaling recession. There has been much debate of late about which yield curve to use, with Fed Chair Jerome Powell arguing for the 3-month/3-month 18-month forward curve, rather than the more usual 2/10 year or 3 month/10 year curves (Chart 14). The 2/10 is close to inverting, while the others are still a long way away. All measures of the yield curve have historically given reliable recession signals; the difference is simply a matter of timing, with the 2/10 giving the longest lead time.1 If the Fed ends up tightening as much as it intends, all the yield curves will likely invert within the next year or so. Chart 13European Data Starting To Weaken Chart 14It Depends On Which Yield Curve You Look At And, despite all these warning signals, forecasts for economic and earnings growth have not been revised down much.  Economists still expect 3.4-3.5% real GDP growth in the US and euro zone this year, well above trend (Chart 15). And, despite the drop in GDP forecasts, earnings forecasts have actually been revised up since the start of the year, with analysts now expecting 9.6% EPS growth in the US and 8.2% in the euro zone (Chart 16). Chart 15GDP Growth Is Still Expected To Be Above Trend... Chart 16...And Earnings Have Not Been Revised Down At All This all seems too much uncertainty for most asset allocators to want to stay fully risk-on. There are valid arguments that equities and other risk assets can continue to perform (which we outline in the following section, Risks To Our View). But the risks have shifted enough since the start of the year that a more defensive stance is now warranted. Garry Evans, Senior Vice President Global Asset Allocation garry@bcaresearch.com   Risks To Our View Chart 17Fed Feedback Loop Back In Action? Since our main scenario is somewhat cautious – and sentiment towards risk assets pretty pessimistic – we need to consider what could cause upside surprises to the economy and market. The most likely would be if the Fed were to turn more dovish. But the main trigger for this would be if the stock market fell sharply or growth showed clear signs of slowing – which would obviously be negative for stocks first. This scenario could produce the sort of Fed feedback loop we saw in 2015-17, when tightening financial conditions caused the Fed to ease back on rate hikes (Chart 17). More benign would be a gradual easing of inflation over the summer which would mean that the Fed could eventually hike a little less than the market currently expects. The economy may also not be as vulnerable to higher energy prices and higher rates as we fear. Food and energy are now a much smaller part of the consumption basket than they were in the 1970s (Chart 18). Rates may have a limited impact on the housing market, given the low inventory of new houses, strong household formation, and the fact that, in the US at least, some 90% of mortgages are 30-year fixed rate. Consumers continue to hold large amounts of excess savings – more than $2 trillion in the US alone. This should keep retail sales growth strong, though there might be some shift from spending on goods to spending on services as Covid fears recede (Chart 19). Chart 18Consumers Are Less Sensitive To Food And Energy Prices... Chart 19...And So May Keep On Spending Other upside risks include: A ceasefire and settlement in Ukraine (unlikely soon, since Russia will not withdraw without taking over Crimea and the Donbass, something Ukraine could not accept); more aggressive stimulus in China (possible, but only if Chinese growth weakened much further); and a sharp fall in the oil price caused by new supply coming onto the market from Saudi Arabia and North American shale fields, and possibly also Iran and Venezuela. What Our Clients Are Asking What Is The Risk Of Stagflation? Chart 20The Combination Of High Inflation And High Unemployment Was The Key Problem In The 1970s Several clients have asked about the risk of stagflation, and how the current episode compares to the 1970s. We can begin by dispelling some myths about the 1970s. There is a notion that this was a decade of poor growth for the US. That is simply not true. Real GDP grew by a solid 3.3% annual rate during the 1970s, higher than in any post-WW2 decade other than the 1990s and the 1960s (Chart 20, panel 1). The underlying problem during the 1970s was the combination of high inflation and a poor labor market. Despite solid growth, the unemployment rate kept grinding higher as inflation was increasing, never dropping below 4.5% even at the peaks of the expansions (Chart 20, panel 2). This situation went against the commonly held belief that it was not possible for both these variables to remain high at the same time for an extended period. With the economy plagued by both high inflation and high unemployment, the Fed faced a difficult dilemma: Keep interest rates too high and the already weak labor market would worsen; keep interest rates too low and inflation would spiral out of control. Throughout the decade, the Fed chose the latter option, causing inflation expectations to become unmoored. Chart 21Demographic Shocks And The Structure Of The Labor Force Led To A Weak Labor Market Why was there so much slack in the labor market? Demographics were one of the main culprits. The entrance of baby boomers into the workforce dramatically increased the pool of workers. At the same time, prime-age female participation rose at the fastest pace on record, adding additional supply to the labor force (Chart 21, panel 1). The structure of the labor market also played a key role. Almost a third of employees belonged to a union and most of their salaries were indexed to inflation (Chart 21, panels 2 & 3). This made for a rigid labor market where neither employment nor wages could adjust properly to the economic cycle. True, the oil shocks of 1974 and 1979 exacerbated inflationary pressures. But what made inflation truly pernicious during the 1970s was the inability of the Fed to fight it without compromising its employment mandate. Today the economic picture is very different. Union membership stands at only 10% and cost of living adjustments have essentially disappeared. There is also no labor supply shock on the horizon comparable to the baby boomers or women entering the labor force. This makes the calculus for the Fed easy. With its employment mandate already met, it will simply keep raising rates until inflation is back under control. As a result, the risk that it keeps policy too easy and unleashes further inflationary pressures is relatively low over the next 12 months.     How Will The War In Ukraine Affect The World Economy? Chart 22The Ukrainian War Has Impacted The Global Economy Global growth, monetary policy, and employment were projected to return to pre-pandemic trends in 2023. In January, the IMF projected global growth of 4.4% in 2022, but now it is poised to cut its forecast due to the war in Ukraine. According to OECD estimates, global economic growth could be 1% lower than what was previously predicted (Chart 22, panel 1). The conflict is putting fresh strain on overstretched global supply chains, causing the price of many commodities to surge. Russia and Ukraine are relatively small in terms of economic output (together they comprise only 1.9% of global GDP in US dollar terms). But they are very big producers and exporters of energy, metals, and key food items. Russia, for example, produces 12% of global oil, one-third of palladium, and (with Belarus) 40% of potash (used in fertilizers). Ukraine is also a major producer of auto parts, such as wire harnesses. Some European car manufacturers have had to idle factories due to a lack of components.  Global central banks have been increasing interest rates to battle inflation. But higher energy and food prices will require additional rate hikes to ensure price stability. The war in Ukraine could push up world inflation by around 2.5% this year, according to the OECD. Developing economies are in a particularly tight spot, being hit with high inflation in food and basic commodities. Their consumer price indices are very sensitive to these items. Russia and Ukraine are the main global exporters of several agricultural items (for example, they together account for a quarter of global wheat exports) which could cause global food insecurity to increase (Chart 22, panel 2). International sanctions on Russia create a risk for foreign companies with operations there. Withdrawal could have a meaningful effect on earnings. Most multinationals have only limited exposure to Russia, but a small number of prominent names make more than 5% of global revenues from the country (Chart 22, panel 3).   Chart 23AOPEC Is Able To Cover Supply Shortages... Chart 23B...Unlike Other Countries...Chart 23CTo Restore A Balanced But Tight Market What Is The Risk That The Oil Price Stays High? Our Commodity & Energy strategists see 1.3mm b/d of supply from OPEC coming onto the market beginning in May. Because of this, they expect the price of Brent crude to fall back, to average $93 per barrel this year and next. OPEC core producers fear that low inventories and an oil price above $100 per barrel will lead to demand destruction. They will therefore aim to bring prices down. They have enough spare capacity (approximately 3.2mm b/d) to cover physical deficits in global markets (Chart 23A). However, the risk to this view is tilted to the upside. The key question is whether OPEC producers will in fact ramp up production. The OPEC meeting held on March 2, 2022 noted that current market volaility is a function of geopolitical developments and does not reflect changes in market fundamentals: This could imply a reluctance to increase production as quickly as we expect. Saudi Arabia’s interest in exploiting yuan-settled oil trades with China adds an element of uncertainty. With OPEC’s intention to increase production in question, and Russian oil sanctioned and unlikely to be rerouted easily and quickly, there remains little alternative supply: Countries such as Iraq and Venezuela are unlikely to make up for supply deficits (Chart 23B). The US-Iran talks also add downside uncertainty to our price outlook. Our commodity strategists have recently ended their forecast of a return of 1-1.3mm b/d of Iranian oil (Chart 23C). A no-deal scenario is likely to lead to an escalation in tensions and volatility, warranting higher oil prices in the short term. Nevertheless, there remains the possibility that the US administration will be keen on striking a deal with Iran to reduce the risk of a global oil supply shock. This would, in turn, reduce the risk of military conflict, at least in the short-term, and remove some risk premium from oil prices. It might also lead to further increases in production from the Gulf states to prevent Iran from stealing market share, putting further downward pressure on the oil price.   Chart 24Is It Time To Favor EMU Equities? When Will Euro Area Stocks Rebound?  Chinese policy makers have sounded more aggressive of late in terms of supporting the Chinese economy and stock market, especially property and tech shares. This is a positive development for euro area equities given the region’s strong reliance on the Chinese economy (Chart 24, panel 1).  Euro area equities have been in a structural downtrend relative to US equities, but have historically staged occasional counter-trend rallies (Chart 24, panel 2). It’s possible that stocks in this region may stage another short-term rebound at some point because they are technically oversold, and valuation is extremely cheap (Chart 24, panel 3).  Investors with a longer-term investment horizon, however, should remain underweight euro area stocks until there are more signs that the region is out of its stagflation state. As we argue in the Global Equities section on page 18, the key factor to watch over the next 9-12 months is profitability. Global earnings growth will slow significantly this year in response to higher input costs and lower revenue growth.  As a net importer of energy and industrial metals, euro area earnings growth will continue to slow more than in the US (Chart 24, panel 4). In addition, in times of high uncertainty, we prefer to shelter in less volatile markets. The euro area has a much higher beta than the US (Chart 24, panel 5). Bottom Line: While there could be an opportunity to overweight euro area stocks versus the US tactically, long-term investors should continue to favor the US.   Global Economy Chart 25Global Growth Remains Robust... Overview: Global growth has been strong. But this has triggered a surge in inflation, which is pushing central banks to tighten policy more quickly than was expected even three months ago. At the same time, higher prices – and falling real wages – have started to hurt consumer confidence. This raises the risk of stagflation, particularly if disruptions caused by the war in Ukraine push commodity prices up further. A recession is still unlikely over the next 12-18 months, but the risk of one has clearly risen. US economic growth has remained robust, led by consumption and capex. GDP growth in Q4 was 5.6% QoQ annualized. The ISMs remain strong, with manufacturing at 58.5 and services 58.9 (Chart 25, panel 2). However, there are some early signs of slowdown. The Atlanta Fed Nowcast points to only 0.9% annualized growth in Q1. The effect of higher inflation (with headline CPI at 7.9% YoY) might hurt consumer confidence, since average hourly earnings growth lags behind inflation at only 5.1%. Higher rates could also dampen the housing market. With the average mortgage rate rising to 4.5%, from 3.3% at the end of last year, there are signs of a slowdown in house sales (which fell 9.5% YoY in January). Euro Area: Growth remains decent, with Q4 GDP 4.6% QoQ annualized, and robust PMIs (manufacturing at 57.0 and services at 54.8). However, wage growth lags that in the US (negotiated wages rose only 1.5% YoY in Q4), and the impact of a sharp jump in energy prices (exacerbated by the war in Ukraine) could dent consumption. Recent data have deteriorated noticeably: Consumer confidence collapsed to -18.7 in March, and the March ZEW survey (Chart 26, panel 1) fell to -38.7 (from +48.6 in February). With weak underlying growth, and core CPI inflation a relatively modest 2.7%, the ECB will not need to rush to raise rates. Chart 26...But Higher Inflation Is Starting To Damage Confidence Japan: Economic growth remains rather anemic. Manufacturing is supported by exports (which rose by 19.1% YoY in January), helping the manufacturing PMI to stay in positive territory at 53.2. But wage growth remains stagnant (0.9% YoY) and the rise in oil prices has pushed up headline inflation to 0.9%, leading to a weakening of consumer sentiment. The services PMI is a weak 48.7. There are hopes that this year’s shunto wage round will lead to strong wage rises (the government is lobbying businesses to raise wages by 3%) but this seems unlikely. With inflation ex food and energy languishing at -1.9% (even if that is distorted by cuts in mobile phone charges), there seems little need for the Bank of Japan to tighten policy. Emerging Markets: Chinese economic indicators remain depressed (Chart 26, panel 3), even though global demand for manufactured goods means exports are rising 16.4% YoY. The authorities have been easing policy, which has led to a mild uptick in credit growth. But there are questions on how effective stimulus will be, since the housing market has been damaged by the problems at Evergrande and other developers, and because China seems to be sticking to its zero-Covid policy. Some other EMs will be helped by the rise in commodity prices: South Africa, for example, saw 4.9% annualized GDP growth in Q4. But many developed countries were forced to raise rates sharply last year because of inflation and this may slow growth in 2022. Brazil’s policy rate, for example, has risen to 11.75% from 2% last April, and that has dampened activity: Brazilian industrial production is falling 7.2% YoY, and retail sales are -1.9% YoY. Interest Rates: Recorded inflation and inflation expectations (Chart 26, panel 4) have risen sharply everywhere. Slowing demand for manufactured goods and a supply-side response should allow monthly inflation to peak over the next few months – although the risks remain to the upside if commodity prices continue to rise. The surge in inflation has pushed up long-term rates, with the US 10-year Treasury yield rising by 82 BPs year-to-date and that in Germany by 73 BPs. However, the market is now pricing in very aggressive tightening by central banks through year-end: 214 BPs of further hikes by the Fed, and even 75 BPs by the ECB. The probability is that neither will do quite that much, and therefore the upside for long-term government bond yields is probably capped around its current level for the next 6-9 months.   Global Equities Chart 27Watch Earnings Revisions Closely Watch Earnings Closely: Global equities suffered a loss of 4% in Q1/2022 despite strong earnings growth. Except for the Utilities sector, all other sectors have positive 12-month trailing and forward earnings growth. Consequently, overall equity valuation, based on forward PE, is no longer stretched (Chart 27). Going forward, however, the macro backdrop of rising inflation and a slowing economy does not bode well for earnings growth, with the profit margin in developed markets already at a historical high. Rising input costs from both materials and wages will put downward pressure on profit margins while revenue growth slows. BCA Research’s global earnings model suggests that earnings growth will slow significantly this year. As such, we downgrade equities to neutral from overweight at the asset class level (see Overview section on page 2). Within equities, we maintain our already cautious country allocation, which served us well in both 2021 and Q1/22. The out-of-consensus overweight on the US and underweight on the euro area panned out well in Q1 2022, as the US outperformed the euro area by 5.9%. After the more defensive adjustment between the UK and Canada in the March Monthly Update, our country allocation portfolio has been well positioned, with overweights in the US and UK, underweights in the euro area, Canada and emerging markets excluding China, while neutral Australia, Japan, and China. In line with the shift of our structural view on industrial commodities, we upgrade the Materials sector to neutral from underweight at the expense of Real Estate and Communication Services. After these adjustments and the added defensive tilt that we took in the February Monthly Update, our global sector portfolio has a tilt towards defensive and structural growth by being overweight Tech, Industrials, Healthcare and Consumer Staples, underweight Consumer Discretionary, Utilities, and Communication Services, while neutral Materials, Financials, Energy and Real Estate. Chart 28Sector Adjustments Sector Allocation: Upgrade Materials To Neutral, Downgrade Real Estate to Neutral, Downgrade Communication Services to Underweight. Russia’s war on Ukraine is a watershed moment for industrial metals. It has altered the dynamics of the metals market which used to be dominated by Chinese demand. We had a structural underweight in the Materials sector because China was undergoing a deleveraging process. Now the Russian-Ukrainian war has demonstrated how dangerous it is for Europe to rely on Russia for energy supply and how important it is for Europe to have a strong military defense system.  Rebuilding Europe’s defense will compete with energy diversification initiatives to boost demand for metals. Such a structural shift no longer warrants an underweight in Materials (Chart 28, panel 1).  In addition, relative valuation in the Materials sector is as low as it was in the early 2000s, right before the multi-year upcycle in Materials’ relative performance (Chart 28, panel 2).  Why not go overweight then? The concern is that the sector is technically overbought due to the sharp rises in metal price. Covid lockdowns in China have disrupted the supply chain in metals, and the Russian-Ukrainian war has further intensified the rise in metals prices due to extremely low inventories. We will watch closely for a better entry point to upgrade this sector to overweight. To finance this upgrade, we downgrade Real Estate to neutral from overweight, and Communication Services to underweight from neutral. Both downgrades are driven by a deteriorating relative earnings growth outlook as shown in Chart 28, panels 4 and 5. Rising mortgage rates do not bode well for the Real Estate sector. “Reopening from Covid lockdowns” reduces the “work from home” tailwind for the Communication Services sector, where relative valuation is also stretched.    Government Bonds Chart 29WILL INFLATION COME DOWN IN 2022? Maintain At-Benchmark Duration. The first quarter of 2022 had seen a steady rise in global bond yields even before the Russian-Ukrainian war, in response to a higher inflation outlook. The negative shock to bond yields from the war was quickly reversed and bond yields continued to march higher as the supply shortage in the commodity complex further pushed up commodity prices and inflation expectations. The US 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate has risen above the 2.3-2.5% range that is consistent with the Fed’s 2% PCE target. However, the 5-year/5-year forward breakeven inflation rate, the measure that the Fed pays more attention to, is only slightly above 2.3% (Chart 29, panel 2). The base case of BCA Research’s Fixed Income Strategists is that inflation will moderate in the coming months so that there should be limited upside for bond yields. We already upgraded duration to at-benchmark from below-benchmark, and government bonds to neutral from underweight within the bond asset class in the March Portfolio Update. These are still appropriate going forward with the US 10-year Treasury yield currently standing at 2.33%. Inflation-linked bonds are not cheap anymore. We maintain a neutral stance to hedge against the tail risk of a further rise in inflation.   Corporate Bonds Chart 30Continue To Favor High-Yield Credit Since the beginning of the year, investment-grade bonds have underperformed duration-matched Treasurys by 191 basis points, while high-yield bonds have underperformed duration-marched Treasurys by 173 basis points. Even with spreads widening, we continue to underweight investment-grade credits within the fixed-income category. Spreads currently do not offer enough value to warrant a neutral shift. Moreover, investment-grade corporate bonds have been performing poorly compared to high-yield corporate bonds (Chart 30, panel 1). But shouldn’t one expect lower-rated bonds to perform worse in bear markets, and better in bull markets? Our US Bond Service believes that one explanation for the poor performance of investment-grade compared to high-yield bonds is that the industry composition of the two categories is quite different. High-yield has a large concentration in the Energy sector while investment-grade bonds have a larger weighting in Financials. And with the recent surge in oil prices, it’s possible that the strong performance of Energy credits is the reason behind that return divergence. We continue to overweight high-yield bonds, as there is likely to be no material increase in corporate default risk. The market currently implies that defaults will rise to 3.7% during the next 12 months, from 1.2% over the past 12 months (Chart 30, panel 2). That seems too high. What about European credit? The ECB’S hawkish turn and then the Ukranian crisis made yields almost double this year. The spreads for both investment-grade and high-yield corporate bonds have been widening since the beginning of the year (Chart 30, panel 3). Their valuations seem to offer an attractive entry point but investors should be cautious as spreads could continue to widen in response to the negative news from the Ukranian crisis.   Commodities Chart 31Risks To Oil Price Are To The Upside Energy (Overweight): Oil prices surged to $120 – the highest level since 2013 – in the aftermath of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, pricing in sanctions against the nation’s oil producers and an estimated 3-5 mm b/d of supply disruptions (Chart 31, panel 1). While the actual hit to Russian production might end up being lower, Russia accounts for over 10% of global production, almost half of which is exported (Chart 31, panel 2). The price shock was slightly offset by a marginal demand weakness from China amid another outbreak of Covid-19. However, uncertainty regarding how quickly core OPEC producers will ramp up production to fill supply shortages – as well as the breakdown in the US-Iranian talks – continue to keep oil prices jittery. Our Commodity & Energy strategists see 1.3mm b/d of increased supply from OPEC coming onto the market beginning in May. This should bring the price of Brent crude down to average $93 per barrel this year and next. The risks to this view however remain tilted to the upside. For more details, see What Our Clients Are Asking on page 14. Industrial Metals (Neutral): Russia is a major player in the metals market, providing more than a third of the world’s palladium output; it is also the third biggest producer of nickel (Chart 31, panel 3). The prices of those metals, as well as the broad industrial metals complex, have shot up following the invasion: Industrial metals had the largest weekly price change since 1990 in the week following the invasion. The outlook for industrial metals prices is tilted to the upside. Inventories for some of the industrial metals required for the energy transition are low. Moreover, if China implements significant stimulus – and supply remains tight – prices are likely to stay elevated. Precious Metals (Neutral): Gold prices reacted in line with the moves in US real rates over the first quarter of this year, initially relatively flat, before rising in the past few weeks as real rates came down. The upward move in gold prices was further amplified by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, which pushed the bullion’s price close to $2040, just shy of its all-time high in late 2020. This comes as no surprise: The metal is known (despite its volatility) for its safe-haven and inflation-hedging characteristics. We maintain our neutral exposure to gold. Real rates should start to rise as inflation pressures abate in the second half of the year. Gold is also somewhat expensively valued, with the price in inflation-adjusted terms close to its record high (Chart 31, panel 4).   Currencies Chart 32Don't Turn Bearish On The Dollar Yet US Dollar: The DXY index has risen by 2.3% this quarter. We are maintaining our neutral stance on the US dollar. While the dollar is expensive by more than 20% according to purchasing power parity (PPP), positive momentum continues to be too strong to take an outright bearish position (Chart 32, panels 1 and 2). We will look to downgrade the dollar to underweight when momentum starts to weaken and when there is clear evidence that the Fed will have to back off from its tightening path. Japanese Yen: With stock markets rebounding and expectations of interest-rate hikes rising in the US, the yen has fallen by more than 18% since the beginning of the year. Still, we reiterate the overweight that we placed at the beginning of March. The yen should act as a hedge if global stock markets sell off anew. Moreover, we believe there is now limited upside for US yields, given that there are now more than 250 basis points of Fed hikes priced over the next 12 months. This should put a cap on USDJPY, as this cross is closely tied to the relative expectations of tightening between the US and Japan (Chart 32, panel 3). Canadian Dollar: We are currently underweight the Canadian dollar. Our Commodity and Energy Strategists believe that oil should come down to around $90/barrel by the end of the year. Additionally, the BoC won’t be able to follow along with the Fed in its tightening cycle, given that household debt is much higher in Canada than in the US. Both developments should put downward pressure on the CAD over the next 12 months.   Alternatives Chart 33Prepare To Turn To Defensive Alternatives Return Enhancers: We previously suggested that private equity tends to outperform other alternative assets in the early years of expansions as it benefits from cheaper financing opportunities and attractive entry valuations. This view has been correct: Following the large drawdown in Q1 2020 due to Covid, PE returns have significantly outperformed those of hedge funds (Chart 33, panel 1). However, financing conditions are tightening and could weigh down on economic activity and PE returns going forward (Chart 33, panel 2). Preliminary results for Q3 2021 show PE funds returning only around 6% compared to an average quarterly return of 10% since the beginning of the pandemic. Given the time it takes to move allocations in the illiquid space, investors should prepare to pare back exposure from PE, and look for more defensive alternative assets, such as macro hedge funds. Inflation Hedges: We have been of the view that inflation will follow a “two steps up, one step down” trajectory: More likely than not, we are near the top of those two steps. Accordingly, we were positioned to favor real estate over commodities; real estate tends to outperform when inflation is more subdued (close to 2%-3%). Inflation, globally, however has turned out to be stickier than expected and recent economic and political developments have propelled another surge in commodity prices. Scarce inventories, lingering inflation, and a potential significant Chinese stimulus imply, at least in the short-term, that commodity prices have room to run (Chart 33, panel 3). Volatility Dampeners: Timberland and Farmland remain our long-time favorite assets within this bucket. We have previously shown that both assets outperform other traditional and alternative assets during recessions and equity bear markets. Farmland particularly continues to offer an attractive yield of approximately 2.8% (Chart 33, panel 4).   Footnotes 1   Please see BCA Research Special Report, "The Yield Curve As An Indicator," for a detailed analysis of this.   Recommended Asset Allocation Model Portfolio (USD Terms)

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