Fixed Income

Highlights As US inflation proves to be not-so-transitory, US interest rate expectations will rise. Slowing Chinese domestic demand and rising US interest rate expectations will support the US dollar. The net impact from China’s slowdown and higher US interest rate expectations on mainstream EM will be currency depreciation. Rising mainstream EM nominal and real (inflation-adjusted) interest rates do not often lead to domestic currency appreciation A strengthening dollar vis-à-vis EM currencies is bad news for EM fixed-income markets – both local currency bonds and credit markets. Feature This report discusses EM local currency (domestic) bonds and US dollar bonds (credit markets). To begin with, we reiterate our main macro themes since January this year: (1) a slowdown in China and (2) rising US inflationary pressures and higher US bond yields. These macro themes will create tailwinds for the US dollar, at least for the next several months. A strengthening dollar is bad news for EM fixed-income markets. China’s Slowdown China’s slowdown will continue to unfold. China’s credit (TSF1 excluding equity) growth has slowed further in September (Chart 1, top panel). Similarly, household mortgages are also decelerating sharply (Chart 1, bottom panel). Chart 1China's Money And Credit Are Decelerating China's Money And Credit Are Decelerating China's Money And Credit Are Decelerating Chart 2Curtailed Financing For Property Developers = Less Construction Activity Curtailed Financing For Property Developers = Less Construction Activity Curtailed Financing For Property Developers = Less Construction Activity     China's ever-important property market and construction activity will contract in the months ahead. Property sales were down by 20% in September from a year ago. Property developers in recent years have been relying on pre-construction sales as a major source of financing. With pre-sales drying up and borrowing restrained by both government regulations and creditors’ unwillingness to lend, property developers will be unable to sustain the current pace of construction and completion (Chart 2). Chart 3Red Flags For EM ex-TMT Stocks Red Flags For EM ex-TMT Stocks Red Flags For EM ex-TMT Stocks For the same reason, property developers have curtailed their purchases of land. Land sales have been a major source of local government revenues – it is estimated to account for 45% of local government revenues including managed (off-balance sheet) funds. The upshot will be that local governments will be unable to ramp up their infrastructure spending to offset shrinking property construction. Altogether, these will have negative implications for the mainland’s industrial economy and raw materials. Notably, global material stocks have rolled over decisively even though CRB Raw Materials price index has yet to peak (Chart 3, top panel). Global industrial stocks in general and machinery stocks in particular have also relapsed. Finally, Chinese non-TMT share prices have dropped by 20% from their February high and EM ex-TMT equity prices have formed a head-and-shoulder pattern, which often precedes a major gap down (Chart 3, bottom panel). These equity market signals are foreshadowing a slowdown in China’s “old economy”. Bottom Line: The shockwaves emanating from the slowdown in China will hinder growth in Asia and commodity-producing economies in the rest of EM. This is positive for the US dollar because among major economic blocks, the US economy is the least exposed to the mainland economy. US Interest Rates Will Be Repriced US bond yields will continue marching higher, supporting the US dollar. The reasons for higher bond yields are as follows: Investors and commentators can differ on their assessment of the US inflation outlook. However, one thing that we should all agree on is that uncertainty over the US inflation outlook is extraordinarily high. Heightened uncertainty requires a higher risk premium in bonds, i.e., a wider bond term premium. Surprisingly, until August, the term premium on US bonds was very subdued (Chart 4). In brief, the US bond term premium will rise to reflect uncertainty around the inflation outlook, which will push bond yields higher. US wages hold the key to the inflation outlook. We believe that wage growth will surprise to the upside as many companies have strong order books but are struggling to hire. As people gradually return to the labor force, employers have a once in a decade chance to attract qualified employees. Hence, companies will likely compete with one another by offering higher wages to attract the most qualified candidates. The job quit rate is the highest it has been since the early 2000s. This rate also points to higher wages (Chart 5). Chart 4High Inflation Uncertainty Heralds Higher Bond Term Premium And Yields High Inflation Uncertainty Heralds Higher Bond Term Premium And Yields High Inflation Uncertainty Heralds Higher Bond Term Premium And Yields Chart 5US Wage Growth Will Accelerate US Wage Growth Will Accelerate US Wage Growth Will Accelerate   Three factors that had suppressed US bond yields will likely be reversing: US commercial banks have been major buyers of US Treasurys and agency securities; the US Treasury has depleted its account at the Fed due to the debt ceiling but will now begin issuing more bonds to fill in this account; the Fed has been purchasing $80 billion of US government bonds each month; however, the Fed is preparing to taper and therefore reduce these purchases. Chart 6US Banks Have Been Buying Bonds En Masse US Banks Have Been Buying Bonds En Masse US Banks Have Been Buying Bonds En Masse US commercial banks’ holdings of US government and agency securities has risen to 19% of their total assets – on par with their early 1990s all-time high (Chart 6, top panel). In turn, the share of loans and leases has fallen to an all-time low (Chart 6, middle panel). As US banks begin to expand their lending, they will likely reduce the pace of their buying of US Treasurys. This along with the US Treasury issuing more paper to increase its depleted Treasury General Account at the Fed (Chart 6, bottom panel) and the Fed’s tapering will likely push up US bond yields. Current shortages are the result of excessive demand, rather than producers operating below capacity.2 The fact is that the supply/shipment of goods is booming, at least from Asia/China to the US. This will prove to be inflationary, and therefore lead to higher bond yields. Chinese shipments to the US continue to thrive – in September, export values were up by 30.5% from a year ago (Chart 7, top panel). Given that US import prices from China are rising at an annual rate of 3.8%, China’s export volume to the US has grown to about 26.7% from last September when it was already booming. Consistently, inbound containers unloaded at the Long Beach and LA ports have surged to all-time highs (Chart 7, bottom panel). Hence, US ports are not operating below capacity, it is excessive demand for goods that has created these bottlenecks. Finally, concerning semiconductors, shortages are due to excessive demand not a failure to produce. Global semiconductor production has been growing rapidly over the past two years. A silver lining is that a capitalistic system will eventually expand production and meet demand. Although we broadly agree with this expectation, it will take a couple of years for this to take place. In the interim, we can expect to see higher prices, at least for goods, and rising inflation expectations. Bottom Line: As US inflation proves to be not-so-transitory, US interest rate expectations will rise, which will support the US dollar. The broad-trade weighted US dollar has been correlated with US TIPS yields (Chart 8). Chart 7Shipments From Asia To The US Have Been Booming Shipments From Asia To The US Have Been Booming Shipments From Asia To The US Have Been Booming Chart 8High US Rates Will Support The Dollar High US Rates Will Support The Dollar High US Rates Will Support The Dollar   EM Domestic Bonds Chart 9EM Inflation Has Been Spiking EM Inflation Has Been Spiking EM Inflation Has Been Spiking EM domestic bond yields have been rising as inflation in EM ex-China, Korea, Taiwan (herein referred as mainstream EM) has been surging (Chart 9). Even if commodity prices roll over, EM interest rate expectations will likely continue rising for now because of higher US bond yields and EM currency weakness. Many clients have been asking whether rising mainstream EM policy rates and local bond yields will support EM currencies. We do not think so. In high-yielding interest rate markets such as Brazil, Mexico, South Africa, Russia and Turkey, neither short- nor long-term rates have been positively correlated with the value of their currencies (Chart 10 and 11). Chart 10Higher Bond Yields Do Not Lead To Currency Appreciation In Brazil And Mexico Higher Bond Yields Do Not Lead To Currency Appreciation In Brazil And Mexico Higher Bond Yields Do Not Lead To Currency Appreciation In Brazil And Mexico Chart 11Higher Bond Yields Do Not Lead To Currency Appreciation In Russia And South Africa Higher Bond Yields Do Not Lead To Currency Appreciation In Russia And South Africa Higher Bond Yields Do Not Lead To Currency Appreciation In Russia And South Africa Chart 12Higher EM Inflation-Adjusted Bond Yields Do Not Lead To EM Currency Appreciation Higher EM Inflation-Adjusted Bond Yields Do Not Lead To EM Currency Appreciation Higher EM Inflation-Adjusted Bond Yields Do Not Lead To EM Currency Appreciation Further, in these markets real (inflation-adjusted) rates also have not been positively correlated with their currencies (Chart 12). As illustrated in Charts 11, 12 and 13, there has been no positive correlation between both EM nominal and real (inflation-adjusted) interest rates and their currencies. Rather, there has often been a negative correlation. The basis is that exchange rates drive interest rate expectations, not vice versa. Currency depreciation leads to higher inflation expectations and rising interest rates. Conversely, exchange rate appreciation dampens inflation expectations paving the way for declining interest rates. Bottom Line: The net impact China’s slowdown and higher US interest rate expectations on mainstream EM domestic bonds will be currency depreciation with little room for their central banks to cut rates. As a result, local bonds’ risk-reward factor remains an unattractive tradeoff. EM Credit Markets As we laid out in A Primer on EM USD Bonds report  on April 29, EM exchange rates and their business cycle are the key drivers of EM sovereign and corporate credit spreads. If EM currencies drop, EM sovereign and corporate credit spreads will widen (Chart 13). The basis is that foreign currency debt servicing will become more expensive as EM currencies depreciate. As EM growth disappoints, EM credit spreads will widen too (Chart 14). Chart 13EM Credit Spreads And EM Currencies EM Credit Spreads And EM Currencies EM Credit Spreads And EM Currencies Chart 14EM Profit Expectations And EM Corporate Spreads EM Profit Expectations And EM Corporate Spreads EM Profit Expectations And EM Corporate Spreads   In addition, the continuous carnage in Chinese offshore corporate bonds will heighten odds of a material selloff in this EM credit. Chinese property companies’ USD bonds make up a more than half of China’s offshore USD corporate bond index and a large part of the EM corporate bond index. Poor performance of the EM corporate bond index could trigger outflows from this asset class. Investment Recommendations Slowing Chinese domestic demand and rising US interest rate expectations will support the US dollar. As the interest rate differential between China and the US narrows, the CNY will likely experience a modest setback versus the greenback (Chart 15). Even small RMB weakness could produce a non-trivial depreciation in EM exchange rates. The latter is negative for EM local currency bonds and EM credit markets. Absolute-return investors should stay on the sidelines of EM domestic bonds. For dedicated investors in this asset class, our recommended overweights are Mexico, Russia, Korea, India, China, Korea, Malaysia and Chile. EM credit markets will continue to underperform their US counterparts (Chart 16). Credit investors should continue underweighting EM credit versus their US counterparts, a strategy we have been recommending since March 25, 2021. Chart 15CNY/USD And The Interest Rate Differential CNY/USD And The Interest Rate Differential CNY/USD And The Interest Rate Differential Chart 16EM Credit Markets Are Underperforming Their US Peers EM Credit Markets Are Underperforming Their US Peers EM Credit Markets Are Underperforming Their US Peers   Finally, EM ex-TMT share prices correlate with inverted EM USD corporate bond yields (Chart 17). Higher EM corporate bond yields (shown inverted in Chart 17) entail lower EM ex-TMT share prices. Chart 17High EM USD Bond Yields Herald Lower Share Prices High EM USD Bond Yields Herald Lower Share Prices High EM USD Bond Yields Herald Lower Share Prices In turn, China’s TMT stocks remain vulnerable as we have argued in past reports. Arthur Budaghyan Chief Emerging Markets Strategist arthurb@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1 Total Social Financing. 2 We made a similar case for Chinese electricity shortages in last week’s report. Equities Recommendations Currencies, Credit And Fixed-Income Recommendations

Highlights Cross-Atlantic Policy Divergence: A steadily tightening US labor market means that the Fed remains on track to formally announce tapering next month. Meanwhile, the ECB is signaling that they are in no hurry to do the same given scant evidence that surging energy prices are seeping into broader European inflation. This leads us to make the following changes to our tactical trade portfolio – taking profits on the 10-year French inflation breakeven spread widener; while switching out of the long December 2023 Euribor futures trade into a 10-year US Treasury-German Bund spread widening trade. Surging Antipodean Inflation: Australia and New Zealand are both seeing higher realized inflation, but market-based inflation expectations are falling in the former and rising in the latter. This leads us to make the following changes to our tactical trades: taking profits on the Australia-US 10-year spread widener; entering a new 10-year Australia inflation breakeven spread widener; and closing the underwater 2-year/5-year New Zealand curve flattening trade. Feature This week, we present a review of the shorter-term recommendations currently in our list of Tactical Overlay trades. These are positions that are intended to complement our strategic Model Bond Portfolio, with shorter holding periods – our goal is no longer than six months - and sometimes in smaller markets that are outside our usual core bond market coverage. As can be seen in the table on page 17, we typically organize these ideas by the type of trade (i.e. yield curve flatteners or cross-country spread wideners). Yet for the purposes of this review, we see two interesting themes that better organize the current trades and help guide our decision to keep them or enter new ones. Playing A Hawkish Fed Versus A Dovish ECB Federal Reserve officials have spent the past few months signaling that a tapering of bond purchases was increasingly likely to begin before year-end given the steadily improving US labor market. The September payrolls report released last Friday, even with the headline employment growth number below expectations for the second consecutive month, does not change that trajectory. Chart of the WeekCyclical UST Curve Flattening Pressures Cyclical UST Curve Flattening Pressures Cyclical UST Curve Flattening Pressures The US unemployment rate fell to 4.8% in September, continuing the uninterrupted decline from the April 2020 peak of 14.8% (Chart of the Week). The pace of that decline has accelerated in recent months, although the Delta variant surge in the US has created distortions in both the numerator and denominator of the unemployment rate. Now that the US Delta wave has crested and case numbers are falling, growth in both employment and the labor force should start to accelerate in the next few payrolls reports. This will result in a faster pace of US job growth, albeit with a slower decline in the unemployment rate, likely starting as soon as the October jobs report. The US Treasury curve has already been reshaping in preparation for a less accommodative Fed, with flattening seen beyond the 5-year point (middle panel). We have positioned for a more hawkish Fed, and a flatter Treasury curve, in our Tactical Overlay via a butterfly trade. Specifically, we are short a 5-year Treasury bullet versus a long position in a 2-year/10-year barbell, all using on-the-run cash Treasuries. That trade was initiated on June 22, 2021 and has so far generated a small profit of +0.27%. Our butterfly spread valuation model for that 2/5/10 Treasury butterfly shows that the 5-year bullet has not yet reached an undervalued extreme versus the 2/10 barbell (Chart 2). We are keeping this trade in our Tactical Overlay, as the current 2/5/10 butterfly spread of 23bps is still 6bps below the +1 standard deviation level implied by our model. Chart 2Stay In Our 2/5/10 UST Butterfly Trade Stay In Our 2/5/10 UST Butterfly Trade Stay In Our 2/5/10 UST Butterfly Trade Moving across the Atlantic, our trades have been the mirror image of our Fed recommendations, positioning for a continued dovish, reflationary ECB policy bias. We have expressed that via two trades: long 10-year French inflation breakevens and long December 2021 Euribor futures. We continue to see no reason for the ECB to follow the Fed’s path towards imminent tapering and signaling future rate hikes. Growth momentum has cooled in the euro area, with both the Markit composite PMI and the ZEW growth expectations index having peaked in June (Chart 3). At the same time, inflation expectations have picked up. The 5-year/5-year forward CPI swap rate has risen to 1.8%, still below the ECB’s 2% inflation target but well above the 2020 low of 0.7% (middle panel). Markets are focusing on the higher inflation and not the slowing growth, with the EUR overnight index swap (OIS) curve now pricing in 12bps of rate hikes in 2022 (bottom panel). We see that as a highly improbable outcome. There is little evidence that the latest pickup in euro area realized inflation is broadening out beyond surging energy price inflation and supply-constrained goods inflation (Chart 4). Euro area headline CPI inflation hit a 13-year high of 3.0% in August, with the “flash” estimate for September showing a further acceleration to 3.4%. Yet core inflation only reached 1.6% in August - a month when the trimmed mean euro area CPI inflation rate calculated by our colleagues at BCA Research European Investment Strategy was a scant 0.2%. Chart 3ECB Will Not React To This Cyclical Bout Of Inflation ECB Will Not React To This Cyclical Bout Of Inflation ECB Will Not React To This Cyclical Bout Of Inflation Chart 4Euro Area Inflation Upturn Is Not Broad-Based Euro Area Inflation Upturn Is Not Broad-Based Euro Area Inflation Upturn Is Not Broad-Based While the September flash estimate of core inflation did perk up to 1.9%, the trimmed mean measure shows that the rise in euro area inflation to date has not been broad based. Like the Fed, ECB officials have indicated that they view this pick-up in inflation as “transitory”, fueled by soaring energy costs and base effect comparisons to low inflation in 2020. Signs that higher inflation was feeding into “second round” effects like rising wage growth might change the ECB’s thinking. From that perspective, the recent increase in labor strike activity in Germany is a potentially worrisome sign, but the starting point is one of low wage growth – the latest available data on euro area wage costs showed a -0.1% decline during Q2/2021. Chart 5Close Our Long Dec/23 Euribor Futures Trade Close Our Long Dec/23 Euribor Futures Trade Close Our Long Dec/23 Euribor Futures Trade We have been trying to fade ECB rate hike expectations via our long December 2023 Euribor futures trade. That position, initiated on May 18, 2021 has generated a small loss of -0.11% (Chart 5). We still expect the ECB to keep rates on hold in 2022, and most likely 2023, so there is the potential for that trade to recover that underperformance. However, that position has now reached the six-month holding period “re-evaluation” limit that we have imposed on our Tactical Overlay trades. Thus, we are closing that trade this week. In its place, we are initiating a new tactical trade to position for not only persistent ECB dovishness but a more hawkish Fed – a US Treasury-German Bund spread widening trade using 10-year bond futures. The specific details of the trade (futures contracts, duration-neutral weightings on each leg of the trade) can be found in the table on page 17. This new UST-Bund trade is attractive for three reasons: Our valuation model for the Treasury-Bund spread - which uses relative policy interest rates, relative unemployment, relative inflation and the relative size of the Fed and ECB balance sheets as inputs – shows that the spread is currently undervalued by more than one full standard deviation, and fair value is rising (Chart 6). The technical backdrop for the Treasury-Bund spread has turned more favorable for wideners, with the spread having fallen back to its 200-day moving average and the 26-week change in the spread now down to levels that preceded past turning points in the spread (Chart 7). Chart 6Enter A New 10yr UST-Bund Spread Widening Trade Enter A New 10yr UST-Bund Spread Widening Trade Enter A New 10yr UST-Bund Spread Widening Trade Relative data surprises are pointing to relatively higher US yields and a wider Treasury-Bund spread, with the Citigroup Data Surprise Index for the US now rising and the euro area equivalent measure falling (Chart 8). Chart 7UST-Bund Technical Backdrop Positioned For Widening UST-Bund Technical Backdrop Positioned For Widening UST-Bund Technical Backdrop Positioned For Widening Chart 8Relative Data Surprises Favor Wider UST-Bund Spread Relative Data Surprises Favor Wider UST-Bund Spread Relative Data Surprises Favor Wider UST-Bund Spread While we are entering a new trade to play for a relatively dovish ECB, we are also choosing to take the substantial profit in our tactical trade in French inflation breakevens. Specifically, we are closing our 10-year French inflation breakeven spread widening position – long a 10-year cash OATi bond, short 10-year French bond futures – with a solid gain of +6.3%. Chart 9Take Profits On Our Long 10yr French Breakevens Trade Take Profits On Our Long 10yr French Breakevens Trade Take Profits On Our Long 10yr French Breakevens Trade We have held this trade for nine months, a bit longer than our typical tactical trade holding period. We did so because French 10-year breakevens continued to look cheap on our valuation model. Now, the breakeven spread has risen to fair value (Chart 9), prompting us to take our gains and move on. Diverging Inflation Expectations In Australia & New Zealand Playing Fed/ECB policy divergence was the first main theme of this Tactical Overlay trade review. The second broad theme is also a divergence, between inflation expectations in New Zealand (which are rising) and Australia (which are falling). This trend leads us to close two existing trades and enter a new position. Chart 10An Inflation-Induced Bear Steepening Of Yield Curves An Inflation-Induced Bear Steepening Of Yield Curves An Inflation-Induced Bear Steepening Of Yield Curves In New Zealand, we are closing out our 2-year/5-year government bond yield curve flattener trade, initiated on July 21, for a loss of -0.32%. While we were correct in our expectation of ramped-up hawkishness from the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (RBNZ), we were caught offside by persistently sticky inflation which has become a headache for global central bankers. With supply squeezes and high commodity prices not going away anytime soon, sovereign curves have bear-steepened across developed markets, driven by rising long-dated inflation expectations (Chart 10). This global steepening pressure also hit the New Zealand curve, to the detriment of our domestic RBNZ-focused flattener trade. There was also a technical component to the steepening in the New Zealand 2-year/5-year curve (Chart 11). With the 2-year/5-year curve having dipped far below its 200-day moving average and the 26-week rate of change at stretched levels, the flattener was already “overbought” when we entered the trade. Despite a steady stream of hawkish messaging from the RBNZ, leading to an actual rate hike last week, technicals did win out in the short term as the 2-year/5-year spread steepened back up towards the 200-day moving average. Chart 11The NZ 2s/5s Curve Has Also Steepened Due To Technical Factors The NZ 2s/5s Curve Has Also Steepened Due To Technical Factors The NZ 2s/5s Curve Has Also Steepened Due To Technical Factors On the positive side, our decision to implement this trade as a duration-neutral “butterfly”, selling a 2-year bond, and using the proceeds to buy a weighted combination of a 5-year bond and a 3-month treasury bill with an equivalent duration to the 2-year bond, worked as intended with the butterfly underperforming as the underlying 2-year/5-year curve steepened. Looking forward, technicals are still some distance from turning favorable and will remain a headwind for the flattener trade. Implied forward rates are also not in our favor, with markets already pricing in some flattening, making this a negative carry trade. Over a cyclical horizon – i.e. beyond our normal six-month holding period for tactical trades - we still expect the shorter-end of the New Zealand to flatten. The experience of past hiking cycles shows that the 2-year/5-year curve tends to continue flattening during policy tightening, usually leveling out at 0bps before re-steepening (Chart 12). Considering that we have already been in this trade for three months, however, we do not believe our initial curve flattening bias will play out successfully over the remainder of our six-month tactical horizon. While we are closing out our flattener trade, we will investigate ways to better express our bearish cyclical view on New Zealand sovereign debt in a future report. Turning to Australia, we are closing out our long Australia/short US spread trade, implemented using 10-year bond futures, taking a healthy profit of +2.1%. We have held this trade for longer than our typical six-month holding period (the trade was initiated on January 26, 2021) because our Australia-US 10-year spread valuation model has continued to flash that the spread was too wide to its fair value (Chart 13). The model has been signaling that the spread should be negative, yet Australian yields have been unable to trade below US yields for any sustained length of time in 2021. Furthermore, the model-implied fair value is now starting to bottom out, suggesting a diminishing tailwind from the relative fundamental drivers of the spread embedded in our model. Chart 12The NZ 2s/5s Curve Will Flatten Over A Cyclical Horizon The NZ 2s/5s Curve Will Flatten Over A Cyclical Horizon The NZ 2s/5s Curve Will Flatten Over A Cyclical Horizon Chart 13Take Profits On Our 10-Yr Australia-US Spread Narrowing Trade Take Profits On Our 10-Yr Australia-US Spread Narrowing Trade Take Profits On Our 10-Yr Australia-US Spread Narrowing Trade Chart 14Inputs Into Our Australia-US Spread Model Inputs Into Our Australia-US Spread Model Inputs Into Our Australia-US Spread Model The inputs into our 10-year spread model are relative policy interest rates, core inflation, unemployment and the size of central bank balance sheets (to incorporate QE effects) for Australia and the US. Of these variables, the biggest drivers of the decline in the fair value since the start of the COVID pandemic in 2020 have been relative inflation and the relative size of the Fed and Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) balance sheets as a percentage of GDP (Chart 14). Both of those trends are related. Persistently underwhelming Australian inflation – despite accelerating inflation in the US and other developed economies over the past year – has forced the RBA into a pace of asset purchases relative to GDP that exceeded even what the Fed has done since the pandemic started (bottom panel). However, Australian inflation finally began catching up to the rising trends seen elsewhere in the spring of this year, with headline CPI inflation jumping from 1.1% to 3.8% on a year-over-year basis during Q2. Australian bond yields have traded more in line with US yields since that mid-year pop in inflation, preventing the Australia-US spread from narrowing below zero and converging to our model-implied fair value. This is despite a severe COVID wave that forced much of Australia into the kind of severe lockdowns that the nation avoided during the worst of the global pandemic in 2020. With Australian inflation now moving higher and converging towards US levels, economic restrictions starting to be lifted thanks to a rapid vaccination campaign, and the RBA having already done some tapering of its asset purchases before the Fed, the fundamental rationale for holding our Australia-US trade is no longer valid, leading us to take profits. The convergence to fair value in our spread model is now more likely to come from fair value rising rather than the actual spread falling. The pickup in Australian inflation also leads us to enter a new trade Down Under. This week, we are initiating a new trade, going long 10-year Australia inflation breakevens, implemented by going long a 10-year cash inflation-linked bond and selling 10-year bond futures. The details of the new trade are shown in the table on page 17. Despite the uptick in realized Australian inflation, breakevens have actually been declining over the past several months, falling from a peak of 247bps on May 13 to the current 208bps. That move has accelerated more recently due to a rise in Australian real yields that has coincided with markets pricing in more future RBA rate hikes. Our 24-month Australia discounter, which measures the total amount of tightening over the next two years discounted in the AUD OIS curve, now shows that 104bps of rate hikes are expected by the fourth quarter of 2023 (Chart 15, bottom panel). This has occurred despite Australian wage growth remaining well below the 3-4% range that the RBA believes is consistent with underlying Australian inflation returning sustainably to the RBA’s 2-3% target band (top two panels). Chart 15Market Expectations For The RBA Are Too Hawkish Market Expectations For The RBA Are Too Hawkish Market Expectations For The RBA Are Too Hawkish Chart 16Go Long 10-Yr Australian Inflation Breakevens Go Long 10-Yr Australian Inflation Breakevens Go Long 10-Yr Australian Inflation Breakevens Australian real bond yields have begun to move higher in response to this more hawkish market policy expectation that seems overdone, helping push breakeven inflation even lower more recently. This has helped unwind some of the overvaluation of 10-year inflation breakevens from earlier in 2021. Our fundamental model for the 10-year Australian breakeven showed that the spread was over two standard deviations above fair value to start 2020 (Chart 16). The decline in the spread since that has largely eliminated that overvaluation, providing a better entry point for a new breakeven spread widening trade. With survey-based measures of inflation expectations rising even as breakevens fall back to fair value (bottom panel), we see a strong case for adding a new Australian inflation trade to our Tactical Overlay.   Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com Shakti Sharma Senior Analyst ShaktiS@bcaresearch.com Recommendations The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index A Thematic Update Of Our Tactical Trades A Thematic Update Of Our Tactical Trades Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

Next week is the BCA Annual Conference, at which I will debate Professor Nouriel Roubini on ‘The Outlook For Cryptocurrencies’. I will make the passioned case for cryptos, and Nouriel will make the passioned case against. I do hope that many of you can join the debate, as well as the other insightful sessions at the conference. As such, there will be no report next week and we will be back on October 28. Highlights The anomaly of the current ‘inflation crisis’ is not that goods and commodity prices have surged. The anomaly is that state intervention protected services prices from a massive (and continuing) negative demand shock. Absent the state intervention, there would not be the current ‘inflation crisis’. On a 6-12-month horizon: Underweight the durables-heavy consumer discretionary sector versus the market. Underweight commodities that have not yet sharply corrected versus those that have sharply corrected. For example, underweight tin versus iron ore. From the current ‘inflation crisis’, the real surprise could be how low inflation ends up 12 months from now. Hence, stay overweight US T-bonds versus US TIPS. Fractal analysis: Natural gas, plus industrial metals versus industrial metal equities. Feature Chart of the WeekServices Prices Suffered In The Post-GFC Services Slump... Services Prices Suffered In The Post-GFC Services Slump... Services Prices Suffered In The Post-GFC Services Slump... Chart of the Week...But Not In The Post-Pandemic Services Slump. Why Not? ...But Not In The Post-Pandemic Services Slump. Why Not? ...But Not In The Post-Pandemic Services Slump. Why Not? The great writers, artists, and musicians tell us that the most profound messages often come from what is not said, not painted, and not played. What does not happen is sometimes more significant than what does happen. In this vein, we believe that the real story of the current ‘inflation crisis’ is not what has happened to goods and commodity prices, but what has not happened to services prices. The real story is that while goods and commodity prices have reacted exactly as would be expected to a positive demand shock, services prices have not reacted as would be expected to the mirror-image negative demand shock. The Anomaly Is Not Goods Prices, It Is Services Prices The following analysis quantifies the impact of the pandemic on different parts of the economy by examining the deviations of current spending and prices from their pre-pandemic trends. The analysis uses US data simply because of its timeliness and granularity, but the broad patterns and conclusions apply equally to most other developed economies. Looking at the overall economy, we know that, thus far, we have experienced neither a lasting negative demand shock from the pandemic, nor a lasting positive demand shock from the ensuing stimulus. We know this, because current spending is not far short of its pre-pandemic trend. The real story of the current ‘inflation crisis’ is not what has happened to goods and commodity prices, but what has not happened to services prices. Yet when we drill down to the components of spending, we see a different story. The pandemic and its policy response unleashed a massive and unprecedented displacement of spending from services to goods (Chart I-2). Chart I-2The Pandemic Unleashed A Massive Displacement Of Spending From Services To Goods The Pandemic Unleashed A Massive Displacement Of Spending From Services To Goods The Pandemic Unleashed A Massive Displacement Of Spending From Services To Goods By March 2021, while US spending on services was still below its pre-pandemic trend by $700 billion, or 8 percent, the displacement of those dollars of spending had boosted spending on the smaller durable goods component by 26 percent. Suffice to say, a 26 percent excess demand for durable goods cannot be satisfied by a modern manufacturing sector that utilises just-in-time supply chains and negligible spare capacity! As surging demand met relatively fixed supply, the price of durable goods skyrocketed to the current 11 percent above its pre-pandemic trend (Chart I-3). Chart I-3The Inflation In Durables Prices Is Rational, The Absence Of Deflation In Services Prices Is Irrational The Inflation In Durables Prices Is Rational, The Absence Of Deflation In Services Prices Is Irrational The Inflation In Durables Prices Is Rational, The Absence Of Deflation In Services Prices Is Irrational It follows that the inflation in durables prices is the perfectly rational outcome of a classic positive demand shock – meaning, surging demand in the face of limited supply. What is much less rational is that a massive negative demand shock for services has had almost no negative impact on services prices. This is the untold story of the current ‘inflation crisis’ which requires further explanation. Government Intervention Prevented A Collapse In Services Prices If the pandemic had unleashed a classic negative demand shock for services, then services prices would have collapsed. We know this because in the aftermath of the global financial crisis (GFC), services prices fell below their pre-GFC trend exactly in line with the decline in services demand. But in the aftermath of the pandemic’s massive negative shock for services spending, services prices have remained on their pre-pandemic trend (Chart of the Week). The question is, how? The answer is that this was not a classic negative demand shock. The reason that service spending collapsed was that a large swathe of services – such as leisure and hospitality – became unavailable because of mandated shutdowns or lockdowns. In this case, there was no point in reducing prices to reattract demand from durable goods because nobody could buy these services anyway! In effect, while the goods sector remained subject to market forces, a large swathe of the service sector came under state intervention, and was no longer subject to market forces. Meanwhile, statisticians continued to record the seemingly unaffected price of eating out or going to the theatre, even though most restaurants and entertainment venues were shuttered, making their prices meaningless. Absent state intervention in the services sector, we would not be talking about the current ‘inflation crisis’. Absent state intervention, these service providers would have had to reduce their prices to attract wary consumers amid a pandemic. This we know from Sweden, the one major economy that did not have any mandated shutdowns or lockdowns. While leisure and hospitality have remained largely open, Sweden’s services prices have declined markedly from their pre-pandemic trend – in sharp contrast to the unchanged trend in the US (Chart I-4). Chart I-4Services Prices Have Declined In Non-Interventionist Sweden, But Not In The Interventionist US Services Prices Have Declined In Non-Interventionist Sweden, But Not In The Interventionist US Services Prices Have Declined In Non-Interventionist Sweden, But Not In The Interventionist US Hence, while inflation now stands at a sedate 2 percent in Sweden, it stands at a hot 5 percent in the US. If the US (and other country) governments had not intervened in the services sector, then the evidence from the GFC in 2008 and Sweden today strongly suggests that services prices would be below their pre-pandemic trend, offsetting goods prices that are above their pre-pandemic trend. The result would be that the overall price level would be on, or close to, its pre-pandemic trend. Just as overall spending is on its pre-pandemic trend. To repeat the key message of this analysis, the anomaly in most economies is not that goods and commodity prices have surged. The price surge is the perfectly rational response to a positive demand shock. The anomaly is that services prices did not react negatively to a negative demand shock (Chart I-5 and Chart I-6), as they did post-GFC and post-pandemic in non-interventionist Sweden. Chart I-5The Anomaly Is Not That Goods Prices ##br##Rose... The Anomaly Is Not That Goods Prices Rose... The Anomaly Is Not That Goods Prices Rose... Chart I-6...The Anomaly Is That Services Prices Did Not Fall ...The Anomaly Is That Services Prices Did Not Fall ...The Anomaly Is That Services Prices Did Not Fall The untold story is that, absent state intervention in the services sector, we would not be talking about the current ‘inflation crisis’. What Happens Next? The surging demand for durables is correcting. Since March, it is already down by 15 percent but requires a further 7 percent decline to reach its pre-pandemic trend, which we fully expect to happen. After all, there are only so many smartphones and used cars that you can own! Meanwhile, as manufacturers respond with a lag to recent high prices, expect a tsunami of durables supply to hit in 6-12 months just as demand has fallen off a cliff. The result will be a major threat to any durable good or commodity price that has not already corrected. As a salutary warning of what lies ahead, witness the recent 75 percent crash in lumber prices. The same principle applies to non-durables such as food and energy. Non-durables spending is likely to fall back to its pre-pandemic trend, and non-durables prices are likely to follow. Again, outside a short-lived surge in demand from, say, a very cold winter, there is only so much energy and food that you can consume. For services, there are two opposing forces. The inflationary force is that the recent inflation in goods will transmit into wages and therefore into services prices. Against this, the deflationary force is that structural changes, such as hybrid home/office working, mean that services spending will struggle to make the near 6 percent increase to reach its pre-pandemic trend. Underweight the durables-heavy consumer discretionary sector versus the market. Pulling these effects together, we reiterate three investment recommendations on a 6-12 month horizon: Underweight the durables-heavy consumer discretionary sector versus the market (Chart I-7). Underweight commodities that have not yet sharply corrected versus those that have sharply corrected. For example, underweight tin versus iron ore. From the current ‘inflation crisis’, the real surprise could be how low inflation ends up 12 months from now. Hence, stay overweight US T-bonds versus US TIPS. Chart I-7As Durables Spending Normalises, The Durables-Heavy Consumer Discretionary Sector Underperforms As Durables Spending Normalises, The Durables-Heavy Consumer Discretionary Sector Underperforms As Durables Spending Normalises, The Durables-Heavy Consumer Discretionary Sector Underperforms Natural Gas Prices Are Technically Extreme The surge in natural gas prices in both Europe and the US has reached a point of extreme fragility on its 130-day fractal structure. Hence, if the tight fundamentals show the slightest signs of abating, natural gas prices would be vulnerable to a sharp reversal (Chart I-8). Chart I-8Natural Gas Prices Are Technically Extreme Natural Gas Prices Are Technically Extreme Natural Gas Prices Are Technically Extreme Elsewhere, we see an arbitrage opportunity between industrial metal prices, which are still close to highs, and industrial metal equities, which have plunged by 20 percent since May. The relationship between the underlying metal prices and the metals equities sector is now stretched versus its history, and on its composite 65/130-day fractal structure (Chart I-9). Chart I-9The Relationship Between Metal Prices And Metal Equities Is Stretched The Relationship Between Metal Prices And Metal Equities Is Stretched The Relationship Between Metal Prices And Metal Equities Is Stretched Hence, the recommended trade is to go short the LMEX Index/ long nonferrous metals equities. One way to implement the long side of the pair is through the ETF PICK. Set the profit target and symmetrical stop-loss at 8 percent.   Dhaval Joshi Chief Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com Fractal Trading System Fractal Trades 6-Month Recommendations Structural And Thematic Recommendations Closed Fractal Trades   Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields ##br##- Euro Area Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Euro Area Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Euro Area Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields ##br##- Europe Ex Euro Area Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Europe Ex Euro Area Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Europe Ex Euro Area Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields ##br##- Asia Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Asia Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Asia Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields ##br##- Other Developed Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Other Developed Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Other Developed   Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-5Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations  

Dear Client, Owing to BCA’s Annual Investment Conference next week, there will be no report on Wednesday, October 20. We will return to our regular publication schedule on Wednesday, October 27. Please note that there will be a China Outlook panel discussion at 9 AM on Thursday, October 21. We hope you will join us for the event. Best regards, Jing Sima China Strategist   Highlights In the next six to nine months, the long-end of the yield curve will likely drop as investors start to price in weaker-than-expected economic growth amid measured stimulus. China’s 10-year government bond yields are set to structurally shift to a lower bound as domestic demand decelerates along with the nation’s total population. Policymakers will favor lower borrowing costs to reduce stress due to high debt levels among companies, central and local governments, and households. National savings are not a constraint for a country to lower domestic bond yields. China will continue to open domestic financial markets to global investors. The country’s large foreign exchange reserves limit the risk to its internal markets from extreme volatility in foreign fund flows. Feature In the past two decades policy rates in advanced economies have been brought close to zero and bond yields have dropped to extremely low levels. The yields on China’s government bonds, however, have remained well above their peers in advanced economies and in neighboring countries (Chart 1). Chart 1China's Government Bond Yields Far Above Other Major Economies China's Government Bond Yields Far Above Other Major Economies China's Government Bond Yields Far Above Other Major Economies Moreover, despite China’s growth slowing from double to mid-single digits, yields on China’s 10-year government bonds have remained at around 2006 levels. China’s working-age population continues to decline and its total population is estimated to start falling in the next five years. China’s demographic headwinds, combined with high leverage in the private sector at around 220% of GDP, will cap the upside in yields. In this report we share our views on China’s short rates and long-term bond yields on a cyclical basis (next six to nine months) and in the next five years. The Cyclical Outlook The yield curve will likely flatten with China’s long-term government bond yields dropping more than short-term rates in next six to nine months. This will occur in the expectation of a further growth slowdown in at least the next two quarters. Meanwhile, the downside is limited on the short-end of the curve, given it is more sensitive to the PBoC’s guidance and monetary authorities will ease policy only gradually. Stimulus in the next two quarters may also disappoint. Credit growth will bottom in Q4 this year, but the rebound will be modest. Stronger issuance in local government bonds in the next two quarters will be offset by sluggish bank loan impulse. Chinese policymakers will refrain from using stimulus for the property market as a counter-cyclical policy tool to revive the economy. Restrictions will be maintained on bank lending to the real estate sector including mortgages and these controls will limit the rebound in credit expansion. Furthermore, infrastructure investment will improve modestly in the next two quarters, but local governments remain under pressure to deleverage, which will limit their incentive and capacity to spend. Chart 2Stimulus In 2018/19 Was Very Measured Stimulus In 2018/19 Was Very Measured Stimulus In 2018/19 Was Very Measured We maintain our view that the current policy backdrop is shaping up to resemble that of H2 2018 and 2019. At that time, even though the central bank maintained an accommodative monetary policy stance and kept liquidity conditions ample, the size of the stimulus was measured and the economy was lackluster (Chart 2). Recent liquidity injections by the PBoC through open market operations should not be viewed as monetary easing because they represent the bank’s efforts to keep policy rates steady, at best (Chart 3). The central bank provided the interbank system with substantial financing to avoid liquidity crunches following the May 2019 Baoshang Bank takeover and the November 2020 Yongcheng Coal company debt default (Chart 4). In both cases, 10-year bond yields did not fall by as much as short rates, reflecting investors’ expectations that the liquidity injections and resulting drop in short rates were not long-lasting. Chart 3Recent PBoC Liquidity Injections Intended To Keep Policy Rates Steady Recent PBoC Liquidity Injections Intended To Keep Policy Rates Steady Recent PBoC Liquidity Injections Intended To Keep Policy Rates Steady Chart 4APBoC Also Injected Liquidity After Previous High-Profile Defaults PBoC Also Injected Liquidity After Previous High-Profile Defaults PBoC Also Injected Liquidity After Previous High-Profile Defaults Chart 4BPBoC Also Injected Liquidity After Previous High-Profile Defaults PBoC Also Injected Liquidity After Previous High-Profile Defaults PBoC Also Injected Liquidity After Previous High-Profile Defaults Our view on China’s bond yields will not change with the liftoff of US Fed policy rates,  even if the Fed hikes rates earlier and by more than anticipated. The Fed’s policy has little bearing on China’s long-dated yields, which are driven by domestic business cycles and monetary policy (Chart 5). Concerning the exchange rate, we believe that the RMB will modestly depreciate in the next six to nine months, given that the China-US nominal and real interest rate differentials will narrow (Chart 6). While some depreciation in the currency is modestly reflationary for China’s exporters, it will not be enough to offset weaknesses in domestic demand. Chart 5Domestic Economic Fundamentals Drive Yields On China's Government Bonds Domestic Economic Fundamentals Drive Yields On China's Government Bonds Domestic Economic Fundamentals Drive Yields On China's Government Bonds Chart 6China-US Rate Differentials Are Set To Narrow China-US Rate Differentials Are Set To Narrow China-US Rate Differentials Are Set To Narrow Chart 7Pipeline Inflationary Pressures in China Remain Elevated Pipeline Inflationary Pressures in China Remain Elevated Pipeline Inflationary Pressures in China Remain Elevated Inflation remains a risk to our cyclical view on the 10-year bond yield. While the economy is weakening, pipeline inflationary pressures remain elevated (Chart 7).  We do not foresee that the PBoC will change its modestly dovish policy stance because of inflationary pressures stemming from supply-side bottlenecks. However, supply constraints will not abate soon and consequently, pipeline inflationary pressures and producer price inflation may not subside in the next six months. Thus, fixed-income investors may start to price in higher inflation, which could prevent long-duration bond yields from declining by much. Bottom Line: In the coming months, the long-end of the yield curve will likely drop as investors start to price in weaker-than-expected economic growth and very measured stimulus. The short-end of the curve will have limited downside potential because there is only a slim chance of aggressive monetary easing. Bond Yields Are On A Structural Downtrend Bond yields in China will likely downshift in the next three to five years. Our secular outlook for government bond yields is based on the country’s demographic trends, inflation, productivity growth and debt levels. While China’s long-term bond yields have persistently averaged below nominal GDP growth, in the past decade the gap has significantly narrowed as economic growth slowed while yields remained within a tight range (Chart 8).  This contrasts with other manufacturing and export-oriented Asian economies where interest rates have moved to a lower range in proportion with economic growth rates (Chart 9). Chart 8China's Economic Growth Has Downshifted But Yields Have Not... China's Economic Growth Has Downshifted But Yields Have Not... China's Economic Growth Has Downshifted But Yields Have Not... Chart 9...In Contrast With Other Asian Manufacturing-Based Economies ...In Contrast With Other Asian Manufacturing-Based Economies ...In Contrast With Other Asian Manufacturing-Based Economies China’s long-dated bond yields will also downshift in the next three to five years given the nation’s declining long-term potential output growth, based on the following: Chart 10Wages Have Risen In China Wages Have Risen In China Wages Have Risen In China A shrinking workforce can be inflationary due to higher labor costs and we expect Chinese workers’ compensation will continue to increase in the next five years (Chart 10). However, wage inflation will likely be offset by labor productivity, which has remained robust. The nation’s unit-labor cost (ULC), measured by the wages paid for each employee to produce one unit of output, has been flat to slightly down in the past decade despite strong wage growth (Chart 11). Similarly, ULC has sagged in Japan and is muted in South Korea (countries with shrinking labor forces) due to fast-growing labor productivity. This contrasts with the US, where ULC has risen even though the labor force has expanded in the past 10 years (Chart 12) China’s labor productivity will not likely undergo a significant decline in the next five years, particularly if China successfully maintains the manufacturing sector’s share in its aggregate economy, because productivity growth in this sector is usually higher than in others. Chart 11ULC Has Been Relatively Flat ULC Has Been Relatively Flat ULC Has Been Relatively Flat Chart 12ULC Muted In Asian Economies Compared With US ULC Muted In Asian Economies Compared With US ULC Muted In Asian Economies Compared With US   Meanwhile, China’s total population will shrink within the next five years, which will likely bring powerful disinflationary forces that will more than offset price increases created by labor shortages. Disinflation will cap the upside in interest rates/bond yields. Chart 13Japan's Household Consumption Share Fell Sharply When Total Population Started Shrinking Japan's Household Consumption Share Fell Sharply When Total Population Started Shrinking Japan's Household Consumption Share Fell Sharply When Total Population Started Shrinking A shrinking total population can significantly reduce demand, as evidenced in Japan in the past two decades. Japan’s working-age population started falling in the early 1990s, but the country’s household consumption share in GDP fell sharply after its total population peaked in 2010 and the urban population growth started contracting (Chart 13). In other words, Japan’s rapidly falling demand more than offset a muted increase in wage growth. China’s housing demand may have already peaked and the decline will gather speed in the next five years (Chart 14). Long-term growth in household consumption moves in tandem with housing and, therefore, will also downshift in the coming years (Chart 15). In the next five years or longer, China’s de-carbonization efforts will require shutting down production of many old economy enterprises.  Policymakers may keep low interest rates to accommodate such a transformation. Furthermore, amid the geopolitical confrontation with the US, Beijing will need lower interest rates to support the manufacturing sector and to undertake an industrial upgrade. Chart 14China's Demand For Housing Is On A Structural Downshift... China's Demand For Housing Is On A Structural Downshift... China's Demand For Housing Is On A Structural Downshift... Chart 15...Along With Consumption ...Along With Consumption ...Along With Consumption The main risk to our view is that China’s total factor productivity1 growth could accelerate to more than offset a declining total population. This would boost real per capita income and result in higher potential growth in the economy. In this scenario, long-duration bond yields could climb.  However, total factor productivity growth will need to outpace the rate of a shrinking labor pool and capital formation to prop up growth in the aggregate economy (Chart 16A and 16B). This is a daunting mission that Japan and South Korea, where productivity growth has been on par with China, have failed to accomplish. Chart 16AChina's Neighbors Have Not Accelerated Their Productivity Gains To Structurally Boost Economic Growth China's Neighbors Have Not Accelerated Their Productivity Gains To Structurally Boost Economic Growth China's Neighbors Have Not Accelerated Their Productivity Gains To Structurally Boost Economic Growth Chart 16BChina's Neighbors Have Not Accelerated Their Productivity Gains To Structurally Boost Economic Growth China's Neighbors Have Not Accelerated Their Productivity Gains To Structurally Boost Economic Growth China's Neighbors Have Not Accelerated Their Productivity Gains To Structurally Boost Economic Growth Chart 17China Cannot Drastically Improve Its Productivity Growth In The Next Five Years China’s Interest Rates: Will They Join The Race To Zero? China’s Interest Rates: Will They Join The Race To Zero? It is unrealistic to expect that China will drastically improve its productivity growth.  Productivity level is much higher now than it was 10-20 years ago when China’s manufacturing sector accounted for more than 40% of GDP (Chart 17). Even though China’s manufacturing share in the economy will stabilize and even increase from the current 27% of the economy, it cannot boost the sector drastically, particularly because its export market share cannot expand much further due to rising geopolitical tensions. In short, sectors of the economy where productivity gains have been most rapid – manufacturing sector including exports that drove China’s productivity in the past 20 years - cannot fully offset the deceleration in other growth drivers going forward. The service sector will grow, but it is much more difficult to achieve fast productivity gains in the service sector. All in all, productivity and economic growth will moderate as China’s growth model shifts from capital-intensive infrastructure and real estate to services. Bottom Line: In the next five years, China’s 10-year government bond yields are more likely to structurally move to a lower bound as final demand falls along with the nation’s total population. Savings, Debt And Interest Rates China’s national savings rate is one of the highest in the world, but it will drop as the population ages. Thus, some economists may argue that a structural decline in the national savings rate will lead to higher interest rates in the long run. Chart 18Lower Savings Rates Do Not Necessarily Herald Higher Interest Rates Lower Savings Rates Do Not Necessarily Herald Higher Interest Rates Lower Savings Rates Do Not Necessarily Herald Higher Interest Rates However, there is no empirical evidence that national savings drive interest rates. There has not been an inverse relationship between national savings rates and government bond yields in either Japan or the US, as illustrated in the middle and bottom panels of Chart 18.  There are more periods of positive rather than negative correlation between savings rates and bond yields. Note that China’s national savings rate and its interest rates also are not inversely related; a rising saving rate does not lead to lower interest rates and vice versa (Chart 18, top panel). This empirical evidence is in line with special reports published by BCA’s Emerging Markets Strategy that concluded the following: Banks cannot and do not lend out or intermediate national or households “savings.” In an economy with banks, one does not need to save in the form of a deposit in a bank in order for a bank to lend money to another entity. In any economy, new money originates by commercial banks “out of thin air” when they lend to or buy assets from non-banks. Hence, there is little relationship between national savings (flow concept in economics) and money supply growth (a flow variable too) (Chart 19). The term “savings” in macroeconomics denotes an increase in the economy’s capital stock, not deposits at banks. China’s banking system has an enormous amount of deposits, created by the banks “out of thin air” and not from households’ savings. The above factors explain why Japan’s government bond yields and national savings rate have been falling since 1990 (Chart 18 on Page 12, bottom panel). A lack of demand for borrowing was not why bond yields fell. A reason why China’s bond yields will likely be in a secular decline is that commercial banks will purchase government and corporate bonds en masse as they have done in the past 10 years (Chart 20). To do so, commercial banks will not use existing deposits, but rather they will create new deposits/money “out of thin air.” Chart 19There Is Little Relationship Between National Savings And Money Growth There Is Little Relationship Between National Savings And Money Growth There Is Little Relationship Between National Savings And Money Growth Chart 20China's Commercial Banks Will Continue To Purchase Government And Corporate Bonds China's Commercial Banks Will Continue To Purchase Government And Corporate Bonds China's Commercial Banks Will Continue To Purchase Government And Corporate Bonds The same is true for the banks’ purchases of corporate bonds. In China, commercial banks own about 75% of government (including local government) bonds and 20% of onshore corporate bonds. To avoid a spike in bond yields, Chinese regulators could relax the limitations on commercial banks to purchase government and corporate bonds. The upshot will be a lack of crowding out and no upward pressure on bond yields despite a large bond issuance. Chart 21China's Debt-To-GDP Ratio And Service Costs Have More Than Doubled In The Past 10 Years China's Debt-To-GDP Ratio And Service Costs Have More Than Doubled In The Past 10 Years China's Debt-To-GDP Ratio And Service Costs Have More Than Doubled In The Past 10 Years What are the implications of high indebtedness on interest rates? China’s domestic debt-to-GDP ratio has jumped from 120% of GDP in 2008 to 260% (Chart 21, top panel). This includes local currency borrowing by/debt of government, enterprises and households. Critically, the debt-service ratio2 for enterprises and households has more than doubled from 10% of disposable income in 2008 to over 20% (Chart 21, bottom panel). China cannot afford much higher interest rates because enterprises and households will struggle and will not be able to service their debts. Mortgage rates in China are at around 5.5%, the one-year prime lending rate for companies is 3.85% and onshore corporate bond yields are 3.7%. These are not particularly low borrowing costs given both high indebtedness and the outlook for structurally slower economic growth. Onshore borrowing costs may be brought down further in the years ahead to rule out debt distress among households, enterprises and local governments. Since 2015 and prior to the pandemic, China’s debt-service ratio has been mostly flat despite a rising debt-to-GDP ratio.3 This has been achieved through declining interest rates. In the next five years policymakers will likely maintain a stable debt-to-GDP ratio. Hence, lower bond yields are all but inevitable to decrease the debt-servicing burden. In addition, China’s “common prosperity” policy means larger government spending/deficits. However, to cap the government debt-to-GDP ratio, bond yields should be kept down. This is another reason why China’s will opt for lower interest rates/bond yields. Bottom Line: The high level of debt among local governments, companies and households means that borrowing costs in China will be reduced in the years ahead. National savings are not a constraint in any country for commercial banks to expand credit and/or to buy bonds. China will encourage its banks to buy government and corporate bonds to trim yields amid continuous heavy bond issuance. Will China’s Financial Opening Continue? In the current environment which geopolitical tensions are rising between China and the West, many global investors are concerned whether China will impose tighter capital controls and even seize foreign assets. Despite these challenges, China has continued to make progress opening its domestic markets. The nation seems to be sticking to its key policy goals of attracting foreign capital and internationalizing the RMB; both aspects require open access and repatriation of foreign capital. In addition, the share of foreign holdings in onshore securities is very low and thus, poses limited risk to China’s onshore financial markets during global economic or geopolitical crises. China’s current exposure to foreign capital flows is much smaller than its Asian neighbors during the 1997 Asian Financial Crisis, as well as Russia during the geopolitical standoff in 2014-2016 following the capture of Crimea.4 Despite years of easing access to financial markets, foreign ownership (mostly concentrated in government bonds) remains at only around 3-4% of China’s entire onshore bond market. Furthermore, unlike other Asian economies in 1997-98, China has large foreign exchange reserves to buffer shocks from foreign fund flows. In recent years its capital control mechanism has also been successful in preventing implicit capital outflows and stabilizing the RMB exchange rate. We expect Chinese policymakers to feel confident in continuing their financial opening because they have the capability and sufficient funds to safeguard the economy against retrenchments by global investors. Bottom Line: China will continue to open its domestic financial markets, albeit gradually, to global investors. The country’s domestic financial markets have limited exposure to the extreme volatility of foreign capital flows. Investment Conclusions Chart 22The RMB Still Has Upside Structurally, But Will Modestly Depreciate On A Cyclical Basis The RMB Still Has Upside Structurally, But Will Modestly Depreciate On A Cyclical Basis The RMB Still Has Upside Structurally, But Will Modestly Depreciate On A Cyclical Basis We are constructive on China’s government bonds, both cyclically and structurally. In the next six to nine months, the yield curve will likely flatten, with long-duration bond yields dropping faster than the short-end. China’s 10-year government bond yield will structurally shift to a lower range in the next five years, driven by the impact of falling population on domestic demand, and the country’s rising debt levels and debt-servicing costs. Although the RMB still has upside structural potential, in the next 6 to 12 months the currency will likely modestly depreciate against the US dollar (Chart 22).   Jing Sima China Strategist jings@bcaresearch.com Qingyun Xu, CFA Associate Editor qingyunx@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1Total Factor Productivity (TFP) is a measure of productive efficiency,  determining how much output can be produced from a certain amount of inputs. 2Defined by BIS as the ratio of interest payments plus amortizations to income. 3Despite a rising debt load, debt-servicing costs were contained due to (1) LGFV debt swap as new provincial government bonds had lower yields than LGFV bonds and (2) a large decline in the prime lending rate and mortgage rates. 4Foreign investors held more than 40% of local currency bonds in Indonesia, and over 20% in Malaysia. Foreign ownership accounted for 26% of Russia’s local currency bonds in 2014. Market/Sector Recommendations Cyclical Investment Stance

Highlights Spread Product: Investors should stay overweight spread product versus Treasuries for now (with a preference for high-yield corporates over investment grade). But recent shifts in the yield/spread correlation suggest that the credit cycle is getting a bit long in the tooth. We will be quick to recommend a reduction in spread product exposure once the monetary tightening cycle is more advanced and the 3-year/10-year Treasury slope flattens to below 50 bps. We expect this could occur in the first half of 2022. Labor Market & Fed: September’s employment report likely doesn’t alter the Fed’s timeline. The Fed is still on track to announce a tapering of its asset purchases next month and we expect employment growth will be sufficiently strong for the Fed to start hiking rates in December 2022. The Treasury curve will bear-flatten as that outcome is priced in. Duration: Investors should maintain below-benchmark portfolio duration with an expectation that the 10-year Treasury yield will reach a range of 2%-2.25% by the time of Fed liftoff in December 2022. Feature Chart 1A December Debt Ceiling Debate A December Debt Ceiling Debate A December Debt Ceiling Debate The creditors of the United States government can breathe a little easier, at least for a couple of months, as Congress reached an agreement last week to punt debt ceiling negotiations until December. T-bills maturing this month reacted sharply to price-out the risk of technical default, though December bill yields have already started to push higher in anticipation of more turmoil (Chart 1). Of course, the political incentives to lift the debt ceiling will be the same in December as they are today, and Congress will ultimately act to avert economic disaster.1 Financial markets seem to realize this, and Treasury note and bond yields have been unphased by the drama. Instead, Treasury yields have moved higher in recent weeks alongside other indicators of optimism surrounding economic reflation and re-opening (Chart 2). However, there is one troubling signal from financial markets that warrants further investigation. Corporate bonds (both investment grade and high-yield) have underperformed duration-matched Treasuries so far in October, even as Treasury yields have moved higher (Chart 3). Typically, Treasury yields and corporate bond spreads are negatively correlated – spreads tighten as Treasury yields rise, and vice-versa – so it is notable when the correlation flips. Chart 2The Reflation Trade Is Back The Reflation Trade Is Back The Reflation Trade Is Back Chart 3Bad Times For Bonds Bad Times For Bonds Bad Times For Bonds   The next section of this report explores the economic drivers of the yield/spread correlation and considers whether the flip to a positive yield/spread correlation signals anything about future corporate bond performance. An Examination Of The Yield/Spread Correlation The simple economic explanation for the negative yield/spread correlation is that an improved economic outlook leads to both a better environment for credit risk (i.e. tighter corporate bond spreads) and the expectation that higher interest rates will be needed to cool the economy in the future (i.e. higher Treasury yields). With that in mind, when spreads and yields both rise at the same time it usually means that the Fed is “over-tightening”. That is, tightening monetary policy so much that the near-term credit environment is deteriorating. This could be because the Fed is making a policy mistake – tightening into an economic slowdown – or because inflation is high enough that the Fed is deliberately slowing growth in an effort to bring down prices. A Technical Examination Looking at the history of monthly changes in Treasury index yields and High-Yield index spreads since 1994, we see that it is quite unusual for yields and spreads to both rise in the same month (Chart 4). In fact, monthly yield and spread changes are negatively correlated 65% of the time and have only risen together in 15% of the months since 1994. Chart 4Monthly Junk Spread Changes Versus Monthly Treasury Yield Changes Since 1994 An Early Warning Sign For Spreads An Early Warning Sign For Spreads Second, we observe in Chart 4 that almost all months of large spread widening or tightening occur against the back-drop of a negative yield/spread correlation. This shouldn’t be too surprising. The worst months for corporate bond performance occur during economic recessions when the Fed is cutting interest rates. Conversely, the best months for corporate bond performance occur just after the recession-peak in spreads when the Fed has finished cutting rates and the economic recovery is starting up. Tables 1A and 1B delve deeper into the return numbers. Table 1A shows average High-Yield excess returns over different investment horizons following a signal from the yield/spread correlation. For example, the second row shows that after a month when both Treasury yields and junk spreads rise, high-yield bonds deliver average excess returns of 24 bps during the following 3 months, 116 bps during the following 6 months and 75 bps during the following 12 months. Table 1B provides even more detail by showing 90% confidence intervals for each number. Table 1AAverage High-Yield Excess Returns After A Signal From Yield/Spread Correlation An Early Warning Sign For Spreads An Early Warning Sign For Spreads Table 1BHigh-Yield Excess Returns After A Signal From Yield/Spread Correlation: 90% Confidence Intervals An Early Warning Sign For Spreads An Early Warning Sign For Spreads We draw two conclusions from this analysis. First, a month when spreads widen and yields fall sends the worst signal for near-term (3-month) corporate bond performance, though a month where both yields and spreads rise is a close second. Second, and most relevant for the current market, a month when yields and spreads rise together sends the worst signal for junk bond performance over the following 12 months. In fact, it is the only signal where the 90% confidence interval shows the chance of negative excess returns during the following 12 months. This second conclusion aligns with our intuition. A period of both rising Treasury yields and junk spreads likely signals that the market is pricing-in some move toward a tighter monetary policy stance, though not a severe enough move to send long-maturity Treasury yields down. This is most likely to occur in the very early stages of a monetary tightening cycle, when monetary conditions are still accommodative but recent shifts in Fed policy suggest that they will become more restrictive down the road. A Historical Examination A look back through history confirms our analysis of when yields and spreads tend to rise concurrently. The solid line in the third panel of Chart 5 shows the number of months when both junk spreads and Treasury yields rose out of the most recent trailing 12-month period. The dashed line shows the same measure over the trailing 3-month period, multiplied by 4 to put it on the same scale as the solid line. A spike in these lines indicates that Treasury yields and junk spreads were rising at the same time. Chart 5Rising Yields And Spreads Is A Warning Signal For Monetary Tightening Rising Yields And Spreads Is A Warning Signal For Monetary Tightening Rising Yields And Spreads Is A Warning Signal For Monetary Tightening We identify four relevant historical periods. First, yields and spreads rose concurrently during the 1999/2000 Fed tightening cycle. Specifically, yields and spreads rose together in the early stages of the tightening cycle, then spreads continued to widen as yields fell during the 2001 recession. Second, our indicator showed a couple blips higher during the 2004/06 tightening cycle, though corporate bond returns were solid during this period, at least until after the tightening cycle ended and the recession began. Third, the 2013 taper tantrum coincided with a temporary increase in both yields and spreads as investors worried that the Fed was moving too quickly toward rate hikes. Fourth, yields and spreads both moved higher in 2015 as the Fed was heading toward a December 2015 rate hike against a back-drop of slowing economic growth. Turning to today, we view the recent jump in our indicator as similar to the jump seen during the 2013 taper tantrum. Not only is the Fed once again about to taper asset purchases, but the tapering of asset purchases suggests that the Fed’s next move will be a rate hike at some point down the road. We view this as an early warning sign for corporate bond spreads. While the monetary environment remains supportive for positive corporate bond returns for now, this may not be true by this time next year when the Fed is that much closer to liftoff. Bottom Line: Investors should stay overweight spread product versus Treasuries for now (with a preference for high-yield corporates over investment grade). But recent shifts in the yield/spread correlation suggest that the credit cycle is getting a bit long in the tooth. We will be quick to recommend a reduction in spread product exposure once the monetary tightening cycle is more advanced and the 3-year/10-year Treasury slope flattens to below 50 bps. We expect this could occur in the first half of 2022. Labor Market Update: Still On Track For November Taper And December 2022 Liftoff Chart 6Employment Growth Slowed in September Employment Growth Slowed in September Employment Growth Slowed in September September’s employment report delivered a disappointing headline number, with nonfarm payrolls growing only 194 thousand on the month compared to a consensus estimate of 500k (Chart 6). The details of the report were slightly better: August’s nonfarm payroll growth number was revised higher, our measure of the unemployment rate adjusted for distortions in the number of people employed but absent from work fell from 5.5% to 4.9% (Chart A1) and average hourly earnings rose at an annualized monthly rate of 7.7% (Chart 6, bottom panel). Expect A November Taper For bond investors, the most pressing question is whether the report is bad enough to delay the Fed’s tapering announcement past November. We doubt it. The Fed’s test for when to taper asset purchases, that it gave itself last December, is “substantial further progress” back to pre-COVID levels of employment. Since December 2020, total nonfarm payroll employment is 50% of the way back to its February 2020 level (Chart 7) and there are several good reasons to believe that employment growth will be much stronger in October and November. First, the delta wave of COVID cases clearly weighed on employment growth in September, much like it did in August. The Leisure & Hospitality sector only added 74 thousand jobs in September, compared to an average monthly pace of 349 thousand jobs between February and July of this year before the delta wave struck. With a shortfall of almost 1.6 million Leisure & Hospitality jobs compared to pre-COVID levels (Table 2), job growth in this sector will bounce back sharply during the next few months now that new COVID cases are receding (Chart 8). Chart 7"Substantial Further Progress" Has Been Made "Substantial Further Progress" Has Been Made "Substantial Further Progress" Has Been Made Chart 8Delta Wave Has Crested Delta Wave Has Crested Delta Wave Has Crested   Second, the last column of Table 2 shows that the government sector accounted for net job loss of 123 thousand in September. This negative number was driven by state & local government education jobs and is almost certainly a statistical artifact. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ release notes: Recent employment changes [in state & local government education] are challenging to interpret, as pandemic-related staffing fluctuations in public and private education have distorted the normal seasonal hiring and layoff patterns. Table 2Employment By Industry An Early Warning Sign For Spreads An Early Warning Sign For Spreads Expect December 2022 Liftoff As for what this labor market report means for when the Fed will start lifting rates, we believe that we are still on track for liftoff in December 2022. The Appendix to this report updates our scenarios that show the average monthly nonfarm payroll growth that is required to reach different combinations of the unemployment and labor force participation rates by specific future dates. If we use the median assumption from the New York Fed’s Survey of Market Participants that the Fed will lift rates when the unemployment rate is 3.5% and the participation rate is 63%, we calculate that average monthly nonfarm payroll growth of +453k is required to reach those targets by the end of 2022. We see that threshold as eminently achievable.2 Bottom Line: September’s employment report likely doesn’t alter the Fed’s timeline. The Fed is still on track to announce a tapering of its asset purchases next month and we expect employment growth will be sufficiently strong for the Fed to start hiking rates in December 2022. Investors should maintain below-benchmark portfolio duration and hold Treasury curve flatteners in anticipation of that outcome. Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Appendix: How Far From “Maximum Employment” And Fed Liftoff? Chart A1Defining “Maximum Employment” Defining "Maximum Employment" Defining "Maximum Employment" The Federal Reserve has promised that the funds rate will stay pinned at zero until the labor market returns to “maximum employment”. The Fed has not provided explicit guidance on the definition of “maximum employment”, but we deduce that “maximum employment” means that the Fed wants to see the U3 unemployment rate within a range consistent with its estimates of the natural rate of unemployment, currently 3.5% to 4.5%, and that it wants to see a significant increase in the labor force participation rate (Chart A1). Alternatively, we can infer definitions of “maximum employment” from the New York Fed’s Surveys of Primary Dealers and Market Participants. These surveys ask respondents what they think the unemployment and labor force participation rates will be at the time of Fed liftoff. Currently, the median respondent from the Survey of Market Participants expects an unemployment rate of 3.5% and a participation rate of 63%. The median respondent from the Survey of Primary Dealers expects an unemployment rate of 3.8% and a participation rate of 62.8%. Tables A1-A4 present the average monthly nonfarm payroll growth required to reach different combinations of unemployment rate and participation rate by specific future dates. For example, if we use the definition of “maximum employment” from the Survey of Market Participants, then we need to see average monthly nonfarm payroll growth of +453k in order to hit “maximum employment” by the end of 2022. Table A1Average Monthly Nonfarm Payroll Growth Required For The Unemployment Rate To Reach 4.5% By The Given Date An Early Warning Sign For Spreads An Early Warning Sign For Spreads Table A2Average Monthly Nonfarm Payroll Growth Required For The Unemployment Rate To Reach 4% By The Given Date An Early Warning Sign For Spreads An Early Warning Sign For Spreads Table A3Average Monthly Nonfarm Payroll Growth Required For The Unemployment Rate To Reach 3.5% By The Given Date An Early Warning Sign For Spreads An Early Warning Sign For Spreads Table A4Average Monthly Nonfarm Payroll Growth Required To Reach “Maximum Employment” As Defined By Survey Respondents An Early Warning Sign For Spreads An Early Warning Sign For Spreads Chart A2 presents recent monthly nonfarm payroll growth along with target levels based on the Survey of Market Participants’ definition of “maximum employment”. This chart is to help us track progress toward specific liftoff dates. For example, if monthly nonfarm payroll growth prints +400k per month going forward, we would expect Fed liftoff between December 2022 and June 2023. We will continue to track these charts and tables in the coming months, and will publish updates after the release of each monthly employment report. Chart A2Tracking Toward Fed Liftoff Tracking Toward Fed Liftoff Tracking Toward Fed Liftoff Footnotes 1 For more details on the politics of the debt ceiling please see US Political Strategy Weekly Report, “The House Ways And Means Tax Plan”, dated September 15, 2021. 2 For a discussion about what unemployment and participation rate targets to use in this analysis please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “2022 Will Be All About Inflation”, dated September 14, 2021.   Recommended Portfolio Specification Other Recommendations Treasury Index Returns Spread Product Returns

Highlights Equity valuations are extremely stretched versus bonds, so there is little wiggle room for bonds to sell off before pulling down large tracts of the stock market. We estimate that bond yields can rise by no more than 30 bps, before the Fed is forced to talk them back down again. Starting from an earnings yield that is extreme versus its history, we should prudently assume that the prospective long-term real return from equities will be far below the current earnings yield of 4.6 percent, and closer to zero, even if not actually negative. In capitalist economies, gluts may or may not lead to shortages; but shortages always lead to gluts. In other words, the current inflation is sowing the seeds of its own destruction. Hence, we reiterate our structural recommendation to overweight US T-bonds versus US TIPS. Fractal analysis: Cotton, and Polish equities. Feature Chart of the WeekTech Stocks Have Been Tracking The 30-Year T-Bond Price One-For-One Tech Stocks Have Been Tracking The 30-Year T-Bond Price One-For-One Tech Stocks Have Been Tracking The 30-Year T-Bond Price One-For-One Equity valuations are extremely stretched versus bonds. The upshot is that there is little wiggle room for bonds to sell off before pulling down large tracts of the stock market. This is not just an abstract hypothesis – it is an empirical fact, as recent market action is making painfully clear. Since February, the global tech sector has tracked the 30-year T-bond price almost one-for-one. The near perfect fit proves that the tech (and broader growth stock) rally has been entirely premised on the bond market rally. Hence, on the three occasions that bonds have sold off sharply – including in the last couple of weeks – tech stocks have sold off sharply too (Chart of the Week). Put simply, the performance of the tech sector is being driven by the change in its valuation, and the change in its valuation is being driven by the change in the bond yield (Chart I-2). Chart I-2Tech Stock Valuations Are Being Driven By The Bond Yield Tech Stock Valuations Are Being Driven By The Bond Yield Tech Stock Valuations Are Being Driven By The Bond Yield Of course, stock prices are also premised on earnings. So, given enough time, rising earnings can make valuations less stretched, adding more wiggle room for bonds to sell off. The trouble is that a change in earnings happens much more gradually than can a change in valuation – a 10 percent rise in earnings can take a year, whereas a 10 percent fall in valuation can happen in a week. Bond Yields Remain The Dominant Driver Of The Stock Market For the next few months at least, the movement in bond yields will remain the dominant driver of the most stretched parts of the stock market and, by extension, the overall market itself. This is especially true for the growth-heavy S&P 500 which, since March, has been tracking the 30-year T-bond price one-for-one (Chart I-3). Chart I-3The S&P 500 Has Also Been Tracking The 30-Year T-Bond Price One-For-One The S&P 500 Has Also Been Tracking The 30-Year T-Bond Price One-For-One The S&P 500 Has Also Been Tracking The 30-Year T-Bond Price One-For-One The key question for investors is, what is the upper limit to bond yields before stock market damage causes the Federal Reserve to talk them down again? To answer this question, our working assumption is that a 15 percent drawdown in growth stocks would damage the growth-heavy S&P 500 enough – and thereby worsen ‘financial conditions’ enough – for the Fed to change its tone. Based on this year’s very tight relationship between tech stocks and the 30-year T-bond yield, a 15 percent drawdown would occur if the 30-year T-bond yield increased to 2.4 percent from 2.1 percent today (Chart I-4). Chart I-4The Fed's 'Pain Point' Is Only 30 Basis Points Away The Fed's 'Pain Point' Is Only 30 Basis Points Away The Fed's 'Pain Point' Is Only 30 Basis Points Away This confirms our view that the resistance level to long-duration bond yields is around 30 bps above current levels, equivalent to around 1.8 percent on the 10-year T-bond yield. More About The ‘Negative Equity Risk Premium’ Our recent report The Equity Risk Premium Turns Negative For The First Time Since 2002 caused quite a stir. So, let’s elaborate and clarify the arguments we made about the equity risk premium (ERP) – the estimated excess return that stocks will deliver over bonds over a long investment horizon, such as 10 years. Many investors estimate the ERP by taking the stock market’s earnings yield – currently 4.6 percent in the US1 – and subtracting the real 10-year bond yield – currently -0.9 percent on US Treasury Inflation Protected Securities (TIPS). At first glance, this presents a very generous ERP of 5.5 percent. So, equities are attractively valued versus bonds, right? Wrong. The glaring error is that the earnings yield estimates the stock market’s prospective return only if the earnings yield starts and ends at the same level. If it does not, then the prospective return could be very different to the earnings yield. For example, imagine that the stock market was trading at a bubble price-to-earnings multiple of 100, meaning an earnings yield of 1 percent. Clearly, from such a bubble valuation, nobody would expect the market to return 1 percent. Instead, as the bubble burst, and valuations normalised, the prospective return would be deeply negative. It follows that when, as now, the earnings yield is extreme versus its history, we must build in some prudent normalisation to estimate the prospective return. The question is, how? One approach is to use history to inform us of the likely normalisation. Chart I-5 does this using the ‘best-fit’ relationship between the earnings yield at each point through 1990-2011 and subsequent 10-year real return from each starting point. Using the best-fit for this specific episode, the current earnings yield of 4.6 percent implies a prospective 10-year real return not of 4.6 percent, but of -1.1 percent. Chart I-5Based On History, The Current Earnings Yield Implies A Prospective 10-Year Real Return Much Less Than 4.6 Percent Based On History, The Current Earnings Yield Implies A Prospective 10-year Real Return Much Less Than 4.6 Percent Based On History, The Current Earnings Yield Implies A Prospective 10-year Real Return Much Less Than 4.6 Percent Yet this best-fit approach meets a common reproach – that the best-fit for this specific episode is massively distorted by the dot com bubble peak and the global financial crisis (GFC) trough occurring (by coincidence) almost 10 years apart. We can counter this reproach in two ways. First, the best-fit relationship is much better than the raw earnings yield even for undistorted 10-year periods such as 1995-2005 or 2011-2021. Better still, we can change the prospective return from 10 years to 7 years and thereby remove the dot com bubble peak to GFC trough distortion. Chart I-6 shows that this 7-year best-fit relationship also works much better than the raw earnings yield. Chart I-6Based On History, The Current Earnings Yield Implies A Prospective 7-Year Real Return Much Less Than 4.6 Percent Based On History, The Current Earnings Yield Implies A Prospective 7-year Real Return Much Less Than 4.6 Percent Based On History, The Current Earnings Yield Implies A Prospective 7-year Real Return Much Less Than 4.6 Percent Admittedly, the best-fit comes from just one episode in history, and there is no certainty that the 10-year and 7-year relationships that applied during that one episode should apply through 2021-31 and 2021-28 respectively. Nevertheless, starting from an earnings yield that is extreme versus its history, as is the case now, we should prudently assume that the prospective long-term real return from equities will be far below 4.6 percent, and closer to zero, even if not actually negative. Will The ‘Real’ Real Yield Please Stand Up Measuring the ERP also requires an estimate of the prospective real return on bonds. This part should be easy because the yield on the US 10-year TIPS – currently -0.9 percent – is the guaranteed 10-year real return of buying and holding that investment. It is derived by taking the yield on the 10-year T-bond – currently 1.5 percent – and subtracting the market’s expected rate of inflation over the next 10 years – currently 2.4 percent. But the equivalent real return on the much larger conventional bond market could be quite different. In this case, it will be the 10-year T-bond yield minus the actual rate of inflation over the next 10 years. To the extent that the actual rate of inflation turns out less than the expected rate of 2.4 percent, the real return on the T-bond will turn out higher than that on the TIPS. In fact, this has consistently turned out to be the case. The market has consistently overestimated the inflation rate over the subsequent 10 years, meaning that the real return on T-bonds has been around 1 percent higher than that on TIPS (Chart I-7). Chart I-7Will The 'Real' Real Yield Please Stand Up Will The 'Real' Real Yield Please Stand Up Will The 'Real' Real Yield Please Stand Up Yet given the current surge in inflation, and no end in sight for supply chain disruptions and bottlenecks, is it plausible that the next ten years’ rate of inflation will be lower than 2.4 percent? The answer is yes. Because, as my colleague Peter Berezin points out: in capitalist economies, gluts may or may not lead to shortages; but shortages always lead to gluts. And gluts always cause prices to collapse. In other words, the current inflation is sowing the seeds of its own destruction. Hence, we reiterate our structural recommendation to overweight US T-bonds versus US TIPS. The Cotton Is Stretched, And So Are Polish Equities Talking of shortages, cotton now adds to the list of commodities in which supply bottlenecks have raised prices to extremes. Cotton prices have reached a 10-year high due to weather conditions in the US (the world’s biggest cotton producer) combined with shipping disruptions. However, with cotton now exhibiting extreme fragility on its combined 130/260-day fractal structure, there is a high likelihood of a price reversal in the coming months when the shortage turns into a glut (Chart I-8). Chart I-8The Cotton Is Stretched The Cotton Is Stretched The Cotton Is Stretched Meanwhile, the bank-heavy Polish equity market has surged on the back of the spectacular outperformance of its banks sector. This strong uptrend has now reached the point of fragility on its 130-day fractal structure that has indicated several previous reversals (Chart I-9). Chart I-9Poland's Outperformance Is Stretched Poland's Outperformance Is Stretched Poland's Outperformance Is Stretched Accordingly, this week’s recommended trade is to underweight the Warsaw General Index versus the Eurostoxx 600, setting a profit target and symmetrical stop-loss at 6 percent.   Dhaval Joshi Chief Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1 Based on the 12-month forward earnings yield. Fractal Trading System Fractal Trades 6-Month Recommendations Structural And Thematic Recommendations Closed Fractal Trades     Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields ##br##- Euro Area Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Euro Area Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Euro Area Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields ##br##- Europe Ex Euro Area Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Europe Ex Euro Area Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Europe Ex Euro Area   Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields ##br##- Asia Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Asia Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Asia Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields ##br##- Other Developed Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Other Developed Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Other Developed   Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-5Indicators To Watch ##br##- Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch ##br##- Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations   Chart II-6Indicators To Watch ##br##- Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch ##br##- Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations      

Highlights Q3/2021 Performance Breakdown: Our recommended model bond portfolio outperformed the custom benchmark index by +8bps during the third quarter of the year. Winners & Losers: The government bond side of the portfolio outperformed by +4bps, led by the timely downgrade of UK Gilts to underweight in early August. Spread product allocations outperformed by +4bps, coming entirely from the overweights to high-yield in the US and Europe. Portfolio Positioning For The Next Six Months: We are maintaining an overall below-benchmark portfolio duration exposure, concentrated in the US and UK. We expect global growth will rebound from the Delta variant and supply chain disruptions will keep inflation elevated for longer, both of which will push global bond yields higher as central banks – led by Fed – turn less dovish. We are maintaining a moderate overweight to global spread product versus government debt, concentrated on an overweight to US high-yield where valuations still look the least stretched compared to corporate debt in other countries. Feature Global bond markets have had a lot of sources of uncertainty to digest over the past few months. Renewed COVID fears due to the spread of the Delta variant, slowing global growth momentum, supply chain disruptions leading to surging realized inflation, the ongoing US fiscal policy debate in D.C., concerns over Chinese corporate debt and the increasingly hawkish monetary policy signals sent by global central banks, most notably the Fed. The net result of these narratives has been some major swings in government bond market performance during the third quarter of 2021. The benchmark 10-year government bond yield in the US started the quarter at 1.48%, fell to an intraday low of 1.12% on August 4, then soared higher to end the quarter back at 1.50%. Even bigger moves were seen in other countries, with the 10-year UK Gilt yield doubling from its Q3 low of 0.48% on August 4 while the 10-year German bund yield is now 30bps above its low for the quarter. Despite this yield volatility, however, spreads for riskier credit market assets like US high-yield have remained generally well behaved. With that in mind, we present our quarterly review of the BCA Research Global Fixed Income Strategy (GFIS) model bond portfolio during Q3/2021. We also present our recommended positioning for the portfolio for the next six months (Table 1), as well as portfolio return expectations for our base case and alternative investment scenarios. We anticipate that bond investor uncertainty will switch from concerns about global growth to worries that stubbornly elevated inflation will elicit bond-bearish monetary policy responses from central banks. Table 1GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Recommended Positioning For The Next Six Months GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q3/2021 Performance Review & Current Allocations: Fading A Growth Scare GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q3/2021 Performance Review & Current Allocations: Fading A Growth Scare As a reminder to existing readers (and to new clients), the model portfolio is a part of our service that complements the usual macro analysis of global fixed income markets. The portfolio is how we communicate our opinion on the relative attractiveness between government bond and spread product sectors. We do this by applying actual percentage weightings to each of our recommendations within a fully invested hypothetical bond portfolio. Q3/2021 Model Bond Portfolio Performance: Positive Returns In An Uncertain Environment Chart 1Q3/2021 Performance: Riding The Duration Roller Coaster Q3/2021 Performance: Riding The Duration Roller Coaster Q3/2021 Performance: Riding The Duration Roller Coaster The total return for the GFIS model portfolio (hedged into US dollars) in the third quarter was +0.21%, slightly outperforming the custom benchmark index by +8bps (Chart 1).1 In terms of the specific breakdown between the government bond and spread product allocations in our model portfolio, the former generated +4bps of outperformance versus our custom benchmark index while the latter also outperformed by +4bps. Those small positive excess returns should be considered a victory, given the huge yield swings within the quarter, particularly for government bonds. We maintained a significant underweight position to US Treasuries in the portfolio during Q3, given our view that markets were underestimating the risks that the US economy would weather the summer Delta storm. As Treasury yields declined steadily during July and August, so did the relative performance of our model bond portfolio. The government bond portion of the portfolio was underperforming the benchmark by as much as -30bps before global bond yields bottomed out in early August. In the end, there was only a slight underperformance (-2bps) from the US Treasury portion of the portfolio during the quarter (Table 2). Table 2GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q3/2021 Overall Return Attribution GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q3/2021 Performance Review & Current Allocations: Fading A Growth Scare GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q3/2021 Performance Review & Current Allocations: Fading A Growth Scare Our biggest government bond overweights have been concentrated in the euro area. There, the sum of active returns during Q3 from our government bond allocations was +3bps, although that came entirely from above-benchmark allocations to inflation-linked bonds in Germany, France and Italy. We did make one major shift in our government bond allocations during the quarter, and it was both timely and successful. We downgraded our recommended UK Gilt exposure to underweight on August 11.2 We observed that the Bank of England (BoE) was starting to prepare the markets for less accommodative monetary policy, with the UK economy holding up well as its Delta variant surge was losing momentum. The BoE rhetoric has proven to be even more hawkish than we anticipated, hinting at a possible rate hike before the end of 2021, leading Gilts to be the worst performing government bond market in our model portfolio universe during the quarter. The result: our UK underweight contributed +4bps to the portfolio performance during the quarter. Turning to the credit side of the portfolio, the most successful positions were our overweight tilts on high-yield in the US (+3bps) and euro area (+1bps). All other exposures contributed little to returns, an unsurprising development given our neutral allocations to investment grade corporates in the US, UK and euro area, as well as for USD-denominated EM corporates. The bar charts showing the total and relative returns for each individual government bond market and spread product sector are presented in Charts 2 & 3. Chart 2GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q3/2021 Government Bond Performance Attribution GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q3/2021 Performance Review & Current Allocations: Fading A Growth Scare GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q3/2021 Performance Review & Current Allocations: Fading A Growth Scare Chart 3GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q3/2021 Spread Product Performance Attribution By Sector GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q3/2021 Performance Review & Current Allocations: Fading A Growth Scare GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q3/2021 Performance Review & Current Allocations: Fading A Growth Scare Biggest Outperformers: Overweight UK Gilts with a maturity greater than 10-years (+4bps) Overweight Italian inflation-linked bonds (+2bps) Overweight US high-yield: Ba-rated (+2bps) and B-rated (+1bps) Biggest Underperformers: Underweight US Treasuries with a maturity greater than 10-years (-2bps) Overweight Japanese Government Bonds in longer maturity buckets: 7-10 years (-1bps) and greater than 10-years (-1bps) Overweight UK inflation-linked bonds (-1bps) Chart 4 presents the ranked benchmark index returns of the individual countries and spread product sectors in the GFIS model bond portfolio for Q3/2021. Returns are hedged into US dollars (we do not take active currency risk in this portfolio) and adjusted to reflect duration differences between each country/sector and the overall custom benchmark index for the model portfolio. We have also color coded the bars in each chart to reflect our recommended investment stance for each market during Q3 (red for underweight, dark green for overweight, gray for neutral). Chart 4Ranking The Winners & Losers From The GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Universe In Q3/2021 GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q3/2021 Performance Review & Current Allocations: Fading A Growth Scare GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q3/2021 Performance Review & Current Allocations: Fading A Growth Scare Ideally, we would look to see more green bars on the left side of the chart where market returns are highest, and more red bars on the right side of the chart were returns are lowest. As can be seen in the chart, the bars look very close to that ideal for Q3/2021. Among the markets that represent our overweights, the most notably positive returns came from all euro area government bonds (a combined +136bps) and euro area corporates (a combined +20bps from investment grade and high-yield). Returns within our recommended underweight positions were even more notable: UK Gilts (-302bps), New Zealand government bonds (-103bps), EM USD-denominated sovereigns (-85bps), and Canadian government bonds (-45bps). Bottom Line: Our model bond portfolio slightly outperformed its benchmark index in the third quarter of the year by +8bps – a moderately positive result coming equally from underweight positions in government bonds and overweight allocations to spread product. Future Drivers Of Portfolio Returns Chart 5Negative Real Yields: The Biggest Mispricing In Global Bond Markets Negative Real Yields: The Biggest Mispricing In Global Bond Markets Negative Real Yields: The Biggest Mispricing In Global Bond Markets Looking ahead, the performance of the model bond portfolio will continue to be driven primarily by our below-benchmark overall duration tilt – focused on our underweight stance on US Treasuries – and our overweight stance on high-yield corporates. Our most favored cyclical indicators for global bond yields are still, in aggregate, signaling more upside potential over at least the next six months, although the nature of the signal is changing (Chart 5). While our Global Duration Indicator, comprised of leading economic indicators and measures of future economic sentiment, has peaked, the overall level of 10-year bond yields within the major developed markets remains well below levels implied by the Indicator (top panel). That is most clearly evident when looking at the large gap between deeply negative real bond yields and the still-elevated level of the global manufacturing PMI, which typically leads real yields by around six months (second panel). We continue to view this gap between real yields and growth as the biggest mispricing in global bond markets – one that will eventually be rectified by the incremental reduction in monetary accommodation that is signaled by our Global Central Bank Monitor (bottom panel). The combined message from our Central Bank Monitor, Duration Indicator and the manufacturing PMI is that global bond yields are still too low, suggesting a below-benchmark overall portfolio duration stance remains appropriate. With regards to country allocation within the government bond side of our model portfolio, we continue to overweight countries where central banks are less likely to begin normalizing pandemic-era monetary policy quickly (Germany, France, Italy, Spain, Japan, Australia), while underweighting countries where normalization is expected to begin within the next 6-12 months (the US, UK and Canada). We have the highest conviction on the US and UK underweights, with a curve-flattening bias for both markets relative to the rest of the major developed markets (Chart 6). The bond-friendly (and risk asset-friendly) impact of global quantitative easing programs is fading, on the margin, with the annual growth rate of central bank balance sheets having already slowed sharply (Chart 7). The pace of tapering, and any subsequent rate hikes, will differ by country and support our government bond country allocations in the model portfolio. Chart 6Expect More Relative Curve Flattening In The US & UK Expect More Relative Curve Flattening In The US & UK Expect More Relative Curve Flattening In The US & UK Chart 7The 'Great Global Taper' Has Begun The 'Great Global Taper' Has Begun The 'Great Global Taper' Has Begun   Chart 8Less Scope For Wider Global Inflation Breakevens Less Scope For Wider Global Inflation Breakevens Less Scope For Wider Global Inflation Breakevens We expect the Fed to taper its pace of bond purchases over the first half of 2022, setting up a first Fed rate hike late next year. The Bank of Canada and the BoE will be the other developed market central banks that will both end QE and lift rates before the Fed does the same. On the other hand, the ECB, Bank of Japan and the Reserve Bank of Australia will maintain a more relatively dovish stance in 2022, with very modest tapering (at worst) and no rate hikes. Turning to inflation-linked bonds, we are maintaining an overall neutral allocation given the competing forces of rising global inflation and rich valuations. Our Comprehensive Breakeven Indicators combine three measures to determine the upside potential for 10-year inflation breakevens: the distance from fair value based on our models, the spread between headline inflation and central bank target inflation, and the gap between market-based and survey-based measures of inflation expectations. Those indicators suggest that the most attractive markets to position for further upside potential for breakevens are Italy, France, Canada and Japan (Chart 8). On the back of this, we are maintaining our overweight allocations to inflation-linked bonds in the euro area and Japan in our model portfolio, while staying neutral on US TIPS. Chart 9Fading Support For Credit Markets From Global QE In 2022 Fading Support For Credit Markets From Global QE In 2022 Fading Support For Credit Markets From Global QE In 2022 Moving our attention to the credit side of our model portfolio, a moderate overweight stance on overall global corporates (focused on high-yield) versus governments remains appropriate. However, the slowing trend in developed market central bank balance sheets is flashing a warning sign for the future performance of global spread product. The annual growth rate of the combined balance sheets of the Fed, ECB, Bank of Japan and Bank of England has been an excellent leading indicator (by about twelve months) of the annual excess returns of both global investment grade and high-yield corporates during the “QE Era” since the 2008 financial crisis (Chart 9). That growth rate peaked back in February of this year, suggesting a peak of global corporate bond outperformance around February 2022, particularly for high-yield versus government bonds and investment grade (top two panels). At the same time, our preferred measure of the attractiveness of credit spreads - the historical percentile ranking of 12-month breakeven spreads – shows that lower-rated high-yield credit tiers in the US and euro area offer spreads that are relatively high versus their own history compared to other credit sectors in our model bond portfolio universe (Chart 10). Using this metric, investment grade corporate spreads look much more fully valued, particularly in the US. Chart 10Lower-Rated High-Yield & EM Sovereigns Offer Relatively Attractive Spreads GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q3/2021 Performance Review & Current Allocations: Fading A Growth Scare GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q3/2021 Performance Review & Current Allocations: Fading A Growth Scare Given sharply reduced default risks in the US and Europe, with strong nominal growth supporting corporate revenues alongside low borrowing rates, the fundamental backdrop for riskier high-yield corporates is still positive. Thus, we are maintaining our overweights to high-yield bonds in both the US and euro area, while sticking with only a neutral stance on investment grade corporates in the US, euro area and the UK. We do anticipate starting to reduce that exposure in the model portfolio sometime in early months of 2022, however, based on the ominous leading signal from the growth of central bank balance sheets – and what that means about the future path for global monetary policy and risk asset performance. Within the euro area, we are maintaining overweights to Italian and Spanish government bonds given the likelihood that the monetary policy backdrop will remain supportive (Chart 11). We expect the ECB to be one of the most accommodative central banks within our model portfolio universe in 2022. At worst, the ECB could deliver a modest reduction of total asset purchases, but with no rate hikes. Chart 11A Relatively Dovish ECB Will Be Positive For European Credit A Relatively Dovish ECB Will Be Positive For European Credit A Relatively Dovish ECB Will Be Positive For European Credit Chart 12EM Headwinds: A Firmer USD, China Tightening & Global QE Tapering EM Headwinds: A Firmer USD, China Tightening & Global QE Tapering EM Headwinds: A Firmer USD, China Tightening & Global QE Tapering Finally, we are sticking with a cautious stance on emerging market (EM) spread product in our model bond portfolio. Slowing Chinese economic growth, a firming US dollar, rate hikes across EM in response to high inflation, and the coming turn in the Fed policy cycle are all headwinds to the relative performance of EM USD-denominated corporates and sovereigns (Chart 12). We are sticking with our overall modestly underweight stance on EM USD-denominated credit. However, rebounding global growth and some potential policy stimulus in China could prompt us to consider an upgrade in the coming months.   Summing it all up, our overall allocations and risks in our model portfolio leading into Q4/2021 look like this: An overall below-benchmark stance on global duration, equal to -0.75 years versus the custom index (Chart 13). A moderate overweight stance on global spread product versus government debt, equal to five percentage points of the portfolio (Chart 14). This overweight comes almost entirely from allocations to US and euro area high-yield corporates. The tracking error of the portfolio, or its expected volatility versus that of the benchmark index, is relatively low at 55bps (Chart 15). This fits with our desire to maintain only a moderate level of absolute portfolio risk, while focusing exposures more on relative tilts between countries and credit sectors. Chart 13Overall Portfolio Duration: Stay Below Benchmark GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q3/2021 Performance Review & Current Allocations: Fading A Growth Scare GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q3/2021 Performance Review & Current Allocations: Fading A Growth Scare Chart 14Overall Portfolio Allocation: Small Spread Product Overweight GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q3/2021 Performance Review & Current Allocations: Fading A Growth Scare GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q3/2021 Performance Review & Current Allocations: Fading A Growth Scare The yield of the portfolio is now slightly higher than that of the benchmark, with a small “positive carry” of 16bps (Chart 16).   Chart 15Overall Portfolio Risk: Moderate Overall Portfolio Risk: Moderate Overall Portfolio Risk: Moderate Chart 16Overall Portfolio Yield: Small Positive Carry Vs. Benchmark Overall Portfolio Yield: Small Positive Carry Vs. Benchmark Overall Portfolio Yield: Small Positive Carry Vs. Benchmark Scenario Analysis & Return Forecasts We now turn to scenario analysis to determine the return expectations for the portfolio for the next six months. On the credit side of the portfolio, we use risk-factor-based regression models to forecast future yield changes for global spread product sectors as a function of four major factors - the VIX, oil prices, the US dollar and the fed funds rate (Table 2A). For the government bond side of the portfolio, we avoid using regression models and instead use a yield-beta driven framework, taking forecasts for changes in US Treasury yields and translating those in changes in non-US bond yields by applying a historical yield beta (Table 2B). For our scenario analysis over the next six months, we use a base case scenario plus two alternate “tail risk” scenarios. Table 2AFactor Regressions Used To Estimate Spread Product Yield Changes GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q3/2021 Performance Review & Current Allocations: Fading A Growth Scare GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q3/2021 Performance Review & Current Allocations: Fading A Growth Scare Table 2BEstimated Government Bond Yield Betas To US Treasuries GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q3/2021 Performance Review & Current Allocations: Fading A Growth Scare GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q3/2021 Performance Review & Current Allocations: Fading A Growth Scare We see global growth momentum, the stickiness of supply-driven inflation pressures and the Fed monetary policy outlook as the three most important factors for fixed income markets over the next six months, thus our scenarios are defined along those lines. Base case Global growth rebounds from the dip seen during July and August as fears over the spread of the Delta variant subside. Unemployment rates across the developed economies continue to decline on the back of ongoing demand/supply imbalances in labor markets. China is a relative growth laggard, but this will trigger fresh macro stimulus measures (credit, monetary, perhaps fiscal) from policymakers concerned about missing growth targets. Global supply chain disruptions will remain stubbornly persistent, keeping upward pressure on realized inflation rates in most countries even as commodity price momentum cools a bit on a rate of change basis. Most developed market central banks will move to dial back pandemic monetary policy stimulus to varying degrees, most notably the Fed and the Bank of England. The Fed will begin tapering its asset purchases around the turn of the year, to be completed during Q4/2021 thus setting the stage for a Fed rate hike in December. In this scenario, we expect the US Treasury curve to see some initial mild bear-steepening alongside moderately wider longer-term TIPS breakevens, before entering a more typical cyclical bear-flattening as the Fed begins tapering and rate hike expectations get pulled forward. The net result over the next six months: the entire US Treasury curve shifts higher in roughly parallel fashion, with the 10-year reaching 1.70% by next March. The VIX drifts a bit lower from the current 21 to 18, the US dollar is flattish (faster global growth offsets more USD-favorable real yield differentials versus other developed markets), the Brent oil price goes up +5% on the back of stronger global demand, and the fed funds target rate is unchanged at 0-0.25%. Upside growth & inflation surprise Global growth accelerates amid sharply diminished COVID risks and rallying stock and credit markets that loosen financial conditions. Consumer & business confidence recover smartly, as do hiring and capex. Global inflation rates accelerate from current elevated levels, but less from supply squeezes and more from fundamental pressures and faster wage growth. China loosens macro policies, but developed market central banks shift in an even more hawkish direction. The Fed signals a rapid 2022 taper and a funds rate liftoff well before year-end. In this scenario, real bond yields drift higher globally, but inflation breakevens stay elevated with the earlier surge in realized inflation proving not to be “transitory”. The US Treasury curve shifts much higher than in our base case, led by the 5-year maturity with bear-flattening beyond that point. The 10-year US Treasury yield climbs to 1.90% by the end of Q1/2022. The VIX moves higher to 25, the US dollar falls -3% (faster global growth offsetting a relatively modest increase in US/non-US real yield differentials), the Brent oil price goes up +10% and the fed funds target range is unchanged at 0-0.25%. Downside growth & inflation surprise Global growth loses additional momentum as consumer and business confidence stay muted. Supply/demand mismatches in labor markets remain unresolved, leading to a slower pace of employment growth. China does not signal adequate stimulus to offset its slowdown, while a weakened Biden administration implements a much smaller-than-expected US fiscal stimulus. Supply chain disruptions persist, keeping inflation elevated even as growth slows (stagflation). Developed market central banks, stuck between slowing growth and elevated inflation, are unable to ease in response to slower growth. The Fed chooses a slower drawn-out taper with liftoff delayed to 2023. Diminished economic optimism leads to a pullback in global equity values, lower government bond yields and wider global credit spreads. The US Treasury curve bull flattens as longer-maturity yields fall, with the 10-year yield moving back down to 1.25% alongside lower inflation breakevens. The VIX rises to 30, the safe-haven US dollar rises +5%, the Brent oil price falls -10% and the fed funds target range stays at 0-0.25%. The inputs into the scenario analysis are shown in Chart 17 (for the USD, VIX, oil and the fed funds rate), while the US Treasury yield scenarios are in Chart 18. The excess return scenarios for the model bond portfolio, using the above inputs in our simple quantitative return forecast framework, are shown in Table 3A (the scenarios for the changes in US Treasury yields are shown in Table 3B). Chart 17Risk Factor Assumptions For The Scenario Analysis Risk Factor Assumptions For The Scenario Analysis Risk Factor Assumptions For The Scenario Analysis Chart 18US Treasury Yield Assumptions For The Scenario Analysis US Treasury Yield Assumptions For The Scenario Analysis US Treasury Yield Assumptions For The Scenario Analysis     Table 3AGFIS Model Bond Portfolio Scenario Analysis For The Next Six Months GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q3/2021 Performance Review & Current Allocations: Fading A Growth Scare GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q3/2021 Performance Review & Current Allocations: Fading A Growth Scare Table 3BUS Treasury Yield Assumptions For The 6-Month Forward Scenario Analysis GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q3/2021 Performance Review & Current Allocations: Fading A Growth Scare GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q3/2021 Performance Review & Current Allocations: Fading A Growth Scare The model bond portfolio is expected to deliver a positive excess return over the next six months of +60bps in the base case scenario and +57bps in the optimistic growth scenario, but is projected to underperform by -26bps in the pessimistic growth scenario. Bottom Line: We are maintaining an overall below-benchmark portfolio duration exposure, concentrated in the US and UK. We expect global growth will rebound from the Delta variant and supply chain disruptions will keep inflation elevated for longer, both of which will push global bond yields higher as central banks – led by Fed – turn less dovish. We are maintaining a moderate overweight to global spread product versus government debt, concentrated on an overweight to US high-yield where valuations still look the least stretched compared to corporate debt in other countries.   Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com Ray Park, CFA Research Analyst ray@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 The GFIS model bond portfolio custom benchmark index is the Bloomberg Barclays Global Aggregate Index, but with allocations to global high-yield corporate debt replacing very high-quality spread product (i.e. AA-rated). We believe this to be more indicative of the typical internal benchmark used by global multi-sector fixed income managers. 2 Please see BCA Research Global Fixed Income Strategy/ European Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "The UK Leads The Way", dated August 11, 2021, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q3/2021 Performance Review & Current Allocations: Fading A Growth Scare GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q3/2021 Performance Review & Current Allocations: Fading A Growth Scare Global Fixed Income - Strategic Recommendations* Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns