Monetary

Special Report

Executive Summary Central banks are aggressively tightening policy around the world. Their ability to rein in inflation without causing a recession depends upon the level of the real neutral rates. Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and Sweden have elevated r-stars, but the picture changes drastically when their large debt loads are factored in. While real policy rates remain below r-star across DM economies for now, a more rapid decline in supply-driven inflation would correct this situation. Consequently, a global recession does not constitute our base case for the next six months, although it is a growing threat. The ECB is front-loading interest rate increases while it can, but the destination of travel is not changing significantly. Global R-Star Bottom Line: The global r-star varies greatly around the world and debt sustainability concerns weigh on the real neutral rates of Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and Sweden. The US economy remains best capable of handling higher interest rates.   Chart 1Rising Global Inflation Inflation around G10 economies has been very strong and much more durable than originally hoped. As a result, inflation now averages 7.1% on a headline CPI basis and 4.6% based on core CPI across among G10 economies (Chart 1). Central banks are tightening policy aggressively to prevent this elevated inflation from becoming entrenched. Essentially, they are aiming to avert the emergence of the kind of inflationary mentality that prevailed in the 1970s, which caused stubborn inflation during that decade. This exercise is fraught with difficulty. The objective is to achieve a policy setting that is slightly above the neutral rate of interest, but not too much so. On the one hand, keeping policy too accommodative will increase the chances that an inflationary mentality will emerge; on the other hand, if policy is tightened too much, a recession will become unavoidable and deflationary risks will escalate. A sense of where the neutral rate for major economies lies is therefore necessary to draw that line in the sand. To do so, we estimate the real neutral rate of interest for major DM economies using the methodology we introduced seven weeks ago, when we evaluated the neutral rates for the major Eurozone economies. This exercise shows that, at the current level of interest rates and inflation, policy among major economies remains accommodative. However, if inflation decelerates sharply in the coming months in response to declining global supply constraints and lower commodity prices, the recent increase in policy rates will have already gone a long way to normalizing monetary policy around the world. A Simple Approach The methodology we use is based on the approach developed by Holston, Laubach, and Williams (HLW)  to estimate the neutral real interest rate – or “r-star.” Specifically, we run regressions between the real interest rates in the US, Japan, the UK, New Zealand, Canada, Australia, Sweden, and Switzerland versus trend GDP growth and current account balances, which approximate the savings-investment balance. Mimicking the HLW methodology, the inflation expectations used to extract real interest rates from nominal short rates reflect an adaptative framework whereby inflation expectations are a function of the ten-year moving average of core CPI.1  Table 1Unadjusted R-Stars The results are shown in Table 1. New Zealand, Australia, and Canada have the highest real-neutral rate of the major economies. They have had stronger growth over the past 20 years because of their rapid population growth caused by high immigration rates. Moreover, their commodity-based economies and their booming construction sectors pushed up investment rates, which requires high interest rates to attract sufficient savings to finance. Sweden and the US follow. These two economies have lower population growth rates than the commodity producers; nonetheless, they outperform Japan and the other European nations in the survey on that dimension. Moreover, they fare comparatively well in terms of productivity growth, which implies that their trend growth – a key driver of the neutral rate – is also higher than that of the UK, Japan, Switzerland, or the Euro Area. The US’s r-star shows up as being slightly below what would be expected based on its potential GDP growth. This surprising outcome most likely reflects the role of the dollar in global FX reserves and its standing at the core of the global financial system. These two characteristics of the greenback create an important demand for dollar-denominated assets that is dissociated from US domestic economic fundamentals. This additional demand biases downward the US real neutral rate and suggests that weak trend growth abroad and global excess savings remain important forces for US financial markets. Chart 2Japan's Dissociated Real Rates Japan displays a surprisingly elevated real neutral rate of 0.1%. This result reflects the limitation of the approach. Japanese interest rates have been at zero since the late 1990s and real rates have been negatively correlated with inflation because of this nominal rigidity (Chart 2). However, while Japanese inflation has averaged a paltry 0.2% since 1997, it has nonetheless fluctuated with commodity prices and global economic activity. As a result, real rates have been essentially dissociated from Japanese domestic drivers. Hence, an empirical approach based on the evolution of domestic economic variables yields poor results for Japan. Instead, the lack of inflation when public debt has increased by 200% of GDP over the past 32 years and Japan’s large net international investment position imply that its r-star is inferior to that of the other countries in the sample, and thus should lie below -1%. For the Eurozone, we use the average result of our July study, which estimated the neutral rates of Germany, France, Italy, and Spain independently. Germany flatters this estimate since its real neutral rate stands near 0%. An average, excluding Germany, would be closer to -0.5%, or well below the US r-star. Meanwhile, the Swiss r-star is depressed by both a low population growth and the Swiss exceptional savings generation, as highlighted by its current account surplus that has averaged 8% of GDP over the past 20 years. Finally, the UK’s r-star stands at the bottom of the pack. The UK’s productivity growth has been very poor over the past ten years, averaging 0.7% per annum. This points to a weak potential GDP for that economy. Moreover, the hurdles to UK growth have only increased in recent years with the implementation of Brexit, which is hurting the availability of labor in the country, while putting the UK at an even greater disadvantage in European markets, its largest export destination. What About Debt? This approach to estimating r-star ignores a key dimension: debt sustainability. If we factor in this crucial variable, the level of interest rates causing economic activity to decelerate changes drastically for many countries. Chart 3Massive Real Estates Bubbles Since 2000, real estate prices have surged by 280%, 220%, 170%, and 200% in New Zealand, Canada, Australia, and Sweden, respectively. These gains dwarf the house price appreciation observed in the US, the UK, Japan, or Germany (Chart 3, top panel). This outperformance of house prices is particularly problematic because it does not reflect more rapid underlying cash-flow growth from the assets. Instead, the main driver of the stronger house prices in New Zealand, Canada, Australia, and Sweden has been the explosion of their price-to-rent and price-to-income ratios (Chart 3, bottom two panels). Rising real estate prices boosted economic activity relative to the underlying trend GDP of these countries. As a result, the long-term growth numbers of these four nations potentially overstate their underlying rate of growth. Even more importantly, real estate prices and activity are extremely sensitive to interest rates. Therefore, the risk of bursting bubbles in New Zealand, Canada, Australia, and Sweden limits how high interest rates may rise there without causing growth to plunge and deflationary spirals to emerge. Chart 4Rapidly Rising Debt Loads The accumulation of debt in these four countries accentuates the threats to growth created by real estate activity. The private-sector debt of New Zealand, Canada, Australia, and Sweden has risen much more quickly than has been the case in Germany and the US (Chart 4). Ultimately, these debt burdens create major headwinds against higher interest rates and suggest that the effective r-star of these nations lies well below the estimates constructed using only trend growth and the savings/investment balance. Table 2Drastic Changes Once Debt Is Accounted For To account for the private-sector leverage, we estimated new debt-adjusted r-stars. The impact of high debt loads on r-star estimates is evident in Table 2. The average real neutral rate of New Zealand, Australia, and Canada drops from 1.9% to -1.9%. In fact, Australia and Canada would sport the lowest r-star estimates of the nations under study. Sweden’s neutral rate also experienced a big decline from 0.6% to 0.2%. The US r-star estimate is also lowered by the addition of debt metrics in its equation, declining from 0.2% to -0.4%. The Eurozone average r-star experiences a significant decrease as well, driven mostly by Spain and France. The Swiss economy also sports a large private debt load, and its r-star is therefore curtailed from -0.75% to -1.3%. Finally, Japan’s r-star estimate barely changes, which confirms that the approach does not work well for that country. The greatest drawback of the method is that it is backward-looking. The main force that has brought down the global r-star over the past 20 years is the collapse in trend growth among most advanced economies (Chart 5). Consequently, neutral rates could improve from their current low levels if trend growth were to pick up in the coming years. On the positive side, the current age of the capital stock in both Europe and the US is extremely advanced (Chart 6), which suggests that a capex upturn is likely. Such an upturn would boost productivity and lift the r-star among most major economies. On the negative side, the growth of human capital is deteriorating as educational attainment stalls among most DM nations. The decline in the growth rate of human capital is a large threat to productivity over the coming decades. These problems are magnified in the Eurozone, as its high degree of economic fragmentation, lack of common fiscal policy, and higher regulatory burden create further handicaps to trend growth. Chart 5R-star And Global Growth Chart 6A Capex Revival? Bottom Line: Estimating the real neutral rates for the global economy often relies on trend growth and the savings/investment balance. However, such an approach often misses the vulnerability to higher interest rates created by high private-sector indebtedness. If this constraint is considered, the high r-star recorded in countries like New Zealand, Australia, or Canada is reduced dramatically. The US r-star also declines but significantly less so. As we already showed seven weeks ago, the same phenomenon is also visible in the Eurozone, albeit driven by France and Spain, not Germany or Italy. Investment Implications There are three main conclusions from the analysis above. First, the risk of a financial accident in commodity-producing economies is growing increasingly large. On the one hand, economies like New Zealand, Australia, and Canada are buoyed by the recent surge in commodity prices, with agricultural prices up 90% since their 2020 lows, metal prices up 68%, and energy prices up 340% since April 2020. On the other hand, the inflationary pressures created by robust commodity sectors invite the RBNZ, the RBA, and the BoC to lift interest rates quickly, which is hurting massively indebted private sectors. Already, in response to the 275bps and 300bps of hikes implemented by the RBNZ and the BoC, house prices in New Zealand have begun to buckle, down 12% and since their more recent peaks, and they are expected to plunge by as much as 25% in Canada by the end of next year. Chart 7NZD And CAD At A Disadvantage This suggests that non-commodity equities in Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, especially financials, could experience significant periods of underperformance, both against their domestic equity benchmark and global market averages. Additionally, while the NZD, AUD, and CAD all benefit from improving terms of trades, the potential for domestic weakness is such that these currencies are likely to lag their historical sensitivity to commodity price fluctuations. In fact, according to BCA’s foreign exchange strategist, the New Zealand and Canadian dollars are among the most expensive currencies in the G10 (Chart 7), and thus, it is likely to underperform other pro-cyclical currencies once the USD bull market reverses. Second, the neutral rate in the US has risen by 200bps relative to the rest of the world over the past seven years. The US economy has undergone a long deleveraging period in the wake of the GFC, which means that its private-debt-to-GDP ratio has declined relative to other advanced economies. Consequently, the vulnerability of the US economy to higher interest rates has decreased, even if relative US trend growth has not improved meaningfully. The market implications of this pickup in the neutral rate are manifold. To begin with, it allows US rates to rise further relative to other DM economies. BCA’s Global Fixed Income Strategy team continues to underweight US Treasurys in global fixed-income portfolios, especially relative to German Bunds (Chart 8). As a corollary, it also means that US financials are likely to continue to outperform their foreign peers, especially Canadian and Australian ones which will bear the brunt of the negative consequences of their debt bubbles. The increase in the US r-star relative to the rest of the world has been a key contributor to the dollar rally. It helps explain why the recent dollar strength has not hurt relative profit growth (Chart 9). However, the dollar is trading at a 32% premium to its purchasing power parity, or the same overvaluation as in 1985 and 2001. Thus, with the worsening US balance of payment picture, the US dollar is vulnerable to an eventual improvement in global growth next year. Chart 8US Rate Differentials Have Upside Chart 9The US Fares Better Chart 10Easy Or Not? Finally, despite the recent increase in rates, the high level of inflation recorded around the world implies that real policy rates are still well below r-star for major global economies, whether one uses actual inflation or the smooth formulation recommended by the HLW paper (Chart 10). This suggests that a recession is unlikely, especially in the US. The recession threat is higher in Europe but has little to do with policy. It is mostly a consequence of the massive terms of trade shock caused by the sudden jump in European energy prices in the wake of the Ukrainian war. However, because policy remains accommodative even in Europe, it follows that the Eurozone economy will rebound quickly once the worst of the energy shock is over next spring. Some humility is required. It is hard to gauge how much of the inflation surge over the past 18 months reflects supply factors. If inflation suddenly becomes much weaker because the easing in supply constraints has a greater-than-anticipated impact on inflation, real interest rates would jump rapidly around the world. In this scenario, policy rates could rise quickly and overtake r-star. This would mean that the disinflation impulse could rapidly morph into an outright deflationary environment, which implies that the odds of a deflationary bust like the one experienced in 1921 is greater than the market currently prices in.  Bottom Line: The debt-fueled real estate bubbles in the dollar-bloc economies suggests that they are at a greater risk of a financial accident than the US or the Eurozone. As a result, their financial sector looks vulnerable. Meanwhile, the higher US r-star compared to that of the rest of the world will continue to support higher yields in the US rather than in Europe or Japan. This phenomenon has been hugely positive for the US dollar, but it has likely run its course. Finally, global real interest rates remain below r-star estimates. Hence, the current slowdown is likely to prove to be a mid-cycle slowdown and Europe will rebound quickly from a potential recession caused by the recent surge in its energy prices. The ECB Joins The 75bps Club Last week, the ECB increased interest rates by 75bps, which brought its deposit rate to 0.75%. Interestingly, the euro did not rally much in response to this policy decision, even though it has not been fully discounted by the market. At first glance, the lack of responsiveness from European assets seems strange, especially since the vote for a 75bps rate hike was unanimous. The ECB is taking advantage of strong economic numbers to push up rates rapidly. The Eurozone Q2 GDP growth was robust at 0.6%, while the unemployment rate hit an all-time low of 6.6%. Meanwhile, inflation continues to beat consensus forecasts, with Eurozone core CPI and headline CPI standing at 4.3% and 9.1%, respectively in August. Chart 11Big ECB Revisions The market believes that more rapid interest rate hikes now will not translate into a much higher terminal rate, with the expected rates for June 2023 moving from 2.2% on September 7th to 2.4% after last Thursday’s decision. The ECB may have increased its inflation forecasts for the whole horizon, but it has also brought down GDP forecasts to 0.9% and 1.9% in 2023 and 2024, respectively (Chart 11). Moreover, ECB President Christine Lagarde went out of her way to telegraph to investors that the number of upcoming hikes was finite. The jumbo hike does not spell the start of a euro rally—for now. First, the lack of major change in the ECB’s terminal deposit rate is more important than the more rapid pace of hikes for the remainder of 2022. Second, the Fed is also lifting rates faster than investors expected ahead of the Jackson Hole meeting three weeks ago. Third, the euro remains vulnerable to any flare-ups in the energy market. True, natural gas and electricity prices have recently fallen, but the situation in Ukraine continues to be highly fluid, which suggests that volatility will linger in the energy market over the coming weeks.   Despite the near-term hurdles, the euro’s medium-term outlook is brightening. We are gaining confidence in our thesis that energy prices will peak once natural gas inventories have reached approximately 90% by November. Additionally, the support of the Governing Council’s doves for a 75bps hike suggests that they received something in exchange for their votes. In our view, this “something” is an activation of the Transmission Protection Instrument (TPI) before year-end. The TPI activation will allow for a normalization of the risk premia in the Italian debt market and will support the ECB’s ability to increase interest rates further down the road, despite the much lower r-star in Italy, Spain, and France than in Germany (Table 3). Table 3The Eurozone’s Different R-Stars Will Force The TPI’s Activation Bottom Line: The ECB may have delivered a jumbo hike last week, but its market impact was muted. Investors understand full well that the ECB is taking advantage of the recent bout of robust economic activity to front-load interest rate increases ahead of a likely economic contraction in Q4 2022 and Q1 2023. As a result, the terminal rate estimates have scarcely moved. Ultimately, we expect the ECB deposit rate to settle between 1.5% and 2% in the summer of 2023. While the move may not provide much of a boost to the euro in the near term, conditions are falling into place for a euro rally later this year.   Mathieu Savary, Chief European Strategist Mathieu@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1     For the US, we opted for core PCE, since it is the benchmark inflation measure the Federal Reserve uses.

Highlights Chart 1A Hot Labor Market The balance of data that’s come out during the past month points to a labor market that is not cooling very quickly. In fact, it is cooling much more slowly than we anticipated. First, nonfarm payroll growth of +315k in August is well above the +79k that is needed to maintain the unemployment and participation rates at current levels (Chart 1). Second, what had initially looked like a significant drop in job openings was revised away with the July JOLTS report. While the ratio of job openings to unemployed has leveled-off just below 2.0, it is no longer showing any signs of falling (bottom panel). Finally, the employment component of August’s ISM Manufacturing PMI jumped back above 50 and even initial unemployment claims have reversed their nascent uptrend. The conclusion we draw from this spate of strong employment data is that the Fed’s tightening cycle is not close to over. This means that the average fed funds rate that is priced into markets for 2023 is almost certainly too low. Feature Table 1 Recommended Portfolio Specification Table 2Fixed Income Sector Performance Table 3A Corporate Sector Relative Valuation And Recommended Allocation* Table 3BCorporate Sector Risk Vs. Reward* Investment Grade: Underweight Chart 2Investment Grade Market Overview Investment grade corporate bonds outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 8 basis points in August, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to -267 bps. The average index option-adjusted spread tightened 4 bps on the month, and it currently sits at 145 bps. Our quality-adjusted 12-month breakeven spread ticked up to its 56th percentile since 1995 (Chart 2). A report from a few months ago made the case for why investors should underweight investment grade corporate bonds on a 6-12 month investment horizon.1 The main rationale for this recommendation is that the slope of the Treasury curve suggests that the credit cycle is in its late stages. Corporate bond performance tends to be weak during periods when the yield curve is very flat or inverted. Despite our underweight 6-12 month investment stance, we wouldn’t be surprised to see some modest spread narrowing during the next couple of months as inflation heads lower. That said, spread compression will be limited by the inverted yield curve and the persistent removal of monetary accommodation. A recent report dug deeper into the corporate bond space and concluded that investment grade-rated Energy bonds offer exceptional value on a 6-12 month horizon.2 That report also concluded that long maturity investment grade corporates are attractively priced relative to short maturity bonds. High-Yield: Neutral Chart 3High-Yield Market Overview High-Yield underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 28 basis points in August, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to -519 bps. The average index option-adjusted spread tightened 15 bps on the month and it currently sits at 494 bps, 125 bps above the 2017-19 average and 43 bps below the 2018 peak. The 12-month spread-implied default rate – the default rate that is priced into the junk index assuming a 40% recovery rate on defaulted debt and an excess spread of 100 bps – increased modestly in August. It currently sits at 6.6% (Chart 3). As is the case with investment grade, high-yield spreads could stage a relief rally during the next few months as inflation falls and recession fears abate. However, the inverted yield curve will likely prevent spreads from moving much below the average level seen during the last tightening cycle (2017-19). All that said, even a move back to average 2017-19 levels would equate to a roughly 7% excess return for the junk index if it is realized over a six month period. This return potential is the main reason to prefer high-yield over investment grade in a US bond portfolio. While we maintain a neutral (3 out of 5) allocation to high-yield for now, we will downgrade the sector if spreads tighten to the 2017-19 average or if core inflation falls back to our 4% estimate of its underlying trend.3 MBS: Underweight Chart 4MBS Market Overview Mortgage-Backed Securities underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 100 basis points in August, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to -144 bps. We discussed the outlook for Agency MBS in a recent report.4 We noted that MBS’ poor performance in 2021 and early-2022 was driven by duration extension. Fewer homeowners refinanced their loans as mortgage rates rose, and the MBS index’s average duration increased (Chart 4). But now, the index’s duration extension is over. The average convexity of the MBS index is close to zero (panel 3), meaning that duration is now insensitive to changes in rates. This is because hardly any homeowners have an incentive to refinance at current mortgage rates. With the duration extension trade over, the only thing preventing us from increasing exposure to the Agency MBS space is that spreads still aren’t sufficiently attractive. The average index spread versus duration-matched Treasuries is roughly midway between its post-2014 minimum and post-2014 mean (panel 4). Meanwhile, the option-adjusted spread has moved above its post-2014 mean (bottom panel), but at just 42 bps, it still offers less compensation than a Aa-rated corporate bond or a Aaa-rated consumer ABS. At the coupon level, we moved to a neutral allocation across the coupon stack last month, but this month we initiate a recommendation to favor high-coupon (3%-4.5%) securities over low coupon (1.5%-2.5%) ones. Given the lower duration of high coupon MBS, this position will profit from rising bond yields on a 6-12 month investment horizon. Emerging Market Bonds (USD): Underweight Chart 5Emerging Markets Overview Emerging Market bonds outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 156 basis points in August, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to -563 bps. EM Sovereigns outperformed the Treasury benchmark by 117 bps on the month, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to -677 bps. The EM Corporate & Quasi-Sovereign Index outperformed by 180 bps, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to -491 bps. The EM Sovereign index outperformed the duration-equivalent US corporate bond index by 111 bps in August. Meanwhile, the yield differential between EM sovereigns and US corporates moved deeper into negative territory (Chart 5). As such, we continue to recommend a maximum underweight (1 out of 5) allocation to EM sovereigns. The EM Corporate & Quasi-Sovereign Index outperformed duration-matched US corporates by 168 bps in August. The index continues to offer a significant yield advantage versus duration-matched US corporates (panel 4). As such, we continue to recommend a neutral (3 out of 5) allocation to the sector. China is the most important trading partner for most EM countries and thus represents a major source of economic growth. Consequently, Chinese import volumes are a useful gauge for the outlook of EM economies. The persistent contraction of Chinese import volumes (bottom panel) therefore sends a negative signal for EM bond performance. Municipal Bonds: Overweight Chart 6Municipal Market Overview Municipal bonds outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 126 basis points in August, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to -44 bps (before adjusting for the tax advantage). We view the municipal bond sector as better placed than most to cope with the recent bout of spread volatility. As we noted in a recent report, state & local government revenue growth has been strong, but governments have been slow to hire (Chart 6).5 The result is that net state & local government savings are incredibly high (bottom panel) and it will take some time to deplete those coffers. On the valuation front, munis have cheapened up relative to both Treasuries and corporates since last year. The 10-year Aaa Muni / Treasury yield ratio is currently 82%, up from its 2021 trough of 55%. The yield ratio between 12-17 year munis and duration-matched corporate bonds is also up significantly off its lows (panel 2). We reiterate our overweight allocation to municipal bonds within US fixed income portfolios, and we continue to have a strong preference for long-maturity munis. The yield ratio between 17-year+ General Obligation municipal bonds and duration-matched US corporates is 80%. The same measure for Revenue bonds is 94%, just below parity even without considering municipal debt’s tax advantage. Treasury Curve: Buy 5/30 Barbell Versus 10-Year Bullet Chart 7Treasury Yield Curve Overview The Treasury curve bear-flattened in August as investors significantly marked up their 12-month rate expectations. Our 12-month Fed Funds Discounter – the market’s expected 12-month change in the funds rate – rose from 78 bps to 175 bps during the month and this caused the 2-year/10-year Treasury slope to flatten by 8 bps and the 5-year/30-year Treasury slope to flatten by 33 bps (Chart 7). We initiated a position in 5/30 flatteners (short 10-year bullet versus duration-matched 5/30 barbell) in our August 9th report.6 The main reason for this recommendation is our view that the Fed tightening cycle is not close to over. Therefore, it is too soon to position for a steepening of the 5-year/30-year Treasury slope. An analysis of past Fed tightening cycles shows that the 5-year/30-year Treasury slope tends to trough earlier than other segments of the yield curve. However, that trough has always occurred within a window spanning five months before the last Fed rate hike and three months after.7 On average, the 5-year/30-year slope troughs 1-2 months before the last Fed rate hike. Given our view that the Fed tightening cycle still has a lot of room to run, we think it makes sense to bet on a further flattening of the 5-year/30-year slope. This trade looks particularly attractive when you consider that a position short the 10-year bullet and long a duration-matched 5/30 barbell provides a yield pick-up of 12 bps (bottom panel). TIPS: Neutral Chart 8TIPS Market Overview TIPS outperformed the duration-equivalent nominal Treasury index by 8 basis points in August, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +264 bps. The 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate fell 5 bps on the month, moving back into the Fed’s 2.3% - 2.5% comfort zone (Chart 8). Meanwhile, our TIPS Breakeven Valuation Indicator shows that 10-year TIPS are close to fairly valued versus nominals. In a recent report we unveiled our Golden Rule of TIPS Investing.8 In that report we showed that TIPS of all maturities tend to outperform equivalent-maturity nominal bonds whenever headline CPI inflation exceeds the 1-year CPI swap rate during a 12-month period. The 1-year CPI swap rate is currently 2.77%, and we think this will turn out to be too low based on our modeling of headline CPI. While we see value in TIPS relative to nominals, especially at the front-end of the curve, we also suspect that more value will be created during the next few months as CPI prints come in soft. Therefore, we are reluctant to immediately upgrade TIPS to overweight. Instead, we recommend that investors initiate a 2-year/10-year TIPS breakeven inflation curve flattener. The 2/10 TIPS breakeven inflation curve has recently jumped into positive territory (bottom panel), but an inverted inflation curve is much more consistent with the current macro environment where the Fed is battling above-target inflation. ABS: Overweight Chart 9ABS Market Overview Asset-Backed Securities outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 27 basis points in August, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to -25 bps. Aaa-rated ABS outperformed by 19 bps on the month, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to -24 bps. Non-Aaa ABS outperformed by 76 bps on the month, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to -28 bps. Substantial federal government support caused US households to build up an extremely large buffer of excess savings during the past two years. This year, consumers are starting to draw down that savings and are even starting to take on more debt. The amount of outstanding credit card debt is still low relative to household income, but it is rising quickly in absolute terms (Chart 9). Elsewhere, consumers are still paying down their credit card balances at high rates (panel 4), but banks are no longer easing lending standards on auto loans or credit cards (panel 3). To us, the prevailing evidence suggests that it will be a long time before delinquencies are a serious problem for consumer ABS. This justifies our overweight recommendation. That said, given that the trend toward consumer re-leveraging is in full swing, it makes sense to turn more cautious at the margin. We therefore close our prior recommendation to favor non-Aaa over Aaa-rated consumer ABS and move to a neutral allocation across the consumer ABS credit curve. Non-Agency CMBS: Overweight Neutral Chart 10CMBS Market Overview Non-Agency Commercial Mortgage-Backed Securities outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 26 basis points in August, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to -150 bps. Aaa Non-Agency CMBS outperformed Treasuries by 20 bps on the month, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to -103 bps. Non-Aaa Non-Agency CMBS outperformed by 41 bps on the month, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to -280 bps. CMBS spreads remain wide compared to other similarly risky spread products and are currently close to their historic averages. However, the most recent Senior Loan Officer Survey showed tightening lending standards and weaker demand for commercial real estate (CRE) loans (Chart 10). This suggests a more negative back-drop for CRE prices and CMBS spreads and causes us to reduce our recommended allocation from overweight (4 out of 5) to neutral (3 out of 5). Agency CMBS: Overweight Agency CMBS underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 29 basis points in August, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to -44 bps. The average index option-adjusted spread held flat on the month, close to its long-term average (bottom panel). At 55 bps, the average Agency CMBS spread continues to look attractive compared to other similarly risky spread products. Stay overweight. Appendix A: The Golden Rule Of Bond Investing We follow a two-step process to formulate recommendations for bond portfolio duration. First, we determine the change in the federal funds rate that is priced into the yield curve for the next 12 months. Second, we decide – based on our assessments of the economy and Fed policy – whether the change in the fed funds rate will exceed or fall short of what is priced into the curve. Most of the time, a correct answer to this question leads to the appropriate duration call. We call this framework the Golden Rule Of Bond Investing, and we demonstrated its effectiveness in the US Bond Strategy Special Report, “The Golden Rule Of Bond Investing”, dated July 24, 2018. Chart 11 illustrates the Golden Rule’s track record by showing that the Bloomberg Barclays Treasury Master Index tends to outperform cash when rate hikes fall short of 12-month expectations, and vice-versa. At present, the market is priced for 175 basis points of rate hikes during the next 12 months. Chart 11The Golden Rule's Track Record We can also use our Golden Rule framework to make 12-month total return and excess return forecasts for the Bloomberg Barclays Treasury index under different scenarios for the fed funds rate. Excess returns are relative to the Bloomberg Barclays Cash index. To forecast total returns we first calculate the 12-month fed funds rate surprise in each scenario by comparing the assumed change in the fed funds rate to the current value of our 12-month discounter. This rate hike surprise is then mapped to an expected change in the Treasury index yield using a regression based on the historical relationship between those two variables. Finally, we apply the expected change in index yield to the current characteristics (yield, duration and convexity) of the Treasury index to estimate total returns on a 12-month horizon. The below tables present those results, along with excess returns for a front-loaded and a back-loaded rate hike scenario. Excess returns are calculated by subtracting assumed cash returns in each scenario from our total return projections. Appendix B: Butterfly Strategy Valuations The following tables present the current read-outs from our butterfly spread models. We use these models to identify opportunities to take duration-neutral positions across the Treasury curve. The following two Special Reports explain the models in more detail: US Bond Strategy Special Report, “Bullets, Barbells And Butterflies”, dated July 25, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com US Bond Strategy Special Report, “More Bullets, Barbells And Butterflies”, dated May 15, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Table 4 shows the raw residuals from each model. A positive value indicates that the bullet is cheap relative to the duration-matched barbell. A negative value indicates that the barbell is cheap relative to the bullet. Table 4Butterfly Strategy Valuation: Raw Residuals In Basis Points (As Of September 1, 2022) Table 5 scales the raw residuals in Table 4 by their historical means and standard deviations. This facilitates comparison between the different butterfly spreads. Table 5Butterfly Strategy Valuation: Standardized Residuals (As Of September 1, 2022) Table 6 flips the models on their heads. It shows the change in the slope between the two barbell maturities that must be realized during the next six months to make returns between the bullet and barbell equal. For example, a reading of -7 bps in the 5 over 2/10 cell means that we would expect the 5-year to outperform the 2/10 if the 2/10 slope flattens by less than 7 bps during the next six months. Otherwise, we would expect the 2/10 barbell to outperform the 5-year bullet. Table 6Discounted Slope Change During Next 6 Months (BPs) Appendix C: Excess Return Bond Map The Excess Return Bond Map is used to assess the relative risk/reward trade-off between different sectors of the US bond market. It is a purely computational exercise and does not impose any macroeconomic view. The Map’s vertical axis shows 12-month expected excess returns. These are proxied by each sector’s option-adjusted spread. Sectors plotting further toward the top of the Map have higher expected returns and vice-versa. Our novel risk measure called the “Risk Of Losing 100 bps” is shown on the Map’s horizontal axis. To calculate it, we first compute the spread widening required on a 12-month horizon for each sector to lose 100 bps or more relative to a duration-matched position in Treasury securities. Then, we divide that amount of spread widening by each sector’s historical spread volatility. The end result is the number of standard deviations of 12-month spread widening required for each sector to lose 100 bps or more versus a position in Treasuries. Lower risk sectors plot further to the right of the Map, and higher risk sectors plot further to the left. Chart 12Excess Return Bond Map (As Of September 1, 2022)   Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Robert Timper Research Analyst robert.timper@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1     Please see US Bond Strategy / Global Fixed Income Strategy Special Report, “Turning Defensive On US Corporate Bonds”, dated April 12, 2022. 2     Please see US Bond Strategy / Global Fixed Income Strategy Special Report, “Looking For Opportunities In US & European Corporates After The Recent Selloff”, dated May 31, 2022. 3    For more details on this call please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “When The Dual Mandates Clash”, dated June 28, 2022. 4    Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The Bond Market Implications Of A 5% Mortgage Rate”, dated April 26, 2022. 5    Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Echoes Of 2018”, dated May 24, 2022. 6    Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The Great Soft Landing Debate”, dated August 9, 2022. 7     In our analysis we examined seven Fed tightening cycles. The five most recent cycles and the two cycles that occurred during the inflation spike of the early 1980s. 8    Please see US Bond Strategy Special Report, “The Golden Rule Of TIPS Investing”, dated August 23, 2022.   Recommended Portfolio Specification Other Recommendations Treasury Index Returns Spread Product Returns

Special Report

A message for Foreign Exchange Strategy clients, There will be no report next week, as we take a summer break. We will be joining our clients and colleagues for our annual investment conference to be held in New York, on September 7 & 8. We will resume our publication the following week, with a Special Report on the Hong Kong dollar, together with our China Investment Strategy colleagues. Looking forward to seeing many of you in person. Kind regards, Chester Ntonifor, Foreign Exchange Strategist Executive Summary No Urgency To Tighten Policy The biggest medium-term threat for Japan remains deflation, rather than inflation. This suggests that the BoJ will be loathe to abandon yield curve control anytime soon. That said, inflation is still accelerating globally, and has meaningfully picked up in Japan. Betting on a hawkish BoJ policy shift could therefore be a significant macro trade. We have identified five conditions that need to be met for the BoJ to begin removing accommodation. None are currently indicating an imminent need to alter monetary policy settings, particularly with the Japanese economy softening alongside subdued inflation expectations. The yen will soar on any hawkish BoJ policy shift. Currently, BCA Foreign Exchange Strategy is short EUR/JPY. That said, the historical evidence suggests waiting for an exhaustion in yen selling pressure, before placing fresh bets on selling USD/JPY. Longer-term bond yields in Japan, for maturities beyond the BoJ yield target, are already moving higher, while speculative interest in shorting JGBs has increased.  We recommend fading these trends for now – shorting JGBs outright will remain a “widowmaker trade”. Bottom Line: The yen has undershot and longer-term investors should buy it - our preferred way to express that view in the near-term is to be short EUR/JPY.  Bond investors should be underweight “low-beta” JGBs in fixed-income portfolios on a tactical basis, not as a hawkish BoJ bet, but because global bond yields are more likely to stay in broad trading ranges than break to new highs. Feature Chart 1The BoJ Is A Lonesome Dove Almost every G10 central bank has raised rates over the last 12 months, even the perennially dovish banks like the ECB and Swiss National Bank, in response to soaring inflation.  The one exception has been the Bank of Japan (BoJ). The BoJ has kept policy rates unchanged throughout the year (Chart 1), while also maintaining its Yield Curve Control policy of capping 10-year Japanese government bond (JGB) yields at 0.25%. There has been interest from the macro investor community on Japan in recent months, betting on the BoJ eventually succumbing to the global monetary tightening trend.  If the BoJ were to shift gears and turn less accommodative, then the yen would surely soar, while JGBs will go on a fire sale. In this report, jointly published by BCA Research Foreign Exchange Strategy and Global Fixed Income Strategy, we explore the necessary conditions that need to be in place for the BoJ to meaningfully shift policy, most likely starting with the end of Yield Curve Control before interest rate hikes. We see five such conditions, which will form a “checklist” to be monitored in the months ahead. Condition 1: Overshooting Inflation Expectations The BoJ has a policy mandate on inflation and most measures of underlying Japanese inflation are still well below its 2% target. For example, the weighted median and mode CPI inflation rates are only at 0.5%, even as headline CPI inflation has climbed to 2.6% on the back of two primarily non-domestic factors – rapidly rising prices for energy and goods (Chart 2). With such low baseline inflation, it has been hard to lift market-based Japanese inflation expectations like CPI swap rates above 1%, even as far out as ten years (Chart 3). CPI swaps have tended to provide a more realistic assessment of underlying Japanese inflation, adhering more closely to trends in realized core CPI inflation, and thus deserve the most attention from the BoJ.  This is in stark contrast to the BoJ’s own consumer survey of inflation expectations, that has consistently overestimated inflation over the years, which is currently showing both 1-year-ahead and 5-year-ahead inflation expectations at a startling, yet highly inaccurate, 5%.  Chart 2Low Underlying Inflation In Japan Chart 3No Unmooring Of Inflation Expectations In Japan The BoJ is likely to side with the more subdued read on market-based inflation expectations in determining if monetary policy needs to turn less dovish – especially with the BoJ’s own estimate of the output gap now at -1.2%, indicating spare capacity in the economy and a lack of underlying inflation pressures (Chart 4). Chart 4Japan Still Suffers From Excess Capacity Condition 2: Excessive Yen Weakness Our more comprehensive measure of determining the pressure to change monetary policy is captured in our central bank monitor for Japan, a.k.a. the BoJ Monitor.  The Monitor includes economic, inflation and financial variables. This measure suggests that the BoJ should not be tightening monetary policy today (Chart 5). One of the variables that goes into our BoJ Monitor is the yen. The yen impacts monetary conditions through two ways. First, import prices tend to rise as the yen weakens, feeding into domestic inflation. In short, it eases monetary conditions. That has been the story over the last year with the yen falling -15% on a trade-weighted basis (Chart 6). The second impact is through profit translation effects. Overseas earnings for Japanese exporters are buffeted in yen terms as the currency depreciates. Both impacts would tend to put more pressure to tighten monetary policy, on the margin. Chart 5No Urgency To Tighten Policy Chart 6Yen Weakness Only Generates Temporary Inflation However, the impact of yen weakness in boosting profit translation costs for Japanese concerns has eased over the years. As many Japanese companies have offshored production, lower wages in Japan have been offset by higher costs abroad. As a result, profit margins for multinational Japanese corporations are not rising meaningfully relative to their G10 peers, despite yen weakness (Chart 7). That puts the central bank in a quandary regarding how to interpret yen weakness vis-à-vis future policy moves. On the one hand, soaring global inflation and a weak yen should be allowing the BoJ to declare victory on rising inflation expectations in Japan. On the other hand, domestic wage growth will not reach “escape velocity” (Chart 8), and inflation will fail to overshoot on a sustainable basis, if corporate profit margins are not rising meaningfully. Chart 7No Widespread Signs Of Increased Profitability From Yen Weakness Chart 8No Escape Velocity Yet In Japanese ##br##Wages Of course, Japanese authorities care about excessive moves in the yen, but they also understand their limited ability to alter the path of the currency. The Ministry of Finance last intervened to support the currency in 1998. That helped the yen temporarily, but global factors dictated its longer-term trend. A BoJ monetary tightening designed solely to stabilize the yen, before inflation expectations stabilize at the BoJ target, is a recipe for failure on both fronts. The bottom line is that yen weakness is giving a lift to inflation, but this is unlikely to be sticky. The yen needs to fall 10% every year just to generate a one percentage point increase in Japanese inflation. As such, the current bout of yen weakness is unlikely to alter the longer-term goals of BoJ policy, unless a wave of selling undermines financial stability. Condition 3: Continually Rising Energy Costs Chart 9Japan Is More Energy Dependent Than Many Other Countries Policy makers in the eurozone have told us that even in the face of a recession, a threat to their credibility on price stability – like the energy-fueled overshoot of European inflation - is worth defending through monetary tightening. Thus, a continued external energy shock could also cause the BoJ to shift. Our Chief Commodity Strategist, Robert Ryan, expects the geopolitical risk premium on oil to increase in the near term. Japan imports almost all its energy and has structurally been more dependent on fossil fuels than Europe (Chart 9). A rise in energy costs that unanchors inflation expectations is a threat worth monitoring for the BoJ, one that could drag it into monetary tightening as has been the case in Europe. That said, adjustments are already underway. Japanese and European LNG imports from the US are rising. As a result, the price arbitrage between US Henry Hub prices and the Dutch TTF equivalent is likely to soften, assuaging energy import costs (Chart 10). Japan is also ramping up nuclear power production, which can help provide alternative sources to imported energy (Chart 11). Chart 10An Unprecedented Arbitrage Chart 11Nuclear Power Could Help? The BoJ would likely not consider an early exit from accommodative monetary policy based solely on energy-fueled inflation.  After all, the current surge in global energy prices, compounded by yen weakness, has barely pushed headline inflation above the BoJ 2% target – with little follow-through into core inflation or wage growth. Condition 4: An Economic Revival In Japan A burst in Japanese growth that absorbs excess capacity and tightens labor market conditions could convince the BoJ that a policy adjustment is due. This could result in higher Japanese interest rates and bond yields.  The yen also tends to appreciate when the Japanese economy is improving (Chart 12). Unfortunately, Japanese growth momentum is going in the wrong direction for that outcome. Chart 12The Yen And the Japanese Economy Domestic demand has been under siege from the lingering effects of the pandemic, including an unprecedented collapse in tourism. As the pandemic effects have faded, however, Japan’s economy faces new threats from slowing global growth, waning export demand, and declining consumer confidence (Chart 13). It is notable that while goods spending has been picking up around the world, the personal consumption component of GDP in Japan remains nearly three percentage points below the level implied by its pre-pandemic trend. While Japan’s unemployment rate is 2.6% and falling, it remains above the low reached just before the start of the pandemic. Chart 13A Broad-Based Slowing Of Japanese Growth What Japan needs now is more fiscal spending. For a low-growth economy, with ultra-loose monetary settings, the fiscal multiplier tends to be much larger. Stronger fiscal spending could lift animal spirits in Japan and cause the BoJ to shift. Yet even on that front, the evidence does not point to a direct link from fiscal stimulus to rising inflation expectations – a necessary catalyst for the BoJ to turn more hawkish. A recent study by the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco concluded that there was no boost to depressed Japanese inflation expectations from the massive Japanese government fiscal programs during the worst of the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic shock. Waning Japanese economic momentum is not putting any pressure on the BoJ to begin considering a shift to less accommodative monetary settings. Condition 5: More Hawkish Members At The BoJ There are important transitions occurring within the BoJ’s nine-member board that could change the policy bias in a less dovish direction.  In July, two new board members – Hajime Takata and Naoki Tamura – were appointed to the BoJ board. Both brought up the notion of the need for an “exit strategy” from current easy monetary policies at their introductory press conference, although both were also careful to state that they did not think the conditions were in place yet for that to occur. Related Report  Foreign Exchange StrategyWhat To Do About The Yen? Nonetheless, the two new appointees represent a marginally hawkish shift in the policy bias of the BoJ board, especially Takata who replaced one of the more vocal advocates for maintaining aggressive monetary easing, economist Goushi Kataoka.  Of course, the big change at the top of the BoJ will come next April when Governor Haruhiko Kuroda’s current term ends. This will follow the departures of the two deputy governors, Masayoshi Amamiya and Masazumi Wakatabe in March. That means five of nine board members would be changed in less than one year, including the most senior leadership. That would be a huge change for any central bank, but especially for the BoJ where Governor Kuroda has overseen the introduction of all the current aggressive monetary policies, from negative interest rates to massive quantitative easing to Yield Curve Control. A growing constraint for the future of Yield Curve Control As outlined earlier, underlying inflation and growth trends in Japan are nowhere close to justifying an end to Yield Curve Control or even a mere upward tweak of the current 0.25% yield target on 10-year JGBs. However, there are negative spillover effects from the BoJ’s bond market manipulation that could make the current policies less sustainable over the medium term for the new incoming BoJ leadership. We addressed one of those issues earlier with the extreme yen weakness, which is largely a product of the BoJ keeping a lid on Japanese interest rates while almost the entire rest of the world is in a monetary tightening cycle. But another issue to be addressed is the impaired liquidity of the JGB market. After years of steady, aggressive bond buying, the BoJ has essentially “cornered” the JGB market.  The central bank now owns roughly 50% of all outstanding JGBs, doubling its ownership share since Yield Curve Control started in 2016 (Chart 14).  The numbers are even more extreme when focusing on the specific maturity targeted by the BoJ under Yield Curve Control, with the central bank now owning nearly 80% of all 10-year JGBs (Chart 15). Chart 14The BoJ Has Cornered The JGB Market Chart 15BoJ Now Owns 80% Of 10yr JGBs By absorbing so much supply of the main risk-free asset in the Japanese financial system, the BoJ has made life more difficult for Japanese commercial banks, insurance companies and pension funds that require JGBs for regulatory and risk management purposes. In the most recent BoJ survey of bond market participants, 68 of 69 firms surveyed described the JGB market as having poor liquidity conditions, with an equal amount stating that JGB trading conditions were as bad or worse than three months earlier. The change in BoJ leadership could also bring about a change in policymakers’ desire to continue manipulating the JGB market via Yield Curve Control.  Although the BoJ would have to be very careful in how it signals and executes any change to Yield Curve Control.  There is currently a very wide gap between a 10-year JGB yield at 0.25% and a 30-year JGB yield at 1.25% (Chart 16). If the BoJ completely ended Yield Curve Control, the 10-year yield would converge rapidly towards that 30-year yield, likely reaching 1%. That would create a major negative total return shock to the Japanese banks and institutional investors that still own nearly 40% of JGBs. Chart 1610yr JGB Yields Will Surge Without Yield Curve Control A more likely outcome would be the BoJ raising the yield target on the 10-year to something like 0.50%, or perhaps shifting to a different maturity target where the BoJ owns a smaller share of outstanding JGBs like the 5-year sector. Yet without an actual trigger for such a move coming from faster economic growth or core inflation hitting the 2% BoJ target, it is highly unlikely that the BoJ would dare tinker with its yield curve policy, and risk a JGB market blowup, solely over concerns about bond market liquidity. Investment Conclusions None of the items in our newly constructed “BoJ Checklist” are currently indicating that a shift in Japanese monetary policy is imminent.  We therefore see it as being too early to put on the legendary “widowmaker trade” of shorting JGBs, although a case can be made to go long the yen based on longer-term valuation considerations. Japanese yen The carnage in the yen is in an apocalyptic phase, but the BoJ is unlikely to rescue the yen in the near term. As such, short-term traders should be on the sidelines. For longer-term investors, being contrarian could pay off handsomely. The 1-year drawdown in the yen is within the scope of historical capitulation phases (Chart 17). Meanwhile, according to our PPP models (and a wide variety of others), the Japanese yen is the cheapest G10 currency, undervalued by around -41% (Chart 18). BCA Foreign Exchange Strategy is currently long the yen versus the euro and the Swiss franc. Chart 17The Yen Is On Sale Chart 18The Yen Is Very Cheap JGBs Chart 19Stay Tactically Underweight JGBs In the absence of a bearish domestic monetary policy trigger, JGBs should be treated by global bond investors as a risk management tool as much as anything else. The relative return performance of JGBs versus the Bloomberg Global Treasury Index of government bonds is highly correlated to the momentum of global bond yields (Chart 19). Thus, increasing the exposure to JGBs in a global bond portfolio is akin to reducing the interest rate duration of a bond portfolio – both positions will help a portfolio outperform its benchmark when global bond yields rise. On a tactical basis (3-6 month time horizon), an underweight allocation to JGBs in government bond portfolios seems appropriate, even with JGBs offering relatively attractive yields on a currency-hedged basis, most notably for USD-based investors.  Global bond yields are more likely to stay in broad trading ranges, capped by slowing global growth and decelerating goods inflation but floored by stickier non-goods inflation and hawkish central banks. Thus, the defensive properties of JGBs as a “duration hedge” in global bond portfolios are less necessary in the near-term. Beyond the tactical time horizon, the uncertainty over the potential makeup of new BoJ leadership in 2023, along with some easing of global inflation pressures from the commodity space, could justify lower JGB exposure on a more structural basis - if it appears that a new wave of more hawkish policymakers is set to take over in Tokyo. Stay tuned.   Chester Ntonifor Foreign Exchange Strategist chestern@bcaresearch.com Robert Robis, CFA  Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com Trades & Forecasts Strategic View Cyclical Holdings (6-18 months) Tactical Holdings (0-6 months) Limit Orders Forecast Summary

Listen to a short summary of this report     Executive Summary On the eve of the pandemic, most developed economies were operating at close to full capacity – the aggregate supply curve, in other words, had become very steep (or inelastic). Not surprisingly, in such an environment, pandemic-related stimulus, rather than boosting output, simply stoked inflation. Looking out, the inverse may turn out to be true: Just as an increase in aggregate demand did more to lift prices than output during the pandemic, a decrease in aggregate demand may allow inflation to fall without much loss in production or employment. Skeptics will argue that such benign disinflations rarely occur, pointing to the 1982 recession. But long-term inflation expectations were close to 10% back then. Today, they are broadly in line with the Fed’s target. Equities will recover from their recent correction as headline inflation continues to fall and the risks of a US recession diminish. Go long EUR/USD on any break below 0.99. Contrary to the prevailing pessimistic view, Europe is heading for a V-shaped recovery. The Aggregate Supply Curve Becomes Very Steep When Spare Capacity Is Exhausted Bottom Line: The US economy is entering a temporary Goldilocks period of falling inflation and stronger growth. The latest correction in stocks will end soon. Investors should overweight global equities over the next six months but look to turn more defensive thereafter.   Dear Client, I will be attending BCA’s annual conference in New York City next week. Instead of our regular report, we will be sending you a Special Report written by Mathieu Savary, BCA’s Chief European Strategist, and Robert Robis, BCA’s Chief Fixed Income Strategist, on Monday, September 12. Their report will discuss estimates of global neutral interest rates. We will resume our regular publication schedule on September 16. Best Regards, Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist The Hawks Descend On Jackson Hole Chart 1Markets Still Think The Fed Will Start Cutting Rates Next Year Jay Powell’s Jackson Hole address jolted the stock market last week. Citing the historical danger of allowing inflation to remain above target for too long, the Fed chair stressed the need for “maintaining a restrictive policy stance for some time.” Powell’s comments were consistent with the Fed’s dot plot, which expects rates to remain above 3% right through to the end of 2024. However, with the markets pricing in rate cuts starting in mid 2023, his remarks came across as decidedly hawkish (Chart 1). While Fedspeak can clearly influence markets in the near term, our view is that the economy calls the shots over the medium-to-long term. The Fed sees the same data as everyone else. If inflation comes down rapidly over the coming months, the FOMC will ratchet down its hawkish rhetoric, opting instead for a wait-and-see approach. The Slope of Hope Could inflation fall quickly in the absence of a deep recession? The answer depends on a seemingly esoteric concept: the slope of the aggregate supply curve. Economists tend to depict the aggregate supply curve as being convex in nature – fairly flat (or “elastic”) when there is significant spare capacity and becoming increasingly steep (or “inelastic”) as spare capacity is exhausted (Chart 2). The basic idea is that firms do not require substantially higher prices to produce more output when they have a lot of spare capacity, but do require increasingly high prices to produce more output when spare capacity is low. Chart 2The Aggregate Supply Curve Becomes Very Steep When Spare Capacity Is Exhausted When the aggregate supply curve is very elastic, an increase in aggregate demand will mainly lead to higher output rather than higher prices. In contrast, when the aggregate supply curve is inelastic, rising demand will primarily translate into higher prices rather than increased output. In early 2020, most of the developed world found itself on the steep side of the aggregate supply curve. The unemployment rate in the OECD stood at 5.3%, the lowest in 40 years (Chart 3). In the US, the unemployment rate had reached a 50-year low of 3.5%. Thus, not surprisingly, as fiscal and monetary policy turned simulative, inflation moved materially higher. Goods inflation, in particular, accelerated during the pandemic (Chart 4). Perhaps most notably, the exodus of people to the suburbs, combined with the reluctance to use mass transit, led to a surge in both new and used car prices (Chart 5). The upward pressure on auto prices was exacerbated by a shortage of semiconductors, itself a consequence of the spike in the demand for electronic goods. Chart 3The Pandemic Began When The Unemployment Rate In The OECD Was At A Multi-Decade Low Chart 4With Supply Unable To Meet Demand, Goods Prices Surged During The Pandemic The supply curve for labor also became increasingly inelastic over the course of the pandemic. Once the US unemployment rate fell back below 4%, wages began to accelerate sharply. The kink in the Phillips curve had been reached (Chart 6). Chart 5Car Prices Went On Quite A Ride During The Pandemic Chart 6Wage Growth Soared When The Economy Moved Beyond Full Employment Chart 7Job Switchers Usually See Faster Wage Growth Faster labor market churn further turbocharged wage growth. Both the quits rate and the hiring rate rose during the pandemic. Typically, workers who switch jobs experience faster wage growth than those who do not (Chart 7). This wage premium for job switching increased during the pandemic, helping to lift overall wage growth. A Symmetric Relationship? All this raises a critical question: If an increase in aggregate demand along the inelastic side of the aggregate supply curve mainly leads to higher prices rather than increased output and employment, is the inverse also true – that is, would a comparable decrease in aggregate demand simply lead to much lower inflation without much of a loss in output or employment? If so, this would greatly increase the odds of a soft landing. Skeptics would argue that disinflations are rarely painless. They would point to the 1982 recession which, until the housing bubble burst, was the deepest recession in the post-war era. The problem with that comparison is that long-term inflation expectations were extremely high in the early 1980s. Both consumers and professional forecasters expected inflation to average nearly 10% over the remainder of the decade (Chart 8). To bring down long-term inflation expectations, Paul Volcker had to engineer a deep recession. Chart 8Long-Term Inflation Expectations Are Much Better Anchored Now Than In The Early 1980s Chart 9Real Long Terms Bond Yields Are Currently A Fraction Of What They Were Four Decades Ago Jay Powell does not face such a problem. Both survey-based and market-based long-term inflation expectations are well anchored. Whereas real long-term bond yields reached 8% in 1982, the 30-year TIPS yield today is still less than 1% (Chart 9). The Impact of Lower Home Prices Chart 10Supply-Side Constraints Limited Home Building During The Pandemic, Helping To Push Up Home Prices While falling consumer prices would boost real incomes, helping to keep the economy out of recession, a drop in home prices would have the opposite effect on consumer spending. As occurred with other durable goods, a shortage of building materials and qualified workers prevented US homebuilders from constructing as many new homes as they would have liked during the pandemic. The producer price index for construction materials soared by over 50% between May 2020 and May 2022 (Chart 10). As a result, rising demand for homes largely translated into higher home prices rather than increased homebuilding.  Real home prices, as measured by the Case-Shiller index, have increased by 25% since February 2020, rising above their housing bubble peak. As we discussed last week, US home prices will almost certainly fall in real terms and probably in nominal terms as well over the coming years. Chart 11Despite Higher Home Prices, Households Have Not Been Using Their Homes As ATMs How much of a toll will falling home prices have on the economy? It took six years for home prices to bottom following the bursting of the housing bubble. It will probably take even longer this time around, given that the homeowner vacancy rate is at a record low and reasonably prudent mortgage lending standards will limit foreclosure sales. Thus, while there will be a negative wealth effect from falling home prices, it probably will not become pronounced until 2024 or so. Moreover, unlike during the housing boom, US households have not been tapping the equity in their homes to finance consumption (Chart 11). This also suggests that the impact of falling home prices on consumption will be far smaller than during the Great Recession. Inelastic Commodity Supply While inelastic supply curves had the redeeming feature of preventing a glut of, say, new autos or homes from emerging, they also limited the output of many commodities that face structural shortages. Compounding this problem is the fact that the demand for many commodities is very inelastic in the short run. When you combine a very steep supply curve with a very steep demand curve, small shifts in either curve can produce wild swings in prices.  Nowhere is this problem more evident than in Europe, where a rapid reduction in oil and gas flows has caused energy prices to soar, forcing policymakers to scramble to find new sources of supply.  Europe’s Energy Squeeze At this point, it looks like both the UK and the euro area will enter a recession. In continental Europe, the near-term outlook is grimmer in Germany and Italy than it is in France or Spain. The latter two countries are less vulnerable to an energy crunch (Spain imports a lot of LNG while France has access to nuclear energy). Both countries also have fairly resilient service sectors (Spain, in particular, is benefiting from a boom in tourism). The good news is that even in the most troubled European economies, the bottom for growth is probably closer at hand than widely feared. Despite the fact that imports of Russian gas have fallen by more than 60%, Europe has been able to rebuild gas inventories to about 80% of capacity, roughly in line with prior years (Chart 12). It has been able to achieve this feat by aggressively buying gas on the open market, no matter the price. While this has caused gas prices to soar, it sets the stage for a possible retreat in prices in 2023, something that the futures market is already discounting (Chart 13). Chart 12Europe: Squirrelling Away Gas For The Winter Chart 13Natural Gas Prices In Europe Will Come Back Down To Earth Europe is also moving with uncharacteristic haste to secure new sources of energy supply. In less than one year, Europe has become America’s biggest overseas market for LNG. A new gas pipeline linking Spain with the rest of Europe should be operational by next spring. In the meantime, Germany is building two “floating” LNG terminals. Germany has also postponed plans to mothball its nuclear power plants and has approved increased use of coal-fired electricity generators. Chart 14The Euro Is Undervalued France is seeking to boost nuclear capacity. As of August 29, 57% of nuclear generation capacity was offline. Electricité de France expects daily production to rise to around 50 gigawatts (GW) by December from around 27 GW at present. For its part, the Dutch government is likely to raise output from the massive Groningen natural gas field. All this suggests that contrary to the prevailing pessimistic view, Europe is heading for a V-shaped recovery. The euro, which is 30% undervalued against the US dollar on a purchasing power parity basis, will rally (Chart 14). Go long EUR/USD on any break below 0.99. Investment Conclusions Chart 15Falling Inflation Should Boost Real Wages And Buoy Consumer Confidence On the eve of the pandemic, most developed economies were operating at close to full capacity – the aggregate supply curve, in other words, had become very steep (or inelastic). Not surprisingly, in such an environment, pandemic-related stimulus, rather than boosting output, simply stoked inflation. Looking out, the inverse may turn out to be true: Just as an increase in aggregate demand did more to lift prices than output during the pandemic, a decrease in aggregate demand may allow inflation to fall with little loss in production or employment. Will this be the end of the story? Probably not. As inflation falls, US real wage growth, which is currently negative, will turn positive. Consumer confidence will improve, boosting consumer spending in the process (Chart 15). The aggregate demand curve will shift outwards again, triggering a “second wave” of inflation in the back half of 2023. Rather than cutting rates next year, as the market still expects, the Fed will raise rates to 5%. This will set the stage for a recession in 2024. Investors should overweight global equities over the next six months but look to turn more defensive thereafter. Peter Berezin Chief Global Strategist peterb@bcaresearch.com Follow me on            LinkedIn & Twitter   Global Investment Strategy View Matrix Special Trade Recommendations Current MacroQuant Model Scores      

Next week, on September 7-8, is the BCA New York Conference, the first in-person version since 2019. I look forward to seeing many of you there, and if you haven’t already booked your place, you still can! (a virtual version is also available). As such, the next Counterpoint report will come out on September 15. Executive Summary The 2022-23 = 1981-82 template for markets is working well. If it continues to hold, these are the major investment implications: Bonds: The 30-year T-bond (price) will trend sideways for the next few months, albeit with a potential correction that lifts the yield to 3.5 percent. However, bond prices will enter a sustained rally in 2023, in which the 30-year T-bond yield will fall to sub-2.5 percent. Stocks: A coordinated global recession will depress profits, causing the S&P 500 to test 3500. However, once past the worst of the recession, a strong rally will lift it through 5000 later in 2023. Sector allocation: Longer duration defensive sectors (such as healthcare) will strongly outperform shorter duration cyclical sectors (such as basic resources) until mid-2023, after which it will be time to flip back into cyclicals. Industrial metals: A tactical rebound in copper could lift it to $8500/MT after which the structural downtrend will resume, taking it to sub-$7000/MT in 2023. Oil: Just as in 1981-82, supply shortages will provide near-term support. But ultimately, demand destruction will dominate, depressing the price to, at best, $85, though our central case is $55 in 2023.  If 2022-23 = 1981-82, Then This Is What Happens To The Copper Price Bottom Line: The 2022-23 = 1981-82 template for markets is working well, and should continue to do so. Feature History doesn’t repeat, but it does rhyme. And the period that rhymes closest with the current episode in the global economy and markets is 1981-82, a rhyming which we first highlighted four months ago in Markets Echo 1981, When Stagflation Morphed Into Recession, and then developed in More On 2022-23 = 1981-82, And The Danger Ahead. In those reports, we presented three compelling reasons why 2022-23 rhymes with 1981-82: 1981-82 is the period that rhymes closest with the current episode in the global economy and markets. First, the simultaneous sell-off in stocks, bonds, inflation protected bonds, industrial commodities, and gold in the second quarter of 2022 is uniquely linked with an identical ‘everything sell-off’ in the second quarter of 1981. It is extremely rare for stocks, bonds, inflation protected bonds, industrial commodities, and gold to sell off together. Such a simultaneous sell-off has happened in just these 2 calendar quarters out of the last 200. Meaning a ‘1-in-a-100’ event conjoins 2022 with 1981 (Chart I-1 and Chart I-2). Chart I-1A 1-In-A-100 Event: The 'Everything Sell-Off' In 2022... Chart I-2...And The 'Everything Sell-Off' In 1981 Second, the Jay Powell Fed equals the Paul Volcker Fed. Now just as then, the world’s central banks are obsessed with ‘breaking the back’ of inflation. And now, just as then, the central banks are desperate to repair their badly battered credibility in managing inflation. Third, the Russia/Ukraine war that started in February 2022 equals the Iraq/Iran war that started in September 1980. Now, just as then, a war between two commodity producing neighbours has unleashed a supply shock which is adding to the inflation paranoia. To repeat, it is a 1-in-a-100 event for all financial assets to sell off together. This is because it requires an extremely rare star alignment. Inflation fears first morph to stagflation fears and then to recession fears. Leaving investors with nowhere to hide, as no mainstream asset performs well in inflation, stagflation, and recession. So, the once-in-a-generation star alignment conjoining 2022 with 1981 is as follows: Inflation paranoia is worsened by a major war between commodity producing neighbours, forcing reputationally damaged central banks to become trigger-happy in their battle against inflation, dragging the world economy into a coordinated recession. September 2022 Equals August 1981 If 2022-23 = 1981-82, then where exactly are we in the analogous episode? There are two potential synchronization points. One potential synchronization is that the Russia/Ukraine war which started on February 24, 2022 equals the Iraq/Iran war which started on September 22, 1980. In which case, September 2022 equals April 1981. But given that inflation is public enemy number one, a better synchronization is the Fed’s preferred measure of underlying inflation, the US core PCE deflator. Aligning the respective peaks in core PCE inflation, we can say that February 2022 equals January 1981. Meaning that our original report in May 2022 aligned with April 1981, and September 2022 equals August 1981 (Chart I-3 and Chart I-4). Chart I-3The Peak In Core PCE Inflation In ##br##February 2022 Chart I-4...Aligns With The Peak In Core PCE Inflation In ##br##January 1981 In which case, how has the template worked since we introduced it on May 19th? The answer is, very well. The template predicted that the long bond price would track sideways, which it has. The template predicted that the S&P 500 would decline from 4200 to 4000, which it has. The template predicted that the copper price would decline from $9250/MT to $8500/MT. In fact, it has fallen even further to $8200/MT. In the case of oil, the better synchronization is the starts of the respective wars. This template predicted that the Brent crude price would decline sharply from a knee-jerk peak in the $120s, which it has. Not a bad set of predictions! If 2022-23 = 1981-82, Here’s What Happens Next Assuming the template continues to hold, here are the major implications for investors: Bond prices will enter a sustained rally in 2023. Bonds: The 30-year T-bond (price) will trend sideways for the next few months, albeit with a potential tactical correction that takes its yield to 3.5 percent. However, bond prices will enter a sustained rally in 2023 in which the 30-year T-bond yield will fall to sub-2.5 percent (Chart I-5). Chart I-5If 2022-23 = 1981-82, Then This Is What Happens To Bond Prices Stocks: A coordinated global recession will depress profits, causing the S&P 500 to test 3500 in the coming months. However, once past the worst of the recession, a strong rally will lift it through 5000 later in 2023 (Chart I-6). Chart I-6If 2022-23 = 1981-82, Then This Is What Happens To Stock Prices Sector allocation: Longer duration defensive sectors (such as healthcare) will strongly outperform shorter duration cyclical sectors (such as basic resources) until mid-2023, after which it will be time to flip back into cyclicals (Chart I-7). Chart I-7If 2022-23 = 1981-82, Then This Is What Happens To Sector Allocation Industrial metals: A tactical rebound in copper could lift it to $8500/MT after which the structural downtrend will resume, taking it to sub-$7000/MT in 2023 (Chart I-8). Chart I-8If 2022-23 = 1981-82, Then This Is What Happens To The Copper Price Oil: Just as in 1981-82, supply shortages will provide near-term support. But ultimately, demand destruction will dominate, depressing the price to, at best, $85 (Chart I-9) though our central case is $55 in 2023.  Chart I-9If 2022-23 = 1981-82, Then This Is What Happens To The Oil Price But What If 2022-23 Doesn’t = 1981-82? And yet, and yet…what if the Jay Powell Fed doesn’t equal the Paul Volcker Fed? What if central banks lose their nerve before inflation is slayed? Long bond yields could gap much higher, or at least not come down, causing a completely different set of investment outcomes. In this case, the correct template would not be 1981-82, but the 1970s. If central banks lose the stomach to slay inflation, then the consequent housing market crash will do the job for them. However, there is one huge difference between now and the 1970s, which makes that template highly unlikely. In the 1970s, the global real estate market was worth just one times world GDP, whereas today it has become a monster worth four times world GDP, and whose value is highly sensitive to the long bond yield. In the US, the mortgage rate has surged to well above the rental yield for the first time in 15 years. Simply put, it is now more expensive to buy than to rent a home, causing a disappearance of would be homebuyers, a flood of home-sellers, and an incipient reversal in home prices (Chart I-10). Chart I-10If Bond Yields Don't Come Down, Then House Prices Will Crash Hence, if long bond yields were to gap much higher, or even stay where they are, it would trigger a housing market crash whose massive deflationary impulse would swamp any inflationary impulse. The upshot is that the 2022-23 = 1981-82 template would suffer a hiatus. Ultimately though, it would come good, because a crash in the $400 trillion global housing market would obliterate inflation. In other words, if central banks lose the stomach to slay inflation, then the consequent housing market crash will do the job for them. Fractal Trading Watchlist As just discussed, copper’s tactical rebound is approaching exhaustion. This is confirmed by the 130-day fractal structure of copper versus tin reaching the point of extreme fragility that has consistently marked turning-points in this pair trade (Chart I-11). Chart I-11Copper's Tactical Rebound Is Exhausted Hence, this week’s recommendation is to short copper versus tin, setting the profit target and symmetrical stop-loss at 12 percent.   Chart 1Expect Hungarian Bonds To Rebound Chart 2Copper Is Experiencing A Tactical Rebound Chart 3US REITS Are Oversold Versus Utilities Chart 4FTSE100 Outperformance Vs. Euro Stoxx 50 Is Vulnerable To Reversal Chart 5Netherlands' Underperformance Vs. Switzerland Has Ended Chart 6The Sell-Off In The 30-Year T-Bond At Fractal Fragility Chart 7Food And Beverage Outperformance Is Exhausted Chart 8German Telecom Outperformance Has Started To Reverse Chart 9Japanese Telecom Outperformance Vulnerable To Reversal Chart 10The Strong Trend In The 18-Month-Out US Interest Rate Future Has Ended Chart 11The Strong Downtrend In The 3 Year T-Bond Has Ended Chart 12A Potential Switching Point From Tobacco Into Cannabis Chart 13Biotech Is A Major Buy Chart 14Norway's Outperformance Has Ended Chart 15Cotton Versus Platinum Has Reversed Chart 16Switzerland's Outperformance Vs. Germany Is Exhausted Chart 17USD/EUR Is Vulnerable To Reversal Chart 18The Outperformance Of MSCI Hong Kong Versus China Has Ended Chart 19US Utilities Outperformance Vulnerable To Reversal Chart 20The Outperformance Of Oil Versus Banks Is Exhausted Dhaval Joshi Chief Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com Fractal Trading System Fractal Trades 6-12 Month Recommendations Structural Recommendations Closed Fractal Trades Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Euro Area Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Europe Ex Euro Area Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Asia Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Other Developed   Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations 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  

Executive Summary Low-Yielding Countries Facing High USD Hedging Costs The US dollar will remain strong alongside continued Fed rate hikes. Interest rate differentials will remain positive for the greenback, alongside other USD-positive factors like slowing global growth and rising investor risk aversion. Relatively high US interest rates have made hedging away US currency risk very expensive for some of the largest holders of US Treasuries like Japan. US Treasury yields, on an FX-hedged basis, look unattractive relative to local currency denominated bonds across the developed world. Increased foreign demand for US Treasuries evident in the US TIC data appears to reflect a re-establishment of positions unwound by global hedge funds and mutual funds dating back to the 2020 “dash for cash” in global financial markets. UST yields must rise even further versus non-US yields to attract more fundamental buyers like Japanese and European institutional investors, given elevated volatility in both US Treasury prices and the dollar. Bottom Line: Global investors should continue to underweight US Treasuries in global bond portfolios, on both a currency-unhedged and USD-hedged basis. Feature Dear Client, The schedule for the next two Global Fixed Income Strategy reports will be impacted by the upcoming Labor Day holiday and next week’s BCA’s annual conference in New York (I hope to see you there!). This Friday, September 2, we will be publishing a joint report with our colleagues at Foreign Exchange Strategy discussing Japan. On Monday, September 12, we will be publishing another joint report with our colleagues at European Investment Strategy, covering estimates of global neutral interest rates. -Rob Robis The title of our report from four weeks ago was “Dovish Central Bank Pivots Will Come Later Than You Think.” This could have also been the title for Fed Chair Jerome Powell's Jackson Hole speech. He reiterated the Fed’s commitment to tighten policy further and “keep at it” until the US economy slows enough to bring down inflation. Other central bankers who spoke at the conference had a similar tone to Powell, talking up an ongoing inflation fight that will require much slower growth and higher unemployment. Related Report  Global Fixed Income StrategyRecent USD Strength Is Not Bond Bullish By quickly and bluntly dispensing any notion that the Fed could soon pause its rate hiking cycle, Powell poured ice cold water on the risk asset rally that boosted the S&P 500 by nearly 17% between mid-June and mid-August. The S&P 500 plunged 3.4% after Powell’s speech, a tightening of US financial conditions that was likely welcomed by the Fed, as it helps their goal of slowing the US economy. Minneapolis Fed President Neil Kashkari even said he was “happy” to see the negative market reaction to Powell’s speech. Powell, Kashkari and the rest of the FOMC are probably happy over the strength of the US dollar, which is also helping tighten US financial conditions – while also having a major impact on global bond returns and currency hedging decisions for investors. A Collision Of A USD Bull Market & Global Bond Bear Market Chart 1A Big Move In The USD The current strength of the US dollar is becoming increasingly broad-based. The EUR/USD exchange rate has fallen below parity, while USD/JPY continues to flirt with the 140 level (Chart 1). The British pound is trading at a 2-year low versus the US dollar, many important emerging market (EM) currencies are struggling, and the Chinese renminbi is set to retest the 7.0 level. The strength of the US dollar is no recent phenomenon. The current uptrend dates back to the start of 2021, with the DXY dollar index up 21% since then. The dollar bull market has been supported by several factors, most critically rising US interest rates. The 2-year US Treasury yield started 2021 just above 0% and now sits at 3.4%. Higher US interest rates have raised the benefit of hedging currency risk into US dollars for global bond investors. The Bloomberg Global Aggregate Bond Index in USD-hedged terms has outperformed the unhedged version of the index by 6.3% over the past year, one of the largest such increases dating back to 2000 (Chart 2). This means that global bond investors have been paid handsomely to simply swap non-US bond exposures into US dollars – in some cases, making low-yielding assets like Japanese government bonds (JGBs), hedged from yen into dollars, comparable to US Treasury yields. Chart 2Big Gains From Hedging Global Bond Exposure Into USD This wedge between USD-hedged and unhedged bond returns is unlikely to reverse soon, as the fundamental drivers of the dollar remain biased to more dollar strength. The US dollar is not only supported by more favorable interest rate differentials versus other currencies (both in nominal and inflation-adjusted terms), but is also benefitting from its safe haven status at a time of considerable uncertainty on the future of the global economy (Chart 3). Global growth expectations are depressed and showing no signs of turning around anytime soon, particularly in Europe and the UK where electricity and gas prices are climbing at a record pace. The dollar not only typically appreciates during periods of slowing growth, but also during episodes of investor risk aversion. Investors remain cautious, according to indicators like the US equity put/call ratio which shows greater demand for downside protection via puts – an outcome that also typically coincides with a stronger US dollar. In this current environment of broad-based US dollar strength, the gap between hedged and unhedged bond returns has varied widely depending on the base currency of the investor. For a euro-based investor, the performance gap between the unhedged Global Aggregate index and the EUR-hedged index has been 6% over the past year (Chart 4). Chart 3USD Strength Supported By Key Fundamental Drivers​​​​​​ Chart 4FX Hedging Decisions Mean Everything In A Global Bond Bear Market​​​​​ Chart 5Low-Yielding Countries Facing High USD Hedging Costs The gap has been even larger for yen-based investors, with the unhedged index beating the JPY-hedged index by a whopping 13% over the past twelve months. Although Japanese fixed income investors are not typically known for taking unhedged currency risk on foreign bond holdings, doing so would have turned an awful year of global bond returns into a great year, simply due to yen weakness. When looking at current levels of interest rate differentials versus the US, which are the main determinant of currency hedging costs, the low yielding currencies like the euro, yen and Swiss franc see the greatest gain on returns versus the high-yielding US dollar (Chart 5). Hedging euros into dollars results in an annualized pickup of 252bps, while hedging yen into dollars produces an even bigger gain of 327bps. At the same time, the USD-hedging gains for relatively higher yielders are much lower. Hedging Australian dollars into US dollars only produces an annualized gain of 48bps, while hedging Canadian dollars into US dollars produces an annualized loss of -18bps. These varying hedging costs matter for global bond investors, as they impact the attractiveness of an individual country’s bond yields, depending on the investor’s base currency. We show the unhedged yield levels, and currency-hedged yield levels for six main developed market base currencies (USD, EUR, JPY, GBP, CAD, AUD) in the tables on the next two pages. Table 1 shows 2-year government bond yields, Table 2 shows 5-year government bond yields, Table 3 shows 10-year government bond yields and Table 4 shows 30-year government bond yields. Unsurprisingly, hedging into euros and yen, where short-term interest rates are the lowest, produces the smallest yields. Meanwhile, hedging into higher-rate currencies like US dollars and Canadian dollars generates the highest yields. Table 1Currency-Hedged 2-Year Government Bond Yields Table 2Currency-Hedged 5-Year Government Bond Yields Table 3Currency-Hedged 10-Year Government Bond Yields Table 4Currency-Hedged 30-Year Government Bond Yields We take the analysis a step further in the next set of tables on pages 9-11. Here, we take the hedged yields for each currency and compare them to the yields of the base currency. For example, in Table 5, it can be seen that a 2-year US Treasury yield of 3.4%, hedged into euros, produces a yield of 0.82% that is -17bps below the 2-year German yield (which is obviously denominated in euros). In other words, from the point of view of a euro-based investor who wants to hedge away the currency risk in a global bond portfolio, he gets paid a bit more to own a German bond over a US Treasury. Table 5Currency-Hedged 2-Year Govt. Bond Yield Spreads Similar results are shown in the subsequent tables for 5-year yields (Table 6), 10-year yields (Table 7) and 30-year yields (Table 8). From these tables, we can make the following broad conclusions: Table 6Currency-Hedged 5-Year Govt. Bond Yield Spreads Table 7Currency-Hedged 10-Year Govt. Bond Yield Spreads Table 8Currency-Hedged 30-Year Govt. Bond Yield Spreads For USD-based bond investors, all non-US markets except Canada have a yield pickup over US Treasuries on an FX-hedged basis For EUR-based investors, all non-euro area markets except Australia produce yields lower than those of Germany on an FX-hedged basis For GBP-based investors, all non-UK bond markets except the US and Canada have yields greater than those of Gilts for maturities from 5-30 years (the results are more mixed across countries for 2-year yields) For JPY-based investors, euro area and Australian bonds are clearly more attractive than JGBs on an FX-hedged basis, while US Treasuries, UK Gilts and Canadian government bonds offer FX-hedged yields below puny JGB yields. This is true up to the 10-year maturity point, as 30-year JGB yields – which are not targeted by the Bank of Japan in its yield curve control program – are much higher than those on the rest of the JGB curve For CAD-based investors, hedging virtually all non-Canadian bonds into CAD results in yields that are higher than Canadian government bond yields, with the largest hedged yield advantage for euro area and Australian bonds For AUD-based investors, only euro area bonds offer a consistent yield pickup over Australian government bonds on an FX-hedged basis. Broadly speaking, government bonds in the euro area and Australia offer consistently attractive FX-hedged yield pickups over the unhedged bonds for all currencies shown in the tables. On the other hand, Canadian government bonds have consistently less attractive FX-hedged yields across all currencies shown. Perhaps most importantly, US Treasuries look unattractive on an FX-hedged basis to all but CAD-based investors – a result that has meaningful implications for the potential of foreign buying to help stem the rise of US bond yields. Bottom Line: The US dollar bull market is having a huge influence on global bond returns. US Treasury yields, on an FX-hedged basis, look unattractive relative to most local currency denominated bonds across the developed world. Who Are The Foreign Buyers Of US Treasuries? When simply looking at currency-unhedged yield spreads, US Treasury yields offer particularly inviting yields over low-yielding (and low “beta” to US yields) markets like Germany and Japan. The unhedged 10-year US-Germany spread is now 160bps, while the unhedged US-Japan spread is up to 286bps (Chart 6). Meanwhile, among high-beta markets, the US-Canada 10-year spread is flat on an FX-unhedged basis, while an unhedged Australian 10-year bond yields 56bps more than a 10-year US Treasury. Chart 6UST Yields Only Look Attractive In FX-Unhedged Terms Yet after factoring in the currency hedging costs shown earlier, US Treasuries look consistently unattractive versus the other major developed economy bond markets. Chart 7UST Yields Look Unattractive After Hedging Out USD Exposure​​​​​ A 10-year US Treasury hedged into euros now yields -77bps less than a 10-year German bund, at the low end of the historical range for this spread dating back to 2000 (Chart 7). A 10-year Treasury hedged into GBP and JPY also offers lower yields versus 10-year UK Gilts (-11bps) and 10-year JGBs (-50bps), respectively. The 10-year hedged US-Australia spread (with the US yield hedged into AUD) is also at a stretched negative extreme at -114bps (Chart 8). Despite these broadly unattractive hedged US yield spreads, the US Treasury market has seen significant foreign inflows this year, according to the US Treasury Department’s capital flow (TIC) data. Total net purchases of US Treasuries by foreign buyers accelerated to $470bn (on a 12-month rolling total basis) as of the latest data for June (Chart 9). When broken down by type of buyer, private buyers bought a net $619bn, while official buyers were net sellers to the tune of -$149bn. Chart 8No Compelling Yield Advantage To Owning FX-Hedged USTs When looking at the TIC data by country, China was an important net seller of -$18bn of Treasuries. This is consistent with the reduced demand for US dollar assets from China, where policymakers are actively targeting a weaker renminbi. Chart 9TIC Data Shows USTs Seeing Foreign Buying (Ex-China)​​​​​ There was also net selling from many EM countries that have seen reduced trade surpluses and, hence, fewer US dollars to recycle into Treasuries. Chart 10Even Higher UST Yields Needed To Entice Japanese & European Buyers The largest net buying (Chart 10) was seen from the UK (+$306bn) and Cayman Islands (+$154bn) – the latter being a large source of Treasury buying through hedge funds and offshore investment funds located there. Those two countries accounted for almost all of the net foreign inflows into Treasuries, despite the fact they only hold a combined 12% of all foreign US Treasury holdings. There was modest net buying from the euro area (+$37bn) and small net selling by the country with the largest stock of US Treasury holdings, Japan. The relatively subdued inflows from Europe, and lack of inflows from Japan, are consistent with the unattractive hedged US-Europe and US-Japan yield spreads shown earlier, particularly at a time of elevated US bond yield volatility. The huge inflows from the UK and Cayman Islands are harder to explain on a fundamental basis, but are likely due to a continued normalization of Treasury market liquidity after the spring 2020 “dash for cash”. In a report published back in January, Fed researchers analyzed foreign demand for US Treasuries around the worst of the COVID pandemic shock in 2020. The report concluded that the huge collapse in private inflows into Treasuries – from a peak of +$238bn at the start of 2020 to a trough of -$373bn at the end of 2020 – was the result of aggressive net selling by hedge funds and global mutual funds. These are exactly the types of investors that would be domiciled in the Cayman Islands and UK (London). Specifically, the Fed report noted that: “In short, two prominent reasons for the large sales are the unwind of the Treasury basis trade by hedge funds (including foreign-domiciled funds) and the sudden, massive investor outflows from mutual funds that caused these funds to sell their most liquid assets, U.S. Treasury securities, to meet these redemptions.” The “basis trade” mentioned likely involved buying cash Treasuries versus selling Treasury futures, attempting to exploit unsustainable price differences between the two. As market liquidity conditions dried up in the spring of 2020 during the first wave of global lockdowns, leveraged bond investors needed to frantically unwind positions. For Treasury basis trades, that would have involved selling cash Treasuries, which was likely what is being picked up in the TIC data from the Cayman Islands which showed a huge plunge in net buying in 2020. The mutual fund outflows were likely a global phenomenon, but given the large fund management presence in London, the huge net selling of Treasuries from the UK in 2020 were almost certainly related to global fund managers, not purely UK investors. As Treasury market liquidity conditions normalized in 2021 and 2022, those large sellers in the UK and Cayman Islands (and other offshore investment locations) have likely turned into big net buyers, as evidenced from the TIC data. However, the modest inflows from Europe, and outflows from Japan, tell a more important story about the fundamental demand for US Treasuries. Treasury yields must rise further, widening both currency-hedged and unhedged spreads versus non-US government bonds to more historically attractive levels, to entice more foreign buying. Bottom Line: UST yields must rise even further versus non-US yields to attract more fundamental buyers like Japanese and European institutional investors, given elevated volatility in both US Treasury prices and the dollar. Global investors should underweight US Treasuries in global bond portfolios, on both a currency-unhedged and USD-hedged basis.   Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com   GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Recommended Positioning     Active Duration Contribution: GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. Custom Performance Benchmark The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Global Fixed Income - Strategic Recommendations* Tactical Overlay Trades

Executive Summary   Surging Electricity, Gas Prices Will Fuel Higher Inflation Heat waves in the Northern Hemisphere are sending electricity and natgas prices through the roof, which will feed into higher inflation prints in the months ahead. Heat waves and droughts this summer also will damage crops, and, on the back of higher natgas prices, will raise the cost of fertilizer, and push food prices up. Central banks attempting to control inflation cannot address exogenous supply shocks related to weather and commodity shortages via monetary policy, which will complicate their attempts to rein in inflation. Higher prices for necessary commodities – heat, cooling and food – will, perforce, account for increasing shares of firms’ operating expenses and household budgets. This will reduce spending on other goods and services. And it will provide central banks with some policy space to keep rate hikes from becoming so draconian they add unmanageable strains to firms’ and households’ budgets. Bottom Line: A remarkable confluence of exogenous weather shocks and supply constraints in commodity markets will push food and energy prices higher, and raise inflation expectations. Further down the line, supplies of base metals will come under pressure, as refinery and smelting operations are curtailed. We remain long direct commodity exposure via the COMT ETF. We also remain long equity exposure to oil and gas producers and miners via XOP and XME ETFs, respectively, (please see tables at the back of this report for details). Feature Electricity and natural gas prices continue to surge in Europe – this week on the back of reduced wind-power availability and higher air-conditioning demand (Chart 1). Meanwhile, Brent crude oil prices again were trading above $100/bbl earlier this week.1 Related Report  Commodity & Energy StrategyTight Commodity Markets: Persistently High Inflation             Elsewhere in the Northern Hemisphere, energy prices in the US also are trading higher, as are agricultural commodities. In the US, drought and heat are stressing grains. The US Climate Prediction Center is expecting hotter- and dryer-than-average weather conditions until November.2 In China, drought and heat waves are straining the electricity network. Energy rationing is forcing curtailments of power and closures of factories and metals refineries, and limiting exports of fertilizers; natural gas comprises ~ 70% of fertilizer inputs. Chart 1Surging Electricity, Gas Prices Will Fuel Higher Inflation Higher Energy, Grain Prices; Higher Inflation Chart 2AFood, Energy Drive US, EU Inflation Chart 2BFood, Energy Drive US, EU Inflation Higher energy and food prices will continue to drive inflation gauges in the US (Chart 2A) and Europe (Chart 2B). Our modeling shows the Bloomberg energy, agricultural and base metals spot subindexes – aggregations of the futures in the complete index – are cointegrated with the 5-year/5-year CPI swaps (5y5y CPI), meaning these series share a common long-term trend (Chart 3). The complete Bloomberg Commodity index based on prompt-delivery contracts also is cointegrated with CPI 5y5y inflation expectations, as is the 3-year forward WTI futures, which is one of the strongest relationships (Chart 4). Chart 35Y5Y CPI Inflation Expectations Move With Commodity Groups Chart 4Spot Commodities Impact 5y5y Expectations We continue to expect higher Brent and WTI crude oil prices going forward, particularly following the announcement from Saudi Arabia’s oil minister earlier this week that cutting oil production – say, in the event the US and Iran agree to revive the nuclear deal proffered by the EU – remains among its options to manage its production.3 For 4Q22, we expect Brent to trade at $119/bbl, while next year we expect prices to average $117/bbl. Any shock that moves Brent and WTI higher will push inflation higher. Fed Policy Rates And Commodities In earlier research, we noted oil prices are more than an input cost for manufacturing, mining, agriculture, etc. We share the ECB’s view that the oil price is a barometer of global economic activity, as well as being an input cost and the price of an asset.4 In this report, we delve into the relationship between Fed policy and commodity markets, specifically oil prices. We believe we have identified a feedback loop between market-cleared crude oil prices and Fed monetary policy vis-à-vis setting the Fed funds rate. We use the following theoretical framework to study this. High crude-oil prices feed into general price levels, which drive up inflation and inflation expectations as revealed in the CPI 5y5y swaps. Seeing this, the Fed begins to signal it will tighten monetary policy, trying to cool aggregate demand. On the other side of the coin, low crude oil prices drive inflation and inflation expectations lower – assuming markets are not in the midst of a market-share war – giving the Fed space to run a looser monetary policy. Granger Causality tests provide evidence of a short-term relationship between crude oil futures prices, inflation expectations evident in the 5y5y CPI swaps market, and Fed funds rate expectations revealed in the 1-year/1-year (1y1y) US Overnight Indexed Swap rates. We find past and present values of the front-month WTI contract help predict market expectations of 1-year Fed funds rates one year from now.5 What is interesting about this result is that we find Granger Causality between the expected Fed funds rates revealed in the 1y1y US OIS rate and 3-year forward WTI futures, which is a strong explanatory variable for 5y5y CPI swaps. This is to say, the 1y1y OIS rate Granger Causes the 3-year WTI futures, but not vice versa. Consistent with the feedback loop we posit between crude oil futures and Fed funds rates, we find that past and present values of the 1y1y Fed funds rate derived from the OIS curve help predict expected WTI prices 3 years forward. This means the 3-year WTI futures are reacting to short-term inflation expectations revealed in the OIS rates – and, most likely, the Fed’s assumed policy-response function contained in forward guidance – which, in turn, is used to calibrate 5y5y CPI swaps expectations (Chart 5). Chart 5Forward Oil Prices Drive 5y5y CPI Swaps Investment Implications Weather shocks – drought and heat waves across the Northern Hemisphere – and supply constraints (energy demand in excess of energy supply) will push food and energy prices higher, and lift inflation and inflation expectations. Tight natural gas markets will increase the cost of fertilizer, which will keep grain prices elevated. Further down the line, supplies of base metals will come under pressure, as refinery and smelting operations are curtailed. We remain long direct commodity exposure via the COMT ETF. We also remain long equity exposure to oil and gas producers and miners via XOP and XME ETFs, respectively.   Robert P. Ryan Chief Commodity & Energy Strategist rryan@bcaresearch.com Ashwin Shyam Research Analyst Commodity & Energy Strategy ashwin.shyam@bcaresearch.com Paula Struk Research Associate Commodity & Energy Strategy paula.struk@bcaresearch.com   Commodities Round-Up Energy: Bullish US commercial crude oil inventories ex-SPR barrels fell 3.3mm barrels week-on-week for the week ended 19 August 2022, according to the EIA. Including SPR barrels, total US crude oil inventories were down 11.4mm barrels. Total US oil stocks – crude and products – including the SPR barrels were down 6.7mm barrels; without the SPR draws, inventories built 1.4mm barrels. The US SPR now stands at 453.1 million barrels, the lowest since January 1985, according to reuters.com. The US has made 1mm b/d available to the market from its SPR over since May; this program will terminate at the end of October. We expect the SPR release will be extended, if the US and Iran cannot agree to extend the Iran nuclear deal in the near future. Low-sulfur distillates fell 1.7mm barrels, reflecting tight inventories of diesel, heating oil and jet fuel (Chart 6). Total products supplied (the EIA’s nomenclature for demand) fell 2.5mm b/d y/y, and now stands at 19.34mm b/d. Base Metals: Bullish Iron ore prices rose on Chinese growth prospects following the People’s Bank of China (PBoC) decision to cut lending rates on Monday, one week after its initial rate cut. More aggressive policy will be needed to stimulate credit activity and growth in an economy which has to contend with a zero COVID tolerance policy and a faltering property market. With no dearth of money in the economy, credit demand maybe the issue, not supply. M2 money supply – which includes cash and deposits - rose 12% y/y in July, while new bank lending dropped nearly 40% y/y (Chart 7). Precious Metals: Neutral Gold prices on Tuesday were supported by weak US manufacturing and household sales data. Significant support for the yellow metal will occur after the US Federal Reserve begins reducing interest rates, which we do not believe will occur this year. The Fed will continue tightening monetary policy, at the risk of increasing unemployment. Chart 6 Chart 7       Footnotes 1     Please see European Power Prices Smash Records in Another Inflation Blow published by bloomberg.com on August 23, 2022. The surge in prices has lifted European power prices above the equivalent of $1,000/bbl, more than 10x the Brent price on Wednesday. See also Drought Negatively Impacting China, the U.S. and Europe, as Ukrainian Black Sea Exports Continue published on August 22, 2022 by farmpolicynews.illinois.edu. 2     Please see Prognostic Discussion for Long-Lead Seasonal Outlooks published by the National Weather Service’s Climate Prediction Center on August 18, 2022. See also Farm Futures Daily AM - U.S., China heat concerns lift grains - 08/24 (penton.com) for a summary of ag market trading and crop conditions. 3    Please see Oil pares losses after Saudi oilmin says OPEC+ has options including cuts published by reuters.com on August 22, 2022. 4    At a high level of abstraction, we model crude oil demand as a function of real GDP, while supply is assumed to react to realized demand – i.e., oil producers are data-dependent vis-à-vis the volume of crude they produce to meet demand. Our crude-oil price estimate is calculated using supply, demand and inventories – along with US financial variables. In other words, our model uses real and financial variables to estimate a crude-oil price, which, we contend, qualifies it as a summary statistic for the variables on the right-hand side of our model. Please see Tight Commodity Markets: Persistently High Inflation, a Special Report we published on March 24, 2022 for further discussion. We note this is aligned with the way the ECB thinks about oil prices. It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 5    Market expectations for the US federal funds rate are derived using US Overnight Indexed Swap rates. The US Secured Overnight Financing Rate (SOFR) is used as the floating rate for the swap deal and tracks the federal funds rate.   Investment Views and Themes Strategic Recommendations Trades Closed in 2022

Special Report

Highlights The risk of a US recession has increased sharply over the past several months. We have not yet concluded that a recession over the coming year is inevitable, but substantial (further) supply-side and pandemic-related disinflation is likely needed for the US economy to avoid a contraction in output. The increased risk of a contraction has caused investors to ponder what the next recession might look like. One very important question concerns the likely behavior of short-term interest rates during the next recession, especially if it occurs sooner rather than later. The historical experience suggests that the Fed may cut interest rates to zero during the next recession, but that the re-establishment of a long-lasting zero interest rate policy and the associated resumption of large-scale asset purchases seem quite unlikely unless the recession is severe. In the post-WWII environment, severe US recessions have been accompanied by aggravating factors that appear to be missing in the current environment. In addition, there are several arguments pointing to the next US recession being a mild one. For fixed-income investors, the implication is that investors should not overstay their welcome in a long-duration position during the next US recession, and should be looking to reduce their duration exposure earlier rather than later. For equity investors, our findings underscore that meaningful downside risk exists for stocks even in a mild recession environment, because the decline in bond yields is not likely to offset a rise in the equity risk premium. Feature Over the past several months, investors have been faced with a sharp increase in the odds of a US recession. Gauging the risk of a recession has featured prominently in our recent reports, and we have concluded, for now, that a US recession over the coming year is not yet inevitable. Still, we acknowledge that the risks are quite elevated, and that substantial (further) supply-side and pandemic-related disinflation is likely needed for the US economy to avoid a contraction in output. Economic expansions do not last forever. This means that the US economy will eventually succumb to a recession at some point over the coming few years. One very important question for investors concerns the likely behavior of short-term interest rates during the next recession, especially if a contraction occurs sooner rather than later. A key aspect of this question is whether the Fed is likely to be forced back towards a zero or negative interest rate policy, and whether it will need to employ asset purchases as part of its stabilization efforts as it has during the last two recessions. If so, long-maturity bond yields are likely to fall significantly during the next recession; if not, investors may be surprised by how modestly long-maturity yields decline. In this report, we examine the historical record of short-term interest rates during recessions and discuss whether the next US recession is likely to be severe or mild. We conclude that the next US recession is more likely to be mild than severe, and that the 10-year Treasury yield is unlikely to fall below 2% during the recession (or fall below this level for very long). In the case of a more severe recession driven by unanchored inflation expectations, the implications would be clearly bearish for bonds. Within a fixed-income portfolio, one conclusion of our analysis is that investors should not overstay their welcome in a long-duration position during the next recession and should be looking to reduce their duration exposure earlier rather than later. For equity investors, our findings underscore that meaningful downside risk exists for stocks even in a mild recession environment, because the decline in bond yields is not likely to offset a rise in the equity risk premium. The Historical Recessionary Path Of Short-Term Interest Rates When projecting how the Fed funds rate is likely to evolve during the next US recession, most investors typically look to the average decline in short-term interest rates during previous recessions as a guide. Based on that approach, Table II-1 highlights that the Fed would likely have to cut rates into negative territory if a recession occurred over the coming 12-18 months, unless it is able to hike interest rates significantly more over the coming year than the market is currently expecting and the FOMC itself is projecting. But in our view, focusing on the historical recessionary decline in interest rates from their peak is not the right approach, because it ignores the fact that recessions typically occur when monetary policy is tight. If a recession occurs within the next 18 months, it will have happened in large part because of a collapse in real wage growth, not just because of the increase in interest rates that has occurred. Chart II-1 highlights that short-term interest rates remain well below potential GDP growth, highlighting that monetary policy would still be easy today – despite the quick pace of increase in short rates – if real wages were growing rather than contracting sharply. In our view, the right approach is to examine how much short-term interest rates have typically fallen during recessions relative to potential or average historical GDP growth. This method captures the degree to which monetary policy easing has typically been required relative to neutral levels to catalyze an economic recovery. Table II-1Based Only On The Historical Decline In Short-Term Interest Rates, The Fed Would Ostensibly Have To Cut Rates Into Negative Territory During The Next Recession Chart II-1Monetary Policy Would Still Be Easy Today If Real Wage Growth Was Positive Based on this approach, Chart II-2 highlights that the Fed might have to cut the target range for the Fed funds rate to 0-0.25% during the next recession, but there are some examples (like the 1990-1991 recession) that point to a cut to just 0.25-0.5%. The goal of this exercise is not to be specific about the exact level to which the Fed will have to cut the Fed funds rate, but rather whether the de facto re-establishment of a long-lasting zero interest rate policy and the associated resumption of large-scale asset purchases is likely. Chart II-2The Fed May Have To Cut To Zero During The Next Recession, But Probably Not Into Negative Territory Structural bond bulls might note that there are five recessions in the post-war era that could potentially point to that outcome based on Chart II-2. However, these episodes involved circumstances that we doubt would be present during the next US recession, especially if one were to emerge over the coming 12-18 months. The 1950s Recessions The recessions of 1953-54 and 1957-58 were fairly sizeable based on the total rise in the unemployment rate, but the monetary policy stance at that time was wildly stimulative in a way that is very unlikely to repeat itself today. In the 1950s, the level of interest rates was still an artifact of WWII (with the Treasury-Fed accord having only been agreed upon in March 1951). Monetary policy was both overly responsive to a period of pent-up disinflation following the initial burst of government spending associated with the Korean war and insufficiently responsive to a strongly positive output gap (Chart II-3). This was meaningfully compounded by a poor understanding of the size of the output gap at that time; the deviation of the unemployment rate from its 10-year average was significantly smaller than its deviation from today’s estimate of NAIRU (Chart II-4). In sum, the economic and monetary policy conditions that existed in the 1950s and that contributed to an interest rate level that was well below the prevailing rate of economic growth do not exist today. As such, we strongly doubt that the Fed’s response to the next US recession would resemble what occurred during that decade. Chart II-3We Strongly Doubt The Fed's Response To The Next US Recession Would Resemble What Occurred In The 1950s Chart II-4Low Interest Rates In The 1950s Were Partly Caused By Wrong Output Gap Estimates   1973-1975 The recession that began in 1973 occurred because of a huge energy shock that proved to be stagflationary in the true sense of the word. Excluding the 2020 recession, this was the third largest rise in the unemployment rate of any recession since WWII, following 2008/2009 and the 1981/1982 recessions. There are some parallels between this recession and the current economic environment, but the stability of inflation expectations so far does not point to a truly stagflationary outcome. As such, we do not see the 1973-74 recession as a reasonable parallel to today’s environment. In addition, manufacturing employment – which was heavily impacted by the permanent rise in oil prices due to the sector’s energy intensity – stood at 24% of total nonfarm employment in 1973, compared with 8% today. Finally, the weight of food and energy as a share of total consumer spending today is roughly half of what it was during the 1970s (Chart II-5). 2001 Of the five recessions potentially implying that the Fed may have to cut interest rates into negative territory during the next US recession, the 2001 recession is the most relevant parallel to today. It was a modern recession in which the Fed maintained very easy monetary policy for a significant amount of time, in response to concerns about a significant tightening in financial conditions and the impact of prior corporate sector excesses on aggregate demand. The total rise in the unemployment rate during this recession was not very large, but it took some time for the unemployment rate to return to NAIRU. Still, even though this justified a later liftoff, a Taylor rule approach makes it clear that the Fed overstimulated the economy in response to the recession – a view that is reinforced by the enormous rise in household debt that fueled the housing market bubble during that period (Chart II-6). The Fed was very concerned about the negative wealth effects of the bursting of the equity market bubble, which had been caused by a massive decline in the equity risk premium in the second half of the 1990s. These conditions are simply not present today. Chart II-5Today's US Economy Is Meaningfully Less Impacted By Energy And Food Prices Chart II-6The Fed Clearly Overstimulated In Response To The 2001 Recession 2008/2009 Chart II-7A Repeat Of The 2008/2009 Recession In The US Is A Totally Implausible Scenario Chart II-2 highlighted that the Fed would have to cut interest rates to -1% were the 2008/2009 recession to repeat itself, but we judge that to be a totally implausible scenario given the improvement in US household sector balance sheets and financial sector health since the global financial crisis (Chart II-7). As we discuss below, the next US recession is likely to be meaningfully less severe than the 2008/2009 and 2020 recessions, which we believe carries important significance for the path of interest rates and the response of long-maturity bond yields. The bottom line for investors is that, based on the historical experience of rate cuts during recessions, the Fed may end up cutting interest rates back to or close to the zero lower bound in response to the next recession. But the de facto re-establishment of a long-lasting zero interest rate policy and the associated resumption of large-scale asset purchases seems quite unlikely unless the recession is severe, which we do not expect. Will The Next US Recession Be Severe Or Mild? Chart II-8The Most Severe US Recessions Have Had Aggravating Factors That Do Not Appear To Be Present Today How drastically the Fed will be forced to cut interest rates during the next recession will be driven by its severity. Chart II-8 presents the total rise in the unemployment rate during post-WWII recessions (excluding 2020), in order to gauge whether the factors that have led to severe recessions in the past are likely to be present during the next contraction in output. From our perspective, the most severe US recessions in the post-WWII era have been driven by factors that are very unlikely to repeat themselves in the current environment. We noted above that a repeat of the 2008/2009 recession is a totally implausible scenario, leaving the 1981-1982, 1973-1975, and 1950s recessions as potential severe recession analogues. In three of these four cases we see clear signs of an aggravating factor that we do not (yet) believe will be present during the next US recession. Chart II-9Inflation Expectations Have Not Yet Unanchored To The Upside, In Sharp Contrast To The 1970s In the 1981-1982 recession, the unemployment rate rose significantly as the Federal Reserve confronted the fact that inflation expectations had become severely unanchored to the upside, causing a persistent wage/price spiral. While unanchored inflation expectations is a risk today, so far the evidence suggests that both households and market participants expect that currently elevated inflation will not persist over the long run (Chart II-9). If inflation expectations do become unanchored to the upside at some point over the coming 12-18 months (or beyond), we are very likely to change our view about the severity of the next recession. However, this would be a bond bearish outcome (at least initially), as it would imply sharply higher yields at both the short and long end of the yield curve in order to tame inflation and re-anchor inflation expectations. As noted above, in the 1973-74 recession, the unexpected and permanent rise in oil prices and outright energy shortages rendered a significant amount of capital and labor uneconomic, which is different than what has been occurring during the pandemic. Were the recent rise in natural gas prices to be permanent and no alternatives available, Europe’s current energy situation would be more reminiscent of the 1973-1974 recession than the pandemic-driven price pressures and supply shortages affecting the US and other developed economies. Chart II-10The US Is Currently Experiencing Fiscal Drag, But That Will Lessen Next Year Finally, while the 1957-58 recession appears to be somewhat of an anomaly driven by a mix of factors, the 1953-54 recession was clearly exacerbated by a sharp slowdown in government spending following the end of the Korean war. It is true that the US is currently experiencing fiscal drag (Chart II-10), but this has occurred against the backdrop of a strong labor market, and IMF forecasts imply that the drag will be significantly smaller over the coming year than what the US is currently experiencing. There are several additional points suggesting that the next US recession will be comparatively mild: Chart II-11The Milder US Recessions Were All Seemingly Triggered By Tight Monetary Policy (As Would Be The Case Today) Chart II-11 highlights that the milder recessions, those which have seen the unemployment rate rise by less than 3% from their previous low, have generally been the recessions that appear to have simply been triggered by monetary policy becoming tight or nearly tight. This would likely be the case during the next US recession. In the lead up to the 1970, 1990-91, and 2001 recessions, short-term interest rates approached or exceeded either potential growth or the rolling 10-year average growth rate of nominal GDP. The 1960-61 recession stands out slightly as an exception to this rule, in that interest rates were still moderately easy, which is based on our definition of the equilibrium short-term interest rate. But interest rates had risen close to 400 basis points from 1958 to 1960 (suggesting a change in addition to a level effect of interest rates on aggregate demand), and it is notable that the 60-61 recession was the mildest in post-war history, based on the total rise in the unemployment rate. Chart II-12Labor Scarcity May Mean That Firms Will Be Somewhat More Reluctant To Shed Labor During The Next Recession We argued in Section 1 of our report that monetary policy is not currently restrictive on its own, and that the recessionary risk currently facing the US is the result of a combination of the speed of adjustment in interest rates, the fact that real wages have fallen sharply, and the fact that the Fed is determined to see inflation quickly return to target levels. However, what this also highlights is that a recession would likely cause a rise in real wages via a significant slowdown in inflation (at least for a time); this would likely help stabilize aggregate demand and cause a comparatively mild rise in the unemployment rate. While the odds and magnitude of this effect are difficult to quantify, the fact that the labor market has been so tight over the past year and that the participation rate has yet to recover to its pre-pandemic levels suggests that some firms may be reluctant to shed labor during a recession (Chart II-12), suggesting that the total rise in unemployment in the next recession could be relatively small. Finally, Chart II-13 shows that the excess savings that have accumulated over the course of the pandemic, now primarily the result of reduced spending on services, dwarf the magnitude of precautionary savings that were generated in the prior three recessions as a % of GDP. We agree that the savings rate would likely still rise during the next recession, but the existence of excess savings implies that the rise in the savings rate may be surprisingly small – which would, in turn, imply a comparatively mild rise in the unemployment rate. We noted above that the household sector has deleveraged significantly, which is strong evidence against an outsized or long-lasting decline in consumer spending as a possible driver of an above-average rise in the unemployment rate during the next recession. One question that we often receive from clients is whether excessive corporate sector leverage could cause a more severe decline in economic activity once a recession emerges. Chart II-14 illustrates that the answer is “probably not.” The chart presents one estimate of the US nonfinancial corporate sector debt service ratio, based on national accounts data. The chart highlights that the current debt burden for the nonfinancial corporate sector is very low, underscoring that elevated corporate sector debt would not likely act as an aggravating factor driving an outsized rise in the unemployment rate were a recession to occur today. The chart also shows that even if the 10-year Treasury yield were to rise to 4% and corporate bond spreads were to widen in the lead up to a recession, the nonfinancial corporate sector debt service burden would rise to a lower peak than seen in the last three recessions. One key risk to a mild recession view is a scenario in which inflation does not return to or below the Fed’s target during the recession. In that kind of environment, the Fed would not likely cut interest rates to as low a level as they have in the past relative to potential growth. But the historical record is clear that recessions cause a deceleration in inflation, and if a recession emerges over the coming 12-18 months it will likely happen after supply-side and pandemic-related disinflation has already occurred. That means that inflation is likely to move back to or below the Fed’s target in a recessionary environment. We should note that this assessment differs somewhat from the scenario described by my former colleague Martin Barnes, who wrote a guest report on inflation published in our July Bank Credit Analyst.1 Chart II-13Today’s Pandemic-Related Excess Savings Dwarf Precautionary Savings During The Prior Three Recessions Chart II-14US Corporate Sector Debt Unlikely To Lead To A More Severe Recession, Even In A Higher Yield Environment   Long-Maturity Bond Yields And The Next US Recession What does our analysis imply for long-maturity bond yields and the duration call over the coming few years? In order to judge what is likely to happen to long-maturity bond yields in a recession scenario over the coming 12-18 months, we first project the fair value of the 5-year Treasury yield based on the following hypothetical circumstances: The onset of recession in March 2023 and a peak in the Fed funds rate at a target range of 3.75-4%. A recession duration of eight months, over which time the Fed steadily cuts the policy rate to 0-0.25%. An initial Fed rate hike in September 2024, nine months following the end of the recession, consistent with a relatively short return of the unemployment rate to NAIRU as an expansion takes hold. A rate hike pace of eight quarter-point hikes per year, with the Fed again raising rates to a peak of 4% A longer-term average Fed funds rate of 3%, which we regard as a low estimate. Chart II-15The 5-Year Treasury Yield Would Not Fall Enormously In A Mild Recessionary Scenario Chart II-15 highlights the fair value path for the 5-year Treasury yield in this scenario. Not surprisingly, the fair value today is lower than the current level of the 5-year yield, highlighting that a shift to a long duration stance will be warranted at some point over the coming year if the US economy enters a non-technical, typical income-statement recession. However, the chart also highlights that a long duration position is not likely to be warranted for very long, given that the lowest level of the 5-year fair value path is substantially higher than it was in 2020 and 2021 and is also higher than its 10-year average. Chart II-16 reveals the importance of forecasting the near-term path of interest rates when predicting the likely behavior of long-maturity bond yields. Even though near- and long-term interest rate expectations should be at least somewhat differentiated, the chart highlights that the real 5-year/5-year forward Treasury yield is very closely explained by the real 5-year Treasury yield and a 3-year lag of our adaptive inflation expectations model (which is highly consistent with BCA’s Golden Rule of bond investing framework). Chart II-16 shows that long-maturity bond yields should be higher than they are based on the current level of real 5-year yields and lagged inflation expectations, underscoring the point that we made in Section 1 of our report that significant upside risk exists for long-maturity bond yields in a non-recessionary outcome over the coming year. In a recessionary outcome, it is clear that bond yields will fall as the Fed cuts interest rates, as Chart II-15 demonstrated. But, Chart II-17 highlights that during recessions, there is little precedent for a negative 5-10 yield curve slope outside of the context of the persistently high inflation environment of the late 1960s and 1970s. Applying that template to the fair value path that we showed in Chart II-15 suggests that the 10-year Treasury yield will not fall below 2% during the next recession. As we noted in our August report,2 a 10-year Treasury yield decline to 2% would result in significant performance for long-maturity bonds, but it would not end the structural bear market in bonds that began two years ago – a fact that we suspect would be very surprising to bond-bullish investors. Chart II-165-Year Bond Yields Strongly Explain Yields 5-Years/5-Years Forward Chart II-17There Is Not Much Precedent For A Negative 5/10 Yield Curve During Modern Recessions, Suggesting 10-Year Yields Will Not Fall Below 2% During The Next Recession It is true that bond yields may deviate from the fair value levels shown in Chart II-15 if investors expect a different outcome for the path of the Fed funds rate than we described. However, it is worth noting that changes in our assumed post-recession peak Fed funds rate and the long-term average do not substantially change the outcome shown in Chart II-15. If investors instead assume that the Fed funds rate will peak at 3% during the next expansion, that lowers the fair value path for the 5-year yield by approximately 5 basis points. Changing the long-term average Fed funds rate to 2.4%, the Fed’s current neutral rate expectation, would reduce it by about 25 basis points. These levels would still be significantly above the lows reached in 2011-2013 and in 2020, underscoring that the length of the recession and the speed at which the Fed begins to raise interest rates will be far more important determinants of the path of US Treasury yields. We strongly suspect that investors will recognize that a comparatively mild recession will not result in the same hyper-accomodative monetary policy stance that occurred during the past two recessions, implying that long-maturity bond yields will have less downside during the next recession than may be currently recognized. Investment Conclusions As we have presented, the historical experience suggests that the Fed may cut interest rates to zero during the next recession, but that the re-establishment of a long-lasting zero interest rate policy and the associated resumption of large-scale asset purchases seem quite unlikely unless the recession is severe. In the post-WWII environment, severe US recessions have been accompanied by aggravating factors that appear to be missing in the current environment. In addition to this, there are several arguments pointing to the next US recession being a mild one. In a mild recession scenario, we doubt that the 10-year Treasury yield would fall below 2%, or fall below this level for very long. For fixed-income investors, while bond yields will fall for a time if a recession emerges, the implication is that investors should not overstay their welcome in a long-duration position during the recession and should be looking to reduce their duration exposure earlier rather than later. For equity investors, our findings underscore that meaningful downside risk exists for stocks even in a mild recession environment, because the decline in bond yields is not likely to offset a rise in the equity risk premium. We noted in our July report that if a recession occurred within the coming 6-12 months, that the S&P 500 would likely fall to 3100, even if the recession were average. A mild recession may see the S&P 500 decline less severely than this, but stocks are still likely to incur significant losses during the next recession unless investors price in a much shallower path for short-term interest rates than we believe will be warranted. As noted in Section 1 of our report, we have not yet concluded that a US recession is inevitable over the coming 6-12 months. Still, we acknowledge that the risks are quite elevated, and that substantial (further) supply-side and pandemic-related disinflation is likely needed for the US economy to avoid a contraction in output. Additional changes to our recommended cyclical allocation may thus occur over the coming few months, in response to incoming data, our assessment of the likely implications for monetary policy, and the response of long-maturity government bond yields. Jonathan LaBerge, CFA Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst   Footnotes 1  Please see The Bank Credit Analyst "Inflation Whipsaw Ahead," dated June 30, 2022, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 2  Please see The Bank Credit Analyst "August 2022," dated July 28, 2022, available at bca.bcaresearch.com

Executive Summary US Companies Will Attempt To Raise Selling Prices To Protect Their Profit Margins China needs lower interest rates and a weaker currency to battle deflationary pressures. In the US, the main problem is elevated inflation. This heralds higher interest rates and a stronger currency. Hence, the Chinese yuan will depreciate against the greenback. When the RMB weakens versus the US dollar, commodity prices usually fall, and EM currencies and asset prices struggle. Faced with surging unit labor costs, US companies will continue to raise their prices to protect their profit margins and profitability. This will lead to one of the following two possible scenarios in the months ahead. Scenario 1: If customers are willing to pay considerably higher prices, nominal sales will remain robust, profits will not collapse, and a recession is unlikely. However, this also implies that the Fed will have to tighten policy by more than what is currently priced in by markets. Scenario 2: If customers push back against higher prices and curtail their purchases, then the economy will enter a recession. In this scenario, inflation will plummet, corporate margins will shrink, and their profits will plunge.  In both scenarios, the outlook for stocks is poor. However, one key difference is that scenario 1 is bearish for US Treasurys while scenario 2 is bond bullish. Bottom Line: On the one hand, the US has a genuine inflation problem. The upshot is that the Fed cannot pivot too early. The Fed’s hawkish rhetoric will support the US dollar. A strong greenback is bad for EM financial markets. On the other hand, the Chinese economy and global trade are experiencing deflation/recession dynamics. Cyclical assets underperform and the US dollar generally appreciates in this environment. This is also a toxic backdrop for EM financial markets.   Financial markets have been caught in contradictions. The reason is that investors cannot decide if the global economy is heading into a recession with deflationary forces prevailing, or whether a goldilocks economy or a period of inflation or stagflation will emerge in the foreseeable future. There are also plenty of contradictory data to support all the above scenarios.  As such, financial markets are volatile, swinging wildly as market participants absorb new economic data points. The S&P 500 index has rebounded from its 3-year moving average, which had previously served as a major support (Chart 1). Yet, the rebound has faltered at its 200-day moving average. Its failure to break decisively above this 200-day moving average entails that a new cyclical rally is not yet in the cards. Chart 1The S&P 500 Is Stuck Between Technical Resistance And Support Lines The S&P 500 index will remain between these resistance and support lines until investors make up their minds about the economic outlook. The EM equity index has been unable to rebound strongly alongside US stocks. A major technical support that held up in the 1998, 2001, 2002, 2008, 2015 and 2020 bear markets is about 15% below the current level (Chart 2). Hence, we recommend that investors remain on the sidelines of EM stocks. Chart 2EM Share Prices Are Still 15% Above Their Long-Term Technical Support Level BCA’s Emerging Markets Strategy team’s macro themes and views remain as follows: Related Report  Emerging Markets StrategyCharts That Matter In China, the main economic risk is deflation and the continuation of underwhelming economic growth. Core and service consumer price inflation are both below 1% and property prices are deflating. Falling prices amid high debt levels is a recipe for debt deflation. We discussed the government’s stimulus – including measures enacted for the property market – in the August 11 report. The latest announcement about the RMB 1 trillion stimulus does not change our analysis. In fact, we expected an additional RMB 1.5 trillion in local government bond issuance for the remainder of the current year. Yet, the government authorized only an additional RMB 0.5 trillion. This is substantially below what had been expected by analysts and commentators in recent months.   In Chinese and China-related financial markets, a recession/deflation framework remains appropriate. Onshore interest rates will drop further, the yuan will depreciate more, and Chinese stocks and China related plays will continue experiencing growth/profit headwinds. Meanwhile, the US economy has been experiencing stagflation this year. Chart 3 shows that even though the nominal value of final sales has expanded by 8-10%, sales and output have stagnated in real terms (close to zero growth). Hence, nominal sales and corporate profits have so far held up because companies have been able to raise prices by 8-9.5% (Chart 4). Is this bullish for the stock market? Not really. Chart 3US Stagflation: Strong Nominal Growth, But Small In Real Terms Chart 4US Corporate Profits Have Held Up Because Of Pricing Power/Inflation The fact that companies have been able to raise their selling prices at this rapid pace implies that the Fed cannot stop hiking rates. Besides, US wages and unit labor costs are surging (Chart 9 below). The implication is that inflation will be entrenched and core inflation will not drop quickly and significantly enough to allow the Fed to pivot anytime soon. Overall, US economic data releases have been consistent with our view that although real growth is slowing, the US economy is experiencing elevated inflations, i.e., a stagflationary environment. Critically, wages and inflation lag the business cycle and are also very slow moving variables. Hence, US core inflation will not drop below 4% quickly enough to provide relief for the Fed and markets. Is a US recession imminent? It depends. One thing we are certain of is that faced with surging unit labor costs, US companies will attempt to raise their prices to protect their profit margins and profitability. Our proxy for US corporate profit margins signals that they are already rolling over (Chart 5). Hence, business owners and CEOs will attempt to raise selling prices further. Chart 5US Companies Will Attempt To Raise Selling Prices To Protect Their Profit Margins This will lead to one of two possible scenarios for the US economy in the months ahead. Scenario 1: If customers (households and businesses) are willing to pay considerably higher prices, nominal sales will remain very robust, and profits will not collapse, reducing the likelihood of a recession. Yet, this means that inflation will become even more entrenched, and employees will continue to demand higher wages. A wage-price spiral will persist. The Fed will have to raise rates much more than what is currently priced in financial markets. This is negative for US share prices. Scenario 2: If customers push back against higher prices and curtail their purchases, output volume will relapse, i.e., the economy will enter a recession. In this scenario, inflation will plummet, corporate margins will shrink (prices received will rise much less than unit labor costs) and profits will plunge.  Suffering a profit squeeze, companies will lay off employees, wage growth will decelerate, and high inflation will be extinguished. In this scenario, bond yields will drop significantly but plunging corporate profits will weigh on share prices. We are not certain which of these two scenarios will prevail: it is hard to determine the point at which US consumers will push back against rising prices. Nevertheless, it is notable that in both scenarios, the outlook for stocks is poor.   Finally, as we have repeatedly written, global trade is about to contract. Charts 10-18 below elaborate on this theme. This is disinflationary/recessionary. Investment Conclusions On the one hand, the Chinese economy and global trade are experiencing deflation/recession dynamics. Cyclical assets struggle and the US dollar does well in this environment. This constitutes a toxic backdrop for EM financial markets. On the other hand, the US has a genuine inflation problem. The upshot is that the Fed cannot pivot too early. The Fed’s hawkish rhetoric will support the US dollar. A strong greenback is also bad for EM financial markets. Thus, we do not see any reason to alter our negative view on EM equities, credit and currencies. Investors should continue underweighting EM in global equity and credit portfolios. Local currency bonds offer value, but further currency depreciation and more rate hikes remain a risk to domestic bonds. We continue to short the following currencies versus the USD: ZAR, COP, PEN, PLN and IDR. In addition, we recommend shorting HUF vs. CZK, KRW vs. JPY, and BRL vs. MXN.   Arthur Budaghyan Chief Emerging Markets Strategist arthurb@bcaresearch.com Messages From Various US High-Beta / Cyclical Stock Prices US high-beta consumer discretionary, industrials, tech and early cyclical stocks have not yet broken out. The rebounds in high-beta tech and industrials have been rather muted. We are watching these and many other market signs and technical indicators to gauge if the recent rebounds can turn into a cyclical bull market. Chart 6 Chart 7 Falling Global Trade + Sticky US Inflation = US Dollar Overshot On the one hand, US household spending on goods ex-autos is already contracting and will drop further. The same is true for EU demand. The reasons are excessive consumption of goods over the past two years and shrinking household real disposable income. As a result, global trade is set to shrink, which is positive for the US dollar. On the other hand, surging US unit labor costs entail that core CPI will be very sticky at levels well above the Fed’s target. Hence, the Fed will likely maintain its hawkish bias for now, which is also bullish for the greenback. In short, the US dollar will continue overshooting.  Chart 8 Chart 9 Chinese Exports Will Contract, And Imports Will Fail To Recover Chinese export volume growth has come to a halt. Shrinking imports of inputs used for re-export (imports for processing trade) are pointing to an imminent contraction in the mainland’s exports. Further, Chinese import volumes have been contracting for the past 12 months. The value of imports has not plunged only because of high commodity prices. As commodity prices drop, import values will converge to the downside with import volumes. This is negative for economies/industries selling to China. Chart 10 Chart 11 Global Manufacturing / Trade Downtrend Is Intact China buys a lot of inputs from Taiwan that are used in its exports. That is why the mainland’s imports from Taiwan lead the global trade cycle. This is presently heralding a considerable deterioration in global trade.  In addition, falling freight rates and depreciating Emerging Asian (ex-China) currencies are all currently pointing to a further underperformance of global cyclicals versus defensive sectors. Chart 12 Chart 13 Chart 14 Taiwan Is A Canary In A Coal Mine Taiwanese manufacturing companies have seen their export orders plunge and their customer inventories surge. This has occurred in its overall manufacturing and semiconductor companies.  This corroborates our thesis that global export volumes will contract in the coming months. Chart 15 Chart 16 Korean Exporters Are Struggling Korean export companies are experience the same dynamics as their Taiwanese peers. Semiconductor prices and sales are falling hard in Korea. Export volume growth has come to a halt and will soon shrink. Chart 17 Chart 18 EM Equities: Cheap And Unloved? The EM cyclically adjusted P/E (CAPE) ratio has fallen to one standard deviation below its mean. Based on this measure, EM stocks are currently as cheap as they were at their bottoms in 2020, 2015 and 2008. EM share prices in USD deflated by US CPI are now at two standard deviations below their long-term time-trend. This is as bad as it got when EM stocks bottomed in the previous bear markets. The reason for EM stocks poor performance and such “cheapness” is corporate profits. EM EPS in USD has been flat, i.e., posting zero growth in the past 15 years. Besides, EM narrow money (M1) growth points to further EM EPS contraction in the months ahead. Chart 19 Chart 20 Chart 21 Chart 22 Commodity Prices Remain At Risk China needs lower interest rates and a weaker currency to battle deflationary pressures. In the US, the problem is inflation, which heralds higher interest rates and a stronger currency to fight rising prices. Hence, the yuan will depreciate versus the greenback. When the RMB depreciates versus the US dollar, commodity prices usually fall. Further, commodity currencies (an average of AUD, NZD and CAD) continue drafting lower. This indicator correlates with commodity prices and also presages further relapse in resource prices. Chart 23 Chart 24 Oil Prices: A Major Top In Place, But Geopolitics Will Drive Near-Term Fluctuations Chinese crude oil imports have been contracting for almost a year. Global (including US) demand for gasoline has relapsed. Meantime, Russia’s oil and oil product exports have fallen only by a mere 5% from their January level. This explains why oil prices have recently fallen. Oil lags business cycles: its consumption will shrink as global growth downshifts. However, geopolitics remain a wild card. Hence, we are uncertain about the near-term outlook for oil prices. That said, oil has made a major top and any rebound will fail to last much longer or push prices above recent highs. Chart 25 Chart 26 Chart 27 Chart 28 What Is Next For The Chinese RMB? The Chinese yuan will continue depreciating versus the US dollar. China needs lower interest rates and a weaker currency to battle deflationary pressures. While currency is moderately cheap, exchange rates tend to overshoot/undershoot and can remain cheap/expensive for a while. The CNY/USD has technically broken down. Interestingly, the periods of RMB depreciation coincide with deteriorating global US dollar liquidity and, in turn, poor performance by EM assets and commodities. Chart 29 Chart 30 Chart 31 Stay Put On Chinese Equities Odds are rising that Chinese platform companies will likely be delisted from the US as we have argued for some time. Hence, international investors will continue dampening US-listed Chinese stocks. The outlook for China’s economic recovery and profits is downbeat. This will weigh on non-TMT stocks and A shares. Within the Chinese equity universe, we continue to recommend the long A-shares / short Investable stocks strategy, a position we initiated on March 4, 2021. Chart 32 Chart 33 Chart 34 Chart 35 Messages For Stocks From Corporate Bonds Historically, rising US and EM corporate bond yields led to a selloff in US and EM share prices, respectively. Corporate bond yields are the cost of capital that matters for equities. Unless US and EM corporate bond yields start falling on a sustainable basis, their share prices will struggle. Corporate bond yields could increase because of either rising US Treasury yields or widening credit spreads. Chart 36 Chart 37 EM Currencies And Fixed-Income: An Unfinished Adjustment The profiles of EM FX and credit spreads suggest that their adjustment might not be complete. We expect further EM currency depreciation and renewed EM credit spread widening. EM domestic bond yields have risen significantly and offer value. However, if and as US TIPS yields rise and/or EM currencies continue to depreciate, local bond yields are unlikely to fall. To recommend buying EM local bonds aggressively, we need to change our view on the US dollar. Chart 38 Chart 39 Chart 40 Chart 41   Footnotes Strategic Themes (18 Months And Beyond) Equities Cyclical Recommendations (6-18 Months) Cyclical Recommendations (6-18 Months)

Executive Summary Upgrade Euro Area ILBs To Overweight Inflation breakevens have stabilized in the US, where gasoline prices have fallen, but have reaccelerated in the UK and euro area, where natural gas prices have exploded. Inflation breakevens have declined in Canada, potentially due to markets starting to discount a rapid decline in Canadian house price inflation. Our suite of global breakeven models shows that US and Canadian 10-year breakevens are too low, while euro area and UK breakevens are too high. When adjusted for market expectations for the future stance of monetary policies, expressed as the slope of nominal bond yield curves, only the UK stands out with a “conflicted” combination of too-high breakevens and an inverted nominal Gilt curve. Bottom Line: Upgrade inflation-linked bonds to overweight in the euro area (Germany, France, Italy), while downgrading Canadian linkers to underweight. Stay underweight UK linkers, with the Bank of England on course to tip the UK into a deep recession. Maintain a neutral stance on US TIPS, but look to upgrade if the Fed signals a less hawkish path for US monetary policy. Feature Chart 1Intensifying Inflation Worries In Europe Inflation-linked bonds (ILBs) have played a useful role for fixed income investors looking to protect their portfolios from the pernicious effects of the current era of high inflation. The rising inflation tide had been lifting all global ILB boats. Given the global nature of the brief deflationary shock from the global COVID lockdowns in 2020, and the persistent inflationary shock of the policy-induced recovery from the pandemic, ILB yields – and breakeven spreads versus nominal bonds – have tended to be positively correlated between countries. Now, some interesting divergences have started to appear between market-based inflation expectations (ILB breakevens or CPI swaps) at the country level. Most notably, inflation expectations have been climbing in the euro area and UK, while staying more stable – below the 2022 peak - in the US (Chart 1). In smaller ILB markets like Canada and Australia, breakevens have rolled over and remain at levels consistent with central bank inflation targets even in the fact of high realized inflation. Amid signs of easing inflation pressures from the commodity and traded goods spaces, and with global central banks now in full-blown tightening cycles to try and rein in overshooting inflation, ILB markets are likely to continue being less correlated. Being selective with ILB allocations at the country level, both on the long and short side of the market, will provide better relative return opportunities for bond investors over the next 6-12 months. To assess where those ILB opportunities lie within the developed market universe, we must first go over what is happening with various measures of inflation expectations in each country. A Country-By-Country Tour Of The Recent Dynamics Of Inflation Expectations US Chart 2Lower Gas Prices, Lower US Inflation Expectations In the US, the correlation with inflation expectations and gasoline prices remains quite strong (Chart 2). That has been the case when gas prices were soaring, but the correlation works in both directions. The US national gasoline price has fallen by 22% since the peak on June 13, according to the American Automobile Association. Lower gas prices have helped ease consumer inflation expectations. The July reading of the New York Fed’s Survey of Consumer Expectations showed a dip in the 1-year-ahead inflation expectation to 6.2% from 6.8% in June. The 5-year-ahead inflation expectation, which was introduced to the New York Fed survey back in January, fell sharply in July to 2.3% from 2.8% in June (and from a peak of 3% back in March). The fall in US survey-based inflation is also mirrored in lower TIPS breakevens. The 10-year TIPS breakeven fell from 2.76% at the peak of the national gasoline price in mid-June to a low of 2.29% on July 7. The 10-year breakeven has since recovered to 2.58%, but is still below the levels at the time of the peak in gas prices – and considerably lower than the cyclical peak of 3.02% reached in April. The 2-year TIPS breakeven has fallen even more, down from 4.93% to 2.87% since the April peak. UK Chart 3A Historic Energy Price Shock In The UK The UK inflation story has been heavily focused on the historic surge in energy prices. UK headline CPI inflation reached double-digit territory in July, climbing to 10.1% on a year-over-year basis, with the energy component of the CPI rising by a staggering 58%. Within that energy component, natural gas prices have been a huge driver, with the gas component of the CPI index up 96% year-over-year in July (Chart 3). Yet despite the relentless climb in energy prices, and the well-publicized “cost of living crisis” with high inflation rates in many non-energy sectors of the UK economy, survey-based measures of UK inflation expectations have stopped rising. The medium-term (5-10 years ahead) inflation expectation from the Citigroup/YouGov survey of UK consumers fell to 3.8% in July, down from the 4.4% peak reached back in March. Even shorter-term inflation expectations have stabilized in the face of rising energy costs (bottom panel). The dip in survey-based inflation expectations as of the July surveys may only be that – a dip – with the 10-year breakeven rate on index-linked Gilts having climbed from 3.8% to 4.2% so far in August. It’s also possible that the household inflation surveys are picking up the impact from the recent slowing of global goods price inflation (and easing global supply chain disruptions). More likely, in our view, UK households are starting to factor in the impact of BoE monetary tightening and an imminent UK recession – one that the BoE is now forecasting – on future inflation. Euro Area Chart 4European Inflation Expectations On The Rise In the euro area, inflation expectations are finally responding to the steady climb in realized inflation evident across the region. Headline CPI inflation in the region climbed to 8.9% in July, the highest reading since the inception of the euro in 1999. The inflation has been concentrated in a few sectors, with four percentage points of that 8.9% coming from energy prices and another two percentage points coming from food, tobacco and alcohol. Core inflation (excluding food and energy) was 4.0% in July, less alarming than the headline number but still double the ECB’s inflation target of 2%. The ECB now produces its own survey of consumer inflation expectations, which it has been conducting without publishing the results since April 2020. The ECB started publishing the survey this month, as part of a broader Consumer Expectations Survey that also asks questions on topics like future economic growth and the health of labor markets. The most recent survey in June showed that 1-year-ahead inflation expectations were 5%, and 3-year-ahead were 2.8% (Chart 4). Both measures have risen sharply since February – the month before the Russian invasion of Ukraine that triggered the spike in oil and European natural gas prices – when the 1-year-ahead and 3-year-ahead measures were 3.2% and 2.1%, respectively. Euro area market-based inflation expectations are a little more subdued than those from the ECB’s consumer survey. The 5-year breakeven inflation rate on German ILBs is now at 3.4%, while the 10-year breakeven is at 2.5%. A similar message comes from European inflation swaps, with the 5-year measure at 3.4% and the 10-year measure at 2.8%. Canada Chart 5A Housing-Driven Peak In Canadian Inflation Expectations? In Canada, realized inflation is still elevated, but may be peaking. Headline CPI inflation was 7.6% in July, down from 8.1% in June, although this came almost entirely from lower energy inflation. Measures of underlying inflation produced by the Bank of Canada (BoC) also stabilized in July, with the trimmed CPI inflation measure ticking down from 5.4% from 5.5% in June (Chart 5). The latest read on survey-based inflation expectations from the BoC’s quarterly Consumer Expectations Survey for Q2/2022 showed a pickup in the 1-year-ahead measure (from 5.1% in Q1 to 6.8%), 2-year-ahead measure (from 4.6% in Q1 to 5%) and 5-year-ahead measure (from 3.2% to 4%). All of those measures are well above the latest readings on market-based inflation expectations from Canadian ILBs, a.k.a. Real Return Bonds, with the 5-year breakeven at 2.2% and 10-year breakeven at 2.1%. Market liquidity is always a factor in the relatively small Canadian Real Return Bond market, yet it is somewhat surprising that breakevens are so low compared with realized and survey-based inflation. The aggressive tightening so far by the BoC, including a whopping 100bp rate hike last month and more expected over the next year, may be playing a role in dampening inflation breakevens – especially with the BoC’s tightening already having an impact on the Canadian housing market. National house price inflation, which tends to lead overall headline CPI inflation by around one year, was 14.2% in July, down from the 2022 peak of 18.8% (top panel). Australia Chart 6Inflation Expectations Remain Moderate In Australia & Japan In Australia, headline CPI inflation reached 6.1% in Q2/2022, up from 5.1% in Q1/2022, while the median inflation rate was 4.2%. While energy costs were a big contributor to the rise in overall inflation, the pickup was fairly broad-based with notable increases in the inflation rates related to housing (both house prices and furniture prices). Survey-based measures of inflation expectations in Australia focus on more shorter time horizons, thus they are highly correlated to current realized inflation. On that note, the Melbourne University measure of 1-year-ahead consumer inflation expectations soared from 4.9% in Q1/2022 to 6.2% in Q2/2022, while the early read on Q3/2022 2-year-ahead inflation expectations from the Union Officials survey rose to 4.1% from 3.5% in the previous quarter (Chart 6). Market-based inflation expectations are relatively subdued given the high readings of realized inflation and shorter-term survey-based inflation expectations. The 10-year Australian ILB breakeven is now at 1.9%, while the 5-year/5-year forward CPI swap rate is at 2.4%. The aggressive RBA tightening in 2022, with the Cash Rate having increased 175bps over the last four policy meetings, may be playing a role in holding down ILB breakevens. The relatively moderate pace of wage gains in Australia, with the Wage Price Index climbing 2.6% year-over-year in Q2, may also be weighing on ILB breakevens (middle panel). Japan There is not much exciting to say on the inflation front in Japan. The core (excluding fresh food) CPI inflation rate targeted by the Bank of Japan (BoJ) did hit a 7-year of 2.4% in July, but the core CPI measure more in line with international standards (excluding fresh food and energy) was only 1.2% in July (bottom panel). That was the strongest reading since 2015 but still well below the BoJ’s 2% inflation target. Survey-based consumer inflation expectations from the BoJ’s Opinion Survey showed a noticeable increase in Q2/2022, with the 5-year-ahead measure rising to 5% from 3% in Q1. This is obviously well above realized Japanese inflation, although the same survey showed that Japanese consumers believed that the current inflation rate was also 5%. Market-based Japanese inflation expectations are well below the BoJ survey-based measure, but in line with realized core inflation with the 2-year and 10-year CPI swap rates at 1.22% and 0.9%, respectively. The Message From Our Inflation Breakeven Valuation Models Chart 7A Diminished Case For Overweighting Inflation-Linked Bonds From an overall global perspective, the case for favoring ILBs versus nominal government bonds across all countries is less intriguing today than was the case in 2021 and early 2022 (Chart 7). Commodity price inflation is slowing rapidly alongside decelerating global growth. This is true both for oil and especially for non-oil commodities, with the CRB Raw Industrials index now falling on a year-over-year basis (middle panel). Supply chain disruptions on goods prices are easing, which is evident in lower rates of goods inflation in the US and other countries. Given the divergences evident between realized inflation, expected inflation and monetary policy outlook outlined in our tour of global inflation expectations, there may be better opportunities to selectively allocate to ILBs on a country-by-country basis. One tool to help us identify such opportunities is our suite of inflation breakeven fair value models. The models are all constructed in a similar fashion, determining the fair value of 10-year ILB breakevens as a function of the same two factors for each country: The underlying trend in realized inflation, defined as the five-year moving average of headline CPI inflation. This forms the medium-term “anchor” for breakevens. The year-over-year percentage change in the Brent oil price, denominated in local currency terms for each country. This attempts to capture cyclical trends around that medium-term anchor based on movements in oil and currencies. We have breakeven fair value models for eight developed market countries, which are shown in the next four pages of this report. The list of countries includes the US (Chart 8), the UK (Chart 9), France (Chart 10), Germany (Chart 11), Italy (Chart 12), Canada (Chart 13), Australia (Chart 14) and Japan (Chart 15). Chart 8Our US 10-Year Inflation Breakeven Model​​​​​​ Chart 9Our UK 10-Year Inflation Breakeven Model​​​​​​ Chart 10Our France 10-Year Inflation Breakeven Model​​​​​​ Chart 11Our Germany 10-Year Inflation Breakeven Model​​​​​​ Chart 12Our Italy 10-Year Inflation Breakeven Model​​​​​​ Chart 13Our Canada 10-Year Inflation Breakeven Model​​​​​ Chart 14Our Australia 10-Year Inflation Breakeven Model​​​​​ Chart 15Our Japan 10-Year Inflation Breakeven Model​​​​​ Full disclosure: we decided last year to de-emphasize our breakeven fair value models after the 2020 COVID recession and, more importantly, the sharp global economic recovery in 2021 from the pandemic shock. The rapid acceleration of oil prices – up 2-3 times in all countries - triggered by that recovery created some wild swings in the estimated breakeven fair value. Today, with oil inflation at more “normal” levels below 100%, we have greater confidence in using the models once again in our strategic thinking on ILBs. The broad conclusions from the models are the following: 10-year inflation breakevens are too low in the US, Canada and Germany 10-year inflation breakevens are too high in the UK and Italy 10-year inflation breakevens are fairly valued in France, Japan and Australia. Taken at face value, our models would suggest overweighting ILBs in the US, Canada and Germany and underweighting ILBs in the UK (and staying neutral on France, Japan and Australia) as part of a new regional ILB diversification strategy. However, there is an additional element to consider when assessing the attractiveness of inflation breakevens at the macro level – the expected stance of monetary policy. ILB inflation breakevens often represent a market-based “report card” on the appropriateness of a central bank’s monetary policy. If monetary settings are deemed to be overly stimulative, the markets will price in higher expected inflation and wider breakevens. The opposite holds true if policy is deemed to be too restrictive, leading to reduced expected inflation and narrower breakevens. Thus, any regional ILB allocation strategy should not only use fair value assessments, but also a monetary policy “filter”. In Chart 16, we show a scatter graph plotting the latest deviations from fair value of 10-year breakevens from our eight country fair value models on the x-axis, and the cumulative amount of expected interest rate increases discounted in overnight index swap (OIS) curves for each country on the y-axis. For the latter, we define this as the peak in rates discounted in 2023 (which is the case for all the countries) minus the trough in policy rates at the start of the current monetary tightening cycle (which is near 0% for all the countries). Chart 16No Clear Link Between Rate Hikes & Breakeven Valuations The idea behind the chart is that inflation breakeven valuations should be inversely correlated to the amount of monetary tightening expected by markets. Too many rate hikes would result in markets discounting lower breakevens, and vice versa. However, there is no reliable relationship evident in the chart. For example, the OIS curves are discounting roughly similar levels of cumulative tightening in the US, UK, Canada and Australia, yet ILB breakeven valuations are very different between those countries. In Chart 17, we show a slightly different version of that scatter graph, this time plotting the ILB breakeven fair values versus the slope of the 2-year/10-year nominal government bond yield curve for all eight countries. The logic here is that the slope of the yield curve represents the bond market’s assessment of the appropriateness of future monetary policy. When policy is deemed to be too tight – with an expected peak in rates above what the market believes to be the neutral rate – the yield curve will be flat or even inverted, as markets discount slowing growth in the future and, eventually, lower inflation. Chart 17A Stronger Link Between Yield Curves & Breakeven Valuations There is a clear positive relationship between yield curve slope and inflation expectations evident in the new chart. This provides some evidence justifying adding a monetary policy filter to a regional ILB allocation strategy. Related Report  Global Fixed Income StrategyDovish Central Bank Pivots Will Come Later Than You Think Under this framework, US and Canadian breakevens trading below fair value is consistent with the inverted yield curves in both countries, with markets now discounting a restrictive level of future interest rates that would dampen inflation expectations. The fair value of Australian and Japanese breakevens also appears in line with the slope of the yield curves in those countries. In terms of divergences, the overvaluation of UK breakevens is inconsistent with the inverted nominal Gilt curve, while the three euro area countries should have somewhat higher breakevens (trading more richly to fair value) given the relatively steeper slope of their yield curves. Investment Conclusions Chart 18Upgrade Euro Area ILBs To Overweight After surveying our ILB breakeven fair value models, and cross-checking them versus trends in survey-based inflation expectations and our own assessment of future monetary policies, we arrive at the following country allocations within our new regional ILB strategy: Neutral on US TIPS, despite the attractive valuations. However, look to upgrade if the Fed signals a less hawkish path for US monetary policy (not our base case) or if breakevens fall even further below fair value without more deeper US Treasury curve inversion. Underweight UK ILBs. Breakevens are overshooting due to the near-term inflation risk from soaring energy prices – an outcome that will force the BoE to deliver an even tighter monetary policy, with a more deeply inverted yield curve, that will drive the UK into a disinflationary recession. Underweight Canadian ILBs, despite the attractive valuations. Canadian inflation has likely peaked, and the BoC is engineering a disinflationary downturn in the Canadian housing market with aggressive rate hikes that will maintain an inverted yield curve. Overweight German, French and Italian ILBs. The ECB is likely to deliver fewer rate hikes than markets are discounting, keeping the euro area yield curves relatively steep versus the curves of other developed countries. This also provides a better way to play the near-term inflationary upside from overshooting natural gas prices in Europe than overweighting UK ILBs, with the BoE expected to be much more hawkish than the ECB (Chart 18). Neutral Australia and Japan. Underlying inflation momentum is slower than in the other regions, while breakeven valuations are neutral and not out of line with the expected stance of monetary policy. We are incorporating this new regional ILB strategy into our Model Bond Portfolio, which can be seen on pages 18-20. The changes from current allocations involve upgrades to Germany, France and Italy to overweight, and a downgrade of Canada to underweight.   Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Recommended Positioning     Active Duration Contribution: GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. Custom Performance Benchmark The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Global Fixed Income - Strategic Recommendations* Cyclical Recommendations (6-18 Months)