Monetary

Special Report

Highlights The buildup of excessive household debt in Canada over the past two decades has occurred because of outsized demand for housing, not because of the impact of constrained housing supply on house prices. Outsized demand for housing has occurred because interest rates have been persistently too low, pointing to the need for the Bank of Canada to tighten monetary policy in order to prevent even further leveraging. The burden of Canada’s household sector debt may exceed its pre-pandemic level next year given current market expectations for the path of rate hikes. This implies that the prior peak in the Canadian policy rate (1.75%) likely reflects a high-end estimate of the neutral rate of interest in Canada. Regulatory changes have occurred in recognition of Canada’s extreme levels of household debt. Although a massive decline in Canadian house prices would cause a very severe recession, it would not likely precipitate a Lehman-style collapse of the Canadian financial system. Over the next twelve months, investors should position favorably toward CAD-USD. As the Canadian policy rate approaches our estimate of the neutral rate, a short CAD position and an overweight stance towards long-maturity Canadian bonds versus US Treasurys will likely be warranted. Within a global equity portfolio, exposure to relatively high-yielding Canadian banks should not be reduced until hard evidence of a significant slowdown in the housing market emerges. Feature The outlook for monetary policy in advanced economies has shifted rapidly in a hawkish direction over the past few months. While we believe that the Fed and other central banks will end up raising interest rates this year fewer times than investors currently expect, it is clear that monetary policy will tighten in the DM world over the coming 12-18 months. This has raised the question of how high policy rates may rise before monetary policy begins to restrict economic activity. Some investors have specifically focused this question on countries like Canada, which has a highly indebted household sector and has seen house prices rise at a 7% average annual pace for the past 20 years. In this report, we explore the root cause of Canada’s extreme household debt and argue against the constrained housing supply view. Instead, we conclude that persistently low interest rates have fueled excessive housing demand and that the prior peak in the Canadian policy rate (1.75%) probably reflects a high-end estimate of the neutral rate of interest in Canada – in contrast with that of the US. Finally, we note that the regulatory changes that have occurred in recognition of the risk from excessive household debt suggest that a massive decline in Canadian house prices would not likely precipitate a Lehman-style collapse of the Canadian financial system – it would, however, clearly cause a severe recession. Over the next twelve months, investors should position favorably toward CAD-USD. As the Canadian policy rate approaches our estimate of the neutral rate, a short CAD position and an overweight stance towards long-maturity Canadian bonds versus US Treasurys will likely be warranted. Within a global equity portfolio, exposure to relatively high-yielding Canadian banks should not be reduced until hard evidence of a significant slowdown in the housing market emerges. The Root Cause Of Canada’s Extreme Household Debt Chart II-1Canadian Households Are Massively Indebted Relative to disposable income, Canadian household debt has risen substantially over the past two decades. Chart II-1 highlights that Canada’s household debt to disposable income ratio has risen by 180% since 2000, and is currently over 50 percentage points higher than that in the US, even when nonfinancial noncorporate debt is included in the latter.1 Rising Canadian household indebtedness is a problem that is well known to investors, policymakers, regulators, banks, and consumers themselves. Organizations such as the IMF have repeatedly warned that excess household debt poses a potential economic stability risk. In the years prior to the pandemic, policymakers have responded with a series of macroprudential measures designed to limit speculation and foreign ownership in the housing market and to reduce the incremental risk to the economy posed by new borrowers. When asked why Canadian households have leveraged themselves so significantly over the past 20 years, most market commentators in Canada point to insufficient housing supply as the main driver of excessive house prices. Given normal ongoing demand for housing, they argue, persistent supply-side pressure on housing prices will naturally lead to a rising stock of debt relative to income. According to this narrative, the solution to Canada’s housing crisis is centered squarely on incentives to build more homes. Raising interest rates to cool mortgage demand will simply exacerbate the housing affordability problem, while simultaneously discouraging additional residential investment needed to decrease home prices structurally. Chart II-2The Supply Of Non-Apartment Dwellings Has Indeed Declined Over Time... We hold a different perspective. We do agree that there are some limitations on the supply side that likely are unduly boosting prices of certain dwelling types. For example, the Greenbelt that surrounds Ontario’s Golden Horseshoe region - a permanently protected area of land - has likely constrained some housing activity, and Chart II-2 highlights that single detached, semi-detached, and row/townhouses have fallen significantly as a share of overall housing completions. Apartments and other dwellings now account for a clear majority of new housing construction in Canada. However, there is a great deal of evidence positioned against the view that supply-side factors are the primary cause of outsized housing inflation and, by extension, a massive increase in Canadian household debt to GDP: Based on real residential investment, the pace of housing construction in Canada has not fallen relative to GDP or the population. Chart II-3 highlights that, compared with the US, residential investment has trended higher over the past 20 years. Based on Canadian housing completion data, Chart II-4 highlights that the number of completions has generally kept pace with half of the change in Canada’s population, a ratio that is easily consistent with two or more people per household. In addition, the chart highlights that the periods when houses were completed at a below-average rate relative to population growth have not been the same as when Canadian household debt has increased relative to disposable income. Chart II-3...But Overall Real Residential Investment Has Kept Pace With Canada's GDP And Population Chart II-4Housing Supply Has Not Been The Main Driver Of Rising Canadian Indebtedness Chart II-5Prices For All Canadian Property Types Have Surged Over The Past Two Decades If the rise in Canadian household indebtedness has been caused by the increasing scarcity of single-detached, semi-detached, and row/townhouses, then we would expect to see a persistent and growing divergence between overall Canadian house prices and those of apartment/condominiums. Chart II-5 highlights that this is not the case: while apartment/condo prices have at times grown at a slower rate than overall home prices over the past 15 years (as in the period from 2011 to 2016), they have also at times grown at a faster rate. The chart clearly highlights that the Canadian housing market is driven by a common factor, and that average house price gains have not been significantly different across property types over time. Similarly, if a scarcity of housing supply was the main driver of rising house prices and household debt, we would not expect to see a significant increase in the homeownership rate. Chart II-6 highlights that the Canadian homeownership rate did rise substantially from the mid-1990s to 2016 (the last available datapoint). While it is not clear what the sustainable or “equilibrium” homeownership rate is, it is notable that the most recent datapoint was not significantly lower than the peak rate reached in the US following that country’s massive housing bubble. Finally, Chart II-7 reiterates a point we made in our June 2021 Special Report: in several economies (including Canada), interest rates have remained well below levels that macroeconomic theory would traditionally consider to be in equilibrium over the past two decades. This has occurred alongside significant household sector leveraging. Chart II-7Too-Low Interest Rates Have Fueled Rising Household Indebtedness In Canada (And Other DM Economies) Chart II-6The Canadian Homeownership Rate Has Risen Significantly, Pointing To Excess Housing Demand     These factors strongly point to rising household debt levels as being driven by demand-side rather than supply-side factors – demand that has been fueled by persistently low interest rates. How High Can The Bank Of Canada Raise Interest Rates? Over the next 12 months, investors expect the Bank of Canada (BoC) to raise interest rates by 180 basis points, in line with the Fed (Chart II-8). Over the longer term, the BoC believes that interest rates will average between 1.75% and 2.75%. In the US, the 2/10 yield curve has flattened significantly in response to the Fed’s hawkish shift, and neither the explosion in headline consumer price inflation nor the Fed’s about face have significantly raised the market’s longer-term expectations for interest rates (which are even below the Fed’s estimates). In Canada, investors expect essentially the same long-term interest rate outlook, as evidenced by 5-year / 5-year forward government bond yields (Chart II-9). Chart II-8Investors Expect A Similar Magnitude Of Tightening In Canada And The US Over The Next Year... Chart II-9...And A Similar Average Interest Rate Over The Longer Term As in the case in the US, the hawkish shift among major central banks has left investors asking how high the BoC can raise interest rates, and what implications that might have for Canadian assets – especially the CAD and long-maturity Canadian government bonds. In our view, the best way for investors to assess the impact of rising interest rates on the private sector – especially a highly indebted one – is to project the impact that an increase in interest rates will have on the debt service ratio (DSR). The burden of servicing debt, rather than the stock of debt relative to income, is the right way to measure the impact of shifting monetary policy because it considers the combined effect of changes in leverage, income, and interest rates. The primary drawback of debt service ratio analysis is that the question of sustainability must be answered empirically. In countries experiencing an ever-rising debt service ratio, it can be difficult for investors to judge where the breaking point will be. Cross-country comparisons may sometimes be helpful in this respect, but Chart II-10 highlights that BIS estimates for household debt service ratios vary widely even among advanced economies. However, in Canada, the 2017-2019 tightening cycle provides a useful framework. As we anticipated in a 2017 Special Report,2 the rise in Canadian interest rates during that period caused the household debt service ratio to exceed the level reached in 2007, which contributed to a collapse in Canadian house price appreciation to its lowest level since the global financial crisis (Chart II-11). The decline in house prices during this period was also caused by the introduction of new macroprudential measures (particularly the introduction of a minimum qualifying rate for mortgages, more commonly referred to as a mortgage “stress test” rule), but the impact of higher interest rates was likely significant. Chart II-11The Last Tightening Cycle In Canada Contributed Significantly To A Major Slowdown In Canadian House Prices Chart II-10Private Sector Debt Service Ratios Vary Significantly Across DM Countries   Chart II-11 highlights that the Canadian household debt service ratio collapsed during the pandemic, which seems to suggest that the Bank of Canada has ample room to raise interest rates. However, the decline in the DSR occurred not only because of falling interest rates, but also because of the significant excess savings amassed as a result of the pandemic. As in the US, excess savings in Canada were the result of reduced spending on services and the generation of significant excess income from government transfers (see Chart I-20 from Section 1 of this month’s report). These fiscal transfers will eventually disappear, implying that the Canadian household DSR is artificially low. Chart II-12 shows our estimate of the evolution of the overall Canadian household sector DSR based on the following assumptions: Mortgage rates rise in line with market expectations for the change in the policy rate Government transfers fall back to their pre-pandemic trend Disposable income growth ex-transfers grows in line with consensus expectations for nominal GDP growth The overall debt-to-disposable income ratio, using our estimate for total disposable income, remains flat. The chart highlights that the Canadian household sector DSR may exceed its pre-pandemic level next year, and that a 1.75% policy rate is the threshold at which the DSR will hit a new high. The implication of our projection is that the re-acceleration in household sector debt that has occurred during the pandemic, shown in Chart II-13, will again contribute to a significant slowdown in the Canadian housing market as the BoC begins to raise interest rates as in 2018/2019. It also implies that the prior peak in the Canadian policy rate probably reflects a high-end estimate of the neutral rate of interest in Canada. Chart II-12Market Expectations For The Canadian Policy Rate Imply A Record High Debt Burden Chart II-13Canadian Household Loan Growth Has Reaccelerated During The Pandemic   As we discuss below, this is likely to lead to significant implications for CAD-USD and an allocation to long-maturity Canadian government bonds, once investors begin to upwardly revise their expectations for the US neutral rate. Extreme Household Debt And Canadian Financial Stability The question of financial stability is often posed by investors when discussing Canada’s extreme household debt burden. Some investors view the US subprime financial crisis as the likely template for the Canadian economy, given the fact that the US credit bubble also focused on the housing market. Despite our pessimistic assessment of the capacity of the Canadian economy to tolerate higher interest rates (unlike the US today), we do not share the view that the Canadian financial system faces a potential insolvency risk, like the US banking system did in 2008. We see two potential arguments in favor of the instability view. The first is related to the sheer concentration of debt in Canada relative to other countries. Chart II-14 highlights that the median debt-to-income ratio of indebted Canadian households is currently the second highest in the world (after Norway) among the 29 countries that the OECD tracks. This concentration measure has worsened considerably since we published our 2017 Special Report. The combination of a very high average level of debt and extremely high leverage among those who are indebted suggests that Canadian banks may be exposed to significant credit losses in the event of a serious housing market crash. Chart II-14The Degree Of Concentration In Canadian Household Debt Is A Potential Financial Stability Risk Chart II-15A Decline In The CMHC's Footprint In The Mortgage Insurance Market Is Also Concerning The second argument relates to the declining share of mortgages insured by the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC). The CMHC is a Crown corporation that provides mortgage-default insurance to Canadian banks. Banks must purchase such insurance when a borrower’s loan-to-value ratio exceeds 80%. The CMHC has seen increased competition from two private mortgage insurers, and Chart II-15 highlights that the number of mortgages with CHMC insurance has been steadily falling over time. In order for the CMHC to be able to reduce systemic risk during a crisis, it must be present enough in the mortgage market to be able to replace private insurers in the event of a shock that causes them to leave the market. In effect, the CMHC should be able to act as a ballast to prevent a sharp tightening in Canadian mortgage lending standards and credit provision, which could occur if banks find themselves unable to purchase mortgage insurance to cover borrowers with relatively small down payments. In this respect, the reduced footprint of the CMHC is concerning. However, these risks have to be weighed against two key structural changes that legitimately lower the systemic risk facing the Canadian banking system (or lower the impact of a major adverse housing event). The first of these changes is the introduction of the minimum qualifying rate for mortgages in Canada (the mortgage stress test), which we regard as one of the most important macroprudential policies that Canada has enacted to reduce the systemic risk of rising household debt. The stress test rules – which apply to all borrowers – force mortgage borrowers to pass the CMHC’s gross debt and total debt service ratio thresholds under the assumption of higher interest rates than borrowers will actually pay: either the contracted mortgage rate plus 2 percentage points, or 5.65% – whichever is higher. Given prevailing mortgage rates in Canada, this effectively means that new borrowers will not exceed the CMHC’s debt service thresholds until the Bank of Canada’s policy rate exceeds 2.5%. That is positive from a financial stability perspective, although it does not rule out the slowdown in household spending that we would expect if the aggregate household debt service ratio hits a new high next year in response to BoC tightening. The second important risk-reducing structural change is a significant improvement in Canadian bank capital levels. Chart II-16 highlights that Tier 1 capital has risen significantly relative to risk-weighted assets for Canadian depository institutions, and is now on par with US levels (in contrast to a typically lower level over the past decade). The IMF stress tested Canadian banks in 2019, when capital levels were lower than they are today. They found that most Canadian banks would run down conservation capital buffers in the adverse economic scenario that they modeled, subjecting them to dividend restrictions for a period of time following the adverse event. However, Canadian banks would not breach their minimum capital requirements in the scenario modeled by the IMF, which involved a 40% decline in house prices and a 2% cumulative decline in Canadian real GDP over a two year period – which is essentially what occurred in the US and Canada in 2008 and 2009 (Chart II-17). Chart II-16Canadian Bank Capital Appears Sufficient To Weather A Storm Chart II-17The IMF's Stress Tests Modeled A Repeat Of The 2008/2009 Crisis To conclude on the question of financial stability, it is clear that the magnitude and concentration of household debt implies that the impact of a serious housing market crash on the Canadian economy would be severe. But the fact that regulatory changes have occurred in recognition of this risk suggests that although a massive decline in Canadian house prices would cause a very severe recession, it would not likely precipitate a Lehman-style collapse of the Canadian financial system. Investment Conclusions Three conclusions emerge from our report. First, when considering the total experience of the past two decades, it is clear that the buildup of excessive household debt in Canada has occurred because of outsized demand for housing, not because of the impact of constrained housing supply on house prices. Outsized demand for housing has occurred because interest rates have been persistently below what traditional monetary policy rules such as the Taylor Rule would prescribe, pointing to the need for the Bank of Canada to tighten monetary policy in order to prevent even further leveraging. While US interest rates were also below what the Taylor Rule would have suggested for several years following the global financial crisis, the US household sector did not leverage itself significantly during that period because of the multi-year impact of the 2008/2009 financial crisis on US household balance sheets (Chart II-18). Canadian households did not suffer the same type of balance sheet impairment, and yet the Bank of Canada wrongly imported hyper-accommodative US monetary policy in an attempt to prevent a significant further increase in the exchange rate (which was still persistently strong for several years following the crisis). Through its actions, the Bank of Canada succeeded in staving off “Dutch Disease”, but at the cost of fueling a substantial housing and credit market bubble. Second, the fact that the Bank of Canada is likely to struggle to raise interest rates above 1.75% implies that a sizeable divergence may emerge between Canadian and US monetary policy over the coming few years if we are correct in our view that the US neutral rate is higher than the Fed currently expects. While such a divergence is not likely to occur over the coming year, Chart II-19 highlights that a 125 basis point policy rate spread – consistent with a nominal neutral rate of 1.75% in Canada and 3% in the US – last occurred in the mid-to-late 1990s, when CAD-USD ultimately declined to 0.65. Chart II-18The Bank Of Canada Staved Off "Dutch Disease", At The Cost Of Fueling A Major Housing And Credit Bubble Chart II-19Some Potentially Large Downside For CAD If US Neutral Rate Expectations Move Higher Over the coming year, we expect Canadian dollar strength rather than weakness: we are generally bearish toward the US dollar on the expectation of above-trend global growth, and our fundamental intermediate-term model suggests that CAD should strengthen. Thus, while it is too early to short the Canadian dollar, we would be inclined to turn bearish in response to rising long-term US interest rate expectations. We would draw similar conclusions for Canadian government bonds: investors should raise exposure to long-dated Canadian government bonds versus similar maturity US Treasurys as the Bank of Canada raises its policy rate toward our estimate of the neutral rate. Chart II-20Relative ROE Justifies A Valuation Premium For Canadian Banks Finally, the improvements that have been made over the past several years to dampen the impact of a housing market crash on the Canadian financial system suggests that exposure to Canadian banks should not be reduced until hard evidence of a significant slowdown in the housing market emerges. Chart II-20 highlights that the valuation premium of Canadian banks appears to be supported by a sizeable ROE advantage relative to global banks. Panel 2 highlights how composite relative valuation indicator for Canadian banks suggests that they have been persistently expensive for some time, but not extremely so. Canadian banks would certainly underperform their global peers should the adverse scenario modeled by the IMF’s 2019 stress test of the banking system to occur, especially if it implied that Canadian banks would be forced to restrict dividends for a time to bolster capital adequacy. However, we would advise investors against shorting relatively high-yielding Canadian banks as Canadian interest rates rise, until they see clear signs of Canada-specific slowdown in housing demand in response to higher rates. Jonathan LaBerge, CFA Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst Gabriel Di Lullo Research Associate   Footnotes 1 For an explanation of why we add US nonfinancial noncorporate debt to the numerator of the US household sector debt to disposable income ratio when comparing Canada to the US, please see: “Reconciling Canadian-U.S. measures of household disposable income and household debt: Update”. 2 Please see Global Investment Strategy "Canada: A (Probably) Happy Moment In An Otherwise Sad Story," dated July 14, 2017, available at gis.bcaresearch.com

Executive Summary Copper Demand Follows GDP European copper demand will increase on the back of still-accommodative monetary policy, coupled with a loosening of COVID-19-related gathering and mobility restrictions as the virus becomes endemic. Copper demand will be supported by the EU's need to diversify natural gas supplies in favor of increased LNG import capacity over the next 10 years, which will require incremental infrastructure investment. Increasing policy stimulus in China and government measures to increase lending to metals-intensive sectors – e.g., construction and grid infrastructure – will boost global copper demand. In the US, the Biden administration is backing a $550 billion bill to fund its renewable-energy buildout, which will result in higher demand for metals and steel over the next decade. Global copper supply growth will be restrained by local politics going forward, particularly in the Americas. Bottom Line: Copper prices have been grinding higher even as China maintains its zero-tolerance COVID-19 public health policy, and markets wait out the Russia-Ukraine standoff.  We are maintaining our forecast for COMEX copper to trade to $5.00/lb this year and $6.00/lb next year.  We remain long commodity-index exposure (S&P GSCI and the COMT ETF), along with equity exposure to miners and traders via the XME and PICK ETFs. Feature Ever since it hit its record high in May 2021, copper prices have been range-bound, despite tight market fundamentals and record low inventories in 3Q21, which, as it happens, have not significantly rebuilt since then (Chart 1, panel 1). This can be explained by weak global macro conditions since prices peaked, which have not been especially conducive to higher copper prices, particularly in Europe and China. Activity in these two markets accounting for ~ 60% and 11% of global refined copper demand, respectively, has had a stop-start aspect that has hindered full recovery to now. Chart 1Global Copper Inventories Remain Tight Chart 2Copper Demand Follows GDP As GDP in these regions rises, demand for copper will rise, as Chart 2 shows. Per our modelling, refined copper demand in China, the EU and the world are highly cointegrated with Nominal GDP estimates provided by the IMF. The coefficient associated with nominal GDP in all three instances is positive. Further, running Granger Causality tests indicate that past and present values of nominal GDP explain present refined copper demand values for all three entities. These results indicate that economic growth and refined copper demand have a positive long-run relationship. China’s zero-COVID tolerance policy and the property-market crisis there have restricted economic growth, activity and hence demand for the metal used heavily in construction and manufacturing. In Europe, lockdowns due to the Omicron variant restricted activity causing supply chain disruptions, which contributed to inflation. Now, Europe is relying on immunity among large shares of its population to keep economies open, as COVID-19 becomes endemic. Germany is loosening restrictions at a slower rate than its neighbors, as COVID still has not reached endemicity (Chart 3). Europe’s top manufacturer reportedly is expected to ease restrictions and increase economic activity by March-end. Chart 3New EU COVID-19 Cases Collapse Natural Gas Remains Critical To Europe Apart from COVID, elevated natural gas prices have and will continue to affect economic activity in Europe. These prices will only get more volatile as fears of a Russian invasion of Ukraine increase. In the short term, we do not expect Russia to cut off all gas supplies to the EU in case of an invasion.1 However, supplies going through Ukraine likely would be cut. Coupled with the region’s precariously low natgas inventory levels, this could fuel a gas price spike (Chart 4). Higher gas prices could lead to demand destruction, if, as occurred this winter, higher power-generating costs arising from higher natgas costs makes electricity too expensive to keep industrial processes like aluminum smelters up and running. In addition, another regional bidding war could incentivize more re-routing of LNG to Europe instead of Asia. This would reduce European prices, but could force Asian markets to raise their bids. Chart 4EU's Natgas Inventories Remain Critical Assuming gas prices do not remain significantly higher for the rest of the year, Europe will start seeing economic activity improve, and as our European Investment Strategy notes, PMIs will bottom out by the second quarter of this year. High immunity levels are allowing European nations to relax restrictions as it becomes apparent that COVID in the continent – at least in Western Europe – appears to be reaching endemicity. Importantly for base metals generally, and copper in particular, lower natgas prices will allow smelters and refining units to remain in service as electricity prices stabilize or even fall in the EU. During the pandemic, households – primarily in DM economies – built up significant levels of excess savings, particularly in Europe. The IMF reported that households in Europe have amassed nearly 1 trillion euros more in savings vs. normal levels over the last two years than if the pandemic had never occurred.2 While the entirety of excess savings will not be released as spending, even a portion of it will spur economic activity, once supply-chain issues are ironed out when the global economy reopens. China's Copper Demand Will Revive China’s property sector crisis last year was a major drag on economic growth. The Chinese government’s efforts to stabilize this sector seem to be paying off. China’s National Bureau of Statistics reported that for January housing prices in China’s first-tier cities reversed a month-on-month decline from December. The number of cities that saw home prices fall in January also was lower compared to December. Continued improvements in the property sector in China will be bullish for copper. Once macro hurdles related to COVID and high gas prices dissipate, and China’s property market stabilizes, economic activity will increase and copper demand will rebound (Chart 5). However, a timeline for this is difficult to handicap, given China's insistence – at least for now – on maintaining a zero-covid public-health policy. The zero-covid policy has resulted in sharply lower infection rates than the rest of the world, but, because it has not been accompanied by wide distribution of mRNA vaccines, immunity in the population is low. As global macro factors become conducive for copper, investors’ focus will switch to tight fundamentals in the copper market (Chart 6). Unlike the first half of 2021, copper’s high prices will be more sustained, given COVID’s current trajectory towards endemicity globally, and relatively higher immunity rates. Chart 5China's Demand Will Rebound Chart 6Coppers Tight Fundamentals Will Come Into Focus Again In addition, markets will have to factor in additional demand from the US that heretofore did not exist: The Biden administration is backing a $550 billion bill to fund renewable-energy development. More such funding can be expected in coming years as the US leans into decarbonization, and competes with the likes of the EU and China for limited base metals supplies. Supply Side Difficulties Mount Local governance is becoming increasingly critical to the supply side of base metals, no moreso than in the Americas – chiefly in Chile, Peru and, of late, the US., where the Biden administration recently shut down a Minnesota mining proposal in a major win for environmental groups.3 A number of these critical commodity-producing states in the Americas have elected – or are leaning toward – left-of-center candidates, some of whom are proposing fundamental changes in the laws and regulations governing resource extraction. Gabriel Boric, Chile’s new president, takes office in March. He has largely focused his campaign on the environment, human rights, and closer ties with other Latin American countries. Boric promotes a “turquoise” foreign policy, which includes “green” policies to combat climate change, and “blue” ones to protect oceans. He is likely to commit Chile, which accounts for ~ 30% of global copper mining, to participation in the Escazú Agreement, is being positioned to span the region.4 Of greatest import to the global metals and mining markets, Boric will push for a constitutional re-write affecting taxes on copper mining, decarbonization, Chile's water crisis and the nationalization of lithium mining. Chile's new constitution is expected to be put up for a vote by the end of 2022. In Peru, which accounts for ~ 10% of global copper output, President Pedro Castillo announced at the UN General Assembly that Peru would declare a "climate emergency," and promised to reach net-zero in Peru by 2050. Civil unrest in Peru directed at mining operations is becoming more widespread, as citizens become increasingly frustrated with pollution and poverty.5 Colombia is not a major metals producer, but it is a resource-based economy leaning left. In May it will hold its general elections to Congress and Presidency. The future president will have pressure on the ratification of the Escazú Agreement, fight against illegal mining, and work on the Amazon deforestation. Presently, a left-of-center candidate, Gustavo Petro, leads the polling, according to the latest December survey by the National Consulting Center.6 Petro is promising to stop approving oil exploration contracts to restructure Colombia's economy away from hydrocarbons, and plans to accelerate the transition towards renewable energy.7 In addition, Petro is trying to gather ideological allies across Latin America and the world to fight against climate change. He hopes Chile’s president-elect Gabriel Boric will be joining this alliance.8 Caution: Downside Risks Remain Apart from the Russia-Ukraine crisis discussed above, there are more headwinds to the bullish copper view. China’s zero-covid policy will lead to reduced activity in the world’s largest producer and consumer of refined copper. This will disrupt global supply chains and, along with high energy prices, spur global inflation, prolonging slow economic growth and activity. Central bank tightening globally – led by the Federal Reserve – will increase borrowing costs, reduce manufacturing, and act as a downside risk to copper, particularly if the Fed miscalculates and lifts rates too high too soon and sparks a USD rally. Finally, while DM economies have high vaccination rates, EM states do not have the same level of immunity (Chart 7). Europe exhibits this dichotomy in immunization rates between advanced and developing countries well. While most of Western Europe appears to be nearing endemicity and reopening, Omicron is spreading quickly into Eastern Europe, where immunity is low. As long as a majority of the global population is not vaccinated, COVID-19 mutations into more virulent and transmissive variants remain a major risk. Chart 7COVID-19 Remains A Risk Investment Implications Copper prices have been grinding higher even as China maintains its zero-tolerance COVID-19 public-health policy, and markets wait out the Russia-Ukraine standoff (Chart 8). As large economies continue to emerge from COVID-19-related disruptions demand for base metals can be expected to increase, particularly for copper. We are maintaining our forecast for COMEX copper to trade to $5.00/lb this year and $6.00/lb next year. We remain long commodity-index exposure (S&P GSCI and the COMT ETF), along with equity exposure to miners and traders via the XME and PICK ETFs. Chart 8Copper Continues To Grid Higher   Ashwin Shyam Research Associate Commodity & Energy Strategy ashwin.shyam@bcaresearch.com Paula Struk Research Associate Commodity & Energy Strategy paula.struk@bcaresearch.com Robert P. Ryan Chief Commodity & Energy Strategist rryan@bcaresearch.com   Commodities Round-Up Energy: Bullish The US will expand its leading position as the EU-27's and UK's top liquified natural gas (LNG) supplier this year, in our view, although Qatar will provide stiff competition (Chart 9). In January, the EIA reported half of the Europe's LNG originated in the US. For all of 2021, 26% of Europe's LNG came from the US, while 24% came from Qatar and 20% came from Russia. We expect the Russia-Ukraine military standoff, which has the potential to become a kinetic engagement, will prompt Europe to diversify its natural gas supplies away from Russia to reduce its exposure to military and geopolitical pressure on its energy supplies. This also would apply, in our estimation, to pipeline supplies of natural gas from Russia, which shipped 10.7 Bcf/d to Europe in 2021 (vs. 11.8 Bcf and 14.8 Bcf/d in 2020 and 2019, respectively. Norway supplied 10.4 Bcf/d in 2019 and 2020, rising to 11.1 Bcf/d in 2021. We also would expect additional North Sea supplies to be developed to supply Europe in the wake of the current Russia-Ukraine tensions. Base Metals: Bullish Russia’s recognition of the two breakaway states of Donetsk and Luhansk People’s Republics (DPR and LPR), elicited US sanctions targeting Russian sovereign debt and its banking sector. The possibility of sanctions on Russian nickel and aluminum exports sent both metals to multi-year highs in LME trading. Russia constitutes around 6% and 9% of global primary aluminum and nickel ore supply, respectively. Precariously low inventory levels for both nickel and aluminum are inducing high price volatility. Year-over-year, global January LME aluminum and nickel stocks are 45% and 64% lower respectively. Precious Metals: Bullish Geopolitical uncertainty due to the Russia-Ukraine crisis and Western sanctions levied on Russia has pushed gold prices to levels not seen since its last bull run last year. While gold has risen, Bitcoin – once considered to be a safe-haven asset – has fallen on this uncertainty. Over the last two years, Bitcoin has been moving more in tandem with equity markets than with other safe-haven assets, as cryptocurrency has become more popular and central banks began large asset purchase programs in response to the pandemic (Chart 10). From beginning 2018 to end-2019 the coefficient measuring daily Bitcoin prices’ correlation with the S&P 500 index was ~0.31. From beginning 2020 to present day, this value has increased to ~ 0.86. Chart 9 Chart 10     Footnotes 1     Please see our report from February 3, 2022 entitled Long-Term EU Gas Volatility Will Increase.  It is available as ces.bcaresearch.com. 2     Please see Europe’s Consumers are Sitting on 1 Trillion Euros in Pandemic Savings published by the International Monetary Fund on February 10, 2022. 3    Please see our report from on November 25, 2021 entitled Add Local Politics To Copper Supply Risks, and Biden administration kills Antofagasta's Minnesota copper project published by reuters.com on January 26, 2022. 4    Please see Chile Turns Left: The Foreign Policy Agenda of President Gabriel Boric, published by Australian Institute of Mining Affairs on January 28, 2022. 5    Please see China's MMG faces Peru whack-a-mole as mining protests splinter, published by reuters.com on February 16, 2022. 6    Please see Six Challenges Facing Colombia in 2022, published by Global Americas on January 6, 2022. 7     Please see Gustavo Petro, who leads polls in Colombia, seeks to create an anti-oil front published by Bloomberg on January 14, 2022. 8    Please see Colombia Presidential Favorite Gustavo Petro Wants to Form a Global Anti-Oil Bloc, published by Time on January 14, 2022. Investment Views and Themes Strategic Recommendations Trades Closed in 2021

Executive Summary US Treasury yields have surged in response to high US inflation and Fed tightening expectations. However, the move looks overdone in the near-term. Too many Fed hikes are now discounted for 2022, US realized inflation should soon peak, inflation expectations have stabilized, financial conditions have started to tighten, and positioning in the Treasury market is now quite short. These factors will act to stabilize Treasury yields over the next few months, even with the cyclical backdrop remaining bond bearish. Markets Think The Fed Will Hike More Sooner And Less Later – The Opposite Is More Likely Recommendation Inception Level Inception Date Long Dec 2022/Short Dec 2024 3-Month SOFR Future 0.25 Feb 22/22 New Trade: Go long the December 2022 US SOFR interest rate futures contract versus shorting the December 2024 SOFR contract. The former discounts too many Fed hikes for this year and the latter discounts too few hikes over the next three years. Bottom Line: US Treasury yields now discount the maximum likely hawkish scenario for Fed rate hikes in 2022, with risks all pointing in the direction of the Fed delivering less than expected. Upgrade US duration exposure to neutral from below-benchmark on a tactical basis. Feature Chart 1A Near-Term Overshoot For UST Yields During the BCA Research US Bond Strategy quarterly webcast last week, we announced a shift in our recommended US duration stance, moving from below-benchmark to neutral. This move was more tactical (i.e. shorter-term) in nature, as we still strongly believe that bond markets are underestimating the eventual peak for US bond yields over the next couple of years. In the near term, however, we see several good reasons to expect the recent big run-up in US bond yields to pause, warranting a more neutral tactical duration exposure (Chart 1). We discuss those reasons – and the implications for both US duration strategy - in this report published jointly by BCA Research’s US Bond Strategy and Global Fixed Income Strategy services. Reason #1: Too Many Fed Rate Hikes Are Now Discounted For 2022 The US overnight index swap (OIS) curve currently discounts 146bps of Fed rate hikes by the end of 2022. This is a big change from the start of the year when only 77bps of hikes were priced (Chart 2). The OIS curve repricing now puts the path of the funds rate for this year well above the last set of FOMC interest rate projections published at the December 2021 Fed meeting. In other words, the market has already moved to discount a big upward shift in the FOMC “dots” for 2022, and even for 2023, at next month’s FOMC meeting. Chart 2Markets Think The Fed Will Hike More Sooner And Less Later - The Opposite Is More Likely We think a more likely outcome for 2022 is that the Fed lifts rates four or five times, not six or even seven times as some Wall Street investment banks are forecasting. We set out the reasons why we think the Fed will go less than expected in the rest of this report. At a minimum, there is virtually no chance that the Fed will provide guidance to markets that is more hawkish than current market pricing, which would push bond yields even higher in the near term. Reason #2: US Inflation Will Soon Peak The relentless string of upside surprises on US inflation has been the main reason the bond market has moved so rapidly on pricing in more Fed rate hikes. The story is about to change, however, as US inflation should peak sometime in the next few months and begin to rapidly decelerate toward levels much closer to, but still well above, the Fed’s 2% inflation target. Already, the intense global inflation pressures from commodities and traded goods prices over the past year has started to lose potency. The annual growth rate of the CRB Raw Industrials index has eased from a peak of 45% in June to 18%, in line with slowing growth momentum of global manufacturing activity (Chart 3, top panel). The softening of input price pressures is evident in business survey measures like the ISM Manufacturing Prices Paid index, which typically leads US headline CPI inflation by six months and has fallen by 16 points since the peak in June (middle panel). Chart 3Global Inflation Pressures Easing The global supply chain disruptions that have caused inventory shortages in products ranging from new cars to semiconductors also appear to be easing. Supplier delivery times are shortening according to the ISM Manufacturing and Non-Manufacturing surveys (bottom panel). Combined with other indications of the loosening of supply chain logjams, like lower shipping costs, the influence of supply disruptions on inflation should diminish, on the margin. Energy prices should also soon contribute to disinflationary momentum (Chart 4). BCA Research’s Commodity & Energy Strategy service is forecasting the Brent oil price to reach $76/bbl at the end of 2022 and $80/bbl at the end of the 2023. That represents a significant decline from the current $95/bbl price that reflects a large risk premium for the potential oil market supply disruptions in response to a Russian invasion of Ukraine. A war-driven spike in oil prices does risk extending the current period of high US (and global) inflation. However, it should be noted that the annual growth in oil prices has been decelerating even as oil prices have been rising recently, showing the power of base effect comparisons that should lead to a lower contribution to overall inflation from energy prices over the next 6-12 months. ​​​​​​Chart 4Oil Prices Will Soon Turn Disinflationary Chart 5A Changing Mix Of US Consumer Spending Will Lower Overall Inflation   Looking beyond the commodity space, a shifting mix of US consumer spending should also help push overall US inflation lower. US core CPI inflation hit a 34-year high of 6.0% in January, fueled by 11.7% growth in core goods inflation (Chart 5). We anticipate that overall core inflation will slow to levels more consistent with the trends seen in more domestically focused sectors like core services and shelter, where inflation is running around 4%. US consumers have started to shift their spending patterns away from goods, which was running well above its pre-pandemic trend, back toward services, which was running below its pre-pandemic trend (Chart 6). This will help narrow the gap between goods and services inflation, particularly as easing supply chain disruptions help dampen goods inflation. Chart 6Goods Inflation Should Soon Peak​​​​​ Chart 7There Are Still Pockets Of Available US Labor Market Supply​​​​​​ Chart 8US Wage Growth Should Soon Begin To Moderate There is also the potential for some of the pressures stemming from the tight US labor market to become a bit less inflationary in the coming months. While the overall US unemployment rate of 4% is well within the range of full employment NAIRU estimates produced by the FOMC, there are notable differences across employment categories suggesting that there are still sizeable pockets of labor supply. For example, the unemployment rate for managerial and professional workers is a tiny 2.3%, while the unemployment rate for services workers was a more elevated 6.7% (Chart 7, top panel). There are also noteworthy differences in US labor market trends when sorted by wage growth. Employment in industries with lower wages – predominantly in services – has not returned to the pre-pandemic peak, unlike employment in higher wage cohorts (middle panel).1 As the US economy puts the Omicron variant in the rearview mirror, service industries most impacted by pandemic restrictions should see an increase in labor supply as workers return to the labor force. This will help close the one percentage point gap between the labor force participation rate for prime-aged workers (aged 25-54) and its pre-pandemic peak (bottom panel). This will also help to mitigate the current upturn in service sector wage growth, which reached 5.2% at the end of 2021 according to the US Employment Cost Index (Chart 8). When US inflation finally peaks in the next few months – most notably for goods prices and service sector wages – the Fed will be under less pressure to hike rates as aggressively as discounted in current bond market pricing. Reason #3: US Inflation Expectations Have Stabilized Chart 9TIPS Breakevens Are Not Telling The Fed To Be More Aggressive The Fed always pays a lot of attention to inflation expectations, particularly market-based measures like TIPS breakevens, to assess if its monetary policy stance is appropriate. The current message from breakevens is that the Fed does not have to turn even more hawkish than expected to bring inflation back down to levels consistent with the Fed’s 2% target. The 10-year TIPS breakeven is currently 2.4%, down from a peak of 2.8% and within the 2.3-2.5% range that we deem consistent with the Fed’s inflation target. Inflation expectations are even more subdued on a forward basis, with the 5-year TIPS breakeven, 5-years forward now down to 1.95% (Chart 9). Shorter term TIPS breakevens remain elevated, with the 2-year breakeven at 3.7%. We continue to favor positioning for a narrower 2-year TIPS breakeven spread – realized inflation will soon peak and the New York Fed’s Consumer Expectations survey shows that household inflation expectations for the next three years have already fallen significantly (bottom panel). Lower inflation expectations, both market-based and survey-based, suggest that the Fed can be cautious on the pace of rate hikes after liftoff next month. Reason #4: US Financial Conditions Are Tightening Alongside Cooling US Growth Momentum We have long described the link between financial markets and the Fed’s policy stance as “The Fed Policy Loop.” In this framework, the markets act as a regulator on Fed hawkishness (Chart 10). If the Fed comes across as overly hawkish, risk assets will sell off (lower equity prices, wider corporate credit spreads), the US dollar will appreciate, the US Treasury curve will flatten and market volatility measures like the VIX index will increase. All of those trends act to tighten US financial conditions, threatening a growth slowdown that will force the Fed to back off from its previous hawkish bias. Chart 10The Fed Policy Loop Financial conditions have indeed tightened as markets have priced in more Fed rate hikes in 2022 (Chart 11). Since the start of the year, the S&P 500 is down 9% year-to-date, US investment grade corporate spreads have widened 26bps, the 2-year/10-year US Treasury curve has flattened by 34bps and the VIX index has increased 11 pts. In absolute terms, US financial conditions remain highly stimulative and the risk asset selloff so far poses little threat to US economic growth. However, if the Fed were to deliver all of the rate hikes in 2022 that are currently discounted in the US OIS curve, the market selloff would deepen as investors began to worry about a Fed-engineered economic slowdown. This would lead to a more significant tightening of financial conditions, representing an even bigger risk to US growth. The Fed cannot risk appearing too hawkish too soon, with US growth momentum already showing signs of slowing (Chart 12). The Conference Board US leading economic indicator has stopped accelerating and may be peaking, US business confidence is softening and consumer confidence is very depressed according to the University of Michigan survey. Importantly, high inflation is cited as the main reason for weak consumer confidence, as wage increases have not matched price increases. If realized inflation falls, as we expect, this could actually provide a boost to consumer confidence as households would feel an improvement in real incomes and spending power – a development that could eventually lead to more Fed rate hikes in 2023 if consumer spending improves, especially if inflation stays above the Fed’s 2% target. Chart 11Fed Hawkishness Has Already Tightened Financial Conditions​​​​​​ Chart 12Not The Best Time For The Fed To Be More Aggressive​​​​​ For now, however, the risk of a preemptive tightening of financial conditions will ensure that the Fed delivers fewer rate hikes than the market expects this year. Reason #5: Treasury Market Positioning Is Now Very Short Chart 13Reliable Bond Indicators Calling For A Pause In The UST Selloff The final reason to increase US duration exposure now is that Treasury market positioning has become quite short and has become a headwind to higher bond yields and lower bond prices. The JP Morgan fixed income client duration survey shows that bond investors are running duration exposures well below benchmark (Chart 13). Speculators are also running significant short positions in longer-maturity US Treasury futures. This suggests limited selling power in the event of more bond bearish news and increased scope for short-covering in the event of risk-off event – like a shooting war in Ukraine – or surprisingly negative US economic data. On that front, the Citigroup US data surprise index, which is typically highly correlated to the momentum of US Treasury yields, has dipped a bit recently but remains at neutral levels (top panel). A similar measure of neutrality is sent by some of our preferred cyclical bond indicators like the ratio of the CRB raw industrials index to the price of gold – the 10-year yield is now in line with that ratio, which appears to be peaking (middle panel). Investment Conclusions Given the five reasons outlined in this report – too many Fed hikes are now discounted for 2022, US realized inflation should soon peak, inflation expectations have stabilized, financial conditions have started to tighten, and positioning in the Treasury market is now quite short – we decided last week to upgrade our recommended US portfolio duration to neutral from below-benchmark. However, this move is only for a tactical investment horizon. We still see the cyclical backdrop as bond bearish, as Treasury yields do not yet reflect how high US interest rates will rise in the upcoming tightening cycle. The 5-year Treasury yield, 5-years forward is currently at 2.0%. This lies at the low end of the range of estimates of the longer-run neutral fed funds rate (Chart 14) from the New York Fed’s survey of bond market participants (2%) and the median FOMC longer-run interest rate projection from the Fed dots (2.5%). We see the Fed having to lift rates faster than markets expect in 2023 and 2024. US inflation this year is expected to settle at a level above the Fed’s 2% target before picking up again next year alongside renewed tightening of labor market conditions once the remaining supply of excess labor is fully absorbed. Chart 14The Cyclical UST Bear Market Is Not Over Yet Chart 15Go Long The Dec/22 SOFR Contract Vs. The Dec/24 Contract As a way to position for the Fed doing fewer rate hikes than expected in 2022, but more hikes than expected in 2023/24, we are entering a new trade this week – going long the December 2022 3-month SOFR US interest rate futures contract versus a short position in the December 2024 3-month SOFR contract.  The implied interest rate spread on those two contracts has tightened to 25bps (Chart 15). We expect that trend to reverse, however, with the spread increasing as markets eventually move to price out rate hikes in 2022 and price in much more Fed tightening in 2023 and 2024. We will discuss the implications of the shift in our US duration stance for our views on non-US bond markets in next week’s Global Fixed Income Strategy report. Our initial conclusion is that our country allocation recommendations for government bonds will remain unchanged – underweighting the US, UK, and Canada; overweighting core Europe, peripheral Europe, Japan and Australia – but we will also increase duration exposure within most (if not all) countries. As in the US, we also see markets pricing in too many rate hikes in the UK and Canada for 2022 but too few rate hikes over the next two years. On the other hand, markets are pricing in too many rate cumulative hikes over the next 2-3 years in Europe, Australia and Japan (Table 1). Table 1Markets Have Pulled Forward Rate Hikes Everywhere   Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1      The definitions for the wage cohorts can be found in the footnote of Chart 7. Cyclical Recommendations (6-18 Months) Tactical Overlay Trades

Executive Summary The Market Thinks The Fed Will Be Unable To Raise Rates Much Above 2% The Fed tightening cycle is likely to proceed in two stages. In the first stage, which is now well anticipated, the Fed will seek to restore its credibility by raising rates to 2% – the lower bound of what it regards as “neutral” – by early next year. The decline in goods inflation over the next 12 months, facilitated by the easing of supply-chain bottlenecks, will allow the Fed to take a break from tightening for most of 2023. Unfortunately, the respite from rate hikes will not last. The neutral rate of interest is around 3%-to-4%, significantly higher than what either the Fed or investors believe. A wage-price spiral will intensify starting in late 2023, setting the stage for the second, and more painful, round of tightening. Trade Inception Level Initiation Date Stop Loss Long June 2023 3-month SOFR futures contract (SFRM3) / December 2024 (SFRZ4) -8 bps Feb 17/2022 -30 bps New Trade: Go short the December 2024 3-month SOFR futures contract versus the June 2023 contract. Investors expect the fed funds rate to be somewhat higher in mid-2023 than at end-2024. They are wrong about that. Bottom Line: The market has priced in the first stage of the Fed’s tightening cycle, which suggests that bond yields will stabilize over the next few quarters. However, the market has not priced in the second stage. Once it starts to do so, the bull market in equities will end. Investors should remain bullish on stocks for now but look to reduce equity exposure by the middle of 2023.   Dear Client, Instead of our regular report next week, we will be sending you a Special Report written by Matt Gertken, BCA Research’s Chief Geopolitical Strategist, discussing Russia’s geopolitical outlook over the long run. I hope you will find it insightful. Best regards, Peter Berezin Chief Global Strategist Who’s the Boss? Who sets interest rates: The economy or the Fed? The answer is both. In the short run, the Fed has complete control over interest rates. In the long run, however, the economy calls the shots. If the Fed sets rates too high, unemployment will rise, forcing the Fed to cut rates. If the Fed sets rates too low, the opposite will happen. Chart 1The Fed's Estimate Of The Neutral Rate Is Still Quite Low By Historical Standards Thus, over the long haul, it all boils down to where the neutral rate of interest – the interest rate consistent with full employment and stable inflation – happens to be. In the latest Summary of Economic Projections, released on December 15th, 9 out of 17 FOMC participants penciled in 2.5% as their estimate of the appropriate “longer run” level of the federal funds rate. Six participants thought the neutral rate was lower than 2.5%, while two participants thought it was higher (both put down 3%). Back in 2012, when the Fed began publishing its dot plot, the median FOMC participant thought the neutral rate was 4.25%. Investors have revised up their estimate of the neutral rate over the past two months. But at 2.09%, the 5-year/5-year forward bond yield – a widely-used proxy for the neutral rate – is still exceptionally low by historic standards (Chart 1). Desired Savings and Investment Determine the Neutral Rate Chart 2The Savings-Investment Balance Determines The Neutral Rate Of Interest One can think of the neutral rate as the interest rate that equates aggregate demand with aggregate supply at full employment. If interest rates are above neutral, the economy will suffer from inadequate demand; if interest rates are below neutral, the economy will overheat. As Box 1 explains, the difference between aggregate demand and aggregate supply can be expressed as the difference between how much investment an economy needs to undertake and the savings it has at its disposal. Savings can be generated domestically by deferring consumption or imported from abroad via a current account deficit. Anything that reduces savings or raises investment will lead to a higher neutral rate of interest (Chart 2). With this little bit of theory under our belts, let us consider the forces shaping savings and investment in the United States. Desired Savings Are Falling in the US There are at least six reasons to expect desired savings to trend lower in the US over the coming years: Households will spend down their accumulated pandemic savings. US households are sitting on $2.3 trillion (10% of GDP) in excess savings, the result of both decreased spending on services during the pandemic and generous government transfer payments (Chart 3). While some of that money will remain sequestered in bank deposits, much of it will eventually be spent. Household wealth has soared. Personal net worth has risen by 128% of GDP since the start of the pandemic, the largest two-year increase on record (Chart 4). Conservatively assuming that households will spend three cents of every additional dollar in wealth, the resulting wealth effect could boost consumption by 3.8% of GDP. Chart 3Plenty Of Pent-Up Demand Chart 4Net Worth Has Soared The household deleveraging cycle is over (Chart 5). Household balance sheets are in good shape. After falling during the initial stages of the pandemic, consumer credit has begun to rebound. Banks are easing lending standards on consumer loans across the board. Corporate profit margins are peaking. As a share of GDP, corporate profits are near record-high levels (Chart 6). Despite a tight labor market, wage growth has failed to keep up with inflation over the past two years. Real wages should recover over time. To the extent that households spend more of their income than businesses, a rising labor share should translate into lower overall savings. Chart 5US Household Deleveraging Pressures Have Abated Chart 6Corporate Profits Are Near Record Highs... But Wage Growth Has Failed To Keep Up Baby boomers are retiring. Baby boomers are leaving the labor force en masse. They hold over half of US household wealth, considerably more than younger generations (Chart 7). As baby boomers transition from net savers to net dissavers, national savings will decline. Government budget deficits will stay elevated. Fiscal deficits subtract from national savings. While the US budget deficit will come down over the next few years, the IMF estimates that the structural budget deficit will still average 4.9% of GDP between 2022 and 2026 compared to 2.0% of GDP between 2014 and 2019 (Chart 8). Chart 7Baby Boomers Have Amassed A Lot Of Wealth Chart 8Fiscal Policy: Tighter But Not Tight Investment Will Not Decline to Offset the Reduction in Savings A favorite talking point among those who espouse the secular stagnation thesis is that slower trend growth will curb investment demand, leading to an ever-larger savings glut. There are a number of problems with this argument. For one thing, most of the decline in US potential GDP growth has already occurred, implying less need for incremental cuts to investment spending in the future. According to the Congressional Budget Office, real potential GDP growth fell from over 3% in the early 1980s to about 1.9% today, mainly due to slower labor force growth. The CBO expects potential growth to edge down to 1.7% over the next few decades (Chart 9). Moreover, US investment spending has been weaker over the past two decades than one would have expected based on the evolution of trend GDP growth. As a consequence, the average age of both the residential and nonresidential capital stock has risen to the highest level in over 50 years (Chart 10). Chart 9Most Of The Deceleration In US Potential Real GDP Growth Has Already Taken Place Chart 10The Aging Capital Stock As the labor market continues to tighten, firms will devote greater efforts to automating production. Already, core capital goods orders have broken out to the upside (Chart 11). On the housing front, the NAHB reported this week that despite rising mortgage rates, foot traffic and prospective sales remain at exceptionally strong levels (Chart 12). Building permits also surprised on the upside. Chart 11The Outlook For US Capex Is Bright Chart 12Homebuilder Confidence Remains Strong Overseas Appetite for US Assets May Wane A larger current account deficit would allow the US to spend more than it earns without the need for higher interest rates to incentivize additional domestic savings. The problem is that the US current account deficit is already quite large, having averaged 3.1% of GDP over the past four quarters. Furthermore, as a result of the accumulation of past current account deficits, external US liabilities now exceed assets by 69% of GDP (Chart 13). It is far from clear that foreigners will want to maintain the current pace of US asset purchases, let alone increase them from current levels. Chart 13The US Has Become Increasingly Indebted To The Rest Of The World The Two-Stage Path to Neutral Chart 14The Market Thinks The Fed Will Be Unable To Raise Rates Much Above 2% Investors expect the Fed to raise rates seven times by early next year and then stop hiking (and perhaps even start cutting!) in late 2023 and beyond (Chart 14). However, if we are correct that the neutral rate of interest is higher than widely believed, the Fed will eventually need to lift rates to a higher level than what is currently being discounted. It is impossible to be certain what this level is, but a reasonable estimate is somewhere in the range of 3%-to-4%. This is about 100-to-200 basis points above current market pricing. The path to the “new neutral” will not follow a straight line. As we have argued in the past, inflation is likely to evolve in a “two steps up, one step down” fashion. We are presently at the top of those two steps. Inflation will decline over the next 12 months as goods inflation falls sharply and services inflation rises only modestly, before starting to move up again in the second half of 2023. Falling Goods Inflation in 2022 Chart 15Goods Inflation Should Fade Chart 15 shows that the current inflationary episode has been driven by rising goods prices, particularly durable goods. This is highly unusual since goods prices, adjusting for quality improvements, usually trend sideways-to-down over time. As economies continue to reopen, the composition of consumer spending will shift from goods to services. At the same time, supply bottlenecks should abate. The combination of slowing demand and increasing supply will cause goods inflation to tumble. Investors are underestimating the extent to which goods inflation could recede over the remainder of the year as pandemic-related distortions subside. For example, used vehicle prices have jumped by over 50% during the past 18 months (Chart 16). Assuming automobile chip availability improves, we estimate that vehicle-related prices will go from adding 1.6 percentage points to headline inflation at present to subtracting 0.9 points by the end of the year – a swing of 2.5 percentage points (Chart 17). Chart 16AVehicle, Food, And Energy Prices Could All Retreat From Extended Levels (I) Chart 16BVehicle, Food, And Energy Prices Could All Retreat From Extended Levels (II) Chart 17Even If Underlying Core Inflation Does Not Change, Inflation Will Fall This Year As Goods Prices Come Back Down To Earth Along the same lines, we estimate that energy inflation will go from raising inflation by 1.7 points at present to lowering inflation by 0.3 points by the end of the year. This is based on the WTI forward curve, which sees oil prices retreating to $80/bbl by the end of 2022 from $91/bbl today. A normalization in food prices should also help keep a lid on goods inflation. Service Inflation Will Rise Only Modestly in 2022 Could rising service inflation offset the decline in goods inflation this year? It is possible, but we would bet against it. While certain components of the CPI services basket, such as rents, will continue to trend higher, a major increase in service inflation is unlikely unless wages rise more briskly. As Chart 18 underscores, the bulk of recent wage growth has occurred at the bottom end of the income distribution. That is not especially surprising. Whereas employment among medium-and-high wage workers has returned to pre-pandemic levels, employment among low-wage workers is still 6% below where it was in early 2020 (Chart 19). Chart 18The Bulk Of Recent Wage Growth Has Occurred At The Bottom End Of The Income Distribution Chart 19Employment Among Low-Wage Workers Still Lagging Chart 20Workers Are Starting To Return To Their Jobs Following The Omicron Wave Looking out, labor participation among lower-paid workers will recover now that enhanced unemployment benefits have expired. A decline in the number of life-threatening Covid cases should also help bring back many lower-paid service workers. According to the Census Bureau’s Household Pulse Survey, a record 8.7 million employees were absent from work in the middle of January either because they were sick or looking after someone with Covid symptoms. Consistent with declining case counts, February data show that fewer employees have been absent from work (Chart 20). Predicting Wage-Price Spirals: The Role of Expectations A classic wage-price spiral is one where self-fulfilling expectations of rising prices prompt workers to demand higher wages. Rising wages, in turn, force firms to lift prices in order to protect profit margins, thus validating workers’ expectations of higher prices. For the time being, such a relentless feedback loop has yet to emerge. Market-based measures of long-term inflation expectations have actually fallen since October and remain below the Fed’s comfort zone (Chart 21). Survey-based measures have moved up, but not by much (Chart 22). To the extent that US households are reluctant to buy a new vehicle, it is because they expect prices to decline (Chart 23). Chart 21Market-Based Expectations Remain Below The Fed's Comfort Zone Chart 22Survey-Based Measures Of Long-Term Inflation Expectations Have Ticked Up, But Not By Much Still, if it turns out that the neutral rate of interest is higher than widely believed, then monetary policy must also be more stimulative than widely believed. This raises the odds that, at some point, the economy will overheat and a wage-price spiral will develop. It is impossible to definitively say when that point will arrive. Inflationary processes tend to be highly non-linear: The labor market can tighten for a long time without this having much impact on inflation, only for inflation to surge once the unemployment rate has fallen below a critical threshold. The Sixties as a Template for Today? The sudden jump in inflation in the 1960s offers an interesting example. The unemployment rate in the US fell to NAIRU in 1962. However, it was not until 1966, when the unemployment rate had already fallen nearly two percentage points below NAIRU, that inflation finally took off. Within the span of ten months, both wage growth and inflation more than doubled. US inflation would end up finishing the decade at 6%, setting the stage for the stagflationary 1970s (Chart 24). Chart 23The Expectation of Lower Prices Is Keeping Many People From Buying A Car Chart 24Inflation Started Accelerating Quickly Only When Unemployment Reached Very Low Levels In The 1960s Our guess is that we are closer to 1964 than 1966, implying that the US economy may still need to overheat for another one or two years before a true wage-price spiral emerges. When the second wave of inflation does begin, however, investors will find themselves in a world of pain. Stay overweight stocks for now but look to reduce equity exposure by the middle of next year. This Week’s Trade Idea Given our expectation that inflation will come down sharply in 2022 before beginning to rise again in late 2023 and into 2024, we recommend shorting the December 2024 3-month SOFR futures contract versus the June 2023 contract. Current market pricing provides an attractive entry point for the trade, with the implied interest rate for the June 2023 contract 8 bps higher than that of the December 2024 contract. We expect the interest rate spread to eventually widen substantially in favor of higher rates (lower futures contract prices) in 2024. Box 1The Neutral Rate Through The Lens Of The Savings-Investment BalancePeter Berezin Chief Global Strategist peterb@bcaresearch.com   Global Investment Strategy View Matrix Special Trade Recommendations Current MacroQuant Model Scores

Executive Summary The recent 26 percent overspend on durable goods constitutes one of the greatest imbalances in economic history. An overspend on goods is corrected by a subsequent underspend; but an underspend on services is not corrected by a subsequent overspend. This unfortunate asymmetry means that the recent overspend on goods at the expense of services makes the economy vulnerable to a downturn. And the risk is exacerbated by central banks’ intentions to hike rates in response to inflation. As the spending on durable goods wanes, so too will monthly core inflation and the 30-year T-bond yield. As the 30-year T-bond rallies, so too will other long-duration bonds, long-duration stocks, long-duration sectors, and long-duration stock markets such as the S&P 500 versus short-duration stock markets such as the FTSE 100. Fractal trading watchlist: We focus on emerging markets, add financials versus industrials, and review tobacco versus cannabis, CAD/SEK, and biotech. If A 26 Percent Overspend On Goods Is Not A Massive Economic Imbalance, Then What Is? Bottom Line: As the spending on durable goods wanes, so too will monthly core inflation and the 30-year T-bond yield. Go overweight long-duration bonds, long-duration stocks, and long-duration stock markets such as the US versus non-US. Feature My colleague Peter Berezin recently wrote that recessions tend to happen when: “1) the build-up of imbalances makes the economy vulnerable to downturn; 2) a catalyst exposes these imbalances; and 3) amplifiers exacerbate the slump.” Peter is spot on. Using this checklist, I would argue that right now: There is a massive imbalance that makes the economy vulnerable to a downturn. Specifically, a 26 percent overspend on durable goods constitutes one of the greatest imbalances in economic history – the 26 percent overspend on durables refers to the US, but other advanced economies have experienced similar binges on goods. The catalyst that exposes this massive imbalance is the realisation that durables are, well, durable. They last a long time. So, if you front-end loaded many of this year’s purchases into last year, then you will not buy them this year. If you overspent by 26 percent in 2021, then the risk is that you symmetrically underspend by 26 percent in 2022. If central banks hike rates into this demand downturn, they will amplify and exacerbate the slump. A Massive Imbalance In Spending Makes The Economy Vulnerable To A Downturn Much of the recent overspend on goods was spending displaced from the underspend on services which became unavailable in the pandemic – such as eating out, going to the movies, and going to in-person doctor’s appointments. Raising the obvious question, can a future underspend on goods be countered by a future overspend on services? The answer is no. The consumption of services is constrained by time, opportunity, and biology. For example, there is a limit on how often you can eat out, go to the movies, or go to the doctor. If you are used to eating out and going to the movies once a week, and the pandemic prevented you from doing so for a year, that does not mean you will eat out and go to the movies an extra 52 times for the 52 times you missed! Rather, you will quickly revert to your previous pattern of going out once a week. This constraint on services spending means that the underspend will not become a symmetric overspend. In fact, the underspend on certain services will persist. This is because we have made some permanent changes to our lifestyles – for example, hybrid office/home working and more online shopping and online medical care. Additionally, a small but significant minority of people have changed their behaviour, shunning services that require close contact with strangers. To repeat the crucial asymmetry, an overspend on goods is corrected by a subsequent underspend; but an underspend on services is not corrected by a subsequent overspend (Chart I-1 and Chart I-2). Therefore, the recent massive overspend on goods at the expense of services makes the economy vulnerable to a downturn, and the risk is exacerbated by central banks’ intentions to hike rates in response to inflation. These hikes will prove to be overkill, because inflation is set to cool of its own accord. Chart I-1An Overspend On Goods Can Be Corrected By A Subsequent Underspend...   Chart I-2...But An Underspend On Services Cannot Be Corrected By A Subsequent Overspend   Durables Are Driving Inflation, And Inflation Is Driving The 30-Year T-Bond The recent binge on goods really comprises three mini-binges, which peaked in May 2020, January-March 2021, and October 2021. With a couple of months lag, these three mini-binges have caused three mini-waves in core inflation. To see the cause and effect, it is best to examine the evolution of inflation granularly – on a month-on-month basis – which removes the distorting ‘base effects.’ The mini-binges in goods lifted the core monthly inflation rate to an (annualised) 7 percent in July 2020, 10 percent in April-June 2021, and 7 percent in January 2022 (Chart I-3). Chart I-3Spending On Durables Is Driving Inflation Worryingly, the sensitivity of inflation has increased in each new mini-binge in goods spending, possibly reflecting more pressure on already-creaking supply chains as well as more secondary effects. Nevertheless, the key driver of the mini-waves in core inflation is the demand for durables, and as that demand wanes, so will core inflation. As monthly core inflation eases back, so too will the 30-year T-bond yield. What about the 30-year T-bond yield? Although it is a long-duration asset, its yield has recently been tracking the short-term contours of core inflation. So, when monthly inflation reached an (annualised) 10 percent last year, the 30-year T-bond yield reached 2.5 percent. At the more recent 7 percent inflation rate, the yield has reached 2.35 percent. It follows that as monthly core inflation eases back, so too will the 30-year T-bond yield (Chart I-4). Chart I-4Inflation Is Driving The 30-Year T-Bond Get The 30-Year T-Bond Right, And You’ll Get Most Things Right For the past year, the story of stocks has been the story of bonds. Or to be more precise, the story of long-duration stocks has been the story of the 30-year T-bond. Through this period, the worry du jour has changed – from the Omicron mutation of SARS-CoV-2 to an Evergrande default to Facebook subscriber losses and now to Russia/Ukraine tensions. Yet the overarching story through all of this is that the long-duration Nasdaq index has tracked the 30-year T-bond price one-for-one (Chart I-5). And the connection between S&P 500 and the 30-year T-bond price is almost as good (Chart I-6). Chart I-5Get The 30-Year T-Bond Right, And You'll Get The Nasdaq Right Chart I-6Get The 30-Year T-Bond Right, And You'll Get The S&P 500 Right The tight short-term connection between long-duration stocks and the 30-year T-bond makes perfect sense. The cashflows of any investment can be simplified into a ‘lump-sum’ payment in the future, and the ‘present value’ of this payment will move in line with the present value of an equal-duration bond. So, all else being equal, a long-duration stock will move one-for-one in line with a long-duration bond. The story of long-duration stocks has been the story of the 30-year T-bond. ‘Value’ stocks and non-US stock markets which are over-weighted to value have a shorter-duration. Therefore, they have a much weaker connection with the 30-year T-bond. It follows that if you get the 30-year T-bond right, you’ll get most things right: The performance of other long-duration bonds (Chart I-7). The performance of long-duration growth stocks (Chart I-8). The performance of ‘growth’ versus ‘value’ (Chart I-9). The performance of growth-heavy stock markets like the S&P 500 versus value-heavy stock markets like the FTSE100 (Chart I-10). Of course, the corollary is that if you get the 30-year T-bond wrong, you’ll get most things wrong. Observe that the 1-year charts of long-duration bonds, growth stocks, growth versus value, and S&P 500 versus FTSE100 are indistinguishable. Proving once again that investment is complex, but it is not complicated! Chart I-7Get The 30-Year T-Bond Right, And You'll Get The 30-Year German Bund Right Chart I-8Get The 30-Year T-Bond Right, And You'll Get Growth Stocks Right   Chart I-9Get The 30-Year T-Bond Right, And You'll Get Growth Versus Value Right Chart I-10Get The 30-Year T-Bond Right, And You'll Get S&P 500 Versus FTSE100 Right Our expectation is that as the spending on durable goods wanes, so too will monthly core inflation and the 30-year T-bond yield. Go overweight long-duration bonds, long-duration stocks, long-duration sectors, and long-duration stock markets such as the US versus non-US. Fractal Trading Watchlist This week we focus on emerging markets, add financials versus industrials, and review tobacco versus cannabis, CAD/SEK, and biotech. Emerging markets (EM) have been a big underperformer through the past year, but it may be time to dip in again, at least relative to value-heavy developed market (DM) indexes. Specifically, MSCI Emerging Markets versus MSCI UK has reached the point of fractal fragility that signalled previous major turning-points in 2014, 2018, and 2020 (Chart I-11). Accordingly, this week’s recommended trade is to go long MSCI EM versus UK (dollar indexes), setting the profit-target and symmetrical stop-loss at 10 percent.  Chart I-11Time To Dip Into EM Again, Selectively Financials Versus Industrials Is Approaching A Turning-Point CAD/SEK At A Top Awaiting A Major Entry-Point Into Biotech Dhaval Joshi Chief Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com Fractal Trading System 6-Month Recommendations Structural Recommendations Closed Fractal Trades Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Euro Area Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Europe Ex Euro Area   Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Asia Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Other Developed   Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations I   Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations III    

Executive Summary China Needs To Create RMB35 Trillion In Credit In 2022 The pace of credit creation in January increased sharply over December. However, the jump was less than meets the eye compared with previous easing cycles and adjusted for seasonality. Our calculation suggests that a minimum of approximately RMB35 trillion of new credit, or a credit impulse that accounts for 29% of this year's nominal GDP, will be needed to stabilize the economy. January’s credit expansion falls short of the RMB35 trillion mark on a six-month annualized rate of change basis. Our model will provide a framework for investors to gauge whether the month-over-month credit expansion data is on track to meet our estimate of the required stimulus. Despite an improvement in January's credit growth from December, it is premature to update Chinese stocks (on- and off-shore) to overweight relative to global equities. Bottom Line: Approximately RMB35 trillion in newly increased credit this year will probably be needed to revive China’s domestic demand.  Any stimulus short of this goal would mean that investors should not increase their cyclical asset allocation of Chinese stocks in a global portfolio. Feature January’s credit data for China exceeded the market consensus. The aggregate total social financing (TSF) more than doubled in the first month of 2022 from December last year. However, on a year-over-year basis, the increase in January’s TSF was smaller than in previous easing cycles, such as in 2013, 2016 and 2019. Furthermore, underlying data in the TSF reflects a prolonged weak demand for bank loans from both the corporate and household sectors. While January’s uptick in credit expansion makes us slightly more optimistic about China’s policy support, economic recovery and equity performance in the next 6 to 12 months, we are not yet ready to upgrade our view. An estimated RMB35 trillion in newly increased credit this year will likely be necessary to revive flagging domestic demand. In the absence of seasonally adjusted TSF data in China, our framework will help investors determine whether incoming stimulus is on course to meet this objective. Interpreting January’s Credit Numbers Chart 1A Sharp Increase In Credit Creation In January January’s credit creation beat the market consensus to reach RMB6.17 trillion, pushed up by a seasonal boost and a frontloading of government bond issuance (Chart 1). However, the composition of the TSF data reflects an extended weakness in business and consumer credit demand. On the plus side, net government bond financing, including local government special purpose bonds, rose to RMB603 billion last month, more than twice the amount from January 2021 (Chart 1, bottom panel). Corporate bond issuance also picked up, reflecting cheaper market rates and more accommodative liquidity conditions (Chart 2). Furthermore, shadow credit (including trust loans, entrust loans and bank acceptance bills) also ticked up in January compared with a year ago. The increase in informal lending sends a tentative signal that policymakers may be willing to ease the regulatory pressure on shadow bank activities (Chart 3). Chart 2Corporate Financing Through Bond Issuance Also Increased Chart 3Shadow Banking Activity Ticked Up For The First Time In A Year Meanwhile, several factors suggest that the surge in January’s credit expansion may be less than what it appears to be at first glance. First, credit growth is always abnormally strong in January. Banks typically increase lending at the beginning of a year, seeking to expand their assets rapidly before administrative credit quotas kick in. In recent years loans made during the first month of a year accounted for about 17% - 20% of total bank credit generated for an entire year. Secondly, the credit flow in January, although higher than in January 2021, was weaker than in the first month of previous easing cycles. Credit impulse – measured by the 12-month change in TSF as a percentage of nominal GDP – only inched up by 0.6 percentage points of GDP in January this year from December, much weaker than that during the first month in previous easing cycles (Chart 4). TSF increased by RMB980 billion from January 2021, lower than the RMB1.5 trillion year-on-year jump in 2019 and the RMB1.4 trillion boost in 2016 (Chart 4, bottom panel). Chart 4The Magnitude Of Increase In January’s Credit Impulse Less Than Meets The Eye Chart 5Corporate Demand For Bank Credit Remains Soft Furthermore, China’s households and private businesses have significantly lagged in their responses to recent policy easing measures and their demand for credit remained soft in January (Chart 5). Bank credit in both short and longer terms to households were lower than a year earlier due to downbeat consumer sentiment (Chart 6A and 6B). Chart 6AConsumption Was Unseasonably Weak During Chinese New Year Chart 6BHouseholds' Propensity To Consume Continues Trending Down How Much Stimulus Is Necessary? Our calculation suggests that China will probably need to create approximately RMB35 trillion in new credit, or 29% of GDP in credit impulse, over the course of this year to avoid a contraction in corporate earnings. In our previous reports, we argued that the state of the economy today is in a slightly better shape than the deep deflationary period in 2014/15, but the magnitude of the property market contraction is comparable to that seven years ago. Chart 7 illustrates our approach, which uses a model of Chinese investable earnings growth. The model is designed to predict the likelihood of a serious contraction in investable earnings in the coming 12 months. It includes variables on credit, manufacturing new orders and forward earnings momentum. The chart shows that the flow of TSF as a share of GDP needs to reach a minimum of 28.5% in order that the probability of a major earnings contraction falls below 50%. The size of the credit impulse necessary is 2 percentage points higher than that achieved last year, but still lower than the scope of the stimulus rolled out in 2016. Assuming an 8% growth rate in nominal GDP in 2022, the credit flow that should to be originated this year would be about RMB35 trillion, as illustrated in Chart 8. The chart also shows that this amount would exceed a previous high in credit flow reached in late-2020. Chart 7China Needs At Least A 29% Credit Impulse In 2022 To Avoid An Earnings Recession Chart 8China Needs To Create RMB35 Trillion In Credit In 2022 Based on a 3-month annualized rate of change, January’s credit growth appears that it will achieve the RMB35 trillion mark. However, the jump in TSF largely reflects a one-month leap in frontloaded local government bond issuance and it is not certain if private credit will accelerate in the months ahead. For now, we contend the stimulus have been insufficiently provided during the past six months (Chart 8, bottom panel). Chance Of A Stimulus Overshoot? We will closely monitor whether the month-to-month pace of credit growth is consistent with the scope of the reflationary policy response required to revive China’s domestic demand. Despite a sharp improvement in January’s headline credit number, we view the policy signal from January’s credit data as neutral. China’s unique cyclical patterns and the lack of official seasonally adjusted data make monthly credit figures difficult to interpret. Charts 9 and 10 represent an approach that we previously introduced to help gauge whether the pace of credit creation is on track to meet the stimulus called for to stabilize the economy. Chart 9Jan Credit Growth Looked To Be Stronger Than A “Half-Strength” Credit Cycle… Chart 10…But It Is Too Early To Conclude It Is In Line With What Is Needed The charts show an average cumulative amount of TSF as the year advances, along with a ±0.5 standard deviation, based on data from 2010 to 2021. The thick black line in both charts shows the progress in new credit creation this year, assuming an 8% annual nominal GDP growth rate. Chart 9 shows the cumulative progress in credit, assuming a 27% new credit-to-GDP ratio for the year, whereas Chart 10 assumes 30%. The 27% ratio scenario shown in Chart 9, which is slightly higher than the magnitude of stimulus in 2019, would correspond to a very measured credit expansion. If the thick black line continues to trend within this range, it would suggest that policymakers are reluctant to allow credit growth to surge. Consequently, global investors should continue an underweight stance on Chinese stocks. In contrast, Chart 10 represents a 30% rate of TSF as a share of this year’s GDP; this would be the adequate stimulus needed for a recovery in domestic demand. A cumulative amount of TSF that trends within or above this range would provide more confidence that a credit overshoot similar to 2015/16 and 2020 would occur.   Investment Conclusions It is premature to upgrade Chinese stocks to an overweight cyclical stance (i.e. over 6-12 months) within a global portfolio. For now, we recommend investors stay only tactically overweight in Chinese investable equities versus the global benchmark, given their cheap relative valuations. Meanwhile, the increase in January’s TSF, while registering an improvement relative to previous months, does not signal that the pace of credit growth will be strong enough to overcome the negative ramifications of the ongoing deceleration in housing market activity. Therefore, in view of policymakers’ steadfast desire to avoid another major credit overshoot, our cyclical recommendation to underweight Chinese stocks remains unchanged.   Jing Sima China Strategist jings@bcaresearch.com Strategic Themes Cyclical Recommendations Tactical Recommendations

Special Report

Dear Client, This week, the US Bond Strategy service is hosting its Quarterly Webcast (February 15 at 10:00 AM EST, 15:00 PM GMT, 16:00 PM CET). In addition, we are sending this Quarterly Chartpack that provides a recap of our key recommendations and some charts related to those recommendations and other areas of interest for US bond investors. Please tune in to the Webcast and browse the Chartpack at your leisure, and do let us know if you have any questions or other feedback. To view the Quarterly Chartpack PDF please click here. Best regards, Ryan Swift, US Bond Strategist

Feature This week, we present the third edition of the BCA Research Global Fixed Income Strategy (GFIS) Global Credit Conditions Chartbook – a review of central bank surveys of bank lending standards and loan demand. The data from lending surveys during the last quarter of 2021 were mixed, with business credit standards easing in the US, Japan, Canada, and New Zealand while remaining mostly unchanged in the euro area and UK (Chart 1). Supply chain disruptions have had a two-pronged effect on borrowing. While they have hurt business confidence and prospects, they have also created loan demand as firms look to replenish depleted inventory stocks. The overall picture is one of solid economic fundamentals that are nonetheless perturbed by inflation concerns and lingering uncertainty regarding Covid-19 infections. Chart 1Credit Standards Eased In Most Developed Markets In Q4/2021 An Overview Of Global Credit Conditions Surveys Chart 2Credit Standards And Spreads Are Correlated After every quarter, major central banks compile surveys to assess prevailing credit conditions. The purpose is to obtain from banks an assessment of how their lending standards and demand for loans, for both firms and consumers, changed over the previous quarter. Most surveys also ask questions about the key factors driving these changes and expectations for the next quarter.1 For fixed income investors, these surveys are valuable for a few reasons. Firstly, data on consumer lending is a window into consumer health while business loan demand sheds light on the investment picture. These help derive a view on the path of future economic growth and interest rates and thus, the appropriate duration stance of a bond portfolio. Also, credit standards can tell us about the pass-through from fiscal and monetary policy measures to realized financial conditions (i.e. corporate borrowing rates). Most importantly, credit standards exhibit a direct correlation with corporate bond spreads (Chart 2). As they have access to detailed, non-public information on a large number of borrowers, loan officers are uniquely positioned to evaluate corporate health. When banks are tightening standards, they see an issue with the credit quality of either current or future loans, which impacts borrowing costs in the corporate bond market. Tightening standards indicate a worsening borrowing backdrop and weaker growth, which then pushes up corporate spreads. Vice-versa, easing standards imply a favorable backdrop and plentiful liquidity—both bullish signs for spread product. US In the US, a net percentage of domestic respondents to the Fed’s Senior Loan Officer Survey, reported easing standards for commercial and industrial (C&I) loans to firms of all sizes over Q4/2021 (Chart 3). This marks the fourth consecutive quarter of easing standards. However, banks did report a slower pace of easing, which correlates with tighter financial conditions on the margin (top panel). While we are still in a period of easy financial conditions in absolute terms, this could soon start to change as hot inflation prints and booming economic data cause the Fed to turn increasingly hawkish. Despite this, banks expect to ease standards further over 2022, indicating confidence that underlying economic fundamentals and corporate health will be able to weather monetary tightening. US banks also reported stronger C&I loan demand from all firms in Q4, marking three consecutive quarters of improvement (middle panel). The picture was optimistic, with banks attributing increased loan demand to inventory financing, mergers & acquisitions, and fixed investment. Meanwhile, only 4.2% and 12.5% of banks saw a decrease in internal funds and increasing precautionary demand, respectively, as somewhat important. Inventories accounted for all but 2% of the 6.9% annualized GDP growth in Q4. With inventory stocks still depressed in absolute terms, we expect inventory restocking will continue to buoy demand over 2022. Chart 3US Credit Conditions​​​​​ Chart 4US Loan Demand Outlook For 2022 On the consumer side, banks reported easier standards across the board, with standards easing for credit card, auto, and other consumer loans (bottom panel). However, the pace of easing, which has historically been good at calling turning points in consumer confidence (on a rate-of-change basis), appears to have peaked. Consumer sentiment has already been battered by rampant inflation and falling real wage expectations; tighter credit standards down the road could prove to be a further headwind. As part of the one-off special questions in this edition of the survey, respondents were asked about the reasoning behind their outlook for loan demand over 2022 (Chart 4). Of those that expected higher demand, 70% cited higher spending and investment demand from borrowers as their income prospects improved. Meanwhile, only 33% thought that precautionary demand for liquidity would be a factor. Lenders thought that both, a worsening or an improvement in supply chain disruptions, could contribute to increased demand. 53% expected that continued disruption would create greater inventory financing needs. Meanwhile, 55% expected that easing supply chain troubles would boost demand as product availability concerns faded. Of those that expected weaker loan demand, interest rates were by-and-large the biggest factor, with an overwhelming 96% believing that rising rates would quell loan demand. This was followed by concerns that supply chain disruptions would keep prices high and product availability scarce (70%). On the whole, the responses capture a US economy that is at a tipping point, with market participants watching to see how it weathers an aggressive rate hiking cycle from the Fed. While underlying economic variables such as growth and employment remain strong, it still remains to be seen how much of a tightening in financial conditions the markets can bear. Euro Area In the euro area, banks on net reported a very slight tightening of standards to enterprises for the second consecutive quarter in Q4/2021 (Chart 5). Effectively, standards were unchanged as 96 of the 100 respondents to the survey reported no change from Q3. Slightly lower risk tolerance from banks contributed to tightening while lower risk perceptions related to the general economic outlook and the value of collateral had an easing effect. As in the US, standards in the euro area do show a correlation to overall financial conditions. Those have already tightened noticeably since the February 3rd meeting of the European Central Bank (ECB) Governing Council where President Lagarde set a more hawkish tone. While banks do expect a slight easing of standards over Q1/2022, that is unlikely given high inflation and geopolitical uncertainties which will negatively impact risk perceptions. Chart 5Euro Area Credit Conditions​​​​​​ Chart 6Credit Demand In Major Euro Area Economies​​​​​​ Loan demand growth from enterprises was remarkably strong in Q4, with 18% of firms reporting increased demand for loans (middle panel). The main driver was increased demand for inventories, followed closely by fixed investment and merger & acquisition needs. Loan demand leads realized growth in inventories, which has been already been picking up. In Q1, banks expect continued growth in loan demand, albeit at a slower pace. On the consumer side, however, loan demand only increased slightly, with the pace of growth slowing from the previous quarter (bottom panel). This was in line with consumer confidence taking a hit from rising inflation and the Omicron variant in the fourth quarter. The generally low level of interest rates had a small positive impact, while durable goods spending had a slight negative impact on consumer credit demand. Lenders expect moderate growth in consumer credit demand in Q1. Moving to the four major euro area economies, demand for loans to enterprises picked up in Germany, France, and Italy, while remaining unchanged in Spain (Chart 6). Fixed investment needs made a positive contribution across the board. This is corroborated by data on total lending, which is still growing on a year-on-year basis, even though the pace of growth is slowing in all the major euro area economies except Spain. UK In the UK, overall corporate credit standards eased slightly in Q4/2021, marking the fourth straight quarter of easing (Chart 7). However, there was dispersion along firm size. Large private non-financials accounted for all the easing and standards for small and medium firms actually tightened slightly. Going forward, lenders expect a further easing in standards in Q1, about on par with the easing seen in Q4. Chart 7UK Credit Conditions​​​​​ Chart 8UK Lenders Expect A Robust Growth To Ease Credit Availability​​​​​​ On the demand side, lenders reported slightly weaker corporate demand for lending in Q4. Again, the results were uneven across firm size – loan demand from large firms strengthened moderately, while demand from small and medium firms weakened. On average, lenders expect a slight pickup in corporate demand over Q1. Moving to the UK consumer, demand for unsecured lending continued to rise at a brisk pace, hovering around the highest levels since Q4/2014 (bottom panel). Going forward, lenders expect a continued increase in demand, but at a much slower pace. The strong developments in loan growth are seemingly at odds with the GfK consumer confidence index which has declined a total of 12 points since its July peak. Although the Bank of England does not survey respondents on the factors driving household unsecured lending demand, the divergence between confidence and loan demand suggests that precautionary demand for liquidity is playing a role. This lines up with the GfK survey, where expectations for the general economic situation over the next year are in freefall with consumers bracing for high inflation and further Bank Rate increases. Pivoting back to the drivers of corporate lending, the leading factor behind increased credit availability was an improvement in the overall economic outlook, followed by market share objectives (Chart 8). In contrast to the UK consumer, lenders are bullish on the economic outlook and believe it will continue to drive further easing over Q1/2022. On the demand side, investment in commercial real estate, which has seen steady improvement since Q3/2020, was the leading factor. This was followed by merger & acquisition and inventory financing needs. Capital investment needs, meanwhile, were a drag on demand. Moving forward, real estate investment and inventory restocking needs are expected to drive demand. Japan In Japan, credit standards to firms and households continued to ease in Q4/2021 (Chart 9). However, more than 90% of respondents in each case reported that standards were basically unchanged, and there were no reported instances of tightening among the sample of 50 lenders. Those that did report easier standards cited aggressive competition from other banks and strengthened efforts to grow the business. The vast majority of lenders expect standards to remain unchanged over Q1, but there is a slight easing expected on a net percentage basis. Chart 9Japan Credit Conditions Business loan demand on the whole was unchanged in Q4 although small and medium firms did increase demand slightly (middle panel). In contrast to other regions, business loan demand tends to behave counter-cyclically in Japan, with businesses borrowing more on a precautionary basis when they are pessimistic and vice-versa. Those dynamics were at play in Q4, with lenders attributing increased demand to a fall in firms’ internally generated funds. Banks expect a slight net pickup in demand next quarter, in line with business confidence which has fallen from its September peak on the back of concerns about Covid-19 infections, supply chain disruptions, and rising input prices. On the consumer side, loan demand was basically unchanged, with a very small net percentage of banks reporting weaker demand (bottom panel). The key reason for decreased demand was a decrease in household consumption, which is in line with retail sales, where the pace of growth has been falling. Even though core inflation in Japan is low, consumers are still exposed to rising energy prices, which might cause them to tighten other parts of their budgets. Canada Chart 10Canada Credit Conditions In Canada, business lending standards continued to ease at a slightly slower pace in Q4/2021 (Chart 10). This marks the fourth consecutive quarter of easing conditions, coming amid booming economic activity, high capacity utilization, and buoyant sentiment. Both, price and non-price lending conditions eased at roughly the same pace. On the consumer side, non-mortgage lending conditions continued to ease, but at a slower pace (middle panel). 1-year ahead consumer spending growth expectations, sourced from the Bank of Canada’s (BoC) Survey Of Consumer Expectations, and non-mortgage lending conditions typically display an inverse correlation, with expected spending growth increasing when standards are getting easier on the margin and vice-versa. The divergence in Q4 is explained in part by excess savings accumulated during the pandemic that have yet to be spent down, and in part by expected price increases over the coming year. In either case, it demonstrates that nominal spending has room to grow even in an environment where consumer credit availability is worsening. We also saw mortgage standards ease at a slightly slower pace in Q4, with both price and non-price lending conditions easing (bottom panel). While the BoC has made a hawkish pivot, underlying conditions are still easy – the conventional 5-year mortgage rate is still flat at 4.79%, the same level as Q3/2020. However, house price growth has peaked, and rate hikes this year will help prices moderate further. New Zealand Chart 11New Zealand Credit Conditions In New Zealand, business credit standards eased in the six month period ended September 2021 (Chart 11). However, the real impact of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand’s (RBNZ) tightening is being felt in the housing market, where actual standards entered tightening territory. More importantly, a net 23.1% of respondents expect mortgage credit availability to erode by the end of March; if realized, this figure would be a series high. Banks reporting less credit availability cited regulatory changes and risk perceptions. On the mortgage loan demand side, banks continued to see increased demand even after the record spike in March 2021 (middle panel). Going forward, demand is expected to moderate and fall from current levels. These dynamics have already made their mark on house prices which have already peaked, indicating that the RBNZ’s push is working as intended. Business loan demand does not appear to have been much affected by higher rates, with demand picking up slightly and expected to increase going forward (bottom panel). However, confidence has been falling since September 2021, with businesses feeling the twin bite of supply chain disruptions and labor shortages.   Shakti Sharma Senior Analyst ShaktiS@bcaresearch.com Appendix: Where To Find The Bank Lending Surveys A number of central banks publish regular surveys of bank lending conditions in their domestic economies. The surveys, and the details on how they are conducted, can be found on the websites of the central banks: US Federal Reserve: https://www.federalreserve.gov/data/sloos.htm European Central Bank: https://www.ecb.europa.eu/stats/ecb_surveys/bank_lending_survey/ Bank of England: https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/credit-conditions-survey/2021/2021-q4 Bank of Japan: https://www.boj.or.jp/en/statistics/dl/loan/loos/index.htm/ Bank of Canada: https://www.bankofcanada.ca/publications/slos/ Reserve Bank of New Zealand: https://www.rbnz.govt.nz/statistics/c60-credit-conditions-survey   Footnotes 1      The weblinks to each individual survey for the US, euro area, UK, Japan, Canada and New Zealand can be found in the Appendix on page 12. 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* Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Overlay Trades

Highlights A feedback loop has emerged in European markets. Tightening financial conditions will preempt the European Central Bank from hiking rates as much as the money market is pricing in. The widening in peripheral and credit spreads is overdone. Investors already long should maintain their positions. Investors without exposure will soon find an attractive entry point. Despite these near-term gyrations, the ECB is still on track to hike interest rates once in Q4 2022 and lift them aggressively in 2023. Feature Last week’s hawkish pivot by the European Central Bank (ECB) continues to affect markets. We take the words of the ECB at their face value; we anticipate the Governing Council (GC) to begin lifting interest rates at the end of 2022 and to continue to do so steadily over 2023 and 2024. However, as the shock filters through financial asset prices, we become more confident that the ECB will not lift rates five times in 2022 as the Euro Short Term Rate (ESTR) curve currently anticipates. Chart 1Growing Tensions In The Periphery... First, the behavior of Italian and Greek bond markets constitutes a major support to our view. Italian and Greek 10-year spreads have widened by respectively 46 and 65 basis points over the past six trading days (Chart 1). This tension highlights that investors still view these economies as continental trouble spots. Meanwhile, the ECB’s communication continues to highlight the need for flexibility to maintain order in the sovereign debt market. The GC does not want inadvertently to engineer a severe tightening in financial conditions in the already fragile periphery. In this context, it is highly unlikely that the ECB will rush to terminate the Asset Purchase Program (APP), an end on which rate hikes depend. Second, the corporate bond market is also going through a significant period of ruction. Both investment grade and high-yield bond yields have risen rapidly in recent days, and they are now retesting their late-2018 levels (Chart 2, top two panels). Spreads too are widening meaningfully, even though they remain further away from their 2018 highs (Chart 2, bottom two panels) The ECB is unwilling to let a liquidity shock morph into a solvency problem for European firms. For now, the behavior of the European credit market remains consistent with a liquidity shock. Funding markets are experiencing a violent adjustment, which is bleeding into the overall level of spreads. However, investors are not differentiating based on credit risk. Chart 3 shows that CCC credit (the lowest rated HY bonds) is not selling off relative to the overall high-yield index, which we would anticipate if investors were worried about underlying default risk. Chart 3No Distinction On Credit Risk Chart 2...And In European Corporates If the liquidity shock were to deepen further and last long enough, the resilience of the corporate sector would fritter away. However, the GC has tried to resist a deflationary shock for more than ten years now, and a solvency problem would undo all the progress made toward escaping the European liquidity trap, especially because wages have yet to recover. Third, members of the ECB’s GC are already trying to talk down the market. President Christine Lagarde displayed a more dovish tone when she spoke in front of the EU Parliament on February 7, 2022. ECB Chief Economist Philippe Lane remains steadfast that wages are not yet a problem. The Governor of the Bank of France, François Villeroy de Galhau still sees an imminent peak in CPI, and Olli Rehn, Governor of the Bank of Finland, recently lectured about the need for a gradual normalization of policy. Even hawks like the Bundesbank’s Joachim Nagel or the DNB’s Klaas Knot have gestured toward higher rates, but only toward the end of the year. In this context, we expect credit spreads to begin to narrow again; however, it will likely first require an easing in funding pressures. This is unlikely to happen until US yields form an interim peak. However, as Chart 4 highlights, the Treasury market is becoming extremely oversold. Moreover, a JP Morgan survey shows that its clients are massively short duration. The risk of a pullback in Treasury yields is growing, even if rising inflation and fears of a tighter Fed prevail for now. If US yields were to decline Bunds would likely follow the Treasury market because the ECB is becoming louder that it does not want to tighten financial conditions abruptly. Hence, a pullback in global risk-free yields will be the key to a period of calm in credit spreads, since valuations have improved materially, with the breakeven spreads on investment grade and high-yield bonds moving back to their 43rd and 44th percentiles, respectively (Chart 5). A stabilization in global yields and European spreads should also percolate to the peripheral sovereign bond market and limit the upside to Italian and Greek spreads. Chart 4Oversold Treasurys Chart 5Restoring Value In Corporates Bottom Line: The tightening in financial conditions taking place in Europe indicates that money market curves are pricing in the path for European policy rates too aggressively. The ECB has changed since 2011. It will not let peripheral borrowing costs threaten the recovery in Southern European economies, nor will it allow a liquidity shock in the corporate bond market to become a solvency issue that will damage growth prospects. European peripheral and corporate spreads will narrow once global risk-free rates peak.   Mathieu Savary, Chief European Strategist Mathieu@bcaresearch.com

Executive Summary The Pandemic-Led Surge In E-Commerce Spending Is Reverting Back To Trend Rising interest rates and a cooling in pandemic-related tech spending will cap the upside for technology shares over the remainder of 2022. Looking further out, US big tech companies are likely to suffer from heightened competition in increasingly saturated markets. Concerns about big tech’s excessive market power, cavalier attitudes towards personal data, proclivity for censoring non-establishment opinions, and the deleterious impact of social media on teenage mental health are all fueling a public backlash. Investors should expect increased regulation and antitrust enforcement of big tech companies in the years ahead. Bottom Line: The hegemony of today’s US-based big tech companies is coming to an end. While we do not expect tech stocks to decline in absolute terms in 2022, they will lag the S&P 500. Given tech’s heavy representation in the US, investors should underweight the US in a global equity portfolio. Sinking Ark Tech stocks have had a tough ride since the start of the year. So far in 2022, the NASDAQ Composite has fallen 9.3% compared to 5.5% for the S&P 500. The ARK Innovation ETF, Cathie Wood’s collection of “disruptor” companies, has dropped -22%, and is now down -53% from its peak last year (Chart 1). We expect tech shares to lag the market during the remainder of 2022. The pandemic was a boon for many tech companies. Generous stimulus payments and stay-at-home policies led to a surge in e-commerce spending (Chart 2). As economies continue to reopen, many tech companies could face an air pocket in demand for their goods and services.  Chart 1Tech Stocks: Rough Start to 2022 Chart 2The Pandemic-Led Surge In E-Commerce Spending Is Reverting Back To Trend   Despite some softening of late, retail sales remain well above their pre-pandemic trendline (Chart 3). If Amazon’s still-rosy projections are any guide, a further slowdown in goods spending is something that the analyst community is not fully discounting (Chart 4). Chart 3US Retail Spending Is Above Trend Chart 4Amazon Sales Estimates May Be Too Optimistic Rate Hikes Will Disproportionately Hit Tech Chart 5Long Rates Anticipate The Movements In Short Rates US rate expectations continued to move up this week, egged on by St. Louis Fed President James Bullard’s statement earlier today declaring that he favors raising interest rates by a full percentage point by the start of July. The market is now pricing in six rate hikes by the end of the year.  Historically, bond yields have increased starting about four months before the first rate hike and over the period in which the Fed is raising rates (Chart 5). While we do not think the Fed will need to deliver more tightening this year than what is already discounted, we do think that investors will eventually be forced to revise up their expectations of the neutral rate to between 3%-and-4%. As Chart 6 shows, the market expects the Fed to stop raising rates when they reach 2%, which we regard as unrealistic. Chart 6The Market Thinks The Fed Will Not Be Able To Lift Rates Above 2% An increase in the market’s estimate of the neutral rate will push up bond yields. Unlike banks, tech tends to underperform in a rising yield environment (Chart 7). Priced For Perfection? Higher bond yields and a reversion-to-trend in tech spending would be less of a problem for technology shares if valuations were cheap. They are not, however. The Nasdaq Composite still trades at 29-times forward earnings compared to 20-times forward earnings for the broader S&P 500 (Chart 8). Chart 8Tech Shares Are No Bargain Chart 7Rising Bond Yields Will Help Bank Stocks But Hurt Tech Shares Tech investors would argue that such a hefty valuation premium is warranted given the tech sector’s superior growth prospects. Underlying this argument is the assumption that just because tech spending will grow more quickly than the rest of the economy, this will necessarily translate into above-average earnings growth and outsized returns for publicly-listed tech companies. But is that really the case? Over short horizons of a few years, there is a decent correlation between relative industry growth and relative equity returns (Chart 9). However, that relationship evaporates over very long-term horizons (Chart 10). In fact, since 1970, the best-performing equity sector has been tobacco, hardly a paragon of technological innovation (Chart 11). Chart 9Stocks In Industries That Experience A Burst Of Output Growth Do Tend To Outperform Other Stocks … Chart 10… But Over The Long Haul, Companies In Fast- Growing Industries Do Not Outperform Their Peers Chart 11Tobacco Industry Returns Have Smoked All Others What Goes Around Comes Around Table 1History Shows Leaders Can Become Laggards Tech stock enthusiasts tend to forget that the disruptors themselves can be disrupted. History is littered with tech companies that failed to keep up with a changing world: RCA, Kodak, Polaroid, Atari, Commodore, Novell, Digital, Sinclair, Wang, Iomega, Corel, Netscape, AltaVista, AOL, Myspace, Compaq, Sun, Lucent, 3Com, Nokia, Palm, and RIM were all major players in their respective industries, only to fade into oblivion. Table 1 shows that all but one of the ten biggest tech names in the S&P 500 IT index in 2000 underperformed the broader market by a substantial degree over the subsequent ten years. Today, the incentive for startups to emerge has never been stronger. Venture capital funds are flush with cash. Tech profit margins are near record highs, making challenging the incumbents an increasingly enticing goal. About one-third of the outperformance of US tech stocks since 1996 can be explained by rising relative profit margins, with faster sales growth and relative P/E multiple expansion explaining 45% and 23% of the remainder, respectively (Chart 12). Chart 12Decomposing Tech Outperformance Meta’s Malaise Chart 13Unlike Economists, Facebook Just Ain't Cool No More Which of today’s tech titans could join the “has been club”?  As we flagged in August, Meta is certainly a possibility. In its disastrous quarterly earnings report, the company revealed that globally, the number of Facebook users is shrinking for the first time ever. While this came as a surprise to many investors, the writing has been on the wall for a long time. According to Piper Sandler’s survey of teen preferences conducted late last year, only 27% of teenagers used Facebook, down from 94% in 2012 (Chart 13). Meta has been fortunate in that many Facebook users have migrated to Instagram, a social media platform it acquired in 2012. Unfortunately, the latest data suggests that even Instagram usage is starting to slow as more young people flock to TikTok. Google Also Vulnerable Unlike Meta, Alphabet crushed earnings estimates. However, the similarities between the two companies may be greater than most investors are willing to admit. Like Facebook, Google’s profits almost entirely come from ad spending. According to eMarketer, Google garnered 44% of digital ad spending in 2021 while Facebook took in 23%. Digital advertising accounted for 63% of all ad spending in 2021, up from 58% in 2020 and 51% in 2019. While there may be scope for digital ads to take further market share,  eventually, growth in digital ad spending will converge with overall consumption growth, which in the US is likely to average no more than 2% in real terms over time. Monopoly Power Another important similarity between Meta and Alphabet is that both companies are increasingly coming under scrutiny from politicians and regulators. The antitrust case brought against Alphabet by 14 US states contains a litany of allegations of unfair practices. After an initial failed attempt, the Federal Trade Commission’s antitrust suit against Meta is also moving forward. Privacy Matters In addition, the way big tech companies handle private data is raising some hackles. In its annual report filed earlier this month, Meta warned that it would need to shut down Facebook and Instagram in Europe unless regulators drew up new privacy regulations. This came on top of Meta’s disclosure that it will lose $10 billion this year after Apple introduced pop-ups on the iPhone’s operating system asking users if they wanted to be tracked by apps.  Turn Off That Phone! Another looming worry revolves around the corrosive impact of excessive social media usage on mental health. Academic studies have shown that adolescents who use Facebook and Instagram frequently feel greater anxiety and unease than those who do not. The share of students reporting high levels of loneliness more than doubled in both the US and abroad over the past decade, a trend that predates the pandemic (Chart 14). In 2020, the last year for which comprehensive data is available, one-quarter of US girls between the ages of 12 and 17 reported experiencing a major depressive episode, up from 12% in 2011 (Chart 15). Chart 15The Rise In Depression Rates Coincided With Increased Social Media Usage Chart 14Alone In The Crowd     Backlash Public contempt for tech companies is fueling a political backlash. According to a Gallup poll conducted last year, only 34% of Americans held a favorable view of tech companies such as Amazon, Facebook, and Google, down from 46% in 2019; 45% had an unfavorable opinion, up from 33% in 2019 (Chart 16). Chart 16Americans Do Not Hold Tech Companies In High Regard The shift in public sentiment over the past two years has been entirely driven by Independent and Republican voters, many of whom feel that tech companies are unfairly censoring their opinions (Table 2). The same poll revealed that the majority of Americans – including the majority of Republicans – now favor increased regulation of tech companies.  Table 2American Views On Big Tech Investment Conclusions Chart 17Value Stocks Are Cheap Considering that global growth is likely to remain above-trend this year, we do not expect tech stocks to decline in absolute terms. A flattish, though volatile, trajectory is the most plausible outcome. In relative terms, however, tech stocks will underperform. Despite having outperformed tech-heavy growth stocks by 14% since last November, value stocks remain exceptionally cheap by historic standards (Chart 17). Tech stocks are overrepresented in the US. Thus, if tech continues to underperform, it stands to reason that non-US equities will outperform their US peers over the coming years.    Peter Berezin Chief Global Strategist peterb@bcaresearch.com Global Investment Strategy View Matrix Special Trade Recommendations Current MacroQuant Model Scores