Financial Markets

Highlights The Biden administration faces significant risks from outside the US economy – our third “key view” for 2022. The Ukraine conflict brings one external risk to the forefront. These external risks would exacerbate the global supply squeeze, potentially pushing up commodity prices until they start to kill demand. Investors should prepare for oil price overshoots.  Exogenous risks – such as foreign policy crises – rarely help the president’s party in the midterm election. Any crisis that adds to short-term inflation will hurt the ruling party. Tactically we continue to prefer defensive equities. Close our tactical long industrials / short consumer discretionary trade for a gain of 11.6%. Close long energy stocks for a 15.6% gain and convert to long energy small caps versus large caps. Buy the dip in cyber security stocks. Feature Stock market volatility is back, thanks in no small part to external risks such as Europe’s energy shortage and Russia’s conflict with the West over Ukraine. In our forecast for 2022, we highlighted the Biden administration’s external risks as our third key view. The rapidly deteriorating geopolitical situation was one of several reasons behind this view and it has now clearly moved to the forefront. In this report we highlight the consequences for domestic-oriented US investors. Biden’s immediate external risks, if they materialize, will increase the likelihood that Democrats will lose control of Congress, causing US fiscal policy to freeze and driving policy uncertainty and the dollar upward. For detailed coverage of the Ukraine conflict and its global geopolitical, macro, and market implications please refer to our Geopolitical Strategy reports. Why Is Biden Vulnerable To External Risks The Biden administration and the Democratic Party face serious external risks in 2022. The Omicron variant and global supply constraints are a major factor. Also the US’s domestic political divisions invite challenges from abroad. President Biden is politically weak ahead of midterm elections on November 8. His net approval rating is under water at -10 percentage points. Republicans are now leading the generic congressional ballot with 45.5% support against Democrats’ 41.8%. On a deeper level, Democrats are beset by a socialist fringe on their left wing, making it difficult to pass legislation, and an enthusiastic nationalist opposition movement with a viable challenger for the presidency in 2024 (former President Trump). At best they will pass one more major bill this year before Congress gets gridlocked. Foreign rivals have an advantage in this context. America’s chief rivals face limited political constraints at home (no midterm elections) but they can make low-cost, high-impact threats against the Biden administration through their leverage over the global supply chain and hence voters’ pocketbooks. External Risks Are Inflationary (At Least At First) External risks begin with inflation. The US’s large imbalance of investment over savings is evident in a current account deficit of 3.3% and deteriorating terms of trade. American demand is exceedingly strong due to accumulated household savings, a new capex cycle, and lingering effects of monetary and fiscal stimulus. Yet global supply is impeded. Import prices are rising at a 5.7% rate, the fastest since the BLS started the series in 2010, while imports from China are rising at a 4.7% clip. China’s “zero Covid” policy implies that supply disruptions will keep up the inflationary pressure this year (Chart 1, first panel). The US is also importing inflation from rising commodity prices. West Texas Intermediate crude oil prices have risen to $83 per barrel and average gasoline prices stand at $3.3. With global supply-demand balances tight, WTI prices should average $77 per barrel this year and $78 next year, according to our Commodity & Energy Strategy. In this context, unplanned supply disruptions are likely and will put more pressure on the supply side. Any conflicts with oil producers such as Russia and Iran will backfire in the form of higher prices at the pump (Chart 1, second panel). Yet geopolitical competitors (Russia, Iran, China) have unfinished business with the US stemming from the Trump administration. It is also possible that Biden could negotiate diplomatic solutions, reducing the risk of an oil price spike, but that is not the current trajectory. Chart 1Biden's External Risks Are Inflationary For Now Interest rate hikes from the Federal Reserve will not easily control inflation derived from external sources and supply constraints. They will take time to dampen domestic demand. Yet voters usually solidify their opinions by mid-summer. Inflation may not have come down much by that time. Biden and the Democratic Party are at the mercy of the global supply chain. In this context Russia deliberately forced its way to the top of the US and global agenda by demanding that the West renounce any attempt to threaten its national security via Ukraine or the former Soviet Union. Energy Shock From Russia? The Ukraine crisis threatens an increase in global energy prices. Russia provides 8% of Europe’s commodity imports, 18% of its energy imports, and 16% of its natural gas imports (Chart 2). Russia is already withholding energy supplies from Europe, helping push natural gas prices up by 122% since last August. If war ignites, Russia could reduce energy flows to Ukraine and hence to the rest of Europe. Europe would not be willing to impose as harsh of sanctions as the US because its energy supply depends on it. The US can increase exports to Europe but it cannot replace Russia without depriving its other allies and partners, including India, Japan, and South Korea (Chart 3). The squeeze will cause prices to rise at first but if it is not addressed by higher output from the US and OPEC 2.0, then demand will be destroyed. Note that in 1979, 2008, and 2014, Russian military invasions coincided with a peak in global oil prices. Chart 2Geopolitical Risks Cause Resource Squeeze Chart 3Can US Replace Russia For Europe? Not Really. If other supply problems emerged simultaneously, the slowdown could be especially disruptive. If US-Iran negotiations fail, then another energy supply risk will emerge immediately this spring. The implication is not only a rise in oil prices but also a resilient dollar, which is also the implication of the Fed’s looming rate hikes. Defensive plays would tend to beat cyclical plays, at least in the short run until the crisis abates. But it is important to look at previous examples of Russian aggression to test this hypothesis. US Market Response To Russian Belligerence When Russia invaded Georgia in August 2008, the attack had limited impact on global financial markets, which were focused on the subprime mortgage crisis unfolding on Wall Street. Naturally stocks underperformed bonds, cyclicals underperformed defensives, and value went sideways against growth. Small caps rallied at first versus large caps but then hit a turning point from outperformance to underperformance (Chart 4). Note that the invasion began while President Putin watched the summer Olympics live in Beijing. So one cannot rule out a limited military action against Ukraine in the near term just because Putin is also headed to Beijing for this winter’s Olympics. When Russia invaded Ukraine in February 2014, seizing the Crimean peninsula in the Black Sea, the attack had a greater impact on global financial markets than with Georgia, although Ukraine’s relevance to the global economy was (and is) still limited. Chart 4Market Reaction To Russia Invasion Of Georgia, 2008 Chart 5Market Reaction To Russia Invasion Of Ukraine, 2014 Bonds outperformed stocks, cyclicals were flat-to-up against defensives (energy clearly outperformed defensives), and small caps stumbled but then beat out large caps (Chart 5). Energy stocks theoretically stood to benefit but crashed later that year due to supply glut and China policy tightening. In 2022 the situation is different from these previous Russian invasions in that the world is already in the thrall of an energy supply squeeze brought on by various factors. China’s economy is growing slowly but authorities are easing policy. A comparison of the winter of 2021-22 with that of 2013-14, when Russia invaded Crimea, suggests that energy stocks have already far outpaced growth and defensives (Chart 6). Energy small caps, however, could rally substantially against large cap peers. Tactically US investors should maintain a risk-averse positioning until the Russians make a military decision and the West announces its retaliatory measures. This analysis suggests that cyclicals and small caps face volatility but can ultimately grind higher after the onset of any new war in Ukraine. The magnitude of the war will obviously matter, which is why we maintain a defensive tactical positioning. The next question centers on the medium-term policy impact of Biden’s external risks. Chart 6Market Context: 2022 Versus 2014 Implications For US Midterms And Policy It is possible that Biden’s external risks will play a role in the 2022 midterms. It depends on which risks materialize. Most likely a Russian re-invasion of Ukraine would have a negative effect on the Democrats, especially if it adds to voters’ inflation woes. Major foreign policy successes or failures have a substantial impact on a president’s re-election chances but midterms are less obvious. Midterms almost always go against the president’s party because the previous election’s losers turn out in droves while winners sit home in complacency or disillusionment. The midterm electorate tends to be older, whiter, and more educated than the presidential electorate. Chart 7 shows only midterm elections in which external risks – such as foreign policy – played a major role. In the House, the only time the president’s party gained seats was in 2002, though it only lost four seats in 1962. In the Senate, the president’s party gained seats in 1962, 2002, and 2018 and only lost 2 seats in 1954. From these points we can draw the following conclusions: Chart 7US Midterm Elections: Ruling Party Performance Amid Foreign Policy Crises Foreign policy crises do not generally help the president’s party. While major crises like 9/11 helped the Republicans, and the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis minimized Democrats’ losses, nevertheless the 1942 midterm occurred after Pearl Harbor and the Democrats lost seats. Minor crises like the 1958 “Lebanon Crisis” also do not help. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2014 falls under this category and did not help President Obama’s Democrats. A major threat to the homeland can help the president’s party on the margin. This is the significance of 1962 and 2002. The ruling party either minimized losses or made absolute gains in the House, while gaining seats in the Senate. (The 2018 midterm is the other case in which the president’s party gained Senate seats, amid President Trump’s trade war with China, but Republicans suffered heavily in the House.) Wartime escalation and entanglement hurt the president’s party. President Johnson’s Democrats suffered deep losses in 1966, as did President George W. Bush’s Republicans in 2006. Obama’s troop surge in Afghanistan was not the main issue but did not help his party in 2010. Ceasefires and peace treaties do not help the president’s party, even when the end of the war is seen as a victory. World War I was drawing to a close in 1918 but Democrats suffered for having gotten the US involved. Democrats also lost in 1946, despite US triumph in WWII. The Korean war ended on a far more ambivalent note and Republicans suffered at the ballot box. Vietnam was drawing to an ignominious close in 1974, which also occurred in the aftermath of the Arab oil embargo, recession, and Watergate scandal, so no surprise Republicans lost seats. If there is a foreign policy crisis this year, the “best case” for Biden’s Democrats – in crass political terms – would be one that engenders a patriotic rally, like happened with the Cuban Missile Crisis or 9/11. If Democrats only lose four seats in 2022, like Kennedy in 1962, they will have a one-seat majority in the House. However, this best-case scenario is unlikely. As noted, 1962 and 2002 consisted of direct threats to the US homeland. All other crises either hurt or did not help the president’s party. In 2014, while voters had other things on their minds that year, Russia’s invasion of Crimea reinforced criticisms of Obama’s foreign policy already centered on Libya, Syria, and Iran. Obama responded with sanctions and aid to Ukraine, as Biden threatens to do today. Democrats lost 13 seats in the House and 9 seats in the Senate. A similar negative impact should be expected if Russia re-invades in 2022. Biden is already vulnerable: his approval rating collapsed after his messy withdrawal from Afghanistan (reinforcing the fourth bullet about ending wars above). A new foreign policy crisis could cement the narrative of foreign policy incompetence. It matters a great deal whether an exogenous crisis automatically hurts the voter’s pocketbook. If it does, then any initial rally around the flag will fade over time, leaving the negative material impact behind and angering voters. In 1974, President Ford’s approval rating shot up above 50% as he took over from Nixon, yet his party still suffered from the inflationary economic backdrop and dour foreign policy backdrop. In 1978, President Carter’s approval rating also recovered to nearly 50% in time for the vote but it was not enough to overcome inflationary malaise – and Iranian oil strikes began in September (Chart 8). If we subtract the Misery Index (unemployment plus inflation) from the president’s approval rating, we see that Kennedy had a 70% approval during the Cuban Missile Crisis, and Bush had a 62% approval in 2002. But Johnson and Carter were sinking toward 35% during their first midterms, which is where Biden stands today (Chart 9). Chart 8Different Reactions For Different Crises Chart 9Best And Worst Case Scenarios Of Foreign Policy Crisis For Democrats Thus Biden’s external risks, depending on which ones materialize, suggest that the Democratic Party will face another headwind in November. Democrats are very likely to lose the House and somewhat likely to lose the Senate. Gridlock is already setting in – as will be apparent with the potential government shutdown over the February 18 deadline to pass spending bills. But the midterm will formalize it. Policy uncertainty will continue to creep up and weigh on investor risk appetite this year. In other words, even if cyclicals rally through a Ukraine conflict, they may not outperform defensives later this year. Investment Takeaways Cyclically we are booking an 15.6% gain on our long energy trade and will convert it to a long US energy small caps relative to large caps trade. The external risks highlighted in this report would push up oil prices at least initially (Chart 10). However, volatility will pick up from here. OPEC 2.0 will want to keep Brent crude prices from settling above the $90 per barrel that starts to crimp demand, as our Commodity & Energy Strategy argues. Higher prices will also encourage new production, including from the US shale patch (Chart 11). Note that energy stocks, like other cyclicals, tend to underperform during midterm election years as policy uncertainty affects markets. Chart 10Book Gains On Tactical Long Energy Equities Trade Chart 11US Oil Producers Will Step Up  Tactically we recommend closing our long industrials / short consumer discretionary for a gain of 11.6%. Normally, consumer discretionary stocks are the best performing sector during midterm election years while industrials are the worst. But because of China’s policy easing, we took a tactical bet that the opposite would occur at the start of the year. However, external risks should now cause this situation to reverse by pushing up the dollar, penalizing industrials, without hurting the American consumer too much (Chart 12). Industrial equities are pricing in strong capex intentions but geopolitical conflicts would weigh on those intentions, while new orders and core durable goods orders could suffer a bit (Chart 13). The midterms will come into focus later this year and weigh on industrials as well. Chart 12Close Long Industrials Trade For Now Chart 13Industrials Still Attractive On Cyclical Basis Cyclically stick with cyber security stocks. They have sold off along with the tech sector as interest rates rise. But long cyber security is a secular investment thesis based on digitization of the economy, rising cyber crime, and geopolitical risk. Tensions with Russia, proxied by the fall in the ruble and rise in aerospace/defense stocks, point to the fact that investors recognize international tensions will remain high (Chart 14). Cyber space will remain an area of conflict even if physical conflict does not materialize. Growth stocks should also revive later as midterm policy uncertainty picks up. Chart 14Cyber Security Is A Secular Trade ... Buy The Dip Chart 15Overweight Health Care Amid Political Risk Tactically stick with overweight health care on rising uncertainty and expectations that the dollar will pick up (Chart 15). Defensives, especially health, should also outperform as the year goes on and midterms approach. Pricing power is returning to the sector but the Biden administration only has a little legislative ammunition left and its regulatory focus lies elsewhere for now.     Matt Gertken Vice President US Political Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com   Strategic View Open Tactical Positions (0-6 Months) Open Cyclical Recommendations (6-18 Months) Table A2Political Risk Matrix Table A3US Political Capital Index Table A4APolitical Capital: White House And Congress Table A4BPolitical Capital: Household And Business Sentiment Table A4CPolitical Capital: The Economy And Markets

Highlights Banks, households, and businesses are still swimming in cash: Asset purchases and zero rates are ending, but banks, households and businesses have more cash than they know what to do with. It will not be easy for the Fed to mop up enough accommodation to slow the economy in a material way this year. The flood of liquidity may be a headwind for interest rates in 2022, … : The biggest banks have positioned themselves to benefit from rising rates and may limit the backup in yields as they deploy their unused capital hoard into it.  … and protect equities from suffering meaningful de-rating: All the money has to go somewhere, and equities may be the default winner if bonds and cash are poised to deliver negative real returns. The rosy near-term outlook implied by the biggest banks’ observations suggests that the bull market in risk assets isn’t over yet: Households have ramped up spending but have barely begun to tap into their excess savings and businesses are confident and well-heeled. Above-trend economic growth should bolster corporate earnings, credit performance and financial asset prices, keeping the bull market going through the end of the year. What The Banks See The SIFI banks (BAC, C, JPM and WFC) and USB kicked off fourth quarter earnings across three days bracketing the Martin Luther King long weekend. Their performance wasn’t bad – the SIFIs squarely beat analysts’ consensus estimates and USB came up about 3% short – but investors apparently wanted more from a group that had burst out of the gate to start 2022. Banks were market darlings in the year’s first nine sessions as investors sought out stocks that could outperform in a rising rate environment, and the SIFIs and USB beat the S&P 500 by 12 percentage points (Chart 1). Over the three sessions that they reported earnings, they gave back more than a third of their relative outperformance, though they still have a 7-point year-to-date advantage. Chart 1Rate Play Our focus, however, is not on the banks themselves or their stocks’ relative performance. We’re after what the principal financial intermediaries are seeing from their privileged vantage point into activity across the economy. We examine the banks’ earnings releases and listen to their earnings calls for insight into the broad macro backdrop as revealed by borrower performance, lender willingness, the state of the financial system and the actions and intentions of households and businesses. Considering the banks’ calls from that perspective, several growth-friendly themes emerged. Households remain flush with cash, even at the lower end of the wealth distribution, heralding robust 2022 consumption. Deposits from households and businesses continue to pile up, supporting credit performance and likely pushing out the date when net charge-off rates will rise to more normalized levels. The deposit flows are increasing the banks’ capacity to lend, and they are champing at the bit to deploy their cash into new loans. Investment banking pipelines are full and rampant liquidity should see to it that new debt and equity offerings meet with a warm reception once they come to market, as long as the current bout of market turbulence doesn’t lead to a lasting rollback in animal spirits. All in all, the banks’ observations affirmed our constructive take on the economy through at least the end of the year. Households are already spending in a way that validates our time-release view of fiscal transfers and their incomes have apparently risen enough that they have not yet begun to deplete the savings they built up from Congress’ pandemic largess. Businesses remain flush and are looking to replenish depleted inventories to reduce their vulnerability to supply chain disruptions. M&A activity is still hot and underwriting calendars are full. Yields are poised to rise as the Fed dials down monetary accommodation, but it’s possible the banks’ eagerness to put their idle cash to work will help limit how high they can go. Households Have Been Spending (Chart 2), But They Still Have Loads Of Dry Powder (Chart 3) … [F]or the holiday period of November and December, [debit and credit] spending was up 26% over 2019. … And so far this year that strength continues. [S]pending of all types through January 17 … [was] up over 11% versus the start of ’21, which is well up over ’20 and ’19, and that bodes well for the rest of the year and quarter. (Moynihan, BAC CEO) Chart 2You Can't Keep An Avid Consumer Down Chart 32 Trillion Of Excess Savings ... [C]ombined credit and debit [card] spend was up 27% versus the fourth quarter of 2019, with each quarter in 2021 showing sequential growth compared to 2019. Within that, travel and entertainment spend was up 13% versus 4Q19, though we have seen some softening in recent weeks contemporaneously with the Omicron wave. (Barnum, JPM CFO) Consumer credit card spend also continued to be strong, up 28% from the fourth quarter of 2020 and up 27% from the fourth quarter of 2019. All spending categories were up in the fourth quarter compared to a year ago, with the largest increases in travel, fuel, entertainment and dining. (Scharf, WFC CEO) [W]hile there is some softening [from Omicron] in restaurant, travel and entertainment in recent weeks, overall spending remained strong in the first week of January with credit card up 26% and debit card up 29% versus the same week in 2020. (Scharf, WFC) [W]e are seeing increases in [card] spend volume … across the board, [with] branded card spend volumes up 24% and retail services spend volumes up 16%[.] People are using our cards, which is a good thing. (Mason, C CFO) [C]onsumer[s] [are] in really good shape, … spending … 25% more than they spent pre-COVID, 25% more. And that number drives all the order books for everybody else. (Dimon, JPM CEO) We believe there’s lots of potential spending capacity left as average deposit balances (Chart 4) continue to move up … despite … heavy spending[.] We had [only] one cohort of deposits that dipped [in any] month [in] the last part of the year: … customers who had balances of $2,000 or less pre-pandemic [saw their balances] dip by 1% [in November]. Other than that, every cohort from June [through] December [had their balances] grow every month. And what’s striking is that the balances for people who had less than $2,000 average balances before the pandemic [now have] five times [their pre-pandemic] balances. [C]ustomers who had $10,000 in their accounts before the pandemic are now sitting with two times [that] in their accounts. (Moynihan, BAC) Chart 4... Are Sitting In Checking Accounts, Waiting To Be Spent  … Helping Credit Performance (Chart 5) And Keeping A Lid On Card Balances (Chart 6) Chart 6Cash-Rich Consumers Don't Need To Carry Credit Card Balances The asset quality of our customers remains very healthy and net charge-offs this quarter fell to a historical low of … 15 basis points of average loans. … Our credit card loss rate was 1.42%, … less than half of the pre-pandemic rate, [and] it improved in every quarter during the year. (Borthwick, BAC CFO) [O]ur 30, … 60 or 90 days past [due consumer loans] are staying at … low levels. … [C]ustomer [checking account] balances, elevated in some cases five times [above] … pre-pandemic levels … probably account for a lot of the consumer credit quality improvement. We’re anticipating at some point it will go back towards more normal historical levels. We just think it’s going to bump around here for a little while. (Borthwick, BAC) [W]e’re exiting the fourth quarter with a card net charge-off rate of … something like 1.2% -- -- Which you’ll never see again (Barnum and Dimon, JPM) [C]redit card [charge-offs] has been a number that we’ve never seen in our lives. Middle market has been lower than ever. … Mortgages have been lower than ever. They’re all low. Eventually, they’re going to normalize. (Dimon, JPM) In terms of [card] losses, … [we are seeing] very low loss levels. [W]hen I look at the delinquency trend, there’s really nothing to focus on there. [Delinquencies] remain quite low and we don’t see any signs or areas of concern. (Mason, C) Payment rates do remain stubbornly high, [negatively] impacting our loan growth … in [our] cards businesses. (Mason, C) Consumer credit performance remains strong with higher collateral values for homes and autos and consumer cash reserves remain[ing] above pre-pandemic levels. (Santomassimo, WFC CFO) Credit quality remains strong. Over the next few quarters, we expect the net charge-off ratio to remain lower than historical levels, but normalize over time as the effects of the pandemic continue to subside. (Dolan, USB CFO) Business Borrowing May Be Turning A Corner (Chart 7) Chart 7Are Middle-Market Corporate Borrowers Really Back? [Sequential] growth was broad-based across all commercial lending segments. We saw improvement in new loans as well as improvement in utilization from existing clients. … In the all-important small business segment, lending activity is running consistently above pre-pandemic levels. (Moynihan, BAC) We are seeing an uptick in revolver utilization rates, … and it remains sort of skewed to the smaller clients. But we are starting to see an uptick … even in the bigger clients. … [O]ne driver of that is CEOs and management teams have been burned by low inventory levels as a result of the supply chain problems, wanting to run higher inventories and that is maybe driving higher utilization. … At the same time, we’re hearing quite a bit of confidence in the C suites, and all else equal that should be positive for C[ommercial]&I[ndustrial] loan growth. The levels there are modest still in a world where capital markets have been exceptionally receptive to … [bond] issuance … and so people [have been] well-funded [by the] capital markets. (Barnum, JPM) Commercial loan balances started to increase late in the third quarter and have now grown for four consecutive months with growth accelerating in December. … Increases in middle-market banking were driven by growth from our larger clients, a modest uptick in revolver utilization and strong seasonal borrowing. Growth in asset-based lending and leasing was driven by new client wins as well as increased levels from higher prices and some increase in inventory levels. (Santomassimo, WFC) We are encouraged by the loan growth momentum and we have a positive outlook for 2022, given improving client sentiment and business conditions, and continued strength in certain focused commercial portfolios, such as asset-backed securitization lending and supply chain financing. (Cecere, USB CEO) [W]e’re now starting to see a nice shift with respect to the commercial and the C&I portfolios. … At the end of the fourth quarter, we saw nice expansion of utilization rates, … like 60 basis points on average from the third quarter, but in December it was up almost 2.5%. … [P]eople are rebuilding their inventories on the commercial side. I think … they still have some [supply chain] concerns, so I think they’re being cautious about making sure they have inventory to be able to run their business. And I think they’re starting to make business investment ahead of the consumer spend and the economic growth they see in 2022. (Dolan, USB) [The] number one fourth-quarter trend that looks positive going into 2022 is the increase in utilization rates, which we haven’t seen for a number of quarters. (Cecere, USB) Banks Have Tons Of Dry Powder (Chart 8) And Want To Put It To Work (Chart 9) When The Time Is Right Chart 8Water, Water Everywhere And Not A Drop To Drink Chart 9Banks Are Eager To Lend Given continued deposit growth and low rates, our asset sensitivity to rising rates remains significant. (Borthwick, BAC) [W]e still have significant dry powder to put to work with either client demand [loans] or in an increasing rate environment [securities], which we expect. (Mason, C) [W]e have huge firepower to grow, to expand, to make loans, to extend duration. I’ve never seen a bank with [our level of] liquidity: $1.7 trillion in cash and marketable securities and $1 trillion in loans. There’s $500 or 600 billion of those cash and marketable securities that could be deployed in higher-yielding assets or loans when and if the time comes. (Dimon, JPM) [Our] expectation is that when long-term rates rise, which we’re starting to see now, we’re going to be able to take advantage of the rising rate environment. … We [deployed some cash into securities] in the fourth quarter but employed hedging strategies to keep the duration of those purchases relatively short … to maintain as much asset sensitivity going into 2022 as we possibly could. (Dolan, USB) [W]e want maximum flexibility as long-term rates start to rise. (Dolan, USB) Investment Implications​​​​​​​ Chart 10Comeback Or Head Fake? The biggest banks told a consistent story about the US economy on their earnings calls. Activity is rising, as evidenced by avid consumption that gathered momentum across 2021, a pickup in business and consumer appetite for borrowing that quickened toward the end of the year (Chart 10), and expressions of confidence from businesses that are directing capital to replenishing inventories and buying equipment. Credit performance is tremendously strong with record-low net charge-off rates and low delinquency rates underpinned by bloated business and consumer deposit balances. Abundant cash reserves provide further fuel for consumption and should keep GDP growth well above its trend level. The growth and credit tailwinds suggest that a recession is not lurking around the corner and therefore offer a green light for investors to overweight equities within multi-asset portfolios. As detailed in the last two reports on rate hikes’ impact, we do not view the recent equity turbulence, triggered by a surge in Treasury yields, as the start of an inflection point for financial markets. We are inclined to see the decline as more of a buying opportunity than a herald of a new shift in the business cycle. The Fed has the means to slow the economy if it sets its mind to it but given the amount of cash that is overwhelming banks, businesses, households and investors, draining enough accommodation to do so by the end of 2022 is an awfully tall order.   Doug Peta, CFA Chief US Investment Strategist dougp@bcaresearch.com

  Dear Client, The subject of cryptocurrencies elicits more emotion that any topic I can think of. As is true for the broader investment community, there is no unanimity of opinion among BCA strategists on the matter. This week, our Global Asset Allocation team is publishing a report taking a favorable view on NFTs. My report is far less sanguine on NFTs and the broader crypto landscape. I hope you enjoy the spirited debate. Best regards, Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Highlights The price of Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies has become increasingly correlated with the direction of equities. Stocks should recover over the coming months as bond markets stabilize and corporate earnings continue to expand thanks to a resurgent global economy. This could give cryptos a temporary lift. The long-term outlook for cryptocurrencies remains daunting, however. In most cases, anything that cryptocurrencies can do, the existing financial system can do better. 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. Investors looking to hedge their risks should consider going long Cardano, Solana, and Polkadot (three up-and-coming “proof of stake” coins) versus Bitcoin, Litecoin, and Doge (three doomed “proof of work” coins). The Cost Of Crypto Who pays for cryptocurrencies? That may seem like a simple question with a simple answer: The people who buy them! Yet, as economists have long known, purchases can produce externalities – costs or benefits that are borne by someone other than the person making the purchase. Some purchases can produce positive externalities, such as when you buy nice flowers to plant in front of your house. Other purchases produce negative externalities, such as when you buy a product that harms the environment. The negative externalities arising from Bitcoin mining are well known. A single Bitcoin transaction consumes 14 times as much energy as 100,000 Visa transactions (Chart 1). Bitcoin’s annual electricity consumption exceeds that of Pakistan and its 217 million inhabitants (Chart 2). The growth in crypto mining is one reason why electricity prices are so high in many countries.    Crime is another negative externality that cryptocurrencies facilitate. Bitcoin first entered the popular lexicon in 2013 when its price briefly eclipsed $1,000 due to rising demand for the currency as a medium of exchange on Silk Road and other parts of the so-called dark web. Fast forward to today and crime continues to be a major problem for the crypto industry. According to Chainalysis, illicit addresses received $14 billion in 2021, almost double 2020 levels (Chart 3). Scamming revenue grew 82% while cryptocurrency theft rose 516%.   Don’t Feed The Whales There is another cost arising from cryptocurrencies that is rarely mentioned – a cost borne by people who have never bought cryptocurrencies and probably assume they are immune from the vagaries of crypto markets: The holders of regular fiat money. Early investors in today’s most popular cryptocurrencies are sitting on huge profits. A recent study found that 1% of Bitcoin holders control 27% of supply. Ownership is even more concentrated for most other cryptocurrencies (Chart 4). If these whales were to sell their coins, they could purchase billions of dollars of goods and services. But since there is no indication yet that the proliferation of cryptocurrencies has expanded the aggregate supply of goods and services, their purchasing power must come at someone else’s expense.1  Still Waiting Cryptocurrency proponents would counter that blockchain technologies will usher in a golden age of innovation. Based on this perspective, Bitcoin is a lot like Amazon, a company that created immense wealth for Jeff Bezos and other early shareholders, but has reshaped the global economy in a way that arguably left most people, including those who never bought Amazon stock, better off. The problem with this argument is that Bitcoin is nothing like Amazon. Chainalysis estimates that online merchants processed less than $3 billion in cryptocurrency transactions in 2020, a number that has barely grown over time (Chart 5). While updated numbers for 2021 will be released in February, our analysis of data from Coinmap suggests that the number of merchants accepting cryptocurrency increased less last year than in either 2017 or 2018 (Chart 6). This is consistent with anecdotal evidence which suggests that the vast majority of cryptocurrency transactions continue to be motivated by investment flows rather than e-commerce. A Feature Not A Bug “Just wait and see,” crypto evangelists say. “Sure, Bitcoin has been around since 2008, but new applications are just around the corner.” There are good reasons to be skeptical of such pronouncements. The Bitcoin network can barely process five transactions per second, compared to over 20,000 for the Visa network (Chart 7). The fee for a Bitcoin transaction can fluctuate significantly, and is typically much greater than for a debit card (Chart 8). Chart 7We Apologize For The Wait Chart 8It Costs A Lot To Fill Up The Crypto Tank Bitcoin’s sluggishness is inherent to how it was designed. Due to their decentralized nature, blockchains must rely on elaborate procedures to prevent bad actors from taking control. Bitcoin and other popular cryptocurrencies such as Doge use the so-called “proof of work” algorithm. To see how this algorithm works in simple terms, think of spam email. One way of eliminating spam is to require everyone to waste $10 in electricity to send a single email. That is effectively how Bitcoin functions. It is secure, but it is also very clunky. An alternative to “proof of work” is “proof of stake.” Smaller cryptocurrencies such as Cardano and Solana use this algorithm, and Ethereum is in the process of migrating to it. Continuing with the spam analogy, imagine requiring everyone to put $10 down before they send an email. If the email is opened, the $10 is returned. If the email is deleted, the $10 is forfeited. A Solution In Search Of A Problem Proof of stake systems are arguably superior to proof of work systems since the former do not require wasteful energy consumption. But are they superior to the current financial system? That is far from clear. Listening to crypto enthusiasts, one would think that everyone is still using paper money, or perhaps shells or cattle, to make transactions. In fact, the global financial system is already nearly 100% digital. Digital transfer systems such as Zelle in the US and Interac in Canada permit instantaneous transfers at very little cost. Granted, cross-border payments are far from seamless. However, this largely reflects anti-money laundering rules and other regulations that banks must follow rather than some inherent technological limitations with, say, the SWIFT system. The DeFi Delusion Decentralized Finance, or DeFi, has become a hot topic of late. Like most things involving cryptocurrencies, there is more hype than substance. The idea that there will ever be large-scale crypto-denominated lending is wishful thinking. To see why, put yourself in the position of someone contemplating lending 25 bitcoins to a borrower who is interested in buying a house for, say, $1,000,000. On the one hand, if the price of bitcoin drops, you will likely be repaid, but in depreciated coins. On the other hand, if the price of bitcoin rises, you might not be repaid at all since the value of the loan will exceed the value of the house. Any way you cut it, there is no incentive to make the loan. There are other potential DeFi applications, such as those involving smart contracts, that could potentially prove useful. The Ethereum blockchain, where many of these contracts reside, is secured by ether (ETH). The market cap of ETH is currently $370 billion. How much ether is held for investment purposes and how much is held by people looking to make transactions on the Ethereum blockchain? It is impossible to be sure, but it would not surprise us if investment demand accounts for well over 90% of ETH holdings. It would be as if the price of oil rose to $1,000 per barrel, with 90% of that value driven by investment demand. Most people would agree that this would not be a sustainable situation. NFTs: Why So Ugly? Chart 9NFTs Have Taken Off The popularity of non-fungible tokens (NFTs) has soared over the past year. During the past four weeks, more than $250 million of NFTs were traded on average every day, up from almost nothing at the beginning of 2021 (Chart 9). NFTs allow artists to transform their work into verifiable assets that can be listed and sold on the blockchain. Or at least that is the claim. When they were first introduced, the expectation was that the most desirable NFTs would turn out to be unique and beautiful. Instead, as the CryptoPunks collection aptly demonstrates, many turned out to be repetitive and ugly. Why? One plausible answer is that many NFT buyers are not really looking to acquire digital art. Instead, they are looking to buy supercharged proxies for the cryptocurrency in which the NFT is denominated. As evidence, consider that 99% of the discussions in NFT forums are about how much money NFT buyers hope to make rather than about the “art” itself. Shadow Crypto Supply If this interpretation is correct, it undermines one of the main selling points of cryptocurrencies: That they are limited in supply. Just like banks can create money out of thin air whenever they make loans, the blockchain can spawn synthetic assets such as NFTs that increase the effective supply of the underlying cryptocurrency.2 And that is just for a single cryptocurrency. There is nothing that obliges someone to list a smart contract on the Ethereum blockchain as opposed to any other blockchain. Indeed, there is no limit to the number of blockchains, and by extension, the number of cryptocurrencies that can be created. Chart 10 shows that there are currently more than 9,000 cryptocurrencies in circulation, up from 1,000 in 2017 and less than 100 in 2013. At least with gold, they are not adding any new elements to the periodic table. The Paradox Of Low Gas Fees Competition among blockchains will favor those that offer the lowest “gas fees,” that is, those that require only a small amount of cryptocurrency to update their ledgers. As users abandon blockchains with high gas fees, the prices of their cryptocurrencies will fall. The cryptocurrencies of the more efficient blockchains will benefit, but probably not as much as one might assume. Just as the demand for petrol would decline if automobiles became much more fuel efficient but miles driven did not rise much, falling gas fees could reduce demand for cryptocurrencies unless activity on their blockchains increased proportionately more than the decline in prices. Crypto prices may fall dramatically if governments offer blockchain networks as a public good. The rollout of Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs) could pave the way for this development. Concluding Thoughts On The Current Market Environment And Long-Term Outlook For Cryptos The price of Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies has become increasingly correlated with the direction of equities (Chart 11). As we noted in our first report of the new year, average returns for the S&P 500 in January have been negative since 2000. This year has been especially trying given the rapid ascent in bond yields. Our end-2022 target for the US 10-year Treasury yield is 2.25%. Hence, while we expect yields to rise over the remainder of the year, the process should be a lot more gradual than over the past few weeks. Equities often experience a period of indigestion when yields rise sharply. However, as we stressed last week, stocks typically rebound as long as yields do not end up rising to prohibitive levels. The bull-bear spread in this week’s AAII poll fell back to its pandemic lows, a positive contrarian indicator for stocks (Chart 12). With global growth still firmly above trend, corporate earnings should rise by enough to propel stocks into positive territory for the year. A rebound in stock prices, in turn, could give cryptocurrencies a temporary lift. Chart 11Cryptocurrency Prices Have Become Increasingly Correlated With Stocks Chart 12The Bull-Bear Ratio Is Back To Its Pandemic Lows   Nevertheless, the long-term outlook for cryptocurrencies remains daunting. In most cases, anything that cryptocurrencies can do, the existing financial system can do better. Many of the most hyped blockchain applications, from DeFi to NFTs, will turn out to be duds. Meanwhile, 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. Chart 13New Money Versus Old Money The prices of the most popular cryptocurrencies do not reflect this eventuality. Even after falling 32% from its highs, the aggregate market capitalization of cryptocurrencies is still only slightly less than the value of the entire stock of US dollars in circulation (Chart 13). Our long-term target for Bitcoin is $5,000. Investors looking to hedge their risks should consider going long Cardano, Solana, and Polkadot (three up-and-coming “proof of stake” coins) versus Bitcoin, Litecoin, and Doge (three doomed “proof of work” coins).   Peter Berezin Chief Global Strategist peterb@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1     One way that holders of fiat money could suffer is if the presence of cryptocurrencies reduced the demand for dollars, euros, and other central bank issued currencies. If that were to happen, inflation would rise as people sought to dispose of unwanted fiat currency by buying goods and services. Alternatively, if central banks wanted to constrain inflation, they would have to shrink the money supply by selling income-generating assets. Either way, the public would be worse off. 2     For instance, consider Alice and Bob. Both wish to have a certain amount of exposure to ETH in their investment portfolios. Suppose Bob uses some of his ETH to buy an item from the “Dopey Duck” collection that Alice has just  minted. If Bob regards his NFT as a substitute for the ETH he previously held, he will not want to buy more ETH to replace the ETH he lost. In contrast, Alice will end up with more ETH than she previously owned, and hence, will need to sell some of it. All things equal, this will lead to a lower price for ETH. Global Investment Strategy View Matrix Special Trade Recommendations Current MacroQuant Model Scores

Dear client, In lieu of our weekly bulletin next week, I will be hosting a webcast on Friday, January 28 at 11:00 am EST, to discuss recent dollar trends. I hope you all tune in. Kind regards, Chester Ntonifor Highlights While not often discussed, it is well known that the dollar is expensive. It is true that valuations tend to matter less until they trigger a tipping point. Such inflections usually coincide with huge external imbalances, especially generated by an overvalued exchange rate. The US dollar could be stepping into such a paradigm - the DXY is 1.5 standard deviations above fair value, at the same time as the goods trade deficit is hitting record lows, and real interest rates are deeply negative. More importantly, there has been limited precedence to such a dollar configuration. Historically, it has required much higher real interest rates, or an improving balance of payments backdrop, to justify such lofty valuations. Our trading model shows that selling a currency when it is expensive and buying it when it is cheap generates excess returns over time. Within our valuation ranking, the cheapest currencies are JPY, SEK and NOK. On a terms-of-trade basis, the AUD stands out as a winner. Feature Chart 1High Dollar Valuation And Ultra-Low Real Rates Is Unprecedented Valuations usually get little respect when it comes to medium-term currency movements. This has been especially the case over the last few years, where the macroeconomic environment has been by far the biggest driver of the US dollar. The bull market in the dollar from 2011 to 2020 coincided with higher real interest rates in the US, relative to the rest of the developed world. In fact, since 2008, no developed market central bank has been able to hike rates by more than 200bps, except for the US Federal Reserve. Our report last week focused on why aggressive interest rate increases by the Federal Reserve could be bullish for the US dollar in the short term, but eventually set the stage for depreciation. In this report, we argue that valuations will also become a more important factor for currency strategy over the next 1-2 years (Chart 1). The Dollar And The External Balance The framework to understand currencies and the external balance is straightforward - a rising trade deficit (imports > exports) requires a lower exchange rate to boost competitiveness in the manufacturing sector, or less spending to reduce the trade deficit. Reduced domestic spending is unlikely in most developed economies, given ample pent-up demand and loose fiscal policy. Therefore, the natural adjustment mechanism for countries running wide trade deficits will have to be the exchange rate. Within a broad spectrum of developed and emerging market currencies, the US dollar stands out as overvalued on a real effective exchange rate basis (Chart 2A and 2B). It is true that valuations tend to matter less until they trigger a tipping point. Such inflections usually occur with a shift in animal spirits, coinciding with huge external imbalances. In the US, these imbalances are already starting to trigger a shift. The US trade deficit is deteriorating, with the goods deficit hitting a record low of -$98bn in November. Over the last few years, it has become increasingly difficult to fund this widening trade deficit via foreign purchases of US Treasuries (Chart 3). Meanwhile, as we highlighted last week, substantial equity inflows over the last few years have started to roll over. In a nutshell, the basic balance in the US (the sum of the current account and foreign direct investment) is deteriorating at an accelerated pace (Chart 4). The US current account deficit for Q3 came in at -$214.8 billion, the widest in over a decade. This has reversed a lot of the improvement in the basic balance since the Global Financial Crisis. The dollar tends to decline on a multi-year basis when the basic balance peaks and starts deteriorating. Chart 4Deteriorating Balance Of Payments Dynamics US Balance Of Payments Chart 3It Is Becoming Increasingly Difficult To Fund The Widening Deficit Fiscal policy is likely to become tighter in the next couple of years, easing the domestic spending constraint for the exchange rate. That said, fiscal policy will remain loose compared to pre-pandemic levels and relative to underlying employment conditions. This has historically led to a deterioration in the external balance and pulled the real effective exchange rate of the dollar down (Chart 5). Chart 5The Dollar And The Budget Deficit Real Interest Rates And The Dollar It is remarkable that at a time when real rates are the most negative in the US, the dollar is as overvalued as it has been in decades on a simple PPP model. This is a perfect mirror image of the dollar configuration at the start of the bull market in 2010, where the dollar was cheap and real rates were more supportive (Chart 1). According to economic theory, a currency should adjust to equalize returns across countries. This is a no-arbitrage condition. In the early 80s, an overvalued dollar was supported by very positive real rates. The subsequent dollar declines thereafter also coincided with falling real interest rates. In fact, over the last decade, it has been an anomaly that the dollar is so strong despite relative real interest rates being so negative (Chart 6). Our view remains that the terminal interest rate for the US should be higher than what is currently discounted in the 10-year Treasury yield. According to the overnight index swap curve, the Fed will not hike interest rates past 1.75%. This is much lower than past cycles and will keep real interest rates low. This does not justify an expensive greenback. Our shorter-term interest rate model also shows the DXY as slightly expensive, even though short-term interest rates have moved in favor of the dollar over the past year (Chart 7). Chart 6The Level Of Relative Real Yields Also Matters Chart 7Our Timing Model Suggests ##br##A Pullback Other Considerations While real effective exchange rates and purchasing power parity models are among our favorite valuation gauges, they are not foolproof. Countries with structurally higher inflation (and so a higher real effective exchange rate), could also have higher productivity. According to the Balassa-Samuelson Hypothesis, competitiveness in the tradeable goods sector will boost wages across all sectors of the economy, leading to higher prices. This argument particularly resonates with proponents that suggest the US is a fast-growing economy, and so will tend to run a current account deficit, like Australia during the commodity boom of the early 2000s. Meanwhile, the US earns more on its overseas assets than it spends on its liabilities, suggesting that the funding gap will eventually close. Unfortunately, the overvaluation of the dollar has not been due to higher relative productivity in the US, especially when compared to other economies. Across a broad spectrum of developed and emerging market economies, the dollar is expensive according to our productivity models. The Chinese RMB (which is much overvalued on a PPP basis) is closer to fair value when productivity is taken into consideration (Chart 8). Meanwhile, the sizeable US deficit is not completely offset by its positive investment balance (Chart 9). This is occurring at a time when many faster growing countries (such as China for example) are generating current account surpluses (Chart 10A and 10B). In a nutshell, whether one looks at relative price levels, relative productivity trends, or relative real returns on government assets, the dollar is expensive. Chart 9The Positive Income Balance Has Not Helped The Us Investment Position Conclusion Last summer, we introduced a trading model for FX valuation enthusiasts. We used both our in-house purchasing power parity models (PPP) and our intermediate-term timing models as valuation tools. Since the 2000s, both valuation models have outperformed a buy-and-hold currency strategy with much lower volatility (Chart 11). Currency valuation tends to matter over the longer term, while the macro environment tends to dominate short-term currency trading. Given that the dollar has been overvalued for the last three to five years, the above analysis suggests we might be entering this “longer-term” tipping point where valuations will start to matter more going forward. Within our valuation ranking, the cheapest currencies are JPY, SEK and NOK. On a terms-of-trade and productivity basis, the AUD stands out as a winner. This is being reflected in a record-high basic balance surplus (Chart 12). In our trade tables, we went long AUD at 70 cents, and will upgrade this to a high conviction bet on signs that currency volatility is ebbing. Chart 11A Trading Rule Solely Based On Valuation Chart 12AUD And Balance Of Payments Chester Ntonifor Foreign Exchange Strategist chestern@bcaresearch.com Trades & Forecasts Strategic View Tactical Holdings (0-6 months) Forecast Summary

Highlights Duration: A look at past rate hike cycles shows that Treasury returns are generally low, though not always negative. For the current cycle, we continue to recommend a below-benchmark portfolio duration stance as we don’t think the full extent of Fed rate hikes is adequately priced in the yield curve. Interest Rate Policy: The Fed will deliver its first rate hike in March and will lift rates 2 or 3 more times this year. We see the fed funds rate moving above 2% this cycle, higher than what is currently priced in the market. Fed Balance Sheet: The Fed will start the passive runoff of its securities holdings in the first half of this year, after one or two rate hikes have been delivered. Balance sheet reduction will proceed more quickly than it did last cycle, but the Fed will refrain from outright sales. Feature Chart 1Market Expectations Are Too Low Rate hikes are just around the corner. In fact, there is a growing consensus among FOMC participants that it will be appropriate to deliver the first rate hike in March, as soon as net asset purchases reach zero. Just last week, San Francisco Fed President Mary Daly called a March rate hike “quite reasonable” and Fed Vice-Chair Lael Brainard testified that the Fed will be “in a position” to lift rates as soon as purchases end. Brainard also mentioned that the Fed has discussed shrinking its balance sheet.1 We expect the Fed to follow through with a 25 basis point rate hike in March, and with 2 or 3 more hikes over the course of 2022. We also see the Fed shrinking its balance sheet this year, via the passive runoff of maturing securities. With all that in mind, this week’s report draws on the experience of past rate hike cycles to give us a sense of what Treasury returns to expect as the Fed lifts rates. We also discuss how the Fed’s balance sheet will evolve over the next few years.  Treasury Returns During Rate Hike Cycles Table 1 provides a useful summary of Treasury returns during the prior four rate hike cycles. The table shows excess Treasury returns versus cash for the Bloomberg Barclays Treasury Index as well as its Intermediate Maturity and Long Maturity sub-indexes. Table 1Treasury Returns During Fed Rate Hike Cycles The first conclusion we draw is that Treasury returns are generally poor during Fed tightening cycles. Intermediate maturity Treasuries underperformed cash in all four cycles. Long maturity Treasuries provided only modestly positive returns in two of the four cycles and deeply negative returns in one of them. One important caveat is that our analysis only considers cycles where the Fed lifted rates multiple times in a row. For example, we exclude the 1997-98 period when one rate hike in 1997 was quickly reversed in 1998. We also define the most recent tightening cycle as spanning from 2015 to 2018 even though the Fed kept the policy rate steady from December 2015 to December 2016. Obviously, if the Fed is forced to abandon its tightening cycle after one or two hikes, then Treasury returns will be much stronger than our historical analysis suggests. Next, let’s dig a bit deeper by looking at each rate hike cycle individually. The 2015-2018 Cycle Chart 22015-2018 Cycle The most recent Fed tightening cycle started with a 25 basis point rate hike in December 2015. The Fed then went on hold for 12 months before delivering a string of 8 hikes between December 2016 and December 2018. All in all, the tightening cycle lasted 36 months and the Fed raised the target fed funds rate by 225 bps, from a range of 0% - 0.25% to a range of 2.25% - 2.5% (Chart 2). If we look at the 36-month discounter on the day before the first hike (Chart 2, panel 3), it shows that the market was priced for 159 bps of tightening over the next three years. The fact that the Fed delivered more tightening (225 bps) explains why excess Treasury returns were negative for short and intermediate maturities. The 5-year/5-year forward Treasury yield is another useful metric because it is a good approximation of the market’s expected terminal fed funds rate, i.e. the fed funds rate at the end of the tightening cycle. The 5-year/5-year forward Treasury yield stood at 2.92% in December 2015, slightly above where the fed funds rate peaked in 2018 (Chart 2, bottom panel). This explains why long-maturity excess Treasury returns were slightly positive during the cycle.         The 2004-2006 Cycle Chart 32004-2006 Cycle During this cycle, which spanned from June 2004 to June 2006, the Fed lifted rates by 400 bps (sixteen 25 basis point rate hikes). The fed funds rate rose from 1% to 5.25% during the two-year span (Chart 3). The 24-month fed funds discounter stood at 369 bps the day before the first hike (Chart 3, panel 3), indicating that the market discounted 31 bps less tightening than was ultimately delivered. Once again, this explains why excess Treasury returns were negative for short and intermediate maturities. The 5-year/5-year forward Treasury yield was 5.72% just prior to the first hike in June 2004 (Chart 3, bottom panel). But, as was the case in the 2015-2018 cycle, the fed funds rate never reached this level. It peaked at 5.25% in 2006 and long-maturity excess Treasury yields were somewhat positive as a result.                 The 1999-2000 Cycle Chart 41999-2000 Cycle In this cycle, the Fed lifted rates by 175 bps between June 1999 and May 2000, driving the fed funds rate from 4.75% to 6.5% (Chart 4). The 12-month fed funds discounter stood at 108 bps on the day before the first hike (Chart 4, panel 3). Once again, this was slightly less than the 175 bps of tightening that transpired. Excess returns for short and intermediate maturity Treasuries were negative as a result. The 5-year/5-year forward Treasury yield was 5.99% on the day before the first hike (Chart 4, bottom panel). This time, the market’s assessment proved to be too low compared to the funds rate’s 6.5% peak. This divergence explains why long-maturity Treasury excess returns were worse during this period than they were in the 2015-18 and 2004-06 cycles.                 The 1994-1995 Cycle Chart 51994-1995 Cycle The Fed surprised markets by lifting rates extremely quickly during this cycle. The Fed moved rates from 3% to 6% in the span of only 12 months between February 1994 and February 1995 (Chart 5). The 12-month discounter was only 130 bps at the beginning of the tightening cycle, well short of the 300 bps rate increase that was delivered (Chart 5, panel 3). This large divergence explains why excess Treasury returns were so poor during this period. Interestingly, the 5-year/5-year forward Treasury yield stood at 6.69% just prior to the first hike (Chart 5, bottom panel), not that far from the ultimate peak in the fed funds rate. In other words, while market expectations for the near-term path of interest rates were too low, expectations for the ultimate peak in interest rates were fairly accurate. However, terminal rate expectations became unmoored when the Fed started to tighten, and the 5-year/5-year forward Treasury yield rose all the way to 8.5%, far above the fed funds rate’s ultimate peak. This dramatic shift in terminal rate expectations explains the deeply negative long-maturity Treasury returns observed during the period. Of course, those losses were quickly reversed in H1 1995 once it became clear that the Fed would not lift rates further. The 5-year/5-year forward Treasury yield plummeted back to 6.5%. Investment Implications Let’s apply the above analysis to today’s situation. At present, the 12-month fed funds discounter stands at 93 bps. The 24-month discounter is 151 bps and the 36-month discounter is 159 bps (Chart 1). In other words, the market is discounting that the Fed will deliver between 3 and 4 rate hikes this year, but only 2 more in 2023 before the funds rate stabilizes at roughly 1.5%. Our expectation is that the fed funds rate will rise to at least 2% during the next three years, and we therefore continue to recommend running below-benchmark portfolio duration. For its part, the 5-year/5-year forward Treasury yield is currently 2.03%. This is at the low-end of survey estimates for the long-run neutral fed funds rate (Chart 1, bottom panel). We expect the 5-year/5-year forward Treasury yield to rise closer to the middle of the range of survey estimates (~2.25%) as it becomes clear that the fed funds rate will rise to at least 2%. It’s also possible that, like in the 1994-95 episode, terminal rate expectations will rise dramatically as the Fed lifts rates more quickly than anticipated. This, however, is not our base case outlook given that expectations for a low terminal fed funds rate are very well entrenched. Bottom Line: A look at past rate hike cycles shows that Treasury returns are generally low, though not always negative. For the current cycle, we continue to recommend a below-benchmark portfolio duration stance as we don’t think the full extent of Fed rate hikes is adequately priced in the yield curve. The Balance Sheet Outlook Chart 6Hike First, Then QT We expect the Fed to start shrinking its securities holdings this year. The process will probably begin in the first half of the year after one or two rate hikes have been delivered. To arrive at this conclusion, we first look at how the Fed proceeded during the last tightening cycle. Back then, the Fed waited until the funds rate was around 1% before it started to shrink its balance sheet in September 2017 (Chart 6). Notably, the Fed didn’t immediately move toward the full passive runoff of its portfolio. Rather, it started slowly by permitting only $6 billion of Treasuries and $4 billion of MBS to mature in October 2017. These amounts were gradually increased in the subsequent months. The Fed will move more quickly toward balance sheet reduction this cycle and the pace of said reduction will be faster. Here are the relevant passages from the minutes of the December FOMC meeting: Almost all participants agreed that it would likely be appropriate to initiate balance sheet runoff at some point after the first increase in the target range for the federal funds rate. However, participants judged that the appropriate timing of balance sheet runoff would likely be closer to that of policy rate liftoff than in the Committee’s previous experience. […] Many participants judged that the appropriate pace of balance sheet runoff would likely be faster than it was during the previous normalization episode. Many participants also judged that monthly caps on the runoff of securities could help ensure that the pace of runoff would be measured and predictable…2 From these quotes, we surmise that balance sheet runoff will start earlier than last time – after one or two rate hikes instead of four. Also, while the runoff will proceed more quickly than last time, there is still support for maintaining monthly caps on the pace. The Fed will probably not move immediately to the complete passive runoff of its portfolio, and outright bond sales do not appear to be part of the discussion. One concern that investors might have about the Fed’s balance sheet runoff is the extra supply of Treasuries that will hit the market. As an upper-bound, if we assume complete passive runoff starting in April 2022, the Fed’s Treasury holdings will shrink from $5.7 trillion today to $3.5 trillion by the end of 2024, adding an average of $715 billion extra Treasury supply to the market each year (Chart 7). If we exclude T-bills and TIPS to focus only on coupon-paying nominal Treasury securities, then we calculate that Fed holdings will fall from $4.9 trillion to $3 trillion, adding an extra $639 billion of supply to the market on average for the next three years. However, it’s important to note that Fed policy alone doesn’t dictate the supply of Treasury securities. The Treasury department’s issuance plans also need to be considered. When the Fed allows a maturing bond to passively roll off its portfolio it doesn’t dump that bond directly into the market. Rather, the Treasury Department issues new debt to replace the maturing bond. The Treasury could decide, for example, to increase T-bill issuance instead of coupon issuance. In fact, this sort of decision becomes more likely if Treasury officials are concerned about dumping too much coupon supply on the market. Currently, the Treasury Department targets a range of 15% - 20% for the amount of outstanding T-bills as a proportion of the overall funding mix, a target that it is hitting (Chart 8). However, the minutes from the most recent Quarterly Refunding meeting stressed that the Treasury feels the need to maintain “flexibility” when it comes to this target range and noted that “there is likely more leeway at the top of the recommended range than at the bottom.”3 Chart 7The Pace Of ##br##Runoff Chart 8T-bill Issuance Could Rise As The Fed's Portfolio Shrinks Finally, it is important to consider the extent to which the Fed will be able to shrink its balance sheet. The Fed’s goal will be to achieve a reserve supply that allows it to maintain the funds rate within its target band without putting undue pressure on either its Overnight Reverse Repo Facility (ON RRP) or its new Standing Repo Facility (SRF). Chart 9The Fed's Balance Sheet Was Too Small In September 2019 The ON RRP acts as a floor on interest rates and its usage therefore increases when the Fed’s balance sheet is too large. The third panel of Chart 9 shows that this is currently the case. Conversely, the SRF acts as a ceiling on interest rates and its usage will ramp up if the Fed’s balance sheet becomes too small. This last occurred in September 2019 when the Fed briefly lost control of interest rates and was forced to increase repo holdings and reserve supply (Chart 9).​​​​​​​ Going forward, the Fed will continue to run down its balance sheet until ON RRP usage drops close to zero. However, it will want to stop reducing its holdings before SRF usage picks up. It is highly uncertain when this will occur, but we suspect that the Fed won’t be able to get the balance sheet back to September 2019 levels before seeing SRF usage increase. Bottom Line: The Fed will start the passive runoff of its securities holdings in the first half of this year, after one or two rate hikes have been delivered. Balance sheet reduction will proceed more quickly than it did last cycle, but the Fed will refrain from outright sales. While the size of the Fed’s balance sheet will shrink during the next few years, it will remain larger than it was in September 2019.   Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see https://www.reuters.com/business/exclusive-feds-daly-march-liftoff-is-quite-reasonable-2022-01-13/ and https://www.nbcnews.com/business/economy/interest-rate-hike-come-soon-march-feds-brainard-signals-rcna12112 2 https://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/files/fomcminutes20211215.pdf 3 https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/jy0464 Recommended Portfolio Specification Other Recommendations Treasury Index Returns Spread Product Returns

Highlights It’s true that rising rates often precipitate bear markets, but it takes a while, … : We subscribe to the view that expansions are more likely to be murdered by the Fed than die of old age. It’s hard to envision a plausible scenario in which the Fed could hike rates enough in 2022 to kill this one, though, and even the first half of 2023 would be a reach.  … because the Fed only seeks to slow the economy when it’s firing on all cylinders: Earnings are typically growing at a rapid clip and risk aversion is a distant memory when the Fed begins the process of draining the punch bowl. The fed funds rate tipping point can only be definitively identified after the fact, but our estimate has an impressive track record: No one knows for sure where the line of demarcation between easy and tight monetary policy lies, but equities have shined when the fed funds rate is below our equilibrium estimate. We do not share the view that Tech stocks are especially vulnerable to higher interest rates: Although it lacks empirical support outside of a small subset of observations, the Tech vulnerability view has spread more widely than the Omicron variant. Feature Last week’s report discussing the equity impact of impending rate hikes elicited a lot of reaction. A discussion with one investor usually has relevance for other investors, so we are sharing a composite of the questions we received, along with our responses. It gives us the chance to elaborate on some points that we did not previously address in full, but our conclusion remains unchanged. History argues that equities have little to fear from an incremental rate hike campaign, and we expect that they will generate sizable positive excess returns above Treasuries and cash over the next twelve months. The Fed, With Rate Hikes, In The Board Room Why shouldn’t investors be concerned about rate hikes when you yourself have said that the Fed precipitates recessions? As the last expansion stretched on for a record length of time, we regularly repeated the line that expansions don’t die of old age, they die because the Fed murders them. It fits well with our tipping point view of rate hikes and we wholly subscribe to it. It is important to bear in mind, however, that the Fed’s tools act much more slowly than the lethal array of objects in the game of Clue. As we highlighted last week, monetary policy acts with long and variable lags and the Fed accordingly tightens it in increments allowing for real-time feedback that might help it tailor its actions to evolving economic conditions. Ex-the pandemic, tight monetary policy has been a necessary, albeit not sufficient, recession condition for the 60 years covered by our equilibrium fed funds rate estimate. Although not every instance when the fed funds rate exceeded its equilibrium level preceded a recession, no recession occurred when the funds rate was below equilibrium (Chart 1). Owing to monetary policy’s lagged effects, however, the recessions didn’t begin until well after the Fed began to tighten policy. On average, each recession arrived 26 months after Phase I kicked off and 12 months after the policy cycle entered Phase II (Table 1). Peak growth occurs in the early stages of rate hikes, while the Fed is merely easing up on the gas; deceleration only ensues in the latter stages, when the Fed pushes down on the brake pedal. Chart 1Rate Hikes Are A Necessary, But Not Sufficient, Recession Condition ... Table 1... And It Takes A While For The Economy To Feel Their Full Effect Index P/E Multiples Don’t Collapse Overnight It’s often said that the Fed hikes rates until something breaks. If equities are ultimately going to break in the process, why wouldn’t a prudent investor read the first rate hike, or even the run-up to it, as a sign to begin reducing exposure? We showed last week that signal measures of economic activity – hiring, lending, spending and GDP – grow well above their through-the-cycle pace while the Fed is tightening policy. Corporate earnings do, too, and S&P 500 earnings expectations have risen most rapidly when the Fed is hiking rates, with Phase I growth nearly doubling aggregate growth (Chart 2, middle panel). Earnings gains are vulnerable to dilution from multiple de-rating, but Phase I multiples have been roughly flat in the aggregate (Chart 2, bottom panel). Perhaps investors recognize that equities don’t break until well after the Fed starts hiking rates, or double-digit earnings growth makes them lose sight of the likelihood that they eventually will. Chart 2Our Definitions Of The Phases Must Be Close To The Mark Based on the empirical record, investors judged by their relative performance should not reduce equity exposure until the rate hiking campaign is well advanced. Phase I has produced the best returns of any phase in the 42 years that earnings expectations have been compiled and missing out on them could be harmful to a professional investor’s career (Chart 2, top panel). Today’s Starting Point Is Unusually Demanding Have equities ever been this expensive at the start of a tightening cycle? History suggests that equities can rally in a “normal” Phase I even after some initial turbulence, but how much scope do they have to rise from current valuation levels? There is unfortunately scarcely any empirical data to address this question. The nine Phase I episodes account for just eight years of the 42-year earnings expectations era and several of them are very short (Table 2). The one instance when forward multiples were at or above today’s levels, from June through October of 1999, they were able to hold their ground, falling less than a half of a multiple point, or 1.5%. Earnings expectations grew by 6.3% over that period, allowing the S&P 500 to advance at the rate of about 1% per month, in line with its overall Phase I performance since 1979. Table 2Multiples Have Held Their Ground In Phase I Empirically, however, robust growth in earnings expectations is the basis for overweighting stocks in Phase I, not multiple expansion. We do not expect re-rating as the Fed pushes the funds rate toward its equilibrium level, and we are alert to the certainty that stocks will de-rate sometime in the future if forward multiples are still subject to mean reversion. History shows it won’t necessarily happen in Phase I, though, and TINA may stave it off while there is a dearth of non-equity options offering positive prospective real returns. Disclaimer (BCA Is Human, Too) How can you be certain that your estimate of the equilibrium rate is accurate? We are not certain at all about the level of the equilibrium rate, and nothing we’ve ever written or said should be construed as implying that we are. As we’ve said many times before, the equilibrium rate is a concept. It cannot be directly observed and our attempts to estimate it are no more than our best effort to gain a sense of where the tipping point for financial markets and the economy might be. Our current 3.25% estimate likely sounds quite high, but we take the estimates at any given point in time with a grain of salt. We are not so full of ourselves that we believe we can pin down an amorphous concept to two decimal places in real time, and we have found that thinking of the point estimate as falling within a plausible range is the best way to proceed. Right now, the US Investment Strategy team views the equilibrium rate as somewhere around 2.5% or higher. That’s all the precision we need to assert with high conviction that monetary policy is accommodative and will remain so for all of 2022 and much, if not all, of 2023. For all the inherent uncertainty of attempts to quantify the equilibrium rate, however, the sharp disparity in equity performance across easy and tight monetary policy settings suggests that we’re on the right track. We’re further encouraged by the clear distinctions in earnings and multiples growth across phases (Figure 1), which suggest that monetary policy settings exert a persistent influence on fundamentals and investor appetites. Given that equities have flourished when policy is easy, overweighting stocks in multi-asset portfolios should contribute to outperformance over the next twelve months. Monetary policy settings are not the be-all and the end-all, but we have found that they offer a very useful default guide to asset allocation. Fooled By Randomness? The results have been robust over a lengthy period, but how do you know they’re not random? Why does the relationship you’ve cited work? We are convinced that the observed strong-growth/tighter-policy, tepid-growth/easier-policy relationship has a durable structural foundation. The through line is the fact that monetary policy is a blunt instrument that works with indeterminate lags. Its limitations influence the way the Fed deploys it and impose a predictable pattern on its economic and market impacts. The Fed is not quite the meddler that its Libertarian-minded critics make it out to be, hovering over the economy in a continuous effort to fine-tune it. Instead, it acts on a limited basis to ensure that the harms embedded in cyclical extremes do not prevent the economy from reaching its long-run potential. It deploys accommodative measures during recessions to keep hysteresis from turning a cyclical soft patch into a structural albatross and restrictive measures during high-revving expansions to keep the inflation genie from getting out of the bottle. The Fed does not want to root out green shoots before they can take hold, so it does not begin Phase I, or assiduously pursue it, until it is certain that the economy can withstand higher rates, especially while (lagging) inflation readings are tame (Chart 3). It therefore launches tightening cycles with a predictable bias to err on the side of being too easy. Chart 3Inflation Is A Lagging Indicator, ... That bias allows the economy to gather momentum in Phase I, in line with cyclical peaks in activity and earnings growth, and outsized equity and credit returns. Left unchecked, the momentum could produce higher inflation, and the Fed is typically compelled to dial up intervention to counter it. Wielding a blunt instrument that works with a lag, however, the Fed is at risk of going too far, and Phase II hikes often induce a recession. Investors sniff out the looming downturn and de-rate equities. By the time the Fed reverses field and initiates a new easing campaign (Phase III), earnings growth has stalled out and measured inflation is peaking (Table 3). Equities mark time and credit spreads widen until, with a slowdown plainly evident and measured inflation sliding, the Fed shifts to full-on accommodation (Phase IV). It maintains market-friendly settings until the economy begins to look too strong, upon which it intervenes to hold it back, kicking off a new policy cycle. Table 3... Managed With Policy That Works With A Lag As we showed last week, the direct relationship between activity and rates is immediately apparent in the real economy. Robust activity translates to robust earnings growth, but it is possible that equity multiples will behave differently in the approaching fed funds rate cycle than they have in the past. Although we expect that TINA will protect equities from meaningful de-rating pressure this year, investors should not lose sight of the fact that the earnings estimate era began with the S&P 500’s forward P/E multiple at 7. That rock-bottom starting point paved the way for an annualized 2.6% valuation increase over the last 42 years, but it cannot continue indefinitely, if at all. We are confident that multiples will continue to fare better when the Fed is cutting rates than when it is hiking them, but the cutting tailwinds will likely weaken going forward, while the hiking headwinds will stiffen. Don’t Believe The Hype Tech stocks are especially vulnerable to higher interest rates and the fate of US indexes is intimately bound up with them. Aren’t you dismissing the threat from higher rates a little too easily? The Tech sector’s outsized presence in the S&P 500 has surely contributed to market anxieties over looming rate hikes. We are firmly of the view, however, that popular concerns over Tech stocks’ interest rate vulnerability are way overdone. The idea that their back-loaded earnings profile makes them acutely vulnerable to a higher discount rate in the manner of long duration bonds ignores the fact that their future cash flows are not fixed. Unlike bonds, their owners' claims on earnings ebb and flow as rates rise and fall in line with economic conditions. Chart 4Relative Tech Multiples Have Mostly Moved With Rates, Not Against Them We recently devoted a Special Report to pushing back against the idea that Tech stocks are hostage to interest rates. In it, we argued that a stock’s price can be viewed as the product of its earnings per share and its P/E ratio. The biggest Tech companies’ earnings have a low interest rate sensitivity because they have little debt and do not sell big-ticket items that their customers have to finance, so the purported inverse relationship between Tech stocks’ relative performance and interest rates must be a function of relative P/E multiple changes. Relative Tech multiples and interest rates consistently moved together in the ten years through 2018, however, and were only sporadically negatively correlated over the last three years (Chart 4). Duration is essential for describing the sensitivity of risk-free bond returns to changes in interest rates, but it is an uncomfortable fit with equities. Treasuries exhibit a nearly perfect inverse correlation with changes in interest rates (Chart 5, top panel), but the cash flow uncertainty introduced by even the modest credit risk associated with investment grade corporate bonds reduces the correlation considerably (Chart 5, second panel). Interest rates’ impact on equities is even more attenuated. The S&P 500 is only weakly – and positively – correlated with rates (Chart 5, third panel), just like its Tech sector constituents (Chart 5, bottom panel).                Doug Peta, CFA Chief US Investment Strategist dougp@bcaresearch.com

Highlights The most important question is whether the Fed will hike interest rates by more than what is currently discounted in markets, or less. More hikes will trigger a set of cascading reactions. US bond yields will initially jump, boosting the dollar. But this process could also undermine growth stocks, and the US equity market leadership. Equity portfolio flows have been more important in financing the US trade deficit, than Treasury purchases, since 2020. Hence, a reversal in these flows will undermine a key pillar of support for the dollar. On the flip side, less rate hikes will severely unwind higher interest rate expectations in the US vis-a-vis other developed markets, especially in the euro area and Japan. This means we could be witnessing a shift in the dollar, where upside is capped, and downside is substantial. Feature Chart 1The Dollar In 2021 The two most important drivers of the dollar over the last few months have been the spread between US interest rates and other developed markets, as well as the relative performance of US equities (Chart 1). Rising interest rate expectations in the US have led to substantial speculative flows into the US dollar. The outperformance of the US equity market has also coincided with notable portfolio inflows into US equities in 2021. This cocktail of macro drivers has pinned the US dollar in a quandary. If rates rise substantially in the US, and that undermines the US equity market leadership, the dollar could suffer. If US rates rise by less than what the market expects, record high speculative positioning in the dollar will surely reverse. The Dollar And The Equity Market The traditional relationship between the dollar and the equity market was negative for most of the first half of the pandemic. Monetary easing by the Federal Reserve stimulated global financial conditions setting the stage for an epic bull market. The correlation between the S&P 500 and the DXY index was a near perfect inverse correlation for much of 2020 (Chart 2). Chart 3US Equity Portfolio Inflows Have Been Substantial Since 2020 Chart 2The Dollar In ##br##2020 The big change in 2021 is that this correlation has shifted, as the Fed has pivoted on monetary policy. This means that investors have been betting on higher stock prices in the US, as well as higher interest rates. In short, portfolio flows into US equities have surged (Chart 3). For the long-duration US equity market, higher interest rates could push it to a tipping point, where it starts to underperform other developed market bourses. This will reverse these equity portfolio flows, hurting the dollar in the process. Profits, Interest Rates And The Dollar The key driver of equity markets is profits in the short run, with valuation starting to matter over the longer run. This in turn becomes the key driver of cross-border equity flows. These flows help dictate currency movements. For much of the previous decade, US profits did much better than overseas earnings. For this reason, the US equity market outperformed, pulling the dollar up, as foreign equity purchases accelerated (Chart 4). The post-pandemic era has seen inflation rising across the world, changing the paradigm for US profits. High inflation, and consequently, higher bond yields, have been synonymous with an underperformance of US profits (Chart 5). Banks profit from higher rates, as they benefit from rising net interest margins. Materials, energy, and industrial stocks, benefit from higher inflation via rising commodity prices that boost their pricing power. In a nutshell, rising inflation tends to be better for value stocks and cyclicals, sectors that are underrepresented in the US. This means portfolio flows into US equities, one of the key drivers of the capital account surplus, could be on the cusp of a substantial reversal. Chart 4The Dollar And Relative Profits Chart 5Bond Yields And Relative Profits Second, valuation in the US has become extended as interest rates have fallen. More importantly, US valuations have been more sensitive to changes in interest rates, compared to other developed markets (Chart 6). This is because the US stock market has become increasingly overweight long duration sectors, like technology and healthcare. Higher rates will undermine the valuation premium these sectors command. This will cause the US equity market to derate relative to other cyclical bourses. Chart 6Relative Multiples And Bond Yields The key point is that the US equity market has been the darling of the last decade, and leadership is at risk from higher rates, via a reset in both relative valuation and relative profits. So, while the US market could perform well in 2022, higher rates could undermine its relative performance to overseas bourses. This will curtail equity portfolio inflows, as capital tends to gravitate to markets with higher expected returns. The Dollar And Relative Interest Rates Over the long term, bond flows are the overarching driver of the currency market. Most market participants expect the Fed to be among the most hawkish in 2022. This is clear in the pricing of the Eurodollar versus Euribor December 2022 contract, or just the relative path of two-year US bond yields versus other markets. This in turn has helped drive speculative positioning in the US dollar towards record highs (Chart 7). Correspondingly, US Treasury inflows have accelerated in recent months, even though real interest rates have not risen that much (Chart 8). In level terms, the trade deficit (that hit a record low of -US$80bn in November) is being helped financed by renewed foreign interest in US Treasurys. Chart 8Interest Rates And Treasury Flows Chart 7Record Dollar Speculative Positions We see two major contradictions in the pricing of US interest rates, relative to other developed markets. First, rising inflation is a global phenomenon and not specific to the US. If inflation proves sticky, other central banks will turn a tad more hawkish to defend their policy mandates. If inflation subsides, the Fed might not be as aggressive in tightening policy as the market expects. This will unwind speculative long positions in the dollar. It will also slow portfolio inflows into US Treasuries. Second, the reality is that outside the ECB and the BoJ, most other developed market central banks have already tightened monetary policy ahead of the Fed. The ability of any central bank to tighten policy will depend on the health of the labor market, and the potential for a wage inflation spiral. One data point that has caught our attention is the participation rate across G10 economies - it is notable that the US has one of the lowest participation rates (Chart 9A). Given that many countries have seen their participation rate recover to pre-pandemic levels, it suggests upside in the US rate. This will be especially the case if fiscal stimulus, which could wane, has been a key reason why the US participation rate has stayed low. In a nutshell, the low participation rate in the US could be a reason the Fed lags market expectations for aggressive rate increases this year. On the flip side, a higher participation rate in places like Canada, Norway, and Australia, could allow their central banks to normalize policy faster than the market expects. There has been a loose correlation between relative changes in the participation rate, and relative changes in inflation across G10 economies (Chart 9B).  Chart 9BThe US Relative Participation Rate And Relative Inflation Chart 9AUS Labor Force Participation Is Low, But Improving Finally, relative monetary policy tends to be driven by relative growth. US growth remains robust but has been rolling over relative to other developed markets (Chart 10). This is occurring at a time when China is easing monetary policy, which tends to buffet non-US growth. Higher non-US growth could also tip the bond and currency market narrative that the Fed will tighten much faster than other G10 central banks. Chart 10Non-US Growth Is Improving, Relative To US Growth Conclusion The above analysis suggests we could be entering a paradigm shift in the dollar, where any response by the Fed could eventually trigger the same outcome. Higher rates than the market expects will initially boost the US dollar. But this process will also undermine the US equity market leadership, reversing substantial portfolio inflows in recent years. On the flip side, fewer rate hikes will severely unwind higher rate expectations in the US vis-a-vis other developed markets. Our concluding thoughts from our 2022 outlook, which are consistent with our views herein, were as follows: The DXY could touch 98 in the near term but will break below 90 over the next 12-18 months. An attractiveness ranking reveals the most appealing currencies are JPY, SEK, and NOK, while the least attractive are USD and NZD. Policy convergence will be a key theme at the onset of 2022. Stay long EUR/GBP and AUD/NZD as a play on this theme. Look to buy a currency basket of oil producers versus consumers. We went long the AUD at 70 cents. Terms of trade are likely to remain a tailwind for the Australian dollar. The AUD will benefit specifically in a green revolution.   Chester Ntonifor Foreign Exchange Strategist chestern@bcaresearch.com Trades & Forecasts Strategic View Tactical Holdings (0-6 months) Forecast Summary

Highlights Chinese stocks are currently trading close to their fair value in absolute terms. When equity valuations are neutral, the direction of the next move in stocks depends on the profit outlook. Chinese corporate earnings are set to contract in the next six months. This means that the risk-reward profile of Chinese stocks in absolute terms is not yet attractive. Historically, share prices lagged the turning points in China’s money/credit impulses by several months. Even though the money/credit cycle is now bottoming, a buying opportunity in stocks will likely transpire in the coming months at a lower level. Relative to EM and global stocks, Chinese equities offer value. Hence, their relative performance will likely enter a rollercoaster phase. The secular outlook for corporate profitability among listed Chinese companies remains uninspiring. Hence, a structural re-rating of China stock indexes is unlikely. Feature With Chinese share prices down considerably in the past 12 months, a pertinent question is whether they offer an attractive entry point. Dissecting both valuations and the corporate earnings outlook are the key to getting the cyclical view right. This report aims to do this for both the MSCI Investable and MSCI A-share equity indexes. Our conclusion is as follows: in absolute terms, the Chinese MSCI Investable and A-share indexes have neutral valuations. Yet, the risk window for share prices remains open because corporate profits are set to contract. Also, bottoms and peaks in the money/credit cycle lead share prices by several months as illustrated in Chart 1. Hence, a tentative bottom in money/credit indicators does not always herald an imminent and sustainable equity rally. Valuations Chinese equity valuations are by and large neutral. Specifically: 1. According to our aggregate composite valuation indicators, onshore A shares are fairly valued while the MSCI Investable index is slightly above its historical mean (Chart 2). This aggregate composite valuation indicator for both equity indexes is composed of three components: based on (1) median multiples; (2) 20% trimmed-mean multiples; and (3) equal-weighted multiples. The latter uses equal weights rather than market cap weights for sub-sectors in the calculation. In turn, each component is constructed using the averages of the trailing P/E, forward P/E, price-to-cash earnings,1 price-to-book value (PBV) and price-to-dividend ratios. The 20%-trimmed mean excludes the top 10% and the bottom 10% of sub-sectors, i.e., it removes outliers. 2. We have also calculated a cyclically adjusted P/E (CAPE) ratio for both A shares and MSCI Investable stocks. The CAPE ratio for A shares is slightly below its historical mean (Chart 3), and the one for the MSCI Investable index is one standard deviation below its mean (Chart 4). The idea behind the CAPE model is to remove the cyclicality of corporate profits when computing the P/E ratio. The CAPE model gauges stock valuations under the assumption that real (inflation-adjusted) EPS converges to its trend line. Importantly, the CAPE ratio is a structural valuation model, i.e., it works over the long run. Only investors with a time horizon greater than 3-5 years should use CAPE in their investment decisions. Below, we discuss the risks to Chinese corporate profits from both cyclical and structural viewpoints. We contend that a low CAPE ratio might not be unreasonable for listed Chinese companies, as their profitability has deteriorated over the past 10-12 years and their secular profit outlook is very uncertain. 3. The equity risk premium incorporates interest rates into valuations. We computed the equity risk premium by subtracting Chinese onshore government bond yields in real terms (deflated by headline CPI) from the trailing earnings yield of stocks. Chart 5 demonstrates that the equity risk premiums for A shares and investable stocks are near their historical mean, signifying neutral Chinese equity valuations at present. Relative to DM and EM equities, Chinese valuations appear to be attractive as Chinese share prices have massively underperformed their EM and DM peers in the past 12 months (Chart 6). Bottom Line: Chinese equity valuations are by and large neutral in absolute terms. When equity valuations are neutral, the next move in share prices depends on the profit outlook. If profits expand/contract, stocks will rally/sell off. Corporate Earnings: The Cyclical Outlook Chinese corporate profits are set to contract in this downturn. Chart 7 shows that Chinese aggregate industrial profits will shrink by single digits in the next nine months from a year ago. This model is based on a regression of aggregate industrial profits on China’s credit impulse. A similar model that regresses A-share non-financial companies’ net profits on narrow money (M1) growth is also pointing to a roughly 5% corporate earnings contraction in the months ahead (Chart 8). Is government stimulus sufficient to produce a recovery in the business cycle and in company earnings? So far, government stimulus has been insufficient to produce a meaningful recovery in H1 2022. In particular, the changes in the excess reserve ratio lead the credit impulse by six months, and the latter signifies only a stabilization, but not a meaningful improvement in the credit impulse prior to May 2022 (Chart 9). Given that the credit impulse leads industrial companies’ earnings by about nine months (please refer to Chart 7 above), odds are that corporate profits will not bottom until H2 2022. As for service industries, online retail sales of goods and services remain weak, reflecting sluggish household income growth (Chart 10). There has also been another factor weighing on China’s business cycle – a declining marginal propensity to spend among both households and companies (Chart 11). The marginal propensity to spend depends on sentiment and confidence among consumers and companies. A declining propensity to spend will dampen the positive effects from government stimulus. Notably, there has been a dramatic profit divergence in industrial sectors. Commodity-producing sectors – metals and mining, steel, energy and coal – have posted an earnings windfall. In contrast, industries consuming commodities – machinery, construction materials, autos, IT and food/beverages – have seen their profits plunge (Chart 12).           The reason for this industrial earnings dichotomy is that commodity prices have not fallen despite the weakness in China’s business cycle and its commodity imports (Chart 13). Critically, commodity users have not been able to pass on higher input costs to their customers due to weak demand. Consequently, commodity users have experienced a drastic profit margin squeeze and their earnings have plummeted. If commodity prices drop meaningfully, the profit divergence between these two groups of industrial enterprises will narrow. Yet, it will not improve the level of overall industrial profits in China. The rationale is that in the past six months, industrial profits of commodity users have accounted for 20% of aggregate industrial profits, while those of commodity producers have accounted for 80%. This reinforces the importance of commodity prices in driving China’s industrial profit cycles. Our view on commodity prices is as follows: Commodity prices have so far ignored China’s slowdown. However, the Fed’s tightening and the US dollar’s persistent strength amid the lack of a meaningful recovery in the Chinese business cycle will eventually produce a drawdown in resource prices in the coming months, as we discussed in last week’s report. Bottom Line: As policy stimulus gets more aggressive, China’s growth and corporate earnings will recover in H2. Yet, in H1 corporate profits are set to disappoint. This implies that Chinese share prices will remain in a risk window for now. Corporate Profitability: The Structural Outlook Investors reward companies with high or rising return on equity by bidding up their equity multiples, and vice versa. One of the main reasons why the structural valuation measures for Chinese equity indexes (like the CAPE ratio) have declined in the past 10 years is worsening corporate profitability. Specifically, the return on assets (RoA) and the return on equity (RoE) for non-financial companies included in the MSCI A-share and Investable indexes have been falling since 2011 (Chart 14, top and middle panels). Periodic government stimulus improved corporate profitability temporarily. Yet, as stimulus waned, corporate profitability deteriorated. Consistently, Chinese investable non-TMT stocks have produced zero price appreciation in absolute terms since 2011 (Chart 14, bottom panel). In the past 10 years, there has been a structural deterioration in the financial performance metrics of industrial companies. Their RoE and RoA have fallen as have turnover in account assets (sales/assets), inventory (sales/inventory) and account receivables (sales/account receivables) (Chart 15). It is unclear if this secular trend of deteriorating corporate financial performance will reverse if authorities repeatedly rescue the economy by unleashing large stimulus. As for technology/internet/platform companies, we maintain that the regulatory changes affecting Chinese internet stocks are structural rather than cyclical in nature. There could be periods when the pace of regulatory clampdown eases, but these regulations will not be rolled back in any meaningful way. Authorities will cap these companies’ profitability like regulators do with monopolies and oligopolies, which heralds a lower return on equity and low multiples. For very different reasons, US and Chinese authorities do not want Chinese companies to be listed in the US. And when Chinese and US authorities do not want to see some of these stocks listed in the US, they will not be. Odds are rising that a few of them might be delisted in the coming years. In such a scenario, many US institutional investors will likely offload their holdings of these companies. Finally, Chinese bank stocks are cheap for a reason. They have not recognized a massive amount of non-performing loans and have not provisioned for them. Going forward, another roadblock to shareholders of Chinese stocks is the common prosperity policies that the Chinese government has championed. These policies will redistribute income away from shareholders to the general population. Chart 16 illustrates the share of labor compensation has been rising since 2011 while the share of profits has been declining. Not surprisingly, Chinese investable non-TMT stocks have been doing very poorly since 2011 (Chart 14, bottom panel). The common prosperity policies will only reinforce the existing trend of a rising share of labor compensation at the expense of shareholders in the coming years. This bodes ill for structural profitability and justifies low equity multiples. In short, a low CAPE ratio for Chinese stocks might not be out of line with such a downbeat secular outlook. Bottom Line: Even if there have been – and still will be – great companies in China that deliver phenomenal performance, their shareholders might not be in a position to reap the benefits of such solid performance. In short, the structural outlook for profitability among listed companies remains uncertain. Investment Recommendations Chinese stocks, especially investable ones, are oversold and might rebound in the very near term in absolute terms. However, the three-to-six-month outlook for absolute performance remains poor. Relative to EM and global stocks, Chinese equities are very oversold and offer value. Hence, their relative performance will likely enter a rollercoaster phase. Onshore Chinese stocks will underperform onshore government bonds. Within the Chinese equity universe, we have been recommending the following strategies and they remain intact: Long A shares/short MSCI Investable index since March 4, 2021 (Chart 17, top panel). This relative ratio is overbought and will likely pull back in the near term. However, the cyclical and structural outlook continues to favor onshore stocks versus the investable universe. Short Chinese investable value stocks/long global value stocks since November 26, 2020 (Chart 17, middle panel). This strategy remains intact. Short onshore and investable property stocks versus their respective benchmarks since May 9, 2019 (Chart 17, bottom panel). The woes of property developers are not over. Please refer to our Special Report on the Chinese property market. Long large banks/short medium and small listed banks since October 2016. Small and medium banks are exposed to the continuous woes in the property market much more than the large ones. Also, their profitability will be more negatively affected by the retrenchment in shadow banking activities. Arthur Budaghyan Chief Emerging Markets Strategist arthurb@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1    MSCI defines cash earnings as earnings per share including depreciation and amortization as reported by the company.

Highlights This week we highlight key charts for US Political Strategy themes and views in the New Year. For H1 2022, we maintain a pro-cyclical, risk-on approach. We favor industrials, energy, infrastructure, and cyclicals. Foreign supply kinks will persist due to Omicron. The US Congress will pass one more spending bill as Democrats try to save their skin ahead of the midterm election. Yet other trends are not so inflationary: Fed rate hikes, an 8% of GDP fiscal drag, and a looming return to congressional gridlock. Midterm elections usually see defensive and growth stocks outperform cyclical and value stocks. This is a risk to our view and may require adjustments later this year. Feature This week we offer our updated US Political Strategy chart pack for the new year. Inflation and stagflation are the top concerns. But the Federal Reserve is kicking into gear, with the market now expecting three-to-four interest rate hikes in 2022 alone. We doubt that will come to pass but it is possible and there is no question that a 12-month core PCE print of 4.7% is forcing the Fed to move. Since the mega-stimulus of March 2020, markets have seen a 91% rally in the S&P 500 and a 114% rally in the tech sector. Ultra-low interest rates and stay-at-home policies created a paradise for tech stocks. But the 10-year Treasury yield surged from 1.45% in December, when Omicron emerged and the Fed turned hawkish, to 1.76% today. An inflation-induced pullback and rotation out of tech stocks was to be expected and has been our most consistent sectoral view. Long-term inflation expectations have not taken off, however. Many investors see secular stagnation over the long run – and even in the short run the resilient dollar should work against inflation. Not only will the Fed wind down asset purchases by $30bn a month starting January 2022 and start hiking rates in March, but also the budget deficit is contracting, making for an 8% of GDP fiscal drag in 2022. In addition the market no longer has any confidence that Congress will pass President Biden’s “Build Back Better” plan. We still think a reconciliation bill will pass, albeit in watered down form. But ultimately the looming midterm election will paralyze Congress, as we argued in our 2022 outlook report, “Gridlock Begins Before The Midterms.” Gridlock will ensure that whatever passes only modestly expands the long-term deficit and then that fiscal taps will be turned off in 2023. In the context of Fed hikes, this should reduce fears of inflation later in 2022, though we still see inflation as a persistent long-term problem. If history is any guide, stocks and bond yields will be flattish for most of the year due to election uncertainty. The difference between this year and other midterm years is that the US consumer is in better financial shape and yet foreign supply kinks will persist due to Omicron. The takeaway is to prefer industrials, energy, small caps, and cyclicals, even though we may not maintain these recommendations for the whole year. We are hedging by staying long health care stocks. Omicron: Less Relevant At Home, More Relevant Abroad American economic growth is declining but will likely settle at or above trend (Chart 1A). Money growth, a proxy for stimulus, is also coming off its peaks while credit growth is rising moderately. The long deleveraging of the American consumer since 2008 appears to have come to an end. But it is too soon to say how aggressively Americans will lever back up and whether a new private sector “debt super cycle” will begin (Chart 1B). Chart 1AEconomic Growth Peaked, Will Slow To Trend Chart 1BEconomic Growth Peaked, Will Slow To Trend The Omicron variant of COVID-19 will have a modest negative impact early in the year. Hospitalizations are picking up in the wake of a surge in new cases following Christmas gatherings. Only 61% of Americans are fully vaccinated and only 23% have received the booster shot that is most effective against Omicron (Chart 2A & Chart 2B). Yet new deaths from the disease remain subdued and only about a fifth of those hospitalized go to the intensive care unit today. Chart 2BCOVID-19 Continues But Relevance Wanes Pharmaceuticals, both vaccines and anti-viral medications, are saving the day and Americans are becoming resigned to the likelihood of getting the virus at some point. Social mobility has dropped off since summer 2021 but will boom in the springtime and consumer confidence is already picking back up (Chart 3A & Chart 3B). The Biden administration is not likely to impose unpopular social restrictions during an election year unless a variant is deadlier, more contagious, and resistant to vaccines, which is not the case with Omicron. Chart 3AOmicron Not A Major Setback For Recovery The resilience of the US will come with persistent inflation in goods given that Omicron will still cause supply disruptions abroad. Not all countries have as effective vaccines when it comes to Omicron – if they maintain tighter social restrictions, prices of imported goods will continue to rise. The Fed cannot resolve foreign bottlenecks. While manufacturing surveys show bottlenecks easing from last year’s highs, foreign supply constraints will remain a problem throughout the year. Chart 3BOmicron Not A Major Setback For Recovery Buy The Rumor, Sell The News Of “Build Back Better” The Biden administration and Democratic Party are still likely to pass one last blast of fiscal spending – the “Build Back Better” budget reconciliation act, a social welfare bill. The output gap is virtually closed and the economy does not need new demand stimulus. However, the Democratic Party needs a legislative win ahead of the midterm election. Thin majorities in both chambers of Congress enable a single senator to derail the bill. But the bill’s provisions are popular among political independents and especially the Democratic Party’s base, which is lacking in enthusiasm about the election as things stand (Charts 4A & 4B). Moderate Democrats in the Senate are still negotiating: their goal is to chop the plan down to size and pass only the most popular provisions, rather than to sink the president and their own party. This means the bill’s top-line spending will be further reduced. The final size should fall from the earlier range of $2.5-$4.7 trillion to $2.3 trillion or less. Add a few tax hikes, like the minimum corporate tax, and the deficit impact will be around $600 billion (Table 1). Table 1"You’ve Gotta Pass It To See What’s In It" Ultimately we cannot have high conviction on the BBB plan because we cannot predict what a single senator will do. That is a matter of intelligence, not macro analysis. But subjectively we still give 65% odds that the Democratic Party will circle the wagons and pass the bill. The party views itself as surrounded by populism on both its right and left flanks – a failure to compromise will whet the appetites of both the Sanderistas (left-wing populists) and the Trumpists (right-wing populists) (Chart 5A). The Republicans still have a better position in the states, and the states have constitutional control of elections, so establishment Democrats are more terrified than usual of flopping in the midterm elections (Chart 5B). Otherwise the midterms – which are already likely to be bad for the Democrats – will deal a devastating blow. Republicans are recovering in party affiliation and tentatively surpassing Democrats among independent voters (Chart 6A). Biden and the Democrats lashed out at former President Trump and the Republican Party on the anniversary of the January 6, 2020 rebellion, but this tactic will not lift their popularity in polls. Their current polling is not much better than that of Republicans in 2018, when the latter suffered a bruising defeat in the midterms (Chart 6B). Chart 6ADemocrats Need A Win Before The Midterm Biden’s legislation would reduce the fiscal drag marginally in fiscal year 2023 but overall the budget deficit will shrink and then lie flat over 2022-24 regardless of what Congress does (Chart 7). New spending would be marginally inflationary over the long run since the budget deficit is expected to expand again beyond fiscal year 2024. Republicans will not be able to slash the budget until they control both Congress and the White House, but in that case they are likely to prove big spenders as in the past. Populism will persist on all sides: the political establishment will keep trying to use fiscal profligacy to peel voters away from populists, who are even more fiscally profligate. Only an inflation-induced recession will restore some fiscal discipline – and that is a way off. Ultimately the significance of the BBB bill is to verify whether establishment politicians – fiscal authorities – are capable of moderating their spending plans according to the threat of inflation, as Modern Monetary Theory maintains. Otherwise the implication is that polarization and populism will produce fiscal overshoots regardless of near-term inflation, even with the narrowest of possible majorities in Congress. The latter, a BBB fiscal overshoot, is what we expect. If it happens it will probably be received negatively by the equity market, fearing faster Fed rate hikes, and it would add credibility to long-term concerns about inflation, because it would reveal that fiscal authorities are not good at adjusting in real time. The former, a BBB failure and a halt to fiscal spending, would suggest that fiscal extravagance remains a crisis-era phenomenon and will be reined in by Congress after a crisis passes, which is probably positive for equities. It would at least suggest that fiscal authorities will adjust when the facts change. Of course, how investors respond to any legislative outcome will depend on a range of factors. But the takeaway is this: Inflation fears may or may not peak in the short run but they will persist over the long run. The Fed: Focus On The Framework In the wake of the Great Recession the Federal Reserve as an institution – both the Federal Open Market Committee and the Board of Governors – shifted in a more accommodative or dovish direction (Chart 8). The shift culminated in the review of monetary policy strategy in August 2020, which produced average inflation targeting. In practice the dovish policy shift is apparent in a real Fed funds rate at -4%, the lowest level since the inflationary 1970s under Fed Chair Arthur Burns. But what is more remarkable is the simultaneous surge in the budget deficit, unlike anything since World War II, and unlike anything in peacetime (Chart 9). Chart 9Inflation And Stagflation Risks The massive increase in federal debt, from 34% of GDP in 2000 to 75% before COVID-19 and 106% today, acts as a constraint on any future Fed hawkishness (Chart 10). A Fed chair who drives interest rates too high amid high debt levels will cause a recession and force the debt-to-GDP ratio up even higher. Yet the result of low rates is to stimulate indebtedness. While the private debt super cycle has subsided, a public debt super cycle is thriving. Chart 10A Major Check On Fed Hawkishness This brings us to today’s predicament. The Fed’s criteria for raising interest rates have mostly been met: 12-month core PCE inflation is running at 4.7% while the inflation breakeven rate in the Treasury market suggests that inflation is well anchored and likely to persist above the 2% inflation target for some time (Chart 11A). The economy is virtually at “maximum employment” (Table 2) – the Fed has set aside concerns about low labor force participation to focus on the collapsing unemployment rate, which is now within the range at which it will feed inflation (Chart 11B). Chart 11AThe Fed's Criteria For Liftoff Table 2The Fed’s Criteria For Liftoff Chart 11BThe Fed's Criteria For Liftoff The takeaway is that the Fed is suddenly restoring the credibility of its 2% inflation target, with headline PCE rapidly coming up on the trajectory established in the wake of the Great Recession (Chart 12), as our US bond strategist Ryan Swift has demonstrated. Chart 12Lo And Behold: Debt Monetization Generates Inflation The explosion of fiscal spending played a critical role in generating this new trajectory. The combination of monetary and fiscal accommodation has worked wonders. Assuming the BBB passes, Chairman Powell will face even greater pressure to prevent this correction of the inflation trajectory from overshooting and turning into a wage-price spiral. The unexpected risk would be if the BBB bill fails, the Fed hikes aggressively, global growth sputters, the dollar surges, and Republicans retake Congress — then Powell may yet see disinflationary challenges in his term in office. Our sense is that the BBB will pass, reinforcing Powell’s less dovish pivot, and yet the Fed’s framework will not permit too hawkish of a stance, resulting in persistent inflation risks over the long run. Three Strategic Themes In our annual strategic outlook, we highlighted three structural or strategic themes that are not beholden to the 12-month forecasting period: 1.   Rise Of Millennials And Generation Z: The sharp drop in labor force participation will gradually mend in the wake of the crisis but the aging of the population ensures that the general trend will decline over time as the dependency ratio rises (Chart 13A). Chart 13AStrategic Theme #1: Rise Of Millennials/Gen Z Politically the millennials and younger generations are gaining clout over time, although their partisan identity will also evolve as they mature and gain a greater stake in the economy and become asset owners (Chart 13B). 2.   Peak Polarization: US political polarization stands at historic highs and will likely remain so over the 2022-24 political cycle (Chart 14A). Polarization coincides with the transformation of society amid falling bond yields and technological revolution (Chart 14B). Chart 14AStrategic Theme #2: Peak Polarization Chart 14BStrategic Theme #2: Peak Polarization The pandemic era has been especially polarized due to the 2020 election and controversies over vaccination (Chart 15). Domestic terrorism of whatever stripe is possible (Chart 16). But any historic incidents will generate a majority opposed to political violence. Chart 16Risk Of Domestic Terrorism True, former President Trump is still likely to run on the Republican ticket, which will ensure that polarization remains elevated (Diagram 1). However, US elections hinge on structural factors, not individuals. Diagram 1GOP 2024 Is Up To Trump So far structural factors point to policy continuity: not only are Democrats still slated to retain the White House, but President Biden has coopted many of Trump’s key policies, including infrastructure, protectionism, and big budget deficits (Chart 17). If Democrats falter, Trump’s policies will be reaffirmed. The implication is that a new national policy consensus is taking shape beneath the surface. 3.   Limited “Big Government”: Americans have been turning away from “small government” and toward “big government” since the 1990s. Voters no longer worry so much about budget discipline and instead look for the “visible hand” of government to support the economy (Charts 18A & 18B). Both domestic populism and geopolitical challenges encourage this shift. Industrial policy and domestic manufacturing are making a comeback (Table 3). Table 3Strategic Theme #3: Limited “Big Government” With extremely robust fiscal policy, the US has avoided the policy mistake of the period after the Global Financial Crisis, when premature fiscal tightening undermined the economic recovery (Chart 19). Policy uncertainty will increase as gridlock returns to Congress and fiscal policy will be frozen. But investors need not fear a slide back into deflation. The Republican Party’s populist base may prevent more Democratic social spending but they will not be able to repeal what is done.  Chart 19Even With Looming Gridlock, The US Is Far From Tightening Fiscal Policy Too Soon This Time Three Key Views For 2022 The key views for the 12-month period are connected with the above but of a more short-term or cyclical duration: 1.   From Single-Party Rule To Gridlock: Republicans are highly likely to win back control of the House of Representatives and likely the Senate (Charts 20A & 20B). President Biden’s approval rating suggests that Democrats could lose 40 seats in the House (Chart 21) and three in the Senate (Chart 22), whereas they only need to lose five and one to lose control. Our quantitative Senate election model shows an even split but the model’s trend favors Republicans, as does the political cycle and partisan enthusiasm (Chart 23). 2.   From Legislative To Executive Power: Biden may still pass one more spending bill but otherwise the legislature will be frozen. Democrats will not succeed in ramming legislation through by abolishing the Senate filibuster. Biden will turn to executive decree, where he is already on track to make a historic increase in regulation, which will increase concerns among small business (Chart 24A & Chart 24B). Anti-trust laws are unlikely to be overhauled and Democrats will struggle to bring back the tough anti-trust posture of the 1900s-1950s without new legislation, meaning that Big Tech faces a bigger threat from inflation than regulation (Table 4). The green transition will continue but primarily in the form of any subsidies passed in the reconciliation bill, rather than new taxes or any carbon pricing scheme (Chart 25A & Chart 25B). Chart 24AKey View #2: From Legislative To Executive Power Table 4Key View #2: From Legislative To Executive Power Chart 25BGreen Energy: Subsidies But No Carbon Tax   3.   From Domestic To Foreign Policy Risks: Biden faces a slew of foreign policy and external risks that could damage the Democrats in the midterms. The surge in illegal immigration on the southern border is truly historic and will have significant policy ramifications over the long run (Chart 26A & Chart 26B). The surge in inflation will force Biden to contend with foreign policy challenges with one hand tied behind his back, since energy supply disruptions could derail his party ahead of the midterm election (Chart 27). While Biden could ease some inflationary pressure via reduced trade tariffs, protectionist impulses will prevail during an election year (Chart 28). Chart 26AKey View #3: External Risks For Biden Chart 26BKey View #3: External Risks For Biden Chart 27Foreign Policy Could Hit Prices At Pump Chart 28Tariff Relief In 2022? Don't Bet On It Investment Takeaways The stock market tends to be flat, with risks skewed to the downside, during midterm election years due to policy uncertainty. The same is true for bond yields (Chart 29). Chart 29Stocks And Bond Yields Trend Lower Before Midterms ... When united or single-party governments approach midterms, stocks tend to perform worse than for divided governments in midterm years, while bond yields tend to be a bit higher (Chart 30). This trend is supercharged in 2022 due to the inflationary effects of the pandemic. Chart 30... But United Govts See Higher Bond Yields And Weaker Stocks ... Assuming Republicans regain at least the House, the US will transition from united to divided government (gridlock). In previous such transitions, stocks tend to perform in line with the average for a midterm election year, but bond yields skew higher – reinforcing the previous point (Chart 31). Chart 31... Shift From United To Divided Govt Implies Higher Bond Yields Than Otherwise We will update our US Sector Political Risk Matrix to bring it better into line with our views, particularly in light of Table 5 below regarding sector relative performance during midterm election years. Normally defensives and growth stocks outperform in midterm years, Table 5ConDisc, Tech, Health Do Best During Midterms …But Waning Pandemic Makes An Exception while cyclicals and value stocks underperform, but 2022 looks to be different due to inflation. Still over the course of the year we would expect the historic trend to reassert itself. Investors should favor cyclicals even though they probably cannot outperform defensives for much longer (Chart 32A). We recommend health care stocks as a hedge given that the dollar should still be resilient this year, Fed hikes should moderate inflation expectations, and midterm policy uncertainty will eventually weigh on risk appetite (Chart 32B). Chart 32AFavor Cyclicals, Though They May Not Outperform Defensives Much Longer Chart 32BLong Health Care As Hedge Value stocks are forming a bottom relative to growth stocks, although this trend is less clear in the US, especially among US large caps, than it is abroad (Chart 33). We favor value over growth on a cyclical basis but midterm election uncertainties will pull the other way, making for a choppy bottom. Chart 33Favor Value And Small Caps, Though Bottom Formation Remains Choppy The same process is visible on a sector basis, where energy and materials continue to outperform tech (Chart 34A). We recommend staying long energy on a cyclical basis, though its outperformance against tech could abate later in 2022. Infrastructure stocks – such as building and construction materials – also continue to outperform. Since Biden’s honeymoon period ended, the outperformance is largely relative to tech rather than the S&P as a whole. We still favor infrastructure stocks as the fiscal policy theme will continue even beyond the current legislation, which will barely start to be implemented in 2022 (Chart 34B). Chart 34AFavor Energy, Materials, And Infrastructure Versus Tech Chart 34BFavor Energy, Materials, And Infrastructure Versus Tech   Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com   Strategic View Open Tactical Positions (0-6 Months) Open Cyclical Recommendations (6-18 Months)