Inflation/Deflation

Dear Client, We are sending you our Quarterly Strategy Outlook today, where we outline our thoughts on the macro landscape and the direction of financial markets for the rest of the year and beyond. We will also be hosting a webcast on Thursday, October 1st at 10:00 AM EDT (3:00 PM BST, 4:00 PM CEST, 10:00 PM HKT) where we will discuss the outlook. Best regards, Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Highlights Macroeconomic outlook: Global growth faces near-term challenges from a resurgence in the pandemic and the failure of the US Congress to pass a stimulus deal. However, growth should revive next year as a vaccine becomes available and fiscal policy turns stimulative again. Global asset allocation: Favor equities over bonds on a 12-month horizon, while maintaining somewhat larger than normal cash positions in the short run that can be deployed if stocks resume their correction. Equities: Prepare to pivot from the “Pandemic trade” to the “Reopening trade.” Vaccine optimism should pave the way for cyclicals to outperform defensives, international stocks to outperform their US peers, and for value to outperform growth. Fixed income: Bond yields will rise modestly, suggesting that investors should maintain below average duration exposure. Favor inflation-protected securities over nominal bonds. Spread product will outperform safe government bonds. Currencies: The US dollar will weaken over the next 12 months. The collapse in interest rate differentials, stronger global growth, and a widening US trade deficit are all bearish for the greenback. Commodities: Rising demand and constrained supply will support oil prices, while Chinese stimulus will buoy industrial metals. Investors should buy gold and other real assets as a hedge against long-term inflation risk. I. Macroeconomic Outlook Policy And The Pandemic Will Continue To Drive Markets Going into the fourth quarter of 2020, we are tactically neutral on global equities but remain overweight stocks and other risk assets on a 12-month horizon. As has been the case for much of the year, both the virus and the policy response to the pandemic will continue to be key drivers of market returns. Coronavirus: Still Spreading Fast, But Less Deadly On the virus front, the global number of daily new cases continues to trend higher, with the 7-day average reaching a record high of nearly 300,000 this week (Chart 1). Chart 1Globally, The Number Of Daily New Cases Continues To Trend Higher The number of daily new cases in the EU has risen above its April peak. Spain and France have been particularly hard hit. Canada is also seeing a pronounced rise in new cases. In the US, the number of new cases peaked in July. However, the 7-day average has been creeping up since early September, raising the risk of a third wave. On the positive side, mortality rates in most countries remain well below their spring levels. There is no clear consensus as to why the virus has become less lethal. Better medical treatments, including the use of low-cost steroids, have certainly helped. A shift in the incidence of cases towards younger, healthier people has also lowered the overall mortality rate. In addition, there is some evidence that the virus may be evolving to be more contagious but less deadly.1 It would not be surprising if that were the case. After all, a virus that kills its host will also kill itself. Lastly, pervasive mask wearing may be mitigating the severity of the disease by reducing the initial viral load that infected individuals receive.2 A smaller initial dose gives the immune system more time to launch an effective counterattack. It has even been speculated that the widespread use of masks may be acting as a form of “variolation.” Prior to the invention of vaccines, variolation was used to engender natural immunity. Perhaps most famously, upon taking command of the Continental Army in 1775, George Washington had all his troops exposed to small amounts of smallpox.3 The gamble worked. The US ended up winning the Revolutionary War, making Washington the first president of the new republic. Waiting For A Vaccine Despite the decline in mortality rates, there is still much that remains unknown about Covid-19, including the extent to which the disease will lead to long-term damage to the vascular and nervous systems. Thus, while governments are unlikely to impose the same sort of severe lockdown measures that they implemented in March, rising case counts will delay reopening plans, and in many cases, lead to the reintroduction of stricter social distancing rules. Chart 2Some States Have Started To Relax Lockdown Measures This has already happened in a number of countries. The UK reinstated more stringent regulations over social gatherings last week, including ordering pubs and restaurants to close by 10pm. Spain has introduced tougher mobility restrictions in Madrid and surrounding municipalities. France ordered gyms and restaurants to close for two weeks. Canada has also tightened regulations, with the government of Quebec raising the alert level to maximum “red alert” in several regions of the province. In the US, the share of the population living in states that were in the process of relaxing lockdown measures has risen above 50% for the first time since July (Chart 2). A third wave would almost certainly forestall the recent reopening trend. Ultimately, a safe and effective vaccine will be necessary to defeat the virus. Fortunately, about half of experts polled by the Good Judgment Project expect a vaccine to become available by the first quarter of 2021. Only 2% expect there to be no vaccine available by April 2022, down from over 50% in May (Chart 3). Chart 3When Will A Vaccine Become Available? Premature Fiscal Tightening And The Risk of Second-Round Effects Even if a vaccine becomes available early next year, there is a danger that the global economy will have suffered enough damage over the intervening months to forestall a rapid recovery. Whenever an economy suffers an adverse shock, a feedback loop can develop where rising joblessness leads to less spending, leading to even more joblessness. Fiscal stimulus can short-circuit this vicious circle by providing households with adequate income to maintain spending. Fiscal policy in the major economies turned expansionary within weeks of the onset of the pandemic (Chart 4). In the US, real personal income growth actually accelerated in the spring because transfers from the government more than offset the loss in wage and salary compensation (Chart 5). Chart 4Fiscal Policy Has Been Very Stimulative This Year Chart 5Personal Income Accelerated Earlier This Year Chart 6Drastic Drop In Weekly Unemployment Insurance Payments   Starting in August, US fiscal policy turned less accommodative. Chart 6 shows that regular weekly unemployment payments have fallen from around $25 billion to $8 billion since the end of July. At an annualized rate, this amounts to over 4% of GDP in fiscal tightening. While President Trump signed an executive order redirecting some of the money that had been earmarked for the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to be given to unemployed workers, the available funding will run out within the next month or so. On top of that, the funds in the small business Paycheck Protection Program have been used up, while many state and local governments face a severe cash crunch. US households saved a lot going into the autumn, so a sudden stop in spending is unlikely. Nevertheless, fissures in the economy are widening. Core retail sales contracted in August for the first time since April. Consumer expectations of future income growth remain weak (Chart 7). Permanent job losses are rising faster than they did during the Great Recession (Chart 8). Both corporate bankruptcy and mortgage delinquency rates are moving up, while bank lending standards have tightened significantly (Chart 9).  Chart 7Consumer Expectations Of Future Income Growth Remain Weak Chart 8Permanent Job Losses Are Rising Faster Than They Did During The Great Recession     Chart 9Corporate Bankruptcy And Mortgage Delinquency Rates Are Moving Up … While Bank Lending Standards Have Tightened Significantly Fiscal Stimulus Will Return We ultimately expect US fiscal policy to turn accommodative again. There is no appetite for fiscal austerity. Both political parties are moving in a more populist direction, which usually signals larger budget deficits. Even among Republicans, more registered voters support extending emergency federal unemployment insurance payments than oppose it (Chart 10). Chart 10There Is Much Public Support For Fiscal Stimulus As long as interest rates stay low, there will be little market pressure to trim budget deficits. US real rates remain in negative territory. Despite a rising debt stock, the Congressional Budget Office expects net interest payments to decline towards 1% of GDP over the span of the next couple of years, thus reaching the lowest level in six decades (Chart 11). Outside the US, there has been little movement towards tightening fiscal policy. The UK government unveiled last week a fresh round of economic and fiscal measures to help ease the burden on both employees, by subsidizing part-time work for example, and firms, by extending government-guaranteed loan programs. At the beginning of the month, the Macron government announced a 100 billion euro stimulus plan in France. Meanwhile, European leaders are moving forward on a euro area-wide 750 billion euro stimulus package that was announced this summer. In Japan, the new Prime Minister Yoshihide Suga has indicated that he will pursue a third budget to fight the economic downturn, adding that “there is no limit to the amount of bonds the government can issue to support an economy battered by the coronavirus pandemic.” The Japanese government now earns more interest than it pays because two-thirds of all Japanese debt bears negative yields (Chart 12). At least for now, a big debt burden is actually good for the Japanese government’s finances! Chart 11Low Interest Payments Amid Skyrocketing Debt In The US Chart 12Japan: Ballooning Debt And Declining Interest Payments China also continues to stimulate its economy. Jing Sima, BCA’s chief China strategist, expects the broad-measure fiscal deficit to reach a record 8% of GDP this year and remain elevated into next year. The annual change in total social financing – a broad measure of Chinese credit formation – is expected to hit 35% of GDP, just shy of its GFC peak (Chart 13). Not surprisingly, the Chinese economy is responding well to all this stimulus. Sales of floor space rose 40% year-over-year in August, driven by a close to 60% jump in Tier-1 cities. Excavator sales, a leading indicator for construction spending, are up 51% over last year’s levels, while industrial profits have jumped 19%. A resurgent Chinese economy has historically been closely associated with rising global trade (Chart 14). Chart 13China Continues To Stimulate Its Economy Chart 14Chinese Economic Rebound Has Historically Been Closely Associated With Rising Global Trade Biden Or Trump: How Will Financial Markets React? Betting markets expect former Vice President Joe Biden to become president and for the Democrats to gain control of the Senate (Chart 15). A “blue wave” would produce more fiscal spending in the next few years. Recall that House Democrats passed a $3.5 trillion stimulus bill in May that was quickly rejected by Senate Republicans. More recently, Democratic leaders have suggested they would approve a stimulus deal in the range of $2-to-$2.5 trillion. Chart 15Betting Markets Putting Their Money On The Democrats In addition to more pandemic-related stimulus, Joe Biden has also proposed a variety of longer-term spending initiatives. These include $2 trillion in infrastructure spending spread over four years, a $700 billion “Made in America” plan that would increase federal procurement of domestically produced goods and services, and new spending proposals worth about 1.7% of GDP per annum centered on health care, housing, education, and child and elder care. As president, Joe Biden would likely take a less confrontational stance towards relations with China. While rolling back tariffs would not be an immediate priority for a Biden administration, it could happen later in 2021. Less welcome for investors would be an increase in taxes. Joe Biden has proposed raising taxes by $4 trillion over ten years (about 1.5% of cumulative GDP). Slightly less than half of that consists of higher personal taxes on both regular income (for taxpayers earning more than $400,000 per year) and capital gains (for tax filers with over $1 million in income). The other half consists of increased business taxes, mainly in the form of a hike in the corporate tax rate from 21% to 28% and the introduction of a minimum 15% tax on the global book income of US-based companies. Netting it out, a blue sweep in November would probably be neutral-to-slightly negative for equities. What about government bonds? Our guess is that Treasury yields would rise modestly in response to a blue wave, particularly at the longer end of the yield curve. Additional fiscal support would boost aggregate demand, implying that it would take less time for the economy to reach full employment. That said, interest rate expectations are unlikely to rise as sharply as they did in late 2016 following Donald Trump‘s victory. Back then, the Fed was primed to raise rates – it hiked rates nine times starting in December 2015, ultimately bringing the fed funds rate to 2.5% by end-2018. This time around, the Fed is firmly on hold, with the vast majority of FOMC members expecting policy rates to stay at rock-bottom levels until at least 2023.  The Fed’s New Tune In two important respects, the Fed’s new Monetary Policy Framework (MPF) represents a sharp break with the past. Chart 16The Mechanics Of Price-Level Targeting First, the MPF abandons the Fed’s historic reliance on a Taylor Rule-style framework, which prescribes lifting rates whenever the unemployment rate declines towards its equilibrium level. Second, the MPF eschews the “let bygones be bygones” approach of past monetary policymaking. Going forward, the Fed will try to maintain an average level of inflation of 2% over the course of the business cycle. This means that if inflation falls below 2%, the Fed will try to engineer a temporary inflation overshoot in order to bring the price level back up to its 2%-per-year upward trend (Chart 16). Some aspects of the Fed’s new strategy are both timely and laudable. A Taylor rule approach makes sense when there is a clear relationship between inflation and the unemployment rate, as governed by the so-called Phillips curve. However, if inflation fails to rise in response to declining economic slack – as has been the case in recent years – central banks may find themselves at a loss in determining where the neutral rate of interest lies. In this case, it might be preferable to keep interest rates at very low levels until the economy begins to overheat. Such a strategy would avoid the risk of raising rates prematurely, only to discover that they are too high for what the economy can handle. Targeting an average rate of inflation also has significant merit. When investors purchase long-term bonds, they run the risk that the real value of those bonds will deviate significantly from initial expectations when the bonds mature. If inflation surprises on the upside, the bonds will end up being worth less to the lender as measured by the quantity of goods and services that they can be exchanged for. If inflation surprises on the downside, borrowers could find themselves facing a larger real debt burden than they had anticipated. An inflation targeting system that corrects for past inflation surprises could give both borrowers and lenders greater certainty about the future price level. This, in turn, could reduce the inflation risk premium embedded in long-term bond yields, leading to a more efficient allocation of economic resources. In addition, an average inflation targeting system could make the zero lower bound constraint less vexing by keeping long-term inflation expectations from slipping below the central bank’s target. This would give the central bank more traction over monetary policy. A Bias Towards Higher Inflation Despite the advantages of the Fed’s new approach, it faces a number of hurdles, some practical and some political. On the practical side, it may turn out that the Phillips curve, rather than being flat, is kinked at a fairly low level of unemployment. Theoretically, that would not be too surprising. If I have 100 apples for sale and you want to buy 60, I have no incentive to raise prices. Even if you wanted to buy 80 apples, I would have no incentive to raise prices. However, if you wanted to buy 105 apples, then I would have an incentive to raise my selling price. The point is that inflation could remain stubbornly dormant as slack slowly disappears, only to rocket higher once full employment has been reached. Since changes in monetary policy only affect the economy with a lag, the central bank could find itself woefully behind the curve, scrambling to contain rising inflation. This is precisely what happened during the 1960s (Chart 17). Chart 17Inflation Started Accelerating Quickly Only When Unemployment Reached Very Low Levels In The 1960s Chart 18Something Has Always Happened To Preempt Overheating   Over the past three decades, something always happened that kept the US economy from overheating (Chart 18). The unemployment rate reached a 50-year low in 2019. Inflation may have moved higher this year had it not been for the fact that the global economy was clotheslined by the pandemic. In 2007, the economy was heating up only to be sandbagged by the housing bust. In 2000, the bursting of the dotcom bubble helped reverse incipient inflationary pressures. But just because the economy did not have a chance to overheat at any time over the past 30 years does not mean it cannot happen in the future.   The Political Economy Of Higher Inflation On the political side, average inflation targeting assumes that central banks will be just as willing to tolerate inflation undershoots as overshoots. This could be a faulty assumption. Generating an inflation overshoot requires that interest rates be kept low enough to enable unemployment to fall below its full employment level. That is likely to be politically popular. Generating an inflation undershoot, in contrast, requires restrictive monetary policy and rising unemployment. More joblessness would not sit well with workers. High interest rates could also damage the stock market and depress home prices, while forcing debt-saddled governments to shift more spending from social programs to bondholders. None of that will be politically popular. If central banks are quick to allow inflation overshoots but slow to engineer inflation undershoots, the result could be structurally higher inflation. Markets are not pricing in such an outcome (Chart 19). Chart 19Markets Are Not Pricing In Structurally Higher Inflation II. Financial Markets Global Asset Allocation: Despite Near-Term Dangers, Overweight Equities On A 12-Month Horizon An acceleration in the number of COVID-19 cases and the rising probability that the US Congress will fail to pass a stimulus bill before the November election could push equities and other risk assets lower in the near term. Investors should maintain somewhat larger than normal cash positions in the short run that can be deployed if stocks resume their correction. Chart 20The Decline In US Real Yields Since March Has Largely Offset The Rise In Stock Prices Provided that progress continues to be made towards developing a vaccine and US fiscal policy eventually turns stimulative again, stocks will regain their footing, rising about 15% from current levels over a 12-month horizon. Negative real bond yields will continue to support stocks (Chart 20). The 30-year TIPS yield has fallen by over 90 basis points in 2020. Even if one assumes that it will take the rest of the decade for S&P 500 earnings to return to their pre-pandemic trend, the deep drop in the risk-free component of the discount rate has still raised the present value of future S&P 500 cash flows by nearly 20% since the start of the year (Chart 21).   Chart 21The Present Value Of Earnings: A Scenario Analysis Thanks to these exceptionally low real bond yields, equity risk premia remain elevated (Chart 22). The TINA mantra reverberates throughout the investment world: There Is No Alternative to stocks. To get a sense of just how powerful TINA is, consider the fact that the dividend yield on the S&P 500 currently stands at 1.67%. That may not sound like much, but it is still a full percentage point higher than the paltry 0.67% yield on the 10-year Treasury note (Chart 23). Chart 22Equity Risk Premia Remain Elevated Chart 23S&P 500 Dividend Yield Is Above The Treasury Yield   Imagine having to decide whether to place your money either in an S&P 500 index fund or a 10-year Treasury note. Dividends-per-share paid by S&P 500 companies have almost always increased over time. However, even if we make the pessimistic assumption that dividends-per-share remain unchanged for the next ten years, the value of the S&P 500 would still have to fall by 10% over the next decade to equal the return on the 10-year note. Assuming that inflation averages around 1.9% over this period, the real value of the S&P 500 would need to drop by 25%. The picture is even more dramatic outside the US. In the euro area, the index would have to fall by over 30% in real terms for investors to make more money in bonds than stocks. In the UK, it would need to fall by over 50% (Chart 24). Chart 24 (I)Stocks Would Need To Fall A Lot For Equities To Underperform Bonds Chart 24 (II)Stocks Would Need To Fall A Lot For Equities To Underperform Bonds A Weaker US Dollar Favors International Stocks Outside the US, price-earnings ratios are lower, while equity risk premia are higher. Cheap valuations are usually not enough to justify a high-conviction investment call, however. One also needs a catalyst. Three potential catalysts could help propel international stocks higher over the next 12 months, while also giving value stocks and economically-sensitive equity sectors a boost: A weaker US dollar; the end of the pandemic; and a recovery in bank shares. Let’s start with the dollar. The US dollar faces a number of headwinds over the coming months. First, interest rate differentials have moved sharply against the greenback (Chart 25). Second, as a countercyclical currency, the dollar is likely to weaken as the global economy improves (Chart 26). Third, the current account deficit is rising again. It jumped over 50% from $112 billion in Q1 to $170 billion in Q2. According to the Atlanta Fed GDPNow model, the trade balance is set to widened further in Q3. This deterioration in the dollar’s fundamentals is occurring against a backdrop where the currency remains 11% overvalued based on purchasing power parity exchange rates (Chart 27). Chart 25Interest Rate Differentials Have Moved Sharply Against The Greenback A weaker dollar is usually good for commodity prices and cyclical stocks (Chart 28). In general, commodity producers and cyclical stocks are overrepresented outside the US. Chart 26The Dollar Is Likely To Weaken As The Global Economy Improves   Chart 27USD Remains Overvalued Chart 28A Weaker Dollar Is Usually Good For Commodity Prices And Cyclical Stocks   BCA’s chief energy strategist Bob Ryan expects Brent to average $65/bbl in 2021, $21/bbl above what the market is anticipating. Ongoing Chinese stimulus should also buoy metal prices. A falling greenback helps overseas borrowers – many of whom are in emerging markets – whose loans are denominated in dollars but whose revenues are denominated in the local currency. It is thus no surprise that non-US stocks tend to outperform their US peers when global growth is strengthening and the dollar is weakening (Chart 29). Chart 29Non-US Equities Tend To Outperform Their US Peers When Global Growth Is Improving And The Dollar Is Weakening The outperformance of non-US stocks in soft dollar environments is particularly pronounced when returns are measured in common-currency terms. From the perspective of US-based investors, a weaker dollar raises the dollar value of overseas sales and profits, justifying higher valuations for international stocks. From the perspective of overseas investors, a weaker dollar reduces the local currency value of US sales and profits, implying a lower valuation for US stocks. This helps explain why European stocks tend to outperform their US counterparts when the euro is rising, even though a stronger euro hurts the European economy. It’s Value’s Turn To Shine Value stocks have often outperformed growth stocks when the US dollar has been weakening and global growth strengthening. Recall that value stocks did poorly during the late 1990s, a period of dollar strength and economic turbulence throughout the EM world. In contrast, value stocks did well between 2001 and 2007, a period during which the dollar was generally on the back foot. The relationship between value stocks, the dollar, and global growth broke down this summer. Growth stocks continued to pull ahead, even though global growth turned a corner and the dollar began to weaken. There are two reasons why this happened. First, investors were too slow to price in the windfall that growth stocks in the tech and health care sectors would end up receiving from the pandemic. Second, rather than rising in response to better economic growth data, real rates fell during the summer months. A falling discount rate benefits growth stocks more than value stocks because the former generate more of their earnings farther into the future. The tentative outperformance of value stocks in September suggests that the tables may have turned for the value/growth trade. Retail sales at physical stores are rebounding, while online sales growth is coming down from highly elevated levels (Chart 30). Bank of America estimates that US e-commerce penetration doubled in just a few short months earlier this year. Some “reversion to the trend” is likely, even if that trend does favor online stores over the long haul. Chart 30Are Brick-And Mortar Retailers Coming Back To Life? Chart 31The Pandemic Has Caused Global Server And PC Shipments To Surge   Meanwhile, PC shipments soared during the pandemic as companies and workers rushed out to buy computer gear to allow them to work from home (Chart 31). To the extent that this caused some spending to be brought forward, it could create an air pocket in tech demand over the next few quarters. A third wave of the virus in the US and ongoing second waves elsewhere could give growth stocks a boost once more, but the benefits are likely to be short-lived. If a vaccine becomes available early next year, investors will pivot from the “pandemic trade” to the “reopening trade.” The “reopening trade” will support companies such as banks, hotels, and transports that were crushed by lockdown measures and which are overrepresented in value indices. From a valuation perspective, value stocks are cheaper now compared to growth stocks than at any point in history – even cheaper than at the height of the dotcom bubble (Chart 32). Chart 32Value Stocks Are Extremely Cheap Relative To Growth Stocks The lofty valuations that growth stocks enjoy can be justified if the mega-cap tech companies that dominate the growth indices continue to increase earnings for many years to come. However, it is far from clear that this will happen. Close to three-quarters of US households already have an Amazon Prime account. Slightly over half have a Netflix account. Nearly 70% have a Facebook account. Google commands 92% of the internet search market. Together, sites owned by Google and Facebook generate about 60% of all online advertising revenue. While all of these companies dominate their markets, this could change. At one point during the dotcom bubble, Palm’s market capitalization was over six times greater than Apple’s. The Blackberry superseded the PalmPilot; the iPhone, in turn, superseded the Blackberry. History suggests that many of today’s technological leaders will end up as laggards. Investors looking to find the next tech leader can focus on smaller, fast growing companies. Unfortunately, picking winners in this space is easier said than done. History suggests that investors tend to overpay for growth, especially among small caps. Based on data compiled by Eugene Fama and Kenneth French, small cap growth stocks have lagged small cap value stocks by an average of 6.4% per year on a market-cap weighted basis, and by 10.4% on an equal-weighted basis, since 1970 (Table 1). Table 1Small Caps Vis-A-Vis Large Caps: Comparison of Total Returns Bank On Banks Financial stocks are heavily overrepresented in value indices (Table 2). Banks have made significant provisions against bad loans this year. If global growth recovers in 2021 once a vaccine becomes available, some of these provisions will end up being released, boosting profits in the process. Table 2Breaking Down Growth And Value By Sector Chart 33Modestly Higher Bond Yields Will Benefit Bank Shares A stabilization in bond yields should also help bank shares. Chart 33 shows that a fall in bank stocks vis-à-vis the overall market has closely matched the decline in bond yields. While we do not think that central banks will tighten monetary policy in the next few years, nominal bond yields should still drift modestly higher as output gaps narrow. What about the outlook for bank earnings? A massive new credit boom is not in the cards in any major economy. Nevertheless, it should be noted that global bank EPS was able to return to its long-term trend in 2019, until being slammed again this year by the pandemic (Chart 34). Global bank book value-per-share was 30% higher in 2019 compared to GFC highs (even though price-per-share was 30% lower). Chart 34Global Bank EPS Was Able To Return To Its Pre-GFC Peak In 2019 Until The Pandemic Hit Chart 35European Bank Earnings Estimates Have Lagged Credit Growth   Admittedly, the global numbers disguise a lot of regional variation. While US banks were able to bring EPS back to its prior peak, and Canadian banks were able to easily surpass it, European bank EPS was still 70% below its pre-GFC highs in 2019. The launch of the common currency in 1999 set off a massive credit boom across much of Europe, leaving European banks dangerously overleveraged. The GFC and the subsequent European sovereign debt crisis led to a spike in bad loans, necessitating numerous rounds of dilutive capital raises. At this point, however, European bank balance sheets are in much better shape. If EPS simply returns to its 2019 levels, European banks will trade at a generous earnings yield of close to 20%. That may not be such a hurdle to cross. Chart 35 shows that European bank earnings estimates have fallen far short of what would be expected from current credit growth. If, on top of all this, European banks are able to muster some sustained earnings growth thanks to somewhat steeper yield curves and further cost-cutting and consolidation, investors who buy banks today will be rewarded with outsized returns over the long haul.   Fixed Income: What Is Least Ugly? As noted above, a rebound in global growth should push up both equity prices and bond yields. As such, we would underweight fixed income within a global asset allocation framework. Within the fixed income bracket, investors should favor inflation-protected securities over nominal bonds. They should underweight government bonds in favor of a modest overweight to spread product. Spreads are quite low but could sink further if economic activity revives faster than anticipated. The upper quality tranche of high-yield corporates, which are benefiting from central bank purchases, have an especially attractive risk-reward profile. EM debt should also fare well in a weaker dollar, stronger growth environment (Chart 36). Chart 36BB-Rated And EM Debt Offer Reasonable Risk-Reward Profiles Given that some investors have no choice but to own developed economy government bonds, which countries or regions should they buy from within this category? Chart 37 shows the 3-year trailing yield betas for several major developed bond markets. In general, the highest-yielding currencies (US and Canada) also have the highest betas, implying that their yields rise the most when global bond yields are rising and vice versa.  Chart 37High-Yielding Bond Markets Are The Most Cyclical In economies such as Europe and Japan where the neutral rate of interest is stuck deep below the zero bound, better economic news is unlikely to lift policy rate expectations by very much. After all, the optimal policy rate would still be above its neutral level even if better economic data brought the neutral rate from say, -4% to -3%. In contrast, when the neutral rate is close to zero or even positive, better economic data can lift medium-to-long-term interest rate expectations more meaningfully. As such, we would underweight US Treasurys and Canadian bonds, while overweighting Japanese government bonds (JGBs) over a 12-month horizon. On a currency-hedged basis, which is what most bond investors focus on, 10-year JGBs yield only 20 basis points less than US Treasurys (Table 3). This lower yield is more than offset by the risk that Treasury yields will rise more than yields on JGBs. Table 3Bond Markets Across The Developed World The End Game What will end the bull market in stocks? As is often the case, the answer is tighter monetary policy. The good news is tight money is not an imminent risk. The Fed will not hike rates at least until 2023, and it will take even longer than that for interest rates to rise elsewhere in the world. The bad news is that the day of reckoning will eventually arrive and when it does, bond yields will soar and stocks will tumble. Investors who want to hedge against this risk should consider owning more real assets. As was the case during the 1970s, farmland will do well from rising inflation. Suburban real estate will also benefit from more people working from home and, if recent trends persist, rising crime in urban areas. Gold should also do well. The yellow metal has come down from its August highs, but should benefit from a weaker dollar over the coming months, and ultimately, from a more stagflationary environment later this decade. Peter Berezin Chief Global Strategist peterb@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1  “More infectious coronavirus mutation may be 'a good thing', says disease expert,” Reuters, August 17, 2020.  2 Nina Bai, ”One More Reason to Wear a Mask: You’ll Get Less Sick From COVID-19,” University of California San Francisco, July 31, 2020.  3 Dave Roos, “How Crude Smallpox Inoculations Helped George Washington Win the War,” History.com, May 18, 2020.     Global Investment Strategy View Matrix Current MacroQuant Model Scores

This report contains an error in the section related to consumer spending and fiscal policy. That error somewhat changes the conclusions from the report, and it particularly impacts Chart 3, Table 2 and Table 3. The attached note explains the mistake and includes corrected versions of Chart 3, Table 2 and Table 3. Highlights Duration: A re-rating of Tech stock valuations is likely not a near-term catalyst for significantly lower bond yields. Congress’ continued failure to pass a follow-up to the CARES act is a greater near-term risk for bond bears. We continue to recommend an “at benchmark” portfolio duration stance alongside duration-neutral yield curve steepeners. Fiscal Policy: Without additional household income support from Congress, at least on the order of $500 - $800 billion, consumer spending will massively disappoint expectations during the next 6-12 months. Inflation: Inflation will continue its rapid ascent between now and the end of the year, but it is likely to level-off in 2021. We recommend staying long TIPS versus nominal Treasuries for the time being, but we will be looking to take profits on that position later this year. Feature Bond Implications Of A Tech Stock Sell-Off Risk-off sentiment reigned in equity and credit markets during the past two weeks. The S&P 500 fell 7% between September 2nd and 8th and the average junk spread widened from 471 bps to 499 bps. This represents the largest sell-off since June when the equity market saw a similar 7% decline and the junk spread widened from 536 bps to 620 bps (Chart 1). Chart 1Two Equity Sell-Offs, Two Different Bond Market Reactions A comparison between the September and June episodes is particularly interesting for bond investors because Treasuries behaved very differently in each case. In June, bonds benefited from a flight to quality out of equities and the 10-year Treasury yield fell 22 bps. But this month, Treasuries actually delivered negative returns and the 10-year Treasury yield rose 3 bps (Chart 1, bottom panel). Table 1Selected Asset Class Performance During Last Two Equity Sell-Offs Why would Treasuries perform so well in June but fail in their role as a diversifier of equity risk in September? The answer lies in the underlying drivers of the stock market’s decline, which are easily identified when we look at the performance of different equity sectors. Table 1 shows the performance of different equity sectors in both the June and September sell-offs. In June, it was the cyclical equity sectors – Industrials, Energy and Materials – that led the decline. These sectors tend to be the most sensitive to global economic growth. This month’s equity drawdown was led by Tech stocks, while cyclical and defensive sectors saw much smaller drops. Table 1 also shows that a broad measure of commodity prices – the CRB Raw Industrials index – rose by 0.79% during the September equity sell-off, significantly outpacing gains in the gold price. In June, the CRB index still rose but it lagged gold by a wide margin. The underlying drivers of the stock market’s decline explain why Treasuries performed well in June and underperformed in September. We bring up the performance of different equity sectors, commodity prices and gold because bond yields correlate most strongly with: The performance of cyclical equities over defensive equities (Chart 2, top panel). The ratio of CRB Raw Industrials over gold (Chart 2, bottom panel). Chart 2High-Frequency Bond Indicators These correlations explain why bond yields fell a lot in June but not in September. June’s equity sell-off was more like a traditional risk-off event that saw investors questioning the sustainability of the global economic recovery. The cyclical equity sectors that are most exposed to the global economic cycle experienced the worst losses and demand for safe-haven gold far outpaced the demand for growth-sensitive industrial commodities. In contrast, this month’s sell-off was driven by a re-rating of Tech stock valuations, not so much expectations for a negative economic shock. Technology now makes up such a large portion of the equity index’s market cap that this sort of move can cause the entire stock market to fall, but the pass-through to bonds will be much smaller for any equity sell-off that isn’t prompted by a negative economic shock and led by cyclical equity sectors. Implications For Bond Investors Even after this month’s drop, there remains a legitimate concern about extreme Tech stock valuations. The fact that many of the larger Tech names, like Microsoft and Apple, have benefited from the pandemic only makes it more likely that their stock prices will suffer as the world slowly returns to normal. From a bond investor’s perspective, we doubt that even a large drop in Tech stock prices would lead to significantly lower bond yields, especially if that drop occurs in the context of an economy that continues to recover. Bond yields will only turn down if the market starts to question the sustainability of the economic recovery, an event that would be negative for cyclical equity sectors but much less so for the big Tech names. With that in mind, our base case outlook calls for continued economic recovery during the next 6-12 months, but we do see a significant risk that the failure to pass a follow-up to the CARES act will lead to just such a deflationary shock during the next couple of months. We therefore recommend keeping portfolio duration close to benchmark, while positioning for continued economic recovery via less risky duration-neutral yield curve steepeners. The Outlook For Consumer Spending And The Necessity Of Fiscal Stimulus After plunging during the lock-down months of March and April, consumer spending has rebounded strongly during the past few months. But can this strong rebound continue? Our view is that it cannot. That is, unless Congress delivers more income support to households. Even a large drop in Tech stock prices is unlikely to lead to significantly lower bond yields, especially if that drop occurs in the context of an economy that continues to recover. In this section we consider several different economic scenarios and estimate the amount of further income support that is necessary to sustain an adequate level of consumer spending. First off, to make forecasts for consumer spending we need to consider two main parameters: household income and the personal savings rate (Chart 3). More income leads to more spending in most cases. The only exception would be if cautious households decide to increase the amount they save relative to the amount they spend. Chart 3Consumer Spending Driven By Income & The Savings Rate We’ve actually seen that exception play out somewhat during the past five months. The CARES act provided households with an income windfall, but the savings rate also shot higher. This suggests that households had enough income to spend even more during the past few months but have been much more cautious than usual. We cannot overstate the role the CARES act has played in supporting household incomes since March. Disposable income has grown 7.4% during the past five months compared to the five months prior to COVID, and the CARES act’s provisions pressured income 10.3% higher during that period (Chart 4). The CARES act’s one-time $1200 stimulus checks and expanded $600 weekly unemployment benefits were the two most important provisions in this regard. Together, they pushed disposable income higher by 7.5%. Chart 4Disposable Personal Income Growth And Its Drivers This presents an obvious problem. The income support from the CARES act is now expired and Congress has yet to pass a follow-up stimulus bill. How vital is it that we get a new bill? And how large does it need to be? To answer these questions, we first need to set a target for adequate consumer spending growth. The second panel of Chart 3 shows 12-month over 12-month consumer spending growth. That is, it looks at total consumer spending during the last 12 months and shows how much it has increased (or decreased) compared to the previous 12 months. Notice that the worst 12-month period during the 2008 Great Financial Crisis (GFC) saw 12-month over 12-month consumer spending growth of -3%. During the economic recovery that followed, consumer spending growth fluctuated between +2% and +6%. Exercise 1: The March 2020 To February 2021 Period Chart 5Three Scenarios For Income And Savings In our first exercise, we consider the 12-month period starting at the very beginning of the COVID recession in March 2020 and ending in February 2021. As a bare minimum, we target consumer spending growth of -3% for this 12-month period on the presumption that 12-month spending growth equal to the worst 12 months seen during the GFC is the bare minimum that markets might tolerate. We also consider somewhat rosier scenarios of 0% and 2% spending growth. In addition to consumer spending targets, we also make assumptions for household income and the savings rate. We consider income coming from all sources including automatic government stabilizers, but without assuming any additional fiscal support from the government. We consider three scenarios (Chart 5): A pessimistic scenario where both income and the savings rate hold steady at current levels. An optimistic scenario where both income and the savings rate return to pre-COVID levels by February 2021. A “split the difference” scenario where both income and the savings rate get halfway back to pre-COVID levels by next February. Table 2 shows how much additional income support from the government is needed between now and February to achieve each of our consumer spending growth targets in each of our three scenarios. For example, in the optimistic scenario the government will need to provide $434 billion of additional income support between now and February for consumer spending to hit our minimum -3% threshold. In the more realistic “split the difference” scenario, households will require another $777 billion of stimulus. Table 2 also shows that stimulus on a monthly basis and compares the monthly rate of stimulus to the rate provided by the CARES act. For example, an additional $777 billion of income doled out between August and February works out to $111 billion per month, 61% of the amount of monthly stimulus provided by the CARES act between April and July. Table 2Without More Stimulus COVID's Impact On Consumer Spending Will Be Worse Than The GFC Two main conclusions jump out from this analysis. The first is that more income support from Congress is absolutely required. Otherwise, consumer spending will come in worse during the March 2020 to February 2021 period than it did during the worst 12 months of the GFC. Second, unless we assume a truly dire economic scenario, the follow-up stimulus does not need to be as large as the CARES act. In our most realistic “split the difference” scenario, that $777 billion of required stimulus is only 61% of what the CARES act doled out on a monthly basis. In that same scenario, a follow-up bill that delivered the same monthly stimulus as the CARES act would lead to positive 12-month consumer spending growth. Exercise 2: The August 2020 To July 2021 Period Chart 6One More Scenario One potential problem with our last exercise is that our target was for total consumer spending between March 2020 and February 2021. This period includes five months for which we already have data and the exercise is therefore partially backward-looking. A more relevant analysis might target consumer spending on a purely forward-looking basis from August 2020 to July 2021. We therefore perform our calculations again for the August 2020 to July 2021 period. This time, we consider only one economic scenario where income and the savings rate both return to pre-COVID levels by July 2021 (Chart 6). This scenario works out to be slightly more optimistic than the “split the difference” scenario we considered earlier. Also, since our target 12-month spending growth period no longer contains the downtrodden months of March and April, we require a more ambitious target than -3% growth. A return to the post-GFC range of 2% to 6% represents a target that is likely more representative of market expectations. Table 3 shows the results of this second analysis. Once again, we see that some additional government stimulus is necessary to meet our spending targets. Even to achieve 0% spending growth over the next 12 months will require another $249 billion from the government, and that outcome would almost certainly disappoint markets. We calculate that an additional $534 billion is required to achieve 2% spending growth during the August 2020 to July 2021 timeframe. This result is consistent with the $777 billion we calculated in Table 2, though it has come down a bit because we have made slightly more optimistic economic assumptions. Table 3At Least Half A Trillion More Government Income Support Is Needed Bottom Line: Our analysis suggests that further stimulus is needed to sustain the recovery in consumer spending. A new stimulus package doesn’t need to be as large as the CARES act on a monthly basis, but it should provide at least $500 - $800 billion of additional income support to households. With Congress still dithering on this issue, financial markets appear overly complacent in the near-term. While the economic constraints suggest that a deal should be reached soon, policymakers may need to see a spate of negative economic data and/or poor market performance before being spurred into action. In acknowledgement of this significant near-term risk to the economic outlook, bond investors should refrain from getting too bearish, and keep portfolio duration close to benchmark for the time being. Inflation’s Snapback Phase Chart 7Inflation Coming In Hot The core Consumer Price Index rose 0.4% in August, the third large monthly increase in a row (Chart 7). We see inflation continuing to come in hot between now and the end of the year, before tapering off in 2021. As of now, we would describe inflation as being in a snapback phase. That is, back in March and April, when lock-down measures were widespread across the country, the sectors that were most affected by the shutdowns experienced massive price declines. However, notice that core inflation fell by much more than median or trimmed mean inflation during this period (Chart 7, panels 2 & 3). The median sector’s price didn’t fall that much, but the overall inflation number moved down because of deeply negative prints in a few sectors. Now that the economy is re-opening, many of the sectors that were most beaten down in March and April are coming back to life. As a result, those massive price declines are turning into massive price increases. Once again, the median and trimmed mean inflation figures have been much more stable. This “snapback” dynamic is illustrated very clearly in Chart 8 which shows the distribution of monthly price changes for 41 different sectors in April and in August. Notice that while the middle of the distribution hasn’t changed that much, April’s massive left tail has morphed into August’s massive right tail. Chart 8Distribution Of CPI Expenditure Categories The continued wide divergence between core inflation and the median and trimmed mean measures suggests that this snapback phase has further to run. In other words, we will likely continue to see strong inflation prints for a few more months as the sectors that were most downbeat in March and April continue their rebounds. However, once core catches back up to the median and trimmed mean inflation measures, this snapback phase will come to an end and inflation’s uptrend will probably level-off. The continued wide divergence between core inflation and the median and trimmed mean measures suggests that this inflation’s snapback phase has further to run.  We recommend that bond investors continue to favor TIPS over nominal Treasuries during this snapback phase, but we will be looking for an opportunity to go underweight TIPS versus nominal Treasuries later this year, once core inflation moves closer to the median and trimmed mean measures and the snapback phase ends. Appendix A: Buy What The Fed Is Buying The Fed rolled out a number of aggressive lending facilities on March 23. These facilities focused on different specific sectors of the US bond market. The fact that the Fed has decided to support some parts of the market and not others has caused some traditional bond market correlations to break down. It has also led us to adopt of a strategy of “Buy What The Fed Is Buying”. That is, we favor those sectors that offer attractive spreads and that benefit from Fed support. The below Table tracks the performance of different bond sectors since the March 23 announcement. We will use this to monitor bond market correlations and evaluate our strategy’s success.   Table 4Performance Since March 23 Announcement Of Emergency Fed Facilities Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification

Highlights Bygones will no longer be bygones for the Fed when it comes to inflation, … : It has yet to define the parameters of its new approach, but the Fed is promising a sizable break with the past by adopting an average inflation target. … and it’s getting out of the business of pre-emptively tightening in response to a too-tight labor market: The Fed will still intervene to combat the effects of underemployment, but it’s done with trying to cool off a labor market that appears to be too strong. The dovish bias should be good for equities … : Over the last 60 years, large-cap US equities have performed considerably better when monetary policy is easy than they have when it is tight. … and it just might help workers: Tightening to prevent hot labor markets from getting too hot had the effect of making labor market strength self-limiting, circumscribing unions’ bargaining power. If the Fed follows its new plans, workers might benefit at bondholders’ expense. Feature At the Kansas City Fed’s annual Jackson Hole conference at the end of last month, Chair Powell took the opportunity to highlight the results of the Fed’s extended policy review. Though the announcement was short on details, the adjustments to the Fed’s longer-run aims should translate into a more accommodative monetary policy stance over the next several years. Promises made when inflation is moribund may be hard to keep when it begins to perk up, so it’s not written in stone that the Fed will stick to its guns when the backdrop changes, but the shifts in its approach could have meaningful impacts for investors and workers. For nearly five years, it's been the Fed's policy to lament past inflation shortfalls; ... From Inflation Targeting To Average Inflation Targeting1 The Fed may be approaching its 107th birthday, but it is still a relatively new institution practicing a relatively new discipline, and its policy goals and the ways it attempts to carry them out regularly shift. Congress gave the Fed its “dual mandate” in 1977 in a bill that spelled out three aims, “maximum employment, stable prices, and moderate long-term interest rates,” though the third has receded to the point of disappearing amidst a four-decade bond bull market. The dual mandate only entered common parlance in the mid-‘90s and the Federal Reserve Board did not explicitly mention “maximum employment” in its policy directives until 2010, after the FOMC first cited it in a post-meeting statement (itself a fairly new invention).2 ... going forward, it's pledging to do something to make up for them. The Fed only introduced an explicit inflation target in January 2012, a concept pioneered by the Reserve Bank of New Zealand in 1990. (It did so in its inaugural statement of longer-run goals and policy strategy, which it has since reviewed annually and adjusted as necessary.)3 When it first introduced an inflation target, the Fed said it was doing so to “help keep longer-term inflation expectations firmly anchored, thereby fostering price stability ... and enhancing [its] ability to promote maximum employment.” Long-run inflation expectations have fallen well below the bottom end of the 2.3-2.5% range consistent with the Fed’s 2% target (Chart 1). Describing its target as “symmetric,” which it began doing in January 2016 to make it clear that persistent shortfalls would be as unwelcome as persistent overshoots, has not helped. Inflation expectations ground higher for the first two symmetric years but ultimately backslid below their January 2016 level as measured inflation showed no signs of recovering. Chart 1Falling Short   The Fed is therefore upping the ante, going beyond expressing its concern about inflation shortfalls to pledging that they will be made up for in the future under a new strategy that condones corrective overshoots. It expressed its new intentions as follows: In order to anchor longer-term inflation expectations at [2 percent], the Committee seeks to achieve inflation that averages 2 percent over time, and therefore judges that, following periods when inflation has been running persistently below 2 percent, appropriate monetary policy will likely aim to achieve inflation moderately above 2 percent for some time.4 [Emphasis added] In other words, the Fed’s inflation target will no longer be fixed at 2%, and it will no longer be set in a purely forward-looking vacuum. Its target could now float above 2% for lengthy periods, depending on the recent history of realized inflation data. In meeting the price stability element of its mandate going forward, the Fed will be managing to something much more like a price level target than an annual inflation target. The upshot is that bygones will no longer be bygones when it comes to inflation undershoots; instead of forgetting past shortfalls, the Fed will actively seek to remediate them. The remediation aspect is a profound change, and it will presumably lead to greater policy accommodation over periods that have been preceded by inflation shortfalls. The Fed has apparently made this change to provoke a resetting of inflation expectations more in line with its aims, but long-run inflation expectations are principally a function of long-run trends in realized inflation. The 5-year/5-year forward CPI swap rate correlates much more closely with the 8-year rate of change in CPI inflation (Chart 2, top panel) than it does with the 1-year rate of change (Chart 2, bottom panel). Headline year-over-year inflation readings will therefore most likely have to exceed 2% for an extended stretch before long-term TIPS breakevens sustainably return to the target range our fixed income strategists judge to be compatible with an annualized 2% target. Chart 2Long-Run Inflation Expectations Are A Function Of Actual Long-Run Inflation A New Take On The Full Employment Mandate The Fed also put some distance from the Phillips Curve framework that many investors had come to view with outright disdain.5 The Phillips Curve’s initial assertion that the unemployment rate and inflation were inversely related was debunked in the stagflationary ‘70s, but the view that too-low unemployment could presage inflation remains embedded in mainstream economic models. Chair Powell has repeatedly questioned that premise, as inflation remained persistently below target even after the unemployment rate had fallen a full percentage point below estimates of its natural rate. The Fed’s new statement formally swears off it, saying that policy will seek “to mitigate shortfalls of employment from [its] assessment of its maximum level,” where it previously aimed to mitigate all deviations from its estimated maximum level [Emphasis added]. The wording change suggests that the Fed has caught up to investors when it comes to being fed up with the Phillips Curve’s false signals. As our fixed income colleagues put it, the Fed had previously viewed a negative unemployment gap (unemployment below its estimate of NAIRU)6 as a signal that inflation was poised to accelerate. That view often led to premature tightening, contributing to the pattern of inflation target shortfalls. The Fed now says it will no longer overreact to signs of labor market overheating, waiting instead for potential wage pressure to show up in the actual inflation data before removing monetary accommodation. Its new one-sided employment reaction function (ease if the labor market is soft, stand pat if it seems to be tight) reinforces the idea that the Fed will have an accommodative bias well into the intermediate term. Equity Market Implications Monetary policy is hardly the only influence on equity prices, and it is not possible to assess its state precisely in real time. It would certainly appear to be easy now that the Fed returned to ZIRP in the blink of an eye after the pandemic spread to the US, but no one can always say with certainty in real time that policy is easy, tight or neutral because no one knows exactly what the neutral rate is at any moment. Using our own in-house estimate of the equilibrium rate (the fed funds rate that neither encourages nor discourages economic activity) to divide the monetary policy cycle into four phases based on the fed funds rate’s level and direction (Chart 3), however, the S&P 500 has exhibited a robust and enduring performance pattern. Chart 3The Fed Funds Rate Cycle Over the 60 years covered by our equilibrium rate estimate, large-cap US equities have surged when policy was easy and run in place when it was tight (Table 1). Adjusted for inflation, they have posted juicy real returns when policy was easy but sapped investors’ wealth when policy was tight (Table 2). The significant return spread across easy and tight settings suggests that the state of monetary policy is an important contributor to equity returns and that our equilibrium estimate must be in the ballpark. Our practical takeaway is that investors should have a bias to overweight stocks in balanced portfolios when Fed policy is accommodative. That bias can be overridden by other factors, but we have found it to be a reliable starting point. The Fed's new one-sided employment reaction function (ease when employment falls below its estimated maximum level, but do nothing when it exceeds it) reinforces the accommodative leanings of average inflation targeting. Table 1A 9-Percentage-Point Nominal Return Gap ... Table 2... And An 11-Percentage-Point Real Return Gap Labor Market Implications To translate the natural-rate-of-unemployment concept into a graph-friendly format, let the unemployment gap equal the quantity (u – u*), where u is the reported unemployment rate and u* is NAIRU, as estimated by the Congressional Budget Office. When the unemployment gap is negative (u < u*), employment exceeds its maximum level and the labor market is tight. When the unemployment gap is positive (u > u*), employment falls short of its maximum level and the supply of labor exceeds the demand for it. An emphasis on promoting full employment over price stability favors labor over fixed income investors.  The Phillips Curve’s shortcomings and the difficulty of accurately estimating the natural rate of unemployment in real time notwithstanding, wage growth is stronger when the labor market is tight and the unemployment gap is a good general proxy for the balance between labor supply and demand. Nominal and real earnings have grown faster when the unemployment rate has broken through NAIRU since the average hourly earnings series began to be compiled in 1964 (Chart 4). Broadly speaking, a negative unemployment gap is good for labor while a positive gap is bad for it. Chart 4Wages Rise More In Tight Labor Markets From the perspective of the Fed’s dual mandate, then, labor benefits when the Fed places greater emphasis on promoting full employment and suffers it emphasizes price stability. Many factors have been cited as contributors to unions’ struggles over the last four decades,7 but monetary policy is not typically one of them. We would argue that it has played an underappreciated role, as unions’ golden years of the ‘50s, ‘60s and ‘70s coincided with the Fed’s hands-off approach to tight labor markets and their demise coincided with the Fed’s shift to leaning against them (Chart 5). From 1950 until Paul Volcker became Fed chair, the unemployment gap was negative in two out of every three quarters; since Volcker took over, it’s been negative in just one of three (Table 3). Chart 540 Years Of Removing The Punch Bowl Before Labor's Party Gets Going Table 3The Volcker Divide When it comes to a hot labor market, workers’ gains are bond owners’ losses. Prioritizing full employment over price stability works to the benefit of labor and debtors and to the detriment of capital and creditors. We can’t know the strength of the Fed’s new employment commitment until it’s tested by events, but if we take it at its word, four decades of policy that have favored bond owners are at risk of reversing. We reiterate our fixed income underweight over the tactical and cyclical timeframes. The equity impact is more nuanced. Compensation is far and away the largest component of corporate expenses and a policy to intervene only to mitigate employment shortfalls will compress profit margins. Tighter margins, however, should be offset by increased revenues as consumers have more money to spend. The shift in the Fed’s strategy is broadly labor-positive and capital-negative, but the ill effects for capital will be mostly borne by creditors and easy monetary policy has historically given equities a sizable boost. We reiterate our tactical equity equalweight and cyclical overweight.   Doug Peta, CFA Chief US Investment Strategist dougp@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 The discussion of the Fed’s revised approach to achieving its price stability mandate, and the following section’s discussion of its full employment mandate, borrow heavily from our Global Fixed Income and US Bond Strategy colleagues’ joint September 1, 2020 Special Report, "A New Dawn For US Monetary Policy," available at usbs.bcaresearch.com. Those interested in a fuller discussion of the policy changes, and their implications for the bond market, are encouraged to review the original report. 2 Steelman, Aaron, "The Federal Reserve’s ‘Dual Mandate’: The Evolution of an Idea." Richmond Fed Economic Brief, December 2011, No. 11-12. Accessed September 1, 2020. 3 "Federal Reserve issues FOMC statement of longer-run goals and policy strategy," January 25, 2012. 4https://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/guide-to-changes-in-statement-on-longer-run-goals-monetary-policy-strategy.htm 5 Please see the February 26, 2019 US Investment Strategy Special Report, "The Phillips Curve: Science Or Superstition?," available at usis.bcaresearch.com. 6 NAIRU stands for non-accelerating inflation rate of unemployment, also known as the natural rate of unemployment. 7 Our Labor Strikes Back series of Special Reports, January 13, 2020 "Labor Strikes Back, Part 1: An Investor’s Guide To US Labor History", January 20, 2020 "Labor Strikes Back, Part 2: Where Strikes Come From And Who Wins Them", and February 3, 2020 "Labor Strikes Back, Part 3: The Public-Approval Contest", discuss them in full. All available at usis.bcaresearch.com.

Highlights Stocks, particularly tech stocks, are technically overbought and highly vulnerable to a further correction. Nevertheless, investors should continue to overweight global equities relative to bonds on a 12-month horizon, while rotating equity allocations into cheaper sectors and regions. What should policymakers do if they wish to maximize growth and restore full employment? In the feature section of this report, we argue that the optimal course of action for most countries is to loosen fiscal policy until labor slack has been eliminated and the central bank’s inflation target has been met. Once this has been achieved, governments should trim the budget deficit to keep inflation from accelerating too much. What will policymakers actually do? While today’s budget deficits are smaller than what most economies need, they will ultimately prove to be too big once private sector demand recovers. The upshot is that inflation will increase by the middle of the decade, first in the US and then everywhere else. The secular bull market in equities will end only when central banks are forced to scramble to contain inflation. Fortunately, that day of reckoning is at least a few years away. Feature Apparently, Stocks Don’t Always Go Up After a relentless rally, stocks buckled under the pressure on Thursday. The MSCI All-Country World index lost 3%, the S&P 500 shed 3.5%, and the tech-heavy Nasdaq Composite plunged 5%. Two weeks ago, in a report titled “The Return Of Nasdog,” we argued that the leadership role was set to pivot away from tech and health care, as pandemic angst subsided and investors began to price in a recovery in the sectors of the stock market that had been crushed by lockdown measures. Chart 1A Weaker Dollar Is Generally Associated With Non-US Equity Outperformance, But Not Since The Covid Crash Historically, non-US equities have outperformed their US peers when the dollar has weakened (Chart 1). This relationship broke down this year because of the outsized weight that tech and health care command in US indices. If the relative performance of tech and health care stocks peaks over the coming weeks, this should translate into a clear outperformance for non-US stock markets. Value stocks should also start outperforming growth stocks. Stock market leadership changes often occur within the context of broad-based equity corrections. Our near-term view on stocks, as illustrated in the view matrix at the end of this report, is more cautious than our 12-month view. Thus, we would not be surprised if the major indices sell off over the coming weeks, with tech stocks leading the way down. The same sort of technical factors that amplified the move up in stocks over the past few weeks could exacerbate the move down. Most notably, so-called delta hedge option strategies, in which an investor sells calls and hedges the risk by purchasing the underlying stock, can create a self-reinforcing feedback loop where rising call prices force investors to buy more shares, leading to even higher call prices. Once the stock market starts falling, the process goes into reverse. Nevertheless, we do not expect tech stocks to suffer the sort of crash they experienced in 2000. Tech valuations are not as stretched as they were back then, earnings growth is stronger, and balance sheets are much healthier. Moreover, unlike in 2000, when the Fed lifted rates to as high as 6.5% in May, monetary policy is at no risk of turning hawkish. All this suggests that tech stocks are more likely to go sideways than down over a 12-month horizon (albeit in a fairly volatile manner). Investors should continue to overweight global equities relative to bonds on a 12-month horizon, while tilting equity allocations towards cheaper sectors and regions. Feature: Should Versus Will Investors want to know what the future will bring. As such, our primary interest at BCA Research is in predicting what policymakers will do rather than what they should do. Sometimes, however, it is useful to ask the “should” question since the answer may shape one’s view on the “will” question. This is especially the case when a particular set of goals is aligned with both the incentives and constraints that policymakers face. With that in mind, let us ask what the optimal mix of monetary and fiscal policy should be, assuming that policymakers have the goal of maximizing growth and moving the economy towards full employment. As we argue below, this is a relevant question to ask not because we necessarily share this goal – our personal value judgments are besides the point here – but because most policymakers think this is the correct goal. Propping Up Demand Chart 2Labor Markets In Developed Economies Have Rarely Overheated Over The Past Few Decades Maintaining full employment requires that spending match the economy’s productive capacity. In theory, this should not be a difficult objective to achieve. After all, people like to spend. Increasing demand should be easy. The hard part should be raising supply. In practice, it has not worked out that way. Even before the pandemic, unemployment rates rarely fell below their full employment level across the G7 economies (Chart 2). High Unemployment: Cyclical Or Structural? Some will argue that surplus unemployment is necessary to shift workers from sectors of the economy where they are not needed to sectors where they are. The failure to facilitate such resource reallocation could, it is alleged, stymie long-term growth. This is largely a spurious claim. As Chart 3 shows, there is always a huge amount of churn in the labor market. In 2019, a year in which total employment rose by 2.1 million, a total of 70 million people were hired in the US compared to 64 million who quit or lost their jobs. In fact, labor market churn tends to decrease during recessions as workers become reluctant to quit their jobs. Chart 3Labor Market Turnover Tends To Increase During Expansions Chart 4Residential Construction Accounted For Less Than 20% Of The Job Losses During The Great Recession Far from reflecting structural factors, the vast majority of the rise in joblessness during economic downturns is gratuitous in nature. For example, more than 80% of the jobs lost during the Great Recession were outside the residential real estate sector (Chart 4). Moreover, employment growth is highly correlated with investment spending (Chart 5). The easiest way to induce firms to boost capex – and, in the process, augment the economy’s productive capacity – is to adopt policies that raise overall employment. A stronger labor market will generate more demand for goods and services. It will also make labor more expensive in relation to capital, thereby incentivizing labor-saving capital investment. Chart 5Employment Growth And Investment Spending Go Hand-In-Hand Today, unemployment is elevated once again. As was the case during prior recessions, some workers will need to transition from sectors of the economy that will be slow to recover (retail, travel, and hospitality, for example) to sectors where jobs will be more plentiful. The risk is that there will not be enough job vacancies in the latter sectors to compensate for job losses in the former. The fact that permanent job losses have been creeping higher in the US over the past few months, even as temporary layoffs have come down, is evidence that such an outcome is a clear and present danger (Chart 6). Chart 6Many Are Returning To Work, But The Number Of Permanent Layoffs Is Slowly Increasing As Well Central Banks Can’t Do It All One does not need to refill a leaky bucket through the same hole the water escaped. As long as there is enough demand throughout the economy, workers who lose their jobs in declining sectors will eventually find new jobs in other sectors. So why has the bucket seemed chronically short of water in recent years? The answer is that monetary policy has been tasked to do more than it is realistically capable of achieving. Monetary policy operates with “long and variable lags.” When unemployment rises, the best that central banks can do is cut interest rates and hope that the more interest-rate sensitive parts of the economy eventually perk up. If the interest-rate sensitive sectors of the economy are tapped out, just as housing was following the financial crisis, or policy rates are near their lower bound, as they are now, monetary policy will be even less potent than usual. The Role Of Fiscal Policy This is where fiscal policy ought to fill the void. Even if monetary policy is exhausted, governments can cut taxes, raise transfers to households and businesses, or increase direct spending on goods and services. The extent to which fiscal policy is loosened should not be preordained. Rather, it should simply reflect the state of the economy. There is no limit to how much money governments can transfer to the public. In fact, one can easily imagine a system where governments cut taxes and increase transfer payments whenever unemployment moves up. Such a powerful system of automatic stabilizers would go a long way towards keeping the economy on an even keel. Why have governments been reluctant to embrace such a system? One key reason is that such a system would produce open-ended budget deficits. That would not be much of a problem if the red ink lasted just a few years, but what if the need for large budget deficits did not go away? The Japanese Example Consider the case of Japan. Starting in the early 1990s, Japan’s private sector became a chronic net saver, as demand for credit evaporated amid savage deleveraging (Chart 7). In order to keep the economy from falling into a full-blown depression, the government started to run continual budget deficits. Effectively, the government had to soak up persistent private savings with its own dissavings. As a result, the debt-to-GDP ratio ballooned from 64% in 1991 to 237% by 2019 and is set to rise further this year. Many people predicted a debt crisis would engulf Japan. Takeshi Fujimaki, a former banker turned politician, has been forecasting a debt crisis for more than two decades.In 2010, financial pundit John Mauldin described Japan as a “bug in search of a windshield.” He reckoned that the country would “implode within the next two-to-three years,” with the yen falling to 300 against the dollar. Kyle Bass has made similarly dire predictions.1 How was Japan able to escape what seemed like certain doom? The answer is that the same factor that necessitated persistent budget deficits, namely excess private-sector savings, also allowed interest rates to fall. Despite a rising debt-to-GDP ratio, government interest payments have been trending lower over time (Chart 8). Today, the government actually earns more interest than it pays because two-thirds of all Japanese debt bears negative yields. Chart 7The Japanese Government Runs Persistent Budget Deficits Amid The Private Sector's Desire To Save Chart 8Japan: Ballooning Debt And Declining Interest Payments If anything, Japan erred in not easing fiscal policy by enough. Had Japan run even larger budget deficits, deflationary pressures would have been less acute, and as a result, real interest rates would have fallen even more than they actually did (Chart 9). Chart 9Japanese Real Yields Are Higher Than In Many Other Major Economies A Fiscal Free Lunch? The standard equation for public debt sustainability says that as long as the government’s borrowing rate is below the growth rate of the economy, the debt-to-GDP ratio will converge to a stable level no matter how large the fiscal deficit happens to be (See Box 1 for details). The caveat is that this “stable” debt-to-GDP ratio could turn out to be quite high. For example, if the government wants to run a primary budget deficit of 10% of GDP indefinitely, and GDP growth exceeds the real interest rate by two percentage points, the debt-to-GDP ratio will eventually converge to 500%. If interest rates were guaranteed to stay at zero forever, even a debt-to-GDP ratio of 500% would be no cause for alarm. But, of course, there is no such guarantee. For a country such as Italy, letting debt levels soar into the stratosphere would be highly risky. Countries that do not possess a central bank capable of acting as a lender of last resort could find themselves in a vicious spiral where rising bond yields raise the probability of default, leading to even higher bond yields (Chart 10). Chart 10Multiple Equilibria In The Debt Market Are Possible Without A Lender Of Last Resort For countries that do issue debt in their own currencies, default risk is less of a problem since their central banks can set short-term rates at any level they want and, if necessary, target long-term rates with yield curve control strategies. Nevertheless, even these countries would face difficult choices if the excess savings that permitted interest rates to stay low disappeared. A decline in national savings would raise the neutral rate of interest (the rate which equalizes aggregate demand with aggregate supply). If policy rates remained unchanged, the neutral rate of interest would end up being higher than policy rates, which would eventually cause the economy to overheat. At that point, policymakers would have two options: First, they could simply let the economy overheat such that inflation rises. If inflation is very low to begin with, modestly higher inflation would be welcome, as it would make the zero lower bound constraint less of a problem.2 Higher inflation would also speed up the pace of nominal income growth, leading to a lower debt-to-GDP ratio. That said, if inflation were to rise too much, it could have destabilizing effects on the economy. Second, they could tighten fiscal policy. A smaller budget deficit would add to national savings, while giving the government more resources to pay back debt. Tighter fiscal policy would also subtract from aggregate demand, thus reducing the neutral rate of interest. This would diminish the need for central banks to raise rates in the first place. Putting it all together, the optimal course of action, at least for countries that can issue debt in their own currencies, is to loosen fiscal policy until full employment has been restored and the central bank’s inflation target has been met. Once this has been achieved, the government should trim the budget deficit to keep inflation from getting out of hand. What Will Be Done Okay, so much for the idealized strategy. What will actually happen? As was the case following the Great Recession, there is a risk that some countries will tighten fiscal policy prematurely, causing the economic recovery from the pandemic to be slower than it would otherwise be. In the US, this is already happening. Federal emergency unemployment benefits under the CARES Act expired at the end of July; funding for the small business paycheck protection program has run out; and state and local governments are facing a severe cash crunch. BCA Research’s Geopolitical Strategy team, led by Matt Gertken, expects the logjam in Washington to be resolved in September. Most voters, including the majority of Republicans, want emergency unemployment benefits to be restored (Table 1). Additional fiscal stimulus would cushion the economy in the lead up to the November election, which would arguably benefit President Trump and the Republican party. Hence, there is a good chance that Congressional Republicans will accede to a fairly generous fiscal package. Table 1The Majority Continues To Support Expanded Unemployment Insurance Globally, the prevalence of negative real rates (and in some cases, negative nominal rates) should incentivize governments to run larger budget deficits than they have in the past. Increasing political populism will amplify this trend. Thus, despite some near-term hiccups, fiscal policy will remain highly stimulative. The Inflation End Game Chart 11The Ratio Of Workers-To-Consumers Is Now Falling What will happen when unemployment rates return to their pre-pandemic level in three or four years? Will governments tighten fiscal policy to prevent overheating or will they let inflation run loose? Our guess is that they will let inflation rise. National savings can shrink either because the private sector is spending more or because the private sector is earning less. Looking out beyond the next few years, the latter is more likely than the former. This is because the ratio of workers-to-consumers globally will decline sharply over the coming decade as more baby boomers exit the labor force (Chart 11). Spending will decelerate, but output and income will decelerate even more by virtue of this demographic reality. It is difficult to boost tax revenue in an environment of slowing real income growth. If output falls in relation to spending, inflation will rise. At least initially, central banks will welcome the burst of inflation. They have been trying to push up inflation for years. Past inflation undershoots will be used to justify future inflation overshoots, a doctrine the Fed officially blessed at the virtual Jackson Hole symposium last week. Other central banks will be loath to raise rates if the Fed stands pat for fear that their own currencies will surge against the US dollar. The end result is that inflation will increase, first in the US and then everywhere else. A quick glance at long-term inflation expectations suggests that markets do not discount this risk at all (Chart 12). What does all this mean for investors? For the next few years, the combination of ample fiscal stimulus and easy monetary policy will foster a supportive backdrop for global equities. Despite the rally in stocks since March, the global equity risk premium remains quite elevated, especially outside the US (Chart 13). Investors should remain overweight global stocks versus bonds on a 12-month horizon. Chart 12Investors Believe Inflation Will Stay Muted In The Long Term Chart 13Non-US Stocks Look Cheaper Than Their US Peers In Both Absolute Terms And In Relation To Bond Yields Looking further out, the secular bull market in equities will end only when central banks are forced to scramble to contain inflation. Fortunately, that day of reckoning is at least a few years away.   Peter Berezin Chief Global Strategist peterb@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Ben McLannahan, “Japanese Bonds Defy the Debt Doomsters,” Financial Times, dated August 8, 2012; Mariko Ishikawa, Kenneth Kohn and Yumi Ikeda, “Soros Adviser Turned Lawmaker Sees Crisis by 2020,” Bloomberg News, dated September 27, 2013; and Dan McCrum, “Kyle Bass bets on full-blown Japan crisis,” Financial Times, May 21, 2013. 2 For example, if inflation is 3%, a central bank could produce a real rate of -3% by bringing policy rates down to zero. In contrast, if inflation is only 1%, the lowest that real rates could fall is -1%, which may not be stimulative enough for the economy.   Box 1The Arithmetic Of Debt Sustainability   Global Investment Strategy View Matrix Current MacroQuant Model Scores

Highlights Achieving 2 percent inflation, whether as a point-target or as an average over time, will continue to be a mission impossible. As central banks continue to push the monetary policy pedal to the metal, it will underpin the valuation of equities and other risk-assets. So long as bond yields do not spike, stock market sell offs will be short-lived rather than an outright bear market. Within bonds, steer towards those where the monetary policy toolbox is not fully depleted, namely US T-bonds. Within currencies, steer towards those where the monetary policy toolbox is already depleted, namely the Swiss franc and the yen. Inflationary fiscal policy, by spiking bond yields, risks collapsing the valuation underpinning of $450 trillion of global risk-assets and catalysing a deflationary bear market. Fractal trade: Euro strength is vulnerable. Feature Chart of the WeekUltra-Low Bond Yields Do Not Create Consumer Price Inflation, They Create Asset Price Inflation Five years ago, we published a Special Report, Mission Impossible: 2% Inflation. We predicted that 2 percent inflation would remain elusive. Or that in the rare economies that it did appear, it would be runaway, rather than a sedate 2 percent. Either way, the 2 percent inflation point-target that had become a quasi-religious commandment for the world’s central banks would be a ‘mission impossible’.1  Our August 2015 report was heterodox and provocative. Some people pushed back, arguing that the all-powerful central banks could pick and hit whatever inflation target they desired. Yet five years on, we have been vindicated. Last week, the Federal Reserve finally threw in the towel on the 2 percent inflation point-target (Chart I-2). Chart I-2"Forecasts For 2 Percent Inflation Were Never Realised On A Sustained Basis" “Over the years, forecasts from FOMC participants and private-sector analysts routinely showed a return to 2 percent inflation, but these forecasts were never realised on a sustained basis… (hence) our new statement indicates that we will seek to achieve inflation that averages 2 percent over time…”2   We suspect that, just like the Fed, European central banks will soon move their goal posts. Nevertheless, today we are doubling down on our August 2015 prediction. Achieving 2 percent inflation, whether as a point-target or as an average over time, will continue to be a mission impossible (Chart I-3). Chart I-3Mission Impossible: 2 Percent Inflation Price Stability Is A State, Not A Number The current school of central bankers have misunderstood price stability. They have defined it as an over-precise inflation rate: two point zero. Yet most people feel price stability imprecisely and intuitively. A recent IFO paper points out that households’ inflation perceptions are “more in line with the imperfect information view prevailing in social psychology than with the rational actor view assumed in mainstream economics.”3 The human brain cannot distinguish between very low rates of inflation or deflation, a range we just perceive as ‘price stability’. In Real-Feel Inflation: Quantitative Estimation of Inflation Perceptions, Michael Ashton confirms that “it would be challenging for a consumer to distinguish 1 percent inflation from 2 percent inflation – that fine of a gradation in perception would be extremely unusual to find.”4 The human brain cannot distinguish between very low rates of inflation or deflation. As the entire range of ultra-low inflation just feels like one state of price stability, it is impossible for central banks to fine-tune our inflation expectations within that range. Therefore, our behaviour in terms of wage demands and willingness to borrow also stays unchanged. And if our behaviour is unchanged, what is the transmission mechanism to 2 percent inflation – or for that matter, any arbitrarily chosen inflation rate? Hence, inflation targeting can ‘phase-shift’ an economy between the states of price instability and price stability. Most notably, its inception in the 1990s ultimately phase-shifted many advanced economies into the state of price stability (Chart I-4). But once in either state, inflation targeting cannot fine-tune inflation to a desired number such as 2 percent, 4 percent, or 10 percent. Chart I-4Inflation Targeting Phase-Shifted Advanced Economies Into Price Stability A recent NBER paper Inflation Expectations As A Policy Tool? points out that in advanced economies, “the inattention of households and firms to inflation is likely a reflection of policy-makers’ success in stabilizing inflation around a low level for decades. This price stability has reduced the benefit to being informed about aggregate inflation, leading many to rely on readily available price signals.”5  The ultimate proof is that even market-based inflation expectations just track realised inflation. Central Banks Have Gone Backwards In his must-read What’s Wrong With The 2 Percent Inflation Target, the late and great Paul Volcker argued that price stability is “that state in which expected changes in the general price level do not effectively alter business or household decisions. It is ill-advised to define that state with a point target, such as 2 percent, as false precision can lead to dangerous policies.”6 The irony, and tragedy, is that both the Fed and the ECB have gone backwards. Their original definitions of price stability were more correct than their more recent iterations. False precision can lead to dangerous policies. At the Federal Reserve’s July 1996 policy meeting, Chairman Alan Greenspan argued that if the aim of inflation targeting was a truly stable price level, it entailed an inflation target of 0-1 percent. But one of the persons present was not so sure. The dissenter was a Fed governor called Janet L. Yellen. She countered that if inflation ended up at 0-1 percent, the zero-bound of interest rates would prevent “real interest rates becoming negative on the rare occasions when required to counter a recession”, an argument that Jay Powell repeated last week. “Expected inflation feeds directly into the general level of interest rates… so if inflation expectations fall below our 2 percent objective, interest rates would decline in tandem. In turn, we would have less scope to cut interest rates to boost employment during an economic downturn.” Meanwhile in Europe, the ECB’s original inflation target of below 2 percent was close to Greenspan’s proposal of 0-1 percent. But in 2003 the ECB changed its inflation target to its current “below but close to 2 percent.” The reason, according to Mario Draghi: “The founding fathers of the ECB thought about the rebalancing of the different members. To rebalance these disequilibria, since the countries do not have the exchange rate, they must readjust their prices. This readjustment is much harder if you have zero inflation than if you have 2 percent.” Hence, the Fed, ECB and other central banks are targeting inflation at an arbitrary 2 percent to always allow some leeway for negative real rates. The central bank argument can be summarised as: we desperately need you to expect 2 percent inflation. Because otherwise, we won’t be able to help you by cutting real interest rates in a downturn. Yet this argument is facile, as it takes no account of the true science of inflation expectation formation (Chart I-5 and Chart I-6). And it is dangerous, as it takes no account of the financial and economic risks of pushing the monetary policy pedal to the metal. Chart I-5Inflation Expectations Just Track Realised Inflation Chart I-6Inflation Expectations Just Track Realised Inflation Beware The Twists In The Inflation Story Now we come to a couple of twists in the story. When bond yields become ultra-low, their impact on consumer price inflation breaks down – because the economy is already in the state of price stability – but the impact on stock market inflation increases exponentially (Chart of the Week). We refer readers to previous reports in which we have detailed this dynamic.7 The good twist is that as central banks continue to push the monetary policy pedal to the metal, it will underpin the valuation of equities and other risk-assets. So long as bond yields do not spike, stock market sell offs will be short-lived rather than an outright bear market. Remarkably, this has held true even this year in the worst economic downturn since the Depression. The current school of central bankers have misunderstood price stability. Within bonds, steer towards those where the monetary policy toolbox is not fully depleted, namely US T-bonds (Chart I-7 and Chart I-8). Conversely, within currencies, steer towards those where the monetary policy toolbox is already depleted, namely the Swiss franc and the yen. Chart I-7Steer Towards Bonds Where Monetary Policy Is Not Fully Depleted... Chart I-8...Namely US ##br##T-Bonds Finally, given that any economy can ultimately phase-shift to price instability, when should we worry about inflation in advanced economies? Not yet. To expand the broad money supply, somebody must borrow and spend money. If policymakers really want to create rampant inflation, that somebody is the government. It must borrow and spend money at will, with the central bank creating the money. In other words, the central bank loses its independence and government spending goes vertical. So far, we are not remotely close to this situation because government spending has barely replaced the lost incomes and livelihoods of the pandemic. Indeed, things could get worse once the current income replacement schemes end. Yet, in theory at least, government spending could ultimately go vertical. This would lead to the final bad twist. As bond yields spiked in response, the entire valuation support of global risk-assets would collapse, catalysing a devastating bear market. Given that the $450 trillion worth of global risk-assets (including real estate) is five times the size of the $90 trillion global economy, we reach an important conclusion. The road to inflation, if ever taken, goes via deflation. Fractal Trading System* This week we note that the recent strength in EUR/USD is vulnerable to a countertrend pullback. However, as we are already exposed to this via the correlated position in long USD/PLN, there is no new trade. The rolling 1-year win ratio now stands at 59 percent. Chart I-9EUR/USD When the fractal dimension approaches the lower limit after an investment has been in an established trend it is a potential trigger for a liquidity-triggered trend reversal. Therefore, open a countertrend position. The profit target is a one-third reversal of the preceding 13-week move. Apply a symmetrical stop-loss. Close the position at the profit target or stop-loss. Otherwise close the position after 13 weeks. * For more details please see the European Investment Strategy Special Report “Fractals, Liquidity & A Trading Model,” dated  December 11, 2014, available at eis.bcaresearch.com.   Dhaval Joshi Chief European Investment Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see the European Investment Strategy Special Report ‘Mission Impossible: 2% Inflation’, dated August 20, 2015, available at eis.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see New Economic Challenges and the Fed's Monetary Policy Review, August 27, 2020 available at https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/powell20200827a.htm 3 Please see Households’ Inflation Perceptions and Expectations: Survey Evidence from New Zealand, IFO Working Paper, February 2018 available at https://www.ifo.de/DocDL/wp-2018-255-hayo-neumeier-inflation-perceptions-expectations.pdf 4 Please see Real-Feel Inflation: Quantitative Estimation of Inflation Perceptions by Michael Ashton, National Association for Business Economics available at https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1057/be.2011.35.pdf 5 Please see Inflation Expectations As A Policy Tool? NBER, May 28th, 2018 available at http://conference.nber.org/conf_papers/f117592.pdf 6 Please see https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2018-10-24/what-s-wrong-with-the-2-percent-inflation-target 7 Please see the European Investment Strategy Weekly Report ‘Risk: The Great Misunderstanding Of Finance’, dated October 25, 2018, available at eis.bcaresearch.com. Fractal Trading System   Cyclical Recommendations Structural Recommendations Closed Fractal Trades Trades Closed Trades Asset Performance Currency & Bond Equity Sector Country Equity Indicators Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields   Interest Rate Chart II-5Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations  

Highlights Fed Policy Changes: The official shift to an average inflation targeting regime represents a massive structural break relative to how the Fed conducted monetary policy in the past. The main takeaway for investors should be that inflation expectations will carry more weight than ever in the Fed’s thinking, with far less emphasis on estimated measures like the output gap. Investment Implications: The Fed’s new policy framework supports our current US fixed income recommendations: a neutral duration stance; overweighting TIPS versus nominal US Treasuries; positioning for real yield curve steepeners; and overweighting US spread product most directly supported by the Fed’s balance sheet (i.e. investment grade corporates and Ba-rated high-yield). Feature The pandemic forced the Federal Reserve to move its annual Jackson Hole Economic Policy Symposium online this year.  That change deprived policymakers of a late-August vacation in the mountains of Wyoming, but offered the public a rare glimpse at the full proceedings live on YouTube.1 Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell took advantage of that larger audience to announce significant changes to the Fed’s Statement on Longer-Run Goals and Monetary Policy Strategy. Though many of the basic elements of the new strategy were well telegraphed in advance, the adjustments are hugely significant and will shape the conduct of US – and, potentially, global - monetary policy for years to come. This Special Report presents the most important takeaways – and fixed income investment implications - from the Fed’s new approach to setting monetary policy. Say Hello To Average Inflation Targeting The most significant change has to do with how the Fed defines its price stability mandate. In its old Statement, the Fed defined its 2% inflation target as “symmetrical”, meaning that the Fed would be equally concerned if inflation were running persistently above or below the target. In the Fed’s words, communicating this symmetry was enough to “keep longer-term inflation expectations firmly anchored.” The Fed now believes that a more aggressive approach is required to keep inflation expectations anchored. The new Statement reads: In order to anchor longer-term inflation expectations at [2 percent], the Committee seeks to achieve inflation that averages 2 percent over time, and therefore judges that, following periods when inflation has been running persistently below 2 percent, appropriate monetary policy will likely aim to achieve inflation moderately above 2 percent for some time.2 In other words, the Fed’s 2% inflation target is no longer purely forward-looking. It is now dependent on the history of realized US inflation, and thus is now much more like a price level target than an inflation target. We will know that the Fed has seen enough inflation overshooting when long-term expectations are anchored at levels consistent with its 2% inflation target. For example, Chart 1 shows how the headline PCE price index would have evolved since the end of 2007 had it averaged 2% growth per year, exactly equal to the Fed’s target. Starting from today, PCE inflation would need to average 3% for the next seven years, or 2.5% for the next fourteen years, for the index to converge with this target. In other words, if the Fed seeks to achieve average 2% inflation since 2007, we are in for a prolonged period of overshooting the old 2% target. Chart 1An Illustration Of Average Inflation Targeting Notice that we had to make several assumptions in our above example. First, we had to assume that the Fed will seek to achieve average 2% inflation since the end of 2007. The Fed could just as easily choose a different start date for calculating the 2% average. We also assumed that the year-over-year PCE inflation rate never breaks above 3% during the overshooting phase. As of now, we have no sense of whether the Fed would act to make sure that inflation only overshoots 2% by a small amount (say, between 0.5 and 1 percentage point) or whether it would tolerate a larger overshoot. A larger overshoot would potentially be more de-stabilizing, but it would allow the Fed to catch up to its price level target more quickly. We will probably get some more information about these missing details when the Fed translates its new framework into more explicit forward rate guidance (see section titled "Are There Any Additional Changes Coming?" below), but the Fed will still want to retain some flexibility. That is, we shouldn’t expect the Fed to tie its hands with a strict policy rule. This means that the question of how much inflation would prompt any future Fed tightening could linger for some time. Faced with this ambiguity, investors are advised to focus more keenly than ever on inflation expectations (Chart 2). Note that in the above excerpt from the revised Statement on Longer-Run Goals and Monetary Policy Strategy, the explicit goal of average inflation targeting is to “anchor long-term inflation expectations at [2 percent]”. This means that we will know that the Fed has seen enough inflation overshooting when long-term expectations are anchored at levels consistent with its 2% inflation target. We view this “well anchored” level as a range between 2.3% and 2.5% for long-dated TIPS breakeven inflation rates (top two panels). When TIPS breakevens reach those levels, we should expect the Fed to shift toward a more restrictive policy stance. Chart 2The Fed Wants Higher Inflation Expectations How long will it take for TIPS breakevens to reach our target range? We expect it will take quite some time because Fed communications alone cannot drive long-term TIPS breakevens back to target. Rather, inflation expectations tend to follow trends in the actual inflation data, so expectations will only return to well-anchored levels once inflation has risen significantly. Further, long-dated inflation expectations tend to adapt slowly to changes in the actual inflation data. Notice in Chart 3 that the 5-year/5-year forward CPI swap rate correlates much more strongly with the 8-year rate of change in CPI inflation than it does with the 1-year rate of change. This suggests that, most likely, 12-month inflation will have to run above 2% for some time before long-term TIPS breakevens sustainably return to our target range. One way to understand the link between actual inflation and inflation expectations is to look at the distribution of individual inflation forecasts. Chart 4 shows the distribution of 10-year headline CPI inflation forecasts from the Survey of Professional Forecasters from 2004 – a year when inflation expectations were well anchored around 2% – and from August 2020. Notice that a similar proportion of respondents at both points in time expect inflation to be near the Fed’s target, in a range of 2% to 2.5%. The difference is that, in 2004, a large minority of respondents anticipated a significant overshoot of the inflation target. Today, hardly anyone anticipates a significant overshoot, and many expect a significant undershoot. Chart 3Inflation Expectations Adapt Slowly To The Actual Data Chart 4Distribution Of Inflation Forecasts ##br##(2004 & Today) Since market prices can be thought of as a weighted average of the entire distribution of inflation forecasts, it follows that to drive TIPS breakevens higher we need to see investors shift their forecasts from the left tail of the distribution to the right tail. This will only happen if actual inflation rises, and probably only if it stays durably above 2% for a prolonged period. Chart 5shows that the percentage of respondents that expect inflation to average above 3% for the next ten years tends to follow both the long-run inflation rate and the median inflation forecast. Chart 5Few Expect Inflation To Be Above 3% Bottom Line:  The official shift to an average inflation targeting regime represents a massive structural break relative to how the Fed conducted monetary policy in the past. The main takeaway for investors should be that inflation expectations carry more weight than ever in the Fed’s thinking. In particular, we should expect the Fed to move to a more restrictive policy stance only when long-maturity TIPS breakeven inflation rates return to a well-anchored range of 2.3% to 2.5%. Some Key Questions Following The Fed’s Big Shift Does The Phillips Curve Still Matter? The second big change that the Fed made to its official Statement on Longer-Run Goals and Monetary Policy Strategy is in how it views the unemployment rate relative to its “natural” level. Specifically, the change has to do with making estimates of the natural rate of unemployment (NAIRU) less important in the Fed’s reaction function. In its old Statement, the Fed talked about minimizing “deviations of employment from the Committee’s assessments of its maximum level”. The revised Statement talks about mitigating “shortfalls of employment from the Committee’s assessment of its maximum level.” This one word change says a lot about the Fed’s faith in the Phillips curve. In the past, the Fed viewed an unemployment rate below its estimate of NAIRU as a signal that inflation was poised to accelerate. This often led to premature tightening, and over time, a pattern of missing the inflation target to the downside. Now, the Fed is explicitly saying that it only cares about shortfalls of employment from its estimated maximum level. If the labor market appears overheated, the Fed will not take this as a sign that inflation is about to accelerate. Rather, it will wait for the evidence to show up in the actual inflation data. The percentage of respondents that expect inflation to average above 3% for the next ten years tends to follow both the long run inflation rate and the median inflation forecast. This change sends a very clear signal that the Fed will put much less emphasis on expected “Phillips curve effects” in the future than it has in the past. In addition to long-term implications, this change will likely also impact the type of forward rate guidance the Fed provides this year. What’s Missing? It is also interesting to touch on the things that Powell did not mention in his Jackson Hole speech. First, as noted above, Powell provided few details on the length of time over which the Fed will seek to hit average 2% inflation and did not specify any upper limit to the amount of inflation the Fed would tolerate during the overshooting phase. Perhaps more importantly, Powell also did not say much about how the Fed will seek to drive inflation higher, and whether there are additional tools at his disposal that have not yet been rolled out. We think there is good reason for this. In effect, we think the Fed is more or less tapped out in terms of the amount of additional monetary easing it can provide. Negative interest rates have already been ruled out. A Yield Curve Control policy of capping intermediate-maturity bond yields has been discussed, but this policy doesn’t accomplish much beyond what the Fed is already doing with its forward rate guidance. For example, a policy of capping the 2-year Treasury yield at the current level of 0.13% has essentially the same impact on bond prices as convincing the market that the fed funds rate will stay in a range between 0% and 0.25% for the next two years or more. The notion that the Fed is “out of bullets” was hammered home during the final Jackson Hole panel on Friday. The speakers for the panel titled “Post-Pandemic Monetary Policy and the Effective Lower Bound” shifted much of the onus for boosting growth, with policy interest rates at the effective lower bound, toward fiscal policymakers. Given the limitations on the amount of additional easing that the Fed can deliver, the potent impact of the changes announced last week will not really be felt until the economic recovery is further underway. Only once inflation starts to rise will we get a test of the Fed’s resolve to stay on the sidelines. Now that the changes have been enshrined in an official Fed document, we have no doubt that they will follow through. What About The Role Of QE? Chart 6The Future Of QE: Go Big & Go Fast Not every speaker at Jackson Hole, however, felt that central banks had run out of policy options.  Bank of England (BoE) Governor Andrew Bailey gave a speech on Day Two of the conference that focused on the use of central bank balance sheets as a more regular part of policymakers’ toolkits over the next decade with policy rates at the effective lower bound. Bailey noted that the use of quantitative easing (QE) in the future would be less about signaling future central bank intentions on interest rates, or forcing changes to the composition of assets held by the private sector, and would be more about “going big and going fast” to calm financial markets during periods of instability.3 Some past examples of such use of QE include the 2008 Global Financial Crisis, the 2011/12 European Debt Crisis and the 2016 UK Brexit shock (Chart 6). In Bailey’s view, QE will now have to be “state contingent”, based on the nature of the financial market shock and where liquidity (cash) needs are greatest at that time.  In 2008, it was the banking system that needed liquidity, so central banks expanded their balance sheets in ways that got cash directly to the banks – like repos and government bond purchases.  In 2020, the demand for liquidity from the COVID-19 shock came more from non-bank entities, like investment funds or the corporate sector itself.  Therefore, central bank balance sheets had to be used to support loans to the private sector or even buying private assets like corporate debt, on top of the usual QE buying of sovereign debt to help drive down risk-free bond yields. What does that mean for the new policy regime of the Fed?  It means that the type of market intervention we saw earlier this year – with the Fed announcing a variety of measures to support liquidity like corporate bond purchases when markets were not functioning – will become more commonplace during periods of severe market stress.  This is because there cannot be any “emergency” Fed rate cuts to calm markets if the Fed is keeping rates at very low levels to try and make up for past undershoots of its inflation target. Chart 7The Fed Has Room To Do More QE In The Future This also means that the balance sheets of the Fed, and other major global central banks, will likely continue to get larger over time.  Tapering of balance sheets, as the Fed engineered during 2014-19, will become very rare events before inflation expectations are stabilized at policymaker targets.  That does raise issues of capacity constraints for QE programs, as Bailey mentioned in his speech, where the central bank footprint in financial markets becomes so large as to impair market functionality.  That is the case today where the Bank of Japan now owns nearly 50% of all outstanding Japanese government bonds (JGB) and the day-to-day liquidity in the JGB market is extremely challenging for market participants that need to buy and trade JGBs, like Japanese banks and investment funds.  Bailey noted that there was still ample capacity for the BoE to ramp up its buying of UK Gilts (and even UK corporate debt) before the sheer size of its presence became a BoJ-like problem for the UK bond market (Chart 7). The same can be argued in the US, where the Fed only owns a little over 20% of outstanding US Treasuries – the supply of which is growing rapidly thanks to large US budget deficits. Are There Any Additional Changes Coming? As we outlined in a recent US Bond Strategy Webcast, after revising the Statement on Longer-Run Goals and Monetary Policy Strategy, the Fed’s next step will be to provide more explicit guidance about the economic conditions that will have to be in place before it considers lifting the fed funds rate.4 We speculate that this next announcement will occur before the end of the year, possibly at this month’s FOMC meeting, and that the guidance will be similar to the Evans Rule employed in 2012. The Evans Rule was a promise that the Fed would not lift rates at least until the unemployment rate was below 6.5% or inflation was above 2.5%. For the 2020 version of the Evans Rule, policymakers had been debating whether to specify both an unemployment target and an inflation target, as was done in 2012, or whether to specify only an inflation target. With the Fed’s new Statement putting much less emphasis on Phillips curve effects and estimates of NAIRU, it now appears much more likely that the 2020 version of the Evans Rule will have only an inflation trigger, or perhaps an inflation trigger and an inflation expectations trigger. Bottom Line: There are still many lingering unanswered questions about the new Fed strategy, but what we do know is that the Fed will focus more on inflation, rather than forecasts of inflation, when making future interest rate decisions.  The Fed will also likely use its balance sheet more as a market stability tool during times of crisis. Investment Implications Chart 8Financial Conditions The first implication of the Fed’s big shift has to do with the long-run outlook for risk asset prices (corporate bonds, equities and other fixed income spread product). With the Fed committing to give the economic recovery more runway before choking it off, risk asset valuations have been provided with a massive tailwind. In fact, the longer it takes for inflation to move up, the longer the Fed will stay on hold and the more expensive risk asset valuations will become. It is even possible that, if inflation remains subdued for a few more years, risk asset valuations will become so stretched that the Fed might have to exercise its financial stability “out clause”. That is, if the Fed viewed a growing asset bubble as a threat to the economic recovery and/or financial system, it could abandon its inflation target and lift interest rates to deflate that bubble. This out clause is specifically enshrined in the Fed’s Statement on Longer-Run Goals and Monetary Policy Strategy: Moreover, sustainably achieving maximum employment and price stability depends on a stable financial system. Therefore, the Committee’s policy decisions reflect its longer-run goals, its medium-term outlook, and its assessments of the balance of risks, including risks to the financial system that could impede the attainment of the Committee’s goals. We should stress that US financial asset valuations are currently nowhere near expensive enough to prompt this sort of move (Chart 8). However, that picture could change after a few more years of low inflation and zero interest rates. We have been saying since March 2019 that the two most important indicators to watch for gauging the eventual pace of Fed tightening are inflation expectations and financial conditions.5 Last week’s announcement serves to reinforce that view. The Fed could abandon its inflation target and lift interest rates to combat a growing asset bubble. A second investment implication of the Fed’s announcement is that TIPS will continue to outperform nominal US Treasuries until there is an eventual re-anchoring of long-run TIPS breakeven inflation rates in a range between 2.3% and 2.5%. As noted above, this structural investment position could take some time to pan out, and we may even get an opportunity to tactically position for periods of TIPS underperformance if breakevens start to look too high compared to the actual inflation data.6 For now, our models suggest that TIPS breakevens are fairly valued relative to the actual inflation data, and we recommend staying overweight TIPS versus nominal Treasuries as a core allocation in fixed income portfolios. We would also advise investors to enter flatteners along the inflation protection curve (TIPS breakevens or CPI swaps). This recommendation flows directly from the Fed’s announcement. If the Fed is eventually successful at achieving a temporary overshoot of its 2% inflation target, then the cost of short-maturity inflation protection should rise above the cost of long-maturity inflation protection. That is, the inflation protection curve should invert (Chart 9). This would be a stark dislocation compared to the past, but it is a logical one if the Fed is to be attacking its inflation target from above instead of from below. As for nominal Treasury yields, our baseline view is that yields will be flat-to-higher over the next 12 months, with the amount of upside dictated by the pace of economic recovery. The Fed’s extraordinarily dovish monetary policy will keep some downward pressure on nominal yields, but expectations of Fed tightening will eventually infiltrate the long end of the curve. Given that the Fed’s grip is much firmer at the short end of the curve than at the long end, we prefer to play the nominal Treasury curve through yield curve steepeners rather than through outright duration bets (Chart 10). Chart 9Position For Inflation Curve Inversion Chart 10Enter Nominal Curve Steepeners Finally, the level of real yields is perhaps the trickiest to get right in the current environment. The Fed’s dovish policies are clearly meant to push real yields down, but now that those policies have been announced, it may signal that we are near the trough. In fact, real yields actually rose somewhat on Thursday after the Fed’s announcement. As with nominal yields, we prefer to play the real Treasury (TIPS) curve via steepeners (Chart 11). Whether or not the Fed is able to apply further downward pressure on real yields, as long as its policies are viewed as reflationary and the economic recovery is maintained, then the real yield curve has ample room to steepen. Chart 11Enter Real Curve Steepeners Bottom Line: The Fed’s new policy framework supports our current US fixed income recommendations: a neutral duration stance; overweighting TIPS versus nominal US Treasuries; positioning for real yield curve (TIPS) steepeners; and overweighting US spread product most directly supported by the Fed’s balance sheet (i.e. investment grade corporates and Ba-rated high-yield).   Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com   Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 https://www.youtube.com/user/KansasCityFed 2 https://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/guide-to-changes-in-statement-on-longer-run-goals-monetary-policy-strategy.htm 3 The full text of BoE Governor Bailey’s speech can be found here: https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/speech/2020/andrew-bailey-federal-reserve-bank-of-kansas-citys-economic-policy-symposium-2020 4 https://www.bcaresearch.com/webcasts/detail/338 5 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The New Battleground For Monetary Policy”, dated March 26, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 6 This possibility is discussed in US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Positioning For Reflation And Avoiding Deflation”, dated August 11, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com

Highlights Historically, soft-budget constraints have typically been followed by periods of poor equity market performance. Soft-budget constraints could produce two distinct economic scenarios: malinvestment or inflation. Both are negative for equity investors. Odds are that the US will continue to pursue easy money policies, sowing the seeds of US equity underperformance in the years ahead. In contrast to the US, EM (ex-China, Korea and Taiwan) are presently facing hard-budget constraints, which will weigh on their growth in the near term. However, forced restructuring could boost efficiency and productivity leading to their equity and currency outperformance in the coming years. Unlike other developing economies, China is not currently facing hard-budget constraints. However, the structural overhang from the past 10 years of soft-budget constraints is lingering on and in some cases is increasing. The Thesis The consensus in the investment industry is that cheap money and ample stimulus are good for share prices. We do not disagree with this thesis when it is applied to the near and medium-term equity strategy. However, excessive stimulus and easy money policies — we refer to these as soft-budget constraints — bode ill for share prices in the long run. The investment relevance of this thesis is as follows. Since March, the US has implemented the largest fiscal and central bank stimulus in the world and will likely continue doing so in the coming years (Chart I-1). Such soft-budget constraints will likely support the US economy for now. Nevertheless, they will also sow seeds of future US equity underperformance and currency depreciation. Conversely, many emerging economies (excluding China) have failed to provide sufficient fiscal and credit support to their economies (Chart I-2). The resulting hard-budget constraints will foreshadow their economic underperformance vis-à-vis the US in the coming months. Chart I-1Soft-Budget Policies Will Likely Become Structural In The US Chart I-2EM Ex-China, Korea And Taiwan Are Facing Hard-Budget Constraints   That said, hard-budget constraints will force companies in these EM economies into deleveraging, restructuring and improving efficiency. Ultimately, such hard-budget constraints will benefit EM shareholders in the long run. This thesis has been a key rationale behind our decision to close the short EM / long S&P 500 strategy on July 30, and to turn negative on the US dollar on July 9. In the months ahead, we will be looking for an opportunity to upgrade EM equities to overweight versus the S&P500. BOX 1 Gauging Budget Constraints In our opinion, the best way to gauge budget constraints for the real economy is by monitoring changes in the money supply. This is due to the following reasons: First, net changes in the money supply account for all net loan origination. Second, the money supply also reflects the monetization of public and private debt by the central bank and commercial banks. When a central bank and commercial banks acquire a security from or lend to a non-bank entity, they create new money “out of thin air”. No one needs to save for the central bank and commercial banks to lend to or purchase a security from a non-bank. In short, savings versus spending decisions by economic agents (non-banks) do not change the stock of money supply. We have deliberated on these topics at length in past reports. Securities transactions among non-banks do not create new or destroy existing deposits, i.e., they have no impact on the money supply. Rather, these constitute an exchange of securities and existing deposits between sellers and buyers. Provided these types of transactions do not expand the money supply, they do not, according to our framework, alter budget constraints. Finally, the broad money supply, not central bank assets, is the ultimate liquidity available to economic agents to purchase goods and services as well as invest in both real and financial assets. Commercial banks’ excess reserves at the central bank – a large item on the central bank balance sheet - do not constitute a part of the broad money supply. Empirical Evidence The following are examples of soft-budget constraints that were followed by periods of weakening productivity growth, diminishing return on capital and poor equity market performance: 1. China’s soft budget constraints in 2009-10 Due to the post-Lehman crisis stimulus, the change in broad money exploded above 40% of GDP (Chart I-3, top panel). The economy boomed from early 2009 until early 2011 as cheap and abundant money super-charged investment and consumption. Chart I-3China: Easy Money Presaged Falling Return On Assets And Equity Underperformance However, Chinese share prices — the MSCI China Investable equity index excluding technology, media and telecom (TMT)  — peaked in H1 2011 in absolute terms (Chart I-3, second panel). Relative to the global equity index excluding TMT, the Chinese investable stocks index began underperforming in late 2010 (Chart I-3, third panel). The basis for this equity underperformance was falling return on assets for non-financial companies due to capital misallocation, breeding inefficiencies and diminishing productivity gains (Chart I-3, bottom two panels). In China, the excessive stimulus of 2009 and 2010 and ensuing recurring rounds of soft-budget constraints put a floor under the economy but have destroyed shareholder value. 2. Money overflow in EM ex-China in 2009-10. China’s boom in 2009-10 produced a bonanza for other emerging economies. Not only Chinese imports from developing economies boosted the latter’s balance of payments and income but also international investors rushed into EM equity and fixed income. EM companies and banks took advantage of easy financing and their international borrowing skyrocketed. Finally, EM policy makers stimulated and domestic bank credit boomed. This period of soft-budget constraints led to complacency, lower productivity, falling return on capital and/or inflation in the following years (Chart I-4). Their financial markets performance in the 10 years that followed the soft-budget constraints in 2009-10 has been dismal. The share price index of EM ex-China, Korea and Taiwan as well as the total return on their currencies (including the carry) versus the US dollar have been in a bear market (Chart I-4, bottom two panels). 3. The credit and equity bubbles in Japan, Korea and Taiwan of the late 1980s Money and credit bubbles proliferated in Japan, Korea and Taiwan in the late 1980s (Chart I-5, Chart I-6 and Chart I-7).  Chart I-4EM Ex-China, Korea And Taiwan: Easy Money In 2009-10 Sowed Seeds Of Bear Market Chart I-5Japan: Easy Money Produced Equity Bubble And Lower Productivity Growth Chart I-6Korea: Easy Money Produced Equity Bubble And Lower Productivity Growth Chart I-7Taiwan: Easy Money Produced Equity Bubble And Lower Productivity Growth   Their productivity growth rolled over in the late 1980s amid easy money policies. Share prices deflated in Japan, Korea and Taiwan in the 1990s (please refer to the middle and bottom panels of Charts I-5, I-6 and I-7). Chart I-8ASEAN In 1990s: Soft-Budget Constraints Heralded Productivity Demise 4. The boom-bust cycle in emerging Asia ex-China in the 1990s Soft-budget constraints prevailed in many emerging Asian economies in the first half of the 1990s. Foreign money inflows and domestic bank credit produced an economic boom. The consequences of such soft-budget constraints were debt-financed malinvestment, falling return on assets and massive current account deficits (Chart I-8). All of these culminated in epic currency and banking crises. 5. The credit bubbles in the US and Europe leading to the 2008 crash Lax credit standards propelled credit and property booms in the US and Southern Europe in the period of 2002-2007. Broad money ballooned in the euro area and swelled in the US (please refer to Chart I-1 on page 2). These property bubbles unraveled in 2007-08. These are well known, and we will not delve into the details. Soft-Budget Constraints Lead To Malinvestment Or Inflation Soft-budget constraints could produce two distinctive economic scenarios – malinvestment or inflation. Both are negative for equity investors. The malinvestment scenario occurs when easy money propels undisciplined capital spending. Easy and abundant money boosts medium-term growth and, thereby, creates the illusion of an economic miracle. The latter renders companies, creditors, investors and government officials complacent. Creditors lend a lot and do so based on optimistic assumptions while companies expand hastily and invest carelessly. The result is capital misallocation, i.e., companies pour money into projects that do not ultimately produce sufficient cash flow. Equity investors project high growth expectations into the future and bid up share prices. Government officials preside over an unsustainable growth trajectory overlooking lurking systemic risks and deteriorating economic fundamentals. Easy money and unlimited financing typically bode ill for efficiency and productivity— this is simply due to human nature. Companies neglect efficiency considerations and, as a result, productivity stagnates. Consequently, cost overruns and unprofitable investments suffocate corporate profits. Declining corporate earnings at a time of expanded capital base culminate in a collapse of return on capital. This is the crucial reason why share prices drop. As profits and return on capital decline, companies retrench by cutting costs and halting investment spending. Defaults mushroom, leading creditors to cut new financing. The inflation scenario transpires when easy money boosts consumption more than investment. Easy money and unlimited financing lift household income and consumption. This can arise from a large fiscal stimulus or private sector's borrowing and spending. On the one hand, robust household income growth inevitably leads to higher wage growth expectations. On the other hand, limited investment brings about productivity stagnation. Mounting wages and languishing productivity growth lead to rising unit labor costs and, ultimately, result in a corporate profit margin squeeze. Faced with corporate profit margin shrinkage, companies either raise prices, i.e., pass through higher costs, or retrench by shedding labor and shrinking capital spending even further. The latter produces a widespread economic downturn, and stifles business profits and share prices. A symptom of higher inflation is a wider current account deficit. With an economy’s productive capacity lagging behind demand, the gap between the two can be filled in by imports. In addition, escalating domestic costs make a country less competitive, which inhibits exports and bloats imports. When a central bank is unwilling to tighten monetary policy meaningfully amid high and rising inflation and/or a widening current account deficit, it falls behind the inflation curve. This constitutes a very bearish backdrop for the exchange rate. Currency depreciation erodes the country’s equity returns in common currency terms versus other bourses. Can an economy with soft-budget constraints, i.e., booming money growth, avoid both malinvestment and inflation? Yes, it can if it is able to boost productivity growth so that it avoids systemic capital misallocation (i.e., investments produce reasonable returns to pay off to creditors and shareholders) and escapes higher inflation by expanding output faster to meet growing demand. However, achieving higher productivity growth amid soft-budget constraints is easier said than done. Bottom Line: The scenario of malinvestment has been playing out in China since 2009. Capital misallocation also occurred in the US and parts of Europe during the 2002-2007 credit boom, and took place in Japan, Korea and Taiwan in the late 1980s. Malinvestment, with some elements of inflation, occurred in emerging Asian countries prior the 1997-98 crises as well as in many EM economies like India, Indonesia and Brazil in 2009-2012. Investment Implications It is fair to say that the unprecedented economic downturn in the US warranted an exceptionally large stimulus. The question for the next several months and years is whether US authorities will: overstay easy policies and make soft-budget constraints a permanent feature of the US economy, or tighten policy earlier than warranted, or navigate policy perfectly so that the economy is neither too hot nor too cold. Our sense is that US authorities will overstay their easy money policies. If the US continues to pursue macro policies in the form of soft-budget constraints, will the nation experience malinvestment or inflation? Our sense is that the US will likely experience asset bubbles and inflation. As the Federal Reserve stays behind the inflation curve in the coming years, the US dollar will be in a multi-year downtrend. Hence, the strategy should be selling the greenback into rebounds. We switched our short positions in select EM currencies— such as BRL, CLP, ZAR, TRY, KRW, IDR and PHP —away from the US dollar to an equal-weighted basket of the euro, CHF and JPY on July 9. For now, EM currencies will lag DM currencies. US equity outperformance versus the rest of the world is in the late innings (Chart I-9). The pillars of US equity underperformance in common currency terms will be excessive US equity valuations, a potential new era of US return on capital underperforming the rest of the world and greenback depreciation. Chart I-9US Equity Outperformance Is In Very Late Stages The top panel of Chart I-10 illustrates that the difference between US investors owning international stocks and non-US investors holdings of US equities is at a record low. This reveals that both US and foreign investors currently "over-own" US stocks versus non-US equities. Perfect timing of a structural trend reversal is impossible, but we believe US equity outperformance will discontinue before year-end. That was the rationale behind terminating our short EM / long S&P 500 strategy and upgrading EM equity allocation from underweight to neutral. In contrast to the US, EM (ex-China, Korea and Taiwan) are presently facing hard-budget constraints which will weigh on their economic performance in the near term. This is why we are not rushing to upgrade EM stocks and currencies to overweight. However, the lack of cheap money will force these EM countries and their companies to do the right things: deleverage households and companies, clean up and recapitalize their banking systems and undertake corporate restructuring. Ultimately, hard-budget constraints will likely sow the seeds of high productivity and, with it, equity and currency outperformance in the years to come. China is a tricky case. On a positive note, it has not stimulated as much during the pandemic as it did in 2009. Besides, policymakers are now aware of the ills that come with soft-budget constraints and have been working hard to address these. Critically, the Chinese population, businesses and the authorities are all united in the nation’s confrontation with the US. Complacency in this context is not a major risk and the focus on efficiency and productivity will be razor sharp. On the negative side, the credit, money and property bubbles that had not been dealt with before the pandemic are now increasing with the stimulus. Continued malinvestment and falling return on capital in China’s old economy sectors is signified by the very poor performance of China’s cyclical “old economy” stocks (Chart I-11, top panel). In turn, bank share prices are making new cyclical lows underscoring their worsening structural outlook (Chart I-11, bottom panel). Chart I-10Global Equity Investors Over-Own US Stocks Versus International Ones Chart I-11Chinese Equities: "Old Economy" Cyclicals And Banks Are Dismayed By Structural Malaises   Weighing the pros and cons, we infer that the cyclical recovery in China has further to run. This will support China’s growth and equity outperformance for now. That is why we continue to recommend overweighting China within an EM equity portfolio. However, as the credit and fiscal impulses fade starting in H1 next year, structural malaises will resurface posing risks to China’s equity outperformance.  Arthur Budaghyan Chief Emerging Markets Strategist arthurb@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes Equities Recommendations Currencies, Credit And Fixed-Income Recommendations

Highlights Portfolio Strategy Softening operating metrics, the falling US dollar, the reopening of the economy, all suggest that investors should avoid hypermarket stocks. A firming macro backdrop, the USD’s recent drop, along with the bearish signals from financial variables, all concur that investors should start a program of modestly shedding consumer staples exposure. Recent Changes Downgrade the S&P hypermarkets index to underweight, today. This move also pushes our S&P consumer staples sector to a modest below benchmark allocation. Table 1 Feature In our March 23 Weekly Report, when we identified 20 reasons to start buying equities, we published a cycle-on-cycle profile (Chart 1, top panel) of how the SPX performs following a greater than 20% drawdown. History suggested that, on average, new all-time highs would emerge sometime in early 2022! Unfortunately, this assessment proved offside as the S&P 500 made fresh all-time closing highs last week, less than five months from the March 23 trough. Chart 1Overstretched Nevertheless, comparing the current unprecedented SPX rebound with the historical recessionary profile remains instructive as it highlights how excessively stretched equities currently appear. The bottom panel of Chart 1 warns that the SPX is vulnerable to a snapback, were the SPX to return to the historical mean or median recovery profile. Likely rising (geo)political risks could serve as a near-term catalyst for a healthy pullback. Importantly, all of the SPX’s return since the March lows is due to the multiple expansion and then some, as forward EPS have taken a beating (not shown). Equities are long duration assets and given the drubbing in the discount rate, the forward P/E multiple has done all the heavy lifting. Chart 2 puts some historical context to the S&P 500 forward P/E going back to 1979 using I/B/E/S data. Empirical data supports finance theory and shows that the 40-year bull market in bond prices has caused a structural upshift to the SPX forward P/E. Chart 2Moving In Opposite Directions While low rates explain the near all-time highs in the SPX forward P/E, looking ahead we doubt that the SPX multiple can expand much further if we assume that the easy assist from ZIRP is behind us and will not repeat; i.e. the Fed will refrain from wrecking the US banking system by exploring NIRP. In contrast, our analysis suggests that a selloff in the bond market is the missing ingredient that will ignite a massive rotation out of growth stocks and into value and propel deep cyclicals versus defensives to uncharted territory. More specifically, the rallies in copper prices, crude oil and the CRB Raw Industrials index need confirmation from the bond market that they are demand, rather than supply driven. This backdrop will also shift equity returns within deep cyclicals away from a handful of tech stocks and toward other beaten down high operating leverage sectors (i.e. energy, industrials and materials) as we posited in our recent August 3 Special Report “Top 10 Reasons To Start Nibbling On Cyclicals At The Expense Of Defensives”. Zooming out and observing how investors have moved capital from one asset class to the next in the aftermath of QE5 is in order (Chart 3). First, the SPX enjoyed a V-shaped recovery from the March 23 lows. Then in early-May, as we first posited in our May 11 Weekly Report, the big EURUSD up-move was set in motion and investors started piling into short USD positions taking cue from the Fed’s QE5 that was directly targeting the US dollar with liquidity swaps. The debasing of the dollar served as a global reflator. Now the final piece of the QE5 puzzle is the bond market. Chart 3 highlights that in order for QE to work, counterintuitively a selloff in the bond market would confirm that the economy is healing and is ready to start standing on its own two feet. The jury is still out. With regard to the Fed’s remaining bullets, yield curve control (YCC) is one unorthodox tool that the FOMC could choose to deploy in the coming years. On that front, turning back in time and drawing parallels with the 1940s is instructive. In 1942 the Fed, at the behest of the Treasury, pegged long-term interest rates at 2.5% and ballooned its balance sheet in order to finance the government’s expenditures during WWII. The Fed surrendered its independence, and this YCC unwarrantedly stayed in place until 1951 when in the midst of the Korean War, the Treasury-Federal Reserve Accord finally ended the peg of government long-dated bond interest rates.1 Chart 3Bonds Yields Are Left To Rally Chart 4WWII-Like Starting Point Chart 4 shows the ebbs and flows of the US government’s total debt-to-GDP ratio and fiscal deficit as a percentage of output since 1940. While the debt-to-GDP profile fell from 1945 onward owing partially to a tight fiscal ship that the US subsequently ran, it troughed when the US floated the greenback. Since then, the US has been fiscally irresponsible running large budget deficits and the debt-to-GDP ratio has never looked back and very recently went parabolic (top panel, Chart 4). Charts 5 & 6 take a closer look at some macro variables in the 1940s and Charts 7 &  8 compare them to today. Chart 5The… Chart 6…1940s… First, YCC did not prevent the late-1948 recession (Chart 5, shaded areas). Crudely put, monetary stimulus is not a panacea for boom/bust cycles. Second, M2 growth was climbing at a 30%/annum rate, the money multiplier was on a secular advance and money velocity was surging especially in the first half of the 1940s (Chart 6). As a result and as expected, YCC caused three significant inflationary jumps (bottom panel, Chart 6) that aided the US government in bringing down the massive debt-to-GDP ratio (i.e. inflating its way out of a debt trap) that it had accumulated via large deficits in the front half of the 1940s (top panel, Chart 5). Third, interest rates were a coiled spring and once the Treasury-Fed Accord was signed, they exploded higher (fourth panel, Chart 5). Finally, equities fared well during the first three years of YCC until the end of WWII, but then suffered an outsized setback until mid-1949, before recovering and taking out the 1945 highs in 1951 (bottom panel, Chart 5). Chart 7...Compared With… Chart 8…Today Were the Fed to embark on YCC in the near-future in order to monetize the US government’s deficits, there are a few parallels to draw with the 1940s especially given that the starting point of debt-to-GDP is similar to the WWII figure (top panel, Chart 4). The Fed would likely lose its independence. This would be a paradigm shift. The Fed would crowd out fixed income investors, and flood the market with US dollars. M2 money stock would continue to surge. Few investors will be chasing US dollar assets including equities. The path of least resistance would be significantly lower for the US dollar as foreign investors would flee. This debt monetization along with a depreciating currency and swelling money supply would result in inflation rearing its ugly head, especially given that import prices would soar. What is difficult to envision is how the economy would perform during an inflationary impulse. Our sense is that the risk of stagflation would rise significantly, especially given the current inverse correlation between M2 growth and the velocity of money.2 In the stagflationary 1970s, any liquidity injections via higher M2 growth failed to translate into rising money velocity. Importantly, the “Nixon shock” effectively ended the Bretton Woods system and floated the US dollar causing a 40% devaluation from peak-to-trough (Chart 9). Tack on the oil related supply shock and stagflation reigned supreme in the 1970s, owing to cost-push inflation. Chart 9Dollar The Reflator In contrast during the 1940s, demand-pull inflation hit the economy rather hard, as the US was retooling its industrial base to win WWII alongside its allies. Also the US dollar was linked to gold since the Gold Reserve Act of 1934 and ten years later the Bretton Woods international monetary agreement ushered in the era of fixed exchange rates, which is a big difference from the 1970s.3 As a reminder, from a political perspective venturing down the inflation avenue is the least painful way of dealing with a debt burden, rather than pursuing tight fiscal policy which is synonymous with political suicide. From an equity perspective, owning commodity-levered sectors and other hard asset-linked equities including REITs would make sense as we highlighted in our recent inflation Special Report. Health care stocks would also shine in case of an inflationary spurt according to empirical evidence that we highlighted in the same Special Report. On the flip side, our inflation Special Report also revealed that shedding telecom services and utilities would be wise and most importantly avoiding technology stocks. Tech stocks are disinflationary beneficiaries as they are mired in constant deflation and have built business models not only to withstand, but also to thrive in deflation. Inflation is a tech killer as these growth stocks suffer when the discount rate spikes and causes valuations to move from a premium to a discount. Nevertheless, deflation/disinflation is more likely in the coming 12-to-18 months, whereas inflation is at least two-to-three years away as we mentioned in our recent inflation Special Report. This week we continue to augment our cyclicals versus defensives portfolio bent and take our defensive exposure down a notch by downgrading consumer staples to a modest below benchmark allocation via a downgrade in the S&P hypermarkets index. Downgrade Hypermarkets To Underweight… Last summer we upgraded the S&P hypermarkets index to overweight as we were preparing the portfolio to withstand a recessionary shock given that the yield curve had inverted. Fast forward to the March carnage in the equity markets and this defensive move served our portfolio well. However, we did not want to overstay our welcome and set a stop in order to exit this position that was triggered in late-March netting our portfolio 26% in relative gains. More recently, we have been adding cyclical exposure to the portfolio and lightening up on defensives and as a continuation of this shift we are now compelled to downgrade the S&P hypermarkets to underweight. The economy is reopening and thus it no longer pays to seek refuge in safe haven hypermarket equities. In fact most of the macro indicators we track suggest the recession is over that will sustain severe downward pressure on relative share prices. Chart 10 shows that the ISM manufacturing new orders subcomponent has slingshot from below 30 to north of 60, junk spreads are probing all-time lows, consumer confidence has troughed and small and medium enterprises hiring intentions are on the mend. Moreover, the extraordinary fiscal expansion has brought spending forward and PCE is all but certain to skyrocket when the Q3 GDP figures get released in late-October, signaling that the easy money has been made in Big Box retailers (top panel, Chart 11). Similarly, discretionary spending should pick up the slack from staple-related purchases, further dampening the need to own hypermarket shares (middle & bottom panels, Chart 11). Chart 10Rebounding Macro Chart 11Returning to Normality On the operating front, while WMT is making strides in its online presence and offering mix, non-store retail sales are on a tear dominated by King AMZN (as a reminder we are overweight the S&P internet retail index). This is a secular trend and should continue unabated and in a relative sense continue to weigh on hypermarket profitability (bottom panel, Chart 12). Finally, a significant tailwind is turning into a severe headwind for this industry: import price inflation. The US dollar has reversed course and it is in a freefall. Historically, the greenback has been an excellent leading indicator of import price inflation and the current message is grim for hypermarket razor thin profit margins (import prices shown inverted, Chart 13). Chart 12Amazonification Is On Track Chart 13Currency Headwinds Adding it all up, softening operating metrics, the falling US dollar, the reopening of the economy, all suggest that investors should avoid hypermarket stocks. Bottom Line: Trim the S&P hypermarkets index to underweight. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG S5HYPC – WMT, COST. …Which Pushes Consumer Staples To A Below Benchmark Allocation The downgrade in the S&P hypermarkets index tilts our S&P consumer staples sector to a modest below benchmark allocation. Countercyclical consumer staples stocks served their purpose and provided the support to our portfolio in the front half of the year when we needed them most. Now that the economic reopening is gaining steam and the government, the health care system and society are all ready to effectively deal with a flare up in the pandemic, the allure of defensive positioning has diminished. In other words, COVID-19 is currently a known known risk versus an unknown unknown risk early in the year, and defending against it now is more successful. Moreover, according to our mid-April research on what sectors investors should avoid during recessionary recoveries, consumer staples stocks trail the SPX on average by 660bps one year following the SPX trough. The current macro backdrop corroborates this analysis and underscores that the path of least resistance is lower for relative share prices. Not only is the ISM manufacturing survey on fire, but also consumer confidence is making an effort to trough (ISM manufacturing and consumer confidence shown inverted, Chart 14). Meanwhile, financial market variables emit a similarly bearish signal for safe haven staples stocks. Following a brief spike in the bond-to-stock ratio (BSR), the BSR has recently resumed its downdraft (top panel, Chart 15). Volatility has all but collapsed since soaring to over 80 in March, as the Fed has orchestrated a quashing of all asset class volatilities (middle panel, Chart 15). Lastly, the pairwise correlation between stocks in the S&P 500 has also nosedived bringing some semblance of normality back into equity markets (bottom panel, Chart 15). All three of these financial market variables will continue to exert downward pressure on relative share prices. Chart 14V-shaped Recovery… Chart 15...Across The Board On the US dollar front, while consumer goods manufacturers get a P&L translation gain from a depreciating currency, their export exposure is on par with the SPX and does not provide a relative advantage. In marked contrast, empirical evidence shows that relative profitability moves in tandem with the greenback and the USD recent weakness will undercut consumer staples profitability (bottom panel, Chart 16), especially via climbing input cost inflation. In sum, a firming macro backdrop, the US dollar’s recent drop, along with the bearish signals from financial variables, all concur that investors should start a program of modestly shedding consumer staples exposure. Bottom Line: Downgrade the S&P consumer staples index to underweight. Chart 16Mind the Gap Anastasios Avgeriou US Equity Strategist anastasios@bcaresearch.com       Footnotes 1     https://www.richmondfed.org/publications/research/special_reports/treasury_fed_accord/background 2     The velocity of money “is the number of times one dollar is spent to buy goods and services per unit of time. If the velocity of money is increasing, then more transactions are occurring between individuals in an economy.” Source: Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis. 3    Our colleagues from The Bank Credit Analyst recently illustrated how a strong dollar is good for the US economy on a medium term basis. Current Recommendations Current Trades Strategic (10-Year) Trade Recommendations ​​​​​​​ Size And Style Views July 27, 2020 Overweight cyclicals over defensives April 28, 2020  Stay neutral large over small caps June 11, 2018 Long the BCA Millennial basket  The ticker symbols are: (AAPL, AMZN, UBER, HD, LEN, MSFT, NFLX, SPOT, TSLA, V). January 22, 2018 ​​​​​​​Favor value over growth