Monetary

BCA Research is proud to announce a new feature to help clients get the most out of our research: an Executive Summary cover page on each of the BCA Research Reports. We created these summaries to help you quickly capture the main points of each report through an at-a-glance read of key insights, chart of the day, investment recommendations and a bottom line. For a deeper analysis, you may refer to the full BCA Research Report. Executive Summary The golden rule for investing in the stock market simply states: “Stay bullish on stocks unless you have good reason to think that a recession is imminent.” The catch, of course, is that it is difficult to know whether a recession is lurking around the corner. Still, we can learn a lot from past recessions. As we document in this week’s report, every major downturn was caused by the buildup of imbalances within the economy, which were then laid bare by some sort of catalyst, usually monetary tightening. Today, the US is neither suffering from an overhang of capital spending, as it did in the lead-up to the 2001 recession, nor an overhang of housing, as it did in the lead-up to the Great Recession. US inflation has risen, but unlike in the early 1980s, long-term inflation expectations remain well anchored. This gives the Fed scope to tighten monetary policy in a gradual manner. Outside the US, vulnerabilities are more pronounced, especially in China where the property market is weakening, and debt levels stand at exceptionally high levels. Fortunately, the Chinese government has enough tools to keep the economy afloat, at least for the time being. Equity Bear Markets And Recessions Go Hand In Hand Equity Bear Markets And Recessions Go Hand In Hand Equity Bear Markets And Recessions Go Hand In Hand Bottom Line: Equity bear markets rarely occur outside of recessions. With global growth set to remain above trend at least for the next 12 months, investors should continue to overweight equities. However, they should underweight the tech sector since tech stocks remain disproportionately vulnerable to rising rates, increased regulation, and a retrenchment in pandemic-induced spending on electronics and online services. Macro Matters Investors tend to underestimate the importance of macroeconomics for stock market outcomes. That is a pity. Charts 1, 2, and 3 show that the business cycle drives the evolution of corporate earnings; corporate earnings, in turn, drive the stock market; and as a result, the business cycle determines the path for stock prices. Chart 1The Business Cycle Drives Earnings… The Business Cycle Drives Earnings... The Business Cycle Drives Earnings... Chart 2…Earnings In Turn Drive Stock Prices… ...Earnings In Turn Drive Stock Prices... ...Earnings In Turn Drive Stock Prices... An appreciation of macro forces leads to our golden rule for investing in the stock market. It simply states: Stay bullish on stocks unless you have good reason to think that a recession is imminent. Chart 3…Hence, The Business Cycle Is The Main Driver Of Equity Returns ...Hence, The Business Cycle Is The Main Driver Of Equity Returns ...Hence, The Business Cycle Is The Main Driver Of Equity Returns Historically, stocks have peaked about six months before the onset of a recession. Thus, it usually does not pay to turn bearish on stocks if you expect the economy to grow for at least another 12 months. In fact, aside from the brief but violent 1987 stock market crash, during the past 50 years, the S&P 500 has never fallen by more than 20% outside of a recessionary environment (Chart 4). Peering Around The Corner The catch, of course, is that it is difficult to know whether a recession is lurking around the corner. Leo Tolstoy began his novel Anna Karenina with the words “Happy families are all alike; every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way.” By the same token, every economic boom seems the same, whereas every recession has its own unique features. This makes forecasting recessions difficult. Difficult, but not impossible. Even though recessions differ substantially in their magnitude and causes, they all share the following three characteristics: 1) The buildup of imbalances that make the economy vulnerable to a downturn; 2) A catalyst that exposes these imbalances; and 3) Amplifiers or dampeners that either exacerbate or mitigate the slump. Let us review six past recessions to better understand what these three characteristics reveal about the current state of the global economy. Chart 4Equity Bear Markets And Recessions Go Hand In Hand Equity Bear Markets And Recessions Go Hand In Hand Equity Bear Markets And Recessions Go Hand In Hand The 1980 And 1982 Recessions The double-dip recessions of 1980 and 1982 were the last in which inflation played a starring role. Throughout the 1970s, the Fed consistently overstated the degree of slack in the economy (Chart 5). This led to a prolonged period in which interest rates stayed below their equilibrium level. The resulting upward pressure on inflation from an overheated economy was compounded by a series of oil shocks, the last of which occurred in 1979 following the Iranian revolution. Chart 6The Volcker Era: It Took Massive Monetary Tightening To Bring Down Inflation The Volcker Era: It Took Massive Monetary Tightening To Bring Down Inflation The Volcker Era: It Took Massive Monetary Tightening To Bring Down Inflation Chart 5The Fed Continuously Overstated The Magnitude Of Economic Slack In The 1970s The Fed Continuously Overstated The Magnitude Of Economic Slack In The 1970s The Fed Continuously Overstated The Magnitude Of Economic Slack In The 1970s In an effort to break the back of inflation, newly appointed Fed chair Paul Volcker raised rates, first to 17% in April 1980, and then following a brief interlude in which the effective fed funds rate dropped back to 9%, to a peak of 19% in July 1981 (Chart 6).   The 1990-91 Recession Overheating also contributed to the early 1990s recession. After reaching a high of 10.8% in 1982, the unemployment rate fell to 5% in 1989, about one percentage point below its equilibrium level at that time. Core inflation began to accelerate, reaching 5.5% by August 1990. The Fed initially responded to the overheating economy by hiking interest rates. The fed funds rate rose from 6.6% in March 1988 to a high of 9.8% by May 1989. By the summer of 1990, the economy had already slowed significantly. Commercial real estate, still reeling from the effects of the Savings and Loan crisis, weakened sharply. Defense outlays continued to contract following the collapse of the Soviet Union. The final straw was Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait, which caused oil prices to surge and consumer confidence to plunge (Chart 7).   The 2001 Recession An overhang of IT equipment sowed the seeds of the 2001 recession. Spending on telecommunications equipment rose almost three-fold over the course of the 1990s, which helped lift overall nonresidential capital spending from 11.2% of GDP in 1992 to 14.7% in 2000 (Chart 8). Chart 7Overheating In The Leadup To The 1990-91 Recession Overheating In The Leadup To The 1990-91 Recession Overheating In The Leadup To The 1990-91 Recession The recession itself was fairly mild. After subsequent revisions to the data, growth turned negative for just one quarter, in Q3 of 2001. However, due to the lopsided influence of the tech sector in aggregate profits – and even more so, in market capitalization – the dotcom bust had a major impact on equity prices (Chart 9). Chart 9The Dotcom Bust Dragged Down Tech Earnings The Dotcom Bust Dragged Down Tech Earnings The Dotcom Bust Dragged Down Tech Earnings Chart 8A Glut Of I.T. Equipment Sowed The Seeds Of The 2001 Recession A Glut Of I.T. Equipment Sowed The Seeds Of The 2001 Recession A Glut Of I.T. Equipment Sowed The Seeds Of The 2001 Recession Having raised rates to 6.5% in May 2000, the Fed responded to the downturn by easing monetary policy. Falling rates were effective in reviving the economy – indeed, perhaps too effective. The resulting housing boom paved the way for the Great Recession.   The Great Recession (2007-2009) The housing sector was the source of imbalances in the lead-up to the Great Recession. In the US, and in other countries such as Spain and Ireland, house prices soared as lenders doled out credit on increasingly lenient terms. Chart 10A Long House Party A Long House Party A Long House Party Rising house prices stoked a consumption boom and incentivized developers to build more homes. In the US, the personal savings rate fell to historic lows. Residential investment reached a high of 6.7% of GDP, up from an average of 4.3% of GDP in the 1990s (Chart 10). While the housing bubble would have burst at some point anyway, tighter monetary policy helped expedite the downturn. Starting in June 2004, the Fed raised rates 17 times, pushing the fed funds rate to 5.25% by June 2006. The ECB also hiked rates; it raised the refi rate from 2% in December 2005 to 4.25% in July 2008, continuing to tighten policy even after the Fed had begun to cut rates. Once global growth started to weaken, a number of accelerants kicked in. As is the case in every recession, rising unemployment led to less spending, which in turn led to even higher unemployment. To make matters worse, a vicious circle engulfed the housing market. Falling home prices eroded the collateral underlying mortgage loans, producing more defaults, tighter lending standards, and even lower home prices. The Fed responded to the crisis by cutting rates and introducing an alphabet soup of programs to support the financial system. However, the zero lower-bound constraint limited the degree to which the Fed could cut rates, forcing it to resort to unorthodox measures such as quantitative easing. While these measures arguably helped, they fell short of what was needed to resuscitate the economy. Fiscal policy could have picked up the slack, but political considerations limited the scale and scope of the 2009 Recovery Act. The result was a needlessly long and drawn-out recovery.   The Euro Crisis (2012) Chart 11The State Is Here To Mop Up The Mess The State Is Here To Mop Up The Mess The State Is Here To Mop Up The Mess A reoccurring theme in economic history is that financial crises often force governments to assume private-sector liabilities in order to avoid a full-scale economic collapse. Unlike Greece, where government debt stood at very high levels even before the GFC, debt levels in Spain and Ireland were quite modest before the crisis. However, all that changed when Spain and Ireland were forced to bail out their banks (Chart 11). Unlike the US, UK, and Japan, euro area member governments did not have access to central banks that could serve as buyers of last resort for their debts. This limitation created a feedback loop where rising bond yields made it more onerous for governments to service their debts, which led to a higher perceived likelihood of default and even higher yields (Chart 12). Chart 12Multiple Equilibria In The Debt Market Are Possible Without A Lender Of Last Resort The Golden Rule For Investing In The Stock Market The Golden Rule For Investing In The Stock Market The ECB could have short-circuited this vicious cycle. Unfortunately, under the hapless leadership of Jean-Claude Trichet, instead of providing assistance, the central bank raised rates twice in 2011. This helped spread the crisis to Italy and other parts of core Europe. It ultimately took Mario Draghi’s “whatever it takes pledge” to restore some semblance of normality to European sovereign debt markets. Lessons For Today The current environment bears some resemblance to the one preceding the recessions of the early 1980s. As was the case back then, inflation today has surged well above the Federal Reserve’s target, forcing the Fed to turn more hawkish. Oil prices have also risen, despite slowing global growth. Even Russia has returned to its status as the world’s leading geopolitical boogeyman. Yet, digging below the surface, there is a big difference between today and the early ‘80s. For one thing, long-term inflation expectations remain well anchored. While expected inflation 5-to-10 years out has risen to 3.1% in the latest University of Michigan survey, this just takes the reading back to where it was not long after the Great Recession. It is still nowhere near the double-digit levels reached in the early ‘80s (Chart 13). Market-based inflation expectations are even more subdued. In fact, the widely watched 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rate is currently well below the Fed’s comfort zone (Chart 14). Chart 13Long-Term Inflation Expectations Are Inching Up But Are Still Low Long-Term Inflation Expectations Are Inching Up But Are Still Low Long-Term Inflation Expectations Are Inching Up But Are Still Low Chart 14Market-Based Long-Term Inflation Expectations Are Below The Fed's Comfort Zone Market-Based Long-Term Inflation Expectations Are Below The Fed's Comfort Zone Market-Based Long-Term Inflation Expectations Are Below The Fed's Comfort Zone Higher oil prices are unlikely to have the sting that they once did. The energy intensity of the global economy has fallen steadily over time, especially in advanced economies (Chart 15). Today, the US generates three-times as much output for every joule of energy consumed than it did in 1970. Household spending on energy has declined from a peak of 8.3% of disposable income in 1980 to 3.8% in December 2021. The US also produces over 11 million barrels of oil per day, more than Saudi Arabia (Chart 16). Chart 15The Global Economy Has Become Less Energy Intensive Over Time The Global Economy Has Become Less Energy Intensive Over Time The Global Economy Has Become Less Energy Intensive Over Time Chart 16When It Comes To Energy Production, The USA Is Now #1 When It Comes To Energy Production, The USA Is Now #1 When It Comes To Energy Production, The USA Is Now #1 Unlike in the late 1990s, advanced economies do not face a significant capex overhang. Quite the contrary. Capital spending has been fairly weak across much of the OECD. In the US, the average age of the nonresidential capital stock has risen to the highest level since the 1960s (Chart 17). Looking out, far from cratering, capital spending is set to rise, as foreshadowed by the jump in core capital goods orders (Chart 18). Chart 17The Aging Capital Stock The Aging Capital Stock The Aging Capital Stock Chart 18The Outlook For US Capex Is Bright The Outlook For US Capex Is Bright The Outlook For US Capex Is Bright Chart 19Need More Houses Need More Houses Need More Houses In contrast to the glut of housing that helped precipitate the Global Financial Crisis, housing remains in short supply in many developed economies. In the US, the homeowner vacancy rate has fallen to a record low. There are currently half as many new homes available for sale as there were in early 2020 (Chart 19). Even in Canada, where homebuilding has held up well, government officials have been hitting the panic button over a brewing home shortage.   The Biggest Risk Is Debt The biggest macroeconomic risk the global economy faces stems from high debt levels. While household debt has fallen by 20% of GDP in the US, it has risen in a number of other economies. Corporate debt has generally increased everywhere, in many cases to finance share buybacks and M&A activity (Chart 20). Public debt has also soared to the highest levels since during World War II. Chart 20Mo' Debt Mo' Debt Mo' Debt Among emerging markets, China’s debt burden is especially pronounced. Total private and public debt reached 285% of GDP in 2021, nearly double what it was in early 2008. The property market is also slowing, which will weigh on growth. Like many countries, China finds itself in a paradoxical situation: Any effort to pare back debt is likely to crush nominal GDP by so much that the debt-to-GDP ratio rises rather than falls. Ironically, the only solution is to adopt reflationary policies that allow the economy to run hot. In the near term, this could prove to be a favorable outcome for investors since it will mean that monetary policy stays highly accommodative. Over the long haul, however, it may lead to a stagflationary environment, which would be detrimental to equities and other risk assets. In summary, investors should remain overweight stocks for now. However, they should underweight the tech sector since tech stocks remain disproportionately vulnerable to rising rates, increased regulation, and a retrenchment in pandemic-induced spending on electronics and online services.   Peter Berezin Chief Global Strategist peterb@bcaresearch.com Global Investment Strategy View Matrix The Golden Rule For Investing In The Stock Market The Golden Rule For Investing In The Stock Market Special Trade Recommendations Current MacroQuant Model Scores The Golden Rule For Investing In The Stock Market The Golden Rule For Investing In The Stock Market

BCA Research is proud to announce a new feature to help clients get the most out of our research: an Executive Summary cover page on each of the BCA Research Reports. We created these summaries to help you quickly capture the main points of each report through an at-a-glance read of key insights, chart of the day, investment recommendations and a bottom line. For a deeper analysis, you may refer to the full BCA Research Report. In lieu of next week’s report, I will be presenting the quarterly Counterpoint webcast series ‘Where Is The Groupthink Wrong?' I do hope you can join. Executive Summary Spending on goods is in freefall while spending on services is struggling to regain its pre-pandemic trend.  If spending on goods crashes to below its previous trend, then there will be a substantial shortfall in demand. The good news is that the freefall in goods spending is leading inflation. With spending on goods now crashing back to earth, inflation will also crash back to earth later this year. Underweight the goods-dominated consumer discretionary sector, and underweight semiconductors versus the broader technology sector. Sell Treasury Inflation Protected Securities (TIPS) and other overbought inflation hedges such as commodities that have not yet corrected. Overbought base metals are particularly vulnerable. Fractal trading watchlist: We focus on nickel versus silver, add tobacco versus cannabis, and update bitcoin, biotech, CAD/SEK, and EUR/CZK. As Spending On Goods Crashes Back To Earth, So Will Inflation As Spending On Goods Crashes Back To Earth, So Will Inflation As Spending On Goods Crashes Back To Earth, So Will Inflation Bottom Line: As spending on goods crashes back to earth, so will inflation, consumer discretionary stocks, semiconductors, and overbought commodities. Feature The pandemic has unleashed a great experiment in our spending behaviour. After a binge on consumer goods, will there be a massive hangover? We are about to find out. The pandemic binge on consumer goods, peaking in the US at a 26 percent overspend, is unprecedented in modern economic history. Hence, we cannot be certain what happens next, but there are three possibilities: We sustain the binge on goods, at least partly. Spending on goods falls back to its pre-pandemic trend. There is a hangover, in which spending on goods crashes to below its previous trend. The answer to this question will have a huge bearing on growth and inflation in 2022-23. After The Binge Comes The Hangover… The pandemic’s constraints on socialising, movement, and in-person contact caused a slump in spending on many services: recreation, hospitality, travel, in-person shopping, and in-person healthcare. Nevertheless, with incomes propped up by massive stimulus, we displaced our spending to items that could be enjoyed within the pandemic’s confines; namely, goods – on which, we binged (Chart I-1). Chart I-1Spending On Goods Is In Freefall Spending On Goods Is In Freefall Spending On Goods Is In Freefall Gradually, we learned to live with SARS-CoV-2, and spending on services bounced back. At the same time, we made some permanent changes to our lifestyles – for example, hybrid office/home working and more online shopping. Additionally, a significant minority of people changed their behaviour, shunning activities that require close contact with strangers – going to the cinema or to amusement parks, using public transport, or going to the dentist or in-person doctors’ appointments. The result is that spending on services is levelling off well short of its pre-pandemic trend (Charts I-2-Chart I-5). Chart I-2Spending On Recreation Services Is Far Below Its Pre-Pandemic Trend Spending On Recreation Services Is Far Below Its Pre-Pandemic Trend Spending On Recreation Services Is Far Below Its Pre-Pandemic Trend Chart I-3Spending On Public Transport Is Far Below Its Pre-Pandemic Trend Spending On Public Transport Is Far Below Its Pre-Pandemic Trend Spending On Public Transport Is Far Below Its Pre-Pandemic Trend Chart I-4Spending On Dental Services Is Far Below Its Pre-Pandemic Trend Spending On Dental Services Is Far Below Its Pre-Pandemic Trend Spending On Dental Services Is Far Below Its Pre-Pandemic Trend Chart I-5Spending On Physician Services Is Far Below Its Pre-Pandemic Trend Spending On Physician Services Is Far Below Its Pre-Pandemic Trend Spending On Physician Services Is Far Below Its Pre-Pandemic Trend Arithmetically therefore, to keep overall demand on trend, spending on goods must stay above its pre-pandemic trend. Yet spending on goods is crashing back to earth. The simple reason is that durables, by their very definition, are durable. Even nondurables such as clothes and shoes are in fact quite durable. Meaning that are only so many cars, iPhone 13s, gadgets, clothes and shoes that any person can binge on before reaching saturation. Indeed, to the extent that our bingeing has brought forward future purchases, the big risk is a period of underspending on goods. Countering The Counterarguments Let’s address some counterarguments to the hangover thesis. One counterargument is that some goods are a substitute for services: for example, eating-in (food at home) substitutes for eating-out; and recreational goods substitute for recreational services. So, if there is a shortfall in services spending, there will be an automatic substitution into goods spending. The problem is that the substitutes are not mirror-image substitutes. Spending on eating-in tends to be much less than on eating-out. And once you have bought your recreational goods, you don’t keep buying them! A second counterargument is that provided the savings rate does not rise, there will be no shortfall in spending. Yet this is a tautology. The savings rate is simply the residual of income less spending. So, to the extent that there is a structural shortfall in services spending combined with a hangover in goods spending, the savings rate must rise – as it has in the past two months. A third counterargument is that the war chest of savings accumulated during the pandemic will unleash a tsunami of spending. Well, it hasn’t. And, it won’t. Previous episodes of excess savings in 2004, 2008, and 2012 had no impact on the trend in spending (Chart I-6). Chart I-6Previous Episodes Of Excess Savings Had No Impact On Spending Previous Episodes Of Excess Savings Had No Impact On Spending Previous Episodes Of Excess Savings Had No Impact On Spending The explanation comes from a theory known as Mental Accounting Bias. This points out that we segment our money into different ‘mental accounts’. And that the main factor that establishes whether we spend our money is which mental account it resides in. The moment we move money from our ‘income’ account into our ‘wealth’ account, our propensity to spend it collapses. Specifically, we will spend most of the money in our ‘income’ mental account, but we will spend little of the money in our ‘wealth’ mental account. Hence, the moment we move money from our income account into our wealth account, our propensity to spend it collapses. Still, this brings us to a fourth counterargument, which claims that even though the ‘wealth effect’ is small, it isn’t zero. Therefore, the recent boom in household wealth will bolster growth. Yet as we explained in The Wealth Impulse Has Peaked, the impact of your wealth on your spending growth does not come from your wealth change. It comes from your wealth impulse, which is fading fast (Chart I-7). Chart I-7The 'Wealth Impulse' Has Peaked The 'Wealth Impulse' Has Peaked The 'Wealth Impulse' Has Peaked Analogous to the more widely-used credit impulse, the wealth impulse compares your capital gain in any year with your capital gain in the preceding year. It is this change in your capital gain – and not the capital gain per se – that establishes the growth in your ‘wealth effect’ spending. Unfortunately, the wealth impulse has peaked, meaning its impact on spending growth will not be a tailwind. It will be a headwind. As Spending On Goods Crashes Back To Earth, So Will Inflation, Consumer Discretionary Stocks, And Overbought Commodities In the fourth quarter of 2021, US consumer spending dipped to below its pre-pandemic trend and the savings rate increased. Begging the question, how did the US economy manage to grow at a stellar 6.7 percent (annualised) rate? The simple answer is that inventory restocking contributed almost 5 percent to the 6.7 percent growth rate. In fact, removing inventory restocking, US final demand came to a virtual standstill in the second half of 2021, growing at just a 1 percent (annualised) rate. Growth that is dependent on inventory restocking is a concern because inventory restocking averages to zero in the long run, and after a massive positive contribution there tends to come a symmetrical negative contribution. If, as we expect, spending on services fails to catch up to its pre-pandemic trend while spending on goods falls back to its pre-pandemic trend, then there will be a demand shortfall. And if there is a hangover, in which spending on goods crashes to below its previous trend, then the demand shortfall could be substantial. As inflation crashes back to earth, so will overbought commodities. The good news is that the freefall in durable goods spending is leading inflation. In this regard, you might be surprised to learn that the US core (6-month) inflation rate has already been declining for five consecutive months. With spending on goods now crashing back to earth, inflation will also crash back to earth later this year (Chart I-8). Chart I-8As Spending On Goods Crashes Back To Earth, So Will Inflation As Spending On Goods Crashes Back To Earth, So Will Inflation As Spending On Goods Crashes Back To Earth, So Will Inflation Sell Treasury Inflation Protected Securities (TIPS) and other overbought inflation hedges such as commodities that have not yet corrected. Given that the level (rather than the inflation) of commodity prices is irrationally tracking the inflation rate, the likely explanation is that investors have piled into commodities as a hedge against inflation. Hence, as inflation crashes back to earth, so will overbought commodities (Chart I-9). Overbought base metals are particularly vulnerable. Chart I-9Overbought Commodities Are Particularly Vulnerable Overbought Commodities Are Particularly Vulnerable Overbought Commodities Are Particularly Vulnerable Fractal Trading Watchlist This week we focus on nickel versus silver, add tobacco versus cannabis, and update bitcoin, biotech, CAD/SEK, and EUR/CZK. To reiterate, overbought base metals are vulnerable, and the 70 percent outperformance of nickel versus silver through the past year has reached the point of fractal fragility that signalled previous major turning-points in 2014, 2016, 2018, and 2020 (Chart I-10). Accordingly, this week’s recommended trade is to go short nickel versus silver, setting the profit target and symmetrical stop-loss at 20 percent.  Chart I-10Short Nickel Versus Silver Short Nickel Versus Silver Short Nickel Versus Silver A Potential Switching Point From Tobacco Into Cannabis A Potential Switching Point From Tobacco Into Cannabis A Potential Switching Point From Tobacco Into Cannabis Bitcoin's 65-Day Fractal Support Is Holding For Now Bitcoin's 65-Day Fractal Support Is Holding For Now Bitcoin's 65-Day Fractal Support Is Holding For Now Biotech Approaching A Major Buy Biotech Approaching A Major Buy Biotech Approaching A Major Buy CAD/SEK Approaching A Sell CAD/SEK Approaching A Sell CAD/SEK Approaching A Sell EUR/CZK At A Bottom EUR/CZK At A Bottom EUR/CZK At A Bottom Dhaval Joshi Chief Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com Fractal Trading System After The Pandemic Binge Comes The Pandemic Hangover... After The Pandemic Binge Comes The Pandemic Hangover... After The Pandemic Binge Comes The Pandemic Hangover... After The Pandemic Binge Comes The Pandemic Hangover... 6-Month Recommendations Structural Recommendations Closed Fractal Trades Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields ##br##- Euro Area Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Euro Area Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Euro Area Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields ##br##- Europe Ex Euro Area Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Europe Ex Euro Area Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Europe Ex Euro Area Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields ##br##- Asia Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Asia Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Asia Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields ##br##- Other Developed Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Other Developed Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Other Developed   Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-5Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations      

BCA Research is proud to announce a new feature to help clients get the most out of our research: an Executive Summary cover page on each of the BCA Research Reports. We created these summaries to help you quickly capture the main points of each report through an at-a-glance read of key insights, chart of the day, investment recommendations and a bottom line. For a deeper analysis, you may refer to the full BCA Research Report. Executive Summary Cyclical UST Curve Flattening, But With Unusually Low Rate Expectations Deciphering The Messages From The US Treasury Curve Deciphering The Messages From The US Treasury Curve The US Treasury curve is unusually flat given high US inflation and with the Fed not having begun to raise interest rates. The dichotomy between deeply negative real interest rates and a flattening yield curve is not only evident in the US, but in other major developed countries like Germany and the UK. A low term premium on longer-term US Treasury yields is one factor keeping the curve so flat, but the term premium will likely rise as the Fed begins to hike rates. An overly flat US Treasury curve more likely reflects a belief that the neutral real fed funds rate (r-star) is actually negative. This is consistent with markets pricing in a very low peak in the funds rate for the upcoming tightening cycle, despite the current high inflation and tight labor market. Bottom Line: The Fed will hike by less than the market expects in 2022 and longer-term Treasury yields remain too low versus even a moderate 2-2.5% peak in the fed funds rate. Stay in US curve steepeners, as the Treasury curve is already too flat and will not flatten as much as discounted in forward rates this year. Feature Last week’s FOMC meeting essentially confirmed that the Fed will begin lifting rates in March and deliver multiple rate hikes this year. This was considered a hawkish surprise as the Fed signaled imminently tighter monetary policy even with the elevated financial market volatility seen so far in 2022. Fed Chair Jerome Powell noted that the US economy was in a stronger position compared to the 2016-18 tightening cycle, justifying a faster pace of hikes – and an accelerated pace of QE tapering – this time around. Markets have responded to the increasingly hawkish guidance of the Fed by pushing up rate expectations for 2022, continuing a path dating back to last September’s FOMC meeting when the Fed first signaled that QE tapering was imminent (Chart 1). There are now 163bps of Fed rate hikes by year-end discounted in the US overnight index swap (OIS) curve. Some Wall Street investment banks are calling for the Fed to hike as much as 6 or 7 times in 2022. We see this as much too aggressive. Chart 1Fed Hawkishness Pushing Up Rate Expectations For 2022/23 - But Not Beyond That Fed Hawkishness Pushing Up Rate Expectations For 2022/23 - But Not Beyond That Fed Hawkishness Pushing Up Rate Expectations For 2022/23 - But Not Beyond That Our base case scenario calls for the Fed to lift rates “only” 3-4 times this year. The persistently high inflation that is troubling the Fed is likely to peak in the first half of 2022, taking some heat off the FOMC to move as aggressively as discounted in markets this year. Although inflation will remain high enough, and the labor market tight enough, to keep the Fed on a tightening path into 2023. The US Treasury Curve Looks Too Flat What is unique about the upcoming Fed tightening cycle is that it is starting with such a flat US Treasury curve. The spread between the 2-year and 10-year yield now sits at 61bps, the lowest level since October 2020. This dynamic is not unique to the US, as yield curves are quite flat in other major countries where policy rates are near 0% and inflation remains relatively high, like the UK and Germany (Chart 2). In the US, the modest slope of the Treasury curve is notably unusual given a growth and inflation backdrop that would be more consistent with much higher bond yields: The US unemployment rate fell to 3.9% in December, well within the range of full employment estimates from FOMC members (Chart 3, top panel) Chart 2Bond Bearish Yield Curve Flattening In The US & UK Bond Bearish Yield Curve Flattening In The US & UK Bond Bearish Yield Curve Flattening In The US & UK US labor costs are accelerating; the wages and salaries component of the Employment Cost Index for Private Industry Workers rose to a 38-year high of 5.0% on a year-over-year basis in Q4/2021 (middle panel) Chart 3Challenges To The Fed's Inflation Fighting Credibility Challenges To The Fed's Inflation Fighting Credibility Challenges To The Fed's Inflation Fighting Credibility ​​​​​​ Higher inflation is becoming more embedded in medium term consumer inflation expectations measures like the University of Michigan 5-10 year ahead series that climbed to 3.1% last month (bottom panel). Importantly, market-based measures of inflation expectations have pulled back, even with little sign of inflation pressures easing. The 5-year TIPS breakeven, 5-years forward has fallen 35bps from the October 2021 peak of 2.41%. The bulk of that decline occurred in January of this year, alongside a rising trend in real TIPS yields as markets began pricing in a faster pace of Fed rate hikes. TIPS breakevens can often be something of a “vote of confidence” by the markets in the appropriateness of the Fed’s policy stance; rising when policy appears overly stimulative and vice versa. Thus, the decline in the TIPS 5-year/5-year forward breakeven, which climbed steadily higher since the Fed introduced massive monetary easing in March 2020 in response to the pandemic, can be interpreted as a sign that markets agree with the Fed’s recent hawkish turn. However, while the move in TIPS breakevens is sensible, the flatness of the Treasury curve appears unusual. In Chart 4, where we look at the previous times since 1975 that the 2-year/10-year US Treasury spread flattened to 70bps (just above the current level). In past cycles, the Treasury curve would be flattening into such a level after the Fed had already hiked rates a few times, which is obviously not the case today. Also, US unemployment was typically approaching, or falling through, the full employment NAIRU when the 2/10 Treasury curve fell to 70bps, suggesting diminished spare economic capacity and rising inflation pressures – similar to the current backdrop. Chart 4The UST Curve Is Unusually Flat Right Now The UST Curve Is Unusually Flat Right Now The UST Curve Is Unusually Flat Right Now Chart 5UST Curve Too Flat Relative To Inflation Pressures UST Curve Too Flat Relative To Inflation Pressures UST Curve Too Flat Relative To Inflation Pressures In those past cycles, the funds rate was rising at a faster pace than that of core inflation, suggesting that the Fed was pushing up real interest rates. The backdrop looks very different today, with US realized inflation soaring and the real funds rate now deeply negative. In the top panel of Chart 5, we show a “cycle-on-cycle” chart of the 2/10 Treasury curve versus an average of the previous five instances where the curve flattened to 70bps. The green line is the median outcome of all the cycles, while the shaded region represents the range of all the outcomes. In the other panels of the chart, we show US economic variables (the Conference Board leading economic index and the ISM Manufacturing index) and US inflation variables (the wages and salaries component of the Employment Cost Index and the US Congressional Budget Office estimate of the US output gap). The panels are all lined up so that the vertical line in the middle of the chart represents the date that the 2/10 curve falls to 70bps. The conclusion from Chart 5 is that the US economic variables shown are currently at the high end of the range of past curve flattening episodes, but the inflation variables are well above the high end of the historical range. In other words, the current modest slope of the 2/10 Treasury curve is in line with US growth momentum but is too flat relative to US inflation trends. So Why Isn’t The US Treasury Curve Steeper? There are a few possible reasons why the US curve is as flat as it is before the Fed has even begun tightening amid above-trend US growth and very high US inflation: Fears of a deeper financial market selloff The Fed believes strongly in the role of financial conditions in transmitting its monetary policy into the US economy. That often means that, during tightening cycles, the Fed hikes rates “until something breaks” in the financial markets, like a major equity market downturn or a big widening in corporate credit spreads. Such moves act as a brake on US growth through negative wealth effects for investors and by raising the cost of capital for businesses – reducing the need for additional Fed tightening. If bond investors thought that a major market selloff was likely before the Fed could successfully lift rates back to neutral (or even restrictive) levels during a tightening cycle, then they would discount a lower peak level of the funds rate. This would also lower the expected peak level of longer-term Treasury yields, resulting in a flatter Treasury yield curve. Given the current elevated valuations on so many asset classes – like equities, corporate credit and housing – it is likely that the relatively flat Treasury curve incorporates some believe that the Fed will have difficulty delivering a lot of rate hikes in this cycle. However, it should be noted that the US financial conditions remain quite accommodative, even after the recent equity market turbulence (Chart 6), and represent no impediment to US growth that reduces how much tightening the Fed will need to do. Longer-term bond term premia are too low A relatively flat yield curve could reflect a lack of a term premium on longer-maturity bonds. That is certainly the case when looking at the slope of the 2/10 government yield curve in the US, as well as in the UK and Germany (Chart 7).1 Chart 6US Financial Conditions Are No Impediment To US Growth US Financial Conditions Are No Impediment To US Growth US Financial Conditions Are No Impediment To US Growth ​​​​​​ Chart 7Flatter Yield Curves? Or Just Lower Bond Term Premia? Flatter Yield Curves? Or Just Lower Bond Term Premia? Flatter Yield Curves? Or Just Lower Bond Term Premia? ​​​​​ The term premium is the defined as the extra yield that investors require to commit to own a longer-maturity bond instead of the compounded yield from a series of shorter-maturity bonds. The latter can also be expressed as the “expected path of short-term interest rates”, which is often proxied by an average expected path of the monetary policy rate over the life of the longer-maturity bond. So the term premium on a 10-year US Treasury yield is the difference between the actual 10-year Treasury yield and the expected (or average) path of the fed funds rate over the next ten years. The term premium can also be thought of as a risk premium to holding longer-term bonds. On that basis, the term premium should correlate to measures of bond risk, like bond price volatility or inflation volatility. That is definitely true in the US, where the 10-year Treasury term premium shows a strong correlation to the MOVE index of Treasury market option-implied volatility or a longer-term standard deviation of headline CPI inflation (Chart 8). Estimated term premia can also rise during periods of slowing economic growth momentum, but that is typically due to a rapid decline in the expected path of interest rates rather than a rise in bond risk premia (in this case, this is probably more accurately described as a rise in bond uncertainty). Currently, a low term premium on US Treasury yields is justified by the relatively low level of bond volatility and solid US growth momentum. However, the term premium looks far too low compared to the more volatile US inflation seen since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. With the Fed set to respond to that higher inflation with rate hikes, rising real interest rate expectations could also give a lift to the Treasury term premium. Our favorite proxy for the market expectation of the peak/terminal real short-term interest rate for the major developed market economies is the 5-year/5-year forward OIS rate minus the 5-year/5-year forward CPI swap rate. That “real” 5-year/5-year forward rate measure is typically well correlated to our estimates of the 10-year term premium in the US, Germany and the UK (Chart 9). This correlation likely reflects the level of certainty bond investors have over the likely future path of real interest rates. When there is more uncertainty about how high rates will eventually go to in a tightening cycle, a higher term premium is required. The opposite is true during periods of very low and stable interest rates. Chart 8Drivers Of US Term Premia Pointing Upward Drivers Of US Term Premia Pointing Upward Drivers Of US Term Premia Pointing Upward ​​​​​​ Chart 9Bond Term Premia Positively Correlated To Real Rate Expectations Bond Term Premia Positively Correlated To Real Rate Expectations Bond Term Premia Positively Correlated To Real Rate Expectations ​​​​​​ Chart 10Global Yield Curves Are Too Flat Versus Real Policy Rates Global Yield Curves Are Too Flat Versus Real Policy Rates Global Yield Curves Are Too Flat Versus Real Policy Rates Currently, the estimated 10-year US term premium is increasing alongside a rising market-implied path for the real fed funds rate. We anticipate these trends will continue as the Fed lift rates over the next couple of years, boosting longer-term Treasury yields and potentially putting some steepening pressure on the US Treasury curve (or at least limiting the degree of flattening as the Fed tightens). Markets believe that the neutral real rate (r*) is negative Historically, yield curve slopes for government bonds were well correlated to the level of real interest rates, measured as the central bank policy rate minus headline inflation. That relationship has broken down in the US, with the Treasury curve flattening in the face of soaring US inflation and an unchanged fed funds rate (Chart 10). Similar dynamics can also be seen in the German and UK yield curves. The most plausible reason for such a dramatic shift in the relationship between curve slopes and real policy rates is that bond investors now believe that the neutral real interest rate, a.k.a. “r-star”, is negative … and perhaps deeply so. The New York Fed has produced estimates of the US r-star dating back to the 1960s. The gap between the real fed funds rate and that r-star estimate has typically been fairly well correlated to the slope of the Treasury curve (Chart 11). When the real fed funds rate is below r-star, indicating that the policy is accommodative, the Treasury curve is usually steepening, and vice versa. Under this framework, the recent flattening trend of the Treasury curve would indicate that policy is actually getting tighter, despite the falling, and deeply negative, real fed funds rate of -5.4% (deflated by core inflation). Chart 11UST Curve Slope Is Positively Correlated To The 'Real Policy Gap' UST Curve Slope Is Positively Correlated To The 'Real Policy Gap' UST Curve Slope Is Positively Correlated To The 'Real Policy Gap' The last known estimate of r-star from the New York Fed was 0%, but no update has been provided for almost two years. Blame the pandemic for that. The sharp lockdown-fueled collapse in US GDP growth in 2020, and the rapid recovery in growth as the economy reopened, made it impossible to estimate the the “neutral” level of real interest rates given such massive swings in demand that were not related to monetary policy. One way to try and “back out” the implicit pricing of r-star currently embedded in US Treasury yields is to estimate a model linking the gap between the real fed funds rate and r-star to the slope of the Treasury curve. We did just that, with the results presented in Chart 12. This model estimates the “Real Policy Gap”, or r-star minus the real fed funds rate, as a function of the 2/10 Treasury curve slope. In other words, the model shows the Real Policy Gap that is consistent with the current slope of the curve. Chart 12Current UST Yield Curve Makes Slope Sense ... If The Fed Followed The Taylor Rule With 7% Inflation Current UST Yield Curve Makes Slope Sense ... If The Fed Followed The Taylor Rule With 7% Inflation Current UST Yield Curve Makes Slope Sense ... If The Fed Followed The Taylor Rule With 7% Inflation The model estimates that the current 2/10 curve slope is consistent with a Real Policy Gap of 96bps. With US core CPI inflation currently at 5%, and assuming r-star is still 0% as per the last New York Fed estimate, the fed funds rate would have to rise to 4% to justify the current slope of the 2/10 curve. While that may sound like an implausibly large increase in the funds rate, similar results are produced using straightforward Taylor Rules.2 We can also use our Real Policy Gap model to infer the level of inflation that is consistent with a Gap of 96bps, for various combinations of the funds rate and r-star. Those are shown in Table 1. Assuming the funds rate rises in line with current market expectations to 1.7% and r-star remains close to 0%, the current slope of the 2/10 Treasury curve suggests a fall in US inflation to just around 3% - still above the Fed’s inflation target - from the current 5%. Table 1The UST Curve Slope Has Already Discounted A Big Drop In US Inflation Deciphering The Messages From The US Treasury Curve Deciphering The Messages From The US Treasury Curve We see this as the most plausible reason for the relatively flat level of the 2/10 US Treasury curve. Markets expect somewhat lower US inflation and a moderate rise in the funds rate over the next couple of years, making the real funds rate less negative but not pushing it above a negative r-star expectation. This would suggest upside risk for US Treasury yields, and potential bearish steepening pressure, as markets come to realize that the neutral real fed funds rate is actually positive, not negative. Fight The Forwards, Stay In US Treasury Curve Steepeners While it may sound counter-intuitive with the Fed set to begin a rate hiking cycle, we continue to see better value in tactically positioning in US Treasury curve steepening trades. Specifically, we are keeping our recommended trade in our Tactical Overlay on page 19, where we are long a 2-year Treasury bullet versus a duration-neutral barbell of cash (a 3-month US Treasury bill) and a 10-year Treasury bond. The trade is currently underwater, but we see good reasons to expect the performance to rebound over the next few months. The front end of the curve now discounts more hikes than we expect will unfold in 2022, which should limit further increases in the 2-year Treasury yield. At the same time, the 10-year yield looks too low relative to the expected cyclical peak for the fed funds rate (Chart 13). One way we can assess this is by comparing 5-year/5-year forward Treasury rates to survey estimates of the longer run, or terminal, fed funds rate. The median FOMC forecast (or “dot”) for the terminal funds rate is 2.5%, the median terminal rate forecast from the New York Fed’s Survey of Primary Dealers is 2.25% and the median terminal rate forecast from the New York Fed’s Survey of Market Participants is 2%. This sets a range of estimates of the longer-run terminal rate of 2-2.5%, in line with the current expectations of the BCA Research bond services. The current 5-year/5-year forward Treasury rate is 2.0%, at the low end of that range. We see those forwards rising to the upper part of that 2-2.5% range by the end of 2022, which will push the 10-year Treasury yield toward our year-end target of 2.25%. Chart 13The 5-Year/5-Year UST Forward Rate Is Too Low The 5-Year/5-Year UST Forward Rate Is Too Low The 5-Year/5-Year UST Forward Rate Is Too Low ​​​​​​ Chart 14Stay In UST Curve Steepeners, Even With Fed Liftoff Imminent Stay In UST Curve Steepeners, Even With Fed Liftoff Imminent Stay In UST Curve Steepeners, Even With Fed Liftoff Imminent ​​​​​​ Some of our colleagues within the BCA family see the longer-term neutral funds rate as considerably higher than survey estimates, perhaps as high as 3-4%. We are sympathetic to that view, but it will take signs of US economic resiliency in the face of rate hikes before bond investors – and more importantly, the Fed – arrive at that conclusion. This would make steepening trades more attractive on a strategic, or medium-term, basis as the market realizes that the Fed is further behind the policy curve (i.e. the funds rate even further below a higher terminal rate) than previously envisioned. For now, we do not see the US Treasury curve flattening at the pace discounted in the Treasury forward curve over the next 3-6 months (Chart 14, top panel). However, this will be more of a carry trade by betting against the forwards over time. A bearish steepening of the Treasury curve with a swift upward move in the 10-year Treasury yield is less likely with bond investor/trader positioning already quite short (bottom two panels).   Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com       Footnotes 1      The term premium estimates shown here are derived from our own in-house framework. For those familiar with the various term premium estimates on the 10-year US Treasury yield produced by the Fed, our estimates are currently in line with those produced by the ACM model and the Kim & Wright model. 2     A fun US Taylor Rule calculator, which can be used to generate Taylor Rules under a variety of assumptions, is available on the Atlanta Fed’s website here. GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Recommended Positioning     Active Duration Contribution: GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. Custom Performance Benchmark Deciphering The Messages From The US Treasury Curve Deciphering The Messages From The US Treasury Curve The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Global Fixed Income - Strategic Recommendations* Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Overlay Trades

BCA Research is proud to announce a new feature to help clients get the most out of our research: an Executive Summary cover page on each of the BCA Research Reports. We created these summaries to help you quickly capture the main points of each report through an at-a-glance read of key insights, chart of the day, investment recommendations and a bottom line. For a deeper analysis, you may refer to the full BCA Research Report. Executive Summary At last week’s press conference, Fed Chair Jay Powell signaled that rate hikes will begin next month. He also implied that the pace of hiking will be faster than the 25 bps per quarter seen during the 2015-18 tightening cycle. The market re-priced on the back of Powell’s comments and the overnight index swap curve is now discounting close to five rate hikes for 2022 (see Chart). Risk assets also sold off on the news and market-derived inflation expectations fell. Our sense is that tightening financial conditions and falling inflation expectations will limit the near-term pace of Fed tightening. We expect the Fed to deliver only three or four rate hikes this year. We also see a higher endpoint for tightening than the market, as we expect the fed funds rate to break above 2% before the end of the cycle. The Market Is Looking For Five Hikes This Year The Market Is Looking For Five Hikes This Year The Market Is Looking For Five Hikes This Year Bottom Line: We expect a slower initial pace of rate hikes than the market, culminating in a higher endpoint for the fed funds rate. This suggests that investors should keep portfolio duration below benchmark and hold Treasury curve steepeners. Yet Another Hawkish Surprise Chart 1A Hawkish Market Reaction A Hawkish Market Reaction A Hawkish Market Reaction Fed Chair Jay Powell managed to surprise markets yet again last week by signaling that rate hikes are imminent and by suggesting that they will occur at a quicker pace than was previously thought. The financial market response was the textbook reaction to a hawkish Fed surprise: Risky assets sold off, short-maturity Treasury yields surged, and the yield curve flattened (Chart 1). What exactly did the Fed say to cause such a market move? Here is a summary of our most important takeaways from last week’s meeting. First, the Fed signaled that the first rate hike will occur at the next FOMC meeting in March. The post-meeting statement added a sentence saying that “it will soon be appropriate to raise the target range for the federal funds rate.” Then, Powell said in his press conference that he believes “the Committee is of a mind to raise the federal funds rate at the March meeting.”1 Powell also repeatedly noted that the economy is in a very different place than it was during the last Fed tightening cycle, which spanned from 2015 to 2018. Specifically, he said that the labor market is far stronger and inflation is much higher. He added that “these differences are likely to have important implications for the appropriate pace of policy adjustments.” Given that the Fed tightened at a pace of 25 bps per quarter during the 2015-18 cycle, Powell’s comments seem to suggest that the Fed will lift rates at a faster-than-quarterly pace this time around.2 That would mean at least five rate hikes this year, significantly more than the median FOMC projection of three rate hikes that was published in December (Chart 2). The front-end of the overnight index swap (OIS) curve shifted up following the meeting, and it is now consistent with 122 bps of tightening in 2022, a little less than five rate hikes. Notably, Chart 2 shows that the OIS curve still expects the funds rate to level-off at 1.75% starting in 2024. Chart 2The Market Is Looking For Five Hikes This Year The Market Is Looking For Five Hikes This Year The Market Is Looking For Five Hikes This Year Finally, the Fed provided some details on its plans for reducing the size of its balance sheet.3 The plan follows the same roadmap as the last round of balance sheet runoff. The Fed will start running down its balance sheet sometime after rate hikes begin and it will shrink its balance sheet at a “predictable” pace via the passive runoff of securities. In other words, outright asset sales are highly unlikely. Importantly, Powell repeatedly stressed that he wants balance sheet runoff to occur “in the background”. That is, the Fed will respond to swings in the economic outlook with its interest rate policy and will simply let the balance sheet shrink at a steady pre-announced pace. In line with what we published two weeks ago, we expect balance sheet runoff to commence in May or June and to proceed at a faster pace than last time.4 Constraints On The Pace Of Hiking While Jay Powell’s comments undoubtedly suggest that the Fed intends to deliver between five and seven 25 basis point rate hikes this year, we think it’s more likely that we’ll see three or four. The reason is that the near-term pace of tightening will be constrained by two vital monetary policy inputs: financial conditions and inflation expectations. Financial Conditions This publication has often illustrated the relationship between monetary policy and financial conditions with our Fed Policy Loop (Chart 3). The Loop shows that hawkish monetary policy pivots tend to be followed by periods of tightening financial conditions, i.e. a stronger dollar, flatter yield curve, wider credit spreads and falling equity prices. Indeed, this is exactly the market reaction we’ve witnessed during the past week. The Loop also illustrates that tighter financial conditions then feed back into the market’s pricing of the near-term pace of tightening. It is as if financial markets are a regulator on the near-term pace of hikes. Financial conditions tighten when the expected near-term pace of hiking is too fast. This causes the expected pace to fall, which in turn leads to a renewed easing of financial conditions and then to another hawkish response from the Fed. The top panel of Chart 4 shows that the S&P 500 was performing well even when the market was priced for 75 bps of hiking during the next 12 months. But equities sold off as the bond market moved to price-in 100 bps and then 125 bps of near-term hiking. A similar pattern is observed in excess corporate bond returns (Chart 4, bottom panel). The pattern in Chart 4 suggests that the market is not comfortable with the pace of hiking that is currently priced into the yield curve. This could change, but if the risky asset selloff continues it will eventually lead to a decline in near-term rate hike expectations. Chart 3The Fed Policy Loop The Best Laid Plans The Best Laid Plans Chart 4Five Hikes Too Many Five Hikes Too Many Five Hikes Too Many Inflation Expectations Some may dispute the idea that the near-term pace of rate hikes will slow in response to a selloff in equity and credit markets. Why would the Fed care about the stock market when inflation is the highest it’s been in decades? It’s of course true that higher inflation means that the Fed will be less responsive to swings in financial conditions, though a large enough tightening would certainly get the committee’s attention. We also contend, however, that the inflation picture will look a lot different by the middle of this year. Against a backdrop of lower inflation and inflation expectations, the Fed will have more incentive to slow the pace of hiking in response to tighter financial conditions. On this point, let’s first look at inflation expectations (Chart 5). Short-maturity TIPS breakeven inflation rates remain elevated, but they stopped rising once the Fed started its hawkish pivot. Further out the curve, we see that the 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate has dipped in recent weeks and that the 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rate – the most important indicator of long-term inflation expectations – is now below the Fed’s 2.3% to 2.5% target. Household inflation expectations are high and rising (Chart 5, bottom panel) but, much like short-maturity TIPS breakevens, they are highly sensitive to the realized inflation data. They will come down as inflation moderates in the second half of the year. We remain confident that inflation will come down in 2022, though it will probably stay above the Fed’s 2% target. First, core inflation tends to move toward trimmed mean inflation over time. With 12-month core PCE inflation at 4.85% and 12-month trimmed mean PCE inflation at 3.05%, there is significant room for the core rate to fall (Chart 6). The divergence between core and trimmed mean inflation is attributable to the extremely high inflation rates we’re seeing in the core goods sector (Chart 6, panel 2). The pandemic forced consumers to shift consumption from services to goods, and the quick transition from the delta wave to the omicron wave has meant that a re-balancing back to services has not yet occurred. With the omicron wave peaking, it is likely that the re-balancing will take place this year. In fact, we already see some preliminary signs of peaking goods inflation from the ISM Manufacturing Survey’s Prices Paid component (Chart 6, bottom panel). Chart 6Is Inflation Finally Close To Peaking? Is Inflation Finally Close To Peaking? Is Inflation Finally Close To Peaking? Chart 5Inflation Expectations Inflation Expectations Inflation Expectations In our view, the case for persistently high inflation depends on services inflation accelerating to offset falling goods prices. To that point, we note that service sector inflation is tightly linked to wage growth. While wage growth remains strong, the Employment Cost Index did moderate its pace in 2021 Q4 compared to Q3 (Chart 7).5 Further wage deceleration is also possible this year if fading pandemic concerns spur more people to re-join the labor force. According to the Census Bureau’s Household Pulse Survey, a record 8.75 million workers – many of them in relatively low-paid service jobs – were not working in the second week of January due to pandemic-related reasons (Chart 8). This is a huge potential supply of labor that could come online this year, taking some of the sting out of wage growth.   Chart 8Omicron Weighs On Labor Supply Omicron Weighs On Labor Supply Omicron Weighs On Labor Supply Chart 7Is Wage Growth Close To Peaking? Is Wage Growth Close To Peaking? Is Wage Growth Close To Peaking?   All in all, the recent shift in market expectations from three-to-four 2022 rate hikes to five 2022 rate hikes has only served to tighten financial conditions and push down inflation expectations. In our view, this makes it less likely that the Fed will actually be able to deliver five or more rate hikes this year. Falling inflation in the back half of the year will give the Fed even less urgency. We expect to see only three or four Fed rate hikes this year. Investment Implications Chart 9Keep Duration Low And Own Steepeners Keep Duration Low And Own Steepeners Keep Duration Low And Own Steepeners As explained above, our view is that the Fed will lift rates three or four times this year, less than the five rate hikes that are currently discounted in the market. It’s also worth noting that we think the endpoint of the tightening cycle will occur at a higher funds rate than is currently discounted in the market. Chart 2 shows that the market is priced for the funds rate to level-off at 1.75% starting in 2024. Our sense is that interest rates will be above 2% when the cycle ends. Survey estimates of the long-run neutral fed funds rate agree with our assessment. The median respondent from the New York Fed’s Survey of Market Participants thinks that interest rates will average 2% in the long run. The median respondent from the Survey of Primary Dealers thinks the long-run neutral rate is 2.25% and the median FOMC participant estimates a rate of 2.5% (Chart 9). A slower initial pace of rate hikes that lasts longer than markets expect and has a higher endpoint leads to two actionable investment ideas. First, we advocate keeping portfolio duration below benchmark. The 5-year/5-year forward Treasury yield is currently 1.96%, below the range of survey estimates of the long-run neutral rate (Chart 9). History suggests that the 5-year/5-year yield will settle into the middle of the range of survey estimates as Fed tightening gets underway. The second investment conclusion is that investors should favor Treasury curve steepeners. Specifically, we advocate buying the 2-year Treasury note versus a duration-matched barbell consisting of cash and the 10-year note. While the 2/10 Treasury slope has flattened dramatically in recent weeks, we see this flattening taking a pause during the next few months (Chart 9, bottom panel). The pause will be driven by the market pricing-in a slower near-term pace of tightening at the front-end of the curve and a higher terminal fed funds rate at the long end. Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1  Link for both the post-meeting statement and press conference transcript: https://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/fomccalendars.htm 2  The Fed generally tightened at a pace of 25 bps per quarter during the 2015-18 cycle. However, it skipped one meeting in 2017 to announce balance sheet reduction plans and it kept rates unchanged between December 2015 and December 2016 in response to a weaker-than-expected economy.  3 https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/pressreleases/monetary20220126c.htm 4 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Positioning For Rate Hikes In The Treasury Market”, dated January 18, 2022. 5 Please see Daily Insights, “US ECI Elevated, Softens On A Sequential Basis”, dated January 31, 2022. Recommended Portfolio Specification Other Recommendations Treasury Index Returns Spread Product Returns

Highlights The combination of a temporarily negative domestic demand effect and a lingering domestic labor and global supply chain effect from the Omicron variant has increased the urgency for the Fed to raise interest rates. The central bank’s credibility has been significantly challenged over the past year by the extent of the rise in consumer prices, and it will move forward with a rate hike at its March meeting. We expect that the Fed funds rate will rise to 1% by the end of this year. The Fed’s asset purchase reductions will not have a direct impact on economic activity, but they could have an indirect effect by prompting a faster rise in US Treasury yields towards their fair value levels. The US 10-year yield could potentially rise to 2.3-2.4% at some point in the first half of the year, rather than by the end of 2022 as we previously expected. Part of the generalized rise in risk premia this month relates to the potential Russian invasion of Ukraine, but the sell-off in equity prices also appears to reflect an overall level of investor discomfort with rising interest rates. Rising long-maturity bond yields are being driven by the short end of the curve, which we see as a sign that the generalized selloff in the US equity market is uncalled for. Investors should buy the US stock market at current levels on a 6-12 month time horizon. It is too early to position aggressively towards China-sensitive commodities and global ex-US stocks, despite the recent pickup in our market-based growth indicator for China. We are more comfortable with a bullish view toward industrial metals in the latter half of 2022, and recommend that investors buy metals on any dips in prices. A Russian invasion of Ukraine has become a likely event, suggesting that investors need to decide now whether to reduce risky asset exposure. The invasion has not yet occurred as we go to press, but could happen at any moment. All told, we doubt that a minor invasion will have a lasting, full-year impact on financial markets, but investors should gird for a risk-off reaction over shorter-term time horizons. Omicron, The Supply-Side, And The Fed January was a poor month for the global equity market, which sold off 10% from its high at the beginning of the year. Chart I-1 highlights that in the US, the S&P 500 has now fallen below its 200-day moving average, in contrast to global ex-US stocks which have fared somewhat better in US$ terms. Equities have declined this month because of a combination of imminent Fed tightening and a geopolitical crisis, both of which we will discuss in detail below. On the pandemic front, the number of confirmed cases of COVID-19 has surged globally (Chart I-2), which is likely an underestimation of the total number of infections given capacity limits on testing in many countries. Panel 2 highlights that services PMIs fell sharply in January in several economies because of the Omicron wave, reflecting both renewed pandemic control measures in some countries as well as precautionary changes in behavior amongst consumers in countries where widespread “non-pharmaceutical interventions” (“NPIs”) were not reintroduced. Manufacturing PMIs, on the other hand, held up quite well, even in Europe where natural gas prices remain high. Chart I-1A Significant Correction In US Stock Prices A Significant Correction In US Stock Prices A Significant Correction In US Stock Prices Chart I-2Omicron Is Impacting Services, Not Manufacturing Omicron Is Impacting Services, Not Manufacturing Omicron Is Impacting Services, Not Manufacturing   Some positive signs have emerged from the hospitalization data in advanced economies, as they appear to be pointing to a cresting wave of patients with COVID-19 both in hospitals overall and specifically in intensive care units (Chart I-3). The evolution of the pandemic remains highly uncertain, and the development of new variants continues to remain a risk. But incoming data on hospitalizations, the rapid increase in the number of vaccine booster doses administered in many advanced economies, and the sheer speed at which the disease has recently been spreading all point to a possible imminent peak in the impact of the Omicron variant on the demand side of the economy – at least in the developed world. However, Chart I-4 highlights that there is no sign yet of a waning impact of the pandemic on the supply side of the economy. The chart shows that rising European natural gas prices are having less of an impact on our supply-side pressure indicator, but that the indicator remains flat excluding this effect. We noted in last month’s report that the Omicron variant posed a significant risk of more frequent or longer lockdowns in China, because of the country’s zero-tolerance COVID policy and the inability of the Sinovac vaccine to provide any protection against contracting Omicron. Panel 2 of Chart I-4 highlights that shipping costs between China/East Asia and the west coast of the US have started to tick higher again, suggesting that the impact of ongoing lockdowns as well as mandatory quarantines and testing in key areas such as Shenzhen, Tianjin, Ningbo, and Xi’an may already be having an effect. Chart I-3Hospitalizations From Omicron Appear To Be Peaking Hospitalizations From Omicron Appear To Be Peaking Hospitalizations From Omicron Appear To Be Peaking Chart I-4Pandemic-Related Supply-Side Pressures Remain Severe Pandemic-Related Supply-Side Pressures Remain Severe Pandemic-Related Supply-Side Pressures Remain Severe   From the Fed’s perspective, a combination of a temporarily negative domestic demand effect and a lingering domestic labor and global supply chain effect from the Omicron variant has increased the urgency to raise interest rates. The Fed’s credibility has been significantly challenged over the past year by the extent of the rise in consumer prices, which is being partially driven by demand (even if supply-chain factors are also materially boosting global goods prices). Chart I-5The Odds Of Extreme US Inflation Are Falling, But Inflation Will Still Be High This Year The Odds Of Extreme US Inflation Are Falling, But Inflation Will Still Be High This Year The Odds Of Extreme US Inflation Are Falling, But Inflation Will Still Be High This Year Chart I-5 shows that our inflation momentum model is signaling falling odds of 4% or higher core PCE inflation, but the model’s probability remains above the 50% mark. Thus, while it is possible that US inflation will soon peak in year-over-year terms, the Fed will move forward with a rate hike at its March meeting. For now, we believe that the Fed will move at a pace of four quarter-point rate hikes per year (regardless of how they are sequenced), suggesting that the effective Fed funds rate will rise to 1% by the end of this year. Quantitative Tightening And Financial Markets Investors continue to wrestle with the Fed’s recent hawkish shift and the implications that it may have for economic activity and financial markets. Investors are not just concerned about the pace and magnitude of Fed rate hikes, but also the potential impact of quantitative tightening as the Fed moves to slow the pace of its asset purchases over the coming few months. Chart I-6The Correlation Between The Fed's Balance Sheet And The Equity Market Is Mostly A Spurious one The Correlation Between The Fed's Balance Sheet And The Equity Market Is Mostly A Spurious one The Correlation Between The Fed's Balance Sheet And The Equity Market Is Mostly A Spurious one In our view, investors should be more concerned with the former rather than the latter. Chart I-6 highlights the reason that investors were so focused on the magnitude of the Fed’s balance sheet during the first half of the last economic expansion. Panel 1 of the chart shows that the level of the S&P 500 correlated almost perfectly with the Fed’s total holdings of securities from 2008 to 2015. However, panel 2 highlights that this relationship broke down from 2016 to early 2020, only to correlate positively again as the Fed’s holdings of securities surged higher during the pandemic. To us, the experience of the past decade highlights that the correlation between the Fed’s balance sheet and the equity market is mostly a spurious one. The two are indirectly related; periods when the Fed’s security holdings increase reflect periods of monetary easing, which is typically positive for risky asset prices. But we do not agree that the impact of asset purchases on long-maturity bond yields can be effectively separated from the direct impact of changes in short-term interest rates, which are typically falling as the Fed’s balance sheet rises. In addition, asset purchases signal important information by the Fed about the future path of short-term interest rates when it changes the pace of its purchases. And finally, the 2016-2019 period strongly underscores that there is no direct link between Fed asset purchases and the stock market. It is possible that periods of rising Fed asset purchases are associated with a low government bond term premium or more dovish investor sentiment about the future path of interest rates than is projected by the Fed. If so, that could imply that the Fed’s asset purchase reductions will have some impact on financial markets over the coming months. Chart I-7 suggests that the term premium on 10-year Treasurys is no longer low, but these series are based on surveys of primary dealers and fixed-income market participants, and thus may not reflect the aggregate views of investors. Chart I-8 highlights that 10-year government bond yields are 40 basis points below the fair value implied by the Fed’s interest rate projections, and panel 2 highlights a similar conclusion based on a regression of the 10-year yield on the 2-year yield and 5-year/5-year forward CPI swap rates. Thus, it is possible that the Fed’s rapid reduction in the pace of its asset purchases will cause bond yields to converge quickly with these estimates of fair value, implying that the US 10-year yield could potentially rise to 2.3-2.4% at some point in the first half of the year rather than by the end of 2022, as we previously expected. Chart I-7Surveys Suggest The Term Premium Is No Longer Deeply Negative... Surveys Suggest The Term Premium Is No Longer Deeply Negative... Surveys Suggest The Term Premium Is No Longer Deeply Negative... Chart I-8...But 10-Year Treasury Yields Are Lower Than They Should Be ...But 10-Year Treasury Yields Are Lower Than They Should Be ...But 10-Year Treasury Yields Are Lower Than They Should Be The Stock Market, Interest Rates, And Value Versus Growth Chart I-9The US Equity Market Selloff Has Been Driven By Tech Stocks The US Equity Market Selloff Has Been Driven By Tech Stocks The US Equity Market Selloff Has Been Driven By Tech Stocks The fact that the global equity selloff had been concentrated in the US prior to the escalation in tensions over Ukraine reveals the root cause of the decline. Chart I-9 highlights that the Nasdaq has fallen more than the S&P 500, as have US growth stocks compared with value stocks. As such, the recent selloff in the stock market reflects some of the major themes that we presented in our 2022 annual outlook. We highlighted in our outlook, as well as several previous reports, that the relative performance of global growth versus value since the pandemic has been driven primarily by changes in valuation that could reverse if bond yields rose. Chart I-10 highlights that this is exactly what has occurred over the past month, which also explains the underperformance of US equities given how heavily-weighted the US market is toward broadly-defined technology stocks. However, the underperformance of US growth stocks has occurred within the context of a nontrivial decline in the overall US market, which was somewhat beyond our expectation. We anticipated a period of elevated financial market volatility in advance of the Fed’s first rate hike, and we warned investors that 2022 was likely to be a year of meaningfully lower total returns (mid-to-high single digits) compared with the past two years. The fact that equity multiples for growth stocks are falling in response to higher long-maturity bond yields is not surprising to us. But investors have punished both growth and value stocks as bond yields have risen, behavior that we do not think is justified given the large difference in valuation between the two. Chart I-11 highlights that our (standardized) proxy for the equity risk premium (ERP) is above its 2003-2021 average for value stocks, whereas it is quite low for growth stocks. Had the ERP for value stocks fallen to its historical average this month value stocks would have risen between 1-4% in January despite rising real 10-year government bond yields. And the historically average levels shown in Chart I-11 might themselves be too high, given that other ERP estimates like the ones we showed in our annual outlook highlight that the 2003-2021 period was one in which the US ERP was historically elevated. Chart I-10Value Is Outperforming Growth As Bond Yields Rise, As We Predicted In Our Annual Outlook Value Is Outperforming Growth As Bond Yields Rise, As We Predicted In Our Annual Outlook Value Is Outperforming Growth As Bond Yields Rise, As We Predicted In Our Annual Outlook Chart I-11The ERP For Value Stocks Does Not Need To Rise The ERP For Value Stocks Does Not Need To Rise The ERP For Value Stocks Does Not Need To Rise Chart I-12The Market Is Not Yet Pricing An End To Secular Stagnation, Which Is Good For Stocks The Market Is Not Yet Pricing An End To Secular Stagnation, Which Is Good For Stocks The Market Is Not Yet Pricing An End To Secular Stagnation, Which Is Good For Stocks As noted, part of a generalized rise in the ERP this month relates to the potential Russian invasion of Ukraine, an event that we now see as likely (discussed below). But the sell-off in equity prices also appears to reflect an overall level of investor discomfort with rising interest rates, particularly given the (mistaken) perception amongst investors that Fed hawkishness is entirely driven by elevated inflation. We acknowledge that the Fed’s hawkish shift has been a rapid one, and that this has led US government bond yields to rise quickly. Both the level and change in interest rates matter for economic activity and financial market sentiment, but our view is that the former is more important. Changes in interest rates are mainly significant because they create uncertainty about where rates will ultimately settle, and whether that level would be sustainable for economic activity and the valuation of financial assets. In this respect, Chart I-12 should be encouraging for investors. The chart shows that the 10-year Treasury yield recently reached a new pandemic high, but that this rise was driven by yields on shorter-maturity bonds. 5-year/5-year forward Treasury yields remain 50 basis points below the Fed’s long-term Fed funds rate projection (2.5%), suggesting that the rapid move in US Treasury yields simply reflects a revised pace of rate hikes – not ultimately a higher level. This underscores that the generalized selloff in the US equity market is uncalled for, and that investors should buy the US stock market at current levels. Chart I-13Recession Fears May Rise Early Next Year Recession Fears May Rise Early Next Year Recession Fears May Rise Early Next Year Chart I-13 highlights that an accelerated pace of rate hikes will likely cause the yield curve to be flatter at the end of the year than would have otherwise been the case, which may eventually be interpreted by investors as a sign that a recession is drawing nearer (potentially implicating both value and growth stocks). We discussed this risk in last month’s report, but for now we maintain the view that this is more likely to occur in 2023 rather than this year. The chart highlights that the S&P 500 did not sell off in response to growth/recession concerns in 2018 before the 2/10 yield curve had flattened to 20-30 basis points, which isn’t likely to occur until 1H 2023 according to fair value calculations derived from the FOMC’s rate projections. The Dollar, Chinese Policy, Commodities, And Global Ex-US Stocks Chart I-14Until This Week, The Dollar Had Been Trending Lower Despite Ostensibly Bullish Dollar Factors Until This Week, The Dollar Had Been Trending Lower Despite Ostensibly Bullish Dollar Factors Until This Week, The Dollar Had Been Trending Lower Despite Ostensibly Bullish Dollar Factors Despite the recent surge in US interest rate expectations, and up until last week, the US dollar had behaved in a somewhat strange fashion since late November– even as the Omicron variant spread rapidly around the globe. Chart I-14 highlights that the dollar had traded counter to both relative interest rate differentials and the intensity of the pandemic, both of which appear to have strongly explained the dollar’s trend in the first three quarters of 2021. As we go to press, the US dollar is rallying again, although at least some of the rise is being driven by the prospect of imminent war in Ukraine. We argued in our annual outlook that the dollar was likely to fall this year, and that it was both technically stretched and expensive according to our PPP models. Chart I-15 highlights that the prior weakness in the dollar may also be explained by slowing net foreign purchases of US equities, as the impact of global equity investors flocking to the tech-heavy US market during the pandemic begins to wane. However, we suspect that two additional factors may have been impacting the broad dollar trend before this week’s surge in geopolitical risk. The first is a possible reversal in the correlation between the number of COVID-19 cases and the dollar (from positive to negative). For most of the pandemic, investors have treated new waves of the pandemic as an indication that global growth will slow, which certainly occurred in the services sector this month. But the sheer speed at which the Omicron variant is spreading, in combination with the fact that it causes less severe disease than previous variants, has likely prompted some investors to expect that Omicron has shortened the amount of time to COVID-19 endemicity. An endemic disease, while still a public health issue, would imply less transmission and much less COVID-19-related hospitalization and death. Correspondingly, it would also likely be associated with a significant increase in services spending alongside stronger international travel, which would be positive for global growth (and thus negative for the dollar). Second, it is apparent that China-related assets have caught a bid, as illustrated by our market-based China growth indicator and its accompanying diffusion index (Chart I-16). While the indicators shown in Chart I-16 remain below the boom/bust line, they are rising quickly, and in a manner that suggests investors are reacting to new information. Chart I-15Portfolio Flows Have Likely Put Pressure On The Dollar Over The Past Few Months Portfolio Flows Have Likely Put Pressure On The Dollar Over The Past Few Months Portfolio Flows Have Likely Put Pressure On The Dollar Over The Past Few Months Chart I-16Since November, Optimism Towards China Has Also Likely Weakened The Dollar Since November, Optimism Towards China Has Also Likely Weakened The Dollar Since November, Optimism Towards China Has Also Likely Weakened The Dollar Chart I-17China Bulls Are Probably A Bit Too Early China Bulls Are Probably A Bit Too Early China Bulls Are Probably A Bit Too Early We doubt that investors would be upgrading their outlook for Chinese economic growth based on expectations of COVID-19 endemicity, given the country’s zero-tolerance COVID policy and the inability of the Sinovac vaccine to prevent transmission of Omicron. Therefore, we conclude that investors have become more optimistic about the pace of easing from Chinese policymakers, potentially sparked by a recent pickup in the pace of special purpose local government bond issuance (Chart I-17). We agree with investors that Chinese monetary policy is becoming easier at the margin. For example, the PBoC recently reduced its one-year loan prime rate (LPR) by 10 bps and five-year rate by 5 bps, following last week’s 10bps cut in the 7-day reverse repo and the 1-year Medium-term Lending Facility (MLF) rate. This is on top of December’s 50 bps drop in the reserve requirement ratio (RRR). But we do not think that China’s credit data is yet heralding a meaningfully stronger growth impulse. Panel 2 of Chart I-17 presents the 12-month flow of China’s ex-equity total social financing as a share of nominal GDP, both including and excluding local government bond issuance. The chart highlights that the significant pickup in local government bond issuance has led to only a slight uptick in China’s overall credit impulse. Excluding local government bonds, China’s credit impulse continues to decline, reflecting an impaired monetary policy transmission mechanism and slowing bank loan growth. The implication is that it is too early to position aggressively towards China-sensitive commodities and global ex-US stocks, despite the recent pickup in our market-based growth indicator for China. At least some of the pickup in our market-based indicator reflects passive outperformance of some China-sensitive assets; Chart I-18 highlights that global ex-stocks and industrial metals prices have risen relative to US stock prices over the past month, but mostly because US stocks sold off in reaction to Fed hawkishness. Chart I-19 highlights that industrial metals prices continue to advance in a fashion that is not explained by the pace of China’s credit growth (as has generally been the case over the past decade), suggesting that metals are being somewhat supported by investment demand that is likely being driven by inflation hedging. We noted in our November Special Report that industrial commodities performed well during the stagflationary period of the 1970s,1 and over the past 40 years during months in which stock and bond returns are both negative. This makes metals an ideal portfolio hedge in the current environment, and we suspect that this factor – in addition to global inventory drawdowns last year – have kept prices elevated. Chart I-18Some Of The Rise In Our Market-Based China Growth Indicator Reflects Passive Outperformance Some Of The Rise In Our Market-Based China Growth Indicator Reflects Passive Outperformance Some Of The Rise In Our Market-Based China Growth Indicator Reflects Passive Outperformance Chart I-19Metals Prices Are Higher Than What Chinese Economic Growth Would Imply Metals Prices Are Higher Than What Chinese Economic Growth Would Imply Metals Prices Are Higher Than What Chinese Economic Growth Would Imply However, this also implies that metals prices could sell off at some point over the coming few months if US inflation fears begin to peak and Chinese monetary policy has not yet turned decisively reflationary. We are more comfortable with a bullish view toward industrial metals in the latter half of 2022, and recommend that investors buy metals on any dips in prices. Similarly, while we believe that investors should maintain global ex-US stocks on upgrade watch, we would prefer to see more evidence of a likely acceleration in Chinese economic activity before upgrading. In addition, we would also recommend that investors wait for the Ukrainian situation to play out, given the recent selloff in European stocks in response to the deepening crisis. A Likely War In Ukraine Last week, US President Joe Biden publicly predicted that Russia would likely invade parts of Ukraine, and implied that the sanction response from Western countries might be muted if the invasion were “minor”. Biden’s remarks have since been described as a gaffe, but in our view they were likely accurate. When combined with reports that the White House is warning domestic chipmakers of potential export restrictions to Russia in the event of an invasion, Biden’s remarks suggest that the US government does not believe that a diplomatic solution is likely and that Russia will probably send troops into Ukrainian territory. A full-scale invasion of Ukraine is very unlikely, as it would unite the Western world in delivering crippling economic sanctions towards Russia. The question for investors is whether the economic consequences of a minor incursion have significant enough implications to change one’s 12-month asset allocation stance. The extent of the rise in energy prices following a minor Russian incursion into Ukraine would be the key determinant of the impact that Russian military action would have on financial markets. Russia could withhold natural gas or oil exports to punish Europe if the Nord Stream II pipeline were cancelled. Oil prices would likely rise, even if retaliatory action was limited to the natural gas market, because oil consumption would rise as a substitute. This would further exacerbate the European energy crisis, although as we noted above, the PMI data continues to point to COVID as a more serious near-term threat to European economic activity than energy prices. Our geopolitical strategy team recently upgraded the odds of Russia invading Ukraine from 50% to 75%, suggesting that investors need to decide now whether to reduce risky asset exposure. The invasion has not yet occurred as we go to press, but could happen at any moment. All told, we doubt that a minor invasion will have a lasting, full-year impact on financial markets, but it is likely to have a near-term impact on the performance of some assets. While some of the risk of this event has already been priced in, on a 0-3 month time horizon, the US dollar would likely rally even further in response to an invasion and we suspect that the recent outperformance of global ex-US stocks would reverse (with the US outperforming). Our sense is that global equities may underperform government bonds for a short period following a minor incursion, but that a more aggressive Russian invasion would likely be needed to cause a persistent rise in the US dollar, US equity outperformance, and stocks to underperform bonds on a 12-month time horizon. Investment Conclusions Chart I-20We Expect Further Outperformance Of Value, Within The Context Of A Rising Stock-To-Bond Ratio We Expect Further Outperformance Of Value, Within The Context Of A Rising Stock-To-Bond Ratio We Expect Further Outperformance Of Value, Within The Context Of A Rising Stock-To-Bond Ratio Relative to the investment positions that we presented in our annual outlook report, we see no compelling reason to alter any of our recommendations on a 6-12 month time horizon. Over the nearer-term, a minor Russian incursion of Ukraine is now likely, and may further roil financial markets for a period of time. But the bar for the Ukrainian situation to durably impact returns on a 12-month time horizon is high, and implies a degree of conflict that we do not currently expect. US equities have sold off because of a rise in the discount rate and in the equity risk premium. We do not believe the latter is justified for the market as a whole. Our view that US equities have overreacted to the Fed’s hawkish shift and that long-maturity US bond yields have roughly another 50 basis points of upside this year strongly point to an overweight stance towards stocks versus bonds and a short-duration stance as still justified. We continue to expect that growth stocks will underperform value stocks over the coming year, but in the context of a rising rather than falling overall market (Chart I-20). It is too early to position aggressively toward China-sensitive commodities and global ex-US stocks, but investors should maintain these assets on upgrade watch. The US dollar may continue to reverse some of its recent decline over the coming 3 months in response to military conflict in Ukraine or if investors dial back their expectations for Chinese economic growth, but we expect a lower dollar in a year’s time. Jonathan LaBerge, CFA Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst January 28, 2022 Next Report: February 24, 2022 II. The US Productivity Surge: Less Than Meets The Eye The current surge in US measured productivity looks very unlike what occurred in the mid-to-late 1990s. A detailed breakdown of labor productivity growth points to atypical labor market compositional effects – namely a significant decline in services employment – as being responsible for the apparent rise in productivity. In addition, technological disinflation, a major ingredient of the late 1990s “disinflationary boom”, is absent today. A cross-country comparison of the growth in output per worker during the pandemic can be mostly explained by differences in the fiscal response to the crisis. US output per worker surged compared to other countries, but the US fiscal response also generated a significant amount of excess income to support economic activity – unlike in the euro area, UK, and Japan. Micro-level arguments and some academic studies argue against the idea that work from home arrangements will ultimately be productivity-enhancing. Remote work makes it more difficult for firms to train the next generation of senior employees, which will raise the staffing risks for many businesses. While the long-term outlook for technologically-driven productivity growth is positive, projected commercialization timelines for several well-known technologies under development do not point to an imminent, inflation-offsetting boom in potential output. If inflation remains significantly above target after the pandemic is over, the Fed’s long-term interest rate projections may rise. US stocks would suffer potentially large losses in a scenario where 10-year US Treasury yields rise towards the potential growth rate of the economy. Investors should consider reducing their equity exposure if 5-year, 5-year forward US Treasury yields break above 2.5%. We do not expect that to occur this year, which for now justifies an overweight stance towards risky assets. Chart II-1A Pandemic-Driven Productivity Surge? A Pandemic-Driven Productivity Surge? A Pandemic-Driven Productivity Surge? The behavior of US labor productivity during the COVID-19 pandemic has raised several questions among investors. As defined by output per hour worked, US productivity accelerated significantly over the first six quarters of the COVID-19 pandemic, but then fell sharply in Q3 2021 (Chart II-1). While some market participants have questioned the cause of the recent decline, investors have generally been more interested in the question of whether the US is in the middle of a long-lasting productivity surge that will help alleviate inflationary pressure – akin to what occurred in the second half of the 1990s. In this report, we review the recent surge in US labor productivity in contrast to what occurred in the late-1990s, and then compare it with what has occurred globally. While we are not pessimistic about the pace of technological advancement and its potential to drive long-run productivity, we conclude that the US is not likely experiencing a sustained productivity boom driven by technological adoption during the pandemic. This underscores why investors should not expect a significant increase in potential output owing to the pandemic or its effects. It also highlights that, if elevated inflation in response to strongly positive output gaps were to occur over the coming few years, it would likely be met by significantly tighter fiscal or monetary policy. Today Versus The 1990s: Total Factor Productivity Versus Capital Intensity Chart II-2The Technologically-Driven US Productivity Surge In The 1990s Was A Major Macro Event The Technologically-Driven US Productivity Surge In The 1990s Was A Major Macro Event The Technologically-Driven US Productivity Surge In The 1990s Was A Major Macro Event A technologically-driven surge in productivity growth in the second half of the 1990s was a highly significant macroeconomic event. Chart II-2 highlights that US labor productivity surged to over 3% from 1995 to 2000, alongside a significant deceleration in core PCE inflation and a sizeable acceleration in potential GDP growth. Given the acceleration in measured productivity during the pandemic, and the accompanying rapid adoption (or broader use) of technology, it is easy to see why some investors have questioned whether a 1990s-style productivity boom is underway. However, a detailed breakdown of the 2020 rise in labor productivity growth highlights substantial differences between the current environment and that of the late 1990s, which points instead to compositional effects as the main driver. Improvements in labor productivity can come from smarter workers, an increase in the amount of capital employed per worker, or from technological innovations and better working practices. The US Bureau of Labor Statistics provides a breakdown of the annual change in labor productivity that attempts to capture these three components: The contribution from shifts in labor composition: This measures the productivity impact of changes in the age, education, and gender structure of the labor force. The contribution from capital intensity: This measures the productivity impact of shifts in the amount of capital equipment available per worker. Total factor (or “multifactor”) productivity: This measures the changes in output per hour that cannot be accounted for by the above two factors. Thus, it includes the effects of technological changes, returns to scale, shifts in the allocation of resources, and other changes in operating procedures. Examining the 2020 rise in labor productivity growth along these three factors underscores key differences between the current environment and that of the late 1990s. The first point for investors to note is that the acceleration in labor productivity in 2020 occurred alongside a contraction in total factor productivity (TFP) growth, in contrast to the 1990s when TFP drove labor productivity (Chart II-3). The fact that TFP growth fell in 2020 means that the increase in labor productivity must have occurred either because of labor composition or capital intensity effects. In 2020, labor composition contributed somewhat to accelerating labor productivity, but that most of the increase was caused by a sharp increase in capital intensity. Some of the increase in overall capital intensity occurred because of an increase in the intensity of information processing equipment and intellectual property products (supporting the idea of an increase in pandemic-driven capital deployment), but this was outstripped by the contribution of “other” capital services (Chart II-4). Chart II-3Total Factor Productivity Collapsed In 2020, Unlike In The 1990s Total Factor Productivity Collapsed In 2020, Unlike In The 1990s Total Factor Productivity Collapsed In 2020, Unlike In The 1990s Chart II-4The Surge In US Capital Intensity Reflects A Rapid Compositional Shift In The Labor Market February 2022 February 2022 The concept of capital intensity refers to the amount of capital available per worker, but in practice it is measured as the ratio of the amount of capital used relative to the amount of labor hours used to produce output. Thus, a surge in capital intensity that is not accounted for by an increase in the amount of tech-related capital available to workers points to a rapid compositional shift in the economy from relatively low capital-intensive industries to relatively high-intensive industries. Under less extreme economic circumstances we would be more inclined to search for other potential causes of a rapid increase in measured capital intensity, but a shift in employment from less to more capital-intensive industries is exactly what has occurred during the pandemic. Services jobs tend to be much more labor-intensive than goods-producing jobs; Chart II-5 highlights that the former fell far more than the latter during the pandemic, in sharp contrast to what normally occurs during a recession (Chart II-6). This phenomenon is also reflected in a highly unusual decline in services spending compared with very strong goods spending relative to their pre-pandemic trend. Chart II-5Employment In Low Capital Intensity Services-Producing Industries Fell Far More Than Goods-Producing Employment In Low Capital Intensity Services-Producing Industries Fell Far More Than Goods-Producing Employment In Low Capital Intensity Services-Producing Industries Fell Far More Than Goods-Producing Chart II-6The Sharp Decline In Services Jobs During The Pandemic Was Unprecedented The Sharp Decline In Services Jobs During The Pandemic Was Unprecedented The Sharp Decline In Services Jobs During The Pandemic Was Unprecedented The takeaway for investors is that the nature of the pandemic and its unique impact on the economy has created the appearance of an acceleration in productivity, when in reality true productivity has fallen and the standard measure of productivity is being flattered by enormous changes in the composition of the labor market. Today Versus The 1990s: IT Investment, And Technological Disinflation The trends in IT investment and prices highlight another major difference between the current environment and that of the late 1990s. Charts II-7 and II-8 highlight recent trends in comparison to those of the 1990s, with the following notable points: Chart II-7There Are Major Differences Between IT Investment And Prices Today Versus The 1990s There Are Major Differences Between IT Investment And Prices Today Versus The 1990s There Are Major Differences Between IT Investment And Prices Today Versus The 1990s Chart II-8A One-Off Move A One-Off Move A One-Off Move The recent pace of real investment in total IT does not point to the pandemic as a sustained source of productivity growth. Real investment in IT has already slowed significantly, in contrast to the 1990s when it accelerated on a sustained basis for years. IT investment as a % of GDP and of total plant and equipment spending has already stopped rising (or is now falling), exhibiting clear signs of a one-off shift and thus undermining the view that IT investment has significantly raised potential output. In pronounced contrast to the mid-1990s when IT equipment prices were collapsing, computing equipment inflation has recently risen into positive territory – to the highest levels recorded since the data became available in 1959. Higher prices for IT equipment clearly reflect, at least in part, pandemic-driven pressure on global supply chains and the production of semiconductors. So we do not expect sustained increases in the price of computing equipment. But the key point for investors is that a major ingredient of the late 1990s “disinflationary boom” is missing today. The US Versus The World We have presented Chart II-9 in previous reports to highlight that there is certainly no evidence of a global productivity surge, using output per worker as a proxy for the standard measure of labor productivity (output per hour worked). Some investors have countered that the US is a more dynamic economy, and that a sustained productivity boom would be more apparent in the US prior to its emergence in other countries. Or simply that the US alone is experiencing a productivity boom that will help reduce very elevated US inflation, with strong implications for Fed policy. Chart II-9During The Pandemic, Cross-Country Changes In Real Output Per Worker… February 2022 February 2022 Chart II-10…Are Mostly Explained By Different Fiscal Responses February 2022 February 2022 Chart II-11High US Real Output Per Worker Also Reflects A Lagging Jobs Recovery Relative To Pre-Pandemic Levels High US Real Output Per Worker Also Reflects A Lagging Jobs Recovery Relative To Pre-Pandemic Levels High US Real Output Per Worker Also Reflects A Lagging Jobs Recovery Relative To Pre-Pandemic Levels Charts II-10 and II-11 present a different cross-country comparison that reinforces the view that the US is not likely experiencing a long-lasting productivity surge that will help reduce inflation. Chart II-10 highlights that in the face of a significant decline in employment, US output was supported by a substantial amount of “excess income” – the cumulative amount of household disposable income earned over the course of the pandemic in excess of what would have been predicted based on the pre-pandemic trend. Other major DM economies (such as the UK and euro area) either saw negative excess income or a modestly positive amount (Japan), underscoring that the fiscal response to the pandemic in most advanced economies was aimed at stabilizing income rather than raising it. In combination with Chart II-11 – which highlights that the US labor market recovery has significantly lagged behind the European and Canadian economies in terms of returning to the pre-pandemic employment trend – this would appear to explain why the US has experienced stronger real output per worker than other countries. Chart II-12Given A Similar Fiscal Response, Would The US Have Canada's Job Recovery If It Had Less COVID Cases? Given A Similar Fiscal Response, Would The US Have Canada's Job Recovery If It Had Less COVID Cases? Given A Similar Fiscal Response, Would The US Have Canada's Job Recovery If It Had Less COVID Cases? Canada stands out as the outlier compared with the US, in the sense that it’s growth in real output per worker has been much lower but Canadian fiscal policy created a similar amount of excess income. However, it may be the case that the Canadian experience highlights that the US labor market recovery is the outlier, which could imply that the surge in US labor productivity may in fact have inflationary rather than disinflationary consequences at the margin. We discussed the factors that we believe are driving the slow recovery in the US working-age population in our 2022 annual outlook report, and how they are strongly linked to the pandemic. However, Canada has also clearly been affected by COVID-19, and yet it has experienced a more significant recovery in jobs. Chart II-12 highlights that there has been one major difference between the US and Canada during the pandemic: a substantial gap in the burden of disease from COVID-19. This raises the question of whether Canada has outperformed the US in terms of its labor market recovery, despite a similarly impactful fiscal response, because of a smaller labor shortage stemming from long-term COVID symptoms. Over the past two years, there have been many reports about people who have recovered from COVID but who continue to experience some symptoms of the disease. The medical community has labeled this condition as post-acute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection (PASC), colloquially referred to as “long COVID.” Chart II-13Long-COVID Might Help Explain The US’ Lagged Return To Pre-Pandemic Employment February 2022 February 2022 The medical community’s understanding of long COVID is currently poor, and doctors do not know why some people get the condition or what treatment options are likely to be the most effective. Given this, it is possible that some reports of long COVID are, in fact, related to other conditions. But a recent research report from Brookings estimated that the US labor market may be missing 1.6 million workers because of long COVID’s effects (Chart II-13), which alone would account for 1 percentage point (or roughly 1/4th) of the growth in US real output per worker since the pandemic began. This circumstance would be inflationary rather than disinflationary on the margin, as it would imply that accelerating first and second quartile US wage growth may be sticky even as the pandemic recedes. Is Working From Home Positive For Productivity? We have noted above that the macro data argues against the idea of a sustained rise in US productivity stemming from the pandemic. A more micro-level perspective, one that examines the working-from-home (WFH) experience, also appears to support our case. It is true that surveys of employees highlight that their experience of WFH has been significantly better on average than workers expected and report their being more productive while working from home during the pandemic. Chart II-14 emphasizes that, based on the running surveys from Barrero, Bloom, and Davis (“BBD”), 60% of workers have conveyed better WFH outcomes relative to expectations, versus just 14% reporting worse outcomes. In addition, Chart II-15 clearly highlights that workers prefer at least some form of hybrid WFH arrangement, with just 22% of survey respondents reporting the desire to work from home either rarely or never. Chart II-14Remote Workers Have Reported Better Work-From-Home Outcomes Than What Was Expected February 2022 February 2022 Chart II-15Remote Workers Clearly Prefer A Hybrid Work Model February 2022 February 2022 However, worker preferences do not necessarily correlate with productivity gains, at least not to the same degree. Chart II-16 from the BBD surveys highlights that the share of workers reporting more efficiency while working from home is not as large as those reporting better outcomes relative to expectations, suggesting that employees are considering whether WFH arrangements are benefiting them personally when responding to their desired post-pandemic level of remote work. Chart II-17 also shows that employees working from home only spend a third of the time ordinarily allocated to commuting to working on their primary job; the rest is spent on childcare, leisure, home improvement, or working on a second job (which may or may not be a sustainable source of income). Chart II-16Less Than Half Of Workers Report Being More Efficient While Working Remotely February 2022 February 2022 Chart II-17Only 1/3rd Of Time Saved Commuting Is Spent On Primary Employment February 2022 February 2022 There is also some evidence from academic studies that indicates productivity fell during the pandemic for some remote workers. Michael Gibbs, Friederike Mengel, and Christoph Siemroth (2021) surveyed 10,000 professionals at a large Asian IT services company, and found that productivity declined because of a slight decline in average output and a rise in hours worked.2 Admittedly, elements of the study did point to some factors potentially impacting this decline in productivity that were more prominent in the earlier phase of the pandemic, specifically the issue of childcare (which would not likely be a drag on remote worker productivity in a post-pandemic environment). But it also noted that employees with a longer company tenure fared better, which in our view is an often overlooked element of remote work that points to less future productivity gains from WFH arrangements than may be recognized by investors. The outperformance of senior staff in a WFH environment is not particularly surprising: once employees have accrued significant experience, they spend less of their working time learning and more (or all) of their working time “doing.” It makes sense that employees who predominantly “platform” their existing experience may fare the same or better in a WFH arrangement, but it is highly questionable whether it is sustainable, because it makes it much more difficult for businesses to train the next generation of senior employees. The Gibbs, Mengel, and Siemroth study noted that higher communication and coordination costs featured prominently in their findings of reduced remote worker productivity. Importantly, they found that employees communicated with fewer individuals and business units, both inside and outside the firm, and received less coaching and one-to-one meetings with supervisors. While some firms may be able to mitigate these risks to the advancement and development of more junior staff while maintaining a hybrid on-site / WFH model, we suspect that many firms will fail to do so fully. Future Productivity: Pessimism Unwarranted, But No Inflation Salvation The fact that the US is not likely in the middle of a pandemic-driven productivity boom does not mean that the outlook for productivity is poor. In fact, we would point to two factors that lead us to believe that productivity growth will be better in the future than it has been over the past decade: The pronounced consumer deleveraging phase that existed for several years following the global financial crisis is over, and There are several identifiable technologies currently under development that are likely to have legitimate commercial applications and productivity-enhancing benefits in the future On the first point, we have contended in previous reports that the weak productivity growth observed during the first half of the last economic expansion was because of demand rather than supply-side factors. This notion is jarring for many investors, who are accustomed to think of productivity trends as being exclusively driven by supply-side phenomena. This is typically correct, in that the cyclical impact of fluctuating aggregate demand on measured productivity – particularly during and immediately after recessions – is usually temporary in nature. However, the 2008/2009 recession was highly atypical, in the sense that it was a household “balance sheet” recession rather than a normal “income” recession. This led to a prolonged period of US household deleveraging, below-average corporate sales growth, and poor growth in output per hour worked. In effect, the post-2008 deleveraging phase created a long-lasting, multi-year cyclical effect on measured productivity growth. In early-2009, pessimistic investors held to an understandable reason for why they doubted the sustainability of the economic recovery: there could be no meaningful labor market recovery if businesses expected several years of weak demand because of the likelihood of consumer deleveraging. In this respect, the post-2008 period served as an important natural experiment for macroeconomists and investors: we have learned that the response of firms to a durable but shallow economic recovery is, on the one hand, to hire additional workers, but, on the other hand, also to control wage and salary costs aggressively. Chart II-18Slow Productivity Growth Last Cycle Was A Demand Story, Not A Supply Story February 2022 February 2022 Chart II-18 encapsulates the point that weak productivity during the last economic cycle was closely tied to US household deleveraging. The chart highlights that the decline in total factor productivity due to goods-producing industries – heavily concentrated in manufacturing – was much larger than for private services from 2007 to 2019. Since there was no technological slowdown that disproportionally impacted the manufacturing industry during the period, this clearly points to demand-side rather than supply-side factors as the main driver of the post-GFC productivity slowdown. On the second point about future productivity growth, Table II-1 outlines five well-known technologies that are in various stages of development and are likely to lead to significant applications at some point in the future: artificial intelligence, automated driving (a specific application of AI), quantum computing, augmented/virtual reality and human-machine interface, and CRISPR/gene editing. The table outlines the nature of potential future applications, as well as projections from McKinsey Global Institute about the most likely commercialization timeline. Table II-1Technological Advancement Is Ongoing. It Won’t Likely Help Fight Inflation Over The Next Few Years February 2022 February 2022 A detailed analysis of each of these technologies is beyond the scope of this report, but Table II-1 underscores two key points for investors. The first is that further, technologically-driven productivity growth is not just possible, it is likely. It is clear what advancements will probably drive these productivity gains, and Table II-1 highlights only the most well-known technologies to which experts in the field would point to. The second point is that most major changes from these technologies are projected to occur beyond 2025, and, in many cases, beyond this decade. In the case of quantum computing, while it could potentially lead to an explosion of algorithmic power that would almost certainly have major commercial implications, it is even possible that this technology will initially subtract from total factor productivity growth before contributing positively. This is because of its potential to render much of the existing global internet security and privacy infrastructure useless, as highlighted by a NIST Cybersecurity White Paper last April: “Continued progress in the development of quantum computing foreshadows a particularly disruptive cryptographic transition. All widely used public-key cryptographic algorithms are theoretically vulnerable to attacks based on Shor’s algorithm, but the algorithm depends upon operations that can only be achieved by a large-scale quantum computer. Practical quantum computing, when available to cyber adversaries, will break the security of nearly all modern public-key cryptographic systems.”3 Some experts believe that the preparation required to avoid this outcome may dwarf that of the millennium bug (“Y2K”) problem of the late-1990s,4 which cost roughly 1% of GDP to fix – and thus was clearly not productivity-enhancing. The bottom line for investors is that while the long-term outlook for technologically-driven productivity growth is bright, it is unlikely to save the US and/or global economies from elevated inflation over the next several years if output gaps in advanced economies rise to strongly positive levels in the wake of the pandemic. Investment Conclusions Our analysis above has highlighted that the current surge in measured productivity looks very unlike what occurred in the mid-to-late 1990s, and that very atypical labor market compositional effects are likely responsible for the apparent rise in labor productivity. We have also highlighted that a cross-country comparison of the growth in output per worker during the pandemic can be mostly explained by differences in the fiscal response to the pandemic, and that there are micro-level arguments against the idea that work from home arrangements are productivity-enhancing. Finally, while the long-term outlook for technologically-driven productivity growth is positive, projected commercialization timelines for several well-known technologies under development do not point to an imminent, inflation-offsetting boom in potential output. While we believe that the COVID-19 pandemic will recede in importance this year, it is not yet over. As such, investors do not yet know how strong the output gap in the US and other advanced economies will be on average over the coming two to three years, or what the pace of consumer price inflation will look like in the face of strong aggregate demand but substantially lower (or no) pressure from the supply-side of the economy (as we expect). Chart II-19There Is A Lot Of Downside For Stocks If Bond Yields Rise To Potential Growth Rates There Is A Lot Of Downside For Stocks If Bond Yields Rise To Potential Growth Rates There Is A Lot Of Downside For Stocks If Bond Yields Rise To Potential Growth Rates In a scenario in which aggregate demand remains strong next year and inflation remains above-target, even in the face of Fed tightening and a normalization in services/goods spending, we would expect to see significantly tighter fiscal or monetary policy. This is a scenario in which the secular stagnation narrative, which underpins the Fed’s low long-term interest rate projection, would likely be aggressively challenged by investors. Chart II-19 highlights that US equities would potentially suffer a 24% contraction in the forward P/E in a scenario in which the equity risk premium is in line with its historical average and 10-year US Treasury yields rise to the potential growth rate of the economy. We do not yet believe that a significant rise in long-term interest rate expectations will occur this year, meaning that investors should still be overweight stocks versus government bonds over the coming 6-12 months. But as we noted in last month’s report, we may recommend that investors reduce their equity exposure if 5-year, 5-year forward Treasury yields break above 2.5% (the FOMC’s long-run Fed funds rate projection), which we noted in Section 1 of our report is 50 basis points above current levels. Jonathan LaBerge, CFA Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst III. Indicators And Reference Charts BCA’s equity indicators highlight that the “easy” money from expectations of an eventual end to the pandemic have already been made. Our valuation, and sentiment indicators remain very extended, highlighting that investors should expect positive but relatively modest returns from stocks over the coming 6-12 months. Our technical indicator has declined from extremely overbought levels in response to January’s US equity sell-off, but it has not yet reached oversold territory. Still, we believe that the equity market’s reaction to rising bond yields is overdone, especially for value stocks. Forward equity earnings are pricing in a substantial further rise in earnings per share. Net earnings revisions and net positive earnings surprises have rolled over, but from extremely elevated levels and there is no meaningful sign yet of a decline in the level of forward earnings. Bottom-up analyst earning expectations remain too high, but stocks are still likely to be supported by robust revenue growth over the coming year. Within a global equity portfolio, we continue to recommend that investors position for the underperformance of financial assets that are negatively correlated with long-maturity government bond yields (such as growth stocks). The 10-Year Treasury Yield has broken convincingly above its 200-day moving average following the Fed’s hawkish shift, but remains below the fair value implied by our bond valuation index and the FOMC-implied fair value in a March 2022 rate hike scenario. We continue to expect that long-maturity bond yields will move higher over the coming year. Commodity prices remain elevated, and our composite technical indicator highlights that they remain overbought. An eventual slowdown in US goods spending, coupled with eventual supply-chain normalization, could weigh on commodity prices at some point over the coming 6-12 months. We are more comfortable with a bullish view towards industrial metals in the latter half of 2022. US and global LEIs have rolled over from very elevated levels. Our global LEI diffusion index has declined very significantly, but this likely reflects the outsized impact of a few emerging market countries (whose vaccination progress is still lagging). Still-strong leading and coincident indicators underscore that the global demand for goods is robust, and that output gaps are negative in many advanced economies because of very weak services spending. The latter will recover significantly at some point over the coming year, as the severity of the pandemic wanes. EQUITIES: Chart III-1US Equity Indicators US Equity Indicators US Equity Indicators Chart III-2Willingness To Pay For Risk Willingness To Pay For Risk Willingness To Pay For Risk Chart III-3US Equity Sentiment Indicators US Equity Sentiment Indicators US Equity Sentiment Indicators Chart III-4US Stock Market Breadth US Stock Market Breadth US Stock Market Breadth Chart III-5US Stock Market Valuation US Stock Market Valuation US Stock Market Valuation Chart III-6US Earnings US Earnings US Earnings Chart III-7Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Chart III-8Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance FIXED INCOME: Chart III-9US Treasurys And Valuations US Treasurys And Valuations US Treasurys And Valuations Chart III-10Yield Curve Slopes Yield Curve Slopes Yield Curve Slopes Chart III-11Selected US Bond Yields Selected US Bond Yields Selected US Bond Yields Chart III-1210-Year Treasury Yield Components 10-Year Treasury Yield Components 10-Year Treasury Yield Components Chart III-13US Corporate Bonds And Health Monitor US Corporate Bonds And Health Monitor US Corporate Bonds And Health Monitor Chart III-14Global Bonds: Developed Markets Global Bonds: Developed Markets Global Bonds: Developed Markets Chart III-15Global Bonds: Emerging Markets Global Bonds: Emerging Markets Global Bonds: Emerging Markets CURRENCIES: Chart III-16US Dollar And PPP US Dollar And PPP US Dollar And PPP Chart III-17US Dollar And Indicator US Dollar And Indicator US Dollar And Indicator Chart III-18US Dollar Fundamentals US Dollar Fundamentals US Dollar Fundamentals Chart III-19Japanese Yen Technicals Japanese Yen Technicals Japanese Yen Technicals Chart III-20Euro Technicals Euro Technicals Euro Technicals Chart III-21Euro/Yen Technicals Euro/Yen Technicals Euro/Yen Technicals Chart III-22Euro/Pound Technicals Euro/Pound Technicals Euro/Pound Technicals COMMODITIES: Chart III-23Broad Commodity Indicators Broad Commodity Indicators Broad Commodity Indicators Chart III-24Commodity Prices Commodity Prices Commodity Prices Chart III-25Commodity Prices Commodity Prices Commodity Prices Chart III-26Commodity Sentiment Commodity Sentiment Commodity Sentiment Chart III-27Speculative Positioning Speculative Positioning Speculative Positioning ECONOMY: Chart III-28US And Global Macro Backdrop US And Global Macro Backdrop US And Global Macro Backdrop Chart III-29US Macro Snapshot US Macro Snapshot US Macro Snapshot Chart III-30US Growth Outlook US Growth Outlook US Growth Outlook Chart III-31US Cyclical Spending US Cyclical Spending US Cyclical Spending Chart III-32US Labor Market US Labor Market US Labor Market Chart III-33US Consumption US Consumption US Consumption Content Chart III-34US Housing US Housing US Housing Chart III-35US Debt And Deleveraging US Debt And Deleveraging US Debt And Deleveraging Chart III-36US Financial Conditions US Financial Conditions US Financial Conditions Chart III-37Global Economic Snapshot: Europe Global Economic Snapshot: Europe Global Economic Snapshot: Europe Chart III-38Global Economic Snapshot: China Global Economic Snapshot: China Global Economic Snapshot: China Jonathan LaBerge, CFA Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst   Footnotes 1     Please see The Bank Credit Analyst "Gauging The Risk Of Stagflation," dated October 29, 2021, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 2     Michael Gibbs, Friederike Mengel, and Christoph Siemroth. “Work from Home & Productivity: Evidence from Personnel & Analytics Data.” Working Paper No. 2021-56. July 13, 2021. Pp. 1-30. 3    William Barker, William Polk, and Murugiah Souppaya. “Getting Ready for Post-Quantum Cryptography: Exploring Challenges Associated with Adopting and Using Post-Quantum Cryptographic Algorithms.” National Institute of Standards and Technology, US Department of Commerce. April 28, 2021. Pp. 1-7. 4    Jonathan Ruane, Andrew McAfee, and William Oliver. “Quantum Computing for Business Leaders.” Harvard Business Review, January-February 2022.

Highlights The selloff in equities since the start of the year marks a long overdue correction rather than the start of a bear market. Stocks often suffer a period of indigestion when bond yields rise suddenly, but usually bounce back as long as yields do not move into economically restrictive territory. BCA’s bond strategists expect the 10-year yield to rise to 2%-to-2.25% by the end of the year, which is well below the level that could trigger a recession. While valuations in the US remain stretched, they are much more favorable abroad. Investors should overweight non-US markets, value stocks, and small caps in 2022. Go long homebuilders versus the S&P 500. US homebuilders are trading at only 6.5-times forward earnings and will benefit from tight housing supply conditions and a moderation in input costs. FAQ On Recent Market Action The selloff in stocks since the start of the year has garnered a lot of attention. In this week’s report, we address some of the key questions clients are asking.   Q: What do you see as the main reasons for the equity selloff? A: At the start of the year, the S&P 500 had gone 61 straight weeks without experiencing a 6% drawdown, the third longest stretch over the past two decades. Stocks were ripe for a pullback. The backup in bond yields provided a catalyst for the sellers to come out. Not surprisingly, growth stocks fell hardest, as they are most vulnerable to changes in the long-term discount rate. At last count, the S&P 500 Growth index was down 13.7% YTD, compared to 4.1% for the Value index. Our research has found that stocks often suffer a period of indigestion when bond yields rise suddenly, but usually bounce back as long as yields do not move into economically restrictive territory (Table 1). BCA’s bond strategists expect the 10-year yield to rise to 2%-to-2.25% by the end of the year, which is well below the level that could trigger a recession. Table 1As Long As Bond Yields Don’t Rise Into Restrictive Territory, Stocks Should Recover A Correction Not A Bear Market A Correction Not A Bear Market Historically, equity bear markets have coincided with recessions (Chart 1). Corrections can occur outside of recessionary periods, but for stocks to go down and stay down, corporate earnings need to fall. That almost never happens unless there is a major economic downturn (Chart 2). In fact, the only time in the last 50 years the US stock market fell by more than 20% outside of a recessionary environment was in October 1987. Chart 1Recessions And Bear Markets Tend To Go Hand In Hand Recessions And Bear Markets Tend To Go Hand In Hand Recessions And Bear Markets Tend To Go Hand In Hand Chart 2Business Cycles Drive Earnings Business Cycles Drive Earnings Business Cycles Drive Earnings Chart 3The Bull-Bear Ratio Is Below Its Pandemic Lows The Bull-Bear Ratio Is Below Its Pandemic Lows The Bull-Bear Ratio Is Below Its Pandemic Lows It is impossible to know when this correction will end. However, considering that the bull-bear spread in this week’s AAII survey fell below the trough reached both in March 2020 and December 2018, our guess is that it will be sooner rather than later (Chart 3). With global growth likely to remain solid, equity prices should rise. Q: What gives you confidence that growth will hold up? A: Households are sitting on a lot of excess savings – $2.3 trillion in the US and a similar amount abroad. That is a lot of dry powder. Banks are also actively looking to expand credit, as the recent easing in lending standards demonstrates (Chart 4). Leading indicators of capital spending are at buoyant levels (Chart 5). Chart 4US Banks Are Easing Lending Standards US Banks Are Easing Lending Standards US Banks Are Easing Lending Standards Chart 5The Outlook For US Capex Is Bright The Outlook For US Capex Is Bright The Outlook For US Capex Is Bright It is striking how well the global economy has handled the Omicron wave. While service PMIs have come down, manufacturing PMIs have remained firm. In fact, the euro area manufacturing PMI reached 59 in January versus expectations of 57.5. It was the strongest manufacturing print for the region since August. The manufacturing PMI also ticked up slightly in Japan. The China Caixin/Markit PMI and the official PMI published by the National Bureau of Statistics also ticked higher. After dipping below zero last August, the Citi global economic surprise index has swung back into positive territory (Chart 6). Chart 6The Omicron Wave Did Not Drag Down The Global Economy The Omicron Wave Did Not Drag Down The Global Economy The Omicron Wave Did Not Drag Down The Global Economy Markets are also not pricing in much of a growth slowdown (Chart 7). Growth-sensitive industrial stocks have outperformed the overall index by 1.1% in the US so far this year. EM equities have outperformed the global benchmark by 5.9%. The Bloomberg Commodity Spot index has risen 7.2%. Credit spreads have barely increased. Chart 7Markets Are Not Discounting Much Of A Growth Slowdown Markets Are Not Discounting Much Of A Growth Slowdown Markets Are Not Discounting Much Of A Growth Slowdown   Q: What is your early read on the earnings season? A: Nothing spectacular, but certainly not bad enough to justify the steep drop in equity prices. According to Refinitiv, of the 145 S&P 500 companies that have reported Q4 earnings, 79% have beat analyst expectations while 19% reported earnings below expectations. Usually, 66% of companies report earnings above analyst estimates, while 20% miss expectations. In aggregate, the reported earnings are coming in 3.2% above estimates, slightly lower than the historic average of 4.1%. Guidance has been lackluster. However, outside of a few tech names like Netflix, earnings disappointments have generally been driven by higher-than-expected expenses, rather than weaker sales. Overall EPS estimates for 2022 have climbed 0.4% in the US and by 1.1% in foreign markets since the start of the year (Chart 8).   Q: To the extent that the Fed is trying to engineer tighter financial conditions, doesn’t this imply that stocks must continue falling? A: That would be true if the Fed really did want to tighten financial conditions, either via lower stock prices, a stronger dollar, higher bond yields, or wider credit spreads. However, we do not think that this is what the Fed wants. Despite all the chatter about inflation, the 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rate has fallen to 2.05%, which is 25 basis points below the bottom end of the Fed’s comfort zone (Chart 9).1 Chart 8Earnings Expectations Have Not Been Revised Lower Earnings Expectations Have Not Been Revised Lower Earnings Expectations Have Not Been Revised Lower Chart 9Market-Based Long-Term Inflation Expectations Are Below The Fed's Comfort Zone Market-Based Long-Term Inflation Expectations Are Below The Fed's Comfort Zone Market-Based Long-Term Inflation Expectations Are Below The Fed's Comfort Zone Chart 10The Terminal Fed Funds Rate Seen At 2%-2.5% The Terminal Fed Funds Rate Seen At 2%-2.5% The Terminal Fed Funds Rate Seen At 2%-2.5% Chart 11The Market Thinks The Fed Will Not Be Able To Lift Rates Above 2% The Market Thinks The Fed Will Not Be Able To Lift Rates Above 2% The Market Thinks The Fed Will Not Be Able To Lift Rates Above 2% Remember that the Fed’s estimate of the neutral rate, R*, is very low. The Fed thinks it will only be able to raise rates to 2.5% during this tightening cycle, which would barely bring real rates into positive territory (Chart 10). The market does not think the Fed will be able to raise rates to even 2% (Chart 11). The last thing the Fed wants to do is inadvertently invert the yield curve. In the past, an inverted yield curve has reliably predicted a recession (Chart 12). Chart 12A Yield Curve Inversion Usually Signals The End Of A Business Cycle (And Can Even Predict A Pandemic) A Yield Curve Inversion Usually Signals The End Of A Business Cycle (And Can Even Predict A Pandemic) A Yield Curve Inversion Usually Signals The End Of A Business Cycle (And Can Even Predict A Pandemic) The Fed is about to start raising rates and shrinking its balance sheet not because it wants to slow growth, but because it wants to maintain its credibility. While the Fed will never admit it, it is very much attuned to the direction in which the political winds are blowing. The rise in inflation, and the Fed’s failure to predict it, has been embarrassing for the FOMC. Doing nothing is no longer an option. However, doing “something” does not necessarily imply having to raise rates more than the market is already discounting. Contrary to the consensus view that the Fed has turned hawkish, we think that the main takeaway from this week’s FOMC meeting is that Jay Powell, aka Nimble Jay, wants more flexibility in how the Fed conducts monetary policy. This makes perfect sense, as layer upon layer of forward guidance merely served to confuse market participants while unnecessarily tying the Fed’s hands.   Q: How confident are you that inflation will fall without a meaningful tightening in financial conditions? A: If we are talking about a horizon of 2-to-3 years, not very confident. As we discussed two weeks ago in a report entitled The New Neutral, the interest rate consistent with stable inflation and full employment is substantially higher than either the Fed believes or the market is pricing in. This means that the Fed is likely to keep rates too low for too long. However, if we are talking about a 12-month horizon, there is a high probability that inflation will fall dramatically, even if monetary policy stays very accommodative. Today’s inflation is largely driven by rising durable goods prices. Durables are the one category of the CPI basket where prices usually fall over time, so this is not a sustainable source of inflation (Chart 13). As demand shifts back from goods to services and supply bottlenecks abate, durable goods inflation will wane. Chart 14 shows that the price indices for a number of prominent categories of goods – including new and used vehicles, furniture and furnishings, building supplies, and IT equipment – are well above their trendlines. Not only is inflation in these categories likely to fall, but it is apt to turn negative, as the absolute level of prices reverts back to trend. This will put significant downward pressure on inflation. Chart 13Durable Goods Prices Are The Main Driver Of Inflation Durable Goods Prices Are The Main Driver Of Inflation Durable Goods Prices Are The Main Driver Of Inflation Chart 14Some Of These Prices Will Fall Outright Some Of These Prices Will Fall Outright Some Of These Prices Will Fall Outright Chart 15Wage Growth Has Picked Up, Especially At The Bottom Of The Income Distribution Wage Growth Has Picked Up, Especially At The Bottom Of The Income Distribution Wage Growth Has Picked Up, Especially At The Bottom Of The Income Distribution Granted, service inflation will accelerate this year as the labor market continues to tighten. However, rising service inflation is unlikely to offset falling goods inflation. While wage growth has accelerated, wage pressures have been concentrated at the bottom end of the wage distribution (Chart 15). According to the Census Household Pulse Survey, a record 8.75 million workers – many of them in relatively low-paid service jobs – were not working in the second week of January due to pandemic-related reasons (Chart 16). As the Omicron wave fades, most of these workers will re-enter the labor force. This should help boost labor participation among low-wage workers, which has recovered much less than for higher paid workers (Chart 17).   Chart 16The Pandemic Is Still Affecting Labor Supply The Pandemic Is Still Affecting Labor Supply The Pandemic Is Still Affecting Labor Supply Chart 17Employment In Low-Wage Industries Has Not Fully Recovered Employment In Low-Wage Industries Has Not Fully Recovered Employment In Low-Wage Industries Has Not Fully Recovered Q: Tensions between Ukraine and Russia have risen to a fever pitch. Could this destabilize global markets? Chart 18Valuations Matter For Long-Term Returns Valuations Matter For Long-Term Returns Valuations Matter For Long-Term Returns A: In a note published earlier today, Matt Gertken, BCA’s Chief Geopolitical Strategist, increased his odds that Russia will invade Ukraine from 50% to 75%. However, of that 75% war risk, he gives only 10% odds to Russia invading and conquering all of Ukraine. A much more likely scenario is one where Russia invades Donbas and perhaps a few other regions in Eastern or Southern Ukraine where there are large Russian-speaking populations and/or valuable coastal territory. While such a limited incursion would still invite sanctions from the West, Matt does not think that Russia will retaliate by cutting off oil and natural gas exports to Europe. Not only would such a retaliation deprive Russia of its main source of export earnings, but it could lead to a hostile response from countries such as Germany which so far have pushed for a more measured approach than the US has championed.   Q: Valuations are still very stretched. Even if the conflict in Ukraine does not spiral out of control and the goldilocks macroeconomic scenario of above-trend global growth and falling inflation comes to pass, hasn’t much of the good news already been discounted? A: US stocks are quite pricey. Both the Shiller PE ratio and households’ allocations to equities point to near-zero total returns for stocks over a 10-year horizon (Chart 18). That said, valuations are not a useful timing tool. The business cycle, rather than valuations, tends to dictate the path of stocks over medium-term horizons of 6-to-12 months (Chart 19). Chart 19AThe Business Cycle Drives The Stock Market Over Medium-Term Horizons (I) The Business Cycle Drives The Stock Market Over Medium-Term Horizons (I) The Business Cycle Drives The Stock Market Over Medium-Term Horizons (I) Chart 19BThe Business Cycle Drives The Stock Market Over Medium-Term Horizons (II) The Business Cycle Drives The Stock Market Over Medium-Term Horizons (II) The Business Cycle Drives The Stock Market Over Medium-Term Horizons (II) Moreover, stocks are not expensive everywhere. While US equities trade at 20.8-times forward earnings, non-US stocks trade at a more respectable 14.1-times. The valuation gap is even more extreme based on other measures such as normalized earnings, price-to-book, and price-to-sales (Chart 20). Chart 20AUS Stocks Are Trading At A Significant Premium To Their Non-US Peers (I) US Stocks Are Trading At A Significant Premium To Their Non-US Peers (I) US Stocks Are Trading At A Significant Premium To Their Non-US Peers (I) Chart 20BUS Stocks Are Trading At A Significant Premium To Their Non-US Peers (II) US Stocks Are Trading At A Significant Premium To Their Non-US Peers (II) US Stocks Are Trading At A Significant Premium To Their Non-US Peers (II) In terms of equity styles, both small caps and value stocks trade at a substantial discount to large caps and growth stocks (Chart 21). We recommend that investors overweight these cheaper areas of the market in 2022. Trade Recommendation: Go Long US Homebuilders Versus The S&P 500 US homebuilder stocks have fallen by 19.4% since December 10th. Beyond the general market malaise, worries about rising mortgage rates and soaring input costs have weighed on the sector. Yet, current valuations more than adequately discount these risks. The sector trades at 6.5-times forward earnings, a steep discount to the S&P 500. Whereas demand for new homes is near record high levels according to the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) survey, the homeowner vacancy rate is at a multi-decade low. The supply of recently completed new homes is half of what it was on the eve of the pandemic (Chart 22). With demand continuing to outstrip supply, home prices will maintain their upward trend. As building material prices stabilize and worries about an overly aggressive Fed recede, homebuilder stocks will rally. Chart 21Value Stocks And Small Caps Are Cheap Value Stocks And Small Caps Are Cheap Value Stocks And Small Caps Are Cheap Chart 22US Homebuilders Looking Attractive US Homebuilders Looking Attractive US Homebuilders Looking Attractive Peter Berezin Chief Global Strategist peterb@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1  The Federal Reserve targets an average inflation rate of 2% for the personal consumption expenditures (PCE) index. The TIPS breakeven is based on the CPI index. Due to compositional differences between the two indices, CPI inflation has historically averaged 30-to-50 basis points higher than PCE inflation. This is why the Fed effectively targets a CPI inflation rate of about 2.3%-to-2.5%. Global Investment Strategy View Matrix A Correction Not A Bear Market A Correction Not A Bear Market Special Trade Recommendations Current MacroQuant Model Scores A Correction Not A Bear Market A Correction Not A Bear Market

Highlights Corporate Bond Returns & Fed Tightening: Corporate bond performance varied considerably during the past four Fed tightening cycles. Our analysis of these periods suggests that valuations and the slope of the yield curve are the two most important factors to monitor. Investment Grade Strategy: Given tight valuations, our analysis of past Fed tightening cycles suggests that it will make sense to downgrade our allocation to investment grade corporates from neutral (3 out of 5) to underweight (2 out of 5) once we are confident that the yield curve has shifted into a flatter regime. High-Yield Strategy: De-risking will also be warranted in the high-yield space as the yield curve flattens, but relative valuations dictate that investors should retain a preference for high-yield over investment grade corporates. Feature It is now apparent that the Federal Reserve intends to kick off the next rate hike cycle at the March FOMC meeting. This move has been strongly hinted at in recent Fed speeches and it will be telegraphed more officially when Jay Powell addresses the media tomorrow. In preparation for upcoming rate increases, last week’s report looked at Treasury returns during prior periods of Fed tightening.1 This week, we extend that analysis to the corporate bond market. Specifically, we consider the excess returns that were earned by both investment grade and high-yield corporates during the four most recent rate hike cycles.2 We conclude that a defensive posture toward credit risk will be warranted as Fed tightening gets underway. While we aren’t quite ready to downgrade our recommended allocation to corporate bonds today, we expect to do so within the next couple of months. Corporate Bond Returns During Rate Hike Cycles Table 1 presents excess returns for both the Bloomberg Barclays Investment Grade Corporate Bond Index and the Bloomberg Barclays High-Yield Corporate Bond Index in each of the past four Fed tightening cycles. As was the case last week, we define each tightening cycle as spanning from the first rate hike until the last rate hike. We also exclude periods such as 1997 when the Fed only lifted rates once before reversing course. Table 1Corporate Bond Returns During Fed Rate Hike Cycles Positioning For Rate Hikes In The Corporate Bond Market Positioning For Rate Hikes In The Corporate Bond Market Our first preliminary conclusion is that (unlike with Treasury returns) there is not much commonality between the different cycles. For example, corporate excess returns were quite strong during the 2015-18 cycle and very weak during the 1999-2000 cycle. In other words, it’s even more important to examine each cycle individually to get a sense of how we should position in the corporate bond market today. The 2015-2018 Cycle The most recent Fed tightening cycle started with a 25 basis point rate hike in December 2015. The Fed then went on hold for 12 months before delivering a string of 8 hikes between December 2016 and December 2018. All in all, the tightening cycle lasted 36 months and the Fed raised the target rate by 225 bps. Investment grade corporate bond returns were quite strong during this period (Chart 1A), and there is one major reason why. The start of the tightening cycle happened to coincide with the peak of a default cycle. As a result, corporate spreads were elevated when hiking began and they tightened rapidly throughout 2016 and 2017 (Chart 1A, panel 3). Spread tightening in 2016 and 2017 was helped along by an accommodative policy environment, as evidenced by the fact that the yield curve remained steep (3/10 slope > 50 bps) during those years (Chart 1A, panel 4). It’s notable that returns turned negative in 2018, only after the average index spread moved below 100 bps and the Treasury slope moved below 50 bps. In other words, corporate bond returns were strong early in the cycle but turned negative once value evaporated and the monetary backdrop became less accommodative. High-Yield returns show a similar pattern to investment grade (Chart 1B). Spreads started out very wide in early-2016 and tightened rapidly until monetary conditions turned more restrictive in 2018. Our Default-Adjusted Spread is an additional valuation tool for high-yield bonds (Chart 1B, panel 4). This is calculated as the average index spread less the actual default losses that were experienced during the subsequent 12 months. Our research has shown that high-yield bonds usually outperform Treasuries during 12 month periods in which the Default-Adjusted Spread is above 100 bps (see the Appendix of this report for more details). In this case, the Default-Adjusted Spread was an extremely high 258 bps at the beginning of the tightening cycle and it didn’t dip below 100 bps until after rate hikes ended. Chart 1A2015-2018 Cycle: Investment Grade 2015-2018 Cycle: Investment Grade 2015-2018 Cycle: Investment Grade Chart 1B2015-2018 Cycle: High-Yield 2015-2018 Cycle: High-Yield 2015-2018 Cycle: High-Yield   The 2004-2006 Cycle During this cycle, which spanned from June 2004 to June 2006, the Fed lifted rates by 400 bps (sixteen 25 basis point rate hikes). The fed funds rate rose from 1% to 5.25% during the two-year span. Excess investment grade corporate bond returns were close to zero during this cycle (Chart 2A). Unlike in 2015, corporate spreads started out at tight levels (below 100 bps), though the accommodative monetary environment – as evidenced by the steep yield curve – allowed them to tighten somewhat during the first year of Fed hiking. However, spreads then reverted closer to 100 bps in 2005 as the yield curve flattened to below 50 bps (Chart 2A, panel 4) and the policy backdrop turned more restrictive. Junk bonds performed extremely well during the 2004-06 cycle (Chart 2B), and once again this is due to very attractive starting valuations. The average High-Yield Index spread was 384 bps on the day of the first hike in 2004, compensation that turned out to be astoundingly high when you consider that monthly default events were in the low single digits throughout the entire period (Chart 2B, bottom panel). As was the case in the 2015-18 cycle, our Default-Adjusted Spread measure never dipped below 100 bps. In fact, it troughed at 145 bps in early 2005 (Chart 2B, panel 4). Chart 2A2004-2006 Cycle: Investment Grade 2004-2006 Cycle: Investment Grade 2004-2006 Cycle: Investment Grade Chart 2B2004-2006 Cycle: High-Yield 2004-2006 Cycle: High-Yield 2004-2006 Cycle: High-Yield The 1999-2000 Cycle In this cycle, the Fed lifted rates by 175 bps between June 1999 and May 2000, driving the fed funds rate from 4.75% to 6.5%. Excess investment grade corporate bond returns were poor during this period (Chart 3A), the combination of relatively low starting spreads and a very flat yield curve that even inverted in early 2000 (Chart 3A, panels 3 & 4). High-yield excess returns were even worse than for investment grade (Chart 3B). While, at the onset of Fed tightening, junk spreads were quite elevated in absolute terms (Chart 3B, panel 3), they turned out to be too low compared to the magnitude of default losses that occurred throughout 1999 and 2000 (Chart 3B, bottom panel). Our Default-Adjusted Spread measure started the cycle below 100 bps and then dipped into negative territory in early 2000 (Chart 3B, panel 4). Chart 3A1999-2000 Cycle: Investment Grade 1999-2000 Cycle: Investment Grade 1999-2000 Cycle: Investment Grade Chart 3B1999-2000 Cycle: High-Yield 1999-2000 Cycle: High-Yield 1999-2000 Cycle: High-Yield The 1994-1995 Cycle The Fed surprised markets by lifting rates extremely quickly during this cycle. The Fed moved rates from 3% to 6% in the span of only 12 months between February 1994 and February 1995. This cycle coincided with modestly positive excess returns for investment grade corporates (Chart 4A). The average index spread began the cycle at the extraordinarily tight level of 67 bps (Chart 4A, panel 3). However, unappealing valuations were counteracted by the accommodative monetary environment, as evidenced by a yield curve slope that didn’t dip below 50 bps until the Fed was almost done hiking (Chart 4A, panel 4).    Junk returns were also modestly positive during this period (Chart 4B). Spreads started the cycle at attractive levels (Chart 4B, panel 3) and the default rate was on the downswing (Chart 4B, bottom panel). Junk spreads, however, were mostly rangebound during the period of Fed tightening. Chart 4A1994-1995 Cycle: Investment Grade 1994-1995 Cycle: Investment Grade 1994-1995 Cycle: Investment Grade Chart 4B1994-1995 Cycle: High-Yield 1994-1995 Cycle: High-Yield 1994-1995 Cycle: High-Yield Investment Implications Investment Grade Our analysis of past cycles reveals that valuation and the slope of the yield curve are the two most important factors to consider when assessing the potential for investment grade corporate bond excess returns during a Fed tightening cycle. The 2015-18 period of strong investment grade returns coincided with elevated spreads and a yield curve slope that stayed above 50 bps for the first two years of tightening. In contrast, the 1999-2000 period of negative corporate returns was driven by expensive starting valuations and a very flat curve. Today, investment grade corporate bond valuations are about as expensive as they’ve ever been. The average index option-adjusted spread (OAS) is currently 100 bps, the index OAS has been tighter than this level 40% of the time since 1995 (Chart 5). This does not appear terrible at first blush, but we must also consider that the risk characteristics of the index have changed during the past few decades. Specifically, the index’s average credit rating is lower, and its average duration is higher. If we adjust the index to maintain a constant credit rating through time, we see that the spread falls from its 40th percentile to its 28th percentile (Chart 5, panel 2). If we then adjust for the changing duration of the index by looking at the 12-month breakeven spread instead of the OAS, we see the spread fall to its 7th percentile since 1995 (Chart 5, bottom panel).3 As for the yield curve, the 3-year/10-year Treasury slope is currently very close to 50 bps – the threshold that roughly represents the transition from an accommodative monetary environment to a more neutral one (Chart 6). Given expensive starting valuations, our inclination is to reduce our investment grade corporate bond exposure once we are confident that the 3/10 slope will remain below 50 bps for the remainder of the cycle. We think we are close to reaching that point, but we aren’t quite there yet. Our estimates based on a range of plausible scenarios for Fed tightening suggest that the 3/10 slope will permanently move below 50 bps in the coming months, by July at the very latest. When that occurs, we will reduce our recommended corporate bond exposure from neutral (3 out of 5) to underweight (2 out of 5). Chart 6Watch The Treasury Slope Watch The Treasury Slope Watch The Treasury Slope Chart 5IG Valuation IG Valuation IG Valuation High-Yield The valuation picture for high-yield is somewhat more pleasant than for investment grade. The OAS differential between the high-yield and investment grade indexes is fairly tight, at its 15th percentile since 1995 (Chart 7). However, this differential rises to the 36th percentile when we adjust for the duration differences of the indexes by using the 12-month breakeven spread. Chart 7HY Valuation HY Valuation HY Valuation Applying our Default-Adjusted Spread methodology to today’s junk market, we estimate that the Default-Adjusted Spread will come in above the crucial 100 bps threshold as long as the default rate is 3.5% or lower during the next 12 months (Chart 7, bottom panel). This seems quite likely given the current strong state of corporate balance sheets.4 All that said, the evidence from past cycles suggests that a more defensive posture toward high-yield corporates will also be warranted once we are confident that the 3/10 slope has permanently moved below 50 bps. However, relative valuation dictates that we should still retain a preference for high-yield over investment grade even as we get more defensive overall. Our next move will likely be to downgrade high-yield from overweight (4 out of 5) to neutral (3 out of 5). Some Thoughts On Credit Investment Strategy The above analysis of corporate bond performance shows that it is generally weaker once the yield curve has flattened into a range of 0 – 50 bps. However, that move alone doesn’t guarantee negative excess corporate bond returns. In fact, it is quite plausible that the slope could remain within a 0 – 50 bps range for a long time even as the Fed tightens, and that corporate bonds could still deliver small positive excess returns versus Treasuries. However, we must acknowledge that the risks of Fed overtightening, curve inversion and economic recession increase as the yield curve flattens. We must also acknowledge that current valuations suggest that future excess returns will be small, even if they are positive. For example, if we assume that the average investment grade OAS can’t tighten very much from current levels, then the best we can expect is 100 bps per year of excess return. Meanwhile, 100 bps of spread widening – much less than you would expect in a default cycle – would lead to losses of roughly 850 bps. In other words, it will be profitable to exit investment grade corporate bond positions today as long as the next bout of 100 bps of spread widening occurs within the next 8.5 years (Table 2). The risk/reward trade-off clearly favors a more defensive credit allocation. Table 2The Risk/Reward Trade-off In Corporate Bonds Positioning For Rate Hikes In The Corporate Bond Market Positioning For Rate Hikes In The Corporate Bond Market Interestingly, Table 2 shows that the risk/reward math is more favorable for junk bonds. Depending on our default loss assumptions, the 8.5 years we calculated for investment grade falls to a range of 1.8 to 3 years for high-yield. Bottom Line: Tight valuations and low expected returns suggest that investors should be more cautious on credit risk this cycle. In our view, it is advisable to reduce credit risk allocation earlier than usual this cycle in order to ensure that you aren’t invested during the next big selloff. Appendix Image Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Positioning For Rate Hikes In The Treasury Market”, dated January 18, 2022. 2 We define excess returns as the excess returns earned by the corporate bond index relative to a duration-matched position in US Treasuries. 3 The 12-month breakeven spread can be thought of as the spread widening required for the index to break even with duration-matched Treasuries on a 12-month investment horizon. It can be approximated as OAS divided by duration. 4 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The Fed’s Inflation Problem”, dated November 23, 2021. Recommended Portfolio Specification Other Recommendations Treasury Index Returns Spread Product Returns

Highlights US Vs. Europe: Growth and inflation momentum remains stronger in the US versus Europe. The latter is taking the bigger economic hit from more severe Omicron economic restrictions and a greater exposure to slowing Chinese demand. European inflation has accelerated, but remains slower and less broad-based than elevated US inflation. The backdrop remains more negative for US fixed income compared to Europe. UST-Bund Spread: With markets already priced for multiple Fed rate hikes in 2022, it is now harder to earn significant returns shorting US Treasuries outright compared to 2021. We prefer positioning for higher US bond yields through less-volatile US Treasury-German Bund spread widening positions, with the ECB unlikely to deliver even the single discounted 2022 rate hike. We recommend the position both as a structural allocation in bond portfolios (underweight the US versus Germany) and as a tactical trade (selling US Treasury futures versus Bund futures). Feature Chart of the WeekUS Bond Yields & Bond Volatility Are Both Rising US Bond Yields & Bond Volatility Are Both Rising US Bond Yields & Bond Volatility Are Both Rising Global fixed income markets are off to a volatile start in 2022, on the back of significant repricing of US interest rate expectations. The 10-year US Treasury yield now sits at 1.85%, up +34bps so far in January and is up +72bps from the August 4/2021 intraday low of 1.13%. The 2-year US yield, which is even more sensitive to changes in Fed expectations, is 1.04%, up +31bps so far this month and up +87bps since early August 2021. Yields are rising in other countries as well, with the 10-year benchmark government bond yield up year-to-date in the UK (+24bps), Canada (+45bps) and even Germany (+18bps) where the Bund yield is threatening to return to positive territory. US Treasuries are selling off as markets have heeded the hawkish shift in the Fed’s interest rate guidance. The US overnight index swap (OIS) curve now discounting 89bps of Fed rate hikes in 2022. Bond volatility further out the Treasury curve has increased as yields have moved higher, with the realized volatility of the Bloomberg 7-10 US Treasury index now at an 19-month high (Chart of the Week). We continue to recommend a defensive strategic posture towards direct US Treasuries with below-benchmark exposure on both duration and country allocations in global bond portfolios. However, we prefer a more efficient way to position for the same theme of rising US yields – betting on a wider 10-year US Treasury-German Bund spread. US Growth & Inflation Fundamentals Support A More Hawkish Fed The rise in global bond yields seen in recent weeks has inflicted damage on risk assets, but not in a consistent fashion. Equity markets have taken the brunt of the hit, with the S&P 500 down around -3% so far in January with the tech-heavy NASDAQ down -6%. Yet the MSCI emerging market equity index is up around +1%, European equities are flat and global high-yield corporate bond spreads are essentially unchanged so far this month. While higher bond yields are reflecting expectations of more global monetary tightening over the next year, medium-term interest rate expectations remain subdued. Our proxy for the market pricing of terminal interest rate expectations – 5-year OIS rates, 5-years forward – remains at or below pre-pandemic levels in the US, the UK, Canada and the euro area (Chart 2). Risk assets are performing relatively well in the face of higher bond yields because markets still do not believe that a major increase in interest rates will be needed in the current global tightening cycle. We see this – the likelihood that interest rates will have to rise much more than markets expect - as the biggest vulnerability for global bond markets over the next couple of years. The US remains the “poster child” for this view. In the US, core CPI inflation accelerated to an 31-year high of 5.5% in December. The pickup in US inflation continues to be broad-based, with the Cleveland Fed median CPI and trimmed mean CPI inflation measures reaching 3.8% and 4.8%, respectively (Chart 3). This massive run-up in US inflation has filtered through to medium-term household inflation expectations; the preliminary University of Michigan consumer survey for January showed that inflation 5-10 years out is expected to be 3.1% - the highest level in 13 years. Chart 2Rising Yields Are Not A Threat To Risk Assets ... Yet Rising Yields Are Not A Threat To Risk Assets ... Yet Rising Yields Are Not A Threat To Risk Assets ... Yet ​​​​​ Chart 3The Fed Cannot Ignore Elevated Inflation Expectations The Fed Cannot Ignore Elevated Inflation Expectations The Fed Cannot Ignore Elevated Inflation Expectations ​​​​​​ Chart 4US Demand Steadily Normalizing From The Pandemic Shock US Demand Steadily Normalizing From The Pandemic Shock US Demand Steadily Normalizing From The Pandemic Shock While much of the run-up in US inflation over the past year has been fueled by supply chain disruption and high energy prices, there is still a robust demand component to the high inflation. Consumer spending on goods remains elevated versus its pre-pandemic trend, while services spending is steadily returning back to the pre-pandemic pace (Chart 4). The overall US unemployment rate is now down to 3.9%, the lowest level since February 2020, with broad-based strength in the US labor market across most industries (bottom panel). The rise in consumer inflation expectations has to be most worrisome to Fed officials. Yes, market-based inflation expectations have already seen a significant run-up since the mid-2020 lows, and have even drifted down a bit of late on the back of the more hawkish rhetoric from the Fed. However, survey-based measures of inflation expectations tend to be less volatile than market-based measures, and typically follow trends in realized inflation, which is not slowing down in the US. In other words, rising household inflation expectations are a more reliable indication that an inflationary mindset is becoming entrenched in consumer behavior. US inflation dynamics are transitioning away from supply-driven goods inflation toward more lasting domestically driven forces like tight labor markets, faster wage growth and rising housing costs (Chart 5). Measures of supply chain disruption like global shipping costs are showing signs of peaking (top panel), while commodity price momentum has clearly rolled over – both should eventually feed into slower goods inflation this year. At the same time, tight labor markets will continue to boost US employment costs, which historically have been strongly correlated to US services inflation (middle panel). Chart 5US Inflation Pressures Remain Intense US Inflation Pressures Remain Intense US Inflation Pressures Remain Intense Meanwhile, shelter costs, which represents 32% of the US CPI index, were up 4.2% on a year-over-year basis in December and are likely to continue accelerating given a dearth of housing supply versus demand that is pushing up both house prices and rents (bottom panel). Tying it all together, there are good reasons why the Fed has ramped up the hawkish rhetoric over the past couple of months. However, with the US OIS curve now discounting between 3-4 rate hikes in 2022, it will be harder to generate a second consecutive year of negative returns in the US Treasury market this year. Dating back to the early 1970s, there have only been five calendar years where the Bloomberg US Treasury index delivered an outright negative total return: 1994, 1999, 2009, 2013 and 2021 (Chart 6). None of the four cases prior to last year saw negative returns in the following year, as Treasury yields fell in 1995, 2000, 2010, 2014. Yet even the episodes that saw consecutive years of US yield increases – 1974-75, 1977-81, 1987-88, 2005-06 and 2015-16 – did not see outright negative returns from the Bloomberg US Treasury index. Chart 6Negative Return Years For US Treasuries Are Rare Negative Return Years For US Treasuries Are Rare Negative Return Years For US Treasuries Are Rare Given the starting point of deeply negative real US bond yields, and interest rate expectations that remain too low beyond 2022, we still see value in staying below-benchmark on US duration exposure on a medium-term basis. However, we see a more efficient way to play for higher Treasury yields this year by positioning US Treasury underweights/shorts versus overweights/longs in government bonds in a region where discounted rate hikes will not happen – Europe. The ECB Is In No Hurry To Hike Rates The same supply driven factors that have pushed up US inflation over the past year have also lifted inflation in the euro area. Headline HICP inflation reached an 30-year high of 5.0% in December, while core HICP inflation hit an all-time high of 2.6%. The European Central Bank (ECB), however, is unlikely to deliver any rate hikes in 2022 even with the high inflation, for several reasons (Chart 7): Growth momentum entering 2022 was soft, thanks to Omicron related economic restrictions at the end of 2021 and also weak demand for European exports from China. It will take time for both of those factors to reverse, thus reducing any growth related pressure to tighten monetary policy. Inflation expectations are not exceeding the ECB 2% inflation target, with the 5-year/5-year forward EUR CPI swap now at 1.9% even with headline inflation of 5.0%. The surge in European energy prices will eventually subside in the first half of 2022, which will reduce inflationary pressure on the ECB to tighten. The ECB is ending its pandemic emergency bond buying program (PEPP) in March, and is only partially replacing that buying activity by upsizing its existing pre-pandemic asset purchase program (APP). The ECB will not want to compound the effect of this “tapering” of bond buying by also hiking interest rates, which would surely tighten financial conditions further through higher Italian government bond yields, rising corporate bond yields and a firmer euro. There is little evidence to date showing any pass-through of higher energy-fueled inflation into more domestically-driven inflation. Euro area wage growth was only 1.3% as of the latest available data in Q3/2021 (which is still well after realized inflation had started to accelerate), highlighting the lack of visible “second round” effects on euro area inflation from high energy prices that would prompt the ECB to consider rate hikes (Chart 8). Chart 7An ECB Rate Hike In 2022 Is Unlikely An ECB Rate Hike In 2022 Is Unlikely An ECB Rate Hike In 2022 Is Unlikely ​​​​​​ Chart 8Limited 'Second Round' Effects From Energy-Driven European Inflation Limited 'Second Round' Effects From Energy-Driven European Inflation Limited 'Second Round' Effects From Energy-Driven European Inflation ​​​​​​ The EUR OIS curve is discounting 7bps of rate hikes by year-end. Even that modest amount will not be delivered, which will limit how much further European government bond yields will rise this year. A Better Mousetrap: Playing UST Bearishness Through UST-Bund Spread Widening Trades Combining our view of an increasingly hawkish Fed and a still-dovish ECB produces our highest conviction investment recommendation for 2022: positioning for a wider 10-year US Treasury/Germany Bund spread. This can be done by underweighting the US versus core Europe in global bond portfolios, or shorting US Treasury futures versus German Bund futures as we are already recommending in our Tactical Trade Overlay (see page 15). A Treasury-Bund spread widening view is a more efficient way to play for a more hawkish Fed and higher US Treasury yields, for several reasons: There are many examples over past 30 years where the Treasury-Bund spread widened in consecutive years (Chart 9). This is in contrast to the fewer occurrences of consecutive years of rising Treasury yields shown earlier in this report. Thus, there are better odds that last year’s Treasury-Bund spread widening can be repeated in 2022. Chart 9Consecutive Years Of A Rising UST-Bund Spread Happen Often Consecutive Years Of A Rising UST-Bund Spread Happen Often Consecutive Years Of A Rising UST-Bund Spread Happen Often The realized volatility of Treasury-Bund spread trades is almost always lower than that of an outright short position in US Treasuries, but the direction of returns of the two trades is similar (Chart 10). This shows that there is directionality in the Treasury-Bund spread (i.e. it is driven far more by the movements of US yields), but that is a welcome feature given our more bearish view on US Treasuries. The Treasury-Bund spread remains well below fair value on our fundamental valuation model, with fair value increasing due to widening US-European inflation differentials (Chart 11). Tighter relative monetary policies this year (more tapering and rate hikes from the Fed compared to the ECB) also favor a wider fair value spread on our model. Chart 10UST-Bund Wideners Have Lower Volatility Than Outright UST Shorts UST-Bund Wideners Have Lower Volatility Than Outright UST Shorts UST-Bund Wideners Have Lower Volatility Than Outright UST Shorts ​​​​​ Chart 11The UST-Bund Spread Looks Very Cheap On Our Model The UST-Bund Spread Looks Very Cheap On Our Model The UST-Bund Spread Looks Very Cheap On Our Model ​​​​​​ The gap between our 24-month discounters, which measure the change in policy interest rates over the next two years discounted in OIS curves, for the US and euro area is a reliable leading indicator of the 10-year Treasury-Bund spread (Chart 12, bottom panel). The “discounter spread” is currently calling for the Treasury-Bund spread to widen by more than the current path discounted in US Treasury and German Bund forward rates. Chart 12Position For More UST-Bund Spread Widening In 2022 Position For More UST-Bund Spread Widening In 2022 Position For More UST-Bund Spread Widening In 2022 ​​​​​​ Chart 13UST-Bund Spread Is Not Technically Stretched UST-Bund Spread Is Not Technically Stretched UST-Bund Spread Is Not Technically Stretched ​​​​​ The Treasury-Bund spread is not stretched from a technical perspective (Chart 13). The spread is sitting right at its 200-day moving average and the 26-week change in the spread (a measure of price momentum) is rising but remains well below previous peak levels that have capped past spread increases. Summing it all up, the case is strong for including US-Germany spread widening positions as core holdings in investor portfolios in 2022. The current spread is 185bps and we have a year-end target of 225bps. Bottom Line: With markets already priced for multiple Fed rate hikes in 2022, it is now harder to earn significant returns shorting US Treasuries outright compared to 2021. We prefer positioning for higher US bond yields through less-volatile US Treasury-German Bund spread widening positions, with the ECB unlikely to deliver even the single discounted 2022 rate hike. We recommend the position both as a structural allocation in bond portfolios (underweight the US versus Germany) and as a tactical trade (selling US Treasury futures versus Bund futures).   Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com   Recommendations Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Recommended Positioning     Active Duration Contribution: GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. Custom Performance Benchmark Image The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index

Highlights Duration: A look at past rate hike cycles shows that Treasury returns are generally low, though not always negative. For the current cycle, we continue to recommend a below-benchmark portfolio duration stance as we don’t think the full extent of Fed rate hikes is adequately priced in the yield curve. Interest Rate Policy: The Fed will deliver its first rate hike in March and will lift rates 2 or 3 more times this year. We see the fed funds rate moving above 2% this cycle, higher than what is currently priced in the market. Fed Balance Sheet: The Fed will start the passive runoff of its securities holdings in the first half of this year, after one or two rate hikes have been delivered. Balance sheet reduction will proceed more quickly than it did last cycle, but the Fed will refrain from outright sales. Feature Chart 1Market Expectations Are Too Low Market Expectations Are Too Low Market Expectations Are Too Low Rate hikes are just around the corner. In fact, there is a growing consensus among FOMC participants that it will be appropriate to deliver the first rate hike in March, as soon as net asset purchases reach zero. Just last week, San Francisco Fed President Mary Daly called a March rate hike “quite reasonable” and Fed Vice-Chair Lael Brainard testified that the Fed will be “in a position” to lift rates as soon as purchases end. Brainard also mentioned that the Fed has discussed shrinking its balance sheet.1 We expect the Fed to follow through with a 25 basis point rate hike in March, and with 2 or 3 more hikes over the course of 2022. We also see the Fed shrinking its balance sheet this year, via the passive runoff of maturing securities. With all that in mind, this week’s report draws on the experience of past rate hike cycles to give us a sense of what Treasury returns to expect as the Fed lifts rates. We also discuss how the Fed’s balance sheet will evolve over the next few years.  Treasury Returns During Rate Hike Cycles Table 1 provides a useful summary of Treasury returns during the prior four rate hike cycles. The table shows excess Treasury returns versus cash for the Bloomberg Barclays Treasury Index as well as its Intermediate Maturity and Long Maturity sub-indexes. Table 1Treasury Returns During Fed Rate Hike Cycles Positioning For Rate Hikes In The Treasury Market Positioning For Rate Hikes In The Treasury Market The first conclusion we draw is that Treasury returns are generally poor during Fed tightening cycles. Intermediate maturity Treasuries underperformed cash in all four cycles. Long maturity Treasuries provided only modestly positive returns in two of the four cycles and deeply negative returns in one of them. One important caveat is that our analysis only considers cycles where the Fed lifted rates multiple times in a row. For example, we exclude the 1997-98 period when one rate hike in 1997 was quickly reversed in 1998. We also define the most recent tightening cycle as spanning from 2015 to 2018 even though the Fed kept the policy rate steady from December 2015 to December 2016. Obviously, if the Fed is forced to abandon its tightening cycle after one or two hikes, then Treasury returns will be much stronger than our historical analysis suggests. Next, let’s dig a bit deeper by looking at each rate hike cycle individually. The 2015-2018 Cycle Chart 22015-2018 Cycle 2015-2018 Cycle 2015-2018 Cycle The most recent Fed tightening cycle started with a 25 basis point rate hike in December 2015. The Fed then went on hold for 12 months before delivering a string of 8 hikes between December 2016 and December 2018. All in all, the tightening cycle lasted 36 months and the Fed raised the target fed funds rate by 225 bps, from a range of 0% - 0.25% to a range of 2.25% - 2.5% (Chart 2). If we look at the 36-month discounter on the day before the first hike (Chart 2, panel 3), it shows that the market was priced for 159 bps of tightening over the next three years. The fact that the Fed delivered more tightening (225 bps) explains why excess Treasury returns were negative for short and intermediate maturities. The 5-year/5-year forward Treasury yield is another useful metric because it is a good approximation of the market’s expected terminal fed funds rate, i.e. the fed funds rate at the end of the tightening cycle. The 5-year/5-year forward Treasury yield stood at 2.92% in December 2015, slightly above where the fed funds rate peaked in 2018 (Chart 2, bottom panel). This explains why long-maturity excess Treasury returns were slightly positive during the cycle.         The 2004-2006 Cycle Chart 32004-2006 Cycle 2004-2006 Cycle 2004-2006 Cycle During this cycle, which spanned from June 2004 to June 2006, the Fed lifted rates by 400 bps (sixteen 25 basis point rate hikes). The fed funds rate rose from 1% to 5.25% during the two-year span (Chart 3). The 24-month fed funds discounter stood at 369 bps the day before the first hike (Chart 3, panel 3), indicating that the market discounted 31 bps less tightening than was ultimately delivered. Once again, this explains why excess Treasury returns were negative for short and intermediate maturities. The 5-year/5-year forward Treasury yield was 5.72% just prior to the first hike in June 2004 (Chart 3, bottom panel). But, as was the case in the 2015-2018 cycle, the fed funds rate never reached this level. It peaked at 5.25% in 2006 and long-maturity excess Treasury yields were somewhat positive as a result.                 The 1999-2000 Cycle Chart 41999-2000 Cycle 1999-2000 Cycle 1999-2000 Cycle In this cycle, the Fed lifted rates by 175 bps between June 1999 and May 2000, driving the fed funds rate from 4.75% to 6.5% (Chart 4). The 12-month fed funds discounter stood at 108 bps on the day before the first hike (Chart 4, panel 3). Once again, this was slightly less than the 175 bps of tightening that transpired. Excess returns for short and intermediate maturity Treasuries were negative as a result. The 5-year/5-year forward Treasury yield was 5.99% on the day before the first hike (Chart 4, bottom panel). This time, the market’s assessment proved to be too low compared to the funds rate’s 6.5% peak. This divergence explains why long-maturity Treasury excess returns were worse during this period than they were in the 2015-18 and 2004-06 cycles.                 The 1994-1995 Cycle Chart 51994-1995 Cycle 1994-1995 Cycle 1994-1995 Cycle The Fed surprised markets by lifting rates extremely quickly during this cycle. The Fed moved rates from 3% to 6% in the span of only 12 months between February 1994 and February 1995 (Chart 5). The 12-month discounter was only 130 bps at the beginning of the tightening cycle, well short of the 300 bps rate increase that was delivered (Chart 5, panel 3). This large divergence explains why excess Treasury returns were so poor during this period. Interestingly, the 5-year/5-year forward Treasury yield stood at 6.69% just prior to the first hike (Chart 5, bottom panel), not that far from the ultimate peak in the fed funds rate. In other words, while market expectations for the near-term path of interest rates were too low, expectations for the ultimate peak in interest rates were fairly accurate. However, terminal rate expectations became unmoored when the Fed started to tighten, and the 5-year/5-year forward Treasury yield rose all the way to 8.5%, far above the fed funds rate’s ultimate peak. This dramatic shift in terminal rate expectations explains the deeply negative long-maturity Treasury returns observed during the period. Of course, those losses were quickly reversed in H1 1995 once it became clear that the Fed would not lift rates further. The 5-year/5-year forward Treasury yield plummeted back to 6.5%. Investment Implications Let’s apply the above analysis to today’s situation. At present, the 12-month fed funds discounter stands at 93 bps. The 24-month discounter is 151 bps and the 36-month discounter is 159 bps (Chart 1). In other words, the market is discounting that the Fed will deliver between 3 and 4 rate hikes this year, but only 2 more in 2023 before the funds rate stabilizes at roughly 1.5%. Our expectation is that the fed funds rate will rise to at least 2% during the next three years, and we therefore continue to recommend running below-benchmark portfolio duration. For its part, the 5-year/5-year forward Treasury yield is currently 2.03%. This is at the low-end of survey estimates for the long-run neutral fed funds rate (Chart 1, bottom panel). We expect the 5-year/5-year forward Treasury yield to rise closer to the middle of the range of survey estimates (~2.25%) as it becomes clear that the fed funds rate will rise to at least 2%. It’s also possible that, like in the 1994-95 episode, terminal rate expectations will rise dramatically as the Fed lifts rates more quickly than anticipated. This, however, is not our base case outlook given that expectations for a low terminal fed funds rate are very well entrenched. Bottom Line: A look at past rate hike cycles shows that Treasury returns are generally low, though not always negative. For the current cycle, we continue to recommend a below-benchmark portfolio duration stance as we don’t think the full extent of Fed rate hikes is adequately priced in the yield curve. The Balance Sheet Outlook Chart 6Hike First, Then QT Hike First, Then QT Hike First, Then QT We expect the Fed to start shrinking its securities holdings this year. The process will probably begin in the first half of the year after one or two rate hikes have been delivered. To arrive at this conclusion, we first look at how the Fed proceeded during the last tightening cycle. Back then, the Fed waited until the funds rate was around 1% before it started to shrink its balance sheet in September 2017 (Chart 6). Notably, the Fed didn’t immediately move toward the full passive runoff of its portfolio. Rather, it started slowly by permitting only $6 billion of Treasuries and $4 billion of MBS to mature in October 2017. These amounts were gradually increased in the subsequent months. The Fed will move more quickly toward balance sheet reduction this cycle and the pace of said reduction will be faster. Here are the relevant passages from the minutes of the December FOMC meeting: Almost all participants agreed that it would likely be appropriate to initiate balance sheet runoff at some point after the first increase in the target range for the federal funds rate. However, participants judged that the appropriate timing of balance sheet runoff would likely be closer to that of policy rate liftoff than in the Committee’s previous experience. […] Many participants judged that the appropriate pace of balance sheet runoff would likely be faster than it was during the previous normalization episode. Many participants also judged that monthly caps on the runoff of securities could help ensure that the pace of runoff would be measured and predictable…2 From these quotes, we surmise that balance sheet runoff will start earlier than last time – after one or two rate hikes instead of four. Also, while the runoff will proceed more quickly than last time, there is still support for maintaining monthly caps on the pace. The Fed will probably not move immediately to the complete passive runoff of its portfolio, and outright bond sales do not appear to be part of the discussion. One concern that investors might have about the Fed’s balance sheet runoff is the extra supply of Treasuries that will hit the market. As an upper-bound, if we assume complete passive runoff starting in April 2022, the Fed’s Treasury holdings will shrink from $5.7 trillion today to $3.5 trillion by the end of 2024, adding an average of $715 billion extra Treasury supply to the market each year (Chart 7). If we exclude T-bills and TIPS to focus only on coupon-paying nominal Treasury securities, then we calculate that Fed holdings will fall from $4.9 trillion to $3 trillion, adding an extra $639 billion of supply to the market on average for the next three years. However, it’s important to note that Fed policy alone doesn’t dictate the supply of Treasury securities. The Treasury department’s issuance plans also need to be considered. When the Fed allows a maturing bond to passively roll off its portfolio it doesn’t dump that bond directly into the market. Rather, the Treasury Department issues new debt to replace the maturing bond. The Treasury could decide, for example, to increase T-bill issuance instead of coupon issuance. In fact, this sort of decision becomes more likely if Treasury officials are concerned about dumping too much coupon supply on the market. Currently, the Treasury Department targets a range of 15% - 20% for the amount of outstanding T-bills as a proportion of the overall funding mix, a target that it is hitting (Chart 8). However, the minutes from the most recent Quarterly Refunding meeting stressed that the Treasury feels the need to maintain “flexibility” when it comes to this target range and noted that “there is likely more leeway at the top of the recommended range than at the bottom.”3 Chart 7The Pace Of ##br##Runoff The Pace Of Runoff The Pace Of Runoff Chart 8T-bill Issuance Could Rise As The Fed's Portfolio Shrinks T-bill Issuance Could Rise As The Fed's Portfolio Shrinks T-bill Issuance Could Rise As The Fed's Portfolio Shrinks Finally, it is important to consider the extent to which the Fed will be able to shrink its balance sheet. The Fed’s goal will be to achieve a reserve supply that allows it to maintain the funds rate within its target band without putting undue pressure on either its Overnight Reverse Repo Facility (ON RRP) or its new Standing Repo Facility (SRF). Chart 9The Fed's Balance Sheet Was Too Small In September 2019 The Fed's Balance Sheet Was Too Small In September 2019 The Fed's Balance Sheet Was Too Small In September 2019 The ON RRP acts as a floor on interest rates and its usage therefore increases when the Fed’s balance sheet is too large. The third panel of Chart 9 shows that this is currently the case. Conversely, the SRF acts as a ceiling on interest rates and its usage will ramp up if the Fed’s balance sheet becomes too small. This last occurred in September 2019 when the Fed briefly lost control of interest rates and was forced to increase repo holdings and reserve supply (Chart 9).​​​​​​​ Going forward, the Fed will continue to run down its balance sheet until ON RRP usage drops close to zero. However, it will want to stop reducing its holdings before SRF usage picks up. It is highly uncertain when this will occur, but we suspect that the Fed won’t be able to get the balance sheet back to September 2019 levels before seeing SRF usage increase. Bottom Line: The Fed will start the passive runoff of its securities holdings in the first half of this year, after one or two rate hikes have been delivered. Balance sheet reduction will proceed more quickly than it did last cycle, but the Fed will refrain from outright sales. While the size of the Fed’s balance sheet will shrink during the next few years, it will remain larger than it was in September 2019.   Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see https://www.reuters.com/business/exclusive-feds-daly-march-liftoff-is-quite-reasonable-2022-01-13/ and https://www.nbcnews.com/business/economy/interest-rate-hike-come-soon-march-feds-brainard-signals-rcna12112 2 https://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/files/fomcminutes20211215.pdf 3 https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/jy0464 Recommended Portfolio Specification Other Recommendations Treasury Index Returns Spread Product Returns

Highlights It’s true that rising rates often precipitate bear markets, but it takes a while, … : We subscribe to the view that expansions are more likely to be murdered by the Fed than die of old age. It’s hard to envision a plausible scenario in which the Fed could hike rates enough in 2022 to kill this one, though, and even the first half of 2023 would be a reach.  … because the Fed only seeks to slow the economy when it’s firing on all cylinders: Earnings are typically growing at a rapid clip and risk aversion is a distant memory when the Fed begins the process of draining the punch bowl. The fed funds rate tipping point can only be definitively identified after the fact, but our estimate has an impressive track record: No one knows for sure where the line of demarcation between easy and tight monetary policy lies, but equities have shined when the fed funds rate is below our equilibrium estimate. We do not share the view that Tech stocks are especially vulnerable to higher interest rates: Although it lacks empirical support outside of a small subset of observations, the Tech vulnerability view has spread more widely than the Omicron variant. Feature Last week’s report discussing the equity impact of impending rate hikes elicited a lot of reaction. A discussion with one investor usually has relevance for other investors, so we are sharing a composite of the questions we received, along with our responses. It gives us the chance to elaborate on some points that we did not previously address in full, but our conclusion remains unchanged. History argues that equities have little to fear from an incremental rate hike campaign, and we expect that they will generate sizable positive excess returns above Treasuries and cash over the next twelve months. The Fed, With Rate Hikes, In The Board Room Why shouldn’t investors be concerned about rate hikes when you yourself have said that the Fed precipitates recessions? As the last expansion stretched on for a record length of time, we regularly repeated the line that expansions don’t die of old age, they die because the Fed murders them. It fits well with our tipping point view of rate hikes and we wholly subscribe to it. It is important to bear in mind, however, that the Fed’s tools act much more slowly than the lethal array of objects in the game of Clue. As we highlighted last week, monetary policy acts with long and variable lags and the Fed accordingly tightens it in increments allowing for real-time feedback that might help it tailor its actions to evolving economic conditions. Ex-the pandemic, tight monetary policy has been a necessary, albeit not sufficient, recession condition for the 60 years covered by our equilibrium fed funds rate estimate. Although not every instance when the fed funds rate exceeded its equilibrium level preceded a recession, no recession occurred when the funds rate was below equilibrium (Chart 1). Owing to monetary policy’s lagged effects, however, the recessions didn’t begin until well after the Fed began to tighten policy. On average, each recession arrived 26 months after Phase I kicked off and 12 months after the policy cycle entered Phase II (Table 1). Peak growth occurs in the early stages of rate hikes, while the Fed is merely easing up on the gas; deceleration only ensues in the latter stages, when the Fed pushes down on the brake pedal. Chart 1Rate Hikes Are A Necessary, But Not Sufficient, Recession Condition ... Rate Hikes Are A Necessary, But Not Sufficient, Recession Condition ... Rate Hikes Are A Necessary, But Not Sufficient, Recession Condition ... Table 1... And It Takes A While For The Economy To Feel Their Full Effect Q&A About Rate Hikes And Stocks Q&A About Rate Hikes And Stocks Index P/E Multiples Don’t Collapse Overnight It’s often said that the Fed hikes rates until something breaks. If equities are ultimately going to break in the process, why wouldn’t a prudent investor read the first rate hike, or even the run-up to it, as a sign to begin reducing exposure? We showed last week that signal measures of economic activity – hiring, lending, spending and GDP – grow well above their through-the-cycle pace while the Fed is tightening policy. Corporate earnings do, too, and S&P 500 earnings expectations have risen most rapidly when the Fed is hiking rates, with Phase I growth nearly doubling aggregate growth (Chart 2, middle panel). Earnings gains are vulnerable to dilution from multiple de-rating, but Phase I multiples have been roughly flat in the aggregate (Chart 2, bottom panel). Perhaps investors recognize that equities don’t break until well after the Fed starts hiking rates, or double-digit earnings growth makes them lose sight of the likelihood that they eventually will. Chart 2Our Definitions Of The Phases Must Be Close To The Mark Our Definitions Of The Phases Must Be Close To The Mark Our Definitions Of The Phases Must Be Close To The Mark Based on the empirical record, investors judged by their relative performance should not reduce equity exposure until the rate hiking campaign is well advanced. Phase I has produced the best returns of any phase in the 42 years that earnings expectations have been compiled and missing out on them could be harmful to a professional investor’s career (Chart 2, top panel). Today’s Starting Point Is Unusually Demanding Have equities ever been this expensive at the start of a tightening cycle? History suggests that equities can rally in a “normal” Phase I even after some initial turbulence, but how much scope do they have to rise from current valuation levels? There is unfortunately scarcely any empirical data to address this question. The nine Phase I episodes account for just eight years of the 42-year earnings expectations era and several of them are very short (Table 2). The one instance when forward multiples were at or above today’s levels, from June through October of 1999, they were able to hold their ground, falling less than a half of a multiple point, or 1.5%. Earnings expectations grew by 6.3% over that period, allowing the S&P 500 to advance at the rate of about 1% per month, in line with its overall Phase I performance since 1979. Table 2Multiples Have Held Their Ground In Phase I Q&A About Rate Hikes And Stocks Q&A About Rate Hikes And Stocks Empirically, however, robust growth in earnings expectations is the basis for overweighting stocks in Phase I, not multiple expansion. We do not expect re-rating as the Fed pushes the funds rate toward its equilibrium level, and we are alert to the certainty that stocks will de-rate sometime in the future if forward multiples are still subject to mean reversion. History shows it won’t necessarily happen in Phase I, though, and TINA may stave it off while there is a dearth of non-equity options offering positive prospective real returns. Disclaimer (BCA Is Human, Too) How can you be certain that your estimate of the equilibrium rate is accurate? We are not certain at all about the level of the equilibrium rate, and nothing we’ve ever written or said should be construed as implying that we are. As we’ve said many times before, the equilibrium rate is a concept. It cannot be directly observed and our attempts to estimate it are no more than our best effort to gain a sense of where the tipping point for financial markets and the economy might be. Our current 3.25% estimate likely sounds quite high, but we take the estimates at any given point in time with a grain of salt. We are not so full of ourselves that we believe we can pin down an amorphous concept to two decimal places in real time, and we have found that thinking of the point estimate as falling within a plausible range is the best way to proceed. Right now, the US Investment Strategy team views the equilibrium rate as somewhere around 2.5% or higher. That’s all the precision we need to assert with high conviction that monetary policy is accommodative and will remain so for all of 2022 and much, if not all, of 2023. For all the inherent uncertainty of attempts to quantify the equilibrium rate, however, the sharp disparity in equity performance across easy and tight monetary policy settings suggests that we’re on the right track. We’re further encouraged by the clear distinctions in earnings and multiples growth across phases (Figure 1), which suggest that monetary policy settings exert a persistent influence on fundamentals and investor appetites. Given that equities have flourished when policy is easy, overweighting stocks in multi-asset portfolios should contribute to outperformance over the next twelve months. Monetary policy settings are not the be-all and the end-all, but we have found that they offer a very useful default guide to asset allocation. Chart Fooled By Randomness? The results have been robust over a lengthy period, but how do you know they’re not random? Why does the relationship you’ve cited work? We are convinced that the observed strong-growth/tighter-policy, tepid-growth/easier-policy relationship has a durable structural foundation. The through line is the fact that monetary policy is a blunt instrument that works with indeterminate lags. Its limitations influence the way the Fed deploys it and impose a predictable pattern on its economic and market impacts. The Fed is not quite the meddler that its Libertarian-minded critics make it out to be, hovering over the economy in a continuous effort to fine-tune it. Instead, it acts on a limited basis to ensure that the harms embedded in cyclical extremes do not prevent the economy from reaching its long-run potential. It deploys accommodative measures during recessions to keep hysteresis from turning a cyclical soft patch into a structural albatross and restrictive measures during high-revving expansions to keep the inflation genie from getting out of the bottle. The Fed does not want to root out green shoots before they can take hold, so it does not begin Phase I, or assiduously pursue it, until it is certain that the economy can withstand higher rates, especially while (lagging) inflation readings are tame (Chart 3). It therefore launches tightening cycles with a predictable bias to err on the side of being too easy. Chart 3Inflation Is A Lagging Indicator, ... Inflation Is A Lagging Indicator, ... Inflation Is A Lagging Indicator, ... That bias allows the economy to gather momentum in Phase I, in line with cyclical peaks in activity and earnings growth, and outsized equity and credit returns. Left unchecked, the momentum could produce higher inflation, and the Fed is typically compelled to dial up intervention to counter it. Wielding a blunt instrument that works with a lag, however, the Fed is at risk of going too far, and Phase II hikes often induce a recession. Investors sniff out the looming downturn and de-rate equities. By the time the Fed reverses field and initiates a new easing campaign (Phase III), earnings growth has stalled out and measured inflation is peaking (Table 3). Equities mark time and credit spreads widen until, with a slowdown plainly evident and measured inflation sliding, the Fed shifts to full-on accommodation (Phase IV). It maintains market-friendly settings until the economy begins to look too strong, upon which it intervenes to hold it back, kicking off a new policy cycle. Table 3... Managed With Policy That Works With A Lag Q&A About Rate Hikes And Stocks Q&A About Rate Hikes And Stocks As we showed last week, the direct relationship between activity and rates is immediately apparent in the real economy. Robust activity translates to robust earnings growth, but it is possible that equity multiples will behave differently in the approaching fed funds rate cycle than they have in the past. Although we expect that TINA will protect equities from meaningful de-rating pressure this year, investors should not lose sight of the fact that the earnings estimate era began with the S&P 500’s forward P/E multiple at 7. That rock-bottom starting point paved the way for an annualized 2.6% valuation increase over the last 42 years, but it cannot continue indefinitely, if at all. We are confident that multiples will continue to fare better when the Fed is cutting rates than when it is hiking them, but the cutting tailwinds will likely weaken going forward, while the hiking headwinds will stiffen. Don’t Believe The Hype Tech stocks are especially vulnerable to higher interest rates and the fate of US indexes is intimately bound up with them. Aren’t you dismissing the threat from higher rates a little too easily? The Tech sector’s outsized presence in the S&P 500 has surely contributed to market anxieties over looming rate hikes. We are firmly of the view, however, that popular concerns over Tech stocks’ interest rate vulnerability are way overdone. The idea that their back-loaded earnings profile makes them acutely vulnerable to a higher discount rate in the manner of long duration bonds ignores the fact that their future cash flows are not fixed. Unlike bonds, their owners' claims on earnings ebb and flow as rates rise and fall in line with economic conditions. Chart 4Relative Tech Multiples Have Mostly Moved With Rates, Not Against Them Relative Tech Multiples Have Mostly Moved With Rates, Not Against Them Relative Tech Multiples Have Mostly Moved With Rates, Not Against Them Chart 5 We recently devoted a Special Report to pushing back against the idea that Tech stocks are hostage to interest rates. In it, we argued that a stock’s price can be viewed as the product of its earnings per share and its P/E ratio. The biggest Tech companies’ earnings have a low interest rate sensitivity because they have little debt and do not sell big-ticket items that their customers have to finance, so the purported inverse relationship between Tech stocks’ relative performance and interest rates must be a function of relative P/E multiple changes. Relative Tech multiples and interest rates consistently moved together in the ten years through 2018, however, and were only sporadically negatively correlated over the last three years (Chart 4). Duration is essential for describing the sensitivity of risk-free bond returns to changes in interest rates, but it is an uncomfortable fit with equities. Treasuries exhibit a nearly perfect inverse correlation with changes in interest rates (Chart 5, top panel), but the cash flow uncertainty introduced by even the modest credit risk associated with investment grade corporate bonds reduces the correlation considerably (Chart 5, second panel). Interest rates’ impact on equities is even more attenuated. The S&P 500 is only weakly – and positively – correlated with rates (Chart 5, third panel), just like its Tech sector constituents (Chart 5, bottom panel).                Doug Peta, CFA Chief US Investment Strategist dougp@bcaresearch.com