Monetary

Highlights We cannot predict how China will manage Evergrande precisely but we have a high conviction that it will do whatever it takes to prevent contagion across the property sector. However, China’s stimulus tools are losing their effectiveness over time. The country is due for a prolonged struggle with financial and economic instability regardless of whether Evergrande defaults. A messy default would obviously exacerbate the problem. China’s regulatory crackdowns target private companies and will continue to weigh on animal spirits in the private sector. The government will be forced to use fiscal policy to compensate. The US’s and China’s switch from engagement to confrontation poses a persistent headwind for investor sentiment toward China. The new consensus that investors should buy into China’s “strategic sectors” to avoid arbitrary regulatory crackdowns is vulnerable to its own logic and to sanctions by the US and its allies. Feature China poses a unique confluence of domestic and foreign political risks and global markets are now pricing them. Property giant Evergrande could default on $120 million in onshore and offshore interest payments as early as September 23, or next month, prompting investors to run for cover. Is this crisis fleeting or part of a larger systemic failure? It is a larger systemic failure. We expect a slow-motion, Japanese-style crisis over the coming decade, marked with periodic bailouts and stimulus packages. We recommend investors stay the course: steer clear of China and stay short the renminbi and Taiwanese dollar. Tactically, stick with large caps, defensive sectors, and developed markets within the global equity universe. Strategically, prefer emerging markets that benefit from forthcoming Chinese (and American) stimulus. 1. A “Minsky Moment” Cannot Be Ruled Out The chief fear is whether the approaching default of Evergrande marks China’s “Minsky Moment.” Hyman Minsky’s financial instability hypothesis held that long periods of stable revenues lead to risky financial deals and large accumulations of systemic risk that are underpriced. When revenues cannot cover interest payments, a crash ensues followed by deleveraging. Minsky’s hypothesis speaks to debt crises in an entire economy, yet nobody knows for sure whether China’s economy has reached such a breaking point. China’s national savings rate stands at 45.7% of GDP and nominal growth exceeds the long-term government bond yield. However, a sharp drop in asset prices, especially in the property sector, could change everything, as it could lead to balance sheet recession among corporates and a fall in national income. Evergrande is supposed to make an $84 million interest payment on offshore debt and a $36 million payment on onshore debt this week, and after 30 days it would default. It owes $37 billion in debt payments over the next 12 months but only has $13 billion cash on hand (as of June 30, 2021). Authorities can opt for a full bailout or a partial bailout, in which the company defaults on offshore bonds but not onshore. They could even let the company fail categorically, though that would produce exactly the kind of precipitous drop in property asset prices that would lead to wider financial contagion. State intervention to smooth the crisis is more likely – and the government can easily pressure other companies into acquiring Evergrande’s assets and business divisions. Chart 1Yes, This Could Be China's Minsky Moment Chart 1 shows that China’s corporate debt-to-GDP ratio stands head and shoulders above other countries that experienced financial crises in recent decades, courtesy of our Emerging Markets Strategy. While China can undoubtedly bear large debts due to its savings, the implication is that China has large enough financial imbalances to suffer a full-fledged financial crisis, even if the timing is hard to predict. Household credit is also elevated at 61.7% of GDP, and the household debt-to-disposable-income ratio is now higher than in the United States. About two-thirds of China’s corporate debt is held by state-owned or state-controlled entities, prompting some investors to dismiss the gravity of the risk. However, financial crises often involve the transfer of debt from the state to private sector or vice versa. 59% of bond defaults in H1 2021 have involved state companies. Total debt is the main concern. Don’t take our word for it: China’s Communist Party has warned for the past decade about the danger of “implicit guarantees” and “moral hazard” that encourage financial excesses in the corporate sector. The Xi Jinping administration has tried to induce a deleveraging process since it came to power in 2012-13. Xi’s “three red lines” for the property sector precipitated the current turmoil. Even if Evergrande’s troubles are managed, China’s systemic risks will continue to boil over as its potential growth rate slows and the government continues trying to wring out financial excesses. Chart 2Policy Uncertainty, Financial Stress Can Rise Higher More broadly China is experiencing an unprecedented overlap of economic and political crises: The population is aging and labor force is shrinking; The economic model since 2009 has been changing from export-manufacturing to domestic-oriented, investment-driven growth; Indebtedness is spreading from corporates to households and ultimately the government; The governance model is shifting from “single-party rule” to “single-person rule” or autocracy; The population is reaching middle class status and demanding better quality of life; The international trade environment is turning from hyper-globalization to hypo-globalization; The geopolitical backdrop is darkening with the US and its allies attempting to contain China’s ambitions of regional supremacy. Almost all of these changes bring more risks than opportunities to China over the long haul. The need for rapid policy shifts provides the ostensible reasoning for President Xi Jinping’s decision not to step down but to remain president for the foreseeable future. He will clinch this position at the twentieth national party congress in fall 2022. The implication is that policy uncertainty will continue climbing up to at least 2019 peaks while offshore equity markets will continue to trend lower, as they have done since the onset of the US trade war (Chart 2). Credit default swap rates have so far been subdued but they are showing signs of life. A sharp rise in policy uncertainty and property sector stress would pull them up. Domestic equities (A-shares) have rallied since 2019 but we would expect them to fall back given China’s historic confluence of structural and cyclical challenges, which will create further negative surprises (Chart 2, bottom panel). 2. Beijing Will Provide Bailouts And Stimulus Ad Nauseum Evergrande’s future may be in doubt but Beijing will throw all its power at stopping nationwide financial contagion. True, a policy miscalculation is possible. A tardy or failed intervention cannot be ruled out. However, investors should remember that a clear pattern of bailouts and stimulus has emerged over the course of the Xi Jinping administration whenever a “hard landing” or financial collapse loomed. The government tightens controls on bloated sectors until the financial fallout threatens to undermine general economic and social stability, at which point the government eases policy. It is often forced to stimulate the economy aggressively. Chart 3 shows these cycles in two ways: China’s control of credit through the state-controlled banks, and the frequency of news stories mentioning important terms associated with financial and economic distress: defaults, layoffs, and bankruptcies. These three terms used to be unheard of among China watchers. Under the Xi administration, a higher tolerance of creative destruction has served as the way to push forward reform. The current rise in distress is not extended, suggesting that more bad news is coming, but it also shows that the government has repeatedly been forced to provide stimulus even under the Xi administration. Chart 3Xi Jinping Has Bailed Out System Three Times Already Could this time be different? Not likely. The American experience and the pandemic will also force China’s government to ease policy: China learns from US mistakes. The US lurched from Lehman’s failure into a financial crisis, an impaired credit channel, a sluggish economic recovery, a spike in polarization, policy paralysis, a near-default on the national debt, a surge in right- and left-wing populism, the tumultuous Trump presidency, widespread social unrest, a contested leadership succession, and a mob storming the nation’s capitol (Chart 4). This is obviously the nightmare of any Chinese leader and a trajectory that the Xi administration will avoid at any cost. Chart 4Lehman Brothers A Powerful Disincentive For China To Let Evergrande Fail Chinese households store their wealth in the property sector, so any attempt at policy restraint or austerity faces a massive constraint. Only a few countries are comparable to China with respect to the share of non-financial household wealth (property and land) within total household wealth. All of them are hosts of property sector bubbles, including the bubbles in Spain and Ireland back in 2007 (Chart 5). A property collapse would destroy the savings of the Chinese people over four decades of prosperity. Chart 5Property Is The Bedrock Of Chinese Households Social instability is already flaring up. Almost all China experts agree that “social stability” is the Communist Party’s bottom line. But note that the Evergrande saga has already led to protests, not only at the company’s headquarters in Shenzhen but also in other cities such as Shenyang, Guangzhou, Chongqing. Protests were filmed and shown on social media (posts have been censored). Protesters demanded repayment for wealth management products gone sour and properties they are owed that have not been built. This is only a taste of the cross-regional protests that would emerge if the broader property sector suffered. The lingering COVID-19 pandemic is still relevant. Investors should not underrate the potential threat that the pandemic poses to the regime. Severe epidemics have occurred about 11% of the time over the course of China’s history and they often have major ramifications. Disease has played a role in the downfall of six out of ten dynasties – and in four cases it played a major role. It would be suicidal for any regime to add self-inflicted economic collapse to a lingering pandemic (Table 1). Table 1Disease Threatens Chinese Dynasties – Not A Time To Self-Inflict A Recession Easing policy does not necessarily mean bringing out the “bazooka” and splurging on money and credit growth, though that is increasingly likely as the crisis intensifies. Notably the July Politburo statement specifically removed language that said China would “avoid sharp turns in policy.” In other words, sharp turns might be necessary. That can only mean sharp reflationary turns, as there is very little chance of doubling down on policy tightening. A counterargument holds that the Chinese government is now exclusively focused on power consolidation to the neglect of financial and economic stability. Perhaps the leadership is misinformed, overconfident, or thinks a financial collapse will better purge its enemies – along the lines of the various political purges under Chairman Mao Zedong. Wealthy tech magnates and property owners could conceivably challenge the return of autocracy. After all, the US political establishment almost “fell” to a rich property baron – why couldn’t China’s Communist Party? Political purges should certainly be expected ahead of next year’s party congress. But not to the point of killing the economy. The government would not be trying to balance policy tightening and loosening so carefully if it sought to induce chaos. It must be admitted, however, that the change to autocracy means that the odds of irrational or idiosyncratic policy have gone up substantially and permanently. Of course, the high likelihood that Beijing will provide bailouts and stimulus should not be read as a bullish investment thesis, even though it would create a pop in oversold assets. The Chinese system is saturated with money and credit, which have been losing their effectiveness in driving growth. Financial imbalances get worse, not better, with each wave of credit stimulus. Beijing is caught between a rock and a hard place. Hence stimulus comes only reluctantly and reactively. But it does come in the end because a financial crash would threaten the life of the regime and preclude all other policy priorities, domestic and foreign. 3. Yes, China’s Regulatory Crackdown Targets The Private Sector Global growth and other emerging economies will get most of the benefit once China stimulates, since China’s own firms will still face a negative domestic political backdrop. Bullish investors argue that the government’s regulatory tightening is misunderstood and overblown. The claim is that China is not targeting the private sector generally but only isolated sectors causing social problems. Costs need to be reduced in property, education, and health to improve quality of life. China shares the US’s and EU’s desire to rein in tech giants that monopolize their markets, abuse consumer data and privacy, and benefit from distorted tax systems. Most of these arguments are misleading. China does not have a strong record on data privacy, equality, social safety nets, rule of law, or “sustainable” growth (as opposed to “unsustainable,” high-debt, high-polluting growth). China actively encourages state champions that monopolize key sectors. Many developed markets have better records in these areas, notably in Europe, yet China is eschewing these regulatory models in preference for an approach that is arbitrary and absolutist, i.e. negative for governance. As for the private sector, animal spirits have been in a long decline throughout the past decade. This is true whether judging by money velocity – i.e. the pace of economic activity relative to the increase in money supply – or by households’ and businesses’ marginal propensity to save (Chart 6). The 2015-16 period shows that even periodic bouts of government stimulus have not reversed the general trend. Regulatory whack-a-mole and financial turmoil will not improve the situation. Chart 6Private Sector Animal Spirits Depressed Throughout Xi Era Chart 7Even Official Data Shows Consumer Confidence Flagging Surveys of sentiment confirm that the latest developments will have a negative effect (Chart 7). Cumulatively, the changes in China’s domestic and international policy context are being interpreted as negative for business, entrepreneurship, and economic freedom – notwithstanding the government’s claims to expand opportunity in its “common prosperity” plan. 4. The Withdrawal Of US Friendship Is A Headwind For China Chart 8Other Asians Sought US Friendship, Not Conflict, When Export Models Expired All of the successful Asian economies – including China for most of the past forty years of prosperity – have tried to stay on the good side of the United States. By contrast, China and the US today are shifting from engagement to confrontation and breaking up their economic ties (Chart 8). This is a problem for China because the US and to some extent its allies will seek to undermine China’s economy and its autocratic model as part of this great power competition. The rise in geopolitical risk is underscored by the Australia-UK-US (AUKUS) agreement, by which the US will provide Australia with nuclear submarines over the next decade. This was a clear demonstration of the US’s “pivot to Asia” and the fact that the US and China are preparing for war – if only to deter it. China’s return to autocracy and clash with the US and Asian neighbors is also leading to a deterioration of its global image, particularly over issues of transparency and information sharing. The dispute over the origins of COVID-19 is a major source of division with the US and other countries. Transparency is important for investors. The World Bank has discontinued its “Ease of Doing Business” rankings after a scandal was revealed in which China’s ranking was artificially bumped up. The last-published trend is still downward (Chart 9). Most recently China has stepped up censorship of its financial news media amid the current market turmoil, which makes it harder for investors to assess the full extent of property and financial risks.1 The US political factions agree on China-bashing if nothing else. The Biden administration has little political impetus to eschew tariffs and export controls. One important penalty will come from the Securities and Exchange Commission, which is likely to ban Chinese firms from US stock exchanges unless they conform to common accounting standards. Hence the dramatic fall in the share prices of Chinese companies listed via American Depository Receipts (ADRs), in both absolute and relative terms (Chart 10, top panel). This threat prompted China’s recent crackdown on its own firms that were attempting to hold initial public offerings on US exchanges. Chart 9US Conflict Exposes China’s Global Influence Campaign The Quadrilateral Forum – the US, Japan, Australia, and India – has agreed to link the semiconductor supply chain to human rights standards, foreclosing China’s participation in that supply chain. US semiconductor firms are among the most exposed to China but they have not suffered over the course of the US-China tech war, suggesting that US vulnerabilities are limited (Chart 10, bottom panel). Chart 10US Regulators Will Kick Chinese Firms While They Are Down The point is not to exaggerate the strength of the US and its allies but rather the costs to China of actively opposing them. The US has a difficult enough time cobbling together a coalition of states to impose sanctions on Iran over its nuclear program, not to mention forming any coalition that would totally exclude and isolate China. China is far more important to US allies than Iran – it is irreplaceable in the global economy (Chart 11). The EU and China’s Asian neighbors will typically restrain the US’s more aggressive impulses so as not to upset the global recovery or end up on the front lines of a war.2 Chart 11No Substitute For China In Global Economy This diplomatic constraint on the US is probably positive for global growth but not for China per se. American allies are still able to increase the costs on China for pursuing its own state-backed development path and geopolitical sphere of influence. Japan, Australia, and others are likely to veto China’s application to join the Comprehensive and Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP), while the UK and eventually the US are likely to join it. Investors should view US-China ties as a headwind at least until the two powers manage to negotiate a diplomatic thaw, i.e. substantial de-escalation of tensions. A thaw is unlikely in the lead-up to Xi Jinping’s consolidation of power and the US midterm elections in fall 2022. Presidents Biden and Xi are still working on a bilateral summit, not to mention a more substantial improvement in ties. We doubt a diplomatic thaw would be durable anyway but the important point is that until it happens China will face periodic bouts of negative sentiment from the emerging cold war. Other Asian economies thrived under US auspices – China is sailing in uncharted waters. 5. Global Investors Cannot Separate Civilian From State And Military Investments The word on Wall Street is that investors should align their strategies with those of China’s leaders so as not to run afoul of arbitrary and draconian regulators. For example, instead of “soft tech” or consumer-oriented companies – like those that give people rides, deliver food, or make creative video games – investors should invest in “hard tech” or strategic companies like those that make computer chips, renewable energy, biotechnologies, pharmaceuticals, and capital equipment. There is no question that the trend in China – and elsewhere – is for governments to become more active in picking winners and losers. Industrial policy is back. Investors have no choice but to include policy analysis in their toolbox. However, for global investors, an investment strategy of buying whatever the government says is far from convincing. The most basic investment strategy in keeping with the Xi administration’s goals would be to invest in state-owned enterprises in domestic equity markets. So SOEs should have outperformed the market, right? Wrong. They were in a downtrend prior to the 2015 bubble, the burst of which caused a further downtrend (Chart 12, top panel). Similarly, the preference for “hard tech” over “soft tech” is promising in theory but complicated in practice: hard tech is flat-to-down over the decade and down since COVID-19 (Chart 12, middle panel). It has underperformed its global peers (Chart 12, bottom panel). China’s policy disposition should be beneficial for industrials, health care, and renewable energy. First, China is doubling down on its manufacturing economy. Second, the population is aging and health care is a critical part of the common prosperity plan. Third, green energy is a way of diversifying from dependency on imported oil and natural gas. However, the profile of these sectors relative to their global counterparts is only unambiguously attractive in the case of industrials, which began to outperform even during the trade war (Chart 13). Chart 12State Approved' Trades Still Bring Risks Chart 13Beware 'State Approved' Trades In Table 2 we outline the valuations and political risks of onshore equity sectors. Valuations are not cheap. Domestic and foreign risks are not fully priced. Table 2China Onshore Equities, Valuations, And (Geo)Political Risks There is a bigger problem for global investors, especially Americans: investing in China’s strategic sectors directly implicates investors in the Communist Party’s domestic human rights practices, state-owned enterprises, and national security goals. “Civil-military fusion” is a well-established doctrine that calls for the People’s Liberation Army to have access to the cutting-edge technology developed by civilians and vice versa. These investments will eventually be subject to punitive measures since the US policy establishment believes it can no longer afford to let US wealth buttress China’s military and technological rise. Investment Takeaways China may or may not work out a partial bailout for Evergrande but it will definitely provide state assistance and fiscal stimulus to try to prevent contagion across the property sector and financial system. Bad news in the coming weeks and months will be replaced by good news in this sense. However, the fact that China will eventually be forced to undertake traditional stimulus yet again will increase its systemic financial risks, in a well-established pattern. The best equity opportunities will lie outside of China, where companies will benefit from global recovery yet avoid suffering from China’s unique confluence of domestic and foreign political risks. We prefer developed markets and select emerging markets in Latin America and Asia-ex-China. Chinese households and businesses are downbeat. This behavior cannot be separated from the historic changes in the economy, domestic politics, and foreign policy. It is hard to see an improvement until the government boosts growth and the 2022 political reshuffle is over. American opposition is a bigger problem for China than global investors realize. Not only are the two economies divorcing but other democracies will distance themselves from China as well – not because of US demands but because their own manufacturing, national security, and ideological space is threatened by China’s reversion to autocracy and assertive foreign policy. Investing in China’s “hard tech” and strategic sectors with government approval is not a simple solution. This approach will directly funnel capital into China’s state-owned enterprises, domestic security forces, and military. As such the US and West will eventually impose controls. Investments may not be liquid since China would suffer if capital ever fled these kinds of projects. Both American and Chinese stimulus is looming this winter but the short run will see more volatility. We are closing our long JPY-KRW tactical trade for a gain of 4.4%   Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1 We have often noted in these pages over the past decade that multilateral organizations overrated improvements in China’s governance based on policy pronouncements rather than structural changes. 2 Still, tensions among the allies should not be overrated since they share a fundamental concern over China’s increasing challenge to the current global order. The EU is pursuing trade talks with Taiwan, and there are ways that the US can compensate France over the nullification of its submarine sales to Australia (most of which are detrimental to China’s security).

Highlights Economy – The inflation question is unresolved, and it will remain that way for the rest of the year: August’s CPI report had something for everyone and ensured the debate will continue. Doves could celebrate the month-over-month decline while hawks could argue that upward inflation pressures are no longer a transitory phenomenon. Markets – Elevated valuations make equities vulnerable, but a little turmoil in China is not likely to trigger a de-rating wave: The demise of large Chinese property developer Evergrande may cause some upheaval in China but it is not likely to ruffle the S&P 500, corporate bonds or other US spread product. Strategy – Policymakers continue to hold the key. As long as the Fed is still easing, and households direct some of their excess savings to consumption, risk assets should outperform: We still think Goldilocks is far more likely that a too-cold or a too-hot outcome. Feature We continue to view the prospects for financial markets and the economy through a Goldilocks-and-the-two-tails lens, with the idea that equities and credit will thrive against a backdrop of supercharged growth and ongoing policy support (Figure 1). The Fed’s unusually pro-cyclical stance will prolong the macro sweet spot for risk assets and ensure positive excess returns provided growth doesn’t flop (the too-cold left tail), or the inflation genie doesn’t get out of the bottle (the too-hot right tail). Though both flanks pose a risk to our base-case Goldilocks scenario, we deem overheating to be the bigger concern. Unless a vaccine-resistant variant reestablishes COVID-19 as a mortal threat to the broad population, we think it is unlikely that growth will tumble below trend this year or next. Figure 1Goldilocks And The Two Tails One does not need to be a sworn devotee of rugged individualism to harbor some misgivings about the magnitude and scope of the direct transfers to American households or the broader fiscal effort to combat the economic effects of the pandemic. Egged on by support amounting to 25% of a year’s output, it remains entirely possible that aggregate demand might overwhelm productive capacity. The emergence of rolling bottlenecks in the spaces that were most crimped by COVID has focused attention on the threat of overheating, but the more lasting risk emanates from spaces that cannot be dismissed as unduly influenced by the pandemic. We have been closely monitoring the path of consumer prices and will continue to do so, but the ultimate outcome remains unclear. Though a Goldilocks macro backdrop remains our base-case expectation, it is far from assured. In this week’s report, we consider three potential disruptions: too much inflation, a change in the Fed’s policy course and a credit shock from China. We do not think that any of the potential disruptions is likely to change the picture in a material way and we therefore reiterate our view that investors with a twelve-month timeframe ought to maintain at least an equal weight exposure to equities and credit in a multi-asset portfolio. Fitting The August CPI Tile Into The Inflation Mosaic The pace of consumer price increases cooled in August, according to the headline and core CPIs. Both measures came in below market expectations, and the leading month-over-month series (Chart 1, dashed line) decelerated more than their year-over-year counterparts (Chart 1, solid line). Although the data were encouraging on their face, the ongoing inflation debate is nowhere near resolved. COVID continues to play havoc with the spaces it impacted most heavily, defying simple interpretations of aggregate CPI data. Base effects have warped year-over-year data once the peak pandemic months of last spring and summer entered the equation. As category-by-category analyses of the April CPI release showed, the lion’s share of the aggregate core CPI increase was powered by new and used cars and a handful of badly disrupted services like air travel, car rental, lodging and in-person entertainment. Chart 1Inflation Seems To Have Peaked Chart 2A Stunning Reversal On Used-Car Lots The semiconductor-driven production squeeze pushed up new car prices and took used car prices along for the ride as consumers turned to them as a ready substitute. Used car prices then rose even more as rental car companies frantically reversed 2020’s culling of their fleets to meet revived 2021 demand (Chart 2). By July, however, several of those categories had come off the boil and began to make more modest contributions to month-over-month core CPI growth. In August, they turned into headwinds, limiting core CPI’s sequential gain to just 0.1%. While the core index grew at its slowest rate since February, the segments that weren’t as heavily affected by the pandemic – the gray portion of the stacked bars in Chart 3 – experienced their largest price increases of the year. Those core categories less sensitive to transitory pandemic factors have eased a bit on a year-over-year basis (Chart 4, bottom panel) but the leading month-on-month measure suggests they will turn higher going forward. Chart 3Passing The Baton Shelter costs account for 41% of the core CPI basket and though spiking hotel rates (Chart 5, second panel) have made an outsized contribution to their bounce off the bottom (Chart 5, top panel), the much weightier owners’ equivalent rent and primary residence cost measures have begun to hook up (Chart 5, third panel). Series that impact the supply and demand balance for residences, like the prime-age employment-to-population ratio (Chart 5, fourth panel) and the National Multifamily Housing Council’s measures of apartment market activity (Chart 5, fifth panel), suggest that the key rent series will continue moving higher. Chart 4Transitory Factors Are Abating ... Chart 5... But Rents Are Rising The bottom line is that the August CPI report, like much of the economic data in this particularly uncertain time, offered evidence to support opposing interpretations. We will simply have to wait and see how the data evolve over the rest of the year to gain a good read on its future trajectory. We expect that inflation will continue to come down from its summer peak while remaining comfortably above the Fed’s effective 2.3-2.5% core CPI target. Such a move will underscore that its inflation criteria have been met and focus investor attention squarely on the labor market’s progress toward regaining full employment. Much Ado About Nothing The bond market has cottoned on to the fact that the labor market, not consumer price inflation, is the swing factor for monetary policy settings, and the 10-year Treasury note has essentially ignored the core CPI breakout (Chart 6). Equities have evinced little concern, reflecting the causal relationship we noted last week. High inflation by itself is not kryptonite for stocks; the restrictive monetary policy measures the Fed eventually imposes in response to high inflation are. Inflation’s market importance thus turns on the tipping point at which it heralds restrictive monetary policy. Chart 6Treasuries Are On Board With The Transitory View A Fed that believes elevated inflation readings are transitory is a Fed that will wait to restrain the economy to contain them. A Fed that is determined to let the economy run hot so as to nurture broad-based strength in the labor market is a Fed with a less sensitive inflation reaction function than has prevailed since Paul Volcker’s tenure. The same goes for a Fed that has made no secret of its desire to reset inflation expectations higher. Putting it all together, the Fed appears determined to wait until it sees the whites of inflation’s eyes before it takes action that will undermine economic growth. Our view that the Fed’s inflation reaction function has become less sensitive is independent of the identity of the chair. The revised statement on longer-run goals and monetary policy strategy was issued by the entire FOMC, and investors should not be distracted by the quadrennial reappointment parlor game, which has settled on a contest between chair Powell and board member Brainard. Although Brainard has won progressives’ admiration for her advocacy of tighter bank supervision, policy would not be materially different under her stewardship than it would be under Jay Powell’s. Monetary policy will be accommodative for a long time regardless of who is chairing the FOMC on February 1st and the Biden administration’s nomination decision will not have lasting market implications. Could A Messy Evergrande Unwind Trip Up The US Bull? The financial press last week was filled with stories about the dire condition of Evergrande Property Group (Chart 7), one of China’s largest property developers. As noted in several of last week’s reports, Evergrande is the world’s most indebted developer and its leverage burden is not news to dollar bond investors, who have increasingly required outsized yields to lend to the company.1 All three major credit rating agencies have downgraded it to the equivalent of CC, reflecting their view that default is imminent. Though a technical default may be certain, per reports that Evergrande will fail to make scheduled interest and principal payments due this week, the ultimate ripple effects are unknown. As our Emerging Markets Strategy team has noted, a broad range of outcomes are possible. At the most benign end of the continuum, the event could mark a crescendo of concerns that have been weighing on sentiment and activity, and trigger policy stimulus that produces economic and market inflections. At the other end, Evergrande could intensify the existing credit crunch, sparking a wave of self-reinforcing defaults and bankruptcies, culminating in a systemic event on the order of Lehman Brothers’ bankruptcy. Absent government intervention, the defaults will be messy. Most of the company’s assets are in the form of unfinished properties that will require additional capital and know-how before they can be monetized. Even its portfolios of completed properties may not be easy to sell in a residential market that was already slowing (Chart 8). The pall its troubles have cast over the property market will make things worse by prodding other liquidity-constrained developers to slash prices to move their own inventories. Chart 7Boom And Bust Chart 8Not Exactly A Seller's Market Our China strategists believe that the government wants to make an example out of Evergrande to impose some discipline on investors and developers. Despite repeated warnings, it has remained on the wrong side of the three red lines policy makers recently established to rein in property market excesses. Some onshore investors may be bailed out, but party officials will have no qualms about leaving offshore investors holding the bag. As China goes, so too do small neighboring economies reliant on its appetite for imports. Resource economies like Brazil, Chile and Australia that export iron ore, copper and other base metals to feed the China construction and infrastructure juggernaut could slow. Suppliers of machinery and specialized manufactured components like Japan and Europe could also feel a bit of a chill. While the US is not immune to disruptions in the rest of the world, it is a comparatively closed economy that is generally less susceptible to external troubles and has minimal financial links with the Middle Kingdom. A review of the 2020 10-Ks for the SIFI banks and Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley confirmed that the American banking system has minimal direct exposures to China and Hong Kong. Only Citigroup, which operates a meaningful commercial banking franchise in Hong Kong, has direct cross-border exposures that amount to as much as 1% of assets (Table 1). Table 1SIFI Exposures To China And Hong Kong The bottom line is that we do not view Evergrande as China’s Lehman. Policymakers may want to make an example of it but not to the point that they will stand by in the face of a broad contagion. Even if it did produce a credit event that rippled across Asian EM markets and tempered investors’ enthusiasm for risk assets more generally, US markets would benefit in a relative sense befitting the dollar’s status as a defensive currency, Treasuries’ status as the predominant risk-free asset and the S&P 500’s low-beta nature. The fall of an overextended Chinese property developer is unlikely to push the US out of Goldilocks and into too-cold territory. Investment Implications Inflation will trigger a policy change once it stays high enough for long enough to trigger the Fed’s recalibrated reaction function. Markets will sniff out a policy change ahead of time and could even catalyze a policy change if the bond vigilantes awaken from their long hibernation. When we reiterate our constructive view on markets and the economy over a three-to-twelve-month timeframe, we are reiterating our assessment that markets will not begin to prepare for the policy change within the next twelve months and that growth will appear as if it will remain on an above-trend trajectory for some time beyond. We are confident that the next twelve months will remain “safe” from a policy and a growth perspective. We have much less conviction about the next six to twelve months following next September and are acutely aware that the outlook for the second half of 2022 and the first half of 2023 will exert a meaningful influence next summer. We will adjust our views based on the incoming data, but we do think the first three to six months of our cyclical timeframe will be conducive to risk asset outperformance and therefore reiterate our recommendation to overweight equities and credit while sharply underweighting Treasuries.   Doug Peta, CFA Chief US Investment Strategist dougp@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Per Evergrande’s annual reports, its average annual interest rate on outstanding debt on 12/31/20 was 9.49%, up from 8.99% on 12/31/19, 8.13% on 12/31/18 and 8.09% on 12/31/17.

Highlights Fed: The Fed will be forced to clarify its definition of “maximum employment” in 2022, and the path of inflation will ultimately dictate how far the Fed tries to push the labor market. We expect Fed rate hikes to start in December 2022 and that the pace of hikes will proceed more quickly than is currently priced in the yield curve. Duration: Investors should maintain below-benchmark portfolio duration in anticipation of a rate hike cycle starting in December 2022. Yield Curve: Investors should position in Treasury curve flatteners. Specifically, we recommend shorting the 5-year Treasury note versus a duration-matched barbell consisting of the 2-year and 10-year notes. Feature Chart 1Bonds De-Coupled From Inflation In 2021 One of our themes this year is that US bond investors should pay more attention to the employment data than the inflation data.1 This is because the Fed has successfully convinced markets that it will not lift rates until “maximum employment” is achieved, even if inflation is strong.2 This story has played out during the past few months as bond yields have remained low despite surging prices (Chart 1). Our view is that the muted reaction in bonds is due to the widespread belief that the labor market remains far from “maximum employment” and that rate hikes are therefore a long way off. In this environment, only surprisingly strong employment prints can upset the market’s narrative and send bond yields higher. This playbook for the bond market will continue to function for the next few months. Strong employment data will pull bond yields higher and disappointing employment data will push them down. Inflation prints will be largely irrelevant for the market. But this will change next year. In fact, we see the employment data taking a back seat to the inflation data in the minds of bond investors in 2022. A More Explicit Definition of “Maximum Employment” Must Emerge In 2022 Almost everyone agrees that the US labor market is far from “maximum employment” today, but that will no longer be the case in 2022. The Appendix to this report shows the average monthly nonfarm payroll growth that is required to reach different possible definitions of “maximum employment” by a few specific future dates. For example, we calculate that average monthly nonfarm payroll growth of 414 thousand would cause the unemployment rate to reach 3.8% and the labor force participation rate to reach 63% by the end of 2022. Our sense is that the US economy will be able to add more than 414 thousand jobs per month between now and December 2022. This means that if Fed officials believe that an unemployment rate of 3.8% and a participation rate of 63% meet the definition of “maximum employment”, then they will start to lift interest rates by then. This example sets the scene for what will become next year’s most important monetary policy debate. What constitutes “maximum employment”? Does our example of a 3.8% unemployment rate and a 63% participation rate meet the definition? Or does the Fed have different targets in mind? The Fed will be forced to clarify its position on the topic as the labor market gets closer to reasonable definitions of “maximum employment”. Our sense is that, as of now, there are a range of views on the committee with some FOMC participants taking a more hawkish view of how much slack is left in the labor market and some adopting a more dovish posture. We outline the differences between the hawkish and dovish positions below, but ultimately the path of inflation in 2022 will determine which camp wins out. If inflation remains high next year, then the Fed will be quicker to declare that the labor market is at “maximum employment”, and vice-versa. The Fed’s reliance on the inflation data to settle the argument of what constitutes “maximum employment” will make inflation the most important economic indicator for bond yields in 2022. Labor Market Slack: The Hawkish Case Chart 2The Unemployment Rate Is Falling Fast The hawkish case for the US labor market reaching “maximum employment” sooner rather than later was outlined nicely last month by our own Bank Credit Analyst.3 First, the Bank Credit Analyst points out that the US labor market was likely beyond “maximum employment” before COVID-19 struck. The implication being that the Fed may move to lift interest rates before the unemployment and participation rates fully recover their pre-pandemic levels. Notice that the unemployment rate (adjusted for the post-COVID surge in people employed but absent from work) was 3.5% in February 2020, well below the Congressional Budget Office’s 4.5% estimate of the natural rate of unemployment (Chart 2).4 Today, the adjusted unemployment rate is 5.5%, not that far above the 3.5%-4.5% range of FOMC participant estimates of the natural rate. If this year’s rate of decline continues, the unemployment rate will hit 4.5% by January 2022 and 3.5% by May 2022. Of course, we know that the Fed takes a broader view of labor market utilization than just the unemployment rate. In particular, we observed sharp declines in labor force participation rates across a wide range of demographic groups when the pandemic struck last year (Chart 3). While the Fed will want to see some improvement in labor force participation, it might be unrealistic to expect the overall labor force participation rate to return to its pre-pandemic level. This is because the aging of the US population imparts a structural downtrend to the participation rate. The dashed line in Chart 4 shows where the participation rate would be if the rate of labor force participation of every individual age cohort remained constant at its February 2020 level. Even in this case, the greater flow of people into the older age groups causes the part rate to fall over time. The message from Chart 4 is that even if the participation rates of every age cohort tracked by the Bureau of Labor Statistics rebound to their February 2020 levels, we would still only expect an overall participation rate of 62.8% by the end of 2022, significantly below the 63.3% seen in February 2020. Chart 3Labor Force Participation By Age Cohort Chart 4The Demographic Downtrend In Participation On top of the demographic argument, we also notice that the pandemic led to a surge in the number of retired people last year, a number that continues to rise quickly (Chart 5). While we should probably expect some increase in the flow of people coming out of retirement to re-join the labor force as the economy recovers, it’s also logical to assume that there will be at least some hysteresis among the retired population. That is, the longer someone is retired, the less likely they are to re-enter the labor force at all. To the extent that the increase in retired people is sticky, it may be ambitious to expect a full convergence of the 55-year+ part rate back to February 2020 levels (Chart 3, bottom panel). All else equal, this will cause the labor market to reach “maximum employment” more quickly than even our demographic trendline for participation suggests. Chart 5A Surge In Retirees The question of how many FOMC participants agree with the above arguments remains open, but our sense is that there are some who will be eager to declare that “maximum employment” has been achieved before we see a full rebound in the unemployment and participation rates back to pre-COVID levels. For example, Fed Vice-Chair Richard Clarida mentioned the “demographic trend” in labor force participation in his most recent speech.5 Also, Dallas Fed President Robert Kaplan said the following in a recent interview: We’ve had 3 million retirements since February 2020. […] Some of these workers will come back into the workforce, but some of these workers are 55 and older and they’re in reasonably good financial shape and COVID has caused them to re-think whether they really want to re-enter the workforce.6 Labor Market Slack: The Dovish Case There are also good arguments on the side of those who think that an appropriate definition of “maximum employment” involves an unemployment rate closer to 3.5% than 4.5% and a participation rate that does return to pre-COVID levels, and maybe even moves higher. First, a study from the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City noted that the bulk of the recent increase in the number of retired people is explained, not by an increase in the number of retirements, but by a reduction in the flow of people from retirement back into the workforce (Chart 6).7 This suggests that pandemic-related health risks are the likely culprit behind the increase in the number of retired people, casting doubt on the idea that the increase in retired people will be sticky. Chart 6Increased Retirees: A Closer Look Second, there is a strong case to be made that even the February 2020 labor force participation rate is not high enough to meet the definition of “maximum employment”. If we look at the participation rates for 25-54 year old men and women, we see that both were in strong uptrends prior to the pandemic (Chart 7), and there is every reason to believe that they would have continued to move higher if COVID hadn’t cut the recovery short. Chart 7Part Rates Were Rising Pre-Pandemic Consider what some FOMC participants were saying prior to the pandemic: The strong labor market is also encouraging more people in their prime working years – ages 25 to 54 – to rejoin or remain in the labor force, […] So far, we have made up more than half the loss in the Great Recession, which translates to almost 2 million more people in the labor force. But prime age participation could still be higher. - Jerome Powell, November 20198 Whether participation will continue to increase in a tight labor market remains to be seen. But I note that male prime-age participation still remains below levels seen in previous business cycle expansions. - Richard Clarida, November 20199 In a more recent interview, Minneapolis Fed President Neel Kashkari expressed skepticism about the idea that labor force participation is destined to remain in a long-run structural downtrend and said that he’s “not convinced we were actually at maximum employment before the COVID shock hit us.” He also said: Getting [labor force participation] and employment-to-population at least back to where they were before [the pandemic], but not necessarily even declaring victory when we do that. I think that’s a reasonable thing for us to try to achieve.10   Inflation: The Ultimate Argument Settler What the above arguments make clear is that there are good reasons to think that the US labor market will reach some policymakers’ definitions of “maximum employment” perhaps by as early as the middle of next year. However, there are also some policymakers who will adopt a more dovish view of what constitutes “maximum employment”. Ultimately, the path of inflation will determine which camp wins out. This is because the entire concept of “maximum employment” is only meaningful when viewed alongside inflation. If employment is pushed beyond its “maximum”, it definitionally means that labor market tightness is leading to unwanted inflationary pressures. With that in mind, the Fed will increasingly refer to the inflation data next year as it tries to make its definition of “maximum employment” more precise. Crucially, what will matter for the Fed (and for the bond market) is where inflation is next year, not where it is right now. Right now, core inflation is well above the Fed’s price stability target, but it is well known that the recent increase in inflation is concentrated in a few sectors – COVID-impacted services and autos – where prices will decelerate as post-pandemic bottlenecks ease (Chart 8). Just as the Fed ignored surging prices in those sectors this year, it will ignore plunging prices in those sectors next year. What will matter for monetary policy is whether core inflation excluding COVID-impacted services and autos remains contained or rises above levels consistent with the Fed’s target (Chart 8, bottom panel). The Fed will also be inclined to declare that “maximum employment” has been achieved if wage growth is accelerating. Currently, there is some evidence of rising wages but also some major supply bottlenecks in the labor market, as evidenced by the all-time high in job openings (Chart 9). Labor supply constraints should ease next year, but the Fed will be watching closely to see if wage growth moderates in kind or continues to increase. Chart 8Watch CPI (ex. COVID-Impacted Services And Autos) In 2022 Chart 9Watch Wages In 2022 Finally, the Fed will keep a close eye on inflation expectations next year. In particular, it will monitor the Common Inflation Expectations Index and the 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rate (Chart 10). If either of these indicators break above levels consistent with the Fed’s 2% inflation target, then policymakers will be more inclined to think that “maximum employment” has been attained. Chart 10Watch Inflation Expectations In 2022 Bottom Line: The Fed will be forced to clarify its definition of “maximum employment” in 2022, and the path of inflation will ultimately dictate how far the Fed tries to push the labor market. The key indicators to monitor to decide when the Fed will declare that “maximum employment” has been attained are: core inflation excluding COVID-impacted services and autos, wage growth, inflation expectations and the prime-age (25-54) labor force participation rate (Chart 3, panel 2). Investment Implications For bond markets, the question of when the Fed decides that the labor market has reached “maximum employment” is crucial because it will determine the start of the next rate hike cycle. At present, the overnight index swap curve is priced for Fed liftoff in January 2023 and for a total of 78 bps of rate hikes by the end of 2023 (Chart 11). Chart 11Rate Hike Expectations Our expectation is that the Fed will start lifting rates in December 2022 and that rate hikes will proceed more quickly than what is currently priced in the market. The unemployment rate will be close to 3.5% by December 2022 and inflation will be sufficiently above the Fed’s target that policymakers will be inclined to view the labor market as at “maximum employment”. Investors should run below-benchmark duration in US bond portfolios to profit from this outcome. We also recommend that investors position for a flatter yield curve by the end of 2022. Specifically, we recommend shorting the 5-year Treasury note versus a duration-matched barbell consisting of the 2-year and 10-year notes. Table 1A shows fair value estimates for the 2-year, 5-year and 10-year yields as of the end of 2022 assuming the market moves to price-in the following path for the fed funds rate: The first 25 bps rate hike occurs in December 2022 Rate hikes proceed at a pace of 100 bps per year The fed funds rate levels-off at a terminal rate of 2.08%11 Table 1ATreasury Curve Fair Value Estimates: December 2022 Liftoff Scenario In that example, the 2-year and 5-year yields both rise by much more than the 10-year yield and both exceed the change that is priced into the forward curve by more than the 10-year yield. Table 1B shows the results from a similar scenario, the only difference is that the liftoff date is pushed back to March 2023. Both the 2-year and 5-year yields also rise by more than the 10-year yield in this scenario, though the delayed liftoff dampens the relative upside in the 2-year yield. Table 1BTreasury Curve Fair Value Estimates: March 2023 Liftoff Scenario Bottom Line: Investors should maintain below-benchmark portfolio duration and position in Treasury curve flatteners in anticipation of a rate hike cycle that will start in December 2022. Appendix: How Far From “Maximum Employment” And Fed Liftoff? Chart A1Defining “Maximum Employment” The Federal Reserve has promised that the funds rate will stay pinned at zero until the labor market returns to “maximum employment”. The Fed has not provided explicit guidance on the definition of “maximum employment”, but we deduce that “maximum employment” means that the Fed wants to see the U3 unemployment rate within a range consistent with its estimates of the natural rate of unemployment, currently 3.5% to 4.5%, and that it wants to see a more or less complete recovery of the labor force participation rate back to February 2020 levels (Chart A1). Alternatively, we can infer definitions of “maximum employment” from the New York Fed’s Surveys of Primary Dealers and Market Participants. These surveys ask respondents what they think the unemployment and labor force participation rates will be at the time of Fed liftoff. Currently, the median respondent from the Survey of Market Participants expects an unemployment rate of 3.5% and a participation rate of 63%. The median respondent from the Survey of Primary Dealers expects an unemployment rate of 3.8% and a participation rate of 62.8%. Tables A1-A4 present the average monthly nonfarm payroll growth required to reach different combinations of unemployment rate and participation rate by specific future dates. For example, if we use the definition of “maximum employment” from the Survey of Market Participants, then we need to see average monthly nonfarm payroll growth of +414k in order to hit “maximum employment” by the end of 2022. Table A1Average Monthly Nonfarm Payroll Growth Required For The Unemployment To Reach 4.5% By The Given Date Table A2Average Monthly Nonfarm Payroll Growth Required For The Unemployment To Reach 4% By The Given Date Table A3Average Monthly Nonfarm Payroll Growth Required For The Unemployment To Reach 3.5% By The Given Date Table A4Average Monthly Nonfarm Payroll Growth Required To Reach “Maximum Employment” As Defined By Survey Respondents Chart A2 presents recent monthly nonfarm payroll growth along with target levels based on the Survey of Market Participants’ definition of “maximum employment”. This chart is to help us track progress toward specific liftoff dates. For example, if monthly nonfarm payroll growth continues to print at the same level as last month, then we could anticipate a Fed rate hike by June 2022. Chart A2Tracking Toward Fed Liftoff We will continue to track these charts and tables in the coming months, and will publish updates after the release of each monthly employment report. Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Watch Employment, Not Inflation”, dated June 15, 2021. 2 Specifically, the Fed’s forward guidance states that it will not lift interest rates until (i) inflation is above 2%, (ii) inflation is expected to remain above 2% for some time and (iii) the labor market has reached “maximum employment”. 3 Please see Bank Credit Analyst Special Report, “The Return To Maximum Employment: It May Be Faster Than You Think”, dated August 26, 2021. 4 For details on the adjustment we make to the unemployment rate please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Overreaction”, dated July 13, 2021. 5 https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/clarida20210804a.htm 6  https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-08-09/dallas-fed-president-rob-kaplan-on-the-economy-and-monetary-policy-right-now?sref=Ij5V3tFi 7 https://www.kansascityfed.org/research/economic-bulletin/what-has-driven-the-recent-increase-in-retirements/ 8 https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/powell20191125a.htm 9 https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/clarida20191114a.htm 10 https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-08-16/neel-kashkari-on-the-fed-s-quest-to-get-to-full-employment?srnd=oddlots-podcast&sref=Ij5V3tFi 11 We assume a target range of 2% to 2.25% for the terminal fed funds rate. We also assume that the effective fed funds rate trades 8 bps above the lower-end of its target band, as is presently the case. Recommended Portfolio Specification Other Recommendations Treasury Index Returns Spread Product Returns

Highlights The equity risk premium has turned negative for the first time since 2002. It follows that any significant rise in bond yields will cause risk-asset prices to collapse, quickly flipping any incipient inflationary shock into a deflationary shock. Shorting bonds yielding 2 percent is a ‘widow maker’ trade, as anybody who has tried this with a long list of government bonds has learned to their cost, the most recent being UK gilts. Hence, the next on the list for the ‘widow maker’ is shorting the US 30-year T-bond which is now yielding 2 percent. In fact, the US 30-year T-bond is a must-own structural investment. Fractal analysis: Medical equipment versus healthcare services. Feature Chart of the WeekThe Equity Risk Premium Turns Negative For The First Time Since 2002 Mainstream investments are now priced to deliver negative, zero, or at best, feeble long-term investment returns. Mainstream investments are now priced to deliver negative, zero, or at best, feeble long-term investment returns. For example, the US 10-year Treasury Inflation Protected Security (TIPS) and the UK 10-year index linked gilt are yielding -1.3 percent and -2.8 percent respectively. Meaning that anybody who buys and holds these bonds to redemption is guaranteed a deeply negative 10-year real return. Meanwhile, in nominal yield space, 10-year government bonds yield -0.35 percent in Germany and Switzerland, 0.7 percent in the UK, and 1.3 percent in the US. What about equities? Unlike a bond’s redemption yield, equities do not offer a guaranteed long-term return for buy-and-hold investors. So, some analysts assume that the equity market’s earnings yield is the proxy for this long-term return. According to these analysts, the US equity market’s earnings yield of 4.4 percent means that it will deliver a prospective long-term real return of 4.4 percent per annum. Compared to the 10-year TIPS real yield of -1.3 percent, they argue that this offers an excess return or ‘equity risk premium’ of a comfortable +5.7 percent. Therefore, claim these analysts, equities are reasonably valued, relative to bonds, and in absolute terms.  But as we will now demonstrate, this analysis is deeply flawed. The Equity Risk Premium Has Turned Negative The equity market’s earnings yield is a valuation metric, so clearly there is some connection between it and the prospective return delivered by the equity market. Nevertheless, the crucial point to grasp is that: The equity market’s earnings yield does not equal its prospective return. Charts I-2 - I-3 should make this point crystal clear. As you can see, the earnings yield rarely equals the delivered prospective 10-year return, either real or nominal. When the earnings yield is elevated, the prospective return turns out higher. Conversely, when the earnings yield is depressed, as now, the prospective return turns out to be much lower. Chart I-2The Equity Market's Earnings Yield Does NOT Equal Its Prospective Return, Either In Real Terms... Chart I-3...Or In Nominal ##br##Terms Therefore, to take the current earnings yield of 4.4 percent and subtract the real bond yield of -1.3 percent to derive an equity risk premium of +5.7 percent is analytically flawed, just as it is analytically flawed to subtract apples from oranges. To derive the equity risk premium, the correct approach is first to translate the earnings yield into a prospective 10-year return based on the established mathematical relationship between these variables. Chart I-4 does this and shows that, based on a very tight mathematical relationship through the past thirty five years, an earnings yield of 4.4 percent translates into a prospective 10-year nominal return of just 1 percent. Chart I-4We Must Mathematically Map The Earnings Yield Into A Prospective Return... Having translated the earnings yield into a prospective 10-year nominal return of 1 percent, we can now make an apples-for-apples comparison with the 10-year T-bond yield of 1.3 percent (Chart I-5). Chart I-5...And Only Then Subtract The Bond Yield Derived correctly therefore, the equity risk premium has turned negative for the first time since 2002 (Chart of the Week). We deduce that the equity market is very richly valued both in absolute terms and relative to bonds. And crucially, that this rich valuation is contingent on bond yields remaining ultra-low, or going even lower. Shorting Bonds Yielding 2 Percent Is A ‘Widow Maker’ All of which brings us to one of the most pressing questions we get from clients. When a bond is offering a feeble yield, what is the point in owning it? Maybe the best people to answer are the casualties of the now infamous ‘widow maker’ trades. The original widow maker trade was the idea that the yield on the Japanese Government Bond (JGB), at 2 percent, was so feeble that there was no point in owning it. Furthermore, with massive Japanese fiscal stimulus coming down the pike, the ‘no-brainer’ investment strategy was not just to disown the JGBs, but to take an outright short position, as it seemed that the only direction that JGB yields could go was up. In fact, JGB yields did not go up, they continued to trend down. As feeble yields became even feebler, the owners of the short positions got carried out of their careers, feet first. Meanwhile, those investors who owned 30-year JGBs yielding a ‘feeble’ 2 percent in 2013 reaped returns of 75 percent, and even now, are sitting on handsome profits of 55 percent. Some people protest that Japan is an exceptional and isolated case, rather than a template for economies which will not repeat their putative policy-errors. Such protests have always struck us as factually wrong, blinkered, and even prejudiced. Nevertheless, let’s indulge these prejudices with a simple rejoinder – forget Japan, what about Switzerland, or the UK? (Chart I-6) Chart I-6Shorting Bonds Yielding 2 Percent Is A 'Widow Maker' Just like the JGB widow maker, anybody who shorted UK gilts yielding 2 percent is nursing heavy losses. Meanwhile, those investors who owned 30-year UK gilts yielding a ‘feeble’ 2 percent in 2018 reaped returns of 40 percent, and even now are sitting on tidy profits of 30 percent. Just like the JGB widow maker, anybody who shorted UK gilts yielding 2 percent is nursing heavy losses. Bear in mind that a 30-year bond yielding a feeble 2 percent will deliver a cumulative return of more than 80 percent to redemption. And that if the feeble yield becomes even feebler, this return will get front-end loaded, creating widow makers for the short positions and spectacular gains for the long positions, as witnessed in JGBs and UK gilts. The 30-Year T-Bond Is A Must-Own Structural Investment The next candidate for the widow maker is shorting the US 30-year T-bond, which is yielding, you guessed it, 2 percent. Remember that while Japan may not be a great template for the US, the UK certainly is – because the US and UK have very similar economic, financial, political, social, and cultural structures. Until recently therefore, bond yields in the US and UK were moving in near-perfect lockstep (Chart I-7). Chart I-7The Difference Between US And UK Bond Yields Is Just That The UK Has Had One More Deflationary Shock So, what happened? The one word answer is: Brexit. The recent difference between US and UK bond yields is simply that the UK has had one more deflationary shock than the US. Put the other way around, the US is just one deflationary shock away from a UK level of bond yields – meaning the 30-year yield not at 2 percent, but at 1 percent. But why can’t the next shock be an inflationary shock resulting in much higher yields? The simple answer is that the equity risk premium has turned negative for the first time since 2002. Moreover, as we pointed out in The Road To Inflation Ends At Deflation the extremely rich valuation of $300 trillion of global real estate is also highly contingent on ultra-low bond yields. It follows that any significant rise in bond yields will collapse the value of $500 trillion of risk-assets. In a $90 trillion global economy, this will quickly flip any incipient inflationary shock into a deflationary shock. Any significant rise in bond yields will collapse the value of $500 trillion of risk-assets. We conclude that the US 30-year T-bond is a must-own structural investment. Fractal Analysis Update As hospitals have rushed to clear their backlog of non-pandemic treatments and procedures, medical equipment stock prices have surged. This is particularly true for US medical equipment (ticker IHI) which, since June, is up by 25 percent versus US healthcare services (Iqvia, Veeva, or loosely proxied by ticker XHS). Given that the backlog of treatments will eventually clear, and that the intense rally is now extremely fragile on its 65-day fractal structure (Chart I-8), a recommended countertrend trade is to short US medical equipment versus healthcare services. Set the profit target and symmetrical stop-loss at 8.5 percent.  Chart I-8The Intense Rally In Medical Equipment Stocks Has Become Fragile   Dhaval Joshi Chief Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com Fractal Trading System Fractal Trades 6-Month Recommendations Structural Recommendations Closed Fractal Trades Closed Trades Asset Performance Equity Market Performance   Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields ##br##- Euro Area Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields ##br##- Europe Ex Euro Area Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields ##br##- Asia Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields ##br##- Other Developed   Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-5Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations  

Highlights Chart 1Employment Growth Will Rebound August’s weak employment growth reflects the surge of Delta variant COVID cases in the United States. This is evidenced by the fact that Leisure & Hospitality sector payrolls held flat in August after having grown by 415k in July and 397k in June (Chart 1). While Delta could still be a drag on employment growth for another month or two, there is mounting evidence that the daily new case count is close to its peak. Leisure & Hospitality employment growth will regain its prior pace as new Delta cases trend down. This will lead to a resumption of strong monthly payroll reports (500k – 1000k) as we head into the new year. For monetary policy, we calculate that average monthly nonfarm payroll growth of 414k will be sufficient for the Fed to start rate hikes before the end of 2022 (bottom panel). We anticipate that this threshold will easily be met. The Treasury curve will bear-flatten as employment growth improves and the market prices-in an earlier start and quicker pace of Fed rate hikes. Investors should maintain below-benchmark portfolio duration and stay short the 5-year Treasury note versus a duration-matched 2/10 barbell. Feature Table 1Recommended Portfolio Specification Table 2Fixed Income Sector Performance Investment Grade: Neutral Chart 2Investment Grade Market Overview Investment grade corporate bonds underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 5 basis points in August, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to +166 bps. The combination of above-trend economic growth and accommodative monetary policy supports continued positive excess returns for spread product versus Treasuries. At 91 bps, the 3-year/10-year Treasury slope remains steep. This is a strong signal that monetary conditions are accommodative. But despite the positive macro back-drop, investment grade valuations are extremely tight (Chart 2). A recent report looked at what different combinations of Treasury slope and corporate spreads have historically signaled for corporate bond excess returns.1 It shows that tight corporate spreads only correlate with negative excess returns once the 3-year/10-year Treasury slope is below 50 bps. Though we retain a positive view of spread product as a whole, better value can be found outside of the investment grade corporate sector. Specifically, we recommend that investors shift into high-yield corporates, municipal bonds and USD-denominated Emerging Market sovereigns and corporates. We also advise investors to favor long-maturity corporate bonds and those corporate sectors with elevated Duration-Times-Spread.2  Table 3ACorporate Sector Relative Valuation And Recommended Allocation* Table 3BCorporate Sector Risk Vs. Reward* High-Yield: Overweight Chart 3High-Yield Market Overview High-Yield outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 66 basis points in August, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +502 bps. A recent report looked at the default expectations that are currently priced into the junk index and considered whether they are likely to be met.3 If we demand an excess spread of 100 bps and assume a 40% recovery rate on defaulted debt, then the High-Yield index embeds an expected default rate of 3.0% (Chart 3). Using a model of the 12-month trailing speculative grade default rate that is based on gross corporate leverage (pre-tax profits over total debt) and C&I lending standards, we estimate that the 12-month default rate will fall to between 2.3% and 2.8%, below what the market currently discounts. Notably, the corporate default rate is tracking at an annualized rate of roughly 1.7% through the first seven months of the year, well below the estimate generated by our macro model. Another recent report looked at the incremental spread pick-up investors can earn by moving out of investment grade corporates and into junk.4 It concluded that the extra spread available in high-yield is worth grabbing and that B-rated bonds look particularly attractive in risk-adjusted terms.   MBS: Underweight Chart 4MBS Market Overview Mortgage-Backed Securities underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 3 basis points in August, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to -67 bps. The nominal spread between conventional 30-year MBS and equivalent-duration Treasuries tightened 4 bps in August. The spread is wide compared to recent history, but it remains tight compared to the pace of mortgage refinancings (Chart 4). The conventional 30-year MBS option-adjusted spread (OAS) widened 2 bps in August (panel 2), and it is now starting to look attractive compared to other similarly risky spread sectors. The conventional 30-year MBS OAS sits at 38 bps, below the 56 bps offered by Aa-rated corporate bonds but above the 20 bps offered by Aaa-rated consumer ABS and the 35 bps offered by Agency CMBS. In a recent report we looked at MBS performance and valuation across the coupon stack.5 We noted that the higher convexity of high-coupon MBS makes them likely to outperform lower-coupon MBS in a rising yield environment. Higher coupon MBS also have greater OAS than lower coupons. This makes the high-coupon MBS more likely to outperform in a flat bond yield environment as well. Given our view that bond yields will be higher in 6-12 months, we recommend favoring high coupons (4%, 4.5%) over low coupons (2%, 2.5%, 3%) within an overall underweight allocation to Agency MBS. Government-Related: Neutral Chart 5Government-Related Market Overview The Government-Related index outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 27 basis points in August, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +84 bps (Chart 5). Sovereign debt outperformed duration-equivalent Treasuries by 122 bps in August, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +7 bps. Foreign Agencies outperformed the Treasury benchmark by 8 bps on the month, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +44 bps. Local Authority bonds outperformed by 9 bps in August, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +382 bps. Domestic Agency bonds outperformed by 3 bps, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +30 bps. Supranationals outperformed by 5 bps, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +31 bps. USD-denominated Emerging Market (EM) Sovereign bonds outperformed US corporates in August and relative valuation between the two sectors is starting to equalize (panel 4). That said, we retain a preference for EM sovereigns over US corporates, particularly the bonds of Russia, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, UAE and Qatar where value remains attractive. A recent report looked at valuation within the investment grade USD-denominated EM corporate space.6 It found that EM corporates are attractively priced relative to US corporate bonds across the entire investment grade credit spectrum. It also found that EM corporates are attractive relative to EM sovereigns within the A and Baa credit tiers. EM sovereigns have the edge in the Aa credit tier. Municipal Bonds: Overweight Chart 6Municipal Market Overview Municipal bonds underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 9 basis points in August, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to +262 bps (before adjusting for the tax advantage). The economic and policy back-drop remains favorable for municipal bond performance. Trailing 4-quarter net state & local government savings were already positive through the end of Q1 2021 and they received another significant boost in Q2 as funds from the American Rescue Plan were doled out (Chart 6). With state & local government balance sheets in such good shape, we are comfortable moving down in quality within municipal bonds. A move down in quality is especially compelling because of tight Aaa muni valuations relative to Treasuries (top panel). Valuation is more compelling in the lower investment grade credit tiers, especially at the long-end of the curve.7 GO munis in the 12-17 year maturity bucket offer a 5% breakeven tax rate versus corporates with the same credit rating and duration. 12-17 year Revenue munis actually offer a before-tax yield pick-up (panel 2). Finally, high-yield muni spreads are reasonably attractive relative to high-yield corporates, offering a breakeven tax rate of 23% (panel 4). But despite the attractive spread, we recommend only a neutral allocation to high-yield munis versus high-yield corporates as the deep negative convexity of high-yield munis makes them susceptible to extension risk if bond yields rise. Treasury Curve: Buy 2/10 Barbell Versus 5-Year Bullet Chart 7Treasury Yield Curve Overview Treasury yields moved higher in August, with the 5-year and 7-year maturities bearing the brunt of the sell-off. The 2-year/10-year Treasury slope steepened 5 bps to end the month at 110 bps. The 5-year/30-year slope flattened 5 bps to end the month at 115 bps. We expect bond yields to be higher in 6-12 months, but we also anticipate that the next significant move higher in bond yields will coincide with curve flattening, not steepening. At 1.93%, the 5-year/5-year forward Treasury yield is not that far below our target fair value range of 2% - 2.25%. In a recent report, we demonstrated that yield curve steepening only occurs when either the Fed is cutting rates or the 5-year/5-year forward yield rises.8 This means that the 2/10 Treasury curve is more likely to flatten than steepen during the next 6-12 months, even as bond yields move higher. Similarly, we observe that the overnight index swap (OIS) curve is priced for the fed funds rate to be 0.21% in one year’s time and 1.47% in five years (Chart 7). The latter rate has 146 bps of upside if it converges all the way back to its 2018 high, but this pales in comparison to the 265 bps of upside in the 12-month forward rate. The yield curve will flatten as the 12-month forward OIS rate converges with the 5-year forward rate (panel 3). Investors should position in yield curve flatteners on a 6-12 month horizon. Specifically, we recommend shorting the 5-year bullet versus a duration-matched 2/10 barbell.  TIPS: Neutral Chart 8TIPS Market Overview TIPS performed in line with the duration-equivalent nominal Treasury index in August, leaving year-to-date excess returns unchanged at +578 bps. The 10-year and 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rates both fell by 7 bps in August. At 2.37%, the 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate is near the middle of the 2.3% to 2.5% range that is consistent with inflation expectations being well anchored around the Fed’s target (Chart 8). Meanwhile, at 2.21%, the 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rate is only just below target (panel 3). With long-dated inflation expectations close to the Fed’s target levels, we see limited upside on a 6-12 month investment horizon. We also see the cost of short-maturity inflation protection falling during the next few months as realized inflation continues to moderate from its current extremely high level. This will lead to some modest steepening of the inflation curve (bottom panel). While the inflation curve has some room to steepen, we don’t see it returning to positive territory. An inverted inflation curve is simply more consistent with the Fed’s Average Inflation Target than a positively sloped one. This is because the Fed’s new framework calls for it to attack its inflation target from above rather than from below. ABS: Overweight Chart 9ABS Market Overview Asset-Backed Securities outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 3 basis points in August, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +40 bps. Aaa-rated ABS outperformed by 2 bps on the month, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +30 bps. Non-Aaa ABS outperformed by 4 bps, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +92 bps. The stimulus from last year’s CARES Act led to a significant increase in household savings when individual checks were mailed in April 2020. That excess savings has still not been spent and the most recent round of stimulus checks has only added to the stockpile (Chart 9). The extraordinarily large stock of household savings means that the collateral quality of consumer ABS is also extraordinarily high. Indeed, many households have been using their windfalls to pay down consumer debt (bottom panel). Investors should remain overweight consumer ABS and should also take advantage of the high quality of household balance sheets by moving down the quality spectrum.     Non-Agency CMBS: Neutral Chart 10CMBS Market Overview Non-Agency Commercial Mortgage-Backed Securities outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 6 basis points in August, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +193 bps. Aaa Non-Agency CMBS outperformed Treasuries by 10 bps in August, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +92 bps. Non-Aaa Non-Agency CMBS underperformed Treasuries by 9 bps on the month, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to +529 bps (Chart 10). Though returns have been strong and spreads remain attractive, particularly for lower-rated CMBS, we continue to recommend only a neutral allocation to the sector because of the structurally challenging environment for commercial real estate. Agency CMBS: Overweight Agency CMBS outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 4 basis points in August, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +91 bps. The average index option-adjusted spread held flat on the month. It currently sits at 35 bps (bottom panel). Though Agency CMBS spreads have recovered to well below pre-COVID levels, they still look attractive compared to other similarly risky spread products. Stay overweight.    Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Appendix A: Butterfly Strategy Valuations The following tables present the current read-outs from our butterfly spread models. We use these models to identify opportunities to take duration-neutral positions across the Treasury curve. The following two Special Reports explain the models in more detail: US Bond Strategy Special Report, “Bullets, Barbells And Butterflies”, dated July 25, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com US Bond Strategy Special Report, “More Bullets, Barbells And Butterflies”, dated May 15, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Table 4 shows the raw residuals from each model. A positive value indicates that the bullet is cheap relative to the duration-matched barbell. A negative value indicates that the barbell is cheap relative to the bullet. Table 4Butterfly Strategy Valuation: Raw Residuals In Basis Points (As Of August 31st, 2021) Table 5 scales the raw residuals in Table 4 by their historical means and standard deviations. This facilitates comparison between the different butterfly spreads. Table 5Butterfly Strategy Valuation: Standardized Residuals (As Of August 31st, 2021) Table 6 flips the models on their heads. It shows the change in the slope between the two barbell maturities that must be realized during the next six months to make returns between the bullet and barbell equal. For example, a reading of 12 bps in the 5 over 2/10 cell means that we would only expect the 5-year to outperform the 2/10 if the 2/10 slope steepens by more than 12 bps during the next six months. Otherwise, we would expect the 2/10 barbell to outperform the 5-year bullet. Table 6Discounted Slope Change During Next 6 Months (BPs) Appendix B: Excess Return Bond Map The Excess Return Bond Map is used to assess the relative risk/reward trade-off between different sectors of the US bond market. It is a purely computational exercise and does not impose any macroeconomic view. The Map’s vertical axis shows 12-month expected excess returns. These are proxied by each sector’s option-adjusted spread. Sectors plotting further toward the top of the Map have higher expected returns and vice-versa. Our novel risk measure called the “Risk Of Losing 100 bps” is shown on the Map’s horizontal axis. To calculate it, we first compute the spread widening required on a 12-month horizon for each sector to lose 100 bps or more relative to a duration-matched position in Treasury securities. Then, we divide that amount of spread widening by each sector’s historical spread volatility. The end result is the number of standard deviations of 12-month spread widening required for each sector to lose 100 bps or more versus a position in Treasuries. Lower risk sectors plot further to the right of the Map, and higher risk sectors plot further to the left. Chart 11Excess Return Bond Map (As Of August 31st, 2021) Footnotes 1 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The Post-FOMC Credit Environment”, dated June 29, 2021. 2 For ideas on how to increase the average spread of a US bond portfolio please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The Collapsing Credit Risk Premium”, dated July 20, 2021. 3 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The Post-FOMC Credit Environment”, dated June 29, 2021. 4 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The Collapsing Credit Risk Premium”, dated July 20, 2021. 5 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “A New Conundrum”, dated April 20, 2021. 6 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The Post-FOMC Credit Environment”, dated June 29, 2021. 7 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The Collapsing Credit Risk Premium”, dated July 20, 2021. 8 Please see US Bond Strategy / Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, “A Bump On The Road To Recovery”, dated July 27, 2021.

Highlights A trio of ECB hawks raised the prospect of an ECB taper. In the past, the current set of economic conditions in the Euro Area would have prompted the ECB to tighten policy. A potential economic deceleration this fall, the transitory nature of the Eurozone’s inflation spike, and the level of inflation expectation in the region limit the ECB’s ability to taper this week. We expect a one-off return to the pre-Q2 2021 level of asset purchases couched in a very dovish forward guidance. Peripheral bonds and European corporate bonds will outperform German and other core European paper. Stay long European curve steepeners, while buying US curve flatteners. Overweight German Bunds versus US Treasury Notes, on a USD-hedged basis. European productivity will remain structurally hampered compared to that of the US. US real bond yields will rise relative to Europe. Feature Last week, a chorus of ECB Governing Council members raised the idea among investors that the central bank may soon begin to taper its asset purchases, which prompted Bund yields to hit -0.35% on Wednesday. Robert Holzmann of Austria, Klaas Knot of the Netherlands, and Jens Weidmann of Germany all suggested that monetary conditions were too accommodative for the Eurozone and that the ECB needed to remedy this problem. The complaints of this hawkish trio reflect the current environment. In August, the Eurozone HICP reached a 3% annual rate while the preliminary estimate for core CPI clicked in at 1.6%. Meanwhile, July PPI rose to 12.1%. Such robust inflation readings are at odds with the low level of interest rates in the Eurozone, where the yields on European IG credit and 10-year Italian BTPs average a paltry 0.45% (Chart 1). Beyond the level of inflation, its broad geographic nature is an additional source of concern. Headline CPI is accelerating across all the bloc’s nations, and it stands above 2% in 82% of the members’ states. Historically, this kind of inflationary backdrop resulted in either higher interest rates or some tapering of asset purchases, especially when economic activity was also improving in the Eurozone (Chart 2). Chart 1A Gap For The Hawks Chart 2In The Past, The ECB Would Have Tightened Will the ECB listen to its most hawkish members and follow its past script? We do not believe that the Governing Council is about to start a sustained period of decreased bond buying, even if a return to the pre-Q2 2021 pace of buying is likely this fall. Thus, a dovish taper is the most likely outcome of this week’s meeting. The ECB’s Three Constraints The outlook for growth, the temporary nature of the current spike in European inflation, and the low-level of Euro Area inflation expectations limit the ECB’s ability to remove monetary accommodation. First, European economic growth is at its apex and will decelerate over the next six months. Currently, domestic activity as approximated by the Services PMI stands at near a 15-year high of almost 60. Moreover, despite the spike in COVD-19 cases linked to the Delta variant, mobility remains very robust. If anything, the decline in cases in Spain and France should lead to further improvement in mobility (Chart 3). Nonetheless, the recent fall in consumer confidence and the recent US experience, which the European economy usually follows, point to a deceleration in the Services PMI. The case for a decline in manufacturing activity is more pronounced. The European manufacturing sector responds strongly to the fluctuation of the global industrial sector. US consumer spending on durable goods is 21% above its pre-pandemic trend and is beginning to weaken as pent-up demand for such products has been satiated and households shift their spending back toward services. Moreover, the Chinese credit cycle, which leads the Eurozone Manufacturing PMI by nine months, indicates a greater deceleration in the coming quarters, because European exports to China will slow (Chart 4, top and middle panels). In response to these two forces, Europe will not diverge from the deterioration in our Global Activity Nowcast (Chart 4, bottom panel). Chart 3So Far, No Delta Impact Chart 4The Coming Manufacturing Slowdown Chart 5Abnormal Goods Inflation Second, most evidence still suggests that the current inflation increase will be temporary, despite its violence. To begin with, the spike in inflation remains consigned to the goods sectors, while services inflation stands at 1.1%, in line with the experience of the past 10 years (Chart 5). Even within goods prices, the spike in CPI is limited to sectors facing bottlenecks or linked closely to commodity and shipping prices. As Chart 6 illustrates, the categories experiencing abnormal inflation are directly related to higher energy prices, cars, complex machinery, hotels, and fresh food. Meanwhile, underlying inflation as estimated by our trimmed-mean CPI measure is bottoming, but remains at a very low 0.2% annual rate (Chart 7). Chart 6Inflation Remains A Commodity and Bottleneck Story In the same vein, the surge in Selling Price Expectations of the European Commission Business Survey is a function of commodity inflation (Chart 8). In other words, companies feel they can increase their selling prices, because natural resource prices have spiked. However, inflation across many commodities is currently peaking, which suggests that Selling Price Expectations will soon do so as well. Moreover, this process indicates that headline inflation should hit its summit by year end, because Selling Price Expectations are a coincident indicator of inflation (Chart 8, bottom panel). Chart 7Narrow Inflation Chart 8Rising Selling Prices And Commodities A wage-inflation spiral also remains far away. Historically, rapidly accelerating wage growth marked periods of elevated inflation. Despite current fears, such a development is not taking place in the Eurozone. For the whole bloc, negotiated wages are growing at a modest 1.7% annual rate (Chart 9). Even in Germany, negotiated wages are only increasing at the same rate. While some labor shortages have been reported, total hours worked remain below the equilibrium level based on the Euro Area demographic profile (Chart 9, bottom panel). Furthermore, the past ten years reveal that labor shortages only caused stronger salary growth with a multi-year delay. Third, the market doubts the credibility of the ECB when it comes to achieving a 2% inflation target. So far, survey-based inflation expectations remain below 2% at all tenors (Chart 10, top panel). The same is true of market-based measures, which are still lower than the levels that prevailed before the sovereign debt crisis of the past decade (Chart 10, bottom panel). Chart 9No Wages/Inflation Spiral Chart 10The ECB's Inflation Mandate Is Not Yet Credible Bottom Line: Risks to growth over the winter, the transitory nature of the recent inflation shock, and inflation expectations that remain significantly below target are constraints limitating the ability of the ECB to announce a true tapering of its asset purchases this Thursday. A Dovish Taper? Considering the current set of conditions prevailing in the Eurozone, we expect the ECB to announce a return to the pace of asset purchases that existed prior to Q2 2021. However, the Governing Council (GC) will go out of its way to issue clear forward guidance that strongly indicates this is not the beginning of a taper campaign. Instead, the GC will hint at the transmutation of a large proportion of the PEPP monthly buying into the PSPP after March 2022. The inflation target change enacted at the conclusion of the ECB’s strategy review in July limits the central bank’s ability to go back to its old rule book and tighten policy at the first hint of inflation. First, the ECB must believe that inflation will overshoot 2% on a durable basis, which will necessitate an upgrade to its long-term inflation forecast above the target. Too many members of the GC do not share this view, which makes it unlikely that inflation forecasts will rise this much this week. Moreover, inflation expectations are also too low to warn of a meaningful change in the behavior of European economic agents, especially if the current spike in inflation proves to be transitory. Another problem for the ECB is the Fed. If the ECB were to announce a durable tapering of its asset purchase this week, it would be doing so ahead of the Fed. The GC fears that this action would put considerable upward pressure on EUR/USD, which would create a grave deflationary tendency in the Eurozone (Chart 11). Despite these shackles, the ECB will also acknowledge that the current emergency pace of asset purchases is no longer warranted. Starting Q2 2021, the ECB increased its average monthly purchase from EUR80 billion in the August 2020 to March 2021 period, to EUR95 billion since April 2021 (Chart 12). However, these increased purchases followed a 0.1% GDP contraction in Q1 in the wake of a spike in COVID-19 cases and deaths, which prompted a large reduction in mobility. Moreover, the larger bond buying also followed large increases in bond yields across the main economies of the continent, a rise which, if it had been left unchecked, would have exacerbated the economic malaise. Chart 11The ECB Fears A Strong Euro Chart 12Normalizing Purchases None of these factors are still present. The increasing level of vaccination has dulled the economic impact of the third wave of infection. The economy is expanding robustly and, even if it slows in the months ahead, growth will remain well above trend. Crucially, financial conditions are much more generous than in the first half of the year, with a euro that trades 4% below its January peak and with yields in the bloc’s four largest economies 25 to 45 basis points below their spring peaks. Bottom Line: In response to the aforementioned crosscurrents, we anticipate the ECB to announce a return of its monthly asset purchases to the level that prevailed in the August 2020 to March 2021 period. However, the GC will also clearly indicate, as it did last March, that this policy shift is a one-off, and that investors must not anticipate any further curtailment of asset purchases over the next six months. To reinforce this guidance, we expect the ECB’s inflation forecast to show a return of HICP below 2% by the end of 2023. The GC might also hint at the roll-over of the PEPP program into the PSPP after March 2022. Investment Implications An ECB that conducts a dovish taper on Thursday will support our main fixed-income themes in Europe. First, it will remain a tailwind behind an overweight position in peripheral government bonds versus German bonds. The combination of continued purchases of EUR80 billion a month of bonds over the foreseeable future, above-trend growth, and the fiscal risk mutualization from the NGEU and REACT EU programs means that investors can continue to safely pocket the yield premium offered by BTPs and BONOs. Moreover, our geopolitical strategists expect a left-wing coalition to govern Germany after the September 26 election, which will limit the pressures to tighten budgets in the periphery over the coming years. Chart 13European Corporates Remain Attractive Second, continued liquidity injections by the ECB are also consistent with a preference for European corporate credit over government securities, especially in Germany, France, and the Netherlands. European breakeven spreads for IG and high-yield debts are in the 18th and 13th percentile rank, respectively (Chart 13). Easy monetary conditions and above-trend growth will facilitate further yield-seeking behavior in the Eurozone. This process will allow these securities to offer continued excess returns over at least the next six months. Third, we hold on to our box trade of being long Eurozone curve steepeners and long US curve flatteners. In our base case scenario, the Fed will soon indicate the beginning of its tapering campaign and will be on track to raise rates by early 2023, while the ECB will still conduct a very easy monetary policy. In this context, the US yield curve will flatten relative to the European one, driven by a more rapid increase at the short end of the curve. Chart 14Still Favor Bunds Over T-Notes Finally, in a global bond portfolio, it still makes sense to overweight German Bunds (hedged into USD) relative to US Treasury Notes. Bunds display a significantly lower yield beta than their US counterparts, which creates an attractive defensive feature in an environment in which global yields are likely to rise. Moreover, as the model in Chart 14 highlights, the US/German 10-year yield spread is roughly 50bps below an equilibrium estimate based on relative inflation, unemployment and policy rates, and the size of the Fed and ECB balance sheets. US inflation is likely to remain perkier than that of Europe over the coming quarters, and the US unemployment rate will decline faster as well. Additionally, in the unlikely scenario that the Fed declines to taper its purchases this year, but the ECB does, inflation expectations will rise in the US relative to the Euro Area, which will put upward pressure on yield spreads. Bottom Line: A dovish ECB taper, whereby the GC executes a one-off adjustment in asset purchases with an easy forward guidance, will support our overweight in peripheral government bonds relative to bunds, our preference for European corporate credit relative to government paper, our Europe / US box trade, and BCA’s underweight in Treasurys relative to Bunds. Europe’s Productivity Deficit Is Not Over Compared to the US, GDP growth in the Eurozone has been trending lower since the introduction of the euro in 1999. While a weaker demographic profile has hurt Europe, so has slower productivity growth. Going forward, the gap between European and US productivity growth will somewhat narrow compared to last decade, but it will still favor the US. The cross-Atlantic gap in output per hour growth between has a cyclical and a structural component. The cyclical element is set to ebb. Last decade, the Eurozone suffered a double-dip recession, as the European sovereign debt crisis raged. As a result, capex and debt accumulation in Europe lagged that of the US, which hurt demand and, thus, output-per-hour worked (Chart 15, top panel). Going forward, the European debt crisis has been addressed, the ECB has demonstrated its willingness to do “whatever it takes” to support the monetary union and both the European Commission and the German government have thrown their full weight behind the integrity of Europe, even if it means bailing out their profligate southern neighbors. Despite this positive, some structural headwinds will continue to handicap European productivity. Since 2000, total factor productivity in the major Euro Area economies has lagged that of the US (Chart 15, bottom panel). Many factors suggest this will not change: Chart 15Europe’s Productivity Deficit The Eurozone’s big four economies continue to linger well behind the US in terms of ICT investment, which in recent decades has been a crucial driver of productivity. R&D represents a significantly lower share of GDP in the Eurozone than it does in the US (Chart 16). More investment in intangible assets has been linked to higher productivity growth. Additionally, Ortega-Argilés et al. have shown that EU companies do not convert R&D into productivity gains as well as US businesses do, because they generate lower return on investments.1 Confirming this insight, an empirical study using microdata on R&D spending for EU and US firms highlights that both R&D intensity and productivity are lower for EU firms than for their US counterparts.2 For a 10% increase in R&D intensity, US businesses generated a 2.7% increase in productivity, while EU firms enjoyed a much smaller 1% gain. The gap is larger for high-tech companies, where the same rise in R&D intensity produced a 3.3% productivity gain in the US, but only a 1.2% one in the EU. The European economy remains much more fragmented than that of the US, and the greater prevalence of small firms in the Euro Area results in a less efficient use of the human and capital stocks. Finally, the low rate of investments in recent years has caused the European capital stock to age faster than that of the US. An older pool of assets is further away from the technological frontier and thus weighs on TFP and overall labor productivity (Chart 17). Chart 16Lagging European R&D Chart 17The Ageing European Capital Stock Notwithstanding cyclical fluctuations related to the global debt cycle, the Eurozone profit margins and RoEs will not converge meaningfully toward US levels on a structural basis because of this productivity problem. Europe’s lower industry concentration ratios, lower markups, and greater share of output absorbed by wages will only accentuate this problem. Chart 18TIPS Yields Vs Real Bunds As a result of the lower trend growth rate caused by lower productivity and its inferior return on invested capital, Europe’s R-Star is unlikely to catch up meaningfully to US levels. Consequently, the gap between US and Germany real rates will remain wide and will drive the increase in US yields relative to those of Germany, as the Fed begins to tighten policy while the ECB stands pat (Chart 18). Bottom Line: Europe’s productivity deficit is not the only consequence of last decade’s sovereign debt crisis. Thus, the Euro Area’s potential GDP growth and return on invested capital will lingers behind those of the US. As a corollary, the Eurozone’s R-star is well below that of the US. Hence, we expect higher real rates to drive the increase in US yields over Germany as the Fed tightens policy ahead of the ECB.   Mathieu Savary, Chief European Strategist Mathieu@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1R. Ortega-Argilés, M. Piva, and M. Vivarelli, “The Transatlantic Productivity Gap: Is R&D the Main Culprit?,” Canadian Journal of Economics 47.4 (2014), pp. 1342-71. 2D. Castellani, M. Piva, T. Schubert, and M. Vivarelli, “The Productivity Impact of R&D Investment: A Comparison between the EU and the US,” IZA Discussion Papers 9937 (2016). Tactical Recommendations Cyclical Recommendations Structural Recommendations Closed Trades Currency Performance Fixed Income Performance Equity Performance