Fixed Income

Special Report

Highlights The Fed: The Fed will formally discuss tapering plans over the course of this summer and fall and announce the slowing of asset purchases before the end of 2021. Its labor market objectives will also be achieved in time to lift rates in 2022. Non-US Developed Markets: The central banks outside the US most likely to deliver tapering and/or outright rate hikes over the next 1-2 years are those facing housing bubbles – the Bank of Canada and Reserve Bank of New Zealand. The ECB will do nothing on rates while adjusting asset purchase programs to preserve the size of its balance sheet, while the Reserve Bank of Australia will also sit on their hands for longer. Bond Strategy Recommendations: Investors should maintain below-benchmark portfolio duration in US-only and global fixed income portfolios. Global bond investors should also favor exposure in markets where central banks will be more dovish than expected (core Europe, Australia), while limiting exposure to markets where hawkish surprises are more likely (the US, Canada, New Zealand). Feature The recovery from the 2020 COVID recession is now well underway and many investors are getting antsy about when central bankers might respond by removing monetary policy accommodation. Some central banks appear more eager than others. Both the Bank of Canada and Bank of England, for instance, have already started to reduce their rates of bond buying. Meanwhile, the US Federal Reserve is only just now starting to talk about the timing of its own tapering. This Special Report lays out a timeline for what central bank actions we should expect during the next two years. The first section focuses exclusively on the US Federal Reserve and the second section incorporates likely announcements from other central banks. Based on a comparison of our expected central bank timeline with current market prices, we conclude that investors should maintain below-benchmark portfolio duration in US-only and global fixed income portfolios. Global bond investors should also favor government bonds in countries where central banks are likely to be less hawkish than markets expect (core Europe, Australia) versus bonds from countries where hawkish surprises are more likely (US, Canada, New Zealand and, potentially, the UK and Sweden).   The Federal Reserve’s Timeline Chart 1 shows our anticipated timeline for when the Federal Reserve will make specific policy announcements between now and the start of 2024. Chart 1The Federal Reserve’s Timeline First, over the course of this summer, the Fed will initiate discussions about when to taper its asset purchases. Then, asset purchase tapering will be announced at the December 2021 FOMC meeting with purchases set to decline as of the beginning of 2022. We expect that net Fed purchases will fall to zero by the end of Q3 2022. That is, by that time the Fed will no longer be adding to its securities holdings. Rather, it will keep the size of its balance sheet constant. Then, with its balance sheet no longer growing, the Fed will begin the process of lifting interest rates. We expect the first rate hike to occur at the December 2022 FOMC meeting. Finally, some time after the fed funds rate is well above the zero bound, the Fed will try to reduce the size of its securities portfolio. How do we arrive at this timeline? Table 1A Checklist For Liftoff We start with the Fed’s forward guidance about the timing of the first rate hike (Table 1). The Fed has told us that it will lift rates off the zero bound once (i) PCE inflation is above 2%, (ii) the labor market is at “maximum employment” and (iii) inflation is expected to remain above 2% for some time. The first item on the Fed’s liftoff checklist has already been met and the third item logically follows from the other two. That is, if inflation is above 2% and the labor market is at “maximum employment” then the Fed will certainly expect inflation to remain high. This means that the second item on the Fed’s checklist is the most critical for assessing the timing of liftoff. In assessing the US labor market’s progress toward “maximum employment” we first have to define what “maximum employment” means. Based on the Fed’s communications, we infer that “maximum employment” means an unemployment rate between 3.5% and 4.5% - a range consistent with the Fed’s NAIRU estimates – and a labor force participation rate that has recovered back to pre-pandemic levels (Chart 2). Table 2 presents the average monthly growth in nonfarm payrolls that is required to reach that definition of maximum employment by specific future dates. For example, we calculate that average monthly payroll growth of 698k to 830k will cause the labor market to reach maximum employment by the end of this year. Average monthly payroll growth of 412k to 493k is required to hit the Fed’s target by the end of 2022. Chart 2Defining "Maximum Employment" Table 2Average Monthly Nonfarm Payroll Growth Required To Reach Maximum Employment By The Given Date The most recent issue of the Bank Credit Analyst posits several reasons why US employment growth will pick up steam in the coming months.1 We agree with this view and note that indicators of labor demand such as job openings, the NFIB “jobs hard to get” survey and the Conference Board’s “jobs plentiful” survey also point to accelerating employment gains.2 All told, we think that average monthly payroll growth of 412k to 493k is eminently achievable (Chart 3). This means that the Fed will hit its three liftoff criteria in time to hike rates before the end of 2022. Chart 3Max Employment By The End of 2022 Working backwards from the expected liftoff date, the Fed has said that it needs to see “substantial progress” toward the criteria listed in Table 1 before it will taper its pace of asset purchases. The definition of “substantial progress” remains somewhat unclear, but a few recent Fed communications provide some clues. First, Fed Chair Jay Powell said that he wants to see a “string of months” like the strong March employment report before it will be appropriate to reduce the pace of asset purchases. The question of how many months constitutes a “string” remains unclear, but it certainly seems plausible that we could see two or three more strong employment reports over the course of the summer. Other Fed Governors appear to agree with this timeline. Governor Randal Quarles: If my expectations about economic growth, employment, and inflation over the coming months are borne out, however, and especially if they come in stronger than I expect, then, as noted in the minutes of the last FOMC meeting, it will become important for the FOMC to begin discussing our plans to adjust the pace of asset purchases at upcoming meetings.3 Fed Vice-Chair Richard Clarida: I myself think that the pace of labor market improvement will pick up. […] It may well be the time that – there will come a time in upcoming meetings we’ll be at the point where we can begin to discuss scaling back the pace of asset purchases …4 Fed Governor Christopher Waller: The May and June jobs report[s] may reveal that April was an outlier, but we need to see that first before we start thinking about adjusting our policy stance.5 Our takeaway from these comments is that two or three more strong employment reports, say 500k or higher, would be sufficient for the Fed to more formally discuss tapering plans. Further, several Fed Governors seem to agree with our forecast that nonfarm payroll growth will accelerate in the coming months. With that in mind, it seems reasonable to expect that the Fed will discuss tapering plans over the course of the summer and fall, and that it will have seen sufficient labor market gains to announce a formal plan before the end of this year. Assuming that a tapering announcement occurs before the end of this year and that asset purchases actually start declining as of Jan 1st 2022, we estimate that the tapering process will conclude by the end of Q3 2022. That is, the Fed will hold the size of its balance sheet constant as of that date. Chart 4Balance Sheet Growth Will End Before The First Rate Hike At the very least, the Fed will certainly bring its net purchases to zero before it lifts rates. This is because it would be incoherent for the Fed to be tightening policy through its interest rate actions while it eases policy with its balance sheet strategy. Indeed, this is the roadmap that the Fed followed leading up to the 2015 rate hike cycle (Chart 4). Finally, we note that the Fed will try to reduce the size of its balance sheet only after the process of rate hikes is well underway. This will be consistent with the last tightening cycle when the Fed waited until the funds rate was 1.5% before it pared the size of its securities portfolio (Chart 4). We also want to stress that the Fed will only try to reduce the size of its balance sheet. In fact, we doubt that this process will get very far. The main reason for our skepticism is that there is an ongoing structural issue in the Treasury market where the supply of securities keeps growing while stricter regulations make it more costly for primary dealers to intermediate trades.6 In this environment, there are strong odds that Treasury market liquidity will evaporate whenever there is a significant shock to financial markets. When that happens, the Fed will be forced to support Treasury market liquidity through large-scale purchases, as was the case during last March’s market turmoil (Chart 5). In essence, the likelihood of future shocks that will necessitate Fed intervention in the Treasury market makes it unlikely that the Fed will make much progress reducing the size of its balance sheet. Chart 5Fed Had To Support Treasury Market In March 2020 Market Expectations And Investment Implications We can get a sense of how our Fed timeline compares to consensus expectations by looking at the New York Fed’s Surveys of Market Participants and Primary Dealers (Tables 3A & 3B). Respondents to these surveys expect tapering to start in early 2022, in line with our expectations, though they generally see it taking longer for net purchases to fall to zero. Respondents also expect a later Fed liftoff date than we do and don’t see the Fed trying to reduce the size of its balance sheet until well after rate hikes have begun. Table 3ASurvey of Market Participants Expected Fed Timeline Table 3BSurvey Of Primary Dealers Expected Fed Timeline But more important for investors than survey results is what is currently priced into the yield curve. In that regard, the overnight index swap curve is priced for Fed liftoff in February 2023 and a total of 75 bps of rate hikes by the end of 2023 (Chart 6). We expect rate hikes to start earlier and proceed more quickly than that, and therefore recommend running below-benchmark duration in US bond portfolios. Chart 6Market Rate Expectations The Timelines For Other Central Banks Policymakers outside the US are facing many of the same issues that the Fed is – rapidly recovering economies coming out of the pandemic, inflation overshoots, and surging asset prices. However, not every central bank will respond at the same time, or same pace, as the Fed. In Charts 7a and 7b, we show additional timelines for two of the most important non-Fed central banks: the European Central Bank (ECB) and the BoE. We see the likely dates and policy decisions playing out as follows. Chart 7AThe ECB’s Timeline Chart 7BThe Bank Of England’s Timeline European Central Bank For the ECB, the timing of its upcoming inflation strategy review is the most critical element. That report is due to be delivered in the latter half of this year, most likely in September or October (no firm release date has been announced by the ECB). It is highly unlikely that any meaningful policy changes will be implemented before that strategic review is completed. Some ECB officials have hinted that a move to a Fed-like interpretation of the ECB inflation target, tolerating overshoots of the target to make up for past undershoots, could result from the strategy review. The more likely option will be a move to an inflation target range, perhaps a 1-3% tolerance band, that offers more policy flexibility than the current target of just below 2%. This will potentially “move the goalposts” for the ECB in a way that will make monetary tightening even less likely compared to previous cycles. Looking at past ECB tightening episodes dating back to the central bank’s inception in 1998, it is clear that a majority of countries within the euro area must be seeing inflation that is high enough, with unemployment low enough, before any policy tightening can take place. Chart 8 illustrates this point, by showing “breadth” measures for unemployment and inflation across the euro area.7 Chart 8The ECB Usually Tightens When Growth AND Inflation Are Broad Based Specifically, the chart shows the percentage of euro area countries with an unemployment rate below the OECD’s estimate of full employment (second panel), the percentage of euro area countries with headline inflation higher than one year earlier (third panel) and the percentage of euro area countries with headline inflation above the ECB’s 2% target (bottom panel). We compare those breadth measures to the actual path of policy interest rates and the size of the ECB’s balance sheet (top panel). The conclusion from the chart is that the euro area is still a long way from having the sort of broad-based rise in inflation or fall in unemployment necessary to trigger a reduction in the size of its balance sheet or actual interest rate hikes. Chart 9The ECB Is Under No Pressure To Tighten Pre-Emptively Nonetheless, our expectation is that the ECB will want to begin preparing the markets for the end of the Pandemic Emergency Purchase Program (PEPP) - which has been buying government bonds since March 2020 in a less constrained fashion than previous asset purchase programs - shortly after the inflation strategy review is concluded. Much of the euro area economy is already showing signs of rapid recovery from pandemic induced lockdowns, amid an accelerating pace of vaccinations. On top of that, the Next Generation European Union (NGEU) recovery fund is set to begin distributing funds in the final quarter of 2021, providing a meaningful lift to government investment and expected growth in 2022. It will be difficult for the ECB to justify the need for an “emergency” program like the PEPP to continue against such a growth backdrop, especially with euro area inflation no longer at the depressed levels seen in 2020. We expect the ECB to begin preparing the market for the end of PEPP heading into the December 2021 ECB policy meeting, when it will be announced that the program will not be renewed when it expires in March 2022 (Chart 9). As always for such major policy announcements, the ECB will wish to do so when there is a new set of economic forecasts used to justify any changes. This is why December – the first meeting after the strategic review is completed that will also have new forecasts – is the earliest realistic date for an announcement on the PEPP. The communication around the PEPP announcement will need to be delicate, as the PEPP has significantly increased the ECB’s footprint in European bond markets. The share of government bonds owned by the ECB has increased by anywhere from five to ten percentage points since the PEPP began (Chart 10). We expect the ECB will be forced to expand its existing Public Sector Purchase Program (PSPP) to make up for the eventual disappearance of the PEPP. This means that the PEPP will be effectively “rolled into” the PSPP, to limit the damage from a likely post-PEPP surge in bond yields in the more fragile markets like Italy, Spain and even Greece – especially with the euro now trading close to pre-2008 highs on a trade-weighted basis (Chart 11). Chart 10The PEPP Can Expire, But Cannot Disappear Chart 11ECB Must Avoid A 'PEPP Taper Tantrum' There is a chance that the ECB will want to avoid any “PEPP taper tantrum” in Peripheral European yields (and spreads versus Germany) by making an announcement on PEPP expiry and PSPP expansion at the same meeting. If that happens, we suspect it would happen in December of this year rather than sometime in the first quarter of 2022. Beyond that, the ECB will likely seek to keep financial conditions as accommodative as possible by keeping policy interest rates unchanged well into 2023, with an actual rate hike not likely until mid-2024 at the earliest. The ECB could deliver a more modest form of “tightening” before then by letting some of the cheap bank funding programs (TLTROs) expire. Although we suspect that even those programs will need to be renewed, perhaps at less attractive financing terms, to prevent an unwanted tightening of credit conditions in the euro area banking system. Bank Of England Chart 12BoE Forecasts Are Conservative Having already announced a tapering of the pace of its bond buying in early May, the BoE is likely to continue along that path over the next year. We expect the BoE, like the ECB, to make any future taper announcements when new sets of economic forecasts are published in Monetary Policy Reports. Thus, the next taper announcements are expected in August 2021, November 2021 and February 2022, with a full tapering down to zero net purchases (new buying only replacing maturing bonds) by May 2022 at the latest. The first rate hike will occur between 6-12 months after the end of tapering, possibly as early as November 2022 but, more likely in our view, sometime closer to mid-2023. The most recent set of BoE economic forecasts calls for headline UK CPI inflation to rise to 2.3% in 2022 before settling down to 2% in 2023 and 1.9% in 2024 (Chart 12). This would be a mild inflation outcome by recent UK standards during what will certainly be a period of strong post-pandemic growth over the next 12-18 months. Longer-term inflation expectations, both survey-based and extracted from CPI swaps and inflation-linked Gilts, are priced for a bigger inflation upturn above 3%. The BoE has been one of the least active central banks in the developed world since the 2008 financial crisis. The BoE main policy rate, the Bank Rate, has been no higher than 0.75% since then, even with the BoE threatening to lift rates to higher levels many times under the leadership of former Governor Mark Carney when inflation was overshooting the bank’s 2% target. Of course, the Brexit uncertainty since mid-2016 effectively tied the hands of the central bank and prevented any possible policy tightening. Now that Brexit has actually happened, however, the BoE has more flexibility to respond to developments with UK economic growth and inflation, as needed. A possible path for the UK Cash Rate was laid out in a recent speech by BoE Monetary Policy Committee (MPC) member Gertjan Vlieghe.8 He triggered a selloff across the Gilt market with his comment that a BoE rate hike could occur as early as Q2 2022 – with the Bank Rate rising to 1.25% from the current 0.1% by 2024 - under more optimistic scenarios for UK growth and employment. His base case, however, was that the coming uptick in UK inflation will prove to be temporary, but that a move towards full employment will make the first hike more likely toward the end of 2022 with modest rate increases in 2023 and 2024 that will take the Bank Rate to 0.75% (Chart 13). Chart 13Gilts Are Vulnerable To A Hawkish Surprise Vlighe’s base case scenario on growth and interest rates is in line with the BoE’s current forecasts that call for spare capacity in the UK economy to be fully eliminated by mid-2022, with rate hikes to begin in mid-2023. That is broadly in line with our projected BoE timeline and with current pricing in the UK OIS curve, although we see risks tilted towards faster growth and inflation – and the BoE moving more aggressively than projected – over the next 12-18 months. Other Major Developed Market Central Banks Looking beyond the “Big Three” of the Fed, ECB and BoE, central bank timelines have become increasingly dependent on a single factor – the strength of domestic housing markets. House prices are booming in Canada, New Zealand and Sweden, with valuation measures like the ratio of median house prices to median incomes soaring to historical extremes according to the OECD (Chart 14). House prices are also climbing fast in the US and UK, but the valuation measures have not surpassed the peaks seen during the mid-2000s housing bubble. The housing boom has already motivated some central banks to respond by turning less dovish sooner than expected, even with unemployment rates still above pre-pandemic peaks (Chart 15).9 The BoC noted that soaring Canadian housing values motivated the taper announcement in April. The Reserve Bank of New Zealand (RBNZ) has come under political pressure over the growing unaffordability of New Zealand homes, with the government changing the central bank’s remit earlier this year to force the RBNZ to explicitly consider house price inflation when setting monetary policy. Chart 14Surging House Prices Can Turn Doves Into Hawks Chart 15These CBs Could Turn More Hawkish Before Reaching Full Employment We expect more tapering announcements from the BoC over the latter half of 2021, with a first rate hike likely sometime in the first quarter of 2022. We see the RBNZ moving aggressively, as well, tapering over the remainder of 2021 before lifting rates by the spring of 2022 at the latest. Sweden’s Riksbank will be the next central bank to turn more hawkish because of surging home values, although they will lag the pace of the BoC and RBNZ with Sweden only now beginning to emerge from lockdowns associated with a third wave of COVID-19 cases. Importantly, Australia – a country that has dealt with house price surges in the past – has seen house price valuations retreat over the past few years, even with the Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) slashing policy rates to historic lows. The RBA also introduced yield curve control in 2020 to anchor the level of short-term bond yields, while also engaging in outright bond purchases to mitigate the rise in longer-term bond yields. With Australian inflation still remaining well below target in a year of rising global inflation, and with subdued labor costs likely to keep price pressures moderate over the next 12-18 months, we expect the RBA to move very slowly on both tapering and rate hikes. Finally, for completeness, we should note that we do not expect any policy changes from the Bank of Japan (BoJ) over the next two years, with inflation likely to remain far below the central bank’s 2% target. Non-US Investment Implications In Table 4, we show the timing of the first rate hike (i.e. “liftoff”), and the subsequent amount of total rate hikes to the end of 2024, as currently discounted in the OIS curves of the eight countries discussed in this report. We rank the countries in the table in order of liftoff dates, starting with the closest to today. Table 4The “Pecking Order” Of Central Bank Rate Hikes The RBNZ is expected to hike first in May 2022, followed by the BoC (September 2022), the Fed (February 2023), the RBA (April 2023), the Riksbank (May 2023), the BoE (May 2023), the ECB (June 2023) and the BoJ (October 2025). The cumulative amount of rate hikes discounted to the end of 2024 rank similarly: more rate increases are expected in New Zealand (167bps), Canada (150bps), the US (137bps) and Australia (113bps); while fewer rate increases are expected in the Sweden (63bps), the UK (61bps), the euro area (31bps) and Japan (7bps). According to our various central bank timelines discussed in this report, we see the risks of a rate hike coming sooner than discounted by markets in the US, Canada and New Zealand. We see central banks moving slower than markets expect in the euro area and Australia, while we see Sweden and UK priced in line with our base case views (although we see risks tilted towards a more hawkish turn faster than expected in the latter two). The story is the same in terms of cumulative rate hikes discounted in OIS curves, with markets not pricing in enough rate hikes in New Zealand, Canada and the US – and, possibly, Sweden and the UK – while pricing too many hikes in Australia and the euro area. This leads us to recommend the following country allocations in a global government bond portfolio: Underweight the US, Canada and New Zealand Overweight Australia and core Europe (and Japan) Neutral Sweden and the UK, but with a bias to downgrade. Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst June 2021 Monthly Report, "Global House Prices: A New Threat For Policymakers", dated May 27, 2021. 2 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Lower For Longer, Then Faster Than You Think”, dated May 25, 2021. 3 https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/quarles20210526b.htm 4 https://ca.news.yahoo.com/federal-reserve-vice-chair-richard-clarida-yahoo-finance-transcript-may-2021-173007192.html 5 https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/waller20210513a.htm 6 For a longer discussion of Treasury market liquidity issues please see US Investment Strategy / US Bond Strategy Special Report, “Alphabet Soup 2: Shocked And Awed”, dated July 28, 2020. 7 For more details, please see Global Fixed Income Strategy Report, “ECB Outlook: Walking On Eggshells”, dated May 19, 2021. 8 The full speech can be found here: https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/speech/2021/may/gertjan-vlieghe-speech-hosted-by-the-department-of-economics-and-the-ipr 9 For more details on the global housing boom, see Global Fixed Income Strategy Special Report, “Global House Prices: A New Threat For Policymakers”, dated May 28, 2021. Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification

Special Report

Highlights House prices are rising rapidly across the developed markets, in response to the extraordinary monetary and fiscal policy stimulus implemented to fight the pandemic. Evidence points to the house price surge being driven by monetary policy that has left real interest rates far below equilibrium levels. Supply factors are a secondary cause of the house price boom. Financial stability risks stemming from rising house prices are less acute than the pre-2008 experience, as overall household leverage has grown more slowly during the pandemic and global banks are better capitalized. Rapidly rising house prices are forcing some central banks to turn less accommodative earlier than expected. The recent hawkish turns by the Bank of Canada and Reserve Bank of New Zealand may be canaries in the coal mine for other central banks – perhaps even the Fed – if house prices and household leverage start rising together. Feature The COVID-19 pandemic led to the sharpest economic recession since World War II, alongside an enormous rise in unemployment. Consensus expectations call for the output gap to be closed (or mostly closed) in most advanced economies by the end of this year, but it remains an open question how quickly these economies will be able to return to full employment amid potentially permanent shifts in demand for office space and goods sold at physical, “brick and mortar” retail locations. Despite this sizeable and swift economic shock, house price appreciation accelerated last year in the developed world. Chart 1 highlights that US house prices rose at an 18% annualized pace in the second half of 2020, whereas they accelerated at a high-single digit pace in developed markets ex-US (on a GDP-weighted basis). This, in conjunction with a sharp rise in the household sector credit-to-GDP ratio (Chart 2), has unnerved some investors while raising questions about the implications for monetary policy. Chart 1House Prices Are Surging Around The World Chart 2Rising Fears About Deteriorating Household Balance Sheets Before we discuss the investment implications of the global housing boom, however, we must first accurately determine the reasons why it is happening. The Work-From-Home Effect: Less Than Meets The Eye When analyzing the surprising behavior of the housing market last year, the working-from-home effect brought upon by the pandemic emerges as an obvious factor potentially explaining house price gains. Last year, following recommended or mandatory stay-at-home orders from governments, most office-based businesses rapidly shifted to work-from-home arrangements as an emergency response. However, in the month or two following the beginning of stay-at-home orders, several national US surveys found many office workers preferred the flexibility afforded by work-from-home arrangements. Many employers, correspondingly, found that the productivity of their employees did not suffer while working from home, or that it even improved. Several prominent corporations in the US have subsequently made some work-from-home options permanent, or even allowed employees to work from offices in a different city than they did prior to the pandemic. Newfound work-from-home options have undoubtedly created new demand for housing, and thus explained the surge in house prices seen over the past year in the minds of some investors. However, in our view, evidence from the US, the UK, and France suggests that the work-from-home effect better explains differences in price gains across housing types and within large metropolitan areas, rather than aggregate or national-level changes in house prices. Chart 3 provides some quantification of the impact of work-from-home policies by plotting US resident migration patterns by city. This data has been compiled by CBRE, and the impact of COVID is shown as the change in net move-ins from 2019 to 2020 per 1000 people. This helps control for the underlying migration pattern that existed in US cities prior to the pandemic. Chart 3Work From Home Policies Have Impacted Migration Trends… The chart highlights that the negative migration impact from COVID has been mostly concentrated in New York City and the three most populous cities on the West Coast (by metro area): Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Seattle. And yet, Chart 4 highlights that house price inflation in these four cities has accelerated to a double-digit pace, only modestly below the national average. Chart 4...But Cities With Outward Migration Still Have Very Strong House Price Gains The house price indexes shown in Chart 4 represent aggregate, metro area trends, and clearly some regions within these metro areas have experienced house price deceleration or outright deflation versus gains in areas outside the urban core. But Chart 5 highlights that house prices have declined in Manhattan basically in line with the change in net move-ins as a share of the population, underscoring that double-digit metro area-wide house price gains appear to be vastly disproportionate to changes in net migration. Similarly, Chart 6 highlights that rents decelerated in the US over the past year but remained in positive territory and grew at a 3.5% annualized rate from February to April. Chart 5In Manhattan, House Prices Have Tracked Net Migration Chart 6Rent Costs Have Decelerated, But Have Not Contracted Evidence from Paris and London also suggests that a work-from-home effect is insufficient to explain broad house price gains. Panel 1 of Chart 7 highlights that house prices in France have accelerated significantly, but that apartment prices have decelerated only fractionally in lockstep. Panel 2 shows that the acceleration in house prices does reflect a work-from-home effect, as prices have risen faster in inner Parisian suburbs. Panel 3, however, highlights that Parisian apartment prices, the dominant property type in the urban core, have decelerated modestly. Chart 8 highlights that house price gains have not even decelerated in greater London; they have been merely been modestly outstripped by gains in Outer South East (outside of the Outer Metropolitan Area). Chart 7In France, Parisian Apartment Prices Are Simply Lagging, Not Falling Chart 8In The UK, Greater London Property Prices Are Accelerating     The Policy Effect: The Fundamental Driver Of The Housing Market Despite the broader location flexibility that work-from-home policies now provide to potential homeowners, it seems inconceivable that the housing market would have responded in the manner that it has over the past year given the size of the economic shock brought on by the pandemic without significant support from policy. Above-the-line fiscal measures to the pandemic have totaled in the double-digits in advanced economies (Chart 9), and monetary policy has contributed to easier financial conditions via rate cuts, asset purchases, and sizeable programs to support financial market liquidity. Chart 9There Has Been A Massive Fiscal Policy Response To The Crisis In fact, Charts 10-13 present compelling evidence that fiscal and monetary policy have been the core drivers of significant house price gains over the past year. Charts 10 and 11 plot the above-the-line fiscal response of advanced economies against the year-over-year growth rate in house prices as well as its acceleration (the change in the year-over-year growth rate). The charts show a clearly positive relationship, with a stronger link between the pandemic fiscal response and the acceleration in house prices. Chart 10Differences In Last Year’s Fiscal Response… Chart 11…Help Explain Differences In House Price Gains Chart 12Pre-Pandemic Differences In The Monetary Policy Stance… Chart 13…Do An Even Better Job Of Explaining 2020 House Price Gains   Charts 12 and 13 highlight the even stronger link between house prices and the pre-pandemic monetary policy stance in advanced economies, defined as the difference between each country’s 2-year government bond yield and its Taylor Rule-implied policy interest rate as of Q4 2019. We construct each country’s Taylor Rule using the original specification, with core consumer price inflation, a 2% inflation target, and real potential GDP growth as the definition of the real equilibrium interest rate. The charts make it clear that easy monetary policy strongly explains house price gains in 2020, particularly the year-over-year percent change rather than its acceleration. This makes sense, given that monetary policy was already quite easy in many countries at the onset of the pandemic – meaning that changes were less pronounced than they would have been had interest rates been higher. The explanation that emerges from Charts 10-13 is that historic fiscal easing, combined with an easy starting point for monetary policy – that became even easier last year – enabled demand from work-from-home policies to manifest during an extremely severe recession. We agree that work-from-home policies have shifted the geographic preferences of some home buyers and likely provided a new source of net demand from renters in urban cores purchasing homes in outlying areas. But we strongly doubt that the net effect of work-from-home policies in the midst of an extreme shock to economic activity would have caused the rise in house prices that we have observed, certainly not to this level, without major support from policy. This underscores that policy, and not the work-from-home effect, has and will likely remain the core driver of the global housing market. The Supply Effect: Mostly A Red Herring Chart 14Countries Fall Into Two Groups In Terms Of The Relative Trend In Real Residential Investment One perennial question that emerges when analyzing the housing market, particularly in markets with outsized house price gains, is the impact of constrained supply. It is frequently argued that constrained supply is squeezing prices higher in many markets, and that the appropriate policy solution to extreme house price gains is to enable widespread housing construction – not to raise interest rates. We do not rule out the potential impact of constrained supply in certain cities or regional housing markets, and we have highlighted in previous research that a positive relationship does exist between population density in urban regions and median house price-to-income ratios.1 But as a broad explanation for supercharged house price gains, the supply argument appears to fall flat. Chart 14 presents the most standardized measure of cross-country housing supply available for several advanced economies, the trend in real residential investment relative to real GDP over time. These series are all rebased to 100 as of 1997, prior to the 2002-2007 US housing market boom. The chart makes it clear that advanced economies generally fall into two groups based on this metric: those that have seen declines in real residential investment relative to GDP, especially after the global financial crisis (panel 1), and those that have experienced either an uptrend in housing construction relative to output or have seen a flat trend (panel 2). If scarce housing supply was the core driver of outsized house price gains, then we would expect to see stronger gains in the countries shown in panel 1 and smaller gains in the countries shown in panel 2. In fact, mostly the opposite is true: Charts 15 and 16 highlight that the relationship between the level of these indexes today relative to their 1997 or 2005 levels is positively related to the magnitude of house price gains last year, suggesting that housing market supply has generally been responding to demand over the past decade. The US and possibly New Zealand stand as possible exceptions to the trend, suggesting that relatively scarce supply may be boosting prices even further in these markets beyond what fiscal and monetary policy would suggest. Chart 15Countries That Have Seen A Stronger Pace Of Residential Investment… Chart 16…Have Experienced Stronger House Price Gains   Chart 17Is This Not Enough Supply, Or Too Much Demand? As a final point about the inclination of investors to gravitate towards supply-side arguments related to the housing market, Chart 17 presents a simple thought experiment. The chart shows a simple housing supply-demand curve diagram, in a scenario where the demand curve for housing has shifted out more than the supply curve has (thus raising house prices). Is this a scenario in which supply is too tight? Or is it a case in which demand is too strong? In our view, the tight supply answer is reasonable in circumstances where the increase in demand is normal or otherwise sustainable. But Charts 10-13 clearly showed that housing demand is being boosted by easy policy, which in the case of some countries has occurred for years: interest rates have remained well below levels that macroeconomic theory would traditionally consider to be in equilibrium, and this has occurred alongside significant household sector leveraging (Chart 18). As such, in our view, investors should be more inclined to view the global housing market as generally being driven by demand-side rather than supply-side factors. This Is Not 2007/08 … Yet We highlighted in Chart 2 above that the household sector debt-to-GDP ratio increased sharply last year, which has raised some questions about debt sustainability among investors. For the most part, the rise in this ratio actually reflects denominator effects (namely a sharp contraction in nominal GDP) rather than a huge surge in household debt. Chart 19 shows BIS data for the annual growth in total household debt in developed economies was roughly stable last year, at least until Q3 (the most recent datapoint available from the BIS). Chart 18Low Interest Rtaes Have Fueled Household Leveraging Chart 19Total Credit Growth Has Been Stable, But Mortgage Credit Growth Is Accelerating Chart 20US Mortgage Growth Is Picking Up, As Repayments Slow Consumer Credit Growth But Chart 19 shows the recent trend in total household debt, which masks diverging mortgage and non-mortgage debt trends. In the US, euro area, Canada, and Sweden, household mortgage debt has accelerated to varying degrees, underscoring that households have likely paid down non-mortgage debt with some of the savings that they have accumulated from a significant reduction in spending on services. Chart 20 shows this effect directly in the case of the US; mortgage debt growth accelerated by roughly 1.5 percentage points in the second half of the year, whereas consumer credit growth (made up of student loans, auto loans, credit cards, and other revolving credit) decelerated significantly. This aligns with data showing that US households have used some of their savings windfall to pay down their credit card balances. This changing mix within household debt - less higher-interest-rate consumer credit, more lower-interest-rate collateralized mortgage debt – could, on the margin, help mitigate financial stability risks from the housing boom by moderating overall debt service burdens. The starting point for the latter matters, though, in accurately assessing the risks from rising house prices and increased mortgage debt, particularly in countries where household debt levels are already high. According to data from the BIS, the US already has one of the lowest household debt service ratios (7.6%) among the developed economies (Chart 21).2 This compares favorably to the double-digit debt service ratios in the “higher-risk” countries like Canada (12.6%), Sweden (12.1%) and Norway (16.2%). On top of that, US commercial banks have become far more prudent with mortgage loan underwriting standards since the 2008 financial crisis. The New York Fed’s Household Debt and Credit report shows that an increasing majority of mortgage lending made by US banks since the 2008 crisis has been to those with very high FICO credit scores (Chart 22). This is in sharp contrast to the steady lending to “subprime” borrowers with poor credit scores that preceded the 2008 financial crisis. The median FICO score for new mortgage originations as of Q1 2021 was 788, compared to 707 in Q4 2006 at the peak of the mid-2000s US housing boom. Chart 21Diverging Trends In Global Household Debt Servicing Costs Chart 22US Banks Have Become More Prudent With Mortgage Lending   US bank balance sheets are also now less directly exposed to a fall in housing values. Residential loans now represent only 10% of the assets on US bank balance sheets, compared to 20% at the peak of the last housing bubble (Chart 23). This puts the US in the “lower-risk” group of countries in Europe, the UK and Japan where mortgages are less than 20% of bank balance sheets. This compares favorably to the “higher risk” group of countries where residential loans are a far larger share of bank assets (Chart 24), like Canada (32%), New Zealand (49%), Sweden (45%) and Australia (40%). Chart 23Banks Have Limited Direct Exposure To Housing Here Chart 24Banks Are Far More Exposed To Housing Here   Like nature, however, the financial ecosystem abhors a vacuum. “Non-bank” mortgage lenders have filled the void from traditional US banks reducing their lending to lower-quality borrowers, and they now represent around two-thirds of all US mortgage origination, a big leap from the 20% origination share in 2007. Non-bank lenders have also taken on growing shares of new mortgage origination in other countries like the UK, Canada and Australia. Chart 25Global Banks Can Withstand A Housing Shock Non-bank lenders do not take deposits and typically fund themselves via shorter-term borrowings, which raises the potential for future instability if credit markets seize up. These lenders also, on average, service mortgages with a higher probability of default, so they are exposed to greater credit losses when house prices decline. However, the risk of a full-blown 2008-style commercial banking crisis, with individual depositors’ funds at risk from a bank failure, are reduced with a greater share of riskier mortgage lending conducted by non-bank entities. This is especially true with global commercial banks far better capitalized today, with double-digit Tier 1 capital ratios (Chart 25), thanks to regulatory changes made after the Global Financial Crisis. Net-net, we conclude that the overall financial stability implications of the current surge in house prices in the developed economies are relatively modest on average. The acceleration in mortgage growth has occurred alongside reductions in non-mortgage growth, at a time when banks are better able to withstand a shock from any sustained future downturn in house prices. However, if house prices continue to accelerate and new homebuyers are forced to take on ever increasing amounts of mortgage debt, financial stability issues could intensify in some countries. Services spending will recover in a vaccinated post-COVID world, as economies reopen and consumer confidence improves, which will likely end the trend of falling non-residential consumer debt offsetting rising mortgage debt in countries like the US and Canada. Overall levels of household debt could begin to rise again relative to incomes, building up future financial stability risks when central banks begin to normalize pandemic-related monetary policies – a process that has already started in some countries because of the housing boom. The Monetary Policy Implications Of Surging House Prices Rapidly appreciating house prices are becoming an area of concern for policymakers in countries like Canada and New Zealand, where the affordability of housing is becoming a political, as well as an economic, issue. In the case of New Zealand, the government has actually altered the remit of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (RBNZ) to more explicitly factor in the impact of monetary policy on housing costs. The Bank of Canada announced in April that it would taper its pace of government debt purchases and signaled that its decision was based, at least in small part, on signs of speculative behavior in Canada’s housing market. Macroprudential measures like limiting loan-to-value ratios of new mortgage loans are a policy option that governments in those countries have already implemented to try and cool off housing demand. Yet while such measures can help alleviate demand-supply mismatches in certain cities and regions, the efficacy of such measures in sustainably slowing the ascent of house prices on a national scale is unclear. In the April 2021 IMF Global Financial Stability Report, researchers estimated that, for a broad group of countries, the implementation of a new macro-prudential measure designed to cool loan demand reduced national household debt/GDP ratios by a mere one percentage point, on average, over a period encompassing four years.3 If macroprudential measures are that ineffective in sustainably reducing demand for mortgage loans, then the burden of slowing house price appreciation will have to fall on the more blunt instruments of monetary policy. Importantly, surging house price inflation is not likely to give a boost to realized inflation measures – an important issue given the current backdrop of rapidly rising realized inflation rates in many countries. Housing costs do represent a significant portion of consumer price indices in many developed countries, ranging from 19% in New Zealand to 33% in the US (Chart 26), with the euro area being the outlier with housing having a mere 2% weighting in the headline inflation index. Chart 26A Limited Impact On Actual Inflation From Housing Yet those so-called “housing” categories overwhelmingly measure only housing rental costs and not actual house prices. This is an important distinction because rents – which are often imputed measures like in the US and not even actual rental costs - are rising at a far slower pace than actual house prices in most countries, so the housing contribution to realized inflation is relatively modest. So the good news is that booming house prices will not worsen the acceleration of realized global inflation that has concerned investors and policymakers in 2021. Yet that does not mean that central bankers will not be forced to tighten policy to cool off red-hot housing demand that is clearly being fueled by persistently negative real interest rates. In Chart 27 and Chart 28, we show both nominal and real policy interest rates for the “lower risk” and “higher risk” country groupings that we described earlier. The real policy rates are nominal policy rates versus realized headline CPI inflation. The dotted lines in the charts represent the future path of rates discounted by markets. Specifically, the projection for nominal rates is taken from overnight index swap (OIS) forward curves, while the projection for real rates is calculated by subtracting the discounted path of inflation expectations extracted from CPI swap forwards. Chart 27Markets Discounting Negative Real Rates For The Next Decade Chart 28Negative Real Rates Are Unsustainable During A Housing Bubble   There are two key takeaways from these charts: Real policy interest rates are at or very close to the most deeply negative levels seen since the 2008 financial crisis. Markets are discounting that real rates will be at or below 0% for most of the next decade. Admittedly, there is room for debate over what the equilibrium level of real interest rates (a.k.a. “r-star”) should be in the coming years. However, we deem it a major stretch to believe that real rates need to be persistently low or negative for the next ten years to support even trend growth across the developed economies. In our view, the current boom in housing demand and mortgage borrowing provides clear evidence that negative real rates are below equilibrium and, thus, are stimulating credit demand. Thus, the only way for a central bank to cool off housing demand will be to raise both nominal and, more importantly, real interest rates. Canada and New Zealand will be the “canaries in the coal mine” among developed market central banks for such a move. According to the latest Bank of Canada Financial Stability Review, nearly 22% of Canadian mortgages are highly levered, with a loan-to-value ratio greater than 450%, a greater share of such mortgages than during the 2016/17 housing boom (Chart 29). Canadian house prices have risen to such an extent that home prices in major cities like Toronto, Vancouver and Montreal are among the most expensive in North America.4  Stunningly, a recent Bloomberg Nanos opinion poll revealed that nearly 50% of Canadians would support Bank of Canada rate hikes to cool off the red-hot housing market (Chart 30). The central bank will be unable to resist the pressure to use monetary policy to slam on the brakes of the housing market – investors should expect more tapering and, eventually, rate hikes from the Bank of Canada over at least the next couple of years. Chart 29Canadians Are Leveraging Up To Buy Expensive Homes Chart 3050% Of Canadians Want A Rate Hike To Cool Housing   In New Zealand, worsening housing affordability has reached a point where a 20% down payment on the median national house price is equal to 223% of median disposable income (Chart 31). This is forcing more first-time home buyers to take on levels of mortgage debt that the RBNZ deems highly risky (top panel). Like the Bank of Canada, the RBNZ will prove to be one of the most hawkish central banks in the developed world over the next couple of years as the central bank follows their newly-revised remit to try and cool off housing demand in New Zealand. Who is next? Housing values, measured by the ratio of median national house prices to median national household incomes, are rising in the US and UK but are still below the peaks of the mid-2000s housing bubble (Chart 32). Meanwhile, housing is becoming more expensive across the euro area, but not in a consistent manner, with valuations in Germany and Spain having increased far more than in France or Italy. Housing valuations have actually improved in Australia over the past couple of years on a price-to-income basis. The most likely candidates for a housing-related hawkish turn are in Scandinavia, with housing valuations in Sweden and Norway closing in on Canada/New Zealand levels. Chart 31New Zealand Housing Is Wildly Unaffordable Chart 32Global House Price/Income Ratios Are Trending Higher   Investment Conclusions The current acceleration in global house prices is an inevitable outcome of the extraordinary monetary and fiscal easing implemented during the pandemic. Higher realized inflation is pushing real rates deeper into negative territory in many countries, fueling the demand for housing. Central banks in countries with more stretched housing valuations will be forced to turn more hawkish sooner than expected, leading to tapering and, eventually, rate hikes to cool housing demand. This has negative implications for government bond markets in countries where housing is more expensive and real yields remain too low, like Canada, New Zealand and Sweden (Chart 33). Investors should limit exposure to government bonds in those markets over the next 6-12 months. Chart 33Negative Real Yields & Expensive Housing Valuations – An Unsustainable Mix Bond markets in countries where house prices are not rising rapidly enough to force policymakers to turn more hawkish more quickly – like core Europe, Australia and even Japan - are likely to be relative outperformers. The US and UK are “cuspy” bond markets, as housing valuations are becoming more expensive in those two countries but the Fed and Bank of England are not facing the same domestic political pressure to use monetary policy tools to fight the growing unaffordability of housing. That could change, though, if overall household leverage begins to rise alongside house price inflation as the US and UK economies emerge from the pandemic. Current pricing in OIS curves shows that markets expect the RBNZ and Bank of Canada to begin hiking rates in May 2022 and September 2022, respectively (Table 1). This is well ahead of expectations for “liftoff” from other developed markets central banks, including the Fed in April 2023. The cumulative amount of rate hikes following liftoff to the end of 2024 is highest in Canada, New Zealand, the US and Australia. Those are also countries with currencies that are trading at or above the purchasing power parity levels derived from our currency strategists’ valuation models. This highlights the difficult choice that central bankers facing housing bubbles must confront, as the rate hikes that will help cool off housing demand will lead to currency appreciation that could impact other parts of their economies like exports and manufacturing. Table 1Hawkish Central Banks Must Live With Currency Strength Tracking the second-round economic consequences of eventual monetary policy actions to control excessive house price inflation, particularly in “higher risk” countries, is likely to be the subject of future Bank Credit Analyst / Global Fixed Income Strategy reports. Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist Jonathan LaBerge, CFA Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst   Footnotes 1 Please see Global Investment Strategy "Canada: A (Probably) Happy Moment In An Otherwise Sad Story," dated July 14, 2017, available at gis.bcaresearch.com 2 Importantly, the BIS debt service ratios include the payment of both principal and interest, thus making it a true measure of debt service costs that includes repayment of borrowed funds – a critical issue in countries with high loan-to-value ratios for home mortgages. 3 Please see page 46 of Chapter 2 of the April 2021 IMF Global Financial Stability Report, which can be found here: https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/GFSR/Issues/2021/04/06/global-financial-stability-report-april-2021 4 “Vancouver, Toronto and Hamilton are the least affordable cities in North America: report”, CBC News, May 20, 2021

Highlights President Biden has called for the US intelligence community to investigate the origins of COVID-19 and one of Biden’s top diplomats has stated the obvious: the era of “engagement” with China is over. This clinches our long-held view that any Democratic president would be a hawk like President Trump. The US-China conflict – and global geopolitical risk – will revive and undermine global risk appetite. China faces a confluence of geopolitical and macroeconomic challenges, suggesting that its equity underperformance will continue. Domestic Chinese investors should stay long government bonds. Foreign investors should sell into the bond rally to reduce exposure to any future sanctions. The impending agreement of a global minimum corporate tax rate has limited concrete implications that are not already known but it symbolizes the return of Big Government in the western world. Our updated GeoRisk Indicators are available in the Appendix, as well as our monthly geopolitical calendar. Feature In our quarterly webcast, “Geopolitics And Bull Markets,” we argued that geopolitical themes matter to investors when they have a demonstrable relationship with the macroeconomic backdrop. When geopolitics and macro are synchronized, a simple yet powerful investment thesis can be discerned. The US war on terror, Russia’s resurgence, the EU debt crisis, and Brexit each provided cases in which a geopolitically informed macro view was both accessible and actionable at an early stage. Investors generally did well if they sold the relevant country’s currency and disfavored its equities on a relative basis. Chart 1China's Decade Of Troubles Of course, the market takeaway is not always so clear. When geopolitics and macroeconomics are desynchronized, the trick is to determine which framework will prevail over the financial markets and for how long. Sometimes the market moves to its own rhythm. The goal is not to trade on geopolitics but rather to invest with geopolitics. One of our key views for this year – headwinds for China – is an example of synchronization. Two weeks ago we discussed China’s macroeconomic challenge. In this report we discuss China’s foreign policy challenge: geopolitical pressure from the US and its allies. In particular we address President Biden’s call for a deeper intelligence dive into the origins of COVID-19. The takeaway is negative for China’s currency and risk assets. The Great Recession dealt a painful blow to the Chinese version of the East Asian economic miracle. By 2015, China’s financial turmoil and currency devaluation should have convinced even bullish investors to keep their distance from Chinese stocks and the renminbi. If investors stuck with this bearish view despite the post-2016 rally, on fear of trade war, they were rewarded in 2018-19. Only with China’s containment of COVID-19 and large economic stimulus in 2020 has CNY-USD threatened to break out (Chart 1). We expect the renminbi to weaken anew, especially once the Fed begins to taper asset purchases. Our cyclical view is still bullish but US-China relations are unstable so we remain tactically defensive. Forget Biden’s China Review, He’s A Hawk Chinese financial markets face a host of challenges this year, despite the positive factors for China’s manufacturing sector amid the global recovery. At home these challenges consist of a structural economic slowdown, a withdrawal of policy stimulus, bearish sentiment among households, and an ongoing government crackdown on systemic risk. Abroad the Democratic Party’s return to power in Washington means that the US will bring more allies to bear in its attempt to curb China’s rise. This combination of factors presents a headwind for Chinese equities and a tailwind for government bonds (Chart 2). This is true at least until the government should hit its pain threshold and re-stimulate. Chart 2Global Investors Still Wary New stimulus may not occur in 2022. The Communist Party’s leadership rotation merely requires economic stability, not rapid growth. While the central government has a record of stimulating when its pain threshold is hit, even under the economically hawkish President Xi Jinping, a financial market riot is usually part of this threshold. This implies near-term downside, particularly for global commodities and metals, which are also facing a Chinese regulatory backlash to deter speculation. In this context, President Biden’s call for a deeper US intelligence investigation into the origin of COVID-19 is an important confirming signal of the US’s hawkish turn toward China. Biden gave 90 days for the intelligence community to report back to him. We will not enter into the debate about COVID-19’s origins. From a geopolitical point of view it is a moot point. The facts of the virus origin may never be established. According to Biden’s statement, at least one US intelligence agency believes the “lab leak theory” is the most likely source of the virus (while two other agencies decided in favor of animal-to-human transmission). Meanwhile Chinese government spokespeople continue to push the theory that the virus originated at the US’s Fort Detrick in Maryland or at a US-affiliated global research center. What is certain is that the first major outbreak of a highly contagious disease occurred in Wuhan. Both sides are demanding greater transparency and will reject each other’s claims based on a lack of transparency. If the US intelligence report concludes that COVID originated from the Wuhan Institute of Virology, the Chinese government and media will reject the report. If the report exonerates the Wuhan laboratory, at least half of the US public will disbelieve it and it will not deter Biden from drawing a hard line on more macro-relevant policy disputes with China. The US’s hawkish bipartisan consensus on China took shape before COVID. Biden’s decision to order the fresh report introduces skepticism regarding the World Health Organization’s narrative, which was until now the mainstream media’s narrative. Previously this skepticism was ghettoized in US public discourse: indeed, until Biden’s announcement on May 26, the social media company Facebook suppressed claims that the virus came from a lab accident or human failure. Thus Biden’s action will ensure that a large swathe of the American public will always tend to support this theory regardless of the next report’s findings. At the same time Biden discontinued a State Department effort to prove the lab leak theory, which shows that it is not a foregone conclusion what his administration will decide. The good news is that even if the report concluded in favor of the lab leak, the Biden administration would remain highly unlikely to demand that China pay “reparations,” like the Trump administration demanded in 2020. This demand, if actualized, would be explosive. The bad news is that a future nationalist administration could conceivably use the investigation as a basis to demand reparations. Nationalism is a force to be reckoned with in both countries and the dispute over COVID’s origin will exacerbate it. Traditionally the presidents of both countries would tamp down nationalism or attempt to keep it harnessed. But in the post-Xi, post-Trump era it is harder to control. The death toll of COVID-19 will be a permanent source of popular grievance around the world and a wedge between the US and China (Chart 3). China’s international image suffered dramatically in 2020. So far in 2021 China has not regained any diplomatic ground. Chart 3Death Toll Of COVID-19 The US is repairing its image via a return to multilateralism while the Europeans have put their Comprehensive Agreement on Investment with China on hold due to a spat over sanctions arising from western accusations of genocide (a subject on which China pointedly answered that it did not need to be lectured by Europeans). Notably Biden’s Department of State also endorsed its predecessor’s accusation of genocide in Xinjiang. Any authoritative US intelligence review that solidifies doubts about the WHO’s initial investigation – even if it should not affirm the lab leak theory – would give Biden more ammunition in global opinion to form a democratic alliance to pressure China (for example, in Europe). An important factor that enables the US to remain hawkish on China is fiscal stimulus. While stimulus helps bring about economic recovery, it also lowers the bar to political confrontation (Chart 4). Countries with supercharged domestic demand do not have as much to fear from punitive trade measures. The Biden administration has not taken new punitive measures against China but it is clearly not worried about Chinese retaliation. Chart 4Large Fiscal Stimulus Lowers The Bar To Geopolitical Conflict China’s stimulus is underrated in this chart (which excludes non-fiscal measures) but it is still true that China’s policy has been somewhat restrained and it will need to stimulate its economy again in response to any new punitive measures or any global loss of confidence. At least China is limited in its ability to tighten policy due to the threat of US pressure and western trade protectionism. Simultaneous with Biden’s announcement on COVID-19, his administration’s coordinator for Indo-Pacific affairs, Kurt Campbell, proclaimed in a speech that the era of “engagement” with China is officially over and the new paradigm is one of “competition.” By now Campbell is stating the obvious. But this tone is a change both from his tone while serving in President Obama’s Department of State and from his article in Foreign Affairs last year (when he was basically auditioning for his current role in the Biden administration).1 Campbell even said in his latest remarks that the Trump administration was right about the “direction” of China policy (though not the “execution”), which is candid. Campbell was speaking at Stanford University but his comments were obviously aimed for broader consumption. Investors no longer need to wait for the outcome of the Biden administration’s comprehensive review of policy toward China. The answer is known: the Biden administration’s hawkishness is confirmed. The Department of Defense report on China policy, due in June, is very unlikely to strike a more dovish posture than the president’s health policy. Now investors must worry about how rapidly tensions will escalate and put a drag on global sentiment. Bottom Line: US-China relations are unstable and pose an immediate threat to global risk appetite. The fundamental geopolitical assessment of US-China relations has been confirmed yet again. The US is seeking to constrain China’s rise because China is the only country capable of rivaling the US for supremacy in Asia and the world. Meanwhile China is rejecting liberalization in favor of economic self-sufficiency and maintaining an offensive foreign policy as it is wary of US containment and interference. Presidents Biden and Xi Jinping are still capable of stabilizing relations in the medium term but they are unlikely to substantially de-escalate tensions. And at the moment tensions are escalating. China’s Reaction: The Example Of Australia How will China respond to Biden’s new inquiry into COVID’s origins? Obviously Beijing will react negatively but we would not expect anything concrete to occur until the result of the inquiry is released in 90 days. China will be more constrained in its response to the US than it has been with Australia, which called for an international inquiry early last year, as the US is a superior power. Australia was the first to ban Chinese telecom company Huawei from its 5G network (back in 2018) and it was the first to call for a COVID probe. Relations between China and Australia have deteriorated steadily since then, but macro trends have clearly driven the Aussie dollar. The AUD-JPY exchange rate is a good measure for global risk appetite and it is wavering in recent weeks (Chart 5). Chart 5Australian Dollar Follows Macro Trends, Rallies Amid China Trade Spat Tensions have also escalated due to China’s dependency on Australian commodity exports at a time of spiking commodity prices. This is a recurring theme going back to the Stern Hu affair. The COVID spat led China to impose a series of sanctions against Australian beef, barley, wine, and coal. But because China cannot replace Australian resources (at least, not in the short term), its punitive measures are limited. It faces rising producer prices as a result of its trade restrictions (Chart 6). This dependency is a bigger problem for China today than it was in previous cycles so China will try to diversify. Chart 6Constraints On China's Tarrifs On Australia By contrast, China is not likely to impose sanctions on the US in response to Biden’s investigation, unless Biden attacks first. China’s imports from the US are booming and its currency is appreciating sharply. Despite Beijing’s efforts to keep the Phase One trade deal from collapsing, Biden is maintaining Trump’s tariffs and the US-China trade divorce is proceeding (Chart 7). Bilateral tariff rates are still 16-17 percentage points higher than they were in 2018, with US tariffs on China at 19% (versus 3% on the rest of the world) while Chinese tariffs on the US stand at 21% (versus 6% on the rest of the world). The Biden administration timed this week’s hawkish statements to coincide with the first meeting of US trade negotiators with China, which was a more civil affair. Both countries acknowledged that the relationship is important and trade needs to be continued. However, US Trade Representative Katherine Tai’s comments were not overly optimistic (she told Reuters that the relationship is “very, very challenging”). She has also been explicit about maintaining policy continuity with the Trump administration. We highly doubt that China’s share of US imports will ever surpass its pre-Trump peaks. The Biden administration has also refrained so far from loosening export controls on high-tech trade with China. This has caused a bull market in Taiwan while causing problems for Chinese semiconductor stocks’ relative performance (Chart 8). If Biden’s policy review does not lead to any relaxation of export controls on commercial items then it will mark a further escalation in tensions. Chart 7US Tarrifs Reduce China In Trade Deficit Bottom Line: Until Presidents Biden and Xi stabilize relations at the top, the trade negotiations over implementing the Phase One trade deal – and any new Phase Two talks – cannot bring major positive surprises for financial markets. Chart 8US Export Controls Amid Chip Shortage Congress Is More Hawkish Than Biden Biden’s ability to reduce frictions with China, should he seek to, will also be limited by Congress and public opinion. With the US deeply politically divided, and polarization at historically high levels, China has emerged as one of the few areas of agreement. The hawkish consensus is symbolized by new legislation such as the Strategic Competition Act, which is making its way through the Senate rapidly. Congress is also trying to boost US competitiveness through bills such as the Endless Frontier Act. These bills would subject China to scrutiny and potential punitive measures over a broad range of issues but most of all they would ignite US industrial policy , STEM education, and R&D, and diversify the US’s supply chains. We would highlight three key points with regard to the global impact of this legislation: Global supply chains are shifting regardless: This trend is fairly well established in tech, defense, and pharmaceuticals. It will continue unless we see a major policy reversal from China to try to court western powers and reduce frictions. The EU and India are less enthusiastic than the US and Australia about removing China from supply chains but they are not opposed. The EU Commission has recommended new defensive economic measures that cover supply chains in batteries, cloud services, hydrogen energy, pharmaceuticals, materials, and semiconductors. As mentioned, the EU is also hesitating to ratify the Comprehensive Agreement on Investment with China. Hence the EU is moving in the US’s direction independently of proposed US laws. After all, China’s rise up the tech value chain (and its decision to stop cutting back the size of its manufacturing sector) ultimately threatens the EU’s comparative advantage. The EU is also aligned with the US on democratic values and network security. India has taken a harder stance on China than usual, which marks an important break with the past. India’s decision to exclude Huawei from its 5G network is not final but it is likely to be at least partially implemented. A working group of democracies is forming regardless. The Strategic Competition Act calls for the creation of a working group of democracies but the truth is that this is already happening through more effective forums like the G7 and bilateral summits. Just as the implementation of the act would will ultimately depend on President Biden, so the willingness of other countries to adopt the recommendations of the working group would depend on their own executives. Allies have leeway as Biden will not use punitive measures against them: Any policy change from the EU, UK, India, and Australia will be independent of the US Congress passing the Strategic Competition Act. These countries will be self-directed. The US would have to devote diplomatic energy to maintaining a sustained effort by these states to counter China in the face of economic costs. This will be limited by the fact that the Biden administration will be very reluctant to impose punitive measures on allies to insist on their cooperation. The allies will set the pace of pressure on China rather than the United States. This gives the EU an important position, particularly Germany. And yet the trends in Germany suggest that the government will be more hawkish on China after the federal elections in September. Bottom Line: The Biden administration is unlikely to use punitive measures against allies so new US laws are less important than overall US diplomacy with each of the allies. Some allies will be less compliant with US policies given their need for trade with China. But so far there appears to be a common position taking shape even with the EU that is prejudicial to China’s involvement in key sectors of emerging technologies. If China does not respond by reducing its foreign policy assertiveness, then China’s economic growth will suffer. That drag would have to be offset by new supply chain construction in Southeast Asia and other countries. Investment Takeaways The foregoing highlights the international risks facing China even at a time when its trend growth is slowing (Chart 9) and its ongoing struggle with domestic financial imbalances is intensifying. China’s debt-service costs have risen sharply and Beijing is putting pressure on corporations and local governments to straighten out their finances (Chart 10), resulting in a wave of defaults. This backdrop is worrisome for investors until policymakers reassure them that government support will continue. Chart 9China's Growth Potential Slowing Chart 10China's Leaders Struggle With Debt China’s domestic stability is a key indicator of whether geopolitical risks could spiral out of control. In particular we think aggressive action in the Taiwan Strait is likely to be delayed as long as the Chinese economy and regime are stable. China has rattled sabers over the strait this year in a warning to the United States not to cross its red line (Chart 11). It is not yet clear how Biden’s policy continuity with the Trump administration will affect cross-strait stability. We see no basis yet for changing our view that there is a 60% chance of a market-negative geopolitical incident in 2021-22 and a 5% chance of full-scale war in the short run. Chart 11China PLA Flights Over Taiwan Strait Putting all of the above together, we see substantial support for two key market-relevant geopolitical risks: Chinese domestic politics (including policy tightening) and persistent US-China tensions (including but not limited to the Taiwan Strait). We remain tactically defensive, a stance supported by several recent turns in global markets: The global stock-to-bond ratio has rolled over. China is a negative factor for global risk appetite (Chart 12). Global cyclical equities are no longer outperforming defensives. There is a stark divergence between Chinese cyclicals and global cyclicals stemming from the painful transition in China’s bloated industrial economy (Chart 13). Global large caps are catching a bid relative to small caps (Chart 14). Chart 12Global Stock-To-Bond Ratio Rolled Over Chart 13Global Cyclicals-To-Defensives Pause Chart 14Global Large Caps Catch A Bid Versus Small Caps Cyclically the global economic recovery should continue as the pandemic wanes. China will eventually relax policy to prevent too abrupt of a slowdown. Therefore our strategic portfolio reflects our high-conviction view that the current global economic expansion will continue even as it faces hurdles from the secular rise in geopolitical risk, especially US-China cold war. Measurable geopolitical risk and policy uncertainty are likely to rebound sooner rather than later, with a negative impact on high-beta risk assets. Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Coda: Global Minimum Tax Symbolizes Return Of Big Government On Thursday, the US Treasury Department released a proposal to set the global minimum corporate tax rate at 15%. The plan is to stop what Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen has referred to as a global “race to the bottom” and create the basis for a rehabilitation of government budgets damaged by pandemic-era stimulus. Although the newly proposed 15% rate is significantly below President Biden’s bid to raise the US Global Intangible Low-Taxed Income (GILTI) rate to 21% from 10.5%, it is the same rate as his proposed minimum tax on corporate book income. Biden is also raising the headline corporate tax rate from 21% to around 25% (or at highest 28%). Negotiators at the OECD were initially discussing a 12.5% global minimum rate. The finance ministers of both France and Germany – where the corporate income tax rates are 32.0% and 29.9%, respectively – both responded positively to the announcement. However, Ireland, which uses low corporate taxes as an economic development strategy, is obviously more comfortable with a minimum closer to its own 12.5% rate. Discussions are likely to occur when G7 finance ministers meet on June 4-5. Countries are hoping to establish a broad outline for the proposal by the G20 meeting in early July. It is highly likely that the OECD will come to an agreement. However, it is not a truly “global” minimum as there will still be tax havens. Compliance and enforcement will vary across countries. A close look at the domestic political capital of the relevant countries shows that while many countries have the raw parliamentary majorities necessary to raise taxes, most countries have substantial conservative contingents capable of preventing stiff corporate tax hikes (Table 1, in the Appendix). Our Geopolitical strategists highlight that the Biden administration’s compromise on the minimum rate reflects its pragmatism as well as emphasis on multilateralism. Any global deal will be non-binding but the two most important low-tax players are already committed to raising corporate rates well above this level: Biden’s plan is noted above, while the UK’s budget for March includes a jump in the business rate to 25% in April 2023 from the current 19%. Ireland and Hungary are the only outliers but they may eventually be forced to yield to such a large coalition of bigger economies (Chart 15). Chart 15Global Minimum Corporate Tax Impact Is Symbolic Rather Than Concrete Thus a nominal minimum corporate tax rate is likely to be forged but it will not be truly global and it will not change the corporate rate for most countries. The reality of what companies pay will also depend on loopholes, tax havens, and the effective tax rate. Bottom Line: On a structural horizon, the global minimum corporate tax is significant for showing a paradigm shift in global macro policy: western governments are starting to raise taxes and revenue after decades of cutting taxes. The experiment with limited government has ended and Big Government is making a comeback. On a cyclical horizon, the US concession on global minimum tax is that the Biden administration aims to be pragmatic and “get things done.” Biden is also working with Republicans to pass bills covering some bipartisan aspects of his domestic agenda, such as trade, manufacturing, and China. The takeaway from a global point of view is that Biden may prove to be a compromiser rather than an ideologue, unlike his predecessors.   Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com   Roukaya Ibrahim Vice President Daily Insights RoukayaI@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Kurt M. Campbell and Jake Sullivan, "Competition Without Catastrophe," Foreign Affairs, September/October 2019, foreignaffairs.com. Section II: Appendix Table 1OECD: Which Countries Are Willing And Able To Raise Corporate Tax Rates? GeoRisk Indicator China Russia UK Germany France Italy Canada Spain Taiwan – Province Of China Korea Turkey Brazil Australia Section III: Geopolitical Calendar

Highlights Domestic and foreign supply-side constraints are now exerting a significant effect on the US economy. Consumer prices may increase at a faster pace than we initially expected over the coming 3-4 months, but supply-side constraints are likely to wane later this year and thus do genuinely appear to be transitory. The idea that even a temporary period of high inflation could persist over the longer term has legitimate grounding in macro theory, and is explicitly recognized in the Fed’s inflation framework. But it would necessitate a very large increase in inflation expectations, which have yet to rise to abnormal levels. The baseline for inflation has shifted back closer to the Fed’s target, but deviations above or below target over the coming 12-18 months are likely to be driven by demand-side rather than supply-side factors. The Fed’s checklist for liftoff now entirely depends on employment, and there are compelling arguments in favor of outsized jobs growth in the second half of the year that would move forward the timing of the first rate hike. But the reality for investors is that there is tremendous uncertainty concerning the magnitude of these job gains, given the likelihood of some lasting changes to consumer behavior following the pandemic. Visibility about the employment consequences of these changes will remain very low until investors receive more information about likely urban office footprint and downtown commuter presence, the speed at which international travel will return, and to what degree any pandemic control measures remain in place in the second half of the year. For now, investors should remain cyclically overweight stocks versus bonds, short duration, and invested in other procyclical positions, with an eye to reassess the monetary policy and growth outlook in the late summer / early fall. Feature Chart I-1Investors Have Focused On The April Jobs And Inflation Data Investors’ attention in May was focused squarely on two, ostensibly contradictory US data surprises: an extremely disappointing April jobs report, and a surge in consumer prices (Chart I-1). Abstracting from the typically lagging nature of consumer prices, a weak labor market is typically disinflationary / deflationary, not inflationary. But this is only to be expected in a typical environment where demand-side factors are predominantly driving the jobs market and the pricing decisions of firms, and the April data has made it clear that domestic and foreign supply-side constraints are now exerting a significant effect on the US economy, more forcefully than we initially thought. This warrants a further analysis of our prior view that supply-side effects would have a moderate effect on activity and prices this year, which we present below. A Deep Dive Into April’s Employment And Inflation Data Chart I-2 shows the difference between the April monthly gain in US jobs by industry compared with those of March. Almost all US industries saw a slower pace of jobs gains in April than March, but the slowdown was particularly acute in the professional & business services, transportation & warehousing, education & health services, construction, and manufacturing industries. By contrast, leisure & hospitality, the industry with the largest employment gap relative to pre-pandemic levels, saw a faster pace of April job gains relative to March. Chart I-2Breaking Down Disappointing April Payroll Gains In our view, several facts from the April jobs report characterize the labor market as being in a transition towards a post-pandemic state, but also legitimately impacted by labor supply constraints at the low-skilled and blue-collar levels: Within professional & business services, almost all of the slowdown in monthly job gains occurred within temporary help services. Temp help services is a cyclical employment category over the longer-term, but over short periods of time it can also be negatively correlated with gains in full-time positions. April saw a large decline in the number of employed persons at work part time, suggesting that the slowdown in temp help may reflect a shift back to full-time work. Within transportation & warehousing, the slowdown in jobs was entirely attributed to the couriers and messengers subsector, which includes delivery services. In combination with the acceleration in jobs in the leisure & hospitality sector, this likely reflects a shift away from home food delivery towards in-person restaurant orders and the use of aggressive hiring tactics by restaurant owners (including advertisements of cash bonuses following 90 days of completed work, paid vacations, health insurance, and other perks). The slowdown in jobs growth in the construction & manufacturing industries is likely due to two, separate supply constraints: the negative impact of higher input costs such as lumber, semiconductors, and other raw materials, as well as the disincentivizing effects of supplementary unemployment benefits that appears to be limiting the willingness of lower-wage workers to return to work. Chart I-3April's Rise In Core CPI Was Extreme, Even After Removing Some Outliers On the inflation front, Chart I-3 highlights that the April surge in core consumer prices did not just occur because of year-over-year base effects, but because of significant month-over-month increases in prices. Outsized gains in used car prices driven by the impact of the semiconductor shortage on new car production, as well as surging airline fares, did significantly contribute to April’s month-over-month gain, but the dotted line in the chart highlights that the monthly change would still have been extreme relative to history even if these components had increased instead at a 2% annual rate. Taken together, the April employment and inflation data, in conjunction with surveys of US firms as well as the trend in commodity prices, suggest that the labor market and consumer prices are being affected by four separate but related factors: An underlying demand effect, driven by extremely stimulative fiscal & monetary policy as well as economic reopening; A domestic labor shortage Coordination failures and bottlenecks impacting the production of key supply chain components and resource inputs Coordination failures and bottlenecks impacting the logistics of international trade Strong domestic aggregate demand is not likely to wane over the coming 6-12 months, which has been the basis for our view that inflation would rise to modestly above-target levels this year. Given this new evidence of their prominence and impact, it does seem likely that the remaining three supply-side factors will persist for a few more months, suggesting that core inflation may remain quite elevated over the near term. But several points underscore why it remains difficult to accept a view that supply-side factors will remain an important driver of employment and consumer price trends on a 1-year time horizon. Chart I-4Home Schooling Is Impacting The Labor Market First, domestic labor shortages are occurring in the context of a gap of 8.2 million jobs relative to pre-pandemic levels, underscoring that substantial barriers to returning to work exist. The three most cited barriers are an unwillingness to return to employment for health reasons, an unwillingness to return to work because of supplementary unemployment insurance benefits that are in excess of regular income, and an inability to return to work due to childcare requirements. For example, Chart I-4 highlights that the labor force participation rate has declined the most for women with young children, whose children in many cases are being schooled online rather that in person. But all three of these factors are clearly linked to the pandemic, and are likely to be greatly reduced (or eliminated) in the fall once schools have reopened and income support has ended. Federal supplementary UI benefits are set to expire by labor day, and several US states have already opted out of the program – with benefits set to end in June or July.1 Second, global producers of important commodity inputs (such as lumber) significantly cut production last year under the expectation that the pandemic would greatly reduce spending, only to be whipsawed by a surge in demand stemming from a combination of working from home effects and a massive policy response. Chart I-5 highlights that US industrial production of wood products fell to -10% on a year-over-year basis last April, but that it has subsequently rebounded to a new high. Unlike other supply chain inputs, global semiconductor sales did not decline last April (in the face of enormous PC, tablet, and server/data center demand), but Chart I-6 highlights that DRAM prices, lumber prices, and prices of raw industrial goods may be peaking or have already peaked. Chart I-5Lumber Prices Are Soaring, In Part, Because Supply Was Cut Last Year Chart I-6Costs of Key Inputs May Be Peaking (Or Have Peaked) Chart I-7Logistical Issues, Which Will Be Resolved, Are Driving Shipping Costs Third, while some market participants have attributed the enormous rise in global shipping costs entirely to the underlying demand effect that we noted above, Chart I-7 highlights that this is clearly not the case. The chart shows that the surge in loaded inbound container trade to the Los Angeles and Long Beach ports, to its strongest level since the inception of the data in the mid 1990s, could potentially explain a 75-100% year-over-year rise in shipping costs – less than half of the 250% surge that has occurred over the past 12 months. This strongly points to logistical issues such as the incorrect positioning of cargo containers amid pandemic-related port congestion (and other disruptions such as the temporary grounding of the Ever Given in the Suez canal) as the dominant driver of global shipping costs, which have likely pushed up US non-oil import prices by more than what would normally be implied by the decline in the US dollar (Chart I-8). Global shipping costs have yet to peak, but we expect that these logistical problems will likely be resolved sometime in Q3, or potentially over the summer. This view is underpinned by the fact that the number of global container ships arriving on time rose in March, the first month-over-month increase since June of last year.2 Chart I-8Rising Transport Costs Have Pushed Up US Import Prices For investors, the key conclusion of this review is that while consumer prices may increase at a faster pace than we initially expected over the coming 3-4 months, supply-side factors are clearly driving outsized gains, and have likely or definite end points before the end of the year. As such, despite the surprising magnitude of these supply-side factors, they do genuinely appear to be transitory. The “Transitory” Debate Most investors would agree that 3-4 months of outsized consumer price increases would not be, in and of themselves, economically significant or investment relevant. But the question of whether even a temporary period of high inflation could persist over a 12-month or multi-year time horizon has become prominent in the marketplace, with some investors believing that it has high odds of fueling an already-established, demand-side narrative supporting higher prices in a way that becomes self-reinforcing among consumers and firms. Indeed, this view has a legitimate grounding in macro theory, and is explicitly recognized in the Fed’s inflation framework – which is called the expectations-augmented or Modern-Day Phillips Curve (“MDPC”). In anticipation of the coming debate about inflation and its causes, we thoroughly reviewed the MDPC in our January report.3 One crucial takeaway from the MDPC framework is that economic activity relative to its potential determines the degree to which inflation deviates from expectations of inflation, not the Fed’s inflation target. If, for example, inflation expectations are meaningfully below target, then the Fed would need to aim for an unemployment rate below its natural rate for some period of time in an attempt to re-anchor expectations closer to its target rate (based on the view that inflation expectations adapt to the actual inflation experience). This is essentially what occurred in the latter half of the last economic expansion, and is what motivated the Fed’s shift to its average inflation targeting regime. The Modern-Day Phillips Curve is “modern” because of the experience of inflation in the late 1960s and 1970s, where ever-rising expectations for inflation (alongside extremely easy monetary policy) became self-reinforcing and caused core PCE inflation to rise to high single-digit territory in the second half of the decade. Thus, the notion that elevated consumer prices over the short-term could increase actual inflation over the longer term via higher expectations – meaning that it would not be transitory – is plausible. Chart I-9The Fed's New Index Of Common Inflation Expectations (CIE) Is it likely? In our view, while the odds have increased somewhat over the past month, the answer is no. Chart I-9 presents the Fed’s quarterly index of common inflation expectations (CIE), alongside a model designed to track movements in the index on a monthly frequency. While the Fed’s index includes over 21 inflation expectation indicators, our condensed model uses just six: the 10-year annualized rate of change in headline inflation, the 10-year annualized rate of change in the headline PCE deflator, 5-year/5-year forward and 10-year/10-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rates, the 3-month moving average of long-term surveyed consumer expectations for inflation, and a proprietary measure of inflation expectations based on an adaptive expectations framework. Chart I-10 highlights that among these six series (shown standardized since mid 2004), three of them have risen quite significantly over the past year: long-dated TIPS breakeven inflation rates (5-5 and 10-10), and long-term consumer expectations for inflation. In our view, the latter series from the University of Michigan is one of the most important for investors to monitor over the coming year, as it is one of the few available measures of “main-street” inflation expectations with a long history. Chart I-10Important Drivers Of The CIE Index Have Risen, But From A Low Base Chart I-11A Deeply Negative Output Gap Last Cycle Made Inflation Expectations Vulnerable To Shocks But while the series in the top panel of Chart I-10 have risen sharply, they are rising from an extremely low base and are currently only fractionally above their average since 2004. As noted in our January report, inflation expectations fell significantly in 2014 first because they were highly vulnerable to shocks following a long period of a deeply negative output gap (Chart I-11), and second because they were catalyzed by a substantial US dollar / oil price shock that occurred in that year. We noted above that the odds of extreme near-term price changes ultimately becoming non-transitory have risen somewhat, and Chart I-12 highlights why. The chart presents the annual change in long-term consumer expectations of inflation alongside the annual change in 2-year government bond yields, and notes that the past three cases of a similar-sized spike in expectations were all ultimately met with either a significant rise in short-term interest rates or a major deflationary shock – neither of which we expect to occur over the coming year. Chart I-12Other Consumer Price Expectation Spikes Have Been Met By Rising Rates Or A Deflationary Shock However, the fact that the rise in expectations clearly has a mean-reversion component to it, and that the supply-side factors driving month-over-month price increases are temporary in nature, argues against the idea that expectations will rise above the average that prevailed from 2002 – 2014. This suggests that while the baseline for inflation has moved back closer to the Fed’s target, deviations above or below target are likely to be driven by demand-side rather than supply-side factors. The Fed’s Checklist: Focus On Employment Table I-1The Fed’s Checklist For Liftoff From an investment perspective, the outlook for inflation is important mostly because of its implications for Fed policy, and thus interest rates and equity valuation multiples. My colleague Ryan Swift, BCA’s US Bond Strategist, has presented the Fed’s checklist for liftoff in Table I-1. The Fed has been explicit that they will not raise interest rates until all three boxes are checked, regardless of what is occurring to inflation expectations or actual inflation. The first box in the list is essentially checked, as tomorrow’s April Personal Income and Outlays report will very likely confirm that the core PCE deflator rose in excess of 2% (the headline PCE deflator was already in excess of this in March). And the third criterion is essentially a derivative of the other two, barring the emergence of a significant deflationary shock at the time that the Fed would otherwise begin to raise rates. This means that investors should be entirely focused on labor market developments, and whether they are consistent with the Fed’s assessment of maximum employment. Table I-2 highlights the average monthly nonfarm payroll growth that will be required for the unemployment rate to reach 3.5-4.5%, the range of the Fed’s NAIRU estimates. The table underscores that large gains will be required for the Fed’s maximum employment criteria to be met by the end of this year or year-end 2022, on the order of 410-830k per month. Table I-2Calculating The Distance To Maximum Employment But the nature of the pandemic and the factors that drove what is still an 8.2 million jobs gap underscore the extreme difficulty in forecasting what monthly job gains are likely to occur on average over the coming 12-18 months. From March to August of last year, monthly changes in nonfarm payrolls exceeded +/-1 million per month, with 20.7 million jobs lost in the month of April 2020 alone. Payroll gains averaged 3.8 million per month in the two months that followed, and if that pace were to be repeated this fall as schools reopen and supplementary unemployment benefits draw to a close in all states it would close 93% of the outstanding jobs gap. This implies that monthly job growth will follow a bimodal distribution over the coming year, with large gains in Q3/Q4 followed by a much more normal pace of jobs growth in Q1/Q2 2022. In our view, the outlook for Fed policy depends significantly on the magnitude of those outsized gains in employment this fall, and there are three main arguments favoring a larger pace of monthly job growth during this period. First, Table I-3 highlights that the jobs gap is most prominent in the leisure & hospitality, government, education & health services, and professional & business services industries, and several observations suggest that Q3/Q4 job gains in these sectors may be sizeable: Table I-3Breaking Down The Pandemic Employment Gap By Industry 70% of the government employment gap shown in Table I-3 can be attributed to education, as government employment also includes education employment at the state and local government level. Many of these jobs, along with those in the education & health services industry, are likely to recover in the fall as schools reopen across the country. As noted in our discussion of the April jobs data, the professional & business services industry includes the “administrative & support services” sector, which accounts for 85% of the overall job gap for the industry. These jobs have likely been impacted heavily by reduced office presence as well as business travel, and may recover further in the fall as many employees shift partially or fully away from working from home. Chart I-13Leisure & Hospitality Employment Is Closely Tracking Hotel Occupancy Chart I-13 highlights that the year-over-year growth rates of leisure & hospitality employment and the US hotel occupancy rate are tracking each other quite closely, and that the latter is in a solid uptrend.4 While international travel is likely to remain muted this summer, the rebound in hotel occupancy suggests that Americans are choosing to travel domestically this year and that further gains in occupancy may occur over the coming months. Chart I-14 highlights the second argument in favor of a larger pace of monthly job growth in the second half of the year. The chart shows the clear relationship between reopening and the employment gap, with states that have fully reopened having substantially smaller gaps than states that have not. It is true that some states that have fully reopened are still experiencing a sizeable gap, but this is at least in part due to leisure & hospitality employment that is dependent on the travel patterns of consumers. For example, Nevada still has a 10% employment gap despite having fully reopened, clearly reflecting the impact of reduced tourism to Las Vegas. Thus, as all states move towards being fully reopened later this year, including large states such as New York and California, Chart I-14 suggests that the US jobs gap is likely to narrow significantly. Chart I-14US States That Have Reopened Have A Smaller Employment Gap Chart I-15Real Output Per Worker Is Not Likely To Rise Further Finally, Chart I-15 highlights that the 2020 recession is the only one in which real output per person rose sharply during the recession. It is true that productivity tends to rise over time and that it usually increases in the early phase of an economic recovery, but the rise in real output per worker last year clearly reflects the massive decline in employment and services spending that resulted from pandemic-related control measures and lockdowns. Our sense is that this sharp rise in real output per worker is not likely to be sustained following full reopening and the elimination of barriers to employment, and if real output per worker were to even modestly converge to its prior trend (the dotted line in Chart I-15) it would more than fully close the jobs gap shown in Table I-3 by the end of the year based on consensus growth forecasts for this year. Investment Conclusions Despite compelling arguments for outsized jobs growth in the second half of the year, the bottom line for investors is that there is tremendous uncertainty concerning its magnitude. It seems likely that there will be some lasting changes to consumer behavior following the pandemic, and visibility about the employment consequences of these changes will remain very low until investors receive more information about the likely urban office footprint and downtown commuter presence, the speed at which international travel will return, and the degree to which any pandemic control measures remain in place in the second half of the year. Given the Fed’s criteria for liftoff, developments that imply a pace of jobs recovery that is in line with or slower than the Fed’s unemployment rate projections will ensure that the monetary policy regime will remain supportive of risky asset prices over the coming year. If the employment gap closes rapidly in Q3/Q4, then investor expectations for the timing of the first rate hike will move sharply closer, which could act as a negative inflection point for stock prices. This is now more probable than it was a month ago, as Chart I-16 highlights that the OIS curve has shifted towards expectations of an initial rate hike at the end of next year or early 2023, from mid 2022 previously. Chart I-16Market Rate Hike Expectations Have Shifted Back To Late 2022 / Early 2023 Still, abstracting from knee-jerk market reactions, it is the pace of hikes and investor expectations for the terminal Fed funds rate that are the more important fundamental drivers of 10-year Treasury yields, and investors would need to see a very large revision to the latter in order for yields to rise to a point that would restrict economic activity or threaten equity market multiples. Such a revision is highly unlikely over the summer unless incoming evidence strongly suggests that the employment gap will be closed by the end of the year. As highlighted above, this may indeed occur later in the year, but probably not over the coming 3 months. For now, investors should remain cyclically overweight stocks versus bonds, short duration, and invested in other procyclical positions, with an eye to reassess the monetary policy and growth outlook in the late summer / early fall. Jonathan LaBerge, CFA Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst May 27, 2021 Next Report: June 24, 2021 II. Global House Prices: A New Threat For Policymakers House prices are rising rapidly across the developed markets, in response to the extraordinary monetary and fiscal policy stimulus implemented to fight the pandemic. Evidence points to the house price surge being driven by monetary policy that has left real interest rates far below equilibrium levels. Supply factors are a secondary cause of the house price boom. Financial stability risks stemming from rising house prices are less acute than the pre-2008 experience, as overall household leverage has grown more slowly during the pandemic and global banks are better capitalized. Rapidly rising house prices are forcing some central banks to turn less accommodative earlier than expected. The recent hawkish turns by the Bank of Canada and Reserve Bank of New Zealand may be canaries in the coal mine for other central banks – perhaps even the Fed – if house prices and household leverage start rising together. The COVID-19 pandemic led to the sharpest economic recession since World War II, alongside an enormous rise in unemployment. Consensus expectations call for the output gap to be closed (or mostly closed) in most advanced economies by the end of this year, but it remains an open question how quickly these economies will be able to return to full employment amid potentially permanent shifts in demand for office space and goods sold at physical, “brick and mortar” retail locations. Despite this sizeable and swift economic shock, house price appreciation accelerated last year in the developed world. Chart II-1 highlights that US house prices rose at an 18% annualized pace in the second half of 2020, whereas they accelerated at a high-single digit pace in developed markets ex-US (on a GDP-weighted basis). This, in conjunction with a sharp rise in the household sector credit-to-GDP ratio (Chart II-2), has unnerved some investors while raising questions about the implications for monetary policy. Chart II-1House Prices Are Surging Around The World Chart II-2Rising Fears About Deteriorating Household Balance Sheets Before we discuss the investment implications of the global housing boom, however, we must first accurately determine the reasons why it is happening. The Work-From-Home Effect: Less Than Meets The Eye When analyzing the surprising behavior of the housing market last year, the working-from-home effect brought upon by the pandemic emerges as an obvious factor potentially explaining house price gains. Last year, following recommended or mandatory stay-at-home orders from governments, most office-based businesses rapidly shifted to work-from-home arrangements as an emergency response. However, in the month or two following the beginning of stay-at-home orders, several national US surveys found many office workers preferred the flexibility afforded by work-from-home arrangements. Many employers, correspondingly, found that the productivity of their employees did not suffer while working from home, or that it even improved. Several prominent corporations in the US have subsequently made some work-from-home options permanent, or even allowed employees to work from offices in a different city than they did prior to the pandemic. Newfound work-from-home options have undoubtedly created new demand for housing, and thus explained the surge in house prices seen over the past year in the minds of some investors. However, in our view, evidence from the US, the UK, and France suggests that the work-from-home effect better explains differences in price gains across housing types and within large metropolitan areas, rather than aggregate or national-level changes in house prices. Chart II-3 provides some quantification of the impact of work-from-home policies by plotting US resident migration patterns by city. This data has been compiled by CBRE, and the impact of COVID is shown as the change in net move-ins from 2019 to 2020 per 1000 people. This helps control for the underlying migration pattern that existed in US cities prior to the pandemic. Chart II-3Work From Home Policies Have Impacted Migration Trends… The chart highlights that the negative migration impact from COVID has been mostly concentrated in New York City and the three most populous cities on the West Coast (by metro area): Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Seattle. And yet, Chart II-4 highlights that house price inflation in these four cities has accelerated to a double-digit pace, only modestly below the national average. Chart II-4...But Cities With Outward Migration Still Have Very Strong House Price Gains The house price indexes shown in Chart II-4 represent aggregate, metro area trends, and clearly some regions within these metro areas have experienced house price deceleration or outright deflation versus gains in areas outside the urban core. But Chart II-5 highlights that house prices have declined in Manhattan basically in line with the change in net move-ins as a share of the population, underscoring that double-digit metro area-wide house price gains appear to be vastly disproportionate to changes in net migration. Similarly, Chart II-6 highlights that rents decelerated in the US over the past year but remained in positive territory and grew at a 3.5% annualized rate from February to April. Chart II-5In Manhattan, House Prices Have Tracked Net Migration Chart II-6Rent Costs Have Decelerated, But Have Not Contracted Evidence from Paris and London also suggests that a work-from-home effect is insufficient to explain broad house price gains. Panel 1 of Chart II-7 highlights that house prices in France have accelerated significantly, but that apartment prices have decelerated only fractionally in lockstep. Panel 2 shows that the acceleration in house prices does reflect a work-from-home effect, as prices have risen faster in inner Parisian suburbs. Panel 3, however, highlights that Parisian apartment prices, the dominant property type in the urban core, have decelerated modestly. Chart II-8 highlights that house price gains have not even decelerated in greater London; they have been merely been modestly outstripped by gains in Outer South East (outside of the Outer Metropolitan Area). Chart II-7In France, Parisian Apartment Prices Are Simply Lagging, Not Falling Chart II-8In The UK, Greater London Property Prices Are Accelerating     The Policy Effect: The Fundamental Driver Of The Housing Market Despite the broader location flexibility that work-from-home policies now provide to potential homeowners, it seems inconceivable that the housing market would have responded in the manner that it has over the past year given the size of the economic shock brought on by the pandemic without significant support from policy. Above-the-line fiscal measures to the pandemic have totaled in the double-digits in advanced economies (Chart II-9), and monetary policy has contributed to easier financial conditions via rate cuts, asset purchases, and sizeable programs to support financial market liquidity. Chart II-9There Has Been A Massive Fiscal Policy Response To The Crisis In fact, Charts II-10-II-13 present compelling evidence that fiscal and monetary policy have been the core drivers of significant house price gains over the past year. Charts II-10 and II-11 plot the above-the-line fiscal response of advanced economies against the year-over-year growth rate in house prices as well as its acceleration (the change in the year-over-year growth rate). The charts show a clearly positive relationship, with a stronger link between the pandemic fiscal response and the acceleration in house prices. Chart II-10Differences In Last Year’s Fiscal Response… Chart II-11…Help Explain Differences In House Price Gains Chart II-12Pre-Pandemic Differences In The Monetary Policy Stance… Chart II-13…Do An Even Better Job Of Explaining 2020 House Price Gains   Charts II-12 and II-13 highlight the even stronger link between house prices and the pre-pandemic monetary policy stance in advanced economies, defined as the difference between each country’s 2-year government bond yield and its Taylor Rule-implied policy interest rate as of Q4 2019. We construct each country’s Taylor Rule using the original specification, with core consumer price inflation, a 2% inflation target, and real potential GDP growth as the definition of the real equilibrium interest rate. The charts make it clear that easy monetary policy strongly explains house price gains in 2020, particularly the year-over-year percent change rather than its acceleration. This makes sense, given that monetary policy was already quite easy in many countries at the onset of the pandemic – meaning that changes were less pronounced than they would have been had interest rates been higher. The explanation that emerges from Charts II-10-II-13 is that historic fiscal easing, combined with an easy starting point for monetary policy – that became even easier last year – enabled demand from work-from-home policies to manifest during an extremely severe recession. We agree that work-from-home policies have shifted the geographic preferences of some home buyers and likely provided a new source of net demand from renters in urban cores purchasing homes in outlying areas. But we strongly doubt that the net effect of work-from-home policies in the midst of an extreme shock to economic activity would have caused the rise in house prices that we have observed, certainly not to this level, without major support from policy. This underscores that policy, and not the work-from-home effect, has and will likely remain the core driver of the global housing market. The Supply Effect: Mostly A Red Herring Chart II-14Countries Fall Into Two Groups In Terms Of The Relative Trend In Real Residential Investment One perennial question that emerges when analyzing the housing market, particularly in markets with outsized house price gains, is the impact of constrained supply. It is frequently argued that constrained supply is squeezing prices higher in many markets, and that the appropriate policy solution to extreme house price gains is to enable widespread housing construction – not to raise interest rates. We do not rule out the potential impact of constrained supply in certain cities or regional housing markets, and we have highlighted in previous research that a positive relationship does exist between population density in urban regions and median house price-to-income ratios.5 But as a broad explanation for supercharged house price gains, the supply argument appears to fall flat. Chart II-14 presents the most standardized measure of cross-country housing supply available for several advanced economies, the trend in real residential investment relative to real GDP over time. These series are all rebased to 100 as of 1997, prior to the 2002-2007 US housing market boom. The chart makes it clear that advanced economies generally fall into two groups based on this metric: those that have seen declines in real residential investment relative to GDP, especially after the global financial crisis (panel 1), and those that have experienced either an uptrend in housing construction relative to output or have seen a flat trend (panel 2). If scarce housing supply was the core driver of outsized house price gains, then we would expect to see stronger gains in the countries shown in panel 1 and smaller gains in the countries shown in panel 2. In fact, mostly the opposite is true: Charts II-15 and II-16 highlight that the relationship between the level of these indexes today relative to their 1997 or 2005 levels is positively related to the magnitude of house price gains last year, suggesting that housing market supply has generally been responding to demand over the past decade. The US and possibly New Zealand stand as possible exceptions to the trend, suggesting that relatively scarce supply may be boosting prices even further in these markets beyond what fiscal and monetary policy would suggest. Chart II-15Countries That Have Seen A Stronger Pace Of Residential Investment… Chart II-16…Have Experienced Stronger House Price Gains   Chart II-17Is This Not Enough Supply, Or Too Much Demand? As a final point about the inclination of investors to gravitate towards supply-side arguments related to the housing market, Chart II-17 presents a simple thought experiment. The chart shows a simple housing supply-demand curve diagram, in a scenario where the demand curve for housing has shifted out more than the supply curve has (thus raising house prices). Is this a scenario in which supply is too tight? Or is it a case in which demand is too strong? In our view, the tight supply answer is reasonable in circumstances where the increase in demand is normal or otherwise sustainable. But Charts II-10-II-13 clearly showed that housing demand is being boosted by easy policy, which in the case of some countries has occurred for years: interest rates have remained well below levels that macroeconomic theory would traditionally consider to be in equilibrium, and this has occurred alongside significant household sector leveraging (Chart II-18). As such, in our view, investors should be more inclined to view the global housing market as generally being driven by demand-side rather than supply-side factors. This Is Not 2007/08 … Yet We highlighted in Chart II-2 above that the household sector debt-to-GDP ratio increased sharply last year, which has raised some questions about debt sustainability among investors. For the most part, the rise in this ratio actually reflects denominator effects (namely a sharp contraction in nominal GDP) rather than a huge surge in household debt. Chart II-19 shows BIS data for the annual growth in total household debt in developed economies was roughly stable last year, at least until Q3 (the most recent datapoint available from the BIS). Chart II-18Low Interest Rates Have Fueled Household Leveraging Chart II-19Total Credit Growth Has Been Stable, But Mortgage Credit Growth Is Accelerating Chart II-20US Mortgage Growth Is Picking Up, As Repayments Slow Consumer Credit Growth But Chart II-19 shows the recent trend in total household debt, which masks diverging mortgage and non-mortgage debt trends. In the US, euro area, Canada, and Sweden, household mortgage debt has accelerated to varying degrees, underscoring that households have likely paid down non-mortgage debt with some of the savings that they have accumulated from a significant reduction in spending on services. Chart II-20 shows this effect directly in the case of the US; mortgage debt growth accelerated by roughly 1.5 percentage points in the second half of the year, whereas consumer credit growth (made up of student loans, auto loans, credit cards, and other revolving credit) decelerated significantly. This aligns with data showing that US households have used some of their savings windfall to pay down their credit card balances. This changing mix within household debt - less higher-interest-rate consumer credit, more lower-interest-rate collateralized mortgage debt – could, on the margin, help mitigate financial stability risks from the housing boom by moderating overall debt service burdens. The starting point for the latter matters, though, in accurately assessing the risks from rising house prices and increased mortgage debt, particularly in countries where household debt levels are already high. According to data from the BIS, the US already has one of the lowest household debt service ratios (7.6%) among the developed economies (Chart II-21).6 This compares favorably to the double-digit debt service ratios in the “higher-risk” countries like Canada (12.6%), Sweden (12.1%) and Norway (16.2%). On top of that, US commercial banks have become far more prudent with mortgage loan underwriting standards since the 2008 financial crisis. The New York Fed’s Household Debt and Credit report shows that an increasing majority of mortgage lending made by US banks since the 2008 crisis has been to those with very high FICO credit scores (Chart II-22). This is in sharp contrast to the steady lending to “subprime” borrowers with poor credit scores that preceded the 2008 financial crisis. The median FICO score for new mortgage originations as of Q1 2021 was 788, compared to 707 in Q4 2006 at the peak of the mid-2000s US housing boom. Chart II-21Diverging Trends In Global Household Debt Servicing Costs Chart II-22US Banks Have Become More Prudent With Mortgage Lending   US bank balance sheets are also now less directly exposed to a fall in housing values. Residential loans now represent only 10% of the assets on US bank balance sheets, compared to 20% at the peak of the last housing bubble (Chart II-23). This puts the US in the “lower-risk” group of countries in Europe, the UK and Japan where mortgages are less than 20% of bank balance sheets. This compares favorably to the “higher risk” group of countries where residential loans are a far larger share of bank assets (Chart II-24), like Canada (32%), New Zealand (49%), Sweden (45%) and Australia (40%). Chart II-23Banks Have Limited Direct Exposure To Housing Here Chart II-24Banks Are Far More Exposed To Housing Here   Like nature, however, the financial ecosystem abhors a vacuum. “Non-bank” mortgage lenders have filled the void from traditional US banks reducing their lending to lower-quality borrowers, and they now represent around two-thirds of all US mortgage origination, a big leap from the 20% origination share in 2007. Non-bank lenders have also taken on growing shares of new mortgage origination in other countries like the UK, Canada and Australia. Chart II-25Global Banks Can Withstand A Housing Shock Non-bank lenders do not take deposits and typically fund themselves via shorter-term borrowings, which raises the potential for future instability if credit markets seize up. These lenders also, on average, service mortgages with a higher probability of default, so they are exposed to greater credit losses when house prices decline. However, the risk of a full-blown 2008-style commercial banking crisis, with individual depositors’ funds at risk from a bank failure, are reduced with a greater share of riskier mortgage lending conducted by non-bank entities. This is especially true with global commercial banks far better capitalized today, with double-digit Tier 1 capital ratios (Chart II-25), thanks to regulatory changes made after the Global Financial Crisis. Net-net, we conclude that the overall financial stability implications of the current surge in house prices in the developed economies are relatively modest on average. The acceleration in mortgage growth has occurred alongside reductions in non-mortgage growth, at a time when banks are better able to withstand a shock from any sustained future downturn in house prices. However, if house prices continue to accelerate and new homebuyers are forced to take on ever increasing amounts of mortgage debt, financial stability issues could intensify in some countries. Services spending will recover in a vaccinated post-COVID world, as economies reopen and consumer confidence improves, which will likely end the trend of falling non-residential consumer debt offsetting rising mortgage debt in countries like the US and Canada. Overall levels of household debt could begin to rise again relative to incomes, building up future financial stability risks when central banks begin to normalize pandemic-related monetary policies – a process that has already started in some countries because of the housing boom. The Monetary Policy Implications Of Surging House Prices Rapidly appreciating house prices are becoming an area of concern for policymakers in countries like Canada and New Zealand, where the affordability of housing is becoming a political, as well as an economic, issue. In the case of New Zealand, the government has actually altered the remit of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (RBNZ) to more explicitly factor in the impact of monetary policy on housing costs. The Bank of Canada announced in April that it would taper its pace of government debt purchases and signaled that its decision was based, at least in small part, on signs of speculative behavior in Canada’s housing market. Macroprudential measures like limiting loan-to-value ratios of new mortgage loans are a policy option that governments in those countries have already implemented to try and cool off housing demand. Yet while such measures can help alleviate demand-supply mismatches in certain cities and regions, the efficacy of such measures in sustainably slowing the ascent of house prices on a national scale is unclear. In the April 2021 IMF Global Financial Stability Report, researchers estimated that, for a broad group of countries, the implementation of a new macro-prudential measure designed to cool loan demand reduced national household debt/GDP ratios by a mere one percentage point, on average, over a period encompassing four years.7 If macroprudential measures are that ineffective in sustainably reducing demand for mortgage loans, then the burden of slowing house price appreciation will have to fall on the more blunt instruments of monetary policy. Importantly, surging house price inflation is not likely to give a boost to realized inflation measures – an important issue given the current backdrop of rapidly rising realized inflation rates in many countries. Housing costs do represent a significant portion of consumer price indices in many developed countries, ranging from 19% in New Zealand to 33% in the US (Chart II-26), with the euro area being the outlier with housing having a mere 2% weighting in the headline inflation index. Chart II-26A Limited Impact On Actual Inflation From Housing Yet those so-called “housing” categories overwhelmingly measure only housing rental costs and not actual house prices. This is an important distinction because rents – which are often imputed measures like in the US and not even actual rental costs - are rising at a far slower pace than actual house prices in most countries, so the housing contribution to realized inflation is relatively modest. So the good news is that booming house prices will not worsen the acceleration of realized global inflation that has concerned investors and policymakers in 2021. Yet that does not mean that central bankers will not be forced to tighten policy to cool off red-hot housing demand that is clearly being fueled by persistently negative real interest rates. In Chart II-27 and Chart II-28, we show both nominal and real policy interest rates for the “lower risk” and “higher risk” country groupings that we described earlier. The real policy rates are nominal policy rates versus realized headline CPI inflation. The dotted lines in the charts represent the future path of rates discounted by markets. Specifically, the projection for nominal rates is taken from overnight index swap (OIS) forward curves, while the projection for real rates is calculated by subtracting the discounted path of inflation expectations extracted from CPI swap forwards. Chart II-27Markets Discounting Negative Real Rates For The Next Decade Chart II-28Negative Real Rates Are Unsustainable During A Housing Bubble   There are two key takeaways from these charts: Real policy interest rates are at or very close to the most deeply negative levels seen since the 2008 financial crisis. Markets are discounting that real rates will be at or below 0% for most of the next decade. Admittedly, there is room for debate over what the equilibrium level of real interest rates (a.k.a. “r-star”) should be in the coming years. However, we deem it a major stretch to believe that real rates need to be persistently low or negative for the next ten years to support even trend growth across the developed economies. In our view, the current boom in housing demand and mortgage borrowing provides clear evidence that negative real rates are below equilibrium and, thus, are stimulating credit demand. Thus, the only way for a central bank to cool off housing demand will be to raise both nominal and, more importantly, real interest rates. Canada and New Zealand will be the “canaries in the coal mine” among developed market central banks for such a move. According to the latest Bank of Canada Financial Stability Review, nearly 22% of Canadian mortgages are highly levered, with a loan-to-value ratio greater than 450%, a greater share of such mortgages than during the 2016/17 housing boom (Chart II-29). Canadian house prices have risen to such an extent that home prices in major cities like Toronto, Vancouver and Montreal are among the most expensive in North America.8  Stunningly, a recent Bloomberg Nanos opinion poll revealed that nearly 50% of Canadians would support Bank of Canada rate hikes to cool off the red-hot housing market (Chart II-30). The central bank will be unable to resist the pressure to use monetary policy to slam on the brakes of the housing market – investors should expect more tapering and, eventually, rate hikes from the Bank of Canada over at least the next couple of years. Chart II-29Canadians Are Leveraging Up To Buy Expensive Homes Chart II-3050% Of Canadians Want A Rate Hike To Cool Housing   In New Zealand, worsening housing affordability has reached a point where a 20% down payment on the median national house price is equal to 223% of median disposable income (Chart II-31). This is forcing more first-time home buyers to take on levels of mortgage debt that the RBNZ deems highly risky (top panel). Like the Bank of Canada, the RBNZ will prove to be one of the most hawkish central banks in the developed world over the next couple of years as the central bank follows their newly-revised remit to try and cool off housing demand in New Zealand. Who is next? Housing values, measured by the ratio of median national house prices to median national household incomes, are rising in the US and UK but are still below the peaks of the mid-2000s housing bubble (Chart II-32). Meanwhile, housing is becoming more expensive across the euro area, but not in a consistent manner, with valuations in Germany and Spain having increased far more than in France or Italy. Housing valuations have actually improved in Australia over the past couple of years on a price-to-income basis. The most likely candidates for a housing-related hawkish turn are in Scandinavia, with housing valuations in Sweden and Norway closing in on Canada/New Zealand levels. Chart II-31New Zealand Housing Is Wildly Unaffordable Chart II-32Global House Price/Income Ratios Are Trending Higher   Investment Conclusions The current acceleration in global house prices is an inevitable outcome of the extraordinary monetary and fiscal easing implemented during the pandemic. Higher realized inflation is pushing real rates deeper into negative territory in many countries, fueling the demand for housing. Central banks in countries with more stretched housing valuations will be forced to turn more hawkish sooner than expected, leading to tapering and, eventually, rate hikes to cool housing demand. This has negative implications for government bond markets in countries where housing is more expensive and real yields remain too low, like Canada, New Zealand and Sweden (Chart II-33). Investors should limit exposure to government bonds in those markets over the next 6-12 months. Chart II-33Negative Real Yields & Expensive Housing Valuations – An Unsustainable Mix Bond markets in countries where house prices are not rising rapidly enough to force policymakers to turn more hawkish more quickly – like core Europe, Australia and even Japan - are likely to be relative outperformers. The US and UK are “cuspy” bond markets, as housing valuations are becoming more expensive in those two countries but the Fed and Bank of England are not facing the same domestic political pressure to use monetary policy tools to fight the growing unaffordability of housing. That could change, though, if overall household leverage begins to rise alongside house price inflation as the US and UK economies emerge from the pandemic. Current pricing in OIS curves shows that markets expect the RBNZ and Bank of Canada to begin hiking rates in May 2022 and September 2022, respectively (Table II-1). This is well ahead of expectations for “liftoff” from other developed markets central banks, including the Fed in April 2023. The cumulative amount of rate hikes following liftoff to the end of 2024 is highest in Canada, New Zealand, the US and Australia. Those are also countries with currencies that are trading at or above the purchasing power parity levels derived from our currency strategists’ valuation models. This highlights the difficult choice that central bankers facing housing bubbles must confront, as the rate hikes that will help cool off housing demand will lead to currency appreciation that could impact other parts of their economies like exports and manufacturing. Table II-1Hawkish Central Banks Must Live With Currency Strength Tracking the second-round economic consequences of eventual monetary policy actions to control excessive house price inflation, particularly in “higher risk” countries, is likely to be the subject of future Bank Credit Analyst / Global Fixed Income Strategy reports. Jonathan LaBerge, CFA Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist 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 are very extended, highlighting that investors should expect positive but more modest returns from stocks over the coming 6-12 months. Our monetary indicator has aggressively retreated from its high last year, reflecting a meaningful recovery in government bond yields since last August. The indicator remains above the boom/bust line, however, highlighting that monetary policy remains supportive for risky asset prices. Forward equity earnings already price in a complete earnings recovery, but for now there is no meaningful sign of waning forward earnings momentum. Net revisions remain positive, and positive earnings surprises have risen to their strongest levels on record. Within a global equity portfolio, there has been a modest tick up in global ex-US equity performance, led by European stocks. EM stocks had previously dragged down global ex-US performance, and they continue to languish. Japanese stocks have cratered in relative terms since the beginning of the year, seemingly driven by service sector underperformance resulting from a surge in COVID-19 cases since the beginning of March. While Japanese equity performance may stage a reversal over the coming 3 months as cases counts decline and progress continues on the vaccination front, we expect global ex-US performance to continue to be led by European stocks. The US 10-Year Treasury yield has traded sideways since mid-March, after having risen to levels that were extremely technically stretched. Despite this pause, our valuation index highlights that bonds are still expensive, and that yields could move higher over the cyclical investment horizon if employment growth in Q3/Q4 implies a faster return to maximum employment than currently projected by the Fed. We expect the rise to be more modest than our valuation index would imply, but we would still recommend a short duration stance within a fixed-income portfolio. Commodity prices, particularly copper, lumber, and agricultural commodities, have screamed higher over the past several months. This reflects bullish cyclical conditions, but also pandemic-induced supply shortages that are likely to wane later this year. Commodity prices are extremely technically stretched and sentiment is very bullish for most commodities, suggesting that a breather in commodity prices is likely at some point over the coming several months. US and global LEIs remain in a solid uptrend, and global manufacturing PMIs are strong. Our global LEI diffusion index has declined significantly, but this likely reflects the outsized impact of a few emerging market countries (whose vaccination progress is lagging). 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 later this year, as social distancing and other pandemic control measures disappear. EQUITIES: Chart III-1US Equity Indicators Chart III-2Willingness To Pay For Risk Chart III-3US Equity Sentiment Indicators   Chart III-4Revealed Preference Indicator Chart III-5US Stock Market Valuation Chart III-6US Earnings Chart III-7Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Chart III-8Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance   FIXED INCOME: Chart III-9US Treasurys And Valuations Chart III-10Yield Curve Slopes Chart III-11Selected US Bond Yields Chart III-1210-Year Treasury Yield ComponentsChart III-13US Corporate Bonds And Health Monitor Chart III-14Global Bonds: Developed Markets Chart III-15Global Bonds: Emerging Markets   CURRENCIES: Chart III-16US Dollar And PPP Chart III-17US Dollar And Indicator Chart III-18US Dollar Fundamentals Chart III-19Japanese Yen Technicals Chart III-20Euro Technicals Chart III-21Euro/Yen Technicals Chart III-22Euro/Pound Technicals   COMMODITIES: Chart III-23Broad Commodity Indicators Chart III-24Commodity Prices Chart III-25Commodity Prices Chart III-26Commodity Sentiment Chart III-27Speculative Positioning   ECONOMY: Chart III-28US And Global Macro Backdrop Chart III-29US Macro Snapshot Chart III-30US Growth Outlook Chart III-31US Cyclical Spending Chart III-32US Labor Market Chart III-33US Consumption Chart III-34US Housing Chart III-35US Debt And Deleveraging   Chart III-36US Financial Conditions Chart III-37Global Economic Snapshot: Europe Chart III-38Global Economic Snapshot: China   Jonathan LaBerge, CFA Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst Footnotes 1 The New York Times “Texas, Indiana and Oklahoma join states cutting off pandemic unemployment benefits,” May 18, 2021. 2 The Wall Street Journal, “Shipments Delayed: Ocean Carrier Shipping Times Surge in Supply-Chain Crunch,” May 18, 2021 3 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst "The Modern-Day Phillips Curve, Future Inflation, And What To Do About It," dated December 18, 2020, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 4 To eliminate the pandemic base effect for both series, we adjust the year-over-year growth rates in March and April of this year by comparing them to March and April 2019. 5 Please see Global Investment Strategy "Canada: A (Probably) Happy Moment In An Otherwise Sad Story," dated July 14, 2017, available at gis.bcaresearch.com 6 Importantly, the BIS debt service ratios include the payment of both principal and interest, thus making it a true measure of debt service costs that includes repayment of borrowed funds – a critical issue in countries with high loan-to-value ratios for home mortgages. 7 Please see page 46 of Chapter 2 of the April 2021 IMF Global Financial Stability Report, which can be found here: https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/GFSR/Issues/2021/04/06/global-finan… 8 “Vancouver, Toronto and Hamilton are the least affordable cities in North America: report”, CBC News, May 20, 2021

Special Report

Highlights We update our assumptions for the likely 10-15 year return for a wide range of different asset classes. Our methodology is basically unchanged from our last Return Assumptions report published in 2019, though we have refined our analysis and use of data in some areas. Returns over the next decade will be very low compared to history. We project that a standard global portfolio (50% equities, 30% bonds, and 20% alternatives) will return only 3.0% a year in nominal terms. That compares to a historic return of 6.3%. There are still some assets that will produce better returns, most notably small caps (4.9% a year in the US) and alternatives (6.2% for private equity, for example). But they also carry higher risk. Spreadsheets are available with detailed data. Introduction This is the third edition of our work on return assumptions. Since publishing the previous reports in November 2017 and June 2019, we have had many opportunities to discuss our methodologies with clients and in the Global Asset Allocation course at the BCA Academy. This has allowed us to test and, in many cases, refine our approach. We believe the methodologies we use have stood the test of time. We have always emphasized that this sort of capital markets assumptions (CMA) analysis is an art, not a precise science. We continue to prefer to project returns over a somewhat undefined 10-15 year period, since this allows us to think about the underlying trend of likely returns. Many other CMA papers use five (or even three) year time horizons which, in our view, are problematical since they rely heavily on a forecast of the timing, length, and severity of the next recession. Our approach is based on the concept that the return on the risk-free long-term government bond is the cornerstone to projecting asset returns, and that this return is rather predictable: It is approximately the current yield. Most other asset returns can be built up from that – the return on high-yield bonds, for example, by assuming that their historic spread over government bonds, and default and recovery rates will continue in the future. For equities, we continue to use six different methodologies, which are based on a mixture of valuation and projected earnings growth. This approach – that assumed returns can be built up from a combination of current yield plus forecast future growth in capital values – also works for most alternative asset classes, for example real estate. We have made a few minor changes to our methodology in this edition. We have, for example, made our use of historical data (for spreads, profit margins, growth relative to GDP, etc.) more consistent, using the 20-year average where possible. The biggest change this time is that clients can download here a spreadsheet with all the data in this report in order, for example, to use the data as inputs into their own optimizers. In addition, we have set up our detailed spreadsheet to allow clients to see the underlying inputs, the formulae behind our methodologies, and to input their own assumptions. This will also allow us to update the results of our analysis as often as needed. Please let us know here if you would like more details about this additional service. This Special Report is structured as follows. First, we analyze the overall results: What is the probable return from each asset class over the next 10-15 years, and how do these differ from historical returns. Next, we describe in detail the methodologies we use, for (1) economic growth, (2) fixed-income instruments, (3) equities, and (4) 12 different alternative asset classes. Then, we describe our way of forecasting currency returns, and show the return assumptions in different base currencies. Finally, we update the numbers for volatility and correlations, which many investors need as inputs into optimization programs. The summary of our results is shown in Table 1. The results are all average annual nominal total returns, in local currency terms (except for global indexes, which are in US dollars). The data is updated to end-April 2021 (except for some alternative asset classes where only quarterly data is available). Table 1BCA Assumed Returns Overall Results Returns over the coming decade are likely to be very disappointing compared to history. Our assumptions suggest a typical global portfolio, consisting of 50% large-cap equities, 30% bonds, and 20% alternatives, will produce an annual nominal return of only 3.0%, compared to an average of 6.3% over the past 20 years. A US-only portfolio with a similar composition is likely to produce only a 3.1% return, compared to 7% in history. The reason is simple: Valuations currently are very stretched in almost every asset class. The risk-free rate (the 10-year government bond yield) in the US is 1.6% (compared to a 20-year average of 3.1%). It is negative in the euro area (in nominal terms) and zero in Japan. These rates are the anchor for the returns of all other asset classes, which are theoretically priced off the risk-free rate plus a risk premium. We have long argued that valuations are not a good timing tool for investors. An asset can remain very expensive or very cheap for a considerable period. But all the evidence shows that the valuation at the starting point is a very powerful indicator of long-run returns. The yield on government bonds, for example, has a strong correlation with their 10-year return (Chart 1). In the equity market, the Shiller PE has historically had little correlation with the return over one or two years, but has a 90% correlation with the return over the subsequent 10 years (Chart 2). Chart 1Starting Yield Determines Bond Returns Chart 2Valuation Drive Long-Run Equtiy Returns     With valuations in equity markets now expensive relative to history (for example, forward PE for US stocks of 22x compared to a 20-year average of 16x, and 18x in the euro zone compared to 13x), investors should expect that equity market returns will be low relative to history. Our assumptions point to a 2.6% annual return from US stocks, 2.3% from the euro zone, and 1.6% from Japan (compared to 8.5%, 3.9%, and 3.5% over the past 20 years). Our assumptions are significantly lower than when we last published our analysis in 2019; then we projected 5.6% for US stocks, 4.7% for the euro zone, and 6.2% for Japan. The difference is that equity multiples have risen and risk-free rates have fallen significantly since then. So what should investors do? They have only two choices: Lower their return assumptions, or increase their weightings in riskier asset classes. Chart 3Hard To See How US Pension Funds Will Achieve Their Targets The average US public pension fund (Chart 3) still assumes a return of 7% a year, and private pension funds’ assumption is not much lower. And yet corporate pension funds have been pushed by their consultants in recent years to increase their weighting in bonds, to more closely match their liabilities (Chart 4). It is almost mathematically impossible to achieve their targets with that sort of portfolio. In other countries, such as Australia or Canada, pension funds’ return targets are typically inflation or cash plus 3-4 percentage points. But even those targets are challenging.   Chart 4...Especially With Over 50% In Bonds There are asset classes which will produce higher returns. For example, we project a return of 4.9% from US small-cap stocks – and 9.7% from UK small caps. US high-yield bonds should produce a return of 3.2% a year (even after defaults) and Emerging Markets local currency sovereign debt 2.7% (in USD terms) – not exactly exciting, but at least a pick-up over other fixed-income securities. The projected returns from illiquid alternative assets continue to look relatively attractive. An equal-weighted portfolio of the 12 alternatives we cover is projected to return 5.7% a year, not much lower than the forecast of 6.1% from our 2019 report (and compared to an average of 7.1% of the past 20 years). There are some alt assets where returns have started to trend down: Private equity, for instance, is projected to return 6.2% a year, compared to 11.1% in history, and hedge funds 4.5%, compared to 5.9%. But the illiquidity premium should not disappear completely, even if the move of alternative investments to become more mainstream has reduced it to a degree. So adding more risky assets to a portfolio is an answer, at least for those investors with a long enough time-horizon that allows them to bear the inevitable big drawdowns that come with having a more volatile portfolio. And, unfortunately, lower returns mean that the incremental return gained for each unit of risk taken has declined compared to the past 10 or 20 years (Chart 5) – the efficient frontier has flattened significantly. Chart 5You Need To Take More Risk To Produce Return How We Came Up With The Assumptions GDP Growth Several of our methodologies use assumptions (for example, in equity methods (2) and (3), based on projections of earnings growth, real-estate capital-value growth, and commodities prices) which require estimates of nominal GDP growth in each country and region. To make these forecasts, we assume that nominal GDP growth can be decomposed into: (1) growth of the working-age population, (2) productivity growth, and (3) inflation. This ignores capital intensity, but it has been relatively stable over history and is difficult to forecast. Table 2 shows the assumptions we use, and our forecasts for real and nominal GDP in each country and region. Table 2Calculations Of Trend GDP Growth For population growth we use the United Nations’ median forecast of annual growth in the population aged 25-54 between 2020 and 2040. This ranges from -1% in Japan to +1% in Emerging Markets – although note that the range of forecast population growth in EM varies widely from 1.2% in India to -1.1% in Korea (and in China, too, is negative at -0.7%). This estimate is reasonably reliable, although it does miss some possible factors, such as changes in the female participation rate, hours worked, and changing openness to immigration. Productivity is much harder to forecast. Over the past 10 to 20 years, productivity growth has trended down in most countries (Charts 6A & B). We take a slightly more optimistic view, assuming that productivity growth over the next 10-15 years will equal the 20-year average. We base this on the belief that part of the decline in productivity since the Global Financial Crisis is due to cyclical reasons which are now dissipating, and also to expectations that new technologies coming through (artificial intelligence, big data, automation, robotics etc) will boost productivity in the coming years. Others take a more pessimistic view. The Congressional Budget Office’s forecast of trend real US GDP growth in 2022-2031 of 1.8%, for example, is lower than our estimate of 2.2% mainly because of its more cautious estimate of productivity growth. Chart 6AProductivity Growth (I) Chart 6BProductivity Growth (II)   To derive nominal GDP growth, we assume that inflation over the next 10 years will be on average the same as over the past 20 years, for example 2% in the US, 1.6% in the euro area, 0.1% in Japan, and 3.9% in Emerging Markets (using a weighted average of EM by equity market cap). This estimate, too, has a high degree of uncertainty. One could imagine a scenario whereby inflation picks up significantly over the next decade due to excessively easy monetary policy, overly generous fiscal spending, growth in protectionism, rising labor pressure for wage increases, and the effects of a rising dependency ratio (the ratio of non-working people, especially retirees, to total population).1 But another scenario of continued “secular stagnation” and disinflation, caused by automation-driven job losses and a chronic lack of aggregate demand, is also conceivable. We think our middle-path forecast is the most sensible one to use in projecting likely asset returns, but investors might also want to plan based on these alternative scenarios too. Note that for Emerging Markets, we continue to show two different scenarios, which vary according to different projections of productivity growth. EM productivity growth has been declining steadily since around 2010, and in all major emerging economies, not just China. Our first scenario assumes that this decline ends and that, as in our assumption for developed economies, productivity growth reverts to the 20-year average. The more pessimistic (and, in our view, more likely) scenario assumes that the deterioration in productivity continues and that in 10 years’ time, EM productivity is the same as the average of developed economies. Which scenario will be correct depends on whether emerging economies, not least China, are able to implement structural reforms over the next decade, for example liberalizing the labor market, allowing a greater role for the private sector, improving corporate governance, and institutionalizing more orthodox fiscal and particularly monetary policy. Fixed Income Our anchor for calculating assumed returns is the return on long-term risk-free assets, specifically the 10-year government bond in the strongest countries. It is a reasonable assumption that an investor who buys, for example, a 10-year Treasury bond today and holds it for 10 years will make 1.6% a year in nominal US dollar terms. While this is not perfectly mathematically correct (since it ignores reinvested interest payments, for instance), empirically the return on government bonds has been very closely linked to the yield at the start-point in history (see Chart 1). From this starting-point in each country, we can easily build up the return for other fixed-income assets. These assumptions and the results are shown in Table 3. Table 3Fixed-Income Return Calculations Government bonds in most countries have an average duration of less than 10 years. Over the past five years, in the US it has averaged 6.4 years, and in the euro area 8.0 years. Only in the UK is the average over 10 years: 12.4 years to be precise. To calculate the return from the government bond index for each country we therefore assume that the shape of the yield curve (using the spread between 7-year and 10-year bonds) in future will be the same as the historic 20-year average. Cash. We assume that over the next 10 years the yield on cash will gradually revert to an equilibrium level. We calculate a market-implied real long-term neutral rate from the 10-year historical average of 5-year/5-year OIS implied forwards deflated by the 5-year/5-year implied CPI swap rate. This is a change from the methodology we used in 2019, when we based this off the neutral rate, r*, as calculated by the Holston Laubach-Williams model. But the New York Fed has temporarily stopped updating its calculation of this due to pandemic-induced volatility in the data, and anyway it was not available for every country. We turn the real cash rate into a total nominal return using our assumption for inflation described in detail in the GDP section above, the 20-year historical average of CPI. For inflation-linked securities, such as TIPS, we take the average yield over the past 10 years (a 20-year average was not available in many markets) and add the assumption for inflation described above. Corporate credit. We assume that spreads, and default and recovery rates, while highly volatile over the cycle, remain stable in the long run (Chart 7). We use 20-year averages for these, except that data for investment-grade default rates in Japan, the UK, Canada, and Australia are not available and so we use the average of the US and the euro zone. High-yield default rates are not available for the UK either, and so we do the same. Other bonds. For government-related debt (which is a big part of some bond indexes, 28% in the US for example) we assume that the 20-year historical average of the option-adjusted spread over government bonds will apply in the future too. We use the same methodology for securitized debt (for example, mortgage- and asset-based bonds): The 20-year average spread over the return on government bonds. Emerging Market debt. The assumptions and results for the three categories of EM debt (US dollar sovereign debt, US dollar corporate debt, and local currency sovereign debt) are shown in Table 4. We here assume that the 20-year average historical spread will continue in future. Default and recovery rates are a little harder to calculate, due to a lack of data. For USD sovereign debt (where defaults are rare and so hard to project), we use the rating-based default rate, calculated by Aswath Damodaran of NYU Stern School of Business.2 For USD-denominated EM corporate debt, we use the historical average, calculated by Moody's 2.5%.3 For local-currency debt, we use the same rating-based default rate as for USD sovereign debt. To translate the return into hard currency, we assume that currencies will move in line with the inflation differential between Emerging Markets and the US. For EM inflation we use an average of the IMF’s inflation forecasts for the nine largest emerging markets weighted by their weights in the J.P. Morgan GBI-EM Global Diversified local government bond index, and compare this to our US inflation forecast. This produces an EM inflation forecast of 2.9% a year, compared to 2.2% for the US, thus lowering the USD-based return from local EM debt by 0.7 percentage point. (See a more detailed discussion of forecasting long-term EM currency changes in the Currency section below). Index returns. Table 3 also shows the assumed return for the Bloomberg Barclays bond index for each country and for the global bond index, based on a weighted average of our assumption for each fixed-income asset class and country. Chart 7ACredit Spreads & Default Rates (I) Chart 7BCredit Spreads & Default Rates (II)   Table 4Emerging Market Debt   Equities The assumptions and detailed results for seven different equity markets are shown in Table 5. We have not made any substantial changes to our methodology for equities. We continue to use the average of six different methods to calculate the probable equity returns over the next 10-15 years. These are: Equity Risk Premium (ERP). The return from equities equals the yield on government bonds (we use 10-year bonds) plus an equity risk premium. For the US, we use an equity risk premium of 3.5%. This is based on work by Dimson, Marsh and Staunton4 showing that this is approximately the average excess return of equities over bonds in developed economies since 1900. We scale the equity risk premium for other countries using their average beta to the US market over the past 10 years. This varies from 0.66 for Japan (giving an ERP of 2.3%) and 1.2 in the euro area (ERP is 4.2%). Growth model. Here we assume that the return from equities equals the current dividend yield plus dividend growth. We need to adjust the dividend yield, however, to take into account that in some countries, particularly the US, it is more tax efficient for companies to do buybacks than to pay out dividends. We do this by adding equity withdrawals to the dividend yield. But this needs to be done on a net basis (taking into account equity issuance). We calculate this using the average annual change in the index divisor over the past 10 years. For the US, this is -0.8%, meaning there are more buybacks than new share issues. But in all other regions, the number is positive, and as high as 5.9% a year for Emerging Markets. This dilution is something that many calculations of assumed equity returns miss. For dividend growth, we assume that the dividend payout ratio remains stable, and that earnings growth is correlated with nominal GDP growth. However, history shows that earnings grow more slowly than GDP (logically so, when you consider that companies usually grow fastest before they list on a stock exchange). So we deduct 1% from nominal GDP growth to derive our earnings growth assumption. Note that for Emerging Markets, we use two different measures of dividend growth, depending on future productivity growth, as detailed above in our explanation of the GDP projections. Growth model (with reversion to mean). To take into account that valuations and profit margins typically revert to mean over the long run, we adjust the standard growth model (No. 2 above) by assuming that the current 12-month forward PE ratio and forward net profit margin for each country gradually revert over the next 10 years to their 20-year average. In the US, for example, that would mean that the current 12-month forward PE of 22.5x falls back to 16.0x, and profit margin of 12.5% falls to 10.7%. In every country and region, the profit margin is currently above the long-run average, and in all except the UK the PE is too. Note that we have changed from using the trailing PE and margin, because to use these now would be misleading given the big pandemic-driven decline in profits in 2020. Earnings yield. An intrinsically intuitive (and empirically demonstrable) way of estimating future returns is to use the earnings yield. This is based on the idea that an investor’s return from owning a stock comes either from the company paying a dividend, or from it investing retained earnings and paying a dividend in future. In the US, for example, a forward PE of 22.5x translates into an earnings yield of 4.4%. Again, here we switched this time to using 12-month forward forecast earnings yield, rather the trailing. Shiller PE. There is a strong correlation between valuation at the starting-point and the subsequent return from equities, at least over the long-run, although not over a period of less than 3-5 years (Chart 2). We regressed the Shiller PE (current price divided by average real earnings over the past 10 years) against the return from equities over the subsequent 10 years for each country and region. Composite valuation metric. The Shiller PE has its detractors. Using a fixed 10-year period does not reflect the different lengths of recessions and bull markets. It may say more about the mean-reverting nature of earnings than about whether the current price level is too high. So we also use the BCA Compositive Valuation Metric, which comprises eight indicators including, besides standard valuation measures such as price/sales and price/book, more esoteric ones such as market cap/GDP and Tobin’s Q. Again, we regress the metric against the subsequent 10-year return. Table 5Equity Return Calculations Alternative Assets Real Estate & REITs. We use the same basic methodology for both: The current yield (cap rate or dividend yield) plus projected capital value appreciation (linked to GDP growth). For US direct real estate, for example, we use the simple average cap rate of the five categories of commercial real estate (CRE), apartments, office, retail, industrial, and hotels in major cities: 6.1%. We also use the simple average of available city and category data for other countries. Cap rates are notoriously hard to estimate precisely; our data include a range of real estate, not just prime locations. We assume that capital values will grow in line with nominal GDP growth (using the same assumptions for this as we used for equities, 4.2%). We then deduct 0.5% for maintenance. This produces an expected return of 9.8% for the US. The only difference for REITs is that we do not deduct maintenance since this should already be reflected in the dividend yield. US REITs have a dividend yield currently of 3.5%, which produces an assumed return of 7.7% (Table 6). One risk with this methodology is that in the post-pandemic world, work and life practices might change. This will hurt office and residential real estate in major cities (which are overrepresented in investible CRE), though smaller cities and rural areas might benefit. As a result, capital values might fall. Table 6Alternatives Return Calculations Farmland & Timberland. Our methodology is similar to that for real estate: Current yield plus projected growth in capital values. For farmland, we use the farmland renter yield, sourced from the US Department of Agriculture. To estimate future land values, we take the gap between land value growth over the past 40 years (3.7%) and nominal growth of world GDP over that time (5.2%), assume that gap will continue and so deduct it from our estimate of global nominal GDP growth going forward (3.6%). This gives a result of 6.5%. For timberland, we assume that annualized returns in the future are the same as over the past 20 years. This produces a return assumption of 5.7%, which is (logically) moderately lower than our assumed return for farmland. Private Equity & Venture Capital. We project the return for private equity (PE) using the 30-year time-weighted average of the three-year rolling annualized return of PE over US large-cap equities, 3.6% (Chart 8). This produces an assumed return of 6.2%. For venture capital (VC), we use the same historical average for VC over PE (0.4%) to arrive at an assumed return of 6.6%. Hedge Funds. We use the 20-year time-weighted return of the Hedge Fund Composite Index over cash, 3.5% (Chart 9). This projects a future annual nominal return of 4.5%. Commodities. We previously used a methodology based on the idea that commodities’ bear markets in history have been rather fairly consistent, lasting on average 17 years, with an average decline of 50%, and that the current bear market began in 2012 (Chart 10). However, there are arguments that a new “commodities super-cycle” may be starting, driven by government infrastructure spending, and investment in alternative energy.5 We are agnostic for now on whether that will be the case, but it makes sense to switch to a neutral methodology, more in line with what we use for other assets classes: The return from commodities relative to GDP over the long run. Specifically, the CRB Raw Industrials Index has risen by an annualized 1.6% since 1951, during which time US nominal GDP growth averaged 6% (Chart 11). We assume that the differential will continue in future (although we calculate growth using global, not US, GDP), giving an annual return from commodities over the next 10-15 years of -0.9%. Gold. We calculate this using a regression of the gold price against nominal GDP growth and the annual change in the real 10-year yield over the past 40 years. For the forward-looking return assumption, we use a forecast of real rates (based on the equilibrium cash rate plus the average historical spread between the 10-year yield and cash) and a forecast of global nominal GDP growth. This produces an assumed return of 3.8%. Structured products. This asset class consists mainly of mortgage-backed and other asset-backed securitized instruments. In the US, these have historically returned 0.6% over US Treasurys. We assume that this premium continues, producing a total future return of 1.1% a year. Chart 8Private Equity Premium Chart 9Hedge Fund Return Over Cash     Chart 10Commodity Prices In History Chart 11Commodity Prices Vs. GDP Growth     Currencies Chart 12Currencies Tend To Revert To PPP To translate our local currency returns into an investor’s base currency, we need to arrive at some projections for FX movements over the next decade. Fortunately, for developed market currencies at least, it is relatively straightforward to use purchasing power parities (PPP) to do this since, over the long run, all the major currencies have tended to revert to PPP (Chart 12). We assume that in 10 years’ time all currencies will trade at PPP. We use the IMF’s estimate of today’s PPP for each currency to calculate the current under- or over-valuation. We assume that PPP will change in future years according to the relative inflation between each country and the US. The IMF provides five-year inflation forecasts and we assume that inflation will continue at this rate until 2031. For the euro zone, we calculate the PPP of the euro using the GDP-weighted PPPs of the five largest economies. The results (Table 7) suggest that the US dollar is currently overvalued and, given the forecast of higher inflation in the US than elsewhere in the future, will depreciate significantly against all major currencies except the Australian dollar. The USD is projected to depreciate by 1.7% a year against the euro and 1.1% against the yen over the next 10 years. It is likely to appreciate by 1.3% a year against the AUD, however. Table 7Currency Return Calculations Emerging Markets (Table 8) are more complicated. There is no evidence that EM currencies move towards PPP over time. All the major EM currencies are currently very cheap versus PPP (varying from 34% undervalued for the Chinese yuan to 67% for the Indonesian rupiah) but they were 10 years ago, too, and have not significantly moved towards PPP over that time. Table 8EM Currencies To calculate likely EM currency moves against the USD, therefore, we carry out a regression of the nine largest EM currencies against their relative CPI inflation rate to US inflation in history. We assume an intercept of zero. The regression coefficients vary from +0.5 for China to -1.7 for Malaysia. Apart from China, Malaysia, Poland and South Africa, the coefficients were negative, meaning that historically the USD has strengthened against the EM currency at least partly in line with relative inflation. To calculate likely future currency movements, we use the IMF’s five-year inflation forecasts and assume that the same rate of inflation will continue for our whole projection period. This methodology points to moderate annual depreciation of most EM currencies against the USD, varying from 0.8% a year for the Russian ruble to 0.1% for the Indonesia rupiah. The Chinese yuan and Taiwanese dollar are projected to appreciate moderately. We calculate the average EM currency movement using the weights of these nine large economies in the EM J.P. Morgan GBI-EM Global Diversified local-currency sovereign bond index. This produces a small (0.1%) a year appreciation. However, the IMF’s EM inflation forecasts may be too optimistic. It forecasts, for example, that Brazilian inflation will be only 3.3% a year in future, compared to an average of 6.1% over the past 20 years, and Russian inflation 4.0% versus a historical average of 9.3%. This suggests that EM currency performance could be worse than our projections. Table 9 shows the returns for the major asset classes expressed in local currency terms for six base currencies, based on the calculations explained above. Table 9Returns In Different Base Currencies Correlation And Volatility Below, in Table 10, we provide correlations for clients who need these inputs for their optimization calculations. Table 10Long-Run Correlation Matrix Returns can be calculated using the sort of forward-looking methodologies we have described above. For volatility, we think it is reasonable to use historical average data (Table 1, far right column), since volatility does not tend to trend over the long run (Chart 13). But correlation is a different matter. Correlations have varied significantly in history due to structural changes or regime shifts. The correlation of equities to bonds, it is well known, has moved from positive in the 1980s and 1990s, to negative since 2000 – probably because inflation disappeared as a factor moving bond prices (Chart 14). The correlation between equity market has risen as a result of the globalization of investment flows, though note that it fell back in 2010-2019. Chart 13Volatility Is Fairly Stable In The Long Run Chart 14Correlations Are Not Stable   So what correlations should investors use in an optimizer? Our recommendation would be to use the longest period of history available. A US investor, for example, might take the average correlation between Treasury bonds and large-cap US equities since 1945, 0.1%. Table 10 shows the correlation since 1973 of all the major asset classes for which data is available. Unfortunately, this misses some important asset classes such as high-yield bonds and Emerging Market equities, whose history does not go back that far. The results are intuitive – and prudent. From these numbers, it would seem sensible to use an assumption of a small positive correlation between US Treasurys and US equities, for example. US investment-grade debt has a correlation of 0.4 against equities. Global equity markets are all fairly highly correlated to each other, ranging mostly from 0.4 to 0.7. The most non-correlated asset class is commodities, especially gold.   Garry Evans, Senior Vice President Global Asset Allocation garry@bcaresearch.com   Amr Hanafy, Senior Analyst Global Asset Allocation amrh@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1 These are themes that BCA Research has been writing about for several years. See, for example, please see Global Investment Strategy, "1970s-Style Inflation: Could It Happen Again? (Part 1)," dated August 10, 2018; and " 1970s-Style Inflation: Could It Happen Again? (Part 2)," dated August 24, 2018. 2 Please see http://pages.stern.nyu.edu/~adamodar/New_Home_Page/datafile/ctryprem.html 3 Annual Emerging Markets Default Study: Coronavirus Will Push Up Default Rates https://www.moodys.com/researchdocumentcontentpage.aspx?docid=PBC_1214906 4 Please see, for example, https://www.credit-suisse.com/media/assets/corporate/docs/about-us/research/publications/credit-suisse-global-investment-returns-yearbook-2021-summary-edition.pdf. 5 Please see Commodity & Energy Strategy, "Industrial Commodities Super-Cycle Or Bull Market?", dated March 4, 2021.

Highlights The Seventh National Population Census highlights the seriousness of China’s demographic deterioration; apart from a shrinking working-age population, the nation’s fertility and birth rates have dropped meaningfully. China’s urbanization rate will likely slow in the second half of this decade. The country’s urban population growth is only slightly positive, while the rural population is declining and aging. Demand for housing will experience a structural downshift, particularly in less developed regions.  Competition for labor will become fiercer among regions and sectors, and wage growth will continue to accelerate. However, the manufacturing sector will remain competitive regardless of wage inflation, thanks to the rising quality of China’s labor force and innovation. Interest rates will structurally shift to a lower range, providing some tailwind to Chinese equities and government bonds. Feature The Seventh Population Census, conducted by the National Bureau of Statistics every 10 years, reinforced the magnitude of China’s demographic challenge. The nation’s population is not only aging but is set to start shrinking due to extremely low birth and fertility rates. The main implication is that China’s urbanization rate will slow and property market will likely encounter a structural downshift, tied to declining demand from both its working-age (age 15 to 64) and total population. Demand for housing will increasingly concentrate in top-tier cities because these metropolitan areas have more advantages attracting labor. Secondly, manufacturing will likely maintain its share of GDP, despite China’s push for consumption and growth in the service sector. Importantly, interest rates will continue to shift downward along with a decelerating potential growth; waning interest rates will create a tailwind to China’s capital market in the long term.  Highlights From The Census The Census showed three meaningful shifts in China’s demographics in the past decade:  1.  China is getting old before getting rich. China is experiencing a worse demographic transition than Japan in the early 1990s, with a lower level of per capita wealth than Japan attained when its working-age population peaked (Chart 1). Over the past ten years China’s population has only expanded by 5.4%, the lowest rate since the first census in 1953. Moreover, the country’s oldest cohort rose from 8.9% in 2010 to 13.5% and the working-age population is falling more quickly than in Japan. China’s working-age population peaked in 2010 and then fell by 6.79 percentage points in the next 10 years. In contrast, Japan’s working-age population peaked in 1992 and fell by 2.18 percentage points in the subsequent decade (Chart 1, top panel). 2.  China’s total population is set to start declining in five years. Some demographers project that China’s total population will peak in 2027,1 but a high-level Chinese official recently predicted that the country’s population will start to trend down as early as in 2025.2 The relaxation of the one-child policy in 2015 helped to lift the birthrate (births per 1,000 people) briefly in 2016, before falling sharply again in 2017. The population’s natural growth rate, calculated as birthrate minus deathrate, is rapidly approaching zero (Chart 2). Chart 1China's Working Population Falling Faster Than Japan's In 1990s Chart 2China's Population Growth Will Turn Negative In Mid-2020s The birthrate is the main determinant of the population’s natural growth rate given that China’s deathrate has been steady for decades.  If the birthrate continues to fall at the current rate, then China will undoubtedly reach a population turning point and will join nations such as Japan, Germany and South Korea, which have negative population growth.  3.  A low fertility trap. Chart 3China's Alarmingly Low Fertility Rate Is Set To Decline Even Further... China’s extremely low fertility rate3 is a major contributor to its falling birthrate.  The current 1.3 reading is less than in many developed countries, such as Japan with 1.4 and the US with 1.6, and it is far below the fertility rate of 2.1 needed to stabilize a population, according to the United Nations (Chart 3). China’s fertility rate is set to dive even further in the coming years due to structural factors such as a dwindling number of childbearing-age women linked to the one-child policy implemented in the 1980s (Chart 4). China’s high female labor participation rate and low propensity among young people to get married, and the high cost of raising children in urban areas, all are long-standing socio-economic issues hindering the Chinese from having more babies (Chart 5). Chart 4…Due To Fewer Childbearing-Age Women And… Chart 5...Structural Issues That Curb Chinese Propensity To Produce Babies Bottom Line: These structural trends will take decades to reverse. China faces a dramatic plunge in its population in the very near future if the authorities do not enact significant and immediate policy changes.   Urbanization Pace Will Slow The Census indicates that rapid urbanization continued through 2020, with the rate hitting 64% of the population, up 14 percentage points from 2010. However, the headline number in the urbanization rate understates China’s progress in industrialization, i.e. the country’s rural-to-urban transition has entered a late stage and the current pace cannot be sustained in the future. Significantly, China’s underlying demographic shifts will likely lead to a passive increase in the urbanization rate in the second half of this decade. This trend will curb rather than boost demand in urban areas.  The experience of developed countries suggests that the pace of urbanization begins to slow when the rate reaches around 70% (Chart 6). Based on China’s current level, the country should reach the 70% threshold in just six to seven years. Meanwhile, China is much more industrialized than generally perceived: the country’s industrialization rate is currently 85%, which means that 85% of jobs in China are in non-agricultural sectors (Chart 7). Chart 6Urbanization Progress Stabilizes When Reaching 70% Chart 7China Is Much More Industrialized Than Commonly Believed Furthermore, a higher urbanization reading may be the result of negative natural population growth. Given that the urbanization rate is calculated as a percentage of urban population in the total population, a decline in the absolute level of total population (the denominator) could lead to a passive increase in the numerator. Chart 8Japan Has Had A "Passive" Increase In Urbanization Since 2012 For example, Japan’s urbanization rate rose significantly during the 2000s, and maintained an upward momentum even as its total population peaked in 2010. However, its urban population growth rate dropped dramatically and turned negative in 2012 – suggesting the increase in the urbanization rate is due to a shrinking total population instead of expanding urbanities (Chart 8). The rising deathrate of the rural elderly population is another important reason for the accelerated increase in Japan's urbanization rate. China’s urban population growth is on a sharp down trend, although it is still slightly positive (Chart 9). However, the rural population has shrunk and aged, which limits future migration from rural to urban areas (Chart 10).  China’s rural population has shrunk by almost half from its peak in 1995 to 2020. The share of the rural population 50 years and older doubled in the same period. Chart 9China's Urban Population Growth Is On The Decline... Chart 10...While Rural Population Has Shrunk And Aged Thus, China’s rural-to-urban migration has slowed in the past decade (the trend turned negative last year due to the pandemic). The number of new migrant workers moving from the country to the city tumbled from 12.5 million a year to 2.5 million, and the number of younger migrants (50 years and younger) has contracted since 2017 (Chart 11). Chart 11The Number Of Young Migrant Workers Started Contracting In 2017 Bottom Line: Country-to-city migration will be smaller going forward based on a diminishing rural population, an increasing number of elders and a reduced proportion of young people in rural areas. When China’s population peaks, which is highly likely by 2025, its urbanization progress will turn passive and the aggregate population growth in urban areas may also turn negative. Aggregate Housing Demand Will Dwindle The demographic shifts described above will impact the demand for properties and accentuate regional divergences in housing demand and prices.   Historically, changes in the working-age population led residential home sales by five to six years. Home sales have fluctuated in a downward trend in the past five years along with a peak in the working-age population in 2015 (Chart 12). Moreover, the sharp deterioration in China’s birthrate means that home sales will be significantly reduced in the next 15-20 years. Chart 12Aggregate Demand For Housing Will Dwindle Along With Smaller Labor Force Chart 13Population Is An Important Driver For Urban Development The regional divergence in the demand for housing will also widen. Population, especially the labor force, is an important driver for urban development and housing (Chart 13 above). Population migration mainly occurs among 15-59-year-olds, and this cohort is also the main homeowner group. As China’s labor force increasingly flocks to developed areas, the economic development of less developed areas will face greater challenges (Chart 14). Those areas will encounter a combination of declining birthrate and outflow of labor force. This demographic shift is already evident in many two- and third-tier cities where housing prices have lagged far behind the tier-one cities (Chart 15). Chart 14Less Developed Regions Have Seen Net Population Losses In The Past Decade… Chart 15...And Softening Housing Prices Bottom Line: The drop in China’s birthrate and working-age population will lead to less demand for housing. However, China’s first-tier cities (and core metropolitan areas) will likely continue to outperform third- and fourth-tier cities in terms of labor growth, consumption and home prices. Labor Measures And Manufacturing Competitiveness Labor shortages in selected sectors and upward pressure on wages will likely intensify in the coming decade. While labor quantity will decrease, the quality of China’s labor force will remain competitive. From an aggregate economy perspective, improving labor productivity and automation can help to offset the smaller number of workers (Chart 16). Following two decades of rapid expansion in the industrial sector, China’s labor shortages began to multiply when the country’s urbanization ratio rose to between 50% and 60%. Looking at Japan and Korea, for example, a shortage in manufacturing labor emerged when the countries’ manufacturing/agricultural employment ratio climbed above one. China’s employment ratio likely have crossed this threshold in the mid-2010s, coinciding with a rollover in its working-age population and a massive jump in wage growth (Chart 17). Chart 16Improving Labor Quality To Offset Smaller Labor Quantity Chart 17Manufacturing Labor Shortage And Wage Pressure Intensified In Mid-2010s The manufacturing and service sectors will continue to compete with agriculture for labor. The wage gap between urban and rural areas is disappearing and there are signs of labor market tightness in urban settings (Chart 18).  While the demand for labor has been flat, labor supply peaked in 2013/14 and has been on the wane since that time, which has resulted in an ascending demand-to-supply ratio in China’s urban labor market (Chart 19). Chart 18Wage Gap Between Urban And Rural Areas Is Disappearing Chart 19Urban Labor Supply Can't Keep Up With Demand The bright side is that China’s labor shortage and escalating wages have not eroded the competitiveness of its manufacturing sector. Impressive labor productivity gains and progressively improving labor quality have trumped higher input costs (Chart 20). Consistent with improved productivity, China’s share of global trade continues to build regardless of higher wages, a stronger currency, and import tariffs from the US (Chart 21). The manufacturing sector has gradually climbed the value-added chain in recent years and mounting wage pressures will likely push the corporate sector, particularly in more developed coastal regions, to move further away from a labor-intensive model. Chart 20Rising Wages But Stable Unit Labor Costs Chart 21Chinese Exporters Have Maintained Their Global Market Share Despite Higher Costs The 14th Five-Year Plan outlined policymakers’ decision to maintain the share of manufacturing in GDP, which is around 30%. Labor productivity in the manufacturing sector is notably higher than in the service sector. In an environment of shrinking labor, keeping workers in a high-productivity sector may be a better way to stabilize potential growth. Bottom Line: The competition for labor between sectors will intensify. Meanwhile, manufacturing’s share of China’s economy will likely be sustained in this decade, which will help to mitigate the speed of the deceleration in China’s growth.  Implications On Policy Setting Chart 22AInterest Rates Drop With Aging Population The combination of a weak fertility/birthrate and a decline in the working-age population will weigh on consumption and investment growth, bringing deflationary headwinds to the economy. China’s interest rate regime will likely follow its Asian neighbors to downshift structurally (Chart 22). Despite moderating potential economic growth, a low interest rate environment may be positive for China’s financial asset prices.  Chart 22BInterest Rates Drop With Aging Population Chart 22CInterest Rates Drop With Aging Population Chart 23Support Ratios Are Declining Globally One could argue that a falling support ratio – measured by the number of workers relative to consumers – can lead to inflation (Chart 23). This could happen to the US where baby boomers retire but continue to spend particularly on healthcare, while production falls along with the available workers. As production falls in relation to consumption, inflation could rise. However, this is not the case in China where both production and consumption will fall. Demand from an aging population may increase pockets of inflationary pressures, such as healthcare and elderly care, but it is unlikely to fully offset weakening demand from a declining working-age population and total population. In other words, both the numerator (workers) and denominator (consumers) will be falling in China. While a weakening demographic profile is negative for economic growth, lower prices on capital will make corporate debt-servicing cheaper. Further industrial consolidation aimed at supply-side reforms will also improve corporate profitability. Cheaper capital, improving productivity and efficiency could provide tailwinds to Chinese stocks and government bonds in the long run.   Jing Sima China Strategist jings@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1As of 2020, China’s total population is at 1411.78 million. 2"China faces an economic crisis as a population peak nears," South China Morning Post, April 18, 2021. 3The total fertility rate is based on the number of newborns by women in child-bearing years, which is ages 15-44 or 15-49 by international statistical standards.  Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations

Highlights Monetary Policy: The Fed will not immediately change its policy stance in response to rising inflation and inflation expectations. Rather, it will follow its current forward guidance and only lift rates off zero once the labor market has reached “maximum employment”. However, once the first rate hike has occurred, the Fed will shift its focus toward inflation and inflation expectations. Duration: The overnight index swap curve is priced for a total of 77 bps of rate hikes by the end of 2023. We see strong odds that more hikes will be delivered and therefore continue to recommend a below-benchmark portfolio duration stance. Corporate Bonds: High and rising inflation expectations will eventually pose a risk to credit spreads, but only once the Fed tightens policy in response. For now, we remain overweight spread product versus Treasuries, though we maintain a preference for high-yield corporates, USD-denominated EM Sovereigns and municipal bonds over investment grade corporate bonds. Feature Recent inflationary trends are making the Fed’s job more difficult. Not only was April’s increase in core CPI the largest since 1981, but measures of long-term inflation expectations have also jumped. The 5-year/5-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate has quickly risen to levels that are consistent with the Fed’s 2% inflation target (Chart 1). What’s more, survey measures of inflation expectations have also moved up, in many cases to uncomfortably high levels (Chart 2). Chart 1Back To Target Chart 2Inflation Expectations Have Jumped All of this makes the Fed’s zero-lower-bound interest rate policy look increasingly untenable. Can the Fed really just sit on the sidelines as inflation and inflation expectations rise to above-target levels? Our expectation is that the Fed will ignore rising inflation until the labor market is fully recovered, but it may then need to move quickly to contain inflationary pressures. The result could very well be a rate hike cycle that takes a long time to start, but then proceeds at a rapid pace. The Fed’s Liftoff Criteria Are Different Than Its Criteria For Pace A crucial point about the Fed’s forward guidance is that the criteria that will determine the timing of the first rate hike are different than the criteria that will determine the post-liftoff pace of rate hikes. Liftoff Criteria Table 1A Checklist For Liftoff For liftoff, the Fed has been very explicit that three conditions must be met before it will raise rates off the zero bound (Table 1). Of the three conditions listed in Table 1, the timing of when the labor market will reach “maximum employment” is the most uncertain. We have written extensively about how the Fed defines “maximum employment” and about the pace of employment growth that’s necessary to achieve that goal by specific future dates.1 To summarize, we calculate that average monthly nonfarm payroll growth of at least 698k is required to reach “maximum employment” by the end of this year and average monthly payroll growth of at least 412k is required to hit that target by the end of 2022 (Chart 3). Chart 3Employment Growth Chart 4Labor Demand Is Strong Our assessment is that “maximum employment” will be achieved in time for the Fed to lift rates in 2022, largely because employment growth must rise quickly in order to catch up with skyrocketing indicators of labor demand (Chart 4). The risk, of course, is that inflation continues to run hot as the Fed waits for its “maximum employment” condition to be met. If this occurs, we believe that the Fed will stick to its current forward guidance. It will ignore rising inflation until its liftoff criteria are met. Only then, will Fed policy turn toward containing inflation. Pace Criteria In a recent speech, Fed Vice-Chair Richard Clarida laid out three indicators that he will track to guide the pace of policy tightening post Fed liftoff.2 First, he pointed to inflation expectations. In particular, the Fed’s index of Common Inflation Expectations (CIE):3 Other things being equal, my desired pace of policy normalization post-liftoff to return inflation to 2 percent […] would be somewhat slower than otherwise if the CIE index is, at time of liftoff, below the pre-ELB level. [ELB = effective lower bound]. Chart 2 shows that the CIE index has already broken above its 2018 peak. It stands to reason that, all else equal, an elevated CIE index would speed up the post-liftoff pace of rate hikes. Chart 5Inflation Since August 2020 Second, Clarida noted that: Another factor I will consider in calibrating the pace of policy normalization post-liftoff is the average rate of PCE inflation since the new framework was adopted in August 2020. The annualized rate of change in core PCE since August 2020 is almost at the Fed’s 2% target already, and it will certainly rise to above-target levels when the April data are released, as was the case with core CPI (Chart 5). Finally, Clarida offered up a detailed Taylor-type monetary policy rule that he says he will consult once the conditions for liftoff are met: Consistent with our new framework, the relevant policy rule benchmark I will consult once the conditions for liftoff have been met is an inertial Taylor-type rule with a coefficient of zero on the unemployment gap, a coefficient of 1.5 on the gap between core PCE inflation and the 2 percent longer-run goal, and a neutral real policy rate equal to my SEP forecast of long-run r*. Chart 6Balanced Approach (Shortfalls) Rule* Recommendations Chart 6 shows the results of a very similar policy rule using median FOMC estimates for r*, NAIRU and the path of inflation. We use a slightly more pessimistic forecast for the unemployment rate and assume that it reaches 4.5% by the end of 2022 and 4% by the end of 2023. Even with those conservative assumptions, the rule still recommends a policy rate of 1.5% by the end of 2022 and 2.65% by the end of 2023. This is not to say that the Fed will immediately lift rates to those levels once it is ready to hike, only that the Fed will have a strong incentive to pursue a rapid pace of rate hikes once it finally lifts rates off the zero bound. Investment Implications For investors, the bottom line is that the Fed will not immediately change its policy stance in response to rising inflation and inflation expectations. Rather, it will follow its current forward guidance and only lift rates off zero once the labor market has reached “maximum employment”. However, once the first rate hike has occurred, the Fed will shift its focus toward inflation and inflation expectations. If inflation and inflation expectations rise further, or even remain sticky near current levels, the Fed will lift rates more quickly than many anticipate. At present, the overnight index swap curve is priced for a total of 77 bps of rate hikes by the end of 2023. We see strong odds that more hikes will be delivered and therefore continue to recommend a below-benchmark portfolio duration stance. Is Inflation A Risk For Spread Product? Yes it is, but not just yet. In past reports, we’ve often pointed to 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rates in a range between 2.3% and 2.5% as a reason to turn more cautious on spread product (see Chart 1), and the recent rise in inflation expectations certainly does set off some alarm bells. High inflation expectations pose a risk to credit spreads because of what they signal about the future course of Fed policy. If the Fed responds to high inflation expectations by tightening policy into restrictive territory, then economic growth and credit spreads are at risk. All this remains true, but the Fed’s willingness to ignore rising inflation expectations – at least until “maximum employment” and fed funds liftoff are achieved – gives spread product a little more runway than usual. One way to illustrate this dynamic is with the slope of the yield curve (Chart 7). Historically, corporate bond (both investment grade and junk) excess returns are strong at least until the 3-year/10-year Treasury slope flattens to below 50 bps (Table 2). Currently, the 3-year/10-year Treasury slope is well above 100 bps and has shown few signs of rolling over. If the Fed was still following its old forward-looking policy framework, then the yield curve would likely be much flatter today. That is, the curve would be pricing-in some policy tightening in response to high and rising inflation expectations. However, as discussed above, inflation expectations are not currently the Fed’s primary concern and they will only become the Fed’s primary concern once “maximum employment” has been achieved and the funds rate has been lifted off the zero bound. Chart 7Spread Product Returns Are Strong When The Curve Is Steep Table 2Corporate Bond Performance In Different Phases Of The Cycle All in all, we are concerned that, if inflation expectations remain elevated, the Fed may quickly ramp up its post-liftoff pace of rate hikes, sending credit spreads wider. But we are reluctant to position for that outcome when we are still many months away from Fed liftoff and the slope of the yield curve remains so steep. Chart 8Low Expected Returns In IG Another factor to consider is that value in spread product is extremely tight. In fact, our measure of the 12-month breakeven spread for the quality-adjusted investment grade corporate bond index is almost at its most expensive level since 1995 (Chart 8). This doesn’t change our assessment of when restrictive Fed policy will cause spreads to widen, but it does reduce our return expectations in the interim. All else equal, since the rewards from being overweight spread product versus Treasuries are low, we will be quicker to reduce our recommended spread product allocation when our indicators start to point toward the end of the credit cycle. Though, at the very least, we will still want to see the 3-year/10-year Treasury slope start to flatten and approach 50 bps before we get too pessimistic on spread product. The bottom line is that high and rising inflation expectations will eventually pose a risk to credit spreads, but only once the Fed tightens policy in response. For now, we remain overweight spread product versus Treasuries, though we maintain a preference for high-yield corporates, USD-denominated EM Sovereigns and municipal bonds over investment grade corporate bonds.   Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Overshoot Territory”, dated April 13, 2021. 2 https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/clarida20210113a.htm 3 The CIE is a composite measure of different market-based and survey-based indicators of inflation expectations. https://www.federalreserve.gov/econres/notes/feds-notes/index-of-common-inflation-expectations-20200902.htm  Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification