Fixed Income

  Highlights Chart 1Bond Yields Still Track The "Re-Opening" Trade Bond Yields Still Track The "Re-Opening" Trade Bond Yields Still Track The "Re-Opening" Trade Bond yields rose notably in September, with the bulk of the move coming in the days after the Fed teased an upcoming tapering of its asset purchases and revealed slightly hawkish revisions to its interest rate projections. Interestingly, some of the details of the bond market move don’t mesh nicely with the mildly hawkish policy surprise that the Fed delivered. For example, the Treasury curve steepened on the month and long-maturity TIPS breakeven inflation rates rose. Our sense is that September’s market moves were less driven by the Fed and more by a revival of the reflation (or re-opening) trade from earlier this year. The daily new US COVID case count ticked down and, while overall S&P 500 returns were negative on the month, a basket of equities designed to profit from the end of the pandemic soundly beat a basket of “COVID winners” (Chart 1). With the delta COVID wave receding, we remain confident that economic growth will be sufficiently strong for the Fed to launch a new rate hike cycle in December 2022. The Treasury curve will bear-flatten as that outcome gets priced in.   Feature Table 1Recommended Portfolio Specification A Bout Of Reflation A Bout Of Reflation Table 2Fixed Income Sector Performance A Bout Of Reflation A Bout Of Reflation Investment Grade: Neutral Chart 2Investment Grade Market Overview Investment Grade Market Overview Investment Grade Market Overview Investment grade corporate bonds outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 26 basis points in September, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +193 bps. The combination of above-trend economic growth and accommodative monetary policy supports continued positive excess returns for spread product versus Treasuries. At 99 bps, the 3-year/10-year Treasury slope remains steep. This is a strong signal that monetary conditions are accommodative. But despite the positive macro back-drop, investment grade valuations are extremely tight (Chart 2). A recent report presented the results of a scenario analysis for investment grade corporate bond returns during the next 12 months.1 We concluded that investment grade corporate bond total returns will be close to zero or negative during the next 12 months and that excess returns versus duration-matched Treasuries are capped at 85 bps. With that in mind, we advise investors to seek out higher returns in junk bonds, municipal bonds and USD-denominated Emerging Market sovereign and corporate bonds. We also recommend favoring long-maturity corporate bonds and those corporate sectors with elevated Duration-Times-Spread.2 Table 3ACorporate Sector Relative Valuation And Recommended Allocation* A Bout Of Reflation A Bout Of Reflation Table 3BCorporate Sector Risk Vs. Reward* A Bout Of Reflation A Bout Of Reflation High-Yield: Overweight Chart 3High-Yield Market Overview High-Yield Market Overview High-Yield Market Overview High-Yield outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 53 basis points in September, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to 558 bps. A recent report looked at the default expectations that are currently priced into the junk index and considered whether they are likely to be met.3 If we demand an excess spread of 100 bps and assume a 40% recovery rate on defaulted debt, then the High-Yield index embeds an expected default rate of 3.2% (Chart 3). Using a model of the 12-month trailing speculative grade default rate that is based on gross corporate leverage (pre-tax profits over total debt) and C&I lending standards, we estimate that the 12-month default rate will fall to between 2.3% and 2.8%, below what the market currently discounts. Notably, the corporate default rate is tracking at an annualized rate of roughly 1.7% through the first eight months of the year, well below the estimate generated by our macro model. Another recent report considered different plausible scenarios for junk bond returns during the next 12 months.4 We concluded that junk bond total returns will fall into a range of -0.29% to +1.80% during the next 12 months and that excess returns versus duration-matched Treasuries will be between +0.94% and +1.84%. MBS: Underweight Chart 4MBS Market Overview MBS Market Overview MBS Market Overview Mortgage-Backed Securities outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 24 basis points in September, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to -43 bps. The nominal spread between conventional 30-year MBS and equivalent-duration Treasuries tightened 19 bps in September. The spread is wide compared to recent history, but it remains tight compared to the recent pace of mortgage refinancings (Chart 4). The conventional 30-year MBS option-adjusted spread (OAS) tightened 6 bps in September to reach 31 bps (panel 3). This is above the 22 bps offered by Aaa-rated consumer ABS but below the 52 bps offered by Aa-rated corporate bonds and the 33 bps offered by Agency CMBS. In a recent report we looked at MBS performance and valuation across the coupon stack.5 We noted that the higher convexity of high-coupon MBS makes them likely to outperform lower-coupon MBS in a rising yield environment. Higher coupon MBS also have greater OAS than lower coupons. This makes the high-coupon MBS more likely to outperform in a flat bond yield environment as well. Given our view that bond yields will be higher in 6-12 months, we recommend favoring high coupons (4%, 4.5%) over low coupons (2%, 2.5%, 3%) within an overall underweight allocation to Agency MBS. Government-Related: Neutral Chart 5Government-Related Market Overview Government-Related Market Overview Government-Related Market Overview The Government-Related index underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 15 basis points in September, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to +69 bps (Chart 5). Sovereign debt underperformed duration-equivalent Treasuries by 95 bps in September, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to -87 bps. Foreign Agencies outperformed the Treasury benchmark by 5 bps on the month, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +49 bps. Local Authority bonds outperformed by 24 bps in September, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +406 bps. Domestic Agency bonds underperformed by 7 bps, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to +24 bps. Supranationals underperformed by 4 bps, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to +27 bps. Last week’s report looked at performance and valuation trends for Emerging Market sovereign and corporate bonds relative to US corporates.6 The recent underperformance of EM bonds versus US corporates has led to attractive relative valuations in the sector. We see investment grade EM sovereign and corporate bonds both outperforming investment grade US corporates during the next 12 months. The outperformance will be the result of better starting valuations and an acceleration of EM growth in 2022. The bonds of Colombia, Russia, Mexico, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, UAE and Qatar look particularly attractive within the USD-denominated EM sovereign space. Municipal Bonds: Overweight Chart 6Municipal Market Overview Municipal Market Overview Municipal Market Overview Municipal bonds outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 29 basis points in September, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +292 bps (before adjusting for the tax advantage). The economic and policy back-drop remains favorable for municipal bond performance. Trailing 4-quarter net state & local government savings were already positive through the end of Q1 2021 and they received another significant boost in Q2 as funds from the American Rescue Plan were doled out (Chart 6). With state & local government balance sheets in such good shape, we are comfortable moving down in quality within municipal bonds. A move down in quality is especially compelling because of tight Aaa muni valuations relative to Treasuries (top panel). Valuation is more compelling in the lower investment grade credit tiers, especially at the long-end of the curve.7 Both General Obligation (GO) and Revenue munis in the 12-17 year maturity bucket offer a before-tax yield pick-up versus corporate bonds with the same credit rating and duration (panel 2). Finally, high-yield muni spreads are reasonably attractive relative to high-yield corporates, offering a breakeven tax rate of 25% (panel 4). But despite the attractive spread, we recommend only a neutral allocation to high-yield munis versus high-yield corporates as the deep negative convexity of high-yield munis makes them susceptible to extension risk if bond yields rise. Treasury Curve: Buy 2/10 Barbell Versus 5-Year Bullet Chart 7Treasury Yield Curve Overview Treasury Yield Curve Overview Treasury Yield Curve Overview The Treasury curve bear-steepened in September, with yields moving sharply higher – especially in the 5-10 year maturity space. The 2-year/10-year Treasury slope steepened 14 bps to end the month at 124 bps. The 5-year/30-year slope flattened 5 bps to end the month at 110 bps. We expect bond yields to be higher in 6-12 months, but we also anticipate that the next significant move higher in bond yields will coincide with curve flattening, not steepening. At 2.08%, the 5-year/5-year forward Treasury yield is already within our target fair value range of 2% - 2.25%. In a recent report, we demonstrated that yield curve steepening only occurs when either the Fed is cutting rates or the 5-year/5-year forward yield rises.8 This means that the 2/10 Treasury curve is more likely to flatten than steepen during the next 6-12 months, even as bond yields move higher. Similarly, we observe that the overnight index swap (OIS) curve is priced for the fed funds rate to be 0.30% in one year’s time and 1.62% in five years (Chart 7). The latter rate has 131 bps of upside if it converges all the way back to its 2018 high, but this pales in comparison to the 256 bps of upside in the 12-month forward rate. The yield curve will flatten as the 12-month forward OIS rate converges with the 5-year forward rate (panel 3). Investors should position in yield curve flatteners on a 6-12 month horizon. Specifically, we recommend shorting the 5-year bullet versus a duration-matched 2/10 barbell. TIPS: Neutral Chart 8TIPS Market Overview TIPS Market Overview TIPS Market Overview TIPS outperformed the duration-equivalent nominal Treasury index by 47 basis points in September, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +627 bps. The 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate rose 3 bps on the month, while the 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rate rose 5 bps. At 2.41%, the 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate is near the middle of the 2.3% to 2.5% range that is consistent with inflation expectations being well anchored around the Fed’s target (Chart 8). Meanwhile, at 2.26%, the 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rate is only just below target (panel 3). With long-dated inflation expectations close to the Fed’s target levels, we see limited upside on a 6-12 month horizon. We also see the cost of short-maturity inflation protection falling during the next few months as realized inflation moderates from its extremely high level. This will lead to a steepening of the inflation curve (bottom panel). We recommend that investors position for a steeper 2/10 inflation curve, or alternatively for a flatter 2/10 real Treasury curve. We noted in last week’s report that the combination of nominal curve flattening and inflation curve steepening will lead to a large flattening of the 2/10 real curve during the next 6-12 months.9The 2-year TIPS yield, in particular, has a lot of upside.                         ABS: Overweight Chart 9ABS Market Overview ABS Market Overview ABS Market Overview Asset-Backed Securities outperformed the duration-equivalent nominal Treasury index by 3 basis points in September, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +43 bps. Aaa-rated ABS outperformed by 2 bps on the month, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +32 bps. Non-Aaa ABS outperformed by 7 bps, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +99 bps. The stimulus from last year’s CARES Act led to a significant increase in household savings when individual checks were mailed in April 2020. That excess savings has still not been spent and the most recent round of stimulus checks has only added to the stockpile (Chart 9). The extraordinarily large stock of household savings means that the collateral quality of consumer ABS is also extraordinarily high. Indeed, many households have been using their windfalls to pay down consumer debt (bottom panel). Investors should remain overweight consumer ABS and should also take advantage of the high quality of household balance sheets by moving down the quality spectrum.     Non-Agency CMBS: Neutral Chart 10CMBS Market Overview CMBS Market Overview CMBS Market Overview Non-Agency Commercial Mortgage-Backed Securities outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 2 basis points in September, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +195 bps. Aaa Non-Agency CMBS outperformed Treasuries by 4 bps in September, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +96 bps. Non-Aaa Non-Agency CMBS underperformed Treasuries by 4 bps on the month, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to +525 bps (Chart 10). Though returns have been strong and spreads remain attractive, particularly for lower-rated CMBS, we continue to recommend only a neutral allocation to the sector because of the structurally challenging environment for commercial real estate. Agency CMBS: Overweight Agency CMBS outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 3 basis points in September, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +94 bps. The average index option-adjusted spread tightened 1 bp on the month. It currently sits at 33 bps (bottom panel). Though Agency CMBS spreads have recovered to well below pre-COVID levels, they still look attractive compared to other similarly risky spread products. Stay overweight.   Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Appendix A: Butterfly Strategy Valuations The following tables present the current read-outs from our butterfly spread models. We use these models to identify opportunities to take duration-neutral positions across the Treasury curve. The following two Special Reports explain the models in more detail: US Bond Strategy Special Report, “Bullets, Barbells And Butterflies”, dated July 25, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com US Bond Strategy Special Report, “More Bullets, Barbells And Butterflies”, dated May 15, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Table 4 shows the raw residuals from each model. A positive value indicates that the bullet is cheap relative to the duration-matched barbell. A negative value indicates that the barbell is cheap relative to the bullet. Table 4Butterfly Strategy Valuation: Raw Residuals In Basis Points (As Of September 30th, 2021) A Bout Of Reflation A Bout Of Reflation Table 5 scales the raw residuals in Table 4 by their historical means and standard deviations. This facilitates comparison between the different butterfly spreads. Table 5Butterfly Strategy Valuation: Standardized Residuals (As Of September 30th, 2021) A Bout Of Reflation A Bout Of Reflation Table 6 flips the models on their heads. It shows the change in the slope between the two barbell maturities that must be realized during the next six months to make returns between the bullet and barbell equal. For example, a reading of -17 bps in the 5 over 2/10 cell means that we would expect the 5-year to outperform the 2/10 if the 2/10 flattens by less than 17 bps during the next six months. Otherwise, we would expect the 2/10 barbell to outperform the 5-year bullet. Table 6Discounted Slope Change During Next 6 Months (BPs) A Bout Of Reflation A Bout Of Reflation Appendix B: Excess Return Bond Map The Excess Return Bond Map is used to assess the relative risk/reward trade-off between different sectors of the US bond market. It is a purely computational exercise and does not impose any macroeconomic view. The Map’s vertical axis shows 12-month expected excess returns. These are proxied by each sector’s option-adjusted spread. Sectors plotting further toward the top of the Map have higher expected returns and vice-versa. Our novel risk measure called the “Risk Of Losing 100 bps” is shown on the Map’s horizontal axis. To calculate it, we first compute the spread widening required on a 12-month horizon for each sector to lose 100 bps or more relative to a duration-matched position in Treasury securities. Then, we divide that amount of spread widening by each sector’s historical spread volatility. The end result is the number of standard deviations of 12-month spread widening required for each sector to lose 100 bps or more versus a position in Treasuries. Lower risk sectors plot further to the right of the Map, and higher risk sectors plot further to the left. Chart 11Excess Return Bond Map (As Of September 30th, 2021) A Bout Of Reflation A Bout Of Reflation Footnotes 1  Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Expected Returns In Corporate Bonds”, dated September 21, 2021. 2  Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The Collapsing Credit Risk Premium”, dated July 20, 2021. 3  Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The Post-FOMC Credit Environment”, dated June 29, 2021. 4  Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Expected Returns In Corporate Bonds”, dated September 21, 2021. 5  Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “A New Conundrum”, dated April 20, 2021. 6  Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Damage Assessment”, dated September 28, 2021. 7  Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The Collapsing Credit Risk Premium”, dated July 20, 2021. 8  Please see US Bond Strategy / Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, “A Bump On The Road To Recovery”, dated July 27, 2021. 9  Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Damage Assessment”, dated September 28, 2021.

Dear Client, We are sending you our Strategy Outlook today, where we outline our thoughts on the macro landscape and the direction of financial markets for the rest of 2021 and beyond. Next week, please join me for a webcast on Thursday, October 7 at 10:00 AM EDT (3:00 PM BST, 4:00 PM CEST, 10:00 PM HKT) where I will discuss the outlook. Best regards, Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Highlights Macroeconomic Outlook: Global growth has peaked, but at very high levels. Progress on the vaccination campaign, along with continued accommodative monetary and fiscal policies, should keep recession risks at bay for the foreseeable future. Global Asset Allocation: Remain overweight stocks. While the risk-reward profile for equities is not as appealing as it was last year, the TINA theme (“There Is No Alternative” to equities) will continue to resonate with investors. Equities: Favor cyclicals, small caps, value stocks, and non-US equities. Long EM is an attractive contrarian play. Fixed Income: Maintain slightly below average interest-rate duration exposure. The US 10-year Treasury yield will rise to 1.8% by the first half of next year. Spread product will continue to outperform high-quality government bonds. Currencies: The US dollar will resume its weakening trend as growth momentum rotates from the US to the rest of the world. The Canadian dollar will be the best performing DM currency during the remainder of the year. Commodities: Oil prices will remain firm, bucking market expectations of a decline. Metals may be at the cusp of a new supercycle. I. Macroeconomic Outlook Global Growth To Remain Above Trend Global growth has peaked, but at very high levels. According to Bloomberg consensus estimates, real GDP in the G7 rose by 6.0% in Q3, down from 6.8% in Q2 (Table 1). G7 growth is expected to soften to 4.9% in Q4, mainly reflecting somewhat softer growth in Europe following a blistering third quarter which saw real GDP expand by more than 9% in the UK and the euro area. Table 1Global Growth Will Remain Above Trend Well Into Next Year 2021 Fourth Quarter Strategy Outlook: TINA’s Siren Song 2021 Fourth Quarter Strategy Outlook: TINA’s Siren Song Not all countries have reached peak growth. Japan is projected to see faster growth in Q4, with GDP rising by 3.8% compared to 1.6% in Q3. Canadian growth should pick up from 4.5% in Q3 to 5.8% in Q4. Australia’s economy is projected to grow by 7.4% in Q4 after having contracted by 10.7% in Q3. Chinese growth is expected to accelerate to 5.9% in Q4 from 2.6% in Q3. Across almost all the major economies, growth should remain at an above-trend pace in 2022. G7 growth is expected to hit 4.1%, well above the trend rate of 1.4%. Usually when growth peaks, investors start to worry that a recession is around the corner. Given that growth is coming down from exceptionally high levels, this is not a major risk at the moment. Most Countries Are Easing Lockdown Restrictions Ten months after the first Covid vaccines became publicly available, 3.5 billion people, or 45% of the world’s population, have received at least one shot (Chart 1). At this point, most people in developed economies who want a vaccine have been able to receive one. Chart 1Nearly Half Of The World's Population Has Received At Least One Covid Vaccine Shot 2021 Fourth Quarter Strategy Outlook: TINA’s Siren Song 2021 Fourth Quarter Strategy Outlook: TINA’s Siren Song While vaccine availability in many emerging markets remains a problem, the situation is improving rapidly. India is currently vaccinating 7.5 million people per day. Over 45% of Indians have had at least one shot, something that would have seemed unfathomable just a few months ago. New medications are on the way. Just today, Merck announced a breakthrough pill that lowers the risk of hospitalization from Covid by 50%. Globally, the number of new daily cases has fallen from over 650,000 in August to 450,000 today. Lower case counts, along with increased vaccinations, have allowed most countries to loosen lockdown measures. Goldman’s Effective Lockdown Index has eased to the lowest level since the start of the pandemic (Chart 2). Chart 2Covid Restrictions Are Easing In Many Places 2021 Fourth Quarter Strategy Outlook: TINA’s Siren Song 2021 Fourth Quarter Strategy Outlook: TINA’s Siren Song Monetary Policy: The Slow March To Neutral As the pandemic recedes from view, central banks are starting to dial back monetary support. Last week, Norway became the first major developed economy to hike rates. New Zealand, having already ended QE, may raise rates before the end of the year. Other central banks are looking to normalize policy. The Bank of Canada has cut its asset purchases in half. The Reserve Bank of Australia has begun tapering asset purchases. The Swedish Riksbank has indicated that it will end asset purchases this year. The Fed will formally announce the tapering of asset purchases in November, while the Bank of England’s latest round of QE expansion will expire in December. The ECB, Swiss National Bank, and Bank of Japan remain firmly in the dovish camp. That said, the ECB has cracked open the exit door ever so slightly by announcing that it will stop buying assets through the Pandemic Emergency Purchase Programme in March (The ECB will continue to buy bonds under the existing Asset Purchase Programme, however). Taper Tantrum Redux? The prospect of Fed tapering has stoked worries of a replay of the 2013 Taper Tantrum. We think such worries are overstated. For one thing, tapering is not the same thing as tightening. The Fed will still be adding to the size of its balance sheet; it will simply be doing so at a diminished pace. Thus, tapering implies a slower pace of easing rather than outright tightening, a subtle but important distinction. Tapering could be regarded as tightening if, as in 2013, the very act of tapering sends a signal to investors that rate hikes are forthcoming. However, in the years following the Taper Tantrum, the Fed has gone out of its way to delink balance sheet policy from interest rate policy, stressing that the two are substitutes not complements.  The Fed is unlikely to start hiking rates until late 2022 or early 2023. It will probably take another year or two beyond then for interest rates to rise into restrictive territory, and even longer for the lagged effects of monetary policy to work their way through to the economy. There is an old saying: “Expansions don’t die of old age. They get murdered by the Fed.” The Fed will probably kill the expansion. However, the deed is unlikely to be committed until 2024 at the earliest, giving the bull market in stocks further scope to continue. Fiscal Policy: Tighter But Not Tight On the fiscal side, the IMF expects the aggregate cyclically-adjusted primary budget deficit in advanced economies to decline from 7.7% of GDP in 2021 to 3.7% of GDP in 2022, implying a negative fiscal impulse of 4% of GDP. Normally, such a negative fiscal impulse would weigh heavily on growth. However, since this fiscal tightening is set to occur against a backdrop of continued strong private domestic demand growth, the economic fallout should be limited. The absolute stance of fiscal policy also matters. While budget deficits will decline over the next few years, the IMF expects deficits to be larger in the post-pandemic period than they were before the pandemic (Chart 3). Chart 3Fiscal Policy: Tighter But Not Tight 2021 Fourth Quarter Strategy Outlook: TINA’s Siren Song 2021 Fourth Quarter Strategy Outlook: TINA’s Siren Song If anything, the IMF’s projections understate the likely size of future budget deficits as they do not incorporate any fiscal measures that have yet to be signed into law. These include the proposed $550 billion US infrastructure bill, an election-season stimulus package in Japan, and increased investment spending by what is likely to be a center-left coalition government in Germany. Chart 4Plenty Of Pent-Up Demand 2021 Fourth Quarter Strategy Outlook: TINA’s Siren Song 2021 Fourth Quarter Strategy Outlook: TINA’s Siren Song Perhaps one of the most important, and largely overlooked, consequences of the pandemic is that the bond vigilantes have been banished into exile. Governments ran record budget deficits last year and bond yields fell anyway. Post-pandemic fiscal policy is likely to end up being structurally more expansionary than it was following the Global Financial Crisis. Plenty Of Dry Powder It should also be noted that not all the stimulus funds that have been disbursed have made their way into the economy. US households are currently sitting on $2.4 trillion in excess savings, equivalent to about 15% of annual consumption (Chart 4). About half of these excess savings stem from decreased spending on services during the pandemic. The other half stem from increased transfer payments – stimulus checks, unemployment insurance benefits, and the like. Some investors have expressed concern that these savings will remain idle. Among other things, they note that a record high share of households in the University of Michigan survey think that this is a bad time to be purchasing big-ticket items (Chart 5). Chart 5Consumers Are Deferring Purchases Of Big-Ticket Items In Anticipation Of Lower Prices Consumers Are Deferring Purchases Of Big-Ticket Items In Anticipation Of Lower Prices Consumers Are Deferring Purchases Of Big-Ticket Items In Anticipation Of Lower Prices Chart 6Improving Consumer Confidence Will Buoy Consumption Improving Consumer Confidence Will Buoy Consumption Improving Consumer Confidence Will Buoy Consumption We would downplay these concerns. A review of the evidence from the original CARES act suggests that households spent about 40% of the stimulus checks within three months of receiving them. That is a reasonably high number considering that precautionary savings typically rise during times of economic uncertainty. Despite the improvements in the economy, consumer confidence remains below pre-pandemic levels. There is a strong correlation between consumer confidence and household consumption (Chart 6). As confidence continues to recover, household spending should hold up well. As far as the reluctance to buy big-ticket items is concerned, we would paint this in a positive light. When households are asked why they are not in a rush to buy, say, a new automobile, they answer, quite rationally, that they expect prices to fall and availability to improve. Concerns over job security are far down on the list. In this sense, the market mechanism is doing what it is supposed to do: Supplying goods to those who are willing to pay up in order to get them immediately, while giving those with a bit more patience the opportunity to buy them later at a lower price.  Chart 7Firms Will Need To Maintain High Production To Replenish Inventories Firms Will Need To Maintain High Production To Replenish Inventories Firms Will Need To Maintain High Production To Replenish Inventories From a macro perspective, this means that demand for durable goods is unlikely to fall off a cliff anytime soon. There is enough pent-up demand around to ensure production stays buoyant well into next year. This is especially the case for autos, where nearly half of US shoppers have decided to defer purchases. And with inventory levels at record lows, firms will need to produce more than they sell (Chart 7). It is difficult to see growth slowing dramatically in such an environment. Pandemic-Induced Inflation Spike Should Fade The willingness of households to postpone spending until supply has had a chance to catch up to demand should help mitigate inflationary pressures. It would be much worse if households thought that today’s high consumer goods prices presaged even higher prices down the road. Such a dynamic could easily unmoor inflation expectations, forcing the Fed into action. Despite the recent spike in inflation, household long-term inflation expectations have not increased that much. Inflation expectations 5-to-10 years out in the University of Michigan survey ticked up to 3% in September. While this is above the average level of 2.5% in 2017-2019, it is broadly within the range of expectations that prevailed between 1997 and 2014 (Chart 8). Chart 8Long-Term Inflation Expectations Have Risen But Remain At Historically Low Levels Long-Term Inflation Expectations Have Risen But Remain At Historically Low Levels Long-Term Inflation Expectations Have Risen But Remain At Historically Low Levels Chart 9Wages At The Bottom End Of The Distribution Are Rising Briskly Wages At The Bottom End Of The Distribution Are Rising Briskly Wages At The Bottom End Of The Distribution Are Rising Briskly Chart 10Strong Wage Growth In The Leisure And Hospitality Sector 2021 Fourth Quarter Strategy Outlook: TINA’s Siren Song 2021 Fourth Quarter Strategy Outlook: TINA’s Siren Song Wages have risen briskly at the bottom end of the income distribution (Chart 9). The jump in wage growth in the leisure and hospitality sector – where workers have been given the unenviable task of enforcing mask mandates and other requirements – has been particularly pronounced (Chart 10). However, wage growth for high-skilled salaried employees has been flat-to-down. As a consequence, overall wage growth, as measured by the Atlanta Fed Wage Tracker, has moved sideways. Rising CPI inflation remains contained to only a few categories. Median CPI inflation registered 2.4% in August, below where it was in late 2019. Excluding vehicle prices, the level of the core CPI remains below its pre-pandemic trend line (Chart 11). Chart 11Unwinding Of "Base Effects" Core Inflation With And Without Autos Unwinding Of "Base Effects" Core Inflation With And Without Autos Unwinding Of "Base Effects" Core Inflation With And Without Autos Recent indications suggest that used car prices have peaked (Chart 12). Memory prices are trending lower, suggesting that the worst of the semiconductor shortage may be behind us (Chart 13). The Drewry World Container Index also inched lower this week for the first time in five months. Chart 12Used Car Prices Have Peaked Used Car Prices Have Peaked Used Car Prices Have Peaked Chart 13Memory Chip Prices Are Edging Lower Memory Chip Prices Are Edging Lower Memory Chip Prices Are Edging Lower In capitalist economies, gluts may or may not lead to shortages; but shortages always lead to gluts. II. Feature: The Real Risk From China’s Property Market Chart 14The Demographic Turning Point In Japan And China The Demographic Turning Point In Japan And China The Demographic Turning Point In Japan And China Lehman Moment Or Japan Moment? The turmoil surrounding Evergrande, one of China’s largest property developer, has sparked fears that China is experiencing its own “Lehman moment”. Such worries are misplaced. The Chinese government has enough control over the domestic financial system to keep systemic risks in check. The more appropriate analogy is not with Lehman, but with Japan. The Japanese property bubble burst in the early 1990s, sending the country into a prolonged deflationary funk. As was the case in Japan three decades ago, Chinese property prices are very high in relation to incomes. Moreover, as was the case in Japan, China’s working-age population has peaked, which is likely to translate into lower demand for housing down the road (Chart 14). As it is, studies using night light data suggest that 20% of apartments are sitting vacant. Similar to Japan, debt has fueled China’s housing boom. Chinese property developers are amongst the most leveraged in the world (Chart 15). Households have also been borrowing aggressively: Mortgage debt has risen from around 15% of GDP in 2010 to 35% of GDP (Chart 16). Chart 15Rising Leverage Ratios In China's Real Estate Sector Rising Leverage Ratios In China's Real Estate Sector Rising Leverage Ratios In China's Real Estate Sector Chart 16Mortgage Debt Has Been On The Rise In China Mortgage Debt Has Been On The Rise In China Mortgage Debt Has Been On The Rise In China Differences With Japan Despite the clear parallels between Japan in the early 1990s and China today, there are a number of key differences. First, Japan was already an advanced economy in the early 1990s. Today, labor productivity in China is still 40% of what it is in neighbouring South Korea (and 25% of what it is in the US). As productivity in China continues to rise, GDP will increase, even if the number of workers continues to shrink. As Chart 17 shows, China would need to grow by at least 6% per year over the next decade for output-per-worker to converge to South Korean levels by the middle of the century. It is easier to reduce leverage when incomes are growing quickly. Second, while real estate investment in China is still too high for what the country needs, it has been falling as a share of GDP since 2014 (Chart 18). This is not obvious from the monthly fixed asset investment data that investors track because this data counts land purchases as investment. Chart 17China: A Lot Of Catch-Up Potential China: A Lot Of Catch-Up Potential China: A Lot Of Catch-Up Potential Chart 18Chinese Real Estate Construction Peaked Years Ago Chinese Real Estate Construction Peaked Years Ago Chinese Real Estate Construction Peaked Years Ago   Property developers have been buying land and holding on to it in anticipation that it will appreciate in value. This carry trade will end, but the impact on the real economy may be limited if, as is likely, the assets of bankrupt property developers end up being shuffled into quasi state-owned entities, allowing existing housing projects to continue. After all, if the goal of the government is to make housing more affordable, stopping construction would be precisely the wrong thing to do. Third, China has learned from Japan’s policy mistakes, especially when it comes to the appropriate role for government stimulus in the economy. Japan’s biggest mistake in the 1990s was not that it failed to listen to western experts, but that it listened to them too much. The whole narrative about how Japan could have revived its economy through “structural reforms” never made any sense. Japan’s problem was not one of poor resource allocation; it was one of inadequate demand: The property sector collapsed, leaving a big hole in GDP that needed to be filled. Shutting down “zombie companies” arguably made things worse, not better. Chinese Stimulus On The Way Standard debt sustainability equations imply that paradoxically, a country with a high debt-to-GDP ratio can run a larger primary budget deficit than a country with a low debt-to-GDP ratio, while still achieving a stable debt-to-GDP ratio over time.1  In China’s case, bond yields are well below nominal GDP growth, which gives the government significant fiscal leeway (Chart 19). The Ministry of Finance has expressed its intention to ramp up fiscal spending by increasing local government bond issuance. As of the end of August, local governments had used up only 50% of their annual debt issuance quota, compared to 77% at the same time last year and 93% in 2019. Increased bond issuance will allow local governments to trim their reliance on land sales to finance spending. For its part, the PBOC cut bank reserve requirements in July. In the past, cuts in reserve requirements have been a reliable predictor of faster credit growth (Chart 20). With credit growth back to its 2018 lows, there is little need for further actions to reduce lending. Chart 19Chinese Bond Yields Are Well Below Nominal GDP Growth Chinese Bond Yields Are Well Below Nominal GDP Growth Chinese Bond Yields Are Well Below Nominal GDP Growth Chart 20A Positive Sign For Credit Growth In China A Positive Sign For Credit Growth In China A Positive Sign For Credit Growth In China   Chart 21China Suffers From High Levels Of Inequality 2021 Fourth Quarter Strategy Outlook: TINA’s Siren Song 2021 Fourth Quarter Strategy Outlook: TINA’s Siren Song Rebalancing The Chinese Economy Over the long haul, China will need to encourage consumer spending in order to allow for the continued contraction of the construction industry without depressing overall employment. At 38% of GDP, China’s consumption share is one of the lowest in the world. A weak social safety net has forced Chinese households to maintain high levels of precautionary savings. Rampant inequality has shifted income towards richer households which tend to save more than the poor (Chart 21). Sky-high home prices only amplified the need to save more to buy a flat. All this has depressed overall consumption. For all its faults, President Xi’s “common prosperity” campaign could help redress all three of these problems, ultimately creating a stronger and more balanced economy. In summary, while China does represent a risk to the global economy, the threat at the moment is not severe enough to warrant turning bearish on equities and other risk assets. III. Financial Markets   A. Portfolio Strategy Above-Trend Global Growth Will Support Equities Investors often express skepticism about the benefits of using macroeconomics as an input into their investment process. Charts 22 and 23 should dispel such doubts. The charts show that the business cycle is by far the most important driver of equity returns over medium-term horizons of 6-to-18 months. Chart 22The Business Cycle Drives Cyclical Swings In Stocks (I) The Business Cycle Drives Cyclical Swings In Stocks (I) The Business Cycle Drives Cyclical Swings In Stocks (I) Chart 23AThe Business Cycle Drives Cyclical Swings In Stocks (II) The Business Cycle Drives Cyclical Swings In Stocks (II) The Business Cycle Drives Cyclical Swings In Stocks (II) Chart 23BThe Business Cycle Drives Cyclical Swings In Stocks (II) The Business Cycle Drives Cyclical Swings In Stocks (II) The Business Cycle Drives Cyclical Swings In Stocks (II) For the most part, the change in the value of the stock market is closely correlated with the level of economic growth. As noted earlier, global growth is peaking but at very high levels. This suggests that stock returns will be reasonably strong over the next 12 months, although not as strong as they were over the preceding 12 months. Higher Bond Yields Unlikely To Undermine The Stock Market Treasury yields have moved up since the conclusion of the FOMC meeting on September 22nd. The market narrative of a “hawkish surprise” does not make much sense to us. The yield curve usually flattens after a central bank delivers a hawkish surprise. That is what happened following the June FOMC meeting. This time around, the 2-10 curve has steepened by 13 basis points. Our sense is that the rise in bond yields mainly reflects the lagged effect from the decline in Covid cases, along with the realization that the pandemic-induced rise in inflation may be a bit stickier than previously believed. Equities often suffer some indigestion when bond yields rise. However, history suggests that as long as yields do not increase enough to imperil the economy, stocks usually end up recovering and reaching new highs (Table 2). Table 2As Long As Bond Yields Don’t Rise Into Restrictive Territory, Stocks Will Recover 2021 Fourth Quarter Strategy Outlook: TINA’s Siren Song 2021 Fourth Quarter Strategy Outlook: TINA’s Siren Song The 10-year Treasury yield has already risen halfway to our 2022H1 target of 1.8%. Any further upward move is likely to be more gradual than what has transpired over the past few weeks. As such, we expect the pressure on stocks to diminish. The fact that bearish sentiment in the AAII survey reached a one-year high this week suggests we may be nearing a bottom in stocks. Ultimately, TINA’s siren song will be impossible to resist. What Is The True ERP? While equity valuations are not cheap, they are not at extreme levels either. The MSCI All-Country World Index currently trades at 18-times forward earnings. Unlike in most years, analysts have been revising up earnings estimates this year, both in the US and abroad (Chart 24). This suggests the currently quoted forward PE ratios are not excessively optimistic. Chart 24Analysts Increased Earnings Estimates This Year Analysts Increased Earnings Estimates This Year Analysts Increased Earnings Estimates This Year Chart 25The Global Equity Risk Premium Is Elevated The Global Equity Risk Premium Is Elevated The Global Equity Risk Premium Is Elevated Relative to bonds, stocks still trade at a healthy discount. The forward earnings yield for the MSCI All-Country World index is 640 basis points above the global real bond yield (Chart 25). Even in the US, where valuations are more stretched, the implied equity risk premium (ERP) stands at 580 basis points. Amazingly, this is exactly where the US ERP stood in May 2008. The equity risk premium, as measured by the gap between the earnings yield and the real bond yield, will overstate the magnitude to which stocks are expected to outperform bonds if the PE ratio ends up falling over time. Nevertheless, for stocks to underperform bonds, PE multiples would need to fall by an implausibly large amount. For example, suppose US companies manage to grow real EPS by a modest 2.5% per year over the next decade. The US dividend yield is 1.3%. Assuming dividends rise in line with earnings, investors would receive a real total return of 3.8%. The 10-year TIPS yield is -0.9%. Thus, the US PE multiple would need to shrink by an average of 4.7% (3.8% plus 0.9%) per year over the next 10 years for stocks to underperform bonds on a real total return basis. This would take the US forward PE multiple down to 13. It is not unfathomable that the US PE multiple would fall this much. However, as a baseline scenario, it is too pessimistic. A more plausible baseline forecast would be a terminal PE multiple of 18. That would be consistent with a “true” ERP of 3%.   B. Equity Sectors, Regions, And Styles Favor Cyclicals, Value Stocks, And Small Caps As one might expect, cyclical equity sectors tend to outperform defensives in strong growth environments (Chart 26). The pandemic has exposed a shortage of industrial capacity across a wide range of industries from semiconductors to automobiles. US capital goods shipments have lagged orders for 18 straight months (Chart 27). Industrial stocks stand to benefit from increased capital spending. Materials and energy stocks will gain from strong commodity prices and a weaker US dollar (Chart 28). Chart 26Strong Growth Favors Cyclicals Strong Growth Favors Cyclicals Strong Growth Favors Cyclicals Chart 27US Capital Goods Shipments Have Lagged Orders US Capital Goods Shipments Have Lagged Orders US Capital Goods Shipments Have Lagged Orders   Chart 28Materials And Energy Stocks Will Gain From Strong Commodity Prices And A Weaker US Dollar Materials And Energy Stocks Will Gain From Strong Commodity Prices And A Weaker US Dollar Materials And Energy Stocks Will Gain From Strong Commodity Prices And A Weaker US Dollar Like cyclicals, value stocks do best during periods when global growth is strong and the US dollar is weak (Chart 29). Rising bond yields should help bank shares, which are heavily overrepresented in value indices (Chart 30). In contrast, tech shares, which are overrepresented in growth indices, usually struggle in rising yield environments. Value stocks are also cheap – three standard deviations cheap based on a simple composite valuation measure that compares price-to-earnings, price-to-book, and dividend yields (Chart 31). Chart 29Value Stocks Typically Do Well When The Dollar Is Depreciating Value Stocks Typically Do Well When The Dollar Is Depreciating Value Stocks Typically Do Well When The Dollar Is Depreciating Chart 30Higher Yields Are A Boon For Banks And A Bane For Tech 2021 Fourth Quarter Strategy Outlook: TINA’s Siren Song 2021 Fourth Quarter Strategy Outlook: TINA’s Siren Song   Chart 31Value Is Cheap Value Is Cheap Value Is Cheap Financials and industrials are overrepresented in US small caps indices, while tech and communication services are underrepresented (Table 3). Thus, it is not surprising that small caps usually outperform their large cap peers when growth is strong, the dollar is weakening, and bond yields are rising (Chart 32). Table 3Financials And Industrials Have A Larger Weight In US Small Caps 2021 Fourth Quarter Strategy Outlook: TINA’s Siren Song 2021 Fourth Quarter Strategy Outlook: TINA’s Siren Song Like value stocks, small caps are reasonably priced. The S&P 600 small cap index trades at 16-times forward earnings, compared to 17-times for the S&P 400 mid cap index and 21-times for the S&P 500 (Chart 33). Small cap earnings are also expected to grow by 30% over the next 12 months, easily beating mid caps (19%) and large caps (15%). BCA’s relative valuation indicator suggests that, compared to large caps, small caps are now as cheap as they were in the late 1990s (Chart 34). Chart 32US Small Caps Tend To Outperform When Growth Is Strong, The Dollar Is Weakening, And Bond Yields Are Rising 2021 Fourth Quarter Strategy Outlook: TINA’s Siren Song 2021 Fourth Quarter Strategy Outlook: TINA’s Siren Song   Chart 33US Small Caps Are Not Expensive US Small Caps Are Not Expensive US Small Caps Are Not Expensive Chart 34US Small Caps Are Attractive Relative To Large Caps US Small Caps Are Attractive Relative To Large Caps US Small Caps Are Attractive Relative To Large Caps Regional Equity Allocation: Better Prospects Outside The US Stock markets outside the US have more of a cyclical/value tilt (Table 4). Hence, they tend to fare best when global growth is strong and the dollar is weakening (Chart 35). Table 4Cyclicals Are Overrepresented Outside The US 2021 Fourth Quarter Strategy Outlook: TINA’s Siren Song 2021 Fourth Quarter Strategy Outlook: TINA’s Siren Song Chart 35Strong Growth And A Weaker Dollar Is Good For Non-US Stocks 2021 Fourth Quarter Strategy Outlook: TINA’s Siren Song 2021 Fourth Quarter Strategy Outlook: TINA’s Siren Song Probable tax changes could hurt the relative performance of US stocks. BCA’s geopolitical strategists expect the Democrats to raise the corporate tax rate from 21% to about 26%. Additional tax hikes are likely to apply to overseas earnings, something that will disproportionately affect tech companies. Non-US stocks are reasonably priced, trading at a forward PE ratio of 15. EM equities are especially cheap. They currently trade at a forward PE ratio of 13 (Chart 36). The EM discount to the global index is as large now as it was during the late 1990s. Chart 36AEM Equities Are Trading At A Large Discount (I) 2021 Fourth Quarter Strategy Outlook: TINA’s Siren Song 2021 Fourth Quarter Strategy Outlook: TINA’s Siren Song Chart 36BEM Equities Are Trading At A Large Discount (II) 2021 Fourth Quarter Strategy Outlook: TINA’s Siren Song 2021 Fourth Quarter Strategy Outlook: TINA’s Siren Song After a blistering period of rapid earnings growth during the 2000s, EM EPS has been trending sideways during the past decade (Chart 37). However, the combination of increased global capital spending and rising commodity prices should buoy EM profits in the years ahead. Improved performance from EM banks should also help. Chinese banks are trading at 4.2-times forward earnings, 0.5-times book, and sport a dividend yield of over 6% (Chart 38). Such valuations discount too much bad news. Chart 37AEM Earnings Have Moved Sideways Since 2011 After Blazing Higher Over The Preceding Decade(I) 2021 Fourth Quarter Strategy Outlook: TINA’s Siren Song 2021 Fourth Quarter Strategy Outlook: TINA’s Siren Song Chart 37BEM Earnings Have Moved Sideways Since 2011 After Blazing Higher Over The Preceding Decade (II) 2021 Fourth Quarter Strategy Outlook: TINA’s Siren Song 2021 Fourth Quarter Strategy Outlook: TINA’s Siren Song   Chart 38Chinese Banks: A Lot Of Bad News Is Discounted Chinese Banks: A Lot Of Bad News Is Discounted Chinese Banks: A Lot Of Bad News Is Discounted Chart 39Chinese Tech Stocks Underperformed Their Global Peers This Year Chinese Tech Stocks Underperformed Their Global Peers This Year Chinese Tech Stocks Underperformed Their Global Peers This Year Outlook For Chinese Tech Stocks The regulatory crackdown on Chinese tech companies has weighed on the sector. Chinese tech stocks have underperformed their global tech peers by 46% since February (Chart 39). Chinese tech is 44% of the China investable index and 15% of the MSCI EM index. Thus, the outlook for Chinese stocks is relevant not just for China-focused investors, but for EM investors more broadly (especially those who invest in index products). The current crackdown bears some resemblance to the one in 2018, which saw Tencent lose $20 billion in market capitalization in a single day. Like other Chinese tech names, Tencent shares quickly recovered from that incident. Contrary to popular perception, the Chinese government has not launched an indiscriminate attack on tech companies. If anything, heightened geopolitical tensions have made it more important than ever for China to buttress its tech sector. Rather, what the government has done is restrain companies that it either perceives as working against the national interest (i.e., addictive video game makers and expensive after-school tutoring companies) or that have too much sway over the public. Private tech companies in sectors such as semiconductors or clean energy continue to receive government support. A plausible outcome is that China’s leading consumer-oriented internet companies will go out of their way to pledge allegiance to the Communist Party. If that were to happen, the Chinese government may allow them to operate normally, cognizant of the fact that it is easier to monitor a few large internet companies than many small ones. While such an outcome is far from assured, current valuations offer enough cushion to prospective investors. As we go to press, Alibaba is trading at 15.9-times 2021 earnings, Baidu is trading at 17.1-times earnings, and Tencent is trading at 27.1-times earnings. In comparison, the NASDAQ Composite trades at 31.9-times 2021 earnings.   C. Fixed Income Why Are Bond Yields So Low Even Though Inflation Is So High? While global bond yields have moved higher in recent days, they remain well below pre-pandemic levels. Investors are understandably puzzled about how today’s high inflation rates can coexist with such low bond yields. Two explanations stand out: First, despite the recent uptick in inflation expectations, investors still believe inflation will come down and stay down (Chart 40). In fact, the 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rate is below the Fed’s comfort zone, suggesting that investors expect inflation to ultimately undershoot the Fed’s target. Chart 40AInvestors Expect Inflation To Fall Rapidly From Current Levels (I) 2021 Fourth Quarter Strategy Outlook: TINA’s Siren Song 2021 Fourth Quarter Strategy Outlook: TINA’s Siren Song Chart 40BInvestors Expect Inflation To Fall Rapidly From Current Levels (II) Investors Expect Inflation To Fall Rapidly From Current Levels Investors Expect Inflation To Fall Rapidly From Current Levels Chart 41The Market Thinks The Fed Will Raise Rates Only To 2% The Market Thinks The Fed Will Raise Rates Only To 2% The Market Thinks The Fed Will Raise Rates Only To 2% Second, and related to the point above, investors believe that the neutral rate of interest is very low. According to the New York Fed’s survey of market participants, investors think that the Fed will not be able to raise rates above 2% during the forthcoming tightening cycle (Chart 41). This is even lower than the terminal rate of 2.5% that the Fed foresees. When the Federal Reserve first introduced the dot plot back in 2012, it believed the neutral rate was 4.25%. If the neutral rate really is this low, then monetary policy is not as hyperstimulative as is often asserted. In that case, a 10-year yield of 1.5% would be entirely appropriate given that it will take a few years for rates just to reach 2%. Indeed, an even lower yield could be justified on the grounds that there is a high probability that the economy will be hit by an adverse shock over the next decade, requiring a return to zero rates and more QE. Maintain Below-Benchmark Duration Our view is that the neutral rate is higher than most market participants believe. The end of the household deleveraging cycle in the US, structurally looser fiscal policy, and the exodus of well-paid baby boomers from the labor market will all deplete national savings, pushing up the neutral rate of interest in the process. If a central bank underestimates the neutral rate, it is liable to keep interest rates too low for too long. This could cause inflation to rise more than anticipated, putting further upward pressure on bond yields. It will take some time for the market’s view to converge to our view (provided we are correct, of course!). Investors have bought into the secular stagnation thesis hook, line, and sinker. Thus, they will require plenty of evidence that the Fed can raise rates without strangling the economy. We expect the US 10-year yield to move to 1.8% by early next year, warranting a moderately below-benchmark duration stance. US Treasuries have a higher beta than most other government bond markets (Chart 42). Treasury yields tend to rise more when global bond yields are moving higher and vice versa. Given our expectation that global growth will remain solidly above trend over the next 12 months, fixed-income investors should underweight high-beta bond markets such as the US and Canada, while overweighting the euro area and Japan. Chart 42US Treasuries Have A Higher Beta Than Most Other Government Bond Markets US Treasuries Have A Higher Beta Than Most Other Government Bond Markets US Treasuries Have A Higher Beta Than Most Other Government Bond Markets Chart 43High-Yield Spreads Are Pricing In A Default Rate Of More Than 3% High-Yield Spreads Are Pricing In A Default Rate Of More Than 3% High-Yield Spreads Are Pricing In A Default Rate Of More Than 3% Corporate Bonds: Favor High Yield Over Investment Grade BCA’s bond strategists see more upside for high-yield bonds than for investment grade. While high-yield spreads are quite tight, they are still pricing in a default rate of 3.15% (Chart 43). This is more than their fair-value default estimate of 2.3%-to-2.8%. It is also above the year-to-date realized default rate of 1.8%. Our bond team also sees USD-denominated EM corporate bonds as being attractively priced relative to domestic US investment-grade corporate bonds with the same duration and credit rating.   D. Currencies And Commodities Fade Recent Dollar Strength The US dollar is a countercyclical currency, meaning that it tends to move in the opposite direction of the global business cycle (Chart 44). The US dollar has strengthened in recent weeks, spurred on by a more cautious tone to markets (the VIX is around 22, up from 16 in late August). As risk sentiment improves, the dollar will weaken. The composition of global growth also matters. Growth momentum is rotating from the US to the rest of the world. The dollar usually struggles when this happens (Chart 45). Chart 44The Dollar Is A Countercyclical Currency The Dollar Is A Countercyclical Currency The Dollar Is A Countercyclical Currency Chart 45Growth Momentum Is Shifting Outside The US, Which Should Weigh On The Dollar Growth Momentum Is Shifting Outside The US, Which Should Weigh On The Dollar Growth Momentum Is Shifting Outside The US, Which Should Weigh On The Dollar Despite the uptick in US yields, short-term real rate differentials are heavily skewed against the dollar (Chart 46). The US trade deficit has surged over the past 16 months (Chart 47). Equity inflows have been financing the trade deficit, but these could tail off if US stocks start to lag their overseas peers. Chart 46Short-Term Real Rates Remain Skewed Against The Dollar Short-Term Real Rates Remain Skewed Against The Dollar Short-Term Real Rates Remain Skewed Against The Dollar Chart 47Widening Trade Deficit Is Dollar Bearish Widening Trade Deficit Is Dollar Bearish Widening Trade Deficit Is Dollar Bearish The US dollar remains pricey relative to its Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) measure of fair value (Chart 48). Speculators are also net long the dollar, making the dollar vulnerable to a positioning reversal (Chart 49). Chart 48The Dollar Is Expensive Based On PPP The Dollar Is Expensive Based On PPP The Dollar Is Expensive Based On PPP Chart 49Long Dollar Is Becoming A Crowded Trade 2021 Fourth Quarter Strategy Outlook: TINA’s Siren Song 2021 Fourth Quarter Strategy Outlook: TINA’s Siren Song Buy The Loonie Our favorite developed market currency going into the fourth quarter is the Canadian dollar. Unlike in most other major economies, Canadian growth has yet to peak. The Bank of Canada has been ahead of most other central banks in winding down QE and laying the groundwork for rate hikes. Chart 50Oil Prices To Remain Firm Oil Prices To Remain Firm Oil Prices To Remain Firm Firm oil prices should also help the loonie. One can be bullish on oil without expecting oil prices to rise very much. The oil curve is heavily backwardated (Chart 50). It suggests that the price of Brent will fall from $79 to $67 per barrel between now and the end of 2023. BCA’s commodity strategists expect the price of Brent crude to average $75 and $80 per barrel in 2022 and 2023, respectively, with WTI trading $2-$4/bbl lower. The RMB Will Hold Its Ground We doubt that China will weaken the RMB in order to stimulate the economy. China’s export sector is already operating at peak capacity. A weaker currency would do little to boost output. Geopolitical concerns will also keep the yuan from depreciating. The trade relationship between China and the US remains frosty. A weaker yuan would only make matters worse. Perhaps more importantly, China wants the RMB to be a global reserve currency. Weakening the RMB would run counter to that goal. A New Supercycle In Metals? China consumes over half the world’s industrial metals. Thus, fluctuations in the Chinese economy tend to drive metals prices. There is a very strong correlation between the Chinese credit impulse and industrial metals prices (Chart 51). If Chinese credit growth picks up over the coming months, this should support metals. Aside from iron ore, it is quite striking that most metals prices have remained firm this year even as China has cut back imports (Chart 52). Copper prices are up 45% year-over-year despite the fact that Chinese imports of copper are down 40% during this period. Chart 51A Pickup In Chinese Credit Will Bode Well For Metals 2021 Fourth Quarter Strategy Outlook: TINA’s Siren Song 2021 Fourth Quarter Strategy Outlook: TINA’s Siren Song Chart 52China Cut Back On Imports Of Commodities This Year China Cut Back On Imports Of Commodities This Year China Cut Back On Imports Of Commodities This Year     As in the early 2000s, the combination of a multi-year period of underinvestment in new mining capacity and new sources of demand could set the stage for an extended bull market in the metals complex. The shift to electric vehicles will boost demand for many metals. The typical electric vehicle uses four times as much copper as a typical gasoline-powered vehicle. Many pundits argue that because Chinese growth is slowing, China will not need as much commodities as in the past. However, this argument ignores the fact that China is slowing from a very high base. As Chart 53 shows, China consumes five times as much industrial metals as it did in the 2000s. In absolute volume terms, China’s incremental annual increase in metal consumption is twice what it was in the 2000s. Thus, Chinese demand is likely to support the commodity market for years to come. Gold Facing Crosswinds Gold prices tend to correlate closely with real interest rates (Chart 54). This is not surprising since the real yield can be regarded as the “opportunity cost” of holding a yield-less asset such as gold. Chart 53Chinese Consumption Of Commodities Ballooned Over The Past Three Decades Chinese Consumption Of Commodities Ballooned Over The Past Three Decades Chinese Consumption Of Commodities Ballooned Over The Past Three Decades Chart 54Gold Prices Tend To Correlate Closely With Real Interest Rates Gold Prices Tend To Correlate Closely With Real Interest Rates Gold Prices Tend To Correlate Closely With Real Interest Rates What is somewhat surprising is that gold prices have dipped more than one would have expected based on the evolution of real yields. The US 10-year TIPS yield is only slightly higher than where it was in early August 2020, when the price of gold reached $2,067 per ounce. Although it is difficult to be certain, the shift in investor interest from gold to cryptos has probably depressed gold prices. Both gold and cryptos are seen as “fiat money hedges”. Our expectation is that tighter regulation will imperil the cryptocurrency market, causing some funds to flow back into gold. Nevertheless, with real yields likely to edge higher over the coming years, the upside for gold prices is limited.   Peter Berezin Chief Global Strategist pberezin@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1  The steady-state debt-to-GDP ratio can be expressed as p/(r-g), where r is the interest rate, g is trend GDP growth, and p is the primary (i.e., non-interest) budget balance. Thus, for example, if the government wanted to achieve a stable debt-to-GDP ratio of 50% and r-g is -2%, it would need to run a primary budget deficit of 0.5*0.02=1% of GDP. However, if the government targeted a stable debt-to-GDP ratio of 200%, it could run a primary budget deficit of 2*0.02=4% of GDP. See Box 1 in our February 22, 2019 report for a derivation of this debt sustainability equation. Global Investment Strategy View Matrix 2021 Fourth Quarter Strategy Outlook: TINA’s Siren Song 2021 Fourth Quarter Strategy Outlook: TINA’s Siren Song Special Trade Recommendations 2021 Fourth Quarter Strategy Outlook: TINA’s Siren Song 2021 Fourth Quarter Strategy Outlook: TINA’s Siren Song Current MacroQuant Model Scores 2021 Fourth Quarter Strategy Outlook: TINA’s Siren Song 2021 Fourth Quarter Strategy Outlook: TINA’s Siren Song

Highlights Recommended Allocation Quarterly Portfolio Outlook: Stay Bullish But Verify Quarterly Portfolio Outlook: Stay Bullish But Verify  The global economy will continue to grow at an above-trend rate over the next 12 months and central banks will remove accommodation only slowly.But the second year of a bull market is often tricky: Growth slows after its initial rebound, and monetary policy starts to be tightened, amid rising inflation.Equities are likely to outperform bonds over the next 12 months, driven by improving earnings, but at a slower pace than over the past year and with higher volatility.We continue to recommend only a cautiously optimistic stance on equities, with an overweight in US equities, and underweight in Europe. Our sector overweights are a mix of cyclicals (Industrials), plays on higher rates (Financials), and selective defensives (Health Care).China is likely to announce a stimulus to cushion the impact from Evergrande, which might push up oversold Chinese stocks. We close our underweight on Chinese equities, but raise them only to neutral as the real estate sector looks vulnerable. That could be bad news for commodities and the rest of Emerging Markets, which we cut to underweight.The Fed is likely to announce tapering this quarter, and raise rates in December 2022. This is likely to push up 10-year Treasury yields to 2-2.25% by then, and so we remain underweight duration.Investment-grade credit is expensive, but B-rated high-yield bonds still look attractive as defaults continue to decline. EM corporate debt is riskier post-Evergrande, but higher-rated sovereign dollar debt offers a good spread pickup.OverviewThe second year of a bull market is often tricky. Growth starts to slow after its initial rebound, and central banks move towards tightening policy. This does not signal the end of the bull market, but equity returns in Year 2 are typically lacklustre (Table 1).That is exactly the situation markets face now. Growth has been surprising on the downside, and inflation on the upside over the past few months (Chart 1). Table 1Year 2 Of Bull Markets Often Has Only Weak Returns Quarterly Portfolio Outlook: Stay Bullish But Verify Quarterly Portfolio Outlook: Stay Bullish But Verify   Chart 1Growth Surprising On The Downside, Inflation On The Upside Growth Surprising On The Downside, Inflation On The Upside Growth Surprising On The Downside, Inflation On The Upside  Our basic investment stance remains that the global economy will continue to grow at an above-trend rate over the next 12 months (as the consensus forecasts – Chart 2), and that central banks will remove accommodation only slowly. We can see no signs of a recession on the 18-to-24-month horizon and, as Chart 3 shows, equities almost always outperform bonds except during and in the run-up to recessions. Chart 2But Growth Will Continue To Be Above Trend But Growth Will Continue To Be Above Trend But Growth Will Continue To Be Above Trend   Chart 3Equities Outpeform Bonds Except Around Recessions Equities Outpeform Bonds Except Around Recessions Equities Outpeform Bonds Except Around Recessions  This justifies a moderately pro-risk stance, with overweights in equities and (selectively) credit, and a big underweight in government bonds. But the risks to this sanguine view are rising, and the next few months could be choppy. Stay bullish, but keep a close eye on what could go wrong.The slowdown in growth is largely because manufacturing boomed last year and now simply the pace of growth is decelerating. Manufacturing PMIs are (mostly) still above 50, but have fallen from their peaks (Chart 4). Supply-chain bottlenecks have also dented production. And consumers will spend less on durables and more on services, as lockdowns are eased.We have emphasized that the $2.5 trillion of excess savings in the US will boost spending over coming quarters. But enhanced unemployment benefits have now ended and most of the savings left are with richer households who have a lower propensity to spend (see page 9 for more on this). Covid also remains a risk: Cases are stickily high in some countries and consumers are still not 100% confident about going out to dine and for entertainment (Chart 5). Chart 4PMIs Falling But Mostly Still Above 50 PMIs Falling But Mostly Still Above 50 PMIs Falling But Mostly Still Above 50   Chart 5Consumers Still A Bit Wary About Going Out Consumers Still A Bit Wary About Going Out Consumers Still A Bit Wary About Going Out  China is an increasing risk to growth. Its economy has been slowing all year as a result of monetary tightening (Chart 6) and this may be exacerbated by the fallout from Evergrande. The Chinese authorities are likely to announce a stimulus package to offset the slowdown (which is why we are neutralizing our underweight on Chinese equities). But the stimulus will probably be only moderate and targeted, and they will not allow a renewed boom in real estate (as we explain on page 11), which has been a significant driver of Chinese growth in recent years (Chart 7). This could hurt the economies of Emerging Markets and other commodity producers, which depend on Chinese demand. Chart 6China Has Been Slowing All Year China Has Been Slowing All Year China Has Been Slowing All Year   Chart 7Real Estate Has Been A Big Driver Of Chinese Growth Real Estate Has Been A Big Driver Of Chinese Growth Real Estate Has Been A Big Driver Of Chinese Growth  At the same time that growth is slowing, inflation is proving a little stickier and broader-based than was expected. Measures of underlying inflation pressure, such as trimmed-mean CPIs, suggest that it is no longer only pandemic-related prices that are rising in the US and some other countries (Chart 8). Rising shipping charges (container rates are up 228% this year) are pushing up the cost of imported goods. And the first signs are emerging that labor shortages, especially in restaurants and shops, are causing wage rises (Chart 9). Chart 8Inflation Is Broadening Out In Some Countries Inflation Is Broadening Out In Some Countries Inflation Is Broadening Out In Some Countries   Chart 9The First Signs Of Wage Rises? The First Signs Of Wage Rises? The First Signs Of Wage Rises?  Unsurprisingly, then, central banks are starting to wind down their asset purchases and even raise rates. Norges Bank was the first developed central bank to hike this cycle in September. New Zealand may follow in Q4. And the Fed has pretty clearly signaled that it, too, will announce tapering before year-end. And this is not to mention Emerging Market central banks, many of which have had to raise rates sharply in the face of soaring inflation (Chart 10).A shrinking of excess liquidity is another common phenomenon of the second stage of expansions, as monetary policy starts to be tightened and liquidity is directed more towards the real economy and less towards speculation. This, too, often caps the upside for risk assets, though it doesn’t usually cause them to collapse (Chart 11). Chart 10EM Central Banks Raising Rates Sharply EM Central Banks Raising Rates Sharply EM Central Banks Raising Rates Sharply   Chart 11Excess Liquidity Is Drying Up Excess Liquidity Is Drying Up Excess Liquidity Is Drying Up   Table 2Who Will Raise Rates When? Quarterly Portfolio Outlook: Stay Bullish But Verify Quarterly Portfolio Outlook: Stay Bullish But Verify  While there are many factors that might cause market jitters over the coming months, the underlying picture is that robust growth is likely to continue and central banks will remain cautious about tightening too quickly. Excess savings will propel consumption, companies will need to increase capex to fulfill that demand, and the impact of fiscal stimulus is still coming through (Chart 12). The big central banks won’t raise rates for some time: The Fed perhaps in late-2022, but the ECB and the Bank of Japan not over the forecast horizon (Table 2). Decent growth and easy policy remains a positive backdrop for risk assets over the 12-month horizon. Chart 12Fiscal Stimulus Is Still Coming Through Quarterly Portfolio Outlook: Stay Bullish But Verify Quarterly Portfolio Outlook: Stay Bullish But Verify   Garry Evans, Senior Vice PresidentChief Global Asset Allocation Strategistgarry@bcaresearch.comWhat Our Clients Are AskingHow Worried Should We Be About Inflation?Since the beginning of the year, we have argued that the current period of high inflation will be transitory. The market has adopted this view, with 5-year/5-year forward inflation expectations remaining at 2.2%. Chart 13Growing Signs That Inflation Might Not Be Transitory Growing Signs That Inflation Might Not Be Transitory Growing Signs That Inflation Might Not Be Transitory  However, we have grown worried about the possibility that inflation might be stickier at a higher level than we initially expected. Specifically, while it is true that prices of supply-constrained items – such as used cars – have started to ease, there are signs that higher inflation has began to broaden. Core CPI excluding pandemic-related items and cars has started to pick up, with its 6-month rate of change reaching its highest level in more than a decade (Chart 13, panel 1). Meanwhile 42% of the PCE basket grew at an annual rate of more than 5% in July, compared to just 24% in March.Currently, we are watching the behavior of prices in the housing and labor markets to check if our worries are justified. We pay particular attention to these sectors because price pressures in housing and labor can be self-sustaining, giving rise to inflationary spirals if left unchecked.What is happening to inflation in these areas? So far, the signals are mixed. Even though wage growth remains within the historical norm for now, any further advance in wages will take us to a decade high (Chart 13, panel 2). Likewise, annual growth of shelter cost remains low, though its 6-month change suggests that it will soon begin to rise to its pre-pandemic levels (Chart 13,  panel 3).Our base case continues to be that high inflation is transitory. That being said, we have positioned our portfolio to hedge for the risk that this view is wrong. We have given an overweight to real estate in our alternatives portfolio and within equities. Will Consumers Really Spend All Those Savings? Chart 14Low-Income Households Did Not Save Much Quarterly Portfolio Outlook: Stay Bullish But Verify Quarterly Portfolio Outlook: Stay Bullish But Verify  Generous unemployment benefits and the year-long lockdown have pushed up US excess savings over the past 18 months to an estimated $2.5 trillion, and the household savings ratio to 9.6% (Chart 14, panel 1). The consensus is that these savings will bolster consumer spending and support broad economic growth over the coming quarters. However, this expectation is based on the assumption that all consumers have accumulated savings, whereas the reality is a bit different.Survey results from the US Census Bureau show that households earning under $75,000, which have the highest propensity to consume, have almost entirely spent their first stimulus checks and three-quarters of their second and third checks on expenses and paying off debt. Even for those earning over $75,000, only 50% of those stimulus receipts have gone into savings (Chart 14, panel 2).With the labor market still not back to full employment (albeit mostly because of labor supply issues), enhanced unemployment benefits coming to an end, fears of further Covid variants and lockdowns, and higher inflation, could precautionary savings rise? The years following the Global Financial Crisis suggest that they might: The savings rate rose from 3% at the onset of the GFC to 8% five years after it (Chart 14, panel 3). A similar attitude among consumers this time could put a dent in US growth, given that consumption makes up about 70% of GDP.This raises the risk that consumption might slow over the coming quarters. In our latest Monthly Portfolio Outlook, we highlighted that consumption is shifting away from goods towards services. While value added from manufacturing is only 11% of GDP, the effect on markets might be bigger, since goods producers make up about 40% of US market cap. What Is The Risk Of A Big Upside Surprise In US Employment?The recovery of the labor market remains at the center of investors’ and Fed officials’ attention. The reluctance to return to the workforce mostly reflects overly generous unemployment benefits and fears of getting infected. With the fourth wave of the pandemic showing signs of cresting and benefits expiring, the consensus is that the unemployment gap will soon shrink. We would, however, question whether the labor market can surprise significantly to the upside and recover faster than the market currently implies. A swift recovery would push up bond yields and bring forward the Fed’s liftoff date, which could hurt the outlook for risk assets. Chart 15The Labor Market Could Surprise To The Upside The Labor Market Could Surprise To The Upside The Labor Market Could Surprise To The Upside  The number of men not in the labor force but who want a job has fallen back to the pre-pandemic level (Chart 15, panel 1). The sharp decline in this indicator in August coincided with the expiration of unemployment benefits in some Republican states. The overall Federal pandemic benefits program expired in early September. This should push even more people to return to the workforce (Chart 15, panel 2).However, there are still close to 3.5 million women (almost half a million above the pre-pandemic level) who are not in the labor force but would like a job: Some of these are keen to return to the workplace once they deem it safe for their children to get vaccinated and return to school. With governments eager to speed up vaccination rollouts and Pfizer’s recent announcement showing positive results of its Covid vaccine in trials on children under the age of 12, more women should return to the workforce.It is also worth noting that some of the most hard-hit sectors – such as leisure & hospitality – have already recovered over 80% of the jobs lost since February 2020. For sectors yet to reach such a high recovery rate, for example education & health services, returning workers have room to choose from jobs. For every job lost since the onset of the pandemic, there are now 2.1 job openings (Chart 15, panel 3). What Is The Risk Of Contagion From Evergrande?In September, Chinese property developer Evergrande failed to make an interest payment on an overseas bond issue. What would be the consequences for the Chinese and global economy if it went bankrupt? Chart 16Chinese Companies Are Highly Indebted Chinese Companies Are Highly Indebted Chinese Companies Are Highly Indebted  Evergrande is big. Its debts are $306 billion, 2% of Chinese GDP. It has yet to build 1 million units that have already been paid for. It employs 200,000 people. And the issue is bigger. For years, investors have worried about China’s corporate debt, which is 160% of GDP (Chart 16). Chinese companies have issued almost $1 trillion of bonds in foreign currencies. The property market plays an outsized role in the economy: It comprises 66% of household wealth (versus 24% in the US); real estate and related industries amount to some 30% of GDP.The government will likely rescue Evergrande. But it faces a dilemma: For years it has been trying to reduce bad debt and stabilize house prices. It cannot bail out Evergrande’s creditors without undermining those efforts.It will probably aid apartment buyers, who have paid upfront for Evergrande properties, and make arrangements for domestic banks to swap their debt for equity or land holdings. But it won’t bail out equity owners or foreign bond holders. It will also not ease real-estate market restrictions, such as the “three red line” rules on property companies’ leverage. Such a package could damage Chinese individuals’ confidence in property, and foreigners willingness to provide capital to the industry.China may also announce a stimulus package to bolster the economy. But local governments are dependent on land sales for around a third of their income (Chart 17). If the property market is weak, the transmission mechanism of stimulus may be damaged. Finally, Chinese housing sales are highly correlated to global commodities prices, which may fall as a result (Chart 18). Chart 17Local Governments Depend On Land Sales Local Governments Depend On Land Sales Local Governments Depend On Land Sales   Chart 18A Slowdown In Housing Would Hurt Commodities A Slowdown In Housing Would Hurt Commodities A Slowdown In Housing Would Hurt Commodities  BCA Research’s EM and China strategists do not see Evergrande as  likely to trigger a systemic crisis or crash, but it will reinforce the chronic credit tightening that has been underway in China.1Is It Time To Overweight Japanese Equities?Japanese equities staged a strong rally in the third quarter, outperforming the MSCI global equity index by about 5% in US dollar total return terms. On an absolute basis, the MSCI Japan price index in USD is near its 1989 historical high, even though the local-currency index is still more than 30% below its 1989 all-time high.We have been underweight Japanese equities in our global equity portfolio since July 2019, mainly due to unfavorable structural forces such as the aging population and chronic deflationary pressures. Japanese equities have tended to stage counter-trend bounces, some of which were quite significant in magnitude (Chart 19, panel 1). We therefore recommend clients move to the sidelines to avoid the potentially short-lived but sharp upside risk, supported by the following two considerations:First, foreign investors play a significant role in the Japanese equity market. The fact that MSCI Japan in USD terms is near its all-time high could trigger more foreign buying, given the positive correlation between the price index and price momentum (Chart 19, panels 3 and 5).Second, Japanese equities are among the cheapest globally, trading at a large discount to the global index. Currently, the discount is larger than its 3-year moving average, making it risky to underweight Japan.So why not overweight Japanese equities?The Japanese equity index is dominated by Industrials. It should benefit from our favorable view on this sector. However, Japan’s machinery and machine tool industries have heavy reliance on Asia, especially China. Orders from China have already rolled over with the Chinese PMI now in contractionary territory. In the meantime, the rolling-over of the US and European PMIs also does not bode well for orders from the other two large regions (Chart 20). Chart 19Upgrade Japanese Equities To Neutral Upgrade Japanese Equities To Neutral Upgrade Japanese Equities To Neutral   Chart 20Japan's Heavy External Reliance Japan's Heavy External Reliance Japan's Heavy External Reliance  We expect that China will eventually inject stimulus into its economy in a measured fashion such that the negative spillover to Japan and Europe may be limited. That’s why we are also taking profit in our underweight position on China after the recent sharp selloff in the offshore Chinese equity index (see page 18).Global EconomyOverview: The developed world continues to see strong growth, albeit at a slower pace than nine months ago. This is causing a more persistent – and more broad-based – rise in inflation, especially in the US, than was previously expected. However, the Fed is unlikely to raise rates for at least another 12 months, and the ECB and BOJ not on the forecast horizon. The biggest risk to global economic growth is the slowdown in China and now the troubles at Evergrande. We assume that the Chinese government will launch a stimulus to cushion the slowdown, but it may be less effective than the market expects. Chart 21US Growth Has Slowed But Remains Above Trend US Growth Has Slowed But Remains Above Trend US Growth Has Slowed But Remains Above Trend  US: Growth has been slowing relative to expectations all year (Chart 21, panel 1). Nonetheless, it is still well above trend. The September Markit PMIs remained high at 60.5 for manufacturing and 54.4 for services. Although consumer confidence has fallen back a little because of the third Covid wave in some southern states, retail sales in August were still up 15% year-on-year and 1.8% (ex autos) month-on-month. Growth seems set to remain above trend, as consumers spend their $2.5 trillion of excess savings, companies increase capex to ease supply-chain bottlenecks, and the government rolls out more fiscal spending. The IMF forecasts 4.9% real GDP growth in 2022, after 7.0% this year. Euro Area growth also remains robust, with the manufacturing and services PMIs at 58.7 and 56.3 respectively in September. Vaccination levels have risen (more quickly than in the US) and, as a consequence, lockdowns and international travel restrictions have been largely eased. Inflation pressures remain more restrained than in the US, with core CPI at only 1.6% (mainly pushed up by pandemic-related shortages) and the trimmed-mean CPI barely above zero. The ECB persuaded the market that its tapering, announced in September, is very dovish, and it is certainly true that – with its new 2% symmetrical inflation target – the ECB is not set to raise rates any time soon. The IMF’s forecasts are for 4.6% real GDP growth this year, and 4.3% next.Japan has generally lagged the recovery in the rest of the world, due to its structural headwinds, but it is now seeing some more robust data. Industrial production is up 12% year-on-year and exports 26%, although the PMIs still remain somewhat depressed at 51.2 for manufacturing and 47.4 for services in September. Japan’s initial slow vaccine rollout has recently accelerated and the percent of double-vaccinated adults now exceeds the US. This suggests that sluggish consumption (with retail sales up only 2% year-on-year) might start to recover. Markets got excited about the prospects for fiscal stimulus ahead of the general election, which has to be held by the end of November. We do not see new LDP leader Fumio Kishida, who is likely to win that election, making any significant change in policy. Chart 22China Is The One Market Where Growth Is Slowing Sharply China Is The One Market Where Growth Is Slowing Sharply China Is The One Market Where Growth Is Slowing Sharply  Emerging Markets: China’s slowdown – and the government’s possible reaction to it with a large stimulus – dominate the outlook for Emerging Markets. Both China’s manufacturing and services PMIs are now below 50 (Chart 22, panel 3), and retail sales, industrial production and fixed-asset investment all surprised sharply on the downside last month. We expect an easing of policy, but only a moderate one. Elsewhere in Emerging Markets, central banks continue to struggle with the puzzle of whether they need to raise rates (as Russia, Brazil and Mexico have done) in the face of rising inflation and falling currencies, despite continuing underlying weakness in their economies. Interest Rates: US inflation looks stickier than believed three months ago, with a broadening of inflation away from just pandemic-affected items (see “How Worried Should We Be About Inflation?" on page 8). But inflation expectations are still well under control (Chart 22, panel 4) and so the Fed is likely to begin tapering only in December and not raise rates until end-2022. This will most likely cause a moderate rise in long-term rates with the 10-year US Treasury yield rising to 1.7% by year-end and 2-2.25% by the time of the first Fed rate hike. Inflation elsewhere in developed economies looks more subdued (except in the UK and Canada), and so long-term rates are likely to rise somewhat more slowly there.Global Equities Chart 23Watch Earning Revisions Watch Earning Revisions Watch Earning Revisions  Global equities ended the quarter more or less flat after a very strong performance in the first eight months of the year and a volatile September. Earnings growth continued its strong trend from the first half, powered by margin improvement in both the DM and EM universes. Consequently, the forward PE multiple contracted further (Chart 23).Going forward, despite worries about the potential spillover to the global economy and global financial markets from China’s Evergrande fiasco, the “earnings-driven” theme will likely continue. BCA’s global earnings model points to over 40% earnings growth for the next 12 months, and all sectors have positive forward earnings estimates. However, net revisions by analysts seem to be cresting as the global manufacturing PMI has rolled over from a very high level. Even though valuation is less stretched than at the beginning of the year, equities are still expensive by historical standards. In addition, central banks are preparing for an eventual withdrawal of their massive liquidity injections and there is still plenty of uncertainty concerning Covid variants. GAA has been cautiously optimistic so far this year with overweights on equities and cash relative to bonds, and overweight US equities relative to Japan, Europe and China. These positions have panned out well. After adjustments made in April and July, our sector portfolio has been well positioned by overweighting Industrials, Financials, Real Estate and Healthcare, underweighting Materials, Utilities and Consumer Staples, and being neutral on Tech, Consumer Discretionary and Communication Services. We have not made any changes to our sector recommendations this quarter.In accordance with our long-held belief of “taking risk where risk will likely be rewarded the most,” we make the following adjustments to our country allocations: close the underweights in China and Japan and the overweight in the UK; and initiate one new position: Underweight EM-ex-China. Overall, our country portfolio has a defensive tilt with an overweight in the US (defensive) and underweights in the euro area and EM-ex China (cyclical), while being neutral on the UK, Japan, Australia and Canada.  Country Allocation: Upgrade MSCI China And Japan, Downgrade UK And EM-ex-China. We have been underweight MSCI China and overweight the UK since April 2021, and underweight Japan since July 2019.The China underweight generated outperformance of 23% and the UK overweight -2%, while the Japanese position produced an outperformance of 7%. Chart 24Favor China vs The Rest of The EM Favor China vs The Rest of The EM Favor China vs The Rest of The EM  While the fate of Evergrande Group, China’s second largest property developer, remains uncertain, our view is that the government will come up with a restructuring plan to minimize damaging ripple effects on the Chinese economy. This view is supported by the behavior of the domestic A-share market and also the CNY/USD, which has diverged from the offshore equity market (Chart 24, Panel 5).BCA Research’s house view is that China will now stimulate its economy, but only at a measured pace. This means that further underperformance of MSCI China is likely to be limited relative to the global benchmark, as shown in Chart 24, panel 1. The ongoing deleveraging in the Chinese real estate sector, however, means that activity in the sector will probably slow further, reducing demand for construction materials. This may put a dent on the strength of metal prices, therefore negatively impacting the ex-China EM equity index, as shown in panel 2.Moreover, the relative performance of China vs non-China EM is approaching a very oversold level while the relative valuation measure is at an extreme (Chart 24, panels 3 and 4). As such, we switch our positioning by upgrading Chinese equities to neutral from underweight and downgrade EM ex China to underweight from neutral. This implies an overall underweight to Emerging Markets.We also close the UK overweight to support an upgrade in Japan (see more details on page 13). The UK overweight was largely based on a positive view of the GBP, which has now risen to fair value.Government Bonds Chart 25Watch Inflation In 2022 Watch Inflation in 2022 Watch Inflation in 2022  Maintain Below-Benchmark Duration. Global bond yields ignored the sharp rise in core inflation in Q3. The US 10-year Treasury yield actually declined in the first two months of the quarter in response to the muted inflation readings in non-Covid related segments of the economy. Even with the fast run-up in yields in September, the US 10-year yield finished the quarter at 1.52%, only about 5 bps higher than the level on June 30th (Chart 25).We have advised clients to focus on the jobs market to determine when the Fed will lift the Fed Funds Rate off its zero bound because of the Fed’s emphasis on “maximum employment” as a pre-condition for this. However, the Fed has not clearly defined what “maximum employment” means. According to calculations by our US bond strategists, the US unemployment rate will fall to 3.8%, with a 63% participation rate, by the end of 2022 if job creation averages a reasonably achievable 414,000 per month until then. Our bond strategists think that the Fed will be forced to clarify its definition of “maximum unemployment” over the coming months and, as we get close to it next year, the key indicator to watch will shift back to inflation. If inflation remains high, then the Fed will be quicker to declare that the labor market is at “maximum employment”, and vice versa.Currently, the overnight index swap curve indicates the first rate hike will be in January 2023 with a total rate increase of 123 bps by the end of 2024. BCA Research’s house view is that the Fed will announce its first hike in December 2022 and will hike at a faster pace than what is priced in by the market. This is based on our view that unemployment will likely reach 3.5% by end-2022 with inflation above the Fed’s target. This would suggest that long-term rates will rise too, and so bond investors should remain below benchmark duration.Corporate BondsSince the beginning of the year, investment-grade credit has provided roughly 200 basis points of excess return over duration-matched Treasurys, while high-yield bonds have generated almost 600 basis points. Chart 26Continue to Favor High-Yield Credit Continue to Favor High-Yield Credit Continue to Favor High-Yield Credit  We continue to have a neutral allocation to investment-grade credits within the fixed-income category. While supportive monetary policy should generally favor spread product, we believe there is much better value to be found outside investment-grade bonds, since these bonds are currently trading at historically high valuation levels (Chart 26, panel 1).We think valuations look much more attractive in the high-yield space, and as a result remain overweight within the fixed-income category. Our US Bond Strategy service expects the share of defaults in the space to fall to between 2.3% and 2.8% – below the default rate currently priced in by the market (Chart 26, panel 2). Within high yield, we prefer B-rated bonds since they offer the most attractive spread pickup on a risk-adjusted basis.What about EM debt? Currently we are cautious on EM corporate debt. The default of Chinese real estate developer Evergrande is likely to have ripple effects throughout EM credit markets and currencies. There are already signs of considerable strains, with EM corporate spreads starting to rise (Chart 26, panel 3).  We recommend that investors focus on EM sovereign issuers such as Mexico, Russia, and Malaysia, given that they provide a significant yield pickup over US bonds with comparable credit ratings, and are less likely to default than their corporate counterparts.CommoditiesEnergy (Overweight): Oil prices are likely to remain close to current levels for the remainder of this year. However, recovering demand – particularly from Emerging Markets – and production discipline by the OPEC 2.0 coalition should support prices over the next two years. Given this backdrop, our Commodity & Energy strategists expect the price of Brent crude to average $75 and $80 per barrel in 2022 and 2023 respectively, with WTI trading $2-$4/bbl lower. Chart 27Limited Upside For Oil And Metals In The Short-Term Limited Upside For Oil And Metals In The Short-Term Limited Upside For Oil And Metals In The Short-Term  Industrial Metals (Neutral): Industrial metals’ prices have bifurcated. Those relating to alternative energy, such as copper, nickel and cobalt, continue to rise and are up 30% on average since the beginning of the year. Iron ore on the other hand has taken a colossal hit, falling over 53% from its May high. The knock-on effects of accelerating Chinese production cuts and softening economic activity, as well as Evergrande’s debt woes, will continue to put downward pressure on prices. In the short-term, we do not expect a significant rebound. However, in the longer-term, demand will recover – particularly if China implements significant stimulus – and supply will remain tight, which will help metal prices to recover.Precious Metals (Neutral): Gold prices did not react positively to the decline in US real rates over the past quarter. In fact, gold prices are slightly down, by ~1.5% since the start of July (Chart 27, panel 4). We expect real rates to rise as economic growth and the labor market recover and the Fed turns slightly more hawkish, while inflation moderates as base and pandemic effects abate. Rising real rates are a negative factor for the gold price. Nevertheless, inflation is likely to be a bit stickier than the market is currently pricing in, and we therefore maintain a neutral exposure to gold, since it is a good inflation hedge.CurrenciesUS Dollar Chart 28Do Not Underweight The Dollar Yet Do Not Underweight The Dollar Yet Do Not Underweight The Dollar Yet  Since we went from underweight to neutral on the dollar in April, the DXY has risen by only 1%. Our position remains the same for this quarter. On the one hand, momentum – one of the most reliable indicators for cyclical movements in the dollar – has turned firmly positive. Moreover, pain in the Chinese real-estate sector should weight on commodities and emerging markets – a development which historically has been bullish for the USD (Chart 28, panel 1). However, not all is good news for the greenback. Relative growth and inflation trends are starting to rebound in the rest of the world vis-à-vis the US (Chart 28, panel 2). Additionally, speculators are now firmly overweight the USD, and it remains expensive by 11% relative to PPP fair value. We believe that these forces could eventually be strong enough for the dollar bear market to resume. As a result, we are putting the US dollar on downgrade watch. Canadian DollarWe believe that there is upside to the Canadian dollar. Canada’s employment market is recovering faster than in the US, which should prompt the BoC to normalize interest rates before the Fed. Additionally, while many commodities are likely to suffer as China’s real estate market slows, oil should hold up relatively well since its demand is not as dependent on the Chinese economy. As a result, we are upgrading the CAD from neutral to overweight. Australian DollarWe remain underweight the AUD. While it is true that the AUD is now cheap on a PPP basis, weakness in iron ore from a slowing Chinese real-estate market should continue to weigh on the Aussie dollar. Chinese YuanWe are negative on the yuan on a cyclical basis. Interest-rate differentials should start moving against this currency (Chart 28, panel 3). While the Fed is likely to tighten policy as the labor market enters full employment, Chinese authorities will ease monetary policy to avert a full-blown crisis in their real-estate market.Alternatives Chart 29Outlook Remains Favorable For Private Equity And Real Estate Quarterly Portfolio Outlook: Stay Bullish But Verify Quarterly Portfolio Outlook: Stay Bullish But Verify  Return Enhancers: With public markets expensive and unlikely to provide investors with more than single-digit returns, the focus has shifted to alternative assets, particularly private equity (PE). Performance continues to be impressive, with an annualized return of 59% in Q4 2020 (Chart 29, panel 1). This supports our previous research that funds raised during recessions and early in expansions tend to outperform those raised late-cycle. Distributions from existing positions should allow limited partners (LPs – the investors who provide capital to PE funds) to commit to newer funds. Data from Preqin shows that more than $610 billion has been raised so far during 2021 (Chart 29, panel 2). We continue to favor Private Equity over Hedge Funds.Inflation Hedges: Last year’s inflationary pressures should moderate over the coming months as base effects and supply chain bottlenecks abate. Given this backdrop, we maintain our positive view on real estate versus commodity futures. Commodity prices have already shot up over the past 18 months and have limited upside from current levels: Energy prices are up by 61% since the beginning of the year, industrial metals 24%, and agriculture 17%. Over the past 15 years, REITs outperformed commodity futures when inflation was between 0% and 3% (Chart 29, panel 3). There are opportunities within the real-estate sector, despite our concerns about weaknesses in some segments of commercial real estate such as prime office property in major cities.Volatility Dampeners: We continue to favor farmland and timberland over structured products, particularly mortgage-backed securities (MBS). Farmland offers attractive yields and should continue to provide the best portfolio protection in the event of any market distress. MBS spreads, on the other hand, while wider than the pre-pandemic level, remain tight compared to the pace of mortgage refinancing (Chart 29, panel 4).Risks To Our ViewOur main scenario is based on a Goldilocks-like view of the world: That growth will be robust, but not so strong as to push up inflation further and cause central banks to turn hawkish. The risks, therefore, are that the environment turns out to be either too hot or too cold. Chart 30A Resurgence Of Covid A Resurgence Of Covid A Resurgence Of Covid  What could cause growth to slow? Covid remains the biggest risk. Cases are still high in many countries, and could rise again as people socialize indoors during the colder months (Chart 30). A more virulent strain is not inconceivable. Governments will be reluctant to impose lockdowns again, but consumers might become wary about going out.We have written elsewhere (see page 11) about the risks coming from a China slowdown and the aftermath of the Evergrande affair. A policy mistake is not improbable: The Chinese authorities want to stimulate the economy, but at the same time keep a lid on property prices. That will be a hard balance to achieve. Slower Chinese growth would hurt commodity producers and many Emerging Markets. Other risks to growth include fiscal tightening as employment-support schemes end and countries look to repair their budget positions (Chart 31), consumers building up precautionary savings and not spending their excess cash (see page 9), and problems caused by rising energy prices.Our view remains that the currently high inflation is transitory. But it is proving quite sticky and could remain high for a while. Inflation expectations are well anchored for the moment (Chart 32) but could rise above central banks’ comfort-zones if recorded core inflation in the US, for example, currently 3.6%, stays above 3% for another 12 months. This could bring forward the date of the first Fed rate hike (currently priced in for January 2023), raise long-term rates and, in turn, push up the dollar. A combination of rising US rates and a stronger dollar would have very negative consequences for heavily indebted Emerging Market economies. Chart 31Fiscal Drag Fiscal Drag Fiscal Drag   Chart 32Deanchoring Of Inflation Expectations Deanchoring Of Inflation Expectations Deanchoring Of Inflation Expectations   Footnotes1 Please see China Investment Strategy Report "The Evergrande Saga Continues," dated September 29, 2021 and Emerging Markets Strategy Report "On Chinese Internet Stocks, Real Estate And Overall EM," dated September 16, 2021,  available at https://www.bcaresearch.com/GAA Asset Allocation

Highlights The global fight against the Delta variant of COVID-19 continued to show progress in the month of September, but not without cost. Growth in services activity slowed meaningfully, which has likely delayed the return to potential output in the US until March of next year (at the earliest). However, even with this revised timeline, maximum employment remains a very possible outcome by next summer, barring a further extension of the pandemic in advanced economies. In this regard, the Fed’s likely decision at its next meeting to taper the rate of its asset purchases makes sense and is consistent with a first rate hike in the second half of 2022. The rise in long-maturity bond yields following this month’s Fed meeting is consistent with the view that 10-year Treasurys are overvalued and that yields will trend higher over the coming year. Fixed-income investors should stay short duration. The degree to which global shipping costs are being driven by the forces of supply versus demand will affect the Fed's criteria for liftoff next year, via changes in goods prices as well as consumer expectations for inflation. In our view, a detailed examination of shipping prices over the past 18 months points to a future pace of inflation that is not dangerously above-target, but does meet the Fed’s liftoff criteria. A mix-shift in consumer spending, away from goods and toward services, is not a threat to economic activity or S&P 500 earnings – so long as the decline in the former is not outsized relative to the rise in the latter. It will, however, disproportionately impact China, and could be the trigger for meaningful further easing by Chinese policymakers. In the interim, a catalyst for EM stocks may remain elusive. We continue to recommend an overweight stance toward value versus growth stocks and global ex-US versus the US, particularly in favor of developed markets ex-US. Investors should remain cyclically overweight stocks versus bonds, although it is possible that both assets will post negative returns for a short period at some point over the coming 12 months in response to higher long-maturity bond yields. Still, we expect both stock prices and the stock-to-bond ratio to be higher a year from today. Feature The global fight against the Delta variant of COVID-19 continued to show progress in the month of September. Chart I-1 highlights that an estimate of the reproduction rate of the disease in developed economies has fallen below one, and the weekly change in hospitalizations in both the US and UK – the two countries at the epicenter of the Delta wave that have not reintroduced widespread COVID-19 control measures – have fallen back into negative territory. In addition, we estimate that approximately 6% of the world’s population received vaccines against COVID-19 in September, with now 45% of the globe having received a first dose and 33% now fully vaccinated. Pfizer’s announcement last week that it has found a “favorable safety profile and robust neutralizing antibody responses” from its vaccine trial in children five to eleven years of age suggests that the FDA may grant emergency use authorization within weeks, which would likely raise the vaccination rate in the US (and ultimately other advanced economies) by at least 5 percentage points in fairly short order. This would also further reduce the impact of school/classroom closures on the labor market, via both an increased participation rate and increased hiring in the education sector. This fight, however, has not been without cost. US jobs growth slowed significantly in August, manufacturing and services PMIs continued to slow in September, and, as Chart I-2 highlights, the normalization in transportation use that was well underway in the first half of the year has clearly inflected in both the US and UK in response to the spread of Delta. Consensus market expectations for Q3 growth have been cut in the US, and to a lesser extent in the euro area, and the Fed reduced its forecast for 2021 real GDP growth from 7% to 5.9% following the September FOMC meeting. Chart I-1The Delta Wave Continues To Abate... The Delta Wave Continues To Abate... The Delta Wave Continues To Abate... Chart I-2...But At A Cost To Economic Activity ...But At A Cost To Economic Activity ...But At A Cost To Economic Activity   The Path Toward Eventually Tighter Monetary Policy It has been surprising to some investors that the Fed has moved forward with their plans to taper the rate of its asset purchases against this backdrop of slowing near-term growth – an event that now seems likely to occur at its next meeting barring a disastrous September payroll report. In our view, this is not especially surprising, given that the Fed has expressed a desire for net purchases to reach zero before they raise interest rates for the first time. Chair Powell noted during last week’s press conference that FOMC participants felt a “gradual tapering process that concludes around the middle of next year is likely to be appropriate”, underscoring that the Fed wants the flexibility to raise interest rates in the second half of next year. The timing of the first Fed rate hike is entirely subject to the evolution of the economic data over the next year, and is not, in any way, calendar-based. But we presented in last month's Special Report why the Fed’s maximum employment criteria may be met as early as next summer,1 and the Fed’s projections for the pace of tapering are consistent with our analysis. Chart I-3Maximum Employment Remains A Very Possible Outcome By Next Summer Maximum Employment Remains A Very Possible Outcome By Next Summer Maximum Employment Remains A Very Possible Outcome By Next Summer The Fed’s most recent Summary of Economic Projections (“SEP”) also seemingly confirmed Fed Vice Chair Richard Clarida’s view that a 3.8% unemployment rate is consistent with maximum employment, barring any issues with the “breadth and inclusivity” of the labor market recovery. We noted in last month’s report that these issues are unlikely in a scenario where jobs growth is sufficiently high to bring down the unemployment rate below 4%. Chart I-3 highlights that both the Fed’s forecast and Bloomberg consensus expectations imply a closed output gap by March, even after factoring in the near-term impact of the Delta variant. Consequently, maximum employment remains a very possible outcome by next summer, barring a further extension of the pandemic in advanced economies. Long-maturity bond yields rose following the Fed meeting, which is also not especially surprising given how low yields have fallen relative to the fair value implied by the Fed’s SEP forecasts even assuming a December 2022 initial rate hike. Chart I-4 highlights that the fair value of the 10-year Treasury yield today is roughly 2% using this approach, rising to 2.15% by next summer. Ironically, the September SEP update modestly lowered the fair value shown in Chart I-4 relative to what would otherwise have been the case, as it implied that the Fed is expecting to raise interest rates at a pace of approximately three hikes per year – rather than the four that prevailed prior to the pandemic. Investors should also note that the fair value for the 10-year yield is nontrivially lower based on market participant and primary dealer estimates of the terminal Fed funds rate (also shown in Chart I-4), although they still imply that long-maturity yields should trend higher over the coming year. Global Trade, Inflation, And The Fed A return to maximum employment will likely signal the onset of monetary policy tightening, as long as the Fed's inflation criteria for liftoff have been met. For now, inflation is signaling a green light for hikes next year, even after excluding the prices of COVID-impacted services and cars (Chart I-5). In fact, more recently, CPI ex-direct COVID effects has been pointing in the “non-transitory” direction, which continues to prompt questions from investors about whether the Fed will be forced to hike earlier than it currently expects for reasons other than a return to maximum employment. Chart I-4US Long-Maturity Bond Yields Are Set To Move Higher Over The Coming Year US Long-Maturity Bond Yields Are Set To Move Higher Over The Coming Year US Long-Maturity Bond Yields Are Set To Move Higher Over The Coming Year Chart I-5For Now, Inflation Is Signaling A Green Light For Hikes Next Year For Now, Inflation Is Signaling A Green Light For Hikes Next Year For Now, Inflation Is Signaling A Green Light For Hikes Next Year   At least some portion of the current pace of increase in consumer goods prices is tied to surging import costs, which have run well in-excess of what would be predicted by the relationship with the US dollar (Chart I-6). This, in turn, is being driven by an explosion in shipping costs that has occurred since the onset of the pandemic, which is being driven both by demand and supply-side factors (Chart I-7). Chart I-6US CPI Is Being Affected By Surging Import Prices... US CPI Is Being Affected By Surging Import Prices... US CPI Is Being Affected By Surging Import Prices... Chart I-7...Which Are Being Driven By An Explosion In Shipping Costs ...Which Are Being Driven By An Explosion In Shipping Costs ...Which Are Being Driven By An Explosion In Shipping Costs   The degree to which global shipping costs are being driven by the forces of supply versus demand will affect the Fed's criteria for liftoff next year, via changes in goods prices as well as consumer expectations for inflation. To the extent that demand side factors are mostly responsible, investors should have higher confidence that the recent surge in consumer prices is transitory, because a shift away from above-trend goods spending and toward below-trend services spending is likely over the coming year. If supply-side factors are mostly responsible, then it is conceivable that the global supply chain impact on consumer goods prices will persist for longer than would otherwise be the case, potentially raising the odds of a larger or more sustained rise in inflation expectations. In our view, a detailed examination of shipping prices over the past 18 months points to a mix of both demand and supply effects, even since the beginning of 2021. However, as we highlight below, several facts point toward the view that supply-side factors will be the dominant driver over the coming year, and that they are more likely to exert a disinflationary/deflationary rather than inflationary effect: Chart I-8 breaks down the cumulative change in the overall Freightos Baltic Index by route since December 2019. The chart makes it clear that shipping costs from China/East Asia to the West Coast of the US have risen far more than any other route, underscoring that US demand for goods has been an important part of the rise in shipping costs. Chart I-8US Demand For Goods Is An Important Part Of The Shipping Cost Story October 2021 October 2021 Chart I-9US Goods Spending Has Clearly Been Boosted By US Fiscal Policy US Goods Spending Has Clearly Been Boosted By US Fiscal Policy US Goods Spending Has Clearly Been Boosted By US Fiscal Policy Chart I-9 shows the level of real US personal consumption expenditures on goods relative to its pre-pandemic trendline, underscoring both that goods spending is currently well-above trend, and that there have been two distinct phases of rising goods spending: from May to October 2020 following the passage of the CARES act, and from January to March 2021 following the December 2020 extension of UI benefits and in anticipation of the passage of the American Rescue Plan. Since March, US real goods spending has trended lower, a pattern that we expect will continue over the coming year. Chart I-10 highlights that while the global supply chain struggled heavily last year in response to surging demand and the lagging effects of labor shortages and factory shutdowns during the earliest phase of the pandemic, there were some signs of supply-side normalization in the first half of 2021. The chart highlights that the number of ships at anchor at the Los Angeles and Long Beach ports declined meaningfully from February to June, and global shipping schedule reliability tentatively improved in March. The chart also shows that shipping costs from China/East Asia to the West Coast of the US continued to rise in Q2 seemingly as a lagged response to the Jan-Mar rise in goods spending, but they were still low at the end of June compared to today’s levels. Chart I-10Supply-Side Factors Seem To Have Driven A Majority Of This Year's Increase In Shipping Costs Supply-Side Factors Seem To Have Driven A Majority Of This Year's Increase In Shipping Costs Supply-Side Factors Seem To Have Driven A Majority Of This Year's Increase In Shipping Costs In Q3, circumstances drastically changed. Shipping costs between China/East Asia to the West Coast of the US rapidly doubled, and the number of ships at anchor at the LA/LB ports exploded well past its peak in early February. This rise in China/US shipping costs since late-June has accounted for nearly 60% of the cumulative rise since the pandemic began, and cannot be attributed to increased demand. Instead, the increase in prices and the surge in port congestion in Q3 appears to have been caused by the one-month closure of the Port of Yantian that began in late-May, in response to an outbreak of COVID-19 in Guangdong province. Yantian is the fourth largest port in the world and exports a sizeable majority of global electronics given its close proximity to Shenzhen, underscoring the impact that its closure likely had on an already bottlenecked logistical system. There are two key points emanating from our analysis of global shipping costs. First, demand has been an important effect driving costs higher, but it does not appear to have driven most of the increase in shipping costs this year. Still, over the coming year, goods demand in advanced economies is likely to wane as consumer spending shifts from goods to services spending, which will help ease clogged global trade channels and lower shipping costs. Second, the (brief) evidence of supply-side normalization in the first half of 2021, when consumer demand was actually strengthening, suggests that the supply-side of the global trade system will turn disinflationary over the coming year if further COVID-related labor market shocks can be avoided. What does this mean for the Fed and the prospect of monetary policy tightening next year? In our view, the combination of a positive output gap, stable but normalized inflation expectations, and disinflation (or outright deflation) in COVID-related goods and services (including import prices) is likely to lead to a pace of inflation that meets the Fed’s liftoff criteria. Chart I-11 highlights that important longer-term inflation expectations measures have recently been well-behaved, despite a surge in actual inflation and shorter-term expectations for inflation. Aided by disinflation/deflation in certain high-profile COVID-related goods and services prices, this argues against meaningful upside risks to inflation. However, the current level of long-term expectations and the fact that the output gap is set to turn positive in the first half of next year argues against the notion that inflation will fall below target outside of COVID-related effects. As such, we continue to expect that the Fed will raise interest rates next year, potentially as early as next summer, driven by the progress towards maximum employment. Spending Shifts And The Equity Market We noted above, and in previous reports, that consumer spending in advanced economies is likely to continue to shift away from goods and toward services over the coming year. This raises the question of whether a contraction in goods spending will weigh disproportionately on the economy and equity earnings, given the close historical correlation between manufacturing activity and the business cycle. Chart I-12 illustrates this risk: in a hypothetical scenario in which real goods spending were to return to the trendline shown in Chart I-9 by March of next year, it would contract on the order of 10% on a year-over-year basis, on par with what occurred last year and vastly in excess of what even normally occurs during a recession. Chart I-11Longer-Term Inflation Expectations Remain Well-Behaved Longer-Term Inflation Expectations Remain Well-Behaved Longer-Term Inflation Expectations Remain Well-Behaved Chart I-12A Contraction In Goods Spending Is Likely Over The Coming Year A Contraction In Goods Spending Is Likely Over The Coming Year A Contraction In Goods Spending Is Likely Over The Coming Year   Chart I-12 is a hypothetical scenario and not a forecast, as there is some evidence that consumers are currently deferring durable goods purchases on the expectation that prices will become more favorable. In addition, a positive output gap next year implies that goods spending may settle above its pre-pandemic trendline. Nevertheless, the prospect of a potentially significant slowdown in goods spending has unnerved some investors, even given the prospect of improved services spending. Chart I-13highlights that this fear is understandable given how the US economy normally behaves. The top panel of the chart shows the year-over-year contribution to real GDP growth from real goods and services spending, and the bottom panel shows these contributions in absolute terms to better illustrate their relative magnitudes. The chart makes it clear that goods spending is normally a more forceful driver of economic activity than is the case for services spending, which ostensibly supports concerns that a significant slowdown in the former may be destabilizing for overall activity. Chart I-13Normally, Goods Spending Predominantly Drives Activity. Not This Cycle. Normally, Goods Spending Predominantly Drives Activity. Not This Cycle. Normally, Goods Spending Predominantly Drives Activity. Not This Cycle. However, Chart I-13 also highlights that the magnitude of the recent contribution to growth from services spending has been absolutely unprecedented in the post-WWII economic environment. This is not surprising given the nature of the COVID-19 pandemic, but it is important because it underscores that investors should not rely excessively on typical rules of thumb about how modern economies tend to function over the course of the business cycle. In terms of the impact on overall economic activity, investors should focus on the net impact of goods plus services spending. It is certainly possible that the former will slow at a pace that is not fully compensated by the latter, but our sense is that this is not likely to occur barring a further extension of the pandemic in advanced economies. Chart I-14Over The Past 5 Years, S&P 500 Sales Have Been More Correlated With Services Than Goods Spending Over The Past 5 Years, S&P 500 Sales Have Been More Correlated With Services Than Goods Spending Over The Past 5 Years, S&P 500 Sales Have Been More Correlated With Services Than Goods Spending Chart I-14 presents a similar conclusion for the US equity market. The chart highlights the historical five-year correlation between the quarterly growth of nominal spending and S&P 500 sales per share. The chart shows that S&P 500 revenue was more sensitive to goods versus services spending prior to the 1990s, when the US was more manufacturing-oriented and goods were more likely to be produced domestically than is the case today. Another gap in the correlation emerged following the global financial crisis when the US household sector underwent several years of deleveraging. But over the past five years, Chart I-14 highlights that S&P 500 revenue growth has actually been more strongly correlated with US services spending than goods spending. Some of this increased correlation might reflect technology-related services spending which could suffer in a post-pandemic environment, but the bottom line from Chart I-14 is that there is not much empirical support for the view that US equity fundamentals will be disproportionately impacted by a slowdown in goods spending, so long as services spending rises in lockstep. China: Exacerbating An Underlying Trend Chart I-15China Will Be Disproportionately Affected By Slowing DM Goods Spending China Will Be Disproportionately Affected By Slowing DM Goods Spending China Will Be Disproportionately Affected By Slowing DM Goods Spending China, on the other hand, will be disproportionately affected by slower goods spending in advanced economies, because its exports have disproportionately benefited from the surge in spending on goods over the past year. Chart I-15 highlights that Chinese export volume growth has exploded this year, and that current export growth is running at a pace of 10% in volume terms – significantly higher than has been the case on average over the past decade. Several problems in China have been in the headlines over the past few months: a regulatory crackdown by Chinese authorities on new economy companies, the situation with Evergrande and, more recently, power shortages that have forced factories in several key manufacturing hubs to curtail production as a result of China’s ban on coal imports from Australia (Chart I-16). However, the key point for investors is that these are not truly new risks to China’s growth outlook; rather, they are developments that have the potential to magnify the impact of an already established trend: the ongoing slowdown in China’s economy that has clearly been caused by a decline in its credit impulse (Chart I-17). In turn, China’s decelerating credit impulse has been caused by tighter regulatory and monetary policy. Chart I-16Power Outages: The Latest Negative Headline From China Power Outages: The Latest Negative Headline From China Power Outages: The Latest Negative Headline From China Chart I-17China Is Slowing Because Policymakers Have Tightened China Is Slowing Because Policymakers Have Tightened China Is Slowing Because Policymakers Have Tightened   BCA’s China Investment Strategy service has provided a detailed analysis of the ongoing Evergrande saga.2 In short, our view is that the government will likely restructure Evergrande’s debt to prevent the company’s crisis from evolving into a systemic financial risk. As such, Beijing may rescue the stakeholders of Evergrande, but likely not its shareholders. However, in terms of stimulating the broader economy, it is still not clear that Chinese policymakers are willing to engage in more than gradual or piecemeal stimulus, given a higher pain threshold for a slower economy and a lower appetite for leverage. This may change once Chinese export growth slows in response to a shift in DM spending from goods to services, as policymakers will no longer be able to rely on the external sector for support. This potentially offsetting nature of eventual Chinese stimulus and global goods spending underscores both the importance of a normalization in DM services spending as an impulse for global growth, as well as the fact that a catalyst for EM stocks may remain elusive over the tactical horizon. Investment Conclusions In Section 2 of this month’s report, we explain why the performance of US stocks may be flat versus their global peers over a structural time horizon. We also highlighted that US stocks are likely to earn low annualized total returns over the coming 10 years (between 1.8 - 4.7%), which would fall well short of the absolute return goals of many investors. Chart I-18Losses From Both Stocks And Bonds Are Rare, But Are Linked To Higher Rates Losses From Both Stocks And Bonds Are Rare, But Are Linked To Higher Rates Losses From Both Stocks And Bonds Are Rare, But Are Linked To Higher Rates Over the coming 6-12 month time horizon, we continue to recommend an overweight stance towards value vs. growth stocks and global ex-US vs. US, particularly in favor of developed markets ex-US. The relative performance of value vs. growth stocks is likely to benefit from the transition to a post-pandemic state and a rise in long-maturity bond yields, as monetary policy shifts towards the point of tightening. Regional equity trends have been closely correlated with style over the past two years, and the underperformance of growth strongly implies US equity underperformance. From an asset allocation perspective, investors should remain overweight stocks versus bonds over the coming year, although it is possible that both assets will post negative returns for a short period at some point over the coming 12 months. Chart I-18 highlights that outside of the context of recessions, months with negative returns from both stocks and long-maturity bonds are quite rare, but they tend to be associated with periods of monetary policy tightening (or in anticipation of such periods). Fundamentally, we do not see a rise in bond yields to any of the levels shown in Chart I-4 as being threatening to economic growth or necessarily implying lower equity market multiples. But the speed of adjustment in bond yields could unnerve equity investors, and there are open questions as to how far the equity risk premium can fall before T.I.N.A. – “There Is No Alternative” – becomes a less persuasive argument. As such, we would not rule out a brief correction in stocks at some point over the coming several months, but we expect both stock prices and the stock-to-bond ratio to be higher a year from today. Jonathan LaBerge, CFA Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst September 30, 2021 Next Report: October 28, 2021 II. The “Invincible” US Equity Market: The Longer-Term Outlook For US Stocks In Relative And Absolute Terms Since 2008, US equity outperformance versus global ex-US stocks has not been driven by stronger top-line growth. Instead, it has been caused by a narrowly-based increase in profit margins, the accretive impact of share buybacks on the EPS of US growth stocks, and an outsized expansion in equity multiples. To a lesser extent, the dollar has also boosted common currency relative performance. There are significant secular risks to these sources of US equity outperformance over the past 14 years. Elevated tech sector profit margins are likely to lead to increased competition and higher odds of regulatory action, leveraging has reduced the ability of US companies to continue to accrete EPS through changes to capital structure, relative multiples are not justified by relative ROE, and the US dollar is expensive and is likely to fall over a multi-year horizon. In absolute terms, we forecast that US stocks will earn annualized nominal total returns of between 1.8 - 4.7% over the coming decade, assuming 4-5% annual revenue growth, flat profit margins, a constant 2% dividend yield, and a constant equity risk premium. Long-maturity bond yields are below their equilibrium levels and are likely to rise in real terms over time, which will weigh on elevated equity multiples. Over the coming 6-12 months, our view that US 10-Year Treasury yields are likely to rise argues for an underweight stance toward growth versus value stocks. In turn, this implies that US stocks will underperform global stocks, especially versus developed markets ex-US. The risks that we have highlighted to the sources of US outperformance suggest that US stocks may be flat versus their global peers over the long-term, arguing for a neutral strategic allocation. It also suggests that investors should be prepared to accept more volatility in order to reduce the gap between expected and desired returns, and should look towards riskier investments and asset classes (such as real estate and alternative investments) as potential portfolio return enhancements. Chart II-1The US Has Massively Outperformed Other Equity Markets Since The Global Financial Crisis The US Has Massively Outperformed Other Equity Markets Since The Global Financial Crisis The US Has Massively Outperformed Other Equity Markets Since The Global Financial Crisis The US equity market has vastly outperformed its peers since the 2008/2009 global financial crisis. Chart II-1 highlights that an investment in US stocks at the end of 2007 is now worth over 4 times the invested amount, versus approximately 1.6 times for global ex-US stocks (when measured in US dollar terms). The chart also shows that USD-denominated total returns have been roughly the same for developed markets ex-US as they have been for emerging markets, highlighting the exceptional nature of US equities. In this report we provide a deep examination of the sources of US equity performance, their likely sustainability, and what this implies for long-term investor return expectations. US stocks have not outperformed because of stronger top-line (i.e. revenue) growth, and instead have benefitted from a narrowly-based increase in profit margins, active changes to capital structure that have benefitted stockholders, an outsized expansion in equity multiples relative to global stocks, and a structural appreciation in the US dollar. We conclude that there are significant risks to all of these sources of outperformance, and that a neutral strategic allocation to US equities is now likely warranted. We also highlight that, while a strategic overweight stance is still warranted toward stocks versus bonds, investors should no longer count on US stocks to deliver returns that are in line with or above commonly-cited absolute return expectations. This argues for a greater tolerance of volatility, and the pursuit of riskier investments and asset classes (such as real estate and alternative investments) as potential portfolio return enhancements. A Deep Examination Of US Outperformance Since 2008 Breaking down historical total return performance is the first step in judging whether US equities are likely to outperform their global ex-US peers on a structural basis. Below we deconstruct US and global total return performance over the past 14 years into six different components, and analyze the impact of some of these components on a sector-by-sector basis. The six components presented are: Total revenue growth for each equity market, in local currency terms The change in profit margins The impact of changes in capital structure and index composition The change in the trailing P/E ratio The income return from dividends The impact of changes in foreign exchange The sum of the first three factors explains the total growth in earnings per share over the period, and the addition of the fourth factor explains each market’s local currency price return. Income returns are added to explain total return over the period, with the sixth factor then explaining common currency total return performance. The FX effect for US stocks is zero by construction, given that we measure common currency performance in US$ terms. Chart II-2Strong US Returns Have Not Been Due To Strong Top Line Growth October 2021 October 2021 Chart II-2 presents the annualized absolute impact of these factors for the MSCI US index since 2008. The chart highlights that U.S. stock prices have earned roughly 11% per year in total return terms over the past 14 years, with significant contributions from revenue growth, multiple expansion, margins, and the return from dividends. Interestingly, however, Chart II-3 highlights that US equities have not significantly outperformed on the basis of the first factor, total local currency revenue growth, at least relative to overall global ex-US stocks (see Box II-1 for more details). DM ex-US stocks have experienced very weak revenue growth since 2008, but this has been compensated for by outsized EM revenue growth. It is also notable that US revenue growth has actually underperformed US GDP growth over the period, dispelling the notion that US equity outperformance has been due to strong top-line effects. Chart II-3The US Has Outperformed Due To Margins, Capital Structure, Multiples, And The Dollar October 2021 October 2021 Box II-1 Proxying The Impact Of Changes In Shares Outstanding We proxy the impact of changes in shares outstanding (and thus the impact of equity dilution / accretion) by dividing each index’s market capitalization by its stock price. This measure is not a perfect proxy, as changes in index composition (such as the addition/deletion of index constituents) will change the index’s market capitalization but not its stock price. We also calculate total revenue for each market by multiplying local currency sales per share by the market cap / stock price ratio, meaning that the total revenue growth figures shown in Chart II-3 should best be viewed as estimates that in some cases reflect index composition effects. However, Chart II-B1 highlights that adjusting the market cap / stock price ratio for the number of firms in the index does not meaningfully change our overall conclusions. This approach would imply a larger dilution effect for DM ex-US than suggested in Chart II-3, and a smaller effect for emerging markets (due to a significant rise in the number of EM index constituents since 2008). In addition, global ex-US revenue growth is modestly lower than US revenue growth when using this approach. But this gap would account for a fraction of US equity outperformance over the period, underscoring that the US has massively outperformed global ex-US stocks due to margin, capital structure, and multiple expansion effects. Chart II-B1The US Has Not Meaningfully Outperformed Due To Revenue Growth, No Matter How You Slice It October 2021 October 2021 Chart II-3 also highlights that global ex-US stocks have modestly outperformed the US in terms of the fifth factor, the income return from dividends. This has almost offset the negative FX return (the sixth factor) from a net rise in the US dollar over the period. What is clear from the chart is that the second, third, and fourth factors explain almost all of the difference in total return between US and global ex-US stocks since 2008. The US experienced a significant increase in profit margins versus a modest contraction for global ex-US, a modest fillip from changes in capital structure and index composition versus a substantial drag for ex-US stocks, and a sizable rise in equity multiples that has outpaced what has occurred around the globe in response to structurally lower interest rates. Chart II-4US Margin Outperformance Has Been Narrowly-Based October 2021 October 2021 The significant rise in aggregate US profit margins over the past 14 years has often been attributed to the strong competitiveness of US companies, but Chart II-4 highlights that the aggregate change mostly reflects a narrow sector composition effect. The chart shows the change in US and global ex-US profit margins by level 1 GICS sector since 2008, and underscores that overall profit margins outside of the US have fallen mostly due to lower oil prices. Conversely, in the US, profit margins have substantially risen in only three out of ten sectors: health care, information technology, and communication services. Chart II-5 highlights that global ex-US equity multiples have risen in a majority of sectors since 2008, but not by the same magnitude as what has occurred in the US. De-rating in the resource sector partially explains the gap, but stronger US multiple expansion in the heavily-weighted consumer discretionary, information technology, and communication services sectors appears to explain most of the gap in multiple expansion. Chart II-5Multiples Have Risen Globally, But More So For Broadly-Defined US Tech Stocks October 2021 October 2021 Finally, Charts II-6 & II-7 highlights that there has been a strong growth versus value dimension to the impact of changes in capital structure and index composition on regional equity performance. The charts show that equity dilution and other changes to index composition have caused a similar drag on the returns from value stocks in the US and outside the US. However, the charts also highlight that the more important effect has been the accretive impact of share buybacks on the EPS of US growth stocks, which has not been matched by growth stocks outside of the US. As noted in Box II-1, part of this gap may be explained by an increase in the number of companies included in the MSCI Emerging Markets index, but Chart II-8 highlights that the global ex-US ratio of market capitalization to stock price has still risen significantly over the past 14 years, in contrast to that of the US even after controlling for the number of index components. Chart II-6There Has Been A Strong Style Dimension… There Has Been A Strong Style Dimension... There Has Been A Strong Style Dimension... Chart II-7…To The Impact Of Changes In Capital Structure And Index Composition ...To The Impact Of Changes In Capital Structure And Index Composition ...To The Impact Of Changes In Capital Structure And Index Composition Chart II-8The Accretive Impact Of US Growth Stock Buybacks Has Not Been Matched Globally The Accretive Impact Of US Growth Stock Buybacks Has Not Been Matched Globally The Accretive Impact Of US Growth Stock Buybacks Has Not Been Matched Globally The bottom line for investors is that there have been multiple factors contributing to US equity outperformance since 2008, but aggregate top-line growth has not been one of them. Broadly-defined technology companies (including media & entertainment and internet retail firms) have been responsible for nearly all of the relative rise in profit margins and most of the relative expansion in multiples over the past 14 years, and US growth stocks have benefitted from the accretive impact of share buybacks to a larger degree than what has occurred globally. The Relative Secular Return Outlook For US Stocks We present below several structural risks to the continued outperformance of US equities for the factors that have been most responsible for this performance over the past 14 years. In some cases, these risks speak to the potential for US outperformance to end, not necessarily that the US will underperform. But even the cessation of US outperformance along one or more of these factors would be significant, as it would imply a potential inflection point in the most consequential trend in regional equity performance since the 2008/2009 global financial crisis. Profit Margins Chart II-9 presents the 12-month trailing combined profit margin for the US consumer discretionary, information technology, and communication services sector versus that of the remaining sectors. The chart underscores the points made by Chart II-4 in time series form, namely that the net increase in overall US profit margins since 2008 has been narrowly based. Chart II-9The US Profit Margin Expansion Has Been Driven By Broadly-Defined Tech Stocks The US Profit Margin Expansion Has Been Driven By Broadly-Defined Tech Stocks The US Profit Margin Expansion Has Been Driven By Broadly-Defined Tech Stocks Over a 6-12 month time horizon, the clear risk to US profit margins is an end to the COVID-19 pandemic. The profitability of broadly-defined tech stocks has surged during the pandemic, in response to a significant shift toward online goods purchases and elevated spending on tech equipment. A durable end to the pandemic is likely to reverse some of these spending patterns, which will likely weigh on margins for broadly-defined tech stocks. Chart II-10The Regulatory Risks Facing Big Tech Are Real October 2021 October 2021 Over the longer term, the risk is that extremely elevated profit margins are likely to increase the odds of regulatory action from Washington and invite competition. On the former point, our US Political Strategy service has highlighted that a bipartisan consensus in public opinion holds that Big Tech needs tougher regulation (Chart II-10), and this consensus grew substantially over the controversial 2020 political cycle.3 This regulatory pressure is currently best described as a “slow boil,” as not all surveys show strong majorities in favor of regulation, and Republicans and Democrats disagree on the aims of regulation. But the bottom line is that Big Tech is likely to remain in the hot seat after the various controversies of the pandemic and 2016-2020 elections, just as big banks faced tougher regulation in the wake of the subprime mortgage crisis. This underscores that a “slow boil” may turn into a faster one at some point over the secular horizon, which would very likely weigh on profit margins. Elevated tech sector profit margins makes regulatory action more likely because policymakers will perceive a stronger ability for these firms to weather a “regulatory shock.” On the latter point about competition, it is true that broadly-defined tech stocks follow a “platform” business model that will be difficult to supplant. These companies benefit from powerful network effects that have taken years to accrue, suggesting that they will not be rapidly replaced by competitors. Still, the experience of Microsoft in the years following its meteoric rise in the second half of the 1990s provides a cautionary tale for broadly-defined tech stocks today. In the late-1990s, it was difficult for investors to envision how Microsoft’s near-total product dominance of the PC ecosystem could ever be displaced, but it eventually lost market share due to the rise of mobile devices and their competing operating systems. In addition, Microsoft’s fundamental performance suffered even before the rise of the modern-day smartphone & mobile device market. Chart II-11 highlights the annualized components of Microsoft’s price return from 1999-2007 versus the late-1990s period, which underscores that changes in margins, changes in multiples, and stock price returns may be persistently negative in a scenario in which revenue growth slows (even if revenue growth itself remains positive). Chart II-11Microsoft Offers A Cautionary Tale For Dominant Business Models October 2021 October 2021 Some of the reversal of Microsoft’s fortunes during this period were self-inflicted, and the firm also suffered from an economy-wide slowdown in tech equipment spending as a result of the 2001 recession that persisted into the early years of the subsequent recovery. But the key point for investors is that company and sector dominance may wane, and the fact that broadly-defined tech sector profit margins are extremely elevated raises the risk that further increases may not materialize. Capital Structure And Index Composition As noted above, the beneficial impact from changes in capital structure and index composition for US equities has occurred due to the accretive impact of share buybacks on the EPS of US growth stocks, which has not been matched by growth stocks outside of the US. In our view, this accretive impact has occurred for two reasons. First, US growth stocks have taken advantage of historically low interest rates and leverage to shift their capital structure to be more debt-focused over the past 14 years. Second, this shift has been aided by the fact that US growth stocks have experienced stronger cash flows than their global peers, which have been used to service higher debt payments. However, Charts II-12 and II-13 suggest that this process may be in its late innings. Chart II-12 highlights that the US nonfinancial corporate sector debt service ratio (DSR) did indeed fall below that of the euro area following the global financial crisis, but that this reversed in 2016. At the onset of the pandemic, the US nonfinancial corporate sector DSR was rising sharply, and was approaching its early-2000 highs. During the pandemic, the corporate sector DSR has continued to rise in both regions, but this almost exclusively reflects a (temporary) decline in operating income, not a surge in corporate sector debt or a rise in interest rates. Not all of the pre-pandemic rise in the US corporate sector DSR was concentrated in broadly-defined tech stocks, but some of it likely was. The key point for investors is that the US nonfinancial corporate sector had a lower capacity to leverage itself relative to companies in the euro area at the onset of the pandemic, which implies a less accretive impact on relative earnings per share in the future. Chart II-13 reinforces this point by highlighting that the uptrend in relative cash flow for US growth stocks, versus global ex-US, appears to have ended in 2015. The uptrend has continued in per share terms, but this appears to be flattered by the impact of buybacks itself. Chart II-12Can The US Continue To Accrete EPS Through Stock Buybacks? Can The US Continue To Accrete EPS Through Stock Buybacks? Can The US Continue To Accrete EPS Through Stock Buybacks? Chart II-13US Growth Companies Are No Longer Generating More Cash Than Their Global Peers US Growth Companies Are No Longer Generating More Cash Than Their Global Peers US Growth Companies Are No Longer Generating More Cash Than Their Global Peers   Admittedly, we see no basis to conclude that the persistent earnings dilution that has occurred in emerging markets over the past 14 years will end, or even slow, over the secular horizon. This underscores that emerging markets will need to generate stronger revenue growth to prevent the dilution effect from acting as a continued drag on EM vs. US equity performance, and it is an open question as to whether this will occur. Thus, for now, we have more conviction in the view that capital structure and index composition changes may contribute less to US equity outperformance versus developed markets ex-US over the coming several years. Equity Multiples There are three arguments against the idea that US equity multiples will continue to expand relative to those of global ex-US stocks. First, Chart II-14 highlights a point that we have made in previous Bank Credit Analyst reports, which is that aggressive multiple expansion in the US has now rendered US stocks to be the most dependent on low long-maturity bond yields than at any point since the global financial crisis. Chart II-14US Stocks Are The Most Dependent On Low Bond Yields In Over A Decade US Stocks Are The Most Dependent On Low Bond Yields In Over A Decade US Stocks Are The Most Dependent On Low Bond Yields In Over A Decade Over the coming 6- to 12-months, we strongly doubt that US 10-year Treasury yields will rise outside of the range that would be consistent with the US equity risk premium from 2002 to 2007 (discussed in further detail in the next section). But the chart also shows that this range is now clearly below trend nominal GDP growth, suggesting that higher interest rates on a structural basis may cause outright multiple contraction for US stocks. This is particularly true for growth stocks, which have been responsible for a significant portion of US equity outperformance, given their comparatively long earnings duration. Chart II-15US Multiples Are Not Justified By Higher Return On Equity US Multiples Are Not Justified By Higher Return On Equity US Multiples Are Not Justified By Higher Return On Equity Second, it has been often argued by some investors that a premium is warranted for US stocks given their comparatively high return on equity, but Chart II-15 highlights that this is not the case. The chart shows the relative price-to-book ratio for the US versus global and developed markets ex-US compared with regression-based predicted values based on relative return on equity. The chart clearly highlights that the US price-to-book ratio is meaningfully higher than it should be relative to global stocks, especially when compared to other developed markets. Versus DM ex-US, the only comparable period that saw a relative P/B – relative ROE deviation of this magnitude occurred in the late-1980s, when US stocks were meaningfully less expensive than relative ROE would have suggested. This relationship completely normalized in the years that followed, which would imply a substantial relative multiple contraction for US stocks over the coming several years were the gap shown in Chart II-15 to close. Third, Chart II-16 presents the share of US stock market capitalization accounted for by the largest 10% of stocks by size. The chart highlights that the concentration of US market capitalization has risen to an extreme level that has only been reached in two other cases over the past century. Historically, prior stock market concentration has been associated with future increases in the equity risk premium, underscoring that broadly-defined US tech sector concentration bodes poorly for future returns. Chart II-16The US Stock Market Is Now Extremely Concentrated The US Stock Market Is Now Extremely Concentrated The US Stock Market Is Now Extremely Concentrated The Foreign Exchange Effect As a final point, Chart II-17 illustrates the degree to which US relative performance has meaningfully benefitted from a rise in the US dollar since 2008. The chart highlights that an equity market-weighted dollar index has risen 20% from its late-2007 level, which has boosted US common currency relative performance. The US dollar was arguably modestly undervalued just prior to the 2008/2009 global financial crisis, but Chart II-18 highlights that it is now meaningfully overvalued versus other major currencies. Over a multi-year horizon, this argues against further relative common currency gains for US stocks from the foreign exchange effect. Chart II-17The US Dollar Has Helped US Common Currency Performance... The US Dollar Has Helped US Common Currency Performance... The US Dollar Has Helped US Common Currency Performance... Chart II-18…And Is Now Expensive October 2021 October 2021   The Absolute Secular Return Outlook For US Stocks Over a secular horizon, the most common method for forecasting equity returns is to predict whether earnings are likely to grow faster or slower than nominal potential GDP growth, and whether equity multiples are likely to rise or fall. For the reasons described above, we have no plausible basis on which to forecast that US profit margins are inclined to rise further over time given how extended they have become. This suggests that a reasonable long-term earnings forecast should be closely linked to one’s forecast for revenue growth. Chart II-19S&P 500 Revenue Is Low Relative To US GDP, And May Rise Over The Next Decade S&P 500 Revenue Is Low Relative To US GDP, And May Rise Over The Next Decade S&P 500 Revenue Is Low Relative To US GDP, And May Rise Over The Next Decade Chart II-19 presents S&P 500 revenue as a percent of nominal GDP, and underscores a fact that we noted above: revenue growth for US equities has underperformed US GDP since the global financial crisis. This undoubtedly has been linked to the fallout from the crisis and other exogenous shocks like the massive decline in energy prices in 2014/2015, which are unlikely to be repeated. Over the next ten years, the US Congressional Budget Office is forecasting nominal potential growth of roughly 4%; allowing for a potential rise in US equity revenue to GDP suggests that investors should expect earnings growth on the order of 4-5% per year over the coming decade, if extremely elevated profit margins are sustained. Chart II-20Multiples Seem To Predict Future Returns Well… October 2021 October 2021 Unfortunately for equity investors, there are slim odds that US equity multiples will continue to rise or even stay at their current level. Equity valuation has been shown to have nearly zero ability to predict stock returns over a 6-12 month time horizon or even over the following 3-5 years, but 10-year regressions relating current valuations on future 10-year compound returns tend to be highly predictive (Chart II-20). Utilizing this approach, today’s 12-month forward P/E ratio would imply a 10-year future total return of just 2.9% (Chart II-21). That, in turn, would imply a annual drag of 3-4% from multiple contraction over the coming decade, given our 4-5% earnings growth forecast and a historically average dividend yield of roughly 2%. One problem with the method shown in Charts II-20 and II-21 is the fact that the relationship between today’s P/E ratio and 10-year future returns captures more than the impact of potentially mean-reverting multiples. It also includes any correlation between the starting point of valuation and subsequent earnings growth, which is likely to be spurious. This effect turns out to be important: we can see in Chart II-21 that the strong fit of the relationship is influenced by the fact that the global financial crisis occurred roughly 10-years after the equity market bubble of the late-1990s. Chart II-21...But That Depends Heavily On The Tech Bubble / GFC Relationship ...But That Depends Heavily On The Tech Bubble / GFC Relationship ...But That Depends Heavily On The Tech Bubble / GFC Relationship Astute investors may infer a legitimate causal link between these two events, via too-easy monetary policy. But from the perspective of forecasting, predicting future returns based on prevailing equity multiples confusingly mixes together three effects: the relative timing of business cycles, the impact of changes in interest rates, and the potential mean-reverting nature of the equity risk premium. In order to disentangle these effects for the purposes of forecasting, we present a long-history estimate of the US equity risk premium based on Robert Shiller’s Irrational Exuberance dataset (Chart II-22). We define the equity risk premium as earnings per share (as reported) as a percent of the S&P 500, minus the real long-maturity interest rate. We calculate the real rate by subtracting the BCA adaptive inflation expectations model – essentially an exponentially smoothed version of actual inflation – from the nominal long-term bond yield. Chart II-22The US ERP Seems Normal Based On A Very Long Term History... The US ERP Seems Normal Based On A Very Long Term History... The US ERP Seems Normal Based On A Very Long Term History... The chart highlights that this estimate of the ERP is currently exactly in line with its median value since 1872. Chart II-23 presents essentially the same conclusion, based on data since 1979, using the forward operating P/E ratio for the S&P 500 and the same definition for real bond yields. This implies that, if interest rates were at equilibrium levels, investors would have a reasonable basis to conclude that equity multiples would be unchanged over a secular investment horizon. However, as we have highlighted several times in previous reports, long-maturity government bond yields are likely well below equilibrium levels. Chart II-24 highlights that long-maturity US government bond yields have not been this low relative to trend growth since the late-1970s. Chart II-23...And Based On The Forward Earnings Yield Over The Past Four Decades ...And Based On The Forward Earnings Yield Over The Past Four Decades ...And Based On The Forward Earnings Yield Over The Past Four Decades Chart II-24Interest Rates Are Well Below Equilibrium, And Are Likely To Rise Over Time Interest Rates Are Well Below Equilibrium, And Are Likely To Rise Over Time Interest Rates Are Well Below Equilibrium, And Are Likely To Rise Over Time   We presented in an April report why a gap between interest rates and trend rates of growth was indeed justified for a few years following the global financial crisis, but that a decline in the equilibrium real rate of interest (“r-star”) only appeared to be permanent due to persistent, non-monetary policy shocks to aggregate demand that occurred over the course of the last economic cycle.4 In a scenario where the US output gap turns positive, inflation rises modestly above target, and where permanent damage to the labor market from the pandemic is relatively limited over the coming 6-18 months, it seems reasonable to conclude that the narrative of secular stagnation may ultimately be challenged and that investor expectations for the neutral rate may converge toward trend rates of economic growth. This would weigh on equity multiples, and thus lower equity total returns from the 6-7% implied by our earnings forecast and income return assumption. Chart II-25US Stocks Are Likely To Earn Annual Total Returns Between 1.8-4.7% Over The Next Decade October 2021 October 2021 Were real long-maturity bond yields to rise by 100-200bps over the coming decade, this would imply annualized total returns of between 1.8 - 4.7% from US stocks, assuming 4-5% annual revenue growth, flat profit margins, a constant 2% dividend yield, and a constant ERP (Chart II-25). While this would beat the returns offered by bonds, implying that investors should still be structurally overweight equities versus fixed-income assets, it would also fall meaningfully short of the average pension fund return objective (Chart II-26), as well as the absolute return goals of many investors. Chart II-26Future Returns From US Stocks Will Greatly Disappoint Investors Future Returns From US Stocks Will Greatly Disappoint Investors Future Returns From US Stocks Will Greatly Disappoint Investors Investment Conclusions Chart II-27Over The Coming Year, Favor Value And Global Ex-US Stocks Over The Coming Year, Favor Value And Global Ex-US Stocks Over The Coming Year, Favor Value And Global Ex-US Stocks Over the coming 6-12 months, our view that 10-year US Treasury yields are likely to rise supports an overweight stance toward value versus growth stocks. Chart II-27 highlights that the underperformance of growth argues for an underweight stance toward US stocks within a global equity portfolio, especially versus developed markets ex-US. Over a longer-term horizon, there are two key investment implications from our research. First, the risks that we have highlighted to the sources of US outperformance over the past 14 years suggests that investors should not bank on a continuation of this trend over the next decade. We have not made the case in this report for the outperformance of global ex-US stocks, merely that the continued outperformance of US stocks now rests on an unreliable foundation. This may suggest that US relative performance will be flat over the structural horizon, arguing for a neutral strategic allocation. But even the cessation of US outperformance would be a significant development, as it would end the most consequential trend in regional equity performance in the post-GFC era. Second, investors should expect meaningfully lower absolute returns from US stocks over the next decade than what they have earned since 2008/2009, barring a continued rise in the already stretched profit margins of broadly-defined tech stocks. A structurally overweight stance is still warranted toward equities versus fixed-income, but even a 100% equity allocation is unlikely to meet investor return expectations in the high single-digits. As a consequence, global investors should be prepared to accept more volatility in order to reduce the gap between expected and desired returns, and should look towards riskier investments and asset classes (such as real estate and alternative investments) as potential portfolio return enhancements. Jonathan LaBerge, CFA Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst III. Indicators And Reference Charts BCA’s equity indicators highlight that the “easy” money from expectations of an eventual end to the pandemic have already been made. Our technical, valuation, and sentiment indicators remain very extended, highlighting that investors should expect positive but modest returns from stocks over the coming 6-12 months. Our monetary indicator has retreated below the boom/bust line, although this mostly reflects the use of producer prices to deflate money growth. In nominal terms, the supply of money continues to grow. Still, the retreat in the indicator highlights that the monetary policy stance is likely to shift in a tighter direction over the coming year. Forward equity earnings are pricing in a substantial further rise in earnings per share, and there is no meaningful sign of waning forward earnings momentum as net revisions and positive earnings surprises remain near record highs. Bottom-up analyst earning expectations are now almost certainly too high, but stocks are likely to be supported by robust revenue growth over the coming year. Within a global equity portfolio, global ex-US equities have underperformed alongside cyclical sectors, banks, and value stocks more generally. On a 12-month time horizon, we would recommend that investors position for the underperformance of financial assets that are negatively correlated with long-maturity government bond yields. The US 10-Year Treasury yield has broken above its 200-day moving average, beginning its recovery after falling sharply since mid-March. After a decline initially caused by waning growth momentum and the impact of the Delta variant of SARS-COV-2, long-maturity bond yields appear to be responding to the interest rate guidance that the Fed has been providing. 10-Year Treasury Yields remain below the fair value implied by a late-2022 rate hike scenario, underscoring that 10-Year Yields are set to trend higher over the coming year. The extreme rise in some commodity prices over the past several months has eased. Lumber prices have almost fully normalized, whereas the pace of advance in industrial metals prices has eased. Global shipping costs have exploded due to supply-side constraints, but are likely to ease over the coming year if further COVID-related labor market shocks can be avoided. US and global LEIs remain very elevated but have started to roll over. Our global LEI diffusion index has declined very significantly, but this likely reflects the outsized impact of a few emerging market countries (whose vaccination progress is still lagging). Still-strong leading and coincident indicators underscore that the global demand for goods is robust, and that output is below pre-pandemic levels in most economies because of very weak services spending. The latter will recover significantly at some point over the coming year, as social distancing and other pandemic control measures disappear. EQUITIES: Chart III-1US Equity Indicators US Equity Indicators US Equity Indicators Chart III-2Willingness To Pay For Risk Willingness To Pay For Risk Willingness To Pay For Risk Chart III-3US Equity Sentiment Indicators US Equity Sentiment Indicators US Equity Sentiment Indicators   Chart III-4US Stock Market Breadth US Stock Market Breadth US Stock Market Breadth Chart III-5US Stock Market Valuation US Stock Market Valuation US Stock Market Valuation Chart III-6US Earnings US Earnings US Earnings Chart III-7Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Chart III-8Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance   FIXED INCOME: Chart III-9US Treasurys And Valuations US Treasurys And Valuations US Treasurys And Valuations Chart III-10Yield Curve Slopes Yield Curve Slopes Yield Curve Slopes Chart III-11Selected US Bond Yields Selected US Bond Yields Selected US Bond Yields Chart III-1210-Year Treasury Yield Components 10-Year Treasury Yield Components 10-Year Treasury Yield Components Chart III-13US Corporate Bonds And Health Monitor US Corporate Bonds And Health Monitor US Corporate Bonds And Health Monitor Chart III-14Global Bonds: Developed Markets Global Bonds: Developed Markets Global Bonds: Developed Markets Chart III-15Global Bonds: Emerging Markets Global Bonds: Emerging Markets Global Bonds: Emerging Markets   CURRENCIES: Chart III-16US Dollar And PPP US Dollar And PPP US Dollar And PPP Chart III-17US Dollar And Indicator US Dollar And Indicator US Dollar And Indicator Chart III-18US Dollar Fundamentals US Dollar Fundamentals US Dollar Fundamentals Chart III-19Japanese Yen Technicals Japanese Yen Technicals Japanese Yen Technicals Chart III-20Euro Technicals Euro Technicals Euro Technicals Chart III-21Euro/Yen Technicals Euro/Yen Technicals Euro/Yen Technicals Chart III-22Euro/Pound Technicals Euro/Pound Technicals Euro/Pound Technicals   COMMODITIES: Chart III-23Broad Commodity Indicators Broad Commodity Indicators Broad Commodity Indicators Chart III-24Commodity Prices Commodity Prices Commodity Prices Chart III-25Commodity Prices Commodity Prices Commodity Prices Chart III-26Commodity Sentiment Commodity Sentiment Commodity Sentiment Chart III-27Speculative Positioning Speculative Positioning Speculative Positioning   ECONOMY: Chart III-28US And Global Macro Backdrop US And Global Macro Backdrop US And Global Macro Backdrop Chart III-29US Macro Snapshot US Macro Snapshot US Macro Snapshot Chart III-30US Growth Outlook US Growth Outlook US Growth Outlook Chart III-31US Cyclical Spending US Cyclical Spending US Cyclical Spending Chart III-32US Labor Market US Labor Market US Labor Market Chart III-33US Consumption US Consumption US Consumption Chart III-34US Housing US Housing US Housing Chart III-35US Debt And Deleveraging US Debt And Deleveraging US Debt And Deleveraging   Chart III-36US Financial Conditions US Financial Conditions US Financial Conditions Chart III-37Global Economic Snapshot: Europe Global Economic Snapshot: Europe Global Economic Snapshot: Europe Chart III-38Global Economic Snapshot: China Global Economic Snapshot: China Global Economic Snapshot: China   Jonathan LaBerge, CFA Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst Footnotes 1  Please see The Bank Credit Analyst "The Return To Maximum Employment: It May Be Faster Than You Think," dated August 26, 2021, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 2  Please see China Investment Strategy "A Quick Take On Embattled Evergrande," dated September 21, 2021, and China Investment Strategy "The Evergrande Saga Continues," dated September 29, 2021, available at cis.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see US Political Strategy "Forget Biden's Budget," dated June 2, 2021, available at usps.bcaresearch.com 4     Please see The Bank Credit Analyst “R-star, And The Structural Risk To Stocks,” dated March 31, 2021, available at bca.bcaresearch.com

Highlights Evergrande has not only crossed regulatory gridlines but also regulators’ bottom lines; the government will use the example of Evergrande to impose discipline on real estate developers. The policy response will likely prioritize domestic homebuyers and suppliers to minimize systemic risks and damage to the real economy. However, a bigger risk stems from the possibility that policymakers overestimate the resilience of the economy and ignore signs of a significant spillover to other segments in the economy. The existing policy restrictions on China’s housing sector will not be reversed; the sector is on a structural downshift and will face risks of further consolidation and profit growth compression. Feature China Evergrande Group continues to stir up the global markets. Last Thursday the company missed a deadline to pay USD $83.5m in bond interest. The firm has now entered a 30-day grace period; it will default if that deadline also passes without payment. Chart 1Roller-Coaster Ride Continues... Roller-Coaster Ride Continues... Roller-Coaster Ride Continues... Evergrande has not remarked on the potential default nor have China’s authorities or state media offered any clues about a potential rescue package. Meanwhile, the PBoC injected large amounts of liquidity into the banking system of late, a clear sign of support for the markets. Evergrande share prices continued their roller-coaster ride (Chart 1). Evergrande’s tumult is indicative of an industry-wide problem.  Real estate developers have expanded their businesses and profits through high-debt growth models. China’s policymakers have been trying to crack down on this business practice since 2017 and their clampdown has significantly intensified since August 2020. In this report, we follow up on last week’s Special Alert and share our thoughts on the potential market implications and policy response to the evolving Evergrande situation. The “Three Red Lines” Versus The “Bottom Lines” Evergrande has not only crossed the “three red lines” – three debt metrics China’s authorities laid out a year ago to reduce the housing sector’s leverage – but it has also crossed the bottom lines of policymakers. Therefore, we do not expect the government to lend a financial hand to bail out the corporation and its shareholders. Meanwhile, as discussed in our Special Alert, we expect that there will be some kind of a rescue plan to help onshore homebuyers and suppliers recover their losses. The authorities’ silence in the past three months as investors’ concerns about Evergrande’s debt situation escalated speaks volumes about plans for the overleveraged company. The Evergrande episode is not idiosyncratic; it represents an industry-wide problem linked to the sector’s high-debt growth model.  However, Evergrande has become China’s and the world’s most indebted property developer; the “three red lines” policy last year has pushed the company into a severe liquidity crunch.  Evergrande not only borrowed heavily to pursue an aggressive expansion strategy (“disorderly expansion of capitals”), but did so as President Xi Jinping famously remarked “houses are for living, not for speculation” in late 2016. Between 2016 and 2020, Evergrande’s total liabilities almost doubled and its stock prices jumped by 460%. Evergrande’s founder was ranked the richest man in China in 2017, building his company’s fortune on excessive leverage. The way that the company accumulated wealth conflicts with the government’s new mantra of building “common prosperity”, a policy shift to reduce income and wealth inequality. Furthermore, Evergrande paid its offshore investors in June this year while it continued to borrow from onshore banks and offload its onshore assets. This move did not bode well for China’s domestic stake- and shareholders, along with policymakers. Chart 2Housing Price Inflation Has Been Subdued Outside Of Top-Tier Cities Housing Price Inflation Has Been Subdued Outside Of Top-Tier Cities Housing Price Inflation Has Been Subdued Outside Of Top-Tier Cities In contrast with policymakers’ silence about the future of Evergrande and its shareholders, the authorities have reportedly urged the company to finish and deliver its housing projects.  Evergrande’s projects are mostly in tier-three cities where post-pandemic home price inflation has been subdued compared with top-tier cities (Chart 2). As such, policymakers will be less concerned about fueling home prices in these cities and more willing to work out a plan to finish and deliver those housing projects. Bottom Line: Beijing may rescue the stakeholders of Evergrande rather than its shareholders. Contagion Risks We discussed our baseline scenario for Evergrande’s bankruptcy and restructuring in last week’s Special Alert. Our message has been that the well-telegraphed Evergrande default might not create an imminent systemic crisis or crash in China’s financial markets. However, it will likely reinforce the credit tightening that has been underway in China over the past 12 months.  This will delay and weaken the transmission of liquidity easing into the real economy. So far things are not bad enough for policymakers to reflate the economy in any meaningful way. Since the contagion risks from Evergrande’s debt crisis to China’s onshore financial markets seem to be contained, policy easing in the coming months will likely be gradual. Regulators have shown no sign of reversing the existing policy restrictions. Therefore, a bigger risk to China’s financial markets stems from the possibility that policymakers overestimate the resilience of the economy and ignore signs of a spillover to other segments in the economy. Real estate activity and investment in China are set to slow structurally (discussed in the section below). If policymakers allow a disruptive deceleration in the sector's growth while being reluctant to ramp up support in other industries, China’s economic growth could downshift much more than policymakers would like to see. A rapid deceleration in the real economic activity and jitters in the financial markets could reinforce each other and spiral out of control. The facts below explain why risks of an imminent systemic crisis in China’s and global financial markets are limited (Table 1): The exposure of China’s banks to real estate developers is small relative to the banks’ total lending.  Although about 40% of total bank loans are property-related, only 6% are in loans to real estate developers. The majority of the 40% is in mortgage loans, construction loans and other loans collateralized by land and property. Evergrande’s outstanding bank debt accounts for less than 0.1% of China’s total onshore loan balances. The company owes about 1% of China’s existing trust loans and 0.04% of domestic bonds. The company has quality assets, as we discussed in last week’s report, that could cover most of its onshore outstanding debt. Widespread mortgage loan defaults are unlikely to happen, even if Evergrande does not strike a debt restructuring deal with the government. Strict housing and home-sale regulations cap the upside and limit the downside in home prices. Moreover, conservative loan-to-value ratio requirements have contributed to China’s low default rates on mortgage loans.1 Evergrande’s overseas liabilities are more significant, with its USD $20 billion bonds accounting for about 10% of China's corporate USD bonds issued by real estate developers. On the other hand, major US financial institutions have minimal direct exposure to China and Hong Kong SAR. Table 1Evergrande Debt, An Overview* The Evergrande Saga Continues The Evergrande Saga Continues Despite limited systemic risks to the financial markets, a lack of government intervention could result in a disruptive bankruptcy of the company, risking substantial ripple effects on other parts of the economy. Evergrande’s accounts payable and bills amount to nearly RMB 700 billion, owed to companies in the upstream and downstream industry supply chains.  In addition, Evergrande’s contract liabilities are as high as RMB 170 billion and are associated with the pre-sold but unfinished residential units in more than 200 cities. We think policymakers and Evergrande will ultimately agree on a debt restructuring plan. Evergrande could transfer some of its hard assets to state-owned banks or enterprises and the banks could either extend or restructure Evergrande’s existing loans to help finish and deliver the company’s housing projects. Regardless of how the debt is restructured, a government-led rescue will likely prioritize domestic homebuyers and suppliers. Evergrande shareholders and investors in offshore, USD-denominated corporate bonds will suffer large losses. Bottom Line: Our base case scenario is that the government will restructure Evergrande’s debt to prevent the company’s crisis from evolving into a systemic financial risk. Will Policymakers Reverse Restrictive Housing Policies? Even though China’s monetary and fiscal policies have eased at margin, policy restrictions on the property market remain in place. The bar for regulators to significantly ease or to reverse policy tightening in the real estate industry is much higher than in past cycles. Furthermore, the government’s efforts to contain the sector’s leverage and home price inflation are structural rather than cyclical. Our view is based on the following observations: Chart 3China's Housing Demand Is On A Structural Downshift China's Housing Demand Is On A Structural Downshift China's Housing Demand Is On A Structural Downshift China’s housing demand is on a structural downshift due to China’s falling birthrate and working-age population.  The decline in demand will likely accelerate in the next four to five years (Chart 3). Therefore, it is unreasonable to expect that the growth in real estate investment in the coming years will continue growing at the same rate as in the past cycles.  The government is determined to improve housing affordability by capping home prices in the coming years while increasing lower-income household wage growth. Previous “big bang” stimulus and soaring home prices have widened rather than narrowed income and wealth inequality. Beijing’s current primary focus is “common prosperity,” which aims to reduce inequality. This overarching policy initiative will prevent policymakers from backtracking on reforms in the property sector. Things are not bad enough for a major shift in policy direction. Demand for housing is down, but from a very elevated level (Chart 4). The growth of home sales is now reverting to its pre-pandemic rate. In a previous report we pointed out that the current policy backdrop resembles that of 2H2018 and 2019, when the stimulus was very measured despite a slowing economy and an escalating trade war with the US. Demand for housing in the first eight months of this year is stronger than in 2018/19, thus policymakers may not feel pressure to loosen restrictions in the housing sector.  Chart 4Post-Pandemic Housing Demand Stronger Than 2018/19 Post-Pandemic Housing Demand Stronger Than 2018/19 Post-Pandemic Housing Demand Stronger Than 2018/19 Chart 5Real Estate Investment Relatively Steady Despite Contracting Housing Starts Real Estate Investment Relatively Steady Despite Contracting Housing Starts Real Estate Investment Relatively Steady Despite Contracting Housing Starts Growth in real estate investment has been steady despite contracting housing starts (Chart 5).  The government’s deleveraging pressure on the sector since August last year has forced developers to hurry and finish their existing projects (Chart 5, bottom panel). This has helped to reduce developers’ project inventories and discourage them from hoarding land reserves, and the policy intention is unlikely to change (Chart 6). Additionally, the government has prioritized home price stability by capping prices and fine-tuning the supply of land (Chart 7). In other words, housing starts have become less market-driven and weaker readings may reflect regulators’ policy intentions to rein in land supplies.2 Local governments may increase the supply of land when real estate investment softens too fast, but home sales and project completions will have to decelerate more significantly. Chart 6Developers Have Been Rushing To Finish Existing Projects Developers Have Been Rushing To Finish Existing Projects Developers Have Been Rushing To Finish Existing Projects Chart 7Government Prioritizes Home Price Stability By Capping Prices And Fine-Tuning Land Supply Government Prioritizes Home Price Stability By Capping Prices And Fine-Tuning Land Supply Government Prioritizes Home Price Stability By Capping Prices And Fine-Tuning Land Supply Funding constraints will not be removed soon and restrictive policies apply to both developers and banks. Banks need to meet the “two red lines” while developers must bring their leverage ratios below the “three red lines” by end-2023. The “two red lines”, which the PBoC unveiled in January this year, set the upper limit on the portion of household mortgages and real estate loans in banks’ total lending.  Despite aggressively scaling back lending to the housing sector, the lending ratio in many banks – including China’s six large banks and various medium-sized banks – still exceeded the upper limit. These banks will have to continue to reduce their property-related lending while the other banks will maintain a lower percentage of loans to the housing sector than in the past. Consequently, binding constraints on developers and banks will continue to weigh on the housing market in the coming years, suggesting that the property market downturn will last longer than in previous cycles. Chinese policymakers are unlikely to have much appetite for more robust construction activity in the current environment with supply-side constraints for both raw materials and energy. More than 10 provinces in China are currently under power rationing and have cut factory production amid electricity supply issues and a push to enforce environmental regulations. We expect supply shortages and production decreases to continue through the winter, limiting the upside potential of the country’s economic activity. Bottom Line: China’s reforms in the property sector are structural and the leadership is much less likely to use housing as counter-cyclical policy support to the economy than in previous cycles. Investment Implications China’s growth and its ever-important property market activity have slowed. Given the policymakers’ higher pain threshold for a slower economy and lower appetite for leverage, policy easing will likely be gradual and piecemeal in the near term. The current monetary, fiscal, and industry policy backdrops resemble China’s response in H2 2018 and early 2019. Chinese stock prices rose briefly in early 2019 on the expectation of a sizable stimulus, but the rally was short-lived (Chart 8). Furthermore, we do not rule out the possibility that policymakers will be overconfident in their capability to stabilize the economy as they balance structural reforms against growth volatility. They may choose to wait until there are signs of a significant spillover to other segments in the economy before backtracking the deleveraging campaign in the property sector and lending more support to the market/economy. In this scenario, the near-term response in the equity market will likely be very negative. China-related asset prices will not stabilize until policymakers decisively and significantly dial-up their reflationary response. Property sector stocks in China’s on- and offshore markets have been beaten down by policy tightening and lately the Evergrande saga (Chart 9). We maintain our view that these stocks have not reached their bottom. The property downturn in China is a structural change and authorities are unlikely to reverse current restrictions on the sector to support the economy. Chart 8Chinese Stock Price Rally In 2019 Was Short-Lived Chinese Stock Price Rally In 2019 Was Short-Lived Chinese Stock Price Rally In 2019 Was Short-Lived Chart 9Chinese Real Estate Stocks Have Not Reached Their Bottom Chinese Real Estate Stocks Have Not Reached Their Bottom Chinese Real Estate Stocks Have Not Reached Their Bottom The real estate sector’s contribution to China’s economic growth is expected to gradually decline in the medium to long term. The industry will be further reformed and consolidated, and more developers will be forced to abandon their high-leverage, high-growth business expansion model. The outlook for the real estate industry’s profit growth will become less certain.  Investors will require higher risk premiums for real estate sector stocks, which means that these stocks’ valuations will be further compressed.   Jing Sima China Strategist jings@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1 Chinese homeowners’ down payment ratios on a first property is 30% and 50% on a second property. 2Land auctions were delayed in July and August due to overwhelming demand from developers in the first half of the year. Market/Sector Recommendations Cyclical Investment Stance

Highlights Monetary Policy: Last week’s numerous central bank meetings across the world confirmed that the overall direction for global monetary policy is shifting in a more hawkish direction. The main reason: growing fears that elevated inflation will persist for much longer than expected, even with global growth having lost some momentum. Country Allocation: The relative degrees of central banker hawkishness support our current government bond country allocation strategy. Stay underweight the US, UK, Canada, New Zealand and Norway where markets are discounting a path for future policy rates over the next two years that is too flat. Remain overweight countries where there is less need for a more aggressive tightening response: the euro area (both the core and periphery), Australia, Sweden and Japan. Still The Only Game In Town Last week was a busy one for global bond markets, with no fewer than 14 central banks within both the developed markets (DM) and emerging markets (EM) holding policy meetings. The results were eventful: Within EM, Brazil and Hungary lifted policy rates. Norway followed suit to become the first G-10 central bank to hike during the COVID era. The Fed teed up a formal announcement on tapering asset purchases at the next FOMC meeting in November. The Bank of England (BoE) gave strong hints that rate hikes could come sooner than expected, perhaps even before year-end. Chart of the WeekMonetary Policy Backdrop Turning More Bond-Bearish Monetary Policy Backdrop Turning More Bond-Bearish Monetary Policy Backdrop Turning More Bond-Bearish Global bond yields in the developed markets took notice of the change in central bank guidance, especially from the Fed and BoE. The benchmark 10-year US Treasury yield rose from a pre-FOMC low of 1.30% to an intraday high of 1.57% yesterday – a level last seen late June. Longer-dated yields in the UK also rose significantly, with the 30-year Gilt yield rising from a pre-BoE meeting low of 1.11% to an intraday high of 1.40% yesterday – also the highest level since June. The pull on yields extended to other countries, as well, with 10-year yields in Germany, Canada and Australia climbing to three-month highs. The overall message from all of those policy meetings was one of an incremental shift toward less accommodative policies, even as the pace of global economic growth has slowed in recent months. Policymakers are growing more concerned that higher inflation could linger for longer (Chart of the Week). At the same time, loose policy settings have fueled a boom in asset markets that supports growth through easy financial conditions, but also raises future stability risks that worry the central banks. The number of countries seeing actual rate hikes is growing. Our Global Monetary Policy Tightening Indicator shows that just over one-quarter of G-10 and EM central banks have lifted rates over the past three months (Chart 2). All but one (Norway) are in EM, where policymakers have had to act more mechanistically in response to high inflation, even with softening economic growth momentum. While the slower pace of growth is more visible in EM relative to DM, when looking at cyclical indicators like manufacturing PMIs, inflation rates are simply too high around the world for inflation-targeting central banks to ignore (Chart 3). Chart 2Our Global Monetary Policy Indicator Shows A More Hawkish Turn Our Global Monetary Policy Indicator Shows A More Hawkish Turn Our Global Monetary Policy Indicator Shows A More Hawkish Turn Chart 3Global CBs Growing More Worried About Inflation Risks Global CBs Growing More Worried About Inflation Risks Global CBs Growing More Worried About Inflation Risks Within the major DM countries, there has been a notable shift in interest rate expectations in a more hawkish direction. Interest rate markets are, for the most part, still underestimating the potential for tighter monetary policies over the next couple of years. This is the main reason why we continue to recommend an overall below-benchmark strategic stance on global duration exposure. However, the relative expected pace of rate hikes also informs our views on country allocation. In Table 1, we show expectations for the timing of the next rate hike, as well as the cumulative amount of rate increases to the end of 2024, that are currently discounted in DM overnight index swap (OIS) curves. We present the latest level for both, as well as the reading from earlier this month to see how expectations have changed. Table 1Markets Still Pricing Very Modest Tightening Cycles Marking-To-Market Our Bond Calls After "Central Bank Week" Marking-To-Market Our Bond Calls After "Central Bank Week" The so-called “liftoff date” for the first rate hike has been most notably pulled forward in the UK from January 2023 to May 2022, while other countries have seen more modest shifts in the timing of the next rate increase. More importantly, the discounted pace of rate hikes to end-2024 for all countries shown in the table has increased since early September (including Norway, factoring in last week’s tightening move by the Norges Bank). In our view, the biggest driver of relative government bond market yield movements and returns over the next 6-12 months will be the relative adjustments in the expected pace of rate hikes. On that front, the biggest shift higher in cumulative tightening has occurred in countries where we are more pessimistic on government bond performance on a relative basis to the global benchmark: the US, Canada, the UK and Norway. The smaller increases in the pace of hikes have occurred in our more preferred markets – Australia, Sweden, the euro area, and Japan. Assessing Our Two Biggest Government Bond Underweights: The US & UK For last week’s Fed meeting, a new set of economic and interest rate projections from the FOMC members (“the dots”) were presented (Chart 4). Compared to the forecasts from the June meeting, US real GDP growth expectations for 2021 were revised down (5.9% vs 7.6%) but were boosted for 2022 (3.8% vs 3.3%) and 2023 (2.5% vs 2.4%). A new forecast for 2024 was added, coming in at 2.0%. Importantly, none of those growth forecasts was below the median FOMC estimate of the longer-run real GDP growth rate of 1.8% (top panel). In other words, the Fed is not anticipating below-trend growth anytime in the next three years. Chart 4The Fed’s Rate Projections Look Too Low Marking-To-Market Our Bond Calls After "Central Bank Week" Marking-To-Market Our Bond Calls After "Central Bank Week" The same conclusion goes for the US unemployment rate (second panel), with the median FOMC projection for 2022 (3.8%), 2023 (3.5%) and 2024 (3.5%) all below the median longer-run “full employment” estimate of 4.0%. The forecasts for US inflation (third panel) reflect that persistent low level of unemployment. Headline PCE inflation is expected to end 2021 at 4.2%, to be followed by a somewhat slower pace – but still above the 2% Fed inflation target – in 2022 (2.2%), 2023 (2.2%) and 2024 (2.1%). Yet despite these forecasts that show US growth and inflation exceeding its longer-run estimates for the next few years, the FOMC is projecting a relatively slow upward path for interest rates. The median dot now calls for the Fed to hike the funds rate once in 2022 and three more times in both 2023 and 2024. This would bring the funds rate to 1.75% by the end of 2024 – still 75bps below the Fed’s estimate of the longer-run “neutral” funds rate of 2.5% (bottom panel). That projected path for the funds rate is higher than the June dots, which only called for 75bps of cumulative hikes to the end of 2023. There is a wide divergence of opinions on the future path of rates within the FOMC, but the hawks appear to be winning the internal battle (Chart 5). There is now a 9-9 split of FOMC members who are calling for a rate hike in 2022, compared to a 7-11 split back in June, while the number of those projecting a funds rate above 1% in 2023 rose from 5 to 9. Chart 5A Wide Dispersion Of FOMC Interest Rate Views For 2023/24 A Wide Dispersion Of FOMC Interest Rate Views For 2023/24 A Wide Dispersion Of FOMC Interest Rate Views For 2023/24 One area where there does appear to be a consensus is on the timing and pace of tapering. Fed Chair Powell noted at his post-FOMC press conference that an announcement on the reduction of Fed asset purchases could come as soon as the next FOMC meeting on November 6. Powell also signaled that there was general agreement on the FOMC that the taper should end by mid-2022, barring any economic setbacks. That would likely open the door to a rate hike in the latter half of next year, given the Fed’s longstanding view that lifting the funds rate should only occur after tapering is complete, to avoid sending conflicting signals about the Fed’s policy bias. It is clear that the Fed’s policy guidance has shifted incrementally in a more hawkish direction, and confirms our long-held expectation that tapering would be announced by year-end, with rate hikes to begin in late 2022. This dovetails with our recommended investment positioning in the US Treasury market for the next 12-18 months. Maintain a below-benchmark US duration exposure, with a curve-flattening bias, while staying underweight US Treasuries in global (USD-hedged) fixed income portfolios (Chart 6). Our other high-conviction underweight government bond call is in the UK. The BoE’s recent messaging has turned more hawkish in a very short period of time, justifying our decision to downgrade our recommended UK Gilt exposure to underweight last month.1 The BoE Monetary Policy Committee had already sharply upgraded its inflation forecast for the end of 2021 to just above 4% at the last policy meeting in August. That was categorized as just a temporary surge due to rising energy prices and goods prices elevated by shorter-term global supply chain bottlenecks. At last week’s meeting, however, the MPC noted that +4% UK inflation could persist into Q2 2022 because of the current surge in wholesale natural gas prices that has driven many UK gas suppliers out of business (Chart 7). Chart 6Our Recommended Strategy For US Treasuries Our Recommended Strategy For US Treasuries Our Recommended Strategy For US Treasuries Chart 7BoE Growing More Worried About Inflation BoE Growing More Worried About Inflation BoE Growing More Worried About Inflation Chart 8Our Recommended Strategy For UK Gilts Our Recommended Strategy For UK Gilts Our Recommended Strategy For UK Gilts The official view of the BoE has been like that of other central banks, that much of the current high inflation is supply driven and, hence, will not last. Yet within the MPC, there is clearly some growing nervousness about high realized inflation becoming more embedded in longer-term inflation expectations, which are moving higher. BoE Governor Andrew Bailey has noted in recent speeches that there was a growing case for interest rate hikes because of stubbornly higher inflation. Two members of the MPC even voted last week to reduce the size of the BoE’s QE program that is already set to end in just three months. The markets have begun to heed the more hawkish signals from the BoE. Our 24-month UK discounter, measuring the amount of rate hikes priced into the UK OIS curve, has jumped 24bps since September 7 (Chart 8). Over that same period, UK Gilts have underperformed the Bloomberg Barclays Global Treasury index by 108bps (on a USD-hedged and duration-matched basis). We are sticking with our underweight recommendation on UK Gilts, as there are still too few rate hikes priced into the UK curve relative to the BoE’s guidance and upside inflation risks. What About The BoJ? Same Old, Same Old Chart 9Reasons Why JGBs Will Outperform Reasons Why JGBs Will Outperform Reasons Why JGBs Will Outperform Lost amid the hawkish din from the Fed and BoE meetings last week was the Bank of Japan (BoJ) meeting. The message from policymakers in Tokyo was predictably dovish, as Japan has not seen anything resembling the high inflation that has pushed central bankers elsewhere in a more hawkish direction. Japanese growth has also not seen the same magnitude of recovery from the pandemic shock as the other major developed markets, despite suffering comparable losses during the 2020 recession (Chart 9). One of the main reasons has been that Japan’s vaccine rollouts were much slower than those of other major countries. This forced an extension of emergency lockdowns and other economic restrictions that depressed domestic demand and delayed a return to normal economic activity (second panel). COVID outbreaks even cost Japan the one-time economic windfall from hosting an Olympics, with the Tokyo Games first delayed by a year and then taking place with no fans. Japan has also not suffered any of the higher inflation rates witnessed elsewhere over the past year, despite presumably facing many of the same inflationary forces from global supply chain disruption (third panel). Both headline and core CPI inflation are now in deflation. Governor Haruhiko Kuroda stated last week that it will take longer for Japan to see inflation return back to its 2% target than other developed countries, with the official BoJ forecast calling for that level to be reached by 2023 – a forecast that appears too optimistic. We continue to view Japanese government bonds (JGBs) as a relative safe haven during the period of rising global bond yields that we expect over the next 6-12 months. The BoJ is nowhere close to seeing the conditions necessary to begin exiting its Yield Curve Control and negative interest rate policies, both of which have crushed JGB volatility and kept longer-term bond yields hovering near 0%. We continue to recommend a moderate overweight stance on Japan in global government bond portfolios, particularly on a USD-hedged basis to make the yields more attractive. The Scandinavian Policy Divergence Last week, the Norges Bank raised its benchmark interest rate from 0% to 0.25% (Chart 10), stating that a normalizing economy requires a gradual normalization in monetary policy. The bank’s decision reflects idiosyncratic factors unique to the Norwegian economy, but also some of the same broader themes that are forcing other central banks in a more hawkish direction.   As a small economy driven heavily by oil exports, both the Norwegian krone and the price of oil weigh heavily on the policy decisions of the Norges Bank. On that front, the rise in energy prices since the crisis has outpaced the appreciation in the krone (Chart 10, top panel). With this relative weakness in the krone comes higher import price inflation and increased export competitiveness, both of which mean that the Norges Bank must pull forward its path of rate hikes to compensate. As opposed to other G10 central banks, the Norges Bank clearly believes a pre-emptive move on rates is necessary to nip future inflation risk in the bud. The bank expects that increased capacity utilization and wage growth will help push up underlying inflation to approximately 1.9% by the end of 2024, with the ongoing supply chain disruptions creating additional upside risk to that forecast. Like other G10 banks, however, the Norges Bank is concerned about increasing financial imbalances. The Norwegian house price-to-disposable income ratio is now at all-time highs and the Norges Bank expects it to remain elevated to the end of its forecast horizon (Chart 10, bottom panel). With the growth in house prices substantially outpacing income growth during the pandemic, housing market vulnerabilities have increased as households have taken on greater leverage to enter the market. In contrast to the Norges Bank, the other major Scandinavian central bank, Sweden’s Riksbank, has hewed more closely to the prevailing global monetary policy orthodoxy – avoiding pre-emptive policy tightening in order to boost inflation. The central bank chose to hold its repo rate at 0% at last week’s policy meeting, even with a Swedish economy that has recovered the 2020 pandemic losses and is projected to return to pre-COVID growth rates in 2022 (Chart 11). In its decision, the Riksbank mirrored rhetoric from the Fed and ECB, citing that high inflation was driven by rising energy prices and supply logjams, both factors which are expected to subside over the coming year (Chart 11, middle panel). Both headline and core versions of the bank’s favored CPI-F (CPI with Fixed Interest Rate) measure are projected by the Riksbank to remain below target in 2022, reaching 2% only in 2024. Chart 10The Norges Bank Isn't Waiting Around... The Norges Bank Isn't Waiting Around... The Norges Bank Isn't Waiting Around... Chart 11...But The Riksbank Will Remain Patient ...But The Riksbank Will Remain Patient ...But The Riksbank Will Remain Patient Chart 12The Central Bank Story Will Further Widen The Norway-Sweden Spread The Central Bank Story Will Further Widen The Norway-Sweden Spread The Central Bank Story Will Further Widen The Norway-Sweden Spread The Riksbank is less willing than the Norges Bank to respond to temporarily higher inflation because of the former’s growing reluctance to return to negative nominal interest rates in response to an economic shock. The Riksbank would likely be more comfortable in lifting nominal rates only when real rates were significantly lower than current levels, which requires higher inflation. In contrast to the neighboring Norges Bank, the Riksbank has an additional tool which it can use to express shifts in monetary policy—the size of its balance sheet. The bank forecasts that holdings of securities will remain unchanged in 2022 (Chart 11, bottom panel), implying that purchases, net of redemptions, will be drawn down roughly to zero. However, the bank does believe that the existing stock of purchases will continue to support financial conditions. Chart 12 shows the impact of the Norges Bank’s relatively hawkish reaction function. Despite relatively similar underlying growth and inflation profiles, sovereign debt from Norway has markedly underperformed Swedish counterparts, a dynamic that has been even more obvious since the pandemic. On the currency side, the NOK/SEK cross has recovered much of the losses from 2020, and will likely rally further as Norway-Sweden rate differentials will turn even more favorable for the NOK. Relative to the global benchmark on a currency-hedged and duration-matched basis, Norwegian government debt has underperformed much more than Sweden following the pandemic. We see these tends continuing over the next 6-12 months, with the Norges Bank likely to remain far more hawkish than the Riksbank. Our bias is to favor Swedish sovereign debt over Norwegian government bonds.   Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com Shakti Sharma Senior Analyst ShaktiS@bcaresearch.com Ray Park, CFA Research Analyst ray@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see BCA Research Global Fixed Income Strategy/European Investment Strategy Report, "The UK Leads The Way", dated August 11, 2021, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. Recommendations The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Marking-To-Market Our Bond Calls After "Central Bank Week" Marking-To-Market Our Bond Calls After "Central Bank Week" Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns