Monetary

In lieu of next week’s report, I will be presenting the quarterly Counterpoint webcast titled ‘Where Is The Groupthink Wrong? And How To Profit From It.’ I do hope you can join. We will then take a summer break, so our next report will come out on August 5. Highlights The quantum theory of finance describes the strange quantum effects of ultra-low inflation, of ultra-low interest rates, and of ultra-low probabilities. The key finding of the quantum theory of finance is that when inflation and interest rates get ultra-low, inflation becomes completely insensitive to monetary policy, while risk-asset valuations become hyper-sensitive to monetary policy. The hyper-sensitivity of $500 trillion of global risk-assets to bond yields means that the ultimate low in the US T-bond yield is still to come. Given the hyper-sensitivity of equity valuations to bond yields and the demand for US assets during bond market rallies, it also means that the structural bull market in equities and the structural bull market in the US dollar are both still intact. Feature Feature ChartNear The Lower Bound In Bond Yields, Potential Losses Are Greater Than Potential Gains Near The Lower Bound In Bond Yields, Potential Losses Are Greater Than Potential Gains Near The Lower Bound In Bond Yields, Potential Losses Are Greater Than Potential Gains When things get ultra-small, the laws of physics undergo a radical shift. Classical physics breaks down, and we must to turn to an alternative theory to explain and predict the physical world. That theory is the quantum theory of physics. In this updated Special Report we propose that, just as there is the quantum theory of physics, there is The Quantum Theory Of Finance. When inflation and interest rates get ultra-low, the laws of economics and finance undergo a radical shift. And we must turn to the alternative theory to explain and predict the economic and financial world. In the physical world, the allowable values of a physical system appear to be continuous, with all values permitted. In fact, the permitted values occur in discrete ‘quanta’. At ultra-small scales, these quantum effects become the dominant driver of physical systems and form the foundation of the quantum theory of physics. Likewise, in the economic and financial world of ultra-low inflation and interest rates, quantum effects become the dominant drivers of the system. These quantum effects take three forms: The quantum effects of ultra-low inflation. The quantum effects of ultra-low interest rates. The quantum effects of ultra-low probabilities. The Quantum Effects Of Ultra-Low Inflation Even though inflation is continuous mathematically, we do not perceive it as such psychologically. Instead we perceive inflation as ‘quantum states’ of either price stability or price instability. A recent IFO paper points out that households’ inflation perceptions are “more in line with the imperfect information view prevailing in social psychology than with the rational actor view assumed in mainstream economics.”1 And in Real-Feel Inflation: Quantitative Estimation of Inflation Perceptions, Michael Ashton confirms that “it would be challenging for a consumer to distinguish 1 percent inflation from 2 percent inflation – that fine of a gradation in perception would be extremely unusual to find.”2 There are several reasons why we perceive inflation imprecisely: We do not recognise quality change and substitution adjustments. We tend to feel inflation asymmetrically, noticing goods whose prices are rising, but noticing less goods whose prices are falling. This is the classic attribution bias: higher prices are inflation, lower prices are “good shopping.” Items whose prices are volatile tend to draw more attention, and give more opportunities for these asymmetries to compound. We notice the price changes of small, frequently purchased items more than the price changes of large infrequently purchased items. We perceive the cost of homeownership as the monthly mortgage payment, and not the imputed cost of owners’ equivalent rent (OER). Yet OER is the largest single item in the US core CPI basket, weighted at 30 percent. The result of these biases is that we perceive inflation intuitively, as a quantum state rather than as a precise number within a continuum. The quantum effects of ultra-low inflation mean that policymakers can take an economy from the state of price instability to the state of price stability, and vice-versa, but they cannot sustainably hit an arbitrary inflation target within the quantum state, such as 2 percent (Chart I-2). Chart I-2Mission Impossible: 2 Percent Inflation Mission Impossible: 2 Percent Inflation Mission Impossible: 2 Percent Inflation The Quantum Effects Of Ultra-Low Interest Rates Policymakers accept that there exists an interest rate, at around -1 percent, below which there would be an exodus of bank deposits. Hence, this marks the lower bound of policy interest rates. When policy interest rates are at, or near, this lower bound, central banks can turn to a second strategy: they can promise to keep the policy rate ultra-low for an extended period. Thereby they can pull down the long bond yield towards the lower bound too. To do this, they must convince the market that their promise is genuine. Enter quantitative easing (QE) which, in the words of the ECB’s former Chief Economist Peter Praet, is nothing more than “a signalling channel which reinforces the credibility of forward guidance on (ultra-low) policy rates.” Once forward guidance plus QE has taken bond yields close to their lower bound, we start to see the quantum effects of ultra-low interest rates. Specifically, the bond investor is left with a highly asymmetric payoff – the bond price can fall much more than it can rise. Witness the performance of Swiss bonds through the past three years. The worst drawdowns have far exceeded the best gains (Feature Chart, Chart I-3 and Chart I-4). Chart I-3Swiss Bonds Offer Small Potential Gains... Swiss Bonds Offer Small Potential Gains... Swiss Bonds Offer Small Potential Gains... Chart I-4...But Big Potential Losses ...But Big Potential Losses ...But Big Potential Losses This asymmetric payoff is technically known as negative skew and it starts to take effect when bond yields decline to around 2 percent above their lower bound. So, if the lower bound for the 10-year T-bond yield is -0.5 percent, the negative skew in its payoffs would start to take effect at around 1.5 percent. One important implication of the quantum effect of ultra-low interest rates is that the asymmetry of bond payoffs becomes very similar to the asymmetry of equity and other risk-asset payoffs (Chart I-5). This is important because, as we describe in the next section, it is the skew of an asset’s payoff that establishes its absolute and relative riskiness. Chart I-5Equities Can Suffer Bigger Short-Term Losses Than Short-Term Gains (Negative Skew) Equities Can Suffer Bigger Short-Term Losses Than Short-Term Gains (Negative Skew) Equities Can Suffer Bigger Short-Term Losses Than Short-Term Gains (Negative Skew) The Quantum Effects Of Ultra-Low Probabilities We are very bad at comprehending low probabilities. For example, we cannot distinguish a 1 in a 1000 risk from a 1 in a 100 risk, even though the second risk is ten times greater than the first. This is what Daniel Kahneman’s and Amos Tversky’s Nobel prize winning Prospect Theory called the ‘quantal effect’ of ultra-low probabilities. Kahneman and Tversky discovered that our fears and hopes come in quanta rather than in a continuum, with the result that we overweight the tail-events in a payoff distribution. “Because people are limited in their ability to comprehend and evaluate extreme probabilities, highly unlikely events are either ignored or over-weighted.” If the payoff distribution is symmetric, then our overweighting of the positive and negative tails cancels out, meaning there is no impact on the value of the payoff (Figure I-1). However, if the payoff distribution is skewed, then the longer tail dominates our perceived value of the payoff. Figure I-1In A Symmetric Payoff, We Overestimate The Big Gain And the Big Loss Equally, So It Cancels Out The Quantum Theory Of Finance (Part 2) The Quantum Theory Of Finance (Part 2) A lottery payoff has an extreme positive skew. There exists a miniscule chance of winning a fortune. As we overweight this highly unlikely event, we overvalue the lottery ticket relative to its expected payoff (Figure I-2). And this explains the existence of the multi-billion dollar lottery industry. Figure I-2In A Positively-Skewed Payoff (Lottery), We Overestimate The Big Gain, So We Overpay The Quantum Theory Of Finance (Part 2) The Quantum Theory Of Finance (Part 2) Conversely, the payoff from equities has a negative skew. As we overweight the tail-event of losing a lot of money, we undervalue this negatively skewed payoff (Figure I-3). In other words, we demand a higher return from a negatively skewed payoff relative to a symmetrical payoff, such as the payoff from bonds when yields are not ultra-low. And this explains the existence of the so-called ‘equity risk premium.’ Figure I-3In A Negatively-Skewed Payoff (Risk-Assets), We Overestimate The Big Loss, So We Demand A ‘Risk Premium’ The Quantum Theory Of Finance (Part 2) The Quantum Theory Of Finance (Part 2) Crucially though, at ultra-low bond yields – when both equity and bond payoffs carry the same negative skew – we no longer demand a higher return from equities versus bonds. As the equity risk premium compresses, the return demanded from equities and other risk-assets collapses to the ultra-low bond yield. Put another way, the valuation of risk-assets soars. The Quantum Theory Of Finance, The Past And The Future The key finding of the quantum theory of finance is this. When inflation and interest rates get ultra-low, inflation becomes completely insensitive to monetary policy, while risk-asset valuations become hyper-sensitive to monetary policy. This is the story of the past decade, and most likely the story of the coming years. For over a decade now, central banks have fixated on hitting their 2 percent inflation targets when the quantum effects of ultra-low inflation make such a target unachievable. In their misguided fixation, the unleashing of trillions of dollars of QE has taken bond yields to unprecedented lows which has driven risk-asset valuations to unprecedented highs, and made them hyper-sensitive to the slightest move in bond yields (Chart I-6 and Chart I-7). Chart I-6Real Estate Prices Have Massively Outperformed Rents Real Estate Prices Have Massively Outperformed Rents Real Estate Prices Have Massively Outperformed Rents Chart I-7Equity Prices Have Massively Outperformed Profits Equity Prices Have Massively Outperformed Profits Equity Prices Have Massively Outperformed Profits Yet to be clear, though policymakers cannot consistently hit the 2 percent inflation target, they could certainly take the economy back to price instability – if they pursued ultra-loose monetary policy combined with ultra-loose fiscal policy aggressively enough for long enough. But if a major economy were to take this road – intentionally or accidentally – the $500 trillion valuation of global risk-assets that is premised on ultra-low inflation and ultra-low interest rates would collapse. As we have previously written, this means that The Road To Inflation Ends At Deflation and the ultimate low in the T-bond yield is still to come. Alternatively, another deflationary shock could take us to this ultimate low in the T-bond yield more directly. Given the hyper-sensitivity of equity valuations to bond yields and the massive portfolio inflows into US assets during shocks, this also means that the structural bull markets in equities and the structural bull market in the US dollar are both still intact. Dhaval Joshi Chief Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see Households’ Inflation Perceptions and Expectations: Survey Evidence from New Zealand, IFO Working Paper, February 2018 available at https://www.ifo.de/DocDL/wp-2018-255-hayo-neumeier-inflation-perceptions-expectations.pdf 2 Please see Real-Feel Inflation: Quantitative Estimation of Inflation Perceptions by Michael Ashton, National Association for Business Economics available at https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1057/be.2011.35.pdf Fractal Trade Update We are pleased to report that long USD/CAD achieved its 3.7 percent profit target, and short building materials (PKB) versus healthcare (XLV) achieved its 15 percent profit target. Combined with other successes, this lifts the 6-month win ratio to an all-time high of 76 percent, comprising 12.3 winners versus just 3.9 losers. This week, we present two new candidates for countertrend reversal. First, the strong recent rally in Australian 30-year bonds has reached fragility on its 65-day fractal structure. The recommended trade is to short Australian versus Canadian 30-year bonds, setting the profit-target and symmetrical stop-loss at 3.9 percent. Second, the strong recent rally in lead versus platinum has also reached fragility on its 65-day fractal structure. The recommended trade is to short lead versus platinum, setting the profit-target and symmetrical stop-loss at 6.4 percent. Chart I-8Short Australian Vs, Canadian 30-Year Bonds Short Australian Vs, Canadian 30-Year Bonds Short Australian Vs, Canadian 30-Year Bonds Chart I-9Short Lead Vs. Platinum Short Lead Vs. Platinum Short Lead Vs. Platinum 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 - Euro Area Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Euro Area Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Euro Area Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Europe Ex Euro Area Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Europe Ex Euro Area Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Europe Ex Euro Area   Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Asia Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Asia Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Asia Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Other Developed Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Other Developed Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Other Developed   Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-5Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations   Chart II-7Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations    

Highlights Global Yields: Falling global bond yields, led by US Treasuries, are an oversized response to some modest cooling of growth momentum. Global growth will remain above-trend over the next year, which will keep global inflation rates elevated and maintain pressure on central banks (outside of Europe and Japan) to withdraw monetary accommodation. Stay below-benchmark on duration exposure, and underweight US Treasuries, in global bond portfolios. ECB Strategy Review: The ECB’s new monetary policy framework is a dovish move, as it gives the central bank the leeway to maintain accommodative policy settings even if euro area inflation temporarily rises above 2%. Maintain overweights to European government bonds, both in the core and the Periphery. Model Portfolio Benchmark: We are formally including inflation-linked bonds (ILBs) in our model bond portfolio custom performance benchmark index. Stay neutral ILBs in the US, overweight ILBs in Europe and Japan, and underweight ILBs in the UK, Canada, and Australia. Letting Some Air Out Of Reflation Trades Chart of the WeekA Bear-Market Correction For Bond Yields A Bear-Market Correction For Bond Yields A Bear-Market Correction For Bond Yields The growth acceleration narrative that drove much of the performance of global financial markets in 2021 has frayed a bit, led by US bond yields. The 10-year US Treasury yield declined to an intraday low of 1.25% last week, but has since recovered to 1.36%. That is well off the 2021 intraday high of 1.78% seen in late March. The yield decline has been concentrated in longer-maturity bonds, resulting in a bullish flattening of the US Treasury yield curve. While the inflation expectations component of yields has drifted lower, the big surprise move has been a fall in US real yields, with the benchmark 10-year TIPS yield falling back to -1% (Chart of the Week). This positive price action in bonds has led to investors questioning their faith in the so-called US Reflation Trade. US small-cap stocks – a proxy for the companies that would benefit as the US economy recovers from the pandemic - have been underperforming large-caps since March. Economically-sensitive commodity prices have lost much of the sharp upward momentum seen earlier this year, with the price of copper peaking in May and lumber futures prices down more than 40% over the past month. Technology-laden growth stocks have been outperforming value stocks since May, as investors have sought the reliable earnings of the US tech giants. Markets are likely getting a bit more jittery about the near-term growth outlook given the global spread of the Delta COVID-19 variant, which raises the risk of a reversal of “reopening momentum”. Yet nominal economic growth in the major developed economies is still projected to be above the pace seen during the pre-pandemic years - when global bond yields were much higher than current levels - until at least the end of 2022, according to Bloomberg consensus forecasts of real GDP growth and headline inflation (Chart 2). This suggests that global bond yields will begin climbing again, led by the US, as persistent above-trend growth limits how much US realized inflation cools after the Q2 spike, which would go a long way towards reestablishing the bond-bearish reflation narrative. Some pullback in US reflation trades was inevitable, given crowded positioning and a growing number of US data releases disappointing versus highly elevated expectations (Chart 3). Yet forward-looking US indicators like the Conference Board leading economic indicator and the Goldman Sachs financial conditions index are still pointing to strong US growth in the second half of 2021. Chart 2Nominal Growth Expected To Remain Above Pre-COVID Pace Nominal Growth Expected To Remain Above Pre-COVID Pace Nominal Growth Expected To Remain Above Pre-COVID Pace Chart 3No Reason To Be Pessimistic On US Growth No Reason To Be Pessimistic On US Growth No Reason To Be Pessimistic On US Growth The reflation narrative has also been challenged by policy tightening in China. Last week, the reserve requirement ratio (RRR) for Chinese banks was cut by 50bps, while the credit data for June showed a stabilization of the credit impulse that has been declining since October (Chart 4). Our China strategists are not convinced that the RRR cut was the start of a full-blown easing cycle, but any additional positive policy surprises from China would help boost global growth expectations and breathe new life into the reflation narrative. For global bond markets, however, the Fed’s next moves remain critical. The FOMC minutes released last week reinforced the message from the June policy meeting, that the Fed has moved incrementally towards starting the process of monetary policy normalization. Lower real US real bond yields are the part of the reflation trade unwind that is most inconsistent with a Fed inching towards QE tapering in 2022 as the US labor market continues to tighten. The fall in US Treasury yields now looks overdone, with the 5-year/5-year forward Treasury yield now below the range of median longer-term fed funds rate forecasts from the New York Fed’s Primary Dealer Survey (Chart 5). Once the overhang of short positioning in the Treasury market is fully worked off, likely in the next month or two, Treasury yields will begin to rise again driven by steady US growth and Fed tightening expectations. Chart 4Is China Moving Towards Fresh Stimulus? Is China Moving Towards Fresh Stimulus? Is China Moving Towards Fresh Stimulus? Chart 5UST Yields Have Fallen Too Far UST Yields Have Fallen Too Far UST Yields Have Fallen Too Far Bottom Line: Falling global bond yields, led by US Treasuries, are an oversized response to some modest cooling of growth momentum. Global growth will remain above-trend over the next year, which will keep global inflation rates elevated and maintain pressure on central banks (outside of Europe and Japan) to withdraw monetary accommodation. Stay below-benchmark on duration exposure, and underweight US Treasuries, in global bond portfolios. The ECB Finds A New Way To Stay Dovish The ECB unveiled the results of its strategic review last week, with some noteworthy tweaks to the policy framework. The central bank shifted to a symmetric inflation target of 2%, a change from the prior goal of aiming for inflation “just below” 2%. While that may seem like a small distinction, it does the give the ECB some leeway in tolerating temporary bouts of inflation above the 2% target. This removes one of the rigidities of the prior framework, where the 2% level was considered to be a ceiling, a breach of which would force the ECB to tighten policy. Of course, the ECB has not had to deal with a +2% inflation rate for some time (Chart 6). The last time euro area headline inflation, core inflation and inflation expectations (using 5-year/5-year forward euro CPI swaps) were all at or above 2% was back in 2012. Today, headline inflation is at 1.9%, while core inflation is a mere 0.9% and inflation expectations are at 1.6%. ECB President Christine Lagarde noted in the press conference announcing the strategy change that policymakers wanted to break out of the current situation where a too-rigid interpretation of the inflation target could result in sustained low longer-run inflation expectations when actual inflation was persistently low. Lagarde noted that the ECB needed room to “act forcefully” if needed when inflation expectations were too low, especially give the constraint of the lower bound on policy rates. Yet with nominal policy rates already in negative territory and the ECB balance sheet now nearly €8 trillion, there is limited scope for any new policy that could be considered sufficiently “forceful”. Our measure of the market-implied path of the real ECB policy rate, derived from the forward rates from overnight index swaps and CPI swaps, shows that the market already expects negative real rates to persist in the euro area well into the next decade (Chart 7). The ECB has had to resort to cutting nominal rates below 0%, as well as embarking on massive bond buying programs and cheap bank funding programs (TLTROs), in order to appear accommodative enough to try, unsuccessfully, to raise inflation expectations back to the 2% target. Chart 6The ECB's Old 'Just Below 2%' Inflation Target Was Not Credible The ECB's Old 'Just Below 2%' Inflation Target Was Not Credible The ECB's Old 'Just Below 2%' Inflation Target Was Not Credible Chart 7Negative ECB Rates Were A Product Of Persistent Sub-2% Inflation Negative ECB Rates Were A Product Of Persistent Sub-2% Inflation Negative ECB Rates Were A Product Of Persistent Sub-2% Inflation The ECB Governing Council realized that it had a credibility problem with its prior one-sided approach to the 2% inflation target, given the persistent undershooting of that level. By moving to allow a tolerance for inflation above 2%, policymakers hope to be perceived as being more flexible – and, thus, more dovish - as even inflation above 2% would not require immediate monetary tightening.This is especially important as the neutral real interest rate (or “r-star”) has likely stopped falling with potential growth in the euro area drifting higher over the past few years, according to the OECD (Chart 8). Euro area r-star should continue to drift higher in the next few years, especially given the potential for faster productivity growth on the back of Next Generation European Union (NGEU) government investments (Chart 9). This opens a window for the ECB to implement an even more accommodative monetary stance without doing anything, by leaving policy rates untouched while the equilibrium interest rate increases. To the extent that inflation also goes up at the same time, that will further depress real interest rates and widen the gap of real rates to r-star. This will help lift euro area inflation expectations closer to the 2% target over time. Chart 8Equilibrium Interest Rates In Europe Have Stopped Falling Equilibrium Interest Rates In Europe Have Stopped Falling Equilibrium Interest Rates In Europe Have Stopped Falling Chart 9NGEU Investments Could Help Boost Potential Growth In Europe NGEU Investments Could Help Boost Potential Growth In Europe NGEU Investments Could Help Boost Potential Growth In Europe In the end, the new ECB framework was a likely compromise between the various Governing Council members, who do not share the same degree of tolerance of higher inflation. For example, it is hard to imagine the Bundesbank being a willing participant to any monetary policy that permits above-target inflation, especially in a year when the German central bank is forecasting domestic inflation to hit a 14-year high of 2.6%. This poses a future communication problem for the ECB, as no guidance was provided about how much of an inflation overshoot above 2% would be tolerated, and for how long. That is likely because there was no agreement yet within the ECB Governing Council on those parameters. The current underlying inflation dynamics in the euro area are still weak, with ample spare capacity in labor markets still dampening wage pressures. Previous episodes of euro area headline inflation climbing above 2% occurred alongside euro area wage growth of at least 3% (Chart 10). With wage growth now slowing to 2.1% after the brief pandemic-fueled spike to 5% in 2020, the euro area needs a sustained period of above-trend growth to absorb spare economic capacity and push up weak domestically-driven inflation. The ECB has given themselves the opening to stay dovish with their new policy framework. Even a forecast of inflation moving above 2% will not necessarily suggest that policy should be tightened in any way, including tapering asset purchases. Our view remains that the Pandemic Emergency Purchase Program (PEPP) will not be allowed to expire without some form of replacement program.1 The ECB simply cannot allow markets to tighten financial conditions through higher bond yields on Italian government bonds or euro area corporate debt, or through a stronger euro – all outcomes that would be likely to unfold if the ECB announced that it was letting the PEPP roll off - with inflation expectations still too low (Chart 11). Chart 10ECB Hawks Do Not Have To Fear An Inflation Overshoot ECB Hawks Do Not Have To Fear An Inflation Overshoot ECB Hawks Do Not Have To Fear An Inflation Overshoot Chart 11The ECB Will Fold The PEPP Into The APP The ECB Will Fold The PEPP Into The APP The ECB Will Fold The PEPP Into The APP We expect the ECB to make an announcement about the future of the PEPP – including the upsizing of the existing Asset Purchase Program (APP) and, potentially, the introduction of more flexibility of the rules governing the APP – at the next ECB meeting on July 22. Some changes to the ECB’s forward guidance, on both rates and future TLTROs, will likely also be unveiled in response to the new policy framework. In the end, the new strategy only confirms what most investors already know – the ECB is going to stay with a highly accommodative monetary policy for a very long time, keeping European interest rates among the lowest in the world for the next several years. Bottom Line: The ECB’s new monetary policy framework is a dovish move, as it gives the central bank the leeway to maintain accommodative policy settings even if euro area inflation temporarily rises above 2%. Maintain overweights to European government bonds, both in the core and the Periphery. Benchmarking Our Inflation-Linked Bond Allocations A little over a year ago, we added inflation-linked bonds (ILBs) to our model bond portfolio.2 At the time, our rationale was that inflation breakevens seemed extraordinarily depressed, far more than was justified by fundamentals, across developed markets. So, to gain exposure to the inevitable rebound in inflation expectations, we made an “opportunistic” addition of ILBs to the portfolio while giving them zero weighting in our model bond portfolio custom performance benchmark. Chart 12Global Inflation Breakevens Have Recovered From The Pandemic Shock Global Inflation Breakevens Have Recovered From The Pandemic Shock Global Inflation Breakevens Have Recovered From The Pandemic Shock Effectively, this constrained us to either a zero or a long-only allocation to ILBs in the portfolio. At the time, such an approach was effective with ILBs extraordinarily cheap in all developed markets. However, with inflation expectations having rebounded and now above pre-pandemic levels across the developed markets, there are grounds for a more nuanced approach (Chart 12). Today, we are formally making inflation-linked bonds part of our custom performance benchmark. With this addition, we can now take positions relative to benchmark, as we do for all other categories included in our portfolio, rather than being restricted to absolute allocations to ILBs. Not only does this approach allow us to take proper short and neutral positions on ILBs, it is also more in line with the practices followed by global fixed income portfolio managers and many of our clients, who maintain a position in ILBs at all times and include them in their own benchmarks when measuring performance. As we have for all the other categories in our Model Bond Portfolio, we are basing the relative size of our allocations off the Bloomberg Barclays Indices. We will now include in our benchmark all the major ILB markets in developed economies – the US, UK, France, Italy, Japan, Germany, Spain, Canada, and Australia (Chart 13). Together, these amount to 98.7% of the $3.8 trillion Bloomberg Barclays World Government Inflation-Linked Index.3 Chart 13World Government Inflation-Linked Bond Index: Market Shares By Country The Reflationary Backdrop Is Still In Place The Reflationary Backdrop Is Still In Place To help inform our ILB allocations, we turn to our Comprehensive Breakeven Indicators (CBIs), which combine three measures to determine the upside potential for 10-year inflation breakevens: the distance from fair value based on our models, the spread between headline inflation and central bank target inflation, and the gap between market-based and survey-based measures of inflation expectations. (Chart 14). These indicators suggest that ILBs are still attractive in Europe and Japan while valuations look stretched in the other developed markets – Australia, US, Canada, and the UK. Globally, we think it is too early to position for falling breakevens even though real yields will play an increasingly important part in the continuing cyclical rise in bond yields. With a neutral global allocation to ILBs in mind, we are adding a neutral US TIPS allocation to our model portfolio, while adding a new small overweight to Japanese ILBs. We are introducing a below-benchmark allocation to the large UK ILB market, while staying completely out of smaller and less liquid Australian and Canadian ILBs. We are maintaining our existing European ILB overweights in Germany, France and Italy where our CBIs show that breakevens have the most upside potential. Even though US breakevens do look stretched on our CBIs, it is impossible, given the sheer size of the US and UK ILB markets, to go underweight on both while maintaining an overall neutral allocation globally. We are more willing to be ILB-bearish in the UK, as we currently have the UK on “downgrade watch” given our view that the Bank of England will withdraw monetary accommodation faster than the markets expect over the next couple of years – an outcome that will likely push up real yields and lower UK breakeven inflation rates. As part of this exercise, we are also rebalancing the market weights and updating durations for the existing categories in our benchmark. After this rebalancing, government bonds in total make up 59% of the benchmark, with ILBs making up 11% of that allocation. The rest goes to spread product, which now makes up 41% of the benchmark, falling a single percentage point from before the rebalancing (Chart 15). Our rebalanced benchmark and allocations can be found on pages 14-15. Chart 14Stay Overweight Euro Area Inflation-Linked Bonds The Reflationary Backdrop Is Still In Place The Reflationary Backdrop Is Still In Place Bottom Line: We are formally including inflation-linked bonds in our GFIS Custom Performance Benchmark. Stay neutral ILBs in the US, overweight ILBs in Europe and Japan, and underweight ILBs in the UK, Canada, and Australia. Chart 15GFIS Custom Performance Benchmark: Rebalanced Allocations The Reflationary Backdrop Is Still In Place The Reflationary Backdrop Is Still In Place   Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com Shakti Sharma Senior Analyst ShaktiS@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see BCA Research Global Fixed Income Strategy/US Bond Strategy Special Report, "A Central Bank Timeline For The Next Two Years", dated June 1, 2021, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Research Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "How To Play The Revival Of Global Inflation Expectations", dated June 23, 2020, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 3 Bloomberg Ticker: BCIW1A Index. Recommendations The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index The Reflationary Backdrop Is Still In Place The Reflationary Backdrop Is Still In Place Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

Highlights It is too early to conclude that the PBoC’s surprise rate cut last Friday to its reserve requirement ratio (RRR) marks the beginning of another policy easing cycle.  Historically it took more than a single RRR reduction to lower interest rates and to boost credit growth. Overall economic conditions do not yet suggest that Chinese policymakers will initiate a broad-based policy easing to spur demand. The end-of-July Politburo meeting will shed more light on whether there is a decisive turn in China’s overall policy stance. In previous cycles, consecutive RRR cuts led to bond market rallies, but were not good leading indicators for equities, which have been more closely correlated with cyclical swings in credit and business cycle. We recommend patience. Chinese onshore stocks are richly valued and their prices can still correct in Q3 when corporate profits and economic growth slow further. Feature The speed and magnitude of the PBoC’s 50-basis point trim in its RRR rate last week exceeded market expectations. The RRR rate drop, combined with June’s better-than-expected credit data, sparked speculation that China’s macroeconomic policy had shifted to an easier mode. A single RRR cut does not indicate that another policy easing cycle is underway. Rather, the PBoC’s intention is to prevent rising demand for liquidity in 2H21 from significantly pushing up interest rates. In addition, we do not expect that the credit impulse will decisively turn around until later this year. We will remain alert to any signs of additional policy easing, particularly because policymakers will face more pressure to maintain trend growth next year. The July Politburo meeting may provide more information on the direction of Chinese macro policy going forward. Meanwhile, investors should stay the course. In previous cycles there were long lags between the first RRR cut and sustained rallies in China’s onshore stock markets. We will continue to maintain an underweight stance towards Chinese stocks through the next three months, given that economic data and corporate profits will likely weaken further in Q3. Surprise, Surprise! The PBoC lowered the RRR rate only two days after the State Council mentioned the possibility, which exceeded the consensus. Historically, the PBoC has always made more than one RRR reduction during easing cycles, separated by about three months. Are more RRR cuts pending and does the initial decrease mark the beginning of another policy easing cycle? It is too early to conclude that a broad-based easing cycle has started, for the following reasons: First, economic fundamentals do not suggest an urgent need for policy easing. The economy is softening, but it is softening from a very elevated level (Chart 1). Importantly, production is weakening at a faster pace than demand and partially due to COVID-related idiosyncrasies. This supply-side issue cannot be solved by monetary easing.  For example, the production subcomponent of the manufacturing PMI fell in June while new orders increased (Chart 2). Since its trough in April last year, the gap between new orders and production has consistently narrowed for 11 of the past 15 months, highlighting that the demand-side recovery has been outpacing the supply-side. The recent resurgence in COVID-19 cases and local lockdowns in Guangdong province, which is China’s manufacturing and export powerhouse, may have curbed June’s manufacturing production and new export orders. Global supply shortages in raw materials and chips also add to the sluggishness in manufacturing production. Chart 1Chinese Economy Is Slowing, But Not Too Slow Chinese Economy Is Slowing, But Not Too Slow Chinese Economy Is Slowing, But Not Too Slow Chart 2Demand Not As Soft Compared With Production Demand Not As Soft Compared With Production Demand Not As Soft Compared With Production Similarly, China’s service PMI slipped notably in June and has closely tracked the country’s domestic COVID-19 situation. The decline is an issue that policy easing and boosting demand will not solve (Chart 3). Secondly, global supply chains are still impaired and commodity prices remain elevated. Even though China’s PPI on a year-over-year basis rolled over in June, it is at its highest level since 2008 (Chart 4). As such, spurring demand through monetary easing would only exacerbate inflationary pressures among producers. Chart 3Slow Recovery In Services Largely Due To Lingering COVID Effects Slow Recovery In Services Largely Due To Lingering COVID Effects Slow Recovery In Services Largely Due To Lingering COVID Effects Chart 4Producer Prices Remain Elevated Producer Prices Remain Elevated Producer Prices Remain Elevated Apart from COVID-related disruptions, the weakness in China’s economy this year has been driven by slower growth in infrastructure and real estate investment due to tightened regulatory oversights that were put in place late last year (Chart 5). Construction PMI declined sharply from its peak in March and both excavator sales and loader sales have plummeted since Q1 this year (Chart 5, bottom panel). However, regulatory tightening towards the housing market and infrastructure projects remain firmly in place, suggesting that policymakers are not looking to stimulate the old economy sectors to support growth. Lastly, despite weaker home sales, housing prices in tier-one cities continue to escalate (Chart 6). The rising prices will keep authorities vigilant about excessive liquidity in the market.    Chart 5It Has Been Chinese Policymakers' Intention To Slow The 'Old Economy' Sectors It Has Been Chinese Policymakers' Intention To Slow The 'Old Economy' Sectors It Has Been Chinese Policymakers' Intention To Slow The 'Old Economy' Sectors Chart 6Housing Market Mania Remains Authorities' Pressure Point Housing Market Mania Remains Authorities' Pressure Point Housing Market Mania Remains Authorities' Pressure Point Bottom Line: Supply-demand dynamics in the global economy and China’s domestic inflationary pressures suggest that it is premature to assume that the RRR cut marks the beginning of another policy easing cycle.  Why Now? Chart 7More 'Pain' Needed For Broad Easing More 'Pain' Needed For Broad Easing More 'Pain' Needed For Broad Easing The drop in the RRR highlights the PBoC’s determination to maintain a low interest-rate environment without any further easing, and does not indicate that the central bank has shifted its current policy setting framework. The PBoC has been reactive rather than proactive in the past as it typically waits for severe signs of economic weakness before broadly relaxing its policy (Chart 7). The PBoC cited two main reasons for the RRR cut. One is to ease liquidity pressures of small to medium enterprises (SMEs), which have been struggling with rising input prices and subdued output prices (Chart 8). This motive is consistent with the PBoC’s monetary position so far this year –the central bank has kept rates at historical low levels while scaling back credit creation (Chart 9).   Chart 8SMEs Under Elevated Pricing Stress SMEs Under Elevated Pricing Stress SMEs Under Elevated Pricing Stress Chart 9The PBoC Has Kept Rates At Historic Low Levels The PBoC Has Kept Rates At Historic Low Levels The PBoC Has Kept Rates At Historic Low Levels Demand for liquidity will rise meaningfully in the second half of the year due to an acceleration in local government bond issuance and the large number of expiring medium-term lending facility (MLF) loans and bonds. The liquidity gap could significantly push up interbank and market-based interest rates without the central bank’s intervention. The amount of maturing MLF and government bonds could be more than RMB1 trillion in July. Thus, the 50bp RRR cut, which the PBoC indicates will free up about RMB1 trillion of liquidity to the banking system, will ensure that interest rates remain stable. Chart 10Bank Lending Rates Have Not Declined With Policy Rates Bank Lending Rates Have Not Declined With Policy Rates Bank Lending Rates Have Not Declined With Policy Rates The PBoC also stated that it intends to keep down financing costs for both banks and SMEs. The statement is vague, but the PBoC may mean it plans to guide bank lending rates lower for SMEs and, at the same time, provide banks (particularly smaller banks) with enough liquidity to encourage lending to those enterprises. To achieve this goal, a broad-based RRR cut would be more effective than other monetary policy tools, such as open-market operations or MLF injections, which normally benefit large commercial banks more than their smaller counterparts. While interbank rates have been sliding since Q4 last year, the weighted average lending rates moved sideways and even ticked up slightly this year (Chart 10). As of Q1 2021, more than half of bank loans charged higher interest rates than the loan prime rate (LPR), highlighting a distribution matrix unfavorable to SMEs (Chart 11). Loan demand from SMEs, as shown in the PBoC survey, peaked much earlier and tumbled more rapidly than their large peers (Chart 12). Chart 11SMEs Face Rising Input And Funding Costs China’s Monetary Policy: Easy, But Not Easing China’s Monetary Policy: Easy, But Not Easing Chart 12Waning SMEs' Demand For Bank Credit Waning SMEs' Demand For Bank Credit Waning SMEs' Demand For Bank Credit Lowering lending rates for SMEs is usually at the cost of the banks by bearing higher default risks and lower profits. A RRR reduction, coupled with recent changes in banks’ deposit rate pricing mechanisms,1 are measures that can potentially reduce the banks’ liability costs. Bottom Line: The PBoC is using a RRR cut to avoid a sudden jump in interest rates from their low levels in 1H21, and to reduce funding costs for the SMEs and banks. What About Credit Growth? Chart 13Credit Numbers In June Beat Market Expectations Credit Numbers In June Beat Market Expectations Credit Numbers In June Beat Market Expectations Credit numbers beat the market’s expectations in June. Both credit growth and impulse rose slightly after a fast deceleration in much of 1H21 (Chart 13). We continue to expect the credit impulse to hover at a low level throughout Q3. Local government bond issuance will pick up in 2H21, but the acceleration will not necessarily lead to a reversal in credit growth (Chart 14). On a year-over-year basis, high base during Q3 last year will depress credit growth and impulse in the next three months. Moreover, in the past couple years, on average local government bonds account for only about 18% of annual total social financing. As such, the pace of bank loan expansion would need to substantially accelerate to reverse the slowdown in credit growth in the next three months. In previous cycles, on average it took more than one RRR cut and about two quarters for credit growth to turn around (Chart 15). Therefore, even if monetary policy is on an easing path, we expect credit growth to pick up in Q4 at the earliest. Chart 14LG Bonds Only A Small Part Of Total Credit Creation China’s Monetary Policy: Easy, But Not Easing China’s Monetary Policy: Easy, But Not Easing Chart 15Credit Growth Lags RRR Cuts By About Two Quarters Credit Growth Lags RRR Cuts By About Two Quarters Credit Growth Lags RRR Cuts By About Two Quarters Furthermore, policymakers are unlikely to deviate from targeting credit growth in line with nominal GDP this year. Based on our estimate, the target suggests that the overall credit impulse relative to 2020 will be negative this year (Chart 16). Chart 16Negative Credit Impulse In 2021 Relative To 2020 Negative Credit Impulse In 2021 Relative To 2020 Negative Credit Impulse In 2021 Relative To 2020 Chart 17The Credit Structure, Rather Than Volume, Will Improve In 2H21 The Credit Structure, Rather Than Volume, Will Improve In 2H21 The Credit Structure, Rather Than Volume, Will Improve In 2H21   Meanwhile, we think that the PBoC will focus on improving the structure of credit creation by continuing to encourage medium- to long-term lending, while scaling back shadow banking and short-term loans (Chart 17). Corporate bond financing improved slightly in June. However, room for further improvement in corporate bond issuance is small this year, given tightened financing reglations on local government financing vehicles. Downside potential for corporate bond yields is also limited in 2H21, when the economy slows and corporate bond default risks are rising (Chart 18).  Given elevated housing prices and tightened regulations to contain the property sector’s leverage, bank lending to real estate developers and mortgages will continue to trend down in the foreseeable future, regardless the direction of interest rates (Chart 19). Chart 18Limited Upsides For Corporate Bond Issuance In 2H21 Limited Upsides For Corporate Bond Issuance In 2H21 Limited Upsides For Corporate Bond Issuance In 2H21 Chart 19Bank Loans To Property Market Unlikely To Pick Up In 2H21 Bank Loans To Property Market Unlikely To Pick Up In 2H21 Bank Loans To Property Market Unlikely To Pick Up In 2H21 Bottom Line: Regardless changes in monetary policy, credit growth will not decisively bottom until later this year. Investment Implications Chart 20Chinese Stock Prices Failed To Break Out Chinese Stock Prices Failed To Break Out Chinese Stock Prices Failed To Break Out Chinese stocks in both onshore and offshore equity markets failed to reverse their trend of underperformance relative to global stocks (Chart 20). Investors should be patient in upgrading their allocation to Chinese stocks from underweight to overweight, in both absolute terms and within a global equity portfolio.  Historically, there has been a long lag between an initial RRR trim and a trough in Chinese onshore stock prices (Chart 21). Although prices moved up along with RRR cut announcements in the past, the price upticks were short lived. Stock prices in previous cycles troughed when the credit impulse and/or the economy bottomed. Given our view that a single RRR decrease does not indicate a broad-based policy easing and the credit impulse is unlikely to pick up until later this year, investors should wait for more price setbacks in Q3 before favoring Chinese stocks again.  Chart 21Long Lags Between First RRR Cut And Stock Market Troughs Long Lags Between First RRR Cut And Stock Market Troughs Long Lags Between First RRR Cut And Stock Market Troughs We are slightly more optimistic than last month about Chinese bonds because the RRR cut has reduced the possibility for any substantial rise in interest rates in 2H21. However, we maintain a cautious view on Chinese government and corporate bonds in Q3. In previous cycles, onshore bond yields often fluctuated sideways or even climbed a bit following the first RRR reduction. It often took several RRR drops, more policy easing signals and sure signs of economic weakening for the bond market to enter a tradable bull run (Chart 22). Therefore, we recommend investors stay on the sidelines for a better entry price point. Chart 22It Takes More Than One RRR Cut To Start A Bond Market Bull Run It Takes More Than One RRR Cut To Start A Bond Market Bull Run It Takes More Than One RRR Cut To Start A Bond Market Bull Run It is also unrealistic to expect the RRR cut will lead to significant and sustained devaluation in the RMB relative to the US dollar. We expect the dollar index to rebound somewhat in Q3 on the back of positive US employment data surprises which will push US bond yields higher. However, following previous RRR cuts, the RMB had sizeable depreciations only when geopolitical events (the US-China trade war in 2018/19) or drastic central bank intervention (the August 2015 de-pegging from the USD) coincided with the RRR cuts. These scenarios are not likely to play out in the next six months (Chart 23). As such, we maintain our view that the CNY will slightly weaken against the USD in Q3 but will end the year at around 6.4. Chart 23Expect Muted And Short-Lived Movements In The USDCNY From A Single RRR Cut Expect Muted And Short-Lived Movements In The USDCNY From A Single RRR Cut Expect Muted And Short-Lived Movements In The USDCNY From A Single RRR Cut   Jing Sima China Strategist jings@bcaresearch.com Qingyun Xu, CFA Associate Editor qingyunx@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1The reform changes the way banks calculate and offer deposit rates. The upper limit is set on their deposit interest rates by adding basis points to the central bank’s benchmark deposit rates, rather than multiplying the benchmark rates by a specific number. Exclusive: Banks Prepare to Lower Deposit Rates as Rate Cap Reform Takes Effect (caixinglobal.com) Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations

Highlights Q2/2021 Performance Breakdown: Our recommended model bond portfolio underperformed the custom benchmark index by -6bps during the second quarter of the year. Winners & Losers: The government bond side of the portfolio underperformed by -21bps, led overwhelmingly by our underweight to US Treasuries (-18bps). Spread product allocations outperformed by +15bps, primarily due to overweights on US high-yield (+11bps) and US CMBS (+3bps). Portfolio Positioning For The Next Six Months: We are maintaining an overall below-benchmark portfolio duration stance, against a backdrop of persistent above-trend global growth and a highly stimulative fiscal/monetary policy mix. We are maintaining a moderate overweight to global spread product versus government debt, concentrated on an overweight to US high-yield where valuations look the least stretched. We are making two changes to the portfolio allocations heading into Q3: shifting the Treasury curve exposure to have more of a flattening bias, while downgrading EM USD-denominated corporates to neutral. Feature The trend in global bond yields so far in 2021 has been a tale of two quarters. The first three months of the year saw a surge in yields worldwide on the back of rapidly improving economic data, the rollout of COVID-19 vaccines and supply squeezes triggering rapid increases in inflation. During the second three months of the year, however, global yields drifted a bit lower in response to more mixed economic data, the spread of the Delta variant and slightly hawkish shifts from a few key central banks – most notably, the Fed – even with economic confidence measures remaining upbeat across the developed economies. The decline in yields has not been seen across the maturity spectrum, though. The yield-to-maturity of the Bloomberg Barclays Global and US Treasury 10+ year indices fell by -12bps and -30bps, respectively, from recent peaks. At the same time, shorter term bond yields have been relatively stable as central banks continue to signal that interest rate hikes are still well off into the future. In contrast to government bonds, credit markets have remained calm with spreads tight for developed market corporates and emerging market (EM) debt. With that in mind, we present our quarterly review of the BCA Research Global Fixed Income Strategy (GFIS) model bond portfolio during the second quarter of 2021. We also present our recommended positioning for the portfolio for the next six months (Table 1), as well as portfolio return expectations for our base case and alternative investment scenarios. The latter half of 2021 should prove to be even more challenging for bond investors, who must disentangle less consistent messages across countries on the Delta variant, vaccinations, inflation and the outlook for both monetary and fiscal policy. Table 1GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Recommended Positioning For The Next Six Months GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q2/2021 Performance Review & Current Allocations: Hitting A Few Roadblocks GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q2/2021 Performance Review & Current Allocations: Hitting A Few Roadblocks As a reminder to existing readers (and to new clients), the model portfolio is a part of our service that complements the usual macro analysis of global fixed income markets. The portfolio is how we communicate our opinion on the relative attractiveness between government bond and spread product sectors. We do this by applying actual percentage weightings to each of our recommendations within a fully invested hypothetical bond portfolio. Q2/2021 Model Bond Portfolio Performance: Mixed Returns Chart 1Q2/2021 Performance: Credit Gains & Duration Losses Q2/2021 Performance: Credit Gains & Duration Losses Q2/2021 Performance: Credit Gains & Duration Losses The total return for the GFIS model portfolio (hedged into US dollars) in the second quarter was +1.13%, slightly underperformed the custom benchmark index by -6bps (Chart 1).1 In terms of the specific breakdown between the government bond and spread product allocations in our model portfolio, the former generated -21bps of underperformance versus our custom benchmark index while the latter outperformed by +15bps. We have remained significantly underweight US Treasuries and positioned for a bearish steepening of the US Treasury curve since just before last year's US presidential election. That tilt was a big contributor to the excess return of the portfolio in Q1 (+63bps) that was partially given back (-18bps) in Q2 as longer maturity Treasury yields fell during the quarter. Our inflation-linked bond allocations in the US and Europe (+5bps) helped mitigate the loss on the government bond side from our below-benchmark duration stance and general curve steepening bias in most countries in the portfolio (Table 2). Table 2GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q2/2021 Overall Return Attribution GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q2/2021 Performance Review & Current Allocations: Hitting A Few Roadblocks GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q2/2021 Performance Review & Current Allocations: Hitting A Few Roadblocks The sum of excess returns during the quarter from countries that we overweighted (Germany, France, Italy, Spain, and Japan) was zero. Improving growth momentum and stronger economic confidence helped push yields higher in those countries. Therefore, those positions could not offset the losses from the underweight to US Treasuries. We did make two shifts in the country allocation within the government bond portion of the portfolio during Q2, downgrading Canada to underweight on April 20 and upgrading Australia to overweight on June 9. Neither change meaningfully contributed to the return of the portfolio. Meanwhile, our moderate overall overweight tilt on spread product versus government bonds fueled the outperformance from the credit side of the portfolio, led by US high-yield (+11bps) and US CMBS (+3bps). Overall gains from spread product were impressive in both USD-hedged total return terms (+95bps) and relative to our custom benchmark (+15bps), despite spreads entering Q2 at fairly tight levels. In the second quarter, improving economic confidence and easing credit conditions allowed spreads to narrow even further for corporate debt in the US and Europe, as well as for EM USD-denominated credit. The bar charts showing the total and relative returns for each individual government bond market and spread product sector are presented in Charts 2 & 3. Chart 2GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q2/2021 Government Bond Performance Attribution GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q2/2021 Performance Review & Current Allocations: Hitting A Few Roadblocks GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q2/2021 Performance Review & Current Allocations: Hitting A Few Roadblocks Chart 3GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q2/2021 Spread Product Performance Attribution By Sector GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q2/2021 Performance Review & Current Allocations: Hitting A Few Roadblocks GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q2/2021 Performance Review & Current Allocations: Hitting A Few Roadblocks Biggest Outperformers: Overweight US high-yield: Ba-rated (+5bps), B-rated (+4bps), and Caa-rated (+3bps) Overweight US TIPS (+4bps) Overweight US CMBS (+3bps) Overweight Euro Area high-yield (+1bps) Biggest Underperformers: Underweight US Treasuries with a maturity greater than 10 years (-17bps), Underweight US Treasuries with a maturity between 7 and 10 years (-3bps) Underweight US Treasuries with a maturity between 5 and 7 years (-2bps) Underweight EM USD sovereigns (-1bps) Underweight UK GIlts with a maturity greater than 10 years (-1bps) Chart 4 presents the ranked benchmark index returns of the individual countries and spread product sectors in the GFIS model bond portfolio for Q2/2021. Returns are hedged into US dollars (we do not take active currency risk in this portfolio) and adjusted to reflect duration differences between each country/sector and the overall custom benchmark index for the model portfolio. We have also color coded the bars in each chart to reflect our recommended investment stance for each market during Q2 (red for underweight, dark green for overweight, gray for neutral). Chart 4Ranking The Winners & Losers From The GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Universe In Q2/2021 GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q2/2021 Performance Review & Current Allocations: Hitting A Few Roadblocks GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q2/2021 Performance Review & Current Allocations: Hitting A Few Roadblocks Ideally, we would look to see more green bars on the left side of the chart where market returns are highest, and more red bars on the right side of the chart were returns are lowest. In Q2, the picture on that front was mixed. We were only neutral some of the biggest outperformers like UK Gilts (+312bps in USD-hedged duration-matched total return terms) and investment grade credit in the US (+430bps) and UK (+231bps). Our relative value allocation within EM, overweight corporates (+430bps) versus sovereigns (+527bps), also underperformed during Q2. We remained overweight government debt markets in the euro area which were the worst performers during the quarter (Germany: -25bps, Spain: -59bps, Italy: -67bps, and France: -83bps). The news was better on the credit side, where our significant overweight to US high-yield (+146bps) was a big positive contributor, as were overweights to US CMBS (+137bps) and euro area high-yield (+92bps). Bottom Line: Our model bond portfolio slightly underperformed its benchmark index in the second quarter of the year by -6bps – a negative result mainly driven by our underweight allocation to the US Treasury market but with an overweight to US high-yield providing a meaningful offset. Future Drivers Of Portfolio Returns & Scenario Analysis Looking ahead, the performance of the model bond portfolio will continue to be driven primarily by swings in global government bond yields, most notably US Treasuries. Our most favored cyclical indicators for global bond yields are still, in aggregate, signaling more upside potential over at least the next six months, although the nature of the signal is changing (Chart 5). Our Global Duration Indicator, comprised of leading economic indicators and measures of future economic sentiment, remains elevated but appears to have peaked. At the same time, the global manufacturing PMI, which typically leads global real bond yields by around six months, continues to climb to new cyclical highs. This suggests that the recent downdraft in global real bond yields could prove to be short-lived. Our Global Central Bank Monitor is climbing steadily, indicating greater upward pressure on bond yields from the combination of strong growth, rising inflation and loose financial conditions. Admittedly, bond yields are lagging the upward trajectory implied by the Monitor with central banks deliberately responding far more slowly to the cyclical pressures that would have triggered bond-bearish monetary tightening in the past. Nonetheless, the Monitor, the Global Duration Indicator and the global manufacturing PMI and all sending the same message – global bond yields remain too low, suggesting a below-benchmark overall portfolio duration stance remains appropriate. With regards to country allocation within the government bond side of our model portfolio, we continue to overweight countries where central banks are less likely to begin normalizing pandemic-era monetary policy quickly (Germany, France, Italy, Spain, Japan, Australia), while underweighting countries where normalization is expected to begin within the next 6-12 months (the US and Canada). We remain neutral the UK, although we have them on “downgrade watch” until there is greater clarity on how severely the spread of the Delta variant is impacting UK growth. The US remains the biggest underweight. The modestly hawkish turn by the Fed at the June FOMC meeting likely marked the end of the cyclical bear-steepening trend of the US Treasury curve. A full-blown turn to a bear-flattening of the US curve will be slow to develop, but we fully expect the cyclical pressures that drove the underperformance of longer-maturity US Treasuries over the past year to begin leaking into shorter-maturity bonds. That trend already appears to be underway with 5-year US yields starting to drift upward at a faster pace compared to other developed market peers (Chart 6). Chart 5Cyclical Indicators Suggest Global Yields Still Have More Upside Cyclical Indicators Suggest Global Yields Still Have More Upside Cyclical Indicators Suggest Global Yields Still Have More Upside Chart 6UST Underperformance Will Shift To Shorter Maturities UST Underperformance Will Shift To Shorter Maturities UST Underperformance Will Shift To Shorter Maturities This leads us to make a change to our model portfolio allocations this week, reducing the exposure to the belly of the US Treasury curve (the 3-5 year and 5-7 year maturity buckets), while modestly increasing the allocation to the 7-10 year bucket. To neutralize the duration-extending implication of that marginal shift, we added a new allocation to US Treasury bills, thus turning this US Treasury shift into a “butterfly” trade, essentially selling the 5-year bullet for a cash/10-year barbell. Longer-term Treasury yields, however, are still in the process of working off an oversold condition that developed in Q1 (Chart 7). Duration positioning remains quite short, according to the JP Morgan survey of bond investors, while speculators are still working off a huge net short position in 30-year Treasury futures according to data from the CFTC. We anticipate that it will take another month or two to work off such an extreme oversold condition for US Treasuries, based on similar episodes over the past two decades. After that, longer-maturity Treasury yields will begin to begin climbing again, to the benefit of the US underweight (and below-benchmark duration stance) in our model portfolio. Chart 7Longer-Maturity USTs Working Off Oversold Condition Longer-Maturity USTs Working Off Oversold Condition Longer-Maturity USTs Working Off Oversold Condition Chart 8A Sharply Diminished Impulse From Global QE A Sharply Diminished Impulse From Global QE A Sharply Diminished Impulse From Global QE Outside the US, the bond-friendly impact of quantitative easing programs is fading, on the margin, with the growth of central bank balance sheets slowing (Chart 8). While outright tapering of bond buying has only occurred in Canada and the UK (within our model bond portfolio universe), we expect the Fed to begin tapering in early 2022. Financial stability concerns are expected to play an increasingly important role in future tapering decisions, with house prices booming in many countries, most notably Canada which supports our underweight stance on Canadian government debt. Australia is the notable exception to this trend towards slowing balance sheet growth, with the Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) maintaining a healthy pace of bond buying given underwhelming realized inflation. The recent wave of COVID-19 cases, which has left half of Australia under lockdowns that were largely avoided in 2020, will ensure that the RBA stays dovish for longer, to the benefit of our overweight stance on Australian government bonds. We continue to see the overall dovish stance of global central bankers as being conducive to the outperformance of inflation-linked bonds versus nominal government debt. However, inflation breakevens in most countries have largely completed the rebound from the depressed levels reached during the 2020 COVID-19 global recession. Our Comprehensive Breakeven Indicators combine three measures to determine the upside potential for 10-year inflation breakevens: the distance from fair value based on our models, the spread between headline inflation and central bank target inflation, and the gap between market-based and survey-based measures of inflation expectations. Those indicators suggest that the most attractive markets to position for further upside potential for breakevens are in Italy and France, with breakevens looking more stretched in the US, Canada and Australia (Chart 9). On the back of this, we are maintaining our allocations to inflation-linked bonds in the euro area in our model portfolio. Chart 9Less Scope For Wider Global Inflation Breakevens Less Scope For Wider Global Inflation Breakevens Less Scope For Wider Global Inflation Breakevens Chart 10Fading Support For Credit Markets From Global QE Fading Support For Credit Markets From Global QE Fading Support For Credit Markets From Global QE Moving our attention to the credit side of our model portfolio, we feel that a moderate overweight stance on overall global corporates versus governments remains appropriate. However, the slowing trend in developed market central bank balance sheets, as an indicator of the incremental shift away from the COVID-era monetary policies from 2020, is flashing a warning sign for the performance of global spread product. The annual growth rate of the combined balance sheets of the Fed, ECB, Bank of Japan and Bank of England has been an excellent leading indicator of the excess returns of both global investment grade and high-yield corporates over the past decade (Chart 10). That growth rate peaked back in February of this year, suggesting a peak of global corporate bond excess returns around February 2022 Although given the current tight level of global corporate bond spreads, both for investment grade and high-yield, we expect future return outperformance from corporates versus government debt to come from carry rather than spread compression. Our preferred measure of the attractiveness of credit spreads is the historical percentile ranking of 12-month breakeven spreads, which measure how much spreads would need to widen to eliminate the carry advantage over duration-matched government bonds on a one-year horizon. Currently, only the lower-rated high-yield credit tiers in the US and euro area offer 12-month breakeven spreads above the bottom quartile of their history, within the credit sectors of our model portfolio (Chart 11). Chart 11Lower-Rated High-Yield Offers Relatively Attractive Spreads GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q2/2021 Performance Review & Current Allocations: Hitting A Few Roadblocks GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q2/2021 Performance Review & Current Allocations: Hitting A Few Roadblocks Given the sharply reduced default risks on both sides of the Atlantic, and with nominal growth in good shape amid low borrowing rates, we are maintaining our overweights to high-yield bonds in both the US and euro area. At the same time, we are sticking with only a neutral stance on investment grade corporates in the US, euro area and the UK. We do anticipate starting to reduce the overall corporate bond exposure later this year, however, based on the ominous leading signal from the growth of central bank balance sheets – and what that signals about the future path for global monetary policy. Within the euro area, we continue to prefer owning Italian government bonds (and to a lesser extent, Spanish government debt) over investment grade corporates, given the more explicit support for the sovereigns through ECB quantitative easing (Chart 12). We expect the ECB to be the most accommodative central bank within our model portfolio universe over at least the next year, with even tapering of any kind unlikely in 2022. Chart 12Favor Italian BTPs Over Euro Area Investment Grade Favor Italian BTPs Over Euro Area Investment Grade Favor Italian BTPs Over Euro Area Investment Grade One area of the spread product universe where we are starting to reduce risk in the model portfolio is EM USD-denominated credit. EM debt has benefited from a bullish combination of global policy stimulus, a weakening US dollar and rising commodity prices over the past year. We have positioned for that in our model portfolio through an overall overweight stance on EM USD-denominated debt, but one that favors investment grade corporates over sovereigns. Now, all of those supportive factors for EM credit are fading. Chinese policymakers have reigned in both credit stimulus and fiscal stimulus this year, with the combined impulse suggesting a slower pace of Chinese economic growth in the latter half of 2021 (Chart 13). Given China’s huge share of the global consumption of industrial commodities, slowing Chinese growth should cool the momentum of commodity prices over the next few quarters. A slowing liquidity impulse from global central bank asset purchases is also a negative for EM debt performance, on the margin. The same can be said for the US dollar, which is no longer depreciating as markets start to pull forward the expected future path for US interest rates (Chart 14). A stronger US dollar typically correlates with softer commodity prices and wider EM credit spreads. Chart 13Major EM Risks: China Tightening & Global QE Tapering Major EM Risks: China Tightening & Global QE Tapering Major EM Risks: China Tightening & Global QE Tapering Chart 14EM Supportive USD Weakness Is Fading EM Supportive USD Weakness Is Fading EM Supportive USD Weakness Is Fading In response to these growing risks to the bullish EM backdrop - including the rapid spread of the Delta variant made worse by the less-effective vaccines available in those countries - we are downgrading our overall EM USD credit exposure in the model bond portfolio to underweight from neutral. We are doing this by cutting the EM corporate exposure from overweight to neutral, while maintaining an underweight tilt on EM USD sovereigns. We expect to further cut the EM exposure in the coming months by moving to a full underweight on EM corporates. Summing it all up, our overall allocations and risks in our model portfolio leading into Q3/2021 look like this: An overall below-benchmark stance on global duration, equal to nearly one full year versus the custom index (Chart 15) A moderate overweight stance on global spread product versus government debt, equal to five percentage points of the portfolio (Chart 16). This overweight comes almost entirely from overweight allocations to US and euro area high-yield corporate debt. Chart 15Overall Portfolio Duration: Stay Below Benchmark Overall Portfolio Duration: Stay Below Benchmark Overall Portfolio Duration: Stay Below Benchmark Chart 16Overall Portfolio Allocation: Small Spread Product Overweight GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q2/2021 Performance Review & Current Allocations: Hitting A Few Roadblocks GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q2/2021 Performance Review & Current Allocations: Hitting A Few Roadblocks After the changes made to our US Treasury and EM positions, the tracking error of the portfolio, or its expected volatility versus that of the benchmark index, is quite low at 34bps (Chart 17). The main reason for this is that our positioning remains focused heavily on the US (Treasury underweight, high-yield overweight), with much of the other positioning close to neutral or largely offsetting other positions in a relative value sense (overweight Australia vs underweight Canada, overweight US CMBS versus underweight US Agency MBS). This fits with our desire to maintain only a moderate level of overall portfolio risk. The yield of the portfolio is now slightly higher than that of the benchmark, with a small “positive carry”, hedged into USD, of 13bps (Chart 18). Chart 17Overall Portfolio Risk: Moderate Overall Portfolio Risk: Moderate Overall Portfolio Risk: Moderate Chart 18Overall Portfolio Yield: Small Positive Carry Vs. Benchmark Overall Portfolio Yield: Small Positive Carry Vs. Benchmark Overall Portfolio Yield: Small Positive Carry Vs. Benchmark Scenario Analysis & Return Forecasts After making the shifts to our model bond portfolio allocations in the US and EM, we now turn to scenario analysis to determine the return expectations for the portfolio for the next six months. On the credit side of the portfolio, we use risk-factor-based regression models to forecast future yield changes for global spread product sectors as a function of four major factors - the VIX, oil prices, the US dollar and the fed funds rate (Table 2A). For the government bond side of the portfolio, we avoid using regression models and instead use a yield-beta driven framework, taking forecasts for changes in US Treasury yields and translating those in changes in non-US bond yields by applying a historical yield beta (Table 2B). For our scenario analysis over the next six months, we use a base case scenario plus two alternate “tail risk” scenarios. We see global growth momentum and the Fed monetary policy outlook as the two most important factors for fixed income markets in the second half of 2021, thus our scenarios are defined along those lines. Table 2AFactor Regressions Used To Estimate Spread Product Yield Changes GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q2/2021 Performance Review & Current Allocations: Hitting A Few Roadblocks GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q2/2021 Performance Review & Current Allocations: Hitting A Few Roadblocks Table 2BEstimated Government Bond Yield Betas To US Treasuries GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q2/2021 Performance Review & Current Allocations: Hitting A Few Roadblocks GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q2/2021 Performance Review & Current Allocations: Hitting A Few Roadblocks Base Case Global growth stays above-trend in both Q3 and Q4, putting downward pressure on unemployment rates and keeping realized inflation elevated. Ongoing global vaccinations lead to more of the global economy fully reopening, with the Delta variant not having serious widespread impact on economic confidence outside of parts of the emerging world. Excess savings built up during the pandemic are run down by both consumers and businesses as optimism stays ebullient within the developed economies. China credit tightening slows growth enough to cool off upward commodity price momentum. At the same time, falling US unemployment and surprisingly “sticky” domestic US realized inflation embolden the Fed to signal a move to begin tapering its bond purchases starting in January 2022. Real bond yields globally bottom out, while inflation expectations recover some of the pullback seen in Q2/2021. The entire US Treasury curve shifts higher, led by the 10-year reaching 1.65% and a modest bear-flattening of the 5-year/30-year curve. The VIX stays near 15, the US dollar rises +3%, the Brent oil price goes nowhere and the fed funds rate is unchanged at 0% Upside Growth Surprise The Delta variant proves to be far less deadly than feared. A rapid pace of global vaccinations leads to booming growth led by the US but including a fully reopened euro area. Chinese policymakers begin to reverse some of the H1/2021 credit tightening. Unemployment rates rapidly fall worldwide, while supply bottlenecks persist, keeping upward pressure on realized inflation. Markets pull forward the timing and pace of future central bank interest rate hikes, most notably in the US when the Fed begins tapering bond purchases sooner than expected before year-end. Real bond yields drift higher globally, but inflation breakevens stay elevated with the earlier surge in realized inflation proving not to be “transitory”. The US Treasury curve modestly bear-flattens, with the 10-year reaching 1.9% and the 5-year/30-year spread narrowing by 25bps. The VIX rises to 25 as risk assets struggle in response to rising bond yields even with faster growth. The US dollar falls -5% on the back of improving global growth expectations, the Brent oil price climbs +5% and the fed funds rate stays unchanged. Downside Growth Surprise The global economy gets hit on multiple fronts: the rapid spread of the Delta variant overwhelms the positive momentum on vaccinations, most notably in EM countries; Europe struggles to fully reopen; China policy tightening results in a larger-than-expected drag on global growth; and US households are reluctant to draw down on excess savings after government income support measures expire in September. Diminished economic optimism leads to a pullback in global equity values, lower government bond yields and wider global credit spreads. The US Treasury curve bull flattens as longer-maturity yields fall in a risk-off move, with the 10-year yield moving back down to 1.25% alongside lower inflation breakevens. The VIX rises to 30, the safe-haven US dollar rises +5%, the Brent oil price falls -10% and the fed funds rate stays at 0%. Chart 19Risk Factor Assumptions For The Scenario Analysis Risk Factor Assumptions For The Scenario Analysis Risk Factor Assumptions For The Scenario Analysis Chart 20US Treasury Yield Assumptions For The Scenario Analysis US Treasury Yield Assumptions For The Scenario Analysis US Treasury Yield Assumptions For The Scenario Analysis The inputs into the scenario analysis are shown in Chart 19 (for the USD, VIX, oil and the fed funds rate), while the US Treasury yield scenarios are in Chart 20. The excess return scenarios for the model bond portfolio, using the above inputs in our simple quantitative return forecast framework, are shown in Table 3A (the scenarios for the changes in US Treasury yields are shown in Table 3B). Table 3AGFIS Model Bond Portfolio Scenario Analysis For The Next Six Months GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q2/2021 Performance Review & Current Allocations: Hitting A Few Roadblocks GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q2/2021 Performance Review & Current Allocations: Hitting A Few Roadblocks Table 3BUS Treasury Yield Assumptions For The 6-Month Forward Scenario Analysis GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q2/2021 Performance Review & Current Allocations: Hitting A Few Roadblocks GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q2/2021 Performance Review & Current Allocations: Hitting A Few Roadblocks The model bond portfolio is expected to deliver a positive excess return over the next six months of +46bps in the base case scenario and +28bps in the optimistic growth scenario, but is projected to underperform by -36bps in the pessimistic growth scenario. Bottom Line: We are maintaining an overall below-benchmark portfolio duration stance, against a backdrop of persistent above-trend global growth and a highly stimulative fiscal/monetary policy mix. We are maintaining a moderate overweight to global spread product versus government debt, concentrated on an overweight to US high-yield where valuations look the least stretched. We are making two changes to the portfolio allocations heading into Q3: shifting the Treasury curve exposure to have more of a flattening bias, while downgrading EM USD-denominated corporates to neutral. Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com   Ray Park, CFA Research Analyst ray@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 The GFIS model bond portfolio custom benchmark index is the Bloomberg Barclays Global Aggregate Index, but with allocations to global high-yield corporate debt replacing very high-quality spread product (i.e. AA-rated). We believe this to be more indicative of the typical internal benchmark used by global multi-sector fixed income managers. Recommendations The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q2/2021 Performance Review & Current Allocations: Hitting A Few Roadblocks GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q2/2021 Performance Review & Current Allocations: Hitting A Few Roadblocks Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns