Monetary Policy

Highlights Chinese equities have rallied enthusiastically since the COVID-19 outbreak and are now exposed to underlying political and geopolitical risks. Xi Jinping’s intention is to push forward reform and restructuring, creating a significant risk of policy overtightening over the coming two years. In the first half of 2021, the lingering pandemic and fragile global environment suggest that overtightening will be avoided. But the risk will persist throughout the year. Beijing’s fourteenth five-year plan and new focus on import substitution will exacerbate growing distrust with the US. We still doubt that the Biden administration will reduce tensions substantially or for very long. Chinese equities are vulnerable to a near-term correction. The renminbi is at fair value. Go long Chinese government bonds on the basis that political and geopolitical risks are now underrated again. Feature The financial community tends to view China’s political leadership as nearly infallible, handling each new crisis with aplomb. In 2013-15 Chinese leaders avoided a hard landing amid financial turmoil, in 2018-20 they blocked former President Trump’s trade war, and in 2020 they contained the COVID-19 pandemic faster than other countries. COVID was especially extraordinary because it first emerged in China and yet China recovered faster than others – even expanding its global export market share as the world ordered more medical supplies and electronic gadgets (Chart 1). COVID-19 cases are spiking as we go to press but there is little doubt that China will use drastic measures to curb the virus’s spread. It produced two vaccines, even if less effective than its western counterparts (Chart 2). Monetary and fiscal policy will be utilized to prevent any disruptions to the Chinese New Year from pulling the rug out from under the economic recovery. Chart 1China Grew Global Market Share, Despite COVID China Grew Global Market Share, Despite COVID China Grew Global Market Share, Despite COVID Chart 2China Has A Vaccine, Albeit Less Effective China Geopolitical Outlook 2021 China Geopolitical Outlook 2021 In short, China is seen as a geopolitical juggernaut that poses no major risk to the global bull market in equities, corporate bonds, and commodities – the sole backstop for global growth during times of crisis (Chart 3). The problem with this view is that it is priced into markets already, the crisis era is fading (despite lingering near-term risks), and Beijing’s various risks are piling up. Chart 3China Backstopped Global Growth Again China Geopolitical Outlook 2021 China Geopolitical Outlook 2021 First, as potential GDP growth slows, China faces greater difficulty managing the various socioeconomic imbalances and excesses created by its success – namely the tug of war between growth and reform. The crisis shattered China’s attempt to ensure a smooth transition to lower growth rates, leaving it with higher unemployment and industrial restructuring that will produce long-term challenges (Chart 4). Chart 4China's Unemployment Problem China's Unemployment Problem China's Unemployment Problem The shock also forced China to engage in another blowout credit surge, worsening the problem of excessive leverage and reversing the progress that was made on corporate deleveraging in previous years. Second, foreign strategic opposition and trade protectionism are rising. China’s global image suffered across the world in 2020 as a result of COVID, despite the fact that President Trump’s antics largely distracted from China. Going forward there will be recriminations from Beijing’s handling of the pandemic and its power grab in Hong Kong yet Trump will not be there to deflect. By contrast, the Biden administration holds out a much greater prospect of aligning liberal democracies against China in a coalition that could ultimately prove effective in constraining its international behavior. China’s turn inward, toward import substitution and self-sufficiency, will reinforce this conflict. In the current global rebound, in which China will likely be able to secure its economic recovery while the US is supercharging its own, readers should expect global equity markets and China/EM stocks to perform well on a 12-month time frame. We would not deny all the positive news that has occurred. But Chinese equities have largely priced in the positives, meaning that Chinese politics and geopolitics are underrated again and will be a source of negative surprises going forward. The Centennial Of 1921 The Communist Party will hold a general conference to celebrate its 100th birthday on July 1, just as it did in 1981, 1991, 2001, and 2011. These meetings are ceremonial and have no impact on economic policy. We examined nominal growth, bank loans, fixed asset investment, industrial output, and inflation and observed no reliable pattern as an outcome of these once-per-decade celebrations. In 2011, for example, General Secretary Hu Jintao gave a speech about the party’s triumphs since 1921, reiterated the goals of the twelfth five-year plan launched in March 2011, and reminded his audience of the two centennial goals of becoming a “moderately prosperous society” by 2021 and a “modern socialist country” by 2049 (the hundredth anniversary of the People’s Republic). China is now transitioning from the 2021 goals to the 2049 goals and the policy consequences will be determined by the Xi Jinping administration. Xi will give a speech on July 1 recapitulating the fourteenth five-year plan’s goals and his vision for 2035 and 2049, which will be formalized in March at the National People’s Congress, China’s rubber-stamp parliament. As such any truly new announcements relating to the economy should come over the next couple of months, though the broad outlines are already set. There would need to be another major shock to the system, comparable to the US trade war and COVID-19, to produce a significant change in the economic policy outlook from where it stands today. Hence the Communist Party’s 100th birthday is not a driver of policy – and certainly not a reason for authorities to inject another dose of massive monetary and credit stimulus following the country’s massive 12% of GDP credit-and-fiscal impulse from trough to peak since 2018 (Chart 5). The overarching goal is stability around this event, which means policy will largely be held steady. Chart 5China's Big Stimulus Already Occurred China's Big Stimulus Already Occurred China's Big Stimulus Already Occurred Far more important than the centenary of the Communist Party is the political leadership rotation that will begin on the local level in early 2022, culminating in the twentieth National Party Congress in the fall of 2022.1 This was supposed to be the date of Xi’s stepping down, according to the old schedule, but he will instead further consolidate power – and may even name himself Chairman Xi, as the next logical step in his Maoist propaganda campaign. This important political rotation will enable Xi to elevate his followers to higher positions and cement his influence over the so-called seventh generation of Chinese leaders, pushing his policy agenda far into the future. Ahead of these events, Beijing has been mounting a new battle against systemic risks, as it did in late 2016 and throughout 2017 ahead of the nineteenth National Party Congress. The purpose is to prevent the economic and financial excesses of the latest stimulus from destabilizing the country, to make progress on Xi’s policy agenda, and to expose and punish any adversaries. This new effort will face limitations based on the pandemic and fragile economy but it will nevertheless constitute the default setting for the next two years – and it is a drag on growth rather than a boost. The importance of the centenary and the twentieth party congress will not prevent various risks from exploding between now and the fall of 2022. Some political scandals will likely emerge as foreign or domestic opposition attempts to undermine Xi’s power consolidation – and at least one high-level official will inevitably fall from grace as Xi demonstrates his supremacy and puts his followers in place for higher office. But any market reaction to these kinds of events will be fleeting compared to the reaction to Xi’s economic management. The economic risk boils down to the implementation of Xi’s structural reform agenda and his threshold for suffering political pain in pursuit of this agenda. For now the risk is fairly well contained, as the pandemic is still somewhat relevant, but going forward the tension between growth and reform will grow. Bottom Line: The hundredth birthday of the Communist Party is overrated but the twentieth National Party Congress in 2022 is of critical importance to the governance of China over the next ten years. These events will not prompt a major new dose of stimulus and they will not prevent a major reform push or crackdown on financial excesses. But as always in China there will still be an overriding emphasis on economic and social stability above all. For now, this is supportive of the new global business cycle, commodity prices, and emerging market equities. The Fourteenth Five-Year Plan (2021-25) The draft proposal of China’s fourteenth five-year plan (2021-25) will be ratified at the annual “two sessions” in March (Table 1). The key themes are familiar from previous five-year plans, which focused on China’s economic transition from “quantity” to “quality” in economic development. Table 1China’s 14th Five Year Plan China Geopolitical Outlook 2021 China Geopolitical Outlook 2021 China is seen as having entered the “high quality” phase of development – and the word quality is used 40 times in the draft. As with the past five years, the Xi administration is highlighting “supply-side structural reform” as a means of achieving this economic upgrade and promoting innovation. But Xi has shifted his rhetoric to highlight a new concept, “dual circulation,” which will now take center stage. Dual circulation marks a dramatic shift in Chinese policy: away from the “opening up and reform” of the liberal 1980s-2000s and toward a new era of import substitution and revanchism that will dominate the 2020s. Xi Jinping first brought it up in May 2020 and re-emphasized it at the July Politburo meeting and other meetings thereafter. It is essentially a “China First” policy that describes a development path in which the main economic activity occurs within the domestic market. Foreign trade and investment are there to improve this primary domestic activity. Dual circulation is better understood as a way of promoting import substitution, or self-reliance – themes that emerged after the Great Recession but became more explicit during the trade war with the US from 2018-20. The gist is to strengthen domestic demand and private consumption, improve domestic rather than foreign supply options, attract foreign investment, and build more infrastructure to remove internal bottlenecks and improve cross-regional activity (e.g. the Sichuan-Tibet railway, the national power grid, the navigation satellite system). China has greatly reduced its reliance on global trade already, though it is still fairly reliant when Hong Kong is included (Chart 6). The goals of the fourteenth five-year plan are also consistent with the “Made in China 2025” plan that aroused so much controversy with the Trump administration, leading China to de-emphasize it in official communications. Just like dual circulation, the 2025 plan was supposed to reduce China’s dependency on foreign technology and catapult China into the lead in areas like medical devices, supercomputers, robotics, electric vehicles, semiconductors, new materials, and other emerging technologies. This plan was only one of several state-led initiatives to boost indigenous innovation and domestic high-tech production. The response to American pressure was to drop the name but maintain the focus. Some of the initiatives will fall under new innovation and technology guidelines while others will fall under the category of “new types of infrastructure,” such as 5G networks, electric vehicles, big data centers, artificial intelligence operations, and ultra-high voltage electricity grids. With innovation and technology as the overarching goals, China is highly likely to increase research and development spending and aim for an overall level of above 3% of GDP (Chart 7). In previous five-year plans the government did not set a specific target. Nor did it set targets for the share of basic research spending within research and development, which is around 6% but is believed to need to be around 15%-20% to compete with the most innovative countries. While Beijing is already a leader in producing new patents, it will attempt to double its output while trying to lift the overall contribution of technology advancement to the economy. Chart 6China Seeks To Reduce Foreign Dependency China Seeks To Reduce Foreign Dependency China Seeks To Reduce Foreign Dependency Dual circulation will become a major priority affecting other areas of policy. Reform of state-owned enterprises (SOEs), for example, will take place under this rubric. The Xi administration has dabbled in SOE reform all along, for instance by injecting private capital to create mixed ownership, but progress has been debatable. Chart 7China Will Surge R&D Spending China Will Surge R&D Spending China Will Surge R&D Spending The new five-year plan will incorporate elements of an existing three-year action plan approved last June. The intention is to raise the competitiveness of China’s notoriously bloated SOEs, making them “market entities” that play a role in leading innovation and strengthening domestic supply chains. However, there is no question that SOEs will still be expected to serve an extra-economic function of supporting employment and social stability. So the reform is not really a broad liberalization and SOEs will continue to be a large sector dominated by the state and directed by the state, with difficulties relating to efficiency and competitiveness. Notwithstanding the focus on quality, China still aims to have GDP per capita reach $12,500 by 2025, implying 5%-5.5% annual growth from 2021-25, which is consistent with estimates of the International Monetary Fund (Chart 8). This kind of goal will require policy support at any given time to ensure that there is no major shortfall due to economic shocks like COVID-19. Thus any attempts at reform will be contained within the traditional context of a policy “floor” beneath growth rates – which itself is one of the biggest hindrances to deep reform. Chart 8China's Growth Target Through 2025 China's Growth Target Through 2025 China's Growth Target Through 2025 Chart 9Stimulus Correlates With Carbon Emissions Stimulus Correlates With Carbon Emissions Stimulus Correlates With Carbon Emissions As the economy’s potential growth slows the Communist Party has been shifting its focus to improving the quality of life, as opposed to the previous decades-long priority of meeting the basic material needs of the society. The new five-year plan aims to increase disposable income per capita as part of the transition to a domestic consumption-driven economy. The implied target will be 5%-5.5% growth per year, down from 6.5%+ previously, but the official commitment will be put in vague qualitative terms to allow for disappointments in the slower growing environment. The point is to expand the middle-income population and redistribute wealth more effectively, especially in the face of stark rural disparity. In addition the government aims to increase education levels, expand pension coverage, and, in the midst of the pandemic, increase public health investment and the number of doctors and hospital beds relative to the population. Beijing seems increasingly wary of too rapid of a shift away from manufacturing – which makes sense in light of the steep drop in the manufacturing share of employment amid China’s shift away from export-dependency. In the thirteenth five-year plan, Beijing aimed to increase the service sector share of GDP from 50.5% to 56%. But in the latest draft plan it sets no target for growing services. Any implicit goal of 60% would be soft rather than hard. Given that manufacturing and services combined make up 93% of the economy, there is not much room to grow services further unless policymakers want to allow even faster de-industrialization. But the social and political risks of rapid de-industrialization are well known – both from the liquidation of the SOEs in the late 1990s and from the populist eruptions in the UK and US more recently. Beijing is likely to want to take a pause in shifting away from manufacturing. But this means that China’s exporting of deflation and large market share will persist and hence foreign protectionist sentiment will continue to grow. The fourteenth five-year plan ostensibly maintains the same ambitious targets for environmental improvement as in its predecessor, in terms of water and energy consumption, carbon emissions, pollution levels, renewable energy quotas, and quotas for arable land and forest coverage. But in reality some of these targets are likely to be set higher as Beijing has intensified its green policy agenda and is now aiming to hit peak carbon emissions by 2030. China aims to be a “net zero” carbon country by 2060. Doubling down on the shift away from fossil fuels will require an extraordinary policy push, given that China is still a heavily industrial economy and predominantly reliant on coal power. So environmental policy will be a critical area to watch when the final five-year plan is approved in March, as well as in future plans for the 2026-30 period. As was witnessed in recent years, ambitious environmental goals will be suspended when the economy slumps, which means that achieving carbon emissions goals will not be straightforward (Chart 9), but it is nevertheless a powerful economic policy theme and investment theme. Xi Jinping’s Vision: 2035 On The Way To 2049 At the nineteenth National Party Congress, the critical leadership rotation in 2017, Xi Jinping made it clear that he would stay in power beyond 2022 – eschewing the nascent attempt of his predecessors to set up a ten-year term limit – and establish 2035 as a midway point leading to the 2049 anniversary of the People’s Republic. There are strategic and political goals relevant to this 2035 vision – including speculation that it could be Xi’s target for succession or for reunification with Taiwan – but the most explicit goals are, as usual, economic. Chart 10Xi Jinping’s 2035 Goals China Geopolitical Outlook 2021 China Geopolitical Outlook 2021 Officially China is committing to descriptive rather than numerical targets. GDP per capita is to reach the level of “moderately developed countries.” However, in a separate explanation statement, Xi Jinping declares, “it is completely possible for China to double its total economy or per capita income by 2035.” In other words, China’s GDP is supposed to reach 200 trillion renminbi, while GDP per capita should surpass $20,000 by 2035, implying an annual growth rate of at least 4.73% (Chart 10). There is little reason to believe that Beijing will succeed as much in meeting future targets as it has in the past. In the past China faced steady final demand from the United States and the West and its task was to bring a known quantity of basic factors of production into operation, after lying underutilized for decades, which made for high growth rates and fairly predictable outcomes. In the future the sources of demand are not as reliable and China’s ability to grow will be more dependent on productivity enhancements and innovation that cannot be as easily created or predicted. The fourteenth five-year plan and Xi’s 2035 vision will attempt to tackle this productivity challenge head on. But restructuring and reform will advance intermittently, as Xi is unquestionably maintaining his predecessors’ commitment to stability above all. Outlook 2021: Back To The Tug Of War Of Stimulus And Reform The tug of war between economic stimulus and reform is on full display already in 2021 and will become by far the most important investment theme this year. If China tightens monetary and fiscal policy excessively in 2021, in the name of reform, it will undermine its own and the global economic recovery, dealing a huge negative surprise to the consensus in global financial markets that 2021 will be a year of strong growth, rebounding trade, a falling US dollar, and ebullient commodity prices. Our view is that Chinese policy tightening is a significant risk this year – it is not overrated – but that the government will ultimately ease policy as necessary and avoid what would be a colossal policy mistake of undercutting the economic recovery. We articulated this view late last year and have already seen it confirmed both in the Politburo’s conclusions at the annual economic meeting in December, and in the reemergence of COVID-19, which will delay further policy tightening for the time being. The pattern of the Xi administration thus far is to push forward domestic reforms until they run up against the limits of economic stability, and then to moderate and ease policy for the sake of recovery, before reinitiating the attack. Two key developments initially encouraged Xi to push forward with a new “assault phase of reform” in 2021: First, a new global business cycle is beginning, fueled by massive monetary and fiscal stimulus across the world (not only in China), which enables Xi to take actions that would drag on growth. Second, Xi Jinping has emerged from the US trade war stronger than ever at home. President Trump lost the election, giving warning to any future US president who would confront China with a frontal assault. The Biden administration’s priority is economic recovery, for the sake of the Democratic Party’s future as well as for the nation, and this limits Biden’s ability to escalate the confrontation with China, even though he will not revoke most of Trump’s actions. Biden’s predicament gives Beijing a window to pursue difficult domestic initiatives before the Biden administration is capable of turning its full attention to the strategic confrontation with China. The fact that Biden seeks to build a coalition of states first, and thus must spend a great deal of time on diplomacy with Europe and other allies, is another advantageous circumstance. China is courting and strengthening relations with Europe and those very allies so as to delay the formation of any effective coalition (Chart 11). Chart 11China Courts EU As Substitute For US China Geopolitical Outlook 2021 China Geopolitical Outlook 2021 Thus, prior to the latest COVID-19 spike, Beijing was clearly moving to tighten monetary and fiscal policy and avoid a longer stimulus overshoot that would heighten the country’s long-term financial risks and debt woes. This policy preference will continue to be a risk in 2021: Central government spending down: Emergency fiscal spending to deal with the pandemic will be reduced from 2020 levels and the budget deficit will be reined in. The Politburo’s chief economic planning event, the Central Economic Work Conference in December, resulted in a decision to maintain fiscal support but to a lesser degree. Fiscal policy will be “effective and sustainable,” i.e. still proactive but lower in magnitude (Chart 12). Local government spending down: The central government will try to tighten control of local government bond issuance. The issuance of new bonds will fall closer to 2019 levels after a 55% increase in 2020. New bonds provide funds for infrastructure and investment projects meant to soak up idle labor and boost aggregate demand. A cut back in these projects and new bonds will drag on the economy relative to last year (Chart 13). Chart 12China Pares Government Spending On The Margin China Geopolitical Outlook 2021 China Geopolitical Outlook 2021 Chart 13China Pares Local Government Spending Too China Geopolitical Outlook 2021 China Geopolitical Outlook 2021 Monetary policy tightening up: The People’s Bank of China aims to maintain a “prudent monetary policy” that is stable and targeted in 2021. The intention is to avoid any sharp change in policy. However, PBoC Governor Yi Gang admits that there will be some “reasonable adjustments” to monetary policy so that the growth of broad money (M2) and total social financing (total private credit) do not wildly exceed nominal GDP growth (which should be around 8%-10% in 2021). The risk is that excessive easiness in the current context will create asset bubbles. The implication is that credit growth will slow to 11%-12%. This is not slamming on the brakes but it is a tightening of credit policy. Macro-prudential regulation up: The People’s Bank is reasserting its intention to implement the new Macro-Prudential Assessment (MPA) framework designed to tackle systemic financial risk. The rollout of this reform paused last year due to the pandemic. A detailed plan of how the country’s various major financial institutions will adopt this new mechanism is expected in March. The implication is that Beijing is turning its attention back to mitigating systemic financial risks. This includes closer supervision of bank capital adequacy ratios and cross-border financing flows. New macro-prudential tools are also targeting real estate investment and potentially other areas. Larger established banks will have a greater allowance for property loans than smaller, riskier banks. At the same time, it is equally clear that Beijing will try to avoid over-tightening policy: The COVID outbreak discourages tightening: This outbreak has already been mentioned and will pressure leaders to pause further policy tightening at least until they have greater confidence in containment. The vaccine rollout process also discourages economic activity at first since nobody wants to go out and contract the disease when a cure is in sight. Local government financial support is still robust: Local governments will still need to issue refinancing bonds to deal with the mountain of debt coming into maturity and reduce the risk of widespread insolvency. In 2020, they issued more than 1.8 trillion yuan of refinancing bonds to cover about 88% of the 2 trillion in bonds coming due. In 2021, they will have to issue about 2.2 trillion of refinancing bonds to maintain the same refinancing rate for a larger 2.6 trillion yuan in bonds coming due (Table 2). Thus while Beijing is paring back its issuance of new bonds to fund new investment projects, it will maintain a high level of refinancing bonds to prevent insolvency from cascading and undermining the recovery. Table 2Local Government Debt Maturity Schedule China Geopolitical Outlook 2021 China Geopolitical Outlook 2021 Monetary policy will not be too tight: The People’s Bank’s open market operations in January so far suggest that it is starting to fine-tune its policies but that it is doing so in an exceedingly measured way so as not to create a liquidity squeeze around the traditionally tight-money period of Chinese New Year. The seven-day repo rate, the de facto policy interest rate, has already rolled over from last year’s peak. The takeaway is that while Beijing clearly intended to cut back on emergency monetary and fiscal support this year – and while Xi Jinping is clearly willing to impose greater discipline on the economy and financial system prior to the big political events of 2021-22 – nevertheless the lingering pandemic and fragile global environment will ensure a relatively accommodative policy for the first half of 2021 in order to secure the economic recovery. The underlying risk of policy tightening is still significant, especially in the second half of 2021 and in 2022, due to the underlying policy setting. Investment Takeaways The CNY-USD has experienced a tremendous rally in the wake of the US-China phase one trade deal last year and Beijing’s rapid bounce-back from the pandemic. The trade weighted renminbi is now trading just about at fair value (Chart 14). We closed our CNY-USD short recommendation and would stand aside for now. China’s current account surplus is still robust, real reform requires a fairly strong yuan, and the Biden administration will also expect China not to depreciate the currency competitively. Thus while we anticipate the CNY-USD to suffer a surprise setback when the market realizes that the US and China will continue to clash despite the end of the Trump administration, nevertheless we are no longer outright short the currency. Chinese investable stocks have rallied furiously on the stimulus last year as well as robust foreign portfolio inflows. The rally is likely overstretched at the moment as the COVID outbreak and policy uncertainties come to the fore. This is also true for Chinese stocks other than the high-flying technology, media, and telecom stocks (Chart 15). Domestic A-shares have rallied on the back of Alibaba executive Jack Ma’s reappearance even though the clear implication is that in the new era, the Communist Party will crack down on entrepreneurs – and companies like fintech firm Ant Group – that accumulate too much power (Chart 16). Chart 14Renminbi Fairly Valued Renminbi Fairly Valued Renminbi Fairly Valued Chart 15China: Investable Stocks Overbought China: Investable Stocks Overbought China: Investable Stocks Overbought Chart 16Communist Party, Jack Ma's Boss Communist Party, Jack Ma's Boss Communist Party, Jack Ma's Boss Chart 17Go Long Chinese Government Bonds Go Long Chinese Government Bonds Go Long Chinese Government Bonds Chinese government bond yields are back near their pre-COVID highs (though not their pre-trade war highs). Given the negative near-term backdrop – and the longer term challenges of restructuring and geopolitical risks over Taiwan and other issues that we expect to revive – these bonds present an attractive investment (Chart 17). Housekeeping: In addition to going long Chinese 10-year government bonds on a strategic time frame, we are closing our long Mexican industrials versus EM trade for a loss of 9.1%. We are still bullish on the Mexican peso and macro/policy backdrop but this trade was premature. We are also closing our long S&P health care tactical hedge for a loss of 1.8%. Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com   Yushu Ma Research Associate yushu.ma@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1 Indeed the 2022 political reshuffle has already begun with several recent appointments of provincial Communist Party secretaries.

Highlights Markets largely ignored the uproar at the US Capitol on January 6 because the transfer of power was not in question. Democratic control over the Senate, after two upsets in the Georgia runoff, is the bigger signal. US fiscal policy will become more expansive yet the Federal Reserve will not start hiking rates anytime soon. This is a powerful tailwind for risk assets over the short and medium run. Politics and geopolitics affect markets through the policy setting, rather than through discrete events, which tend to have fleeting market impacts. The current setting, in the US and abroad, is negative for the US dollar. The implication is positive for emerging market stocks and value plays. Go long global stocks ex-US, long emerging markets over developed markets, and long value over growth. Cut losses on short CNY-USD. Feature Chart 1Market's Muted Response To US Turmoil Market's Muted Response To US Turmoil Market's Muted Response To US Turmoil Scenes of mayhem unfolded in the US Capitol on January 6 as protesters and rioters flooded the building and temporarily interrupted the joint session of Congress convened to count the Electoral College votes. Congress reconvened later and finished the tally. President-elect Joe Biden will take office at noon on January 20. Financial markets were unperturbed, with stocks up and volatility down, though safe havens did perk up a bit (Chart 1). The incident supports our thesis that the US election cycle of 2020 was a sort of “Civil War Lite” and that the country is witnessing “Peak Polarization,” with polarization likely to fall over the coming five years. The incident was the culmination of the past year of pandemic-fueled unrest and President Trump’s refusal to concede to the Electoral College verdict. Trump made a show of force by rallying his supporters, and apparently refrained from cracking down on those that overran Congress, but then he backed down and promised an orderly transfer of power. The immediate political result was to isolate him. Fewer Republicans than expected contested the electoral votes in the ensuing joint session; one Republican is openly calling for Trump to be forced into resignation via the 25th amendment procedure for those unfit to serve. The electoral votes were promptly certified. Vice President Mike Pence and other actors performed their constitutional duties. Pence reportedly gave the order to bring out the National Guard to restore order – hence it is possible that Pence and Trump’s cabinet could activate the 25th amendment, but that is unlikely unless Trump foments rebellion going forward. Vandals and criminals will be prosecuted and there could also be legal ramifications for Trump and some government officials. Do Politics And Geopolitics Affect Markets? The market’s lack of concern raises the question of whether investors need trouble themselves with politics at all. Philosopher and market guru Nassim Nicholas Taleb tweeted the following: If someone, a year ago, described January 6, 2021 (and events attending it) & asked you to guess the stock market behavior, admit you would have gotten it wrong. Just so you understand that news do not help you understand markets.1 This is a valid point. Investors should not (and do not) invest based on the daily news. Of course, many observers foresaw social unrest surrounding the 2020 election, including Professor Peter Turchin.2 Social instability was rising in the data, as we have long shown. When you combined this likelihood with the Fed’s pause on rate hikes, and a measurable rise in geopolitical tensions between the US and other countries, the implication was that gold would appreciate. So if someone had told you a year ago that the US would have a pandemic, that governments would unleash a 10.2% of global GDP fiscal stimulus, that the Fed would start average inflation targeting, that a vaccine would be produced, and that the US would have a contested election on top of it all, would you have expected gold to rise? Absolutely – and it has done so, both in keeping with the fall in real interest rates plus some safe-haven bonus, which is observable (Chart 2). Chart 2Gold Price In Excess Of Fall In Real Rates Implies Geopolitical Risk Gold Price In Excess Of Fall In Real Rates Implies Geopolitical Risk Gold Price In Excess Of Fall In Real Rates Implies Geopolitical Risk The takeaway is that policy matters for markets while politics may only matter briefly at best. Which brings us back to the implications of the Trump rebellion. What Will Be The Impact Of The Trump Rebellion? We have highlighted that this election was a controversial rather than contested election – meaning that the outcome was not in question after late November when the court cases, vote counts, and recounts were certified. This was doubly true after the Electoral College voted on December 14. The protests and riots yesterday never seriously called this result into question. Whatever Trump’s intentions, there was no military coup or imposition of martial law, as some observers feared. In fact the scandal arose from the President’s hesitation to call out the National Guard rather than his use of security forces to prevent the transfer of power, as occurs during a coup. This partially explains why the market traded on the contested election in December 2000 but not in 2020 – the result was largely settled. The Biden administration now has more political capital than otherwise, which is market-positive because it implies more proactive fiscal policy to support the economic recovery. Trump’s refusal to concede gave Democrats both seats in the Georgia Senate runoffs, yielding control of Congress. Household and business sentiment will revive with the vaccine distribution and economic recovery, while the passage of larger fiscal stimulus is highly probable. US fiscal policy will almost certainly avoid the mistake of tightening fiscal policy too soon. Taken with the Fed’s aversion to raising rates, greater fiscal stimulus will create a powerful tailwind for risk assets over the next 12 months. The primary consequence of combined fiscal and monetary dovishness is a falling dollar. The greenback is a counter-cyclical and momentum-driven currency that broadly responds inversely to global growth trends. But policy decisions are clearly legible in the global growth path and the dollar’s path over the past two decades. Japanese and European QE, Chinese devaluation, the global oil crash, Trump’s tax cuts, the US-China trade war, and COVID-19 lockdowns all drove the dollar to fresh highs – all policy decisions (Chart 3). Policy decisions also ensured the euro’s survival, marking the dollar’s bottom against the euro in 2011, and ensuring that the euro could take over from the dollar once the dollar became overbought. Today, the US’s stimulus response to COVID-19 – combined with the Fed’s strategic review and the Democratic sweep of government – marked the peak and continued drop-off in the dollar. Chart 3Euro Survival, US Peak Polarization, Set Stage For Rotation From USD To EUR Euro Survival, US Peak Polarization, Set Stage For Rotation From USD To EUR Euro Survival, US Peak Polarization, Set Stage For Rotation From USD To EUR Chart 4China's Yuan Says Geopolitics Matters China's Yuan Says Geopolitics Matters China's Yuan Says Geopolitics Matters The Chinese renminbi is heavily manipulated by the People’s Bank and is not freely exchangeable. The massive stimulus cycle that began in 2015, in reaction to financial turmoil, combined with the central bank’s decision to defend the currency marked a bottom in the yuan’s path. China’s draconian response to the pandemic this year, and massive stimulus, made China the only major country to contribute positively to global growth in 2020 and ensured a surge in the currency. The combination of US and Chinese policy decisions has clearly favored the renminbi more than would be the case from the general economic backdrop (Chart 4). Getting the policy setting right is necessary for investors. This is true even though discrete political events – including major political and geopolitical crises – have fleeting impacts on markets. What About Biden’s Trade Policy? Trump was never going to control monetary or fiscal policy – that was up to the Fed and Congress. His impact lay mostly in trade and foreign policy. Specifically his defeat reduces the risk of sweeping unilateral tariffs. It makes sense that global economic policy uncertainty has plummeted, especially relative to the United States (Chart 5). If US policy facilitates a global economic and trade recovery, then it also makes sense that global equities would rise faster than American equities, which benefited from the previous period of a strong dollar and erratic or aggressive US fiscal and trade policy. Trump’s last 14 days could see a few executive orders that rattle stocks. There is a very near-term downside risk to European and especially Chinese stocks from punitive measures, or to Emirati stocks in the event of another military exchange with Iran (Chart 6). But Trump will be disobeyed if he orders any highly disruptive actions, especially if they contravene national interests. Beyond Trump’s term we are constructive on all these bourses, though we expect politics and geopolitics to remain a headwind for Chinese equities. Chart 5Big Drop In Global Policy Uncertainty Big Drop In Global Policy Uncertainty Big Drop In Global Policy Uncertainty US tensions with China will escalate again soon – and in a way that negatively impacts US and Chinese companies exposed to each other. Chart 6Geopolitical Implications Of Biden's Election Geopolitical Implications Of Biden's Election Geopolitical Implications Of Biden's Election The cold war between these two is an unavoidable geopolitical trend as China threatens to surpass the US in economic size and improves its technological prowess. Presidents Xi and Trump were merely catalysts. But there are two policy trends that will override this rivalry for at least the first half of the year. First, global trade is recovering– as shown here by the Shanghai freight index and South Korean exports and equity prices (Chart 7). The global recovery will boost Korean stocks but geopolitical tensions will continue to brood over more expensive Taiwanese stocks due to the US-China conflict. This has motivated our longstanding long Korea / short Taiwan recommendation. Chart 7Global Economy Speaks Louder Than North Korea Global Economy Speaks Louder Than North Korea Global Economy Speaks Louder Than North Korea Chart 8China Wary Of Over-Tightening Policy China Wary Of Over-Tightening Policy China Wary Of Over-Tightening Policy Chart 9Global Stock-Bond Ratio Registers Good News Global Stock-Bond Ratio Registers Good News Global Stock-Bond Ratio Registers Good News Second, China’s 2020 stimulus will have lingering effects and it is wary of over-tightening monetary and fiscal policy, lest it undo its domestic economic recovery. The tenor of China’s Central Economic Work Conference in December has reinforced this view. Chart 8 illustrates the expectations of our China Investment Strategy regarding China’s credit growth and local government bond issuance. They suggest that there will not be a sharp withdrawal of fiscal or quasi-fiscal support in 2021. Stability is especially important in the lead up to the critical leadership rotation in 2022.3 This policy backdrop will be positive for global/EM equities despite the political crackdown on General Secretary Xi Jinping’s opponents will occur despite this supportive policy backdrop. The global stock-to-bond ratio has surged in clear recognition of these positive policy trends (Chart 9). Government bonds were deeply overbought and it will take several years before central banks begin tightening policy. What About Biden’s Foreign Policy? Chart 10OPEC 2.0 Cartel Continues (For Now) Accommodative US Monetary Policy, Tighter Commodity Markets Will Stoke Inflation OPEC 2.0 Cartel Continues (For Now) Accommodative US Monetary Policy, Tighter Commodity Markets Will Stoke Inflation OPEC 2.0 Cartel Continues (For Now) Iran poses a genuine geopolitical risk this year – first in the form of an oil supply risk, should conflict emerge in the Persian Gulf, Iraq, or elsewhere in the region. This would inject a risk premium into the oil price. Later the risk is the opposite as a deal with the Biden administration would create the prospect for Iran to attract foreign investment and begin pumping oil, while putting pressure on the OPEC 2.0 coalition to abandon its current, tentative, production discipline in pursuit of market share (Chart 10). Biden has the executive authority to restore the 2015 nuclear deal (Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action). He is in favor of doing so in order to (1) prevent the Middle East from generating a crisis that consumes his foreign policy; (2) execute an American grand strategy of reviving its Asia Pacific influence; (3) cement the Obama administration’s legacy. The Iranian President Hassan Rouhani also has a clear interest in returning to the deal before the country’s presidential election in June. This would salvage his legacy and support his “reformist” faction. The Supreme Leader also has a chance to pin the negative aspects of the deal on a lame duck president while benefiting from it economically as he prepares for his all-important succession. The problem is that extreme levels of distrust will require some brinkmanship early in Biden’s term. Iran is building up leverage ahead of negotiations, which will mean higher levels of uranium enrichment and demonstrating the range of its regional capabilities, including the Strait of Hormuz, and its ability to impose economic pain via oil prices. Biden will need to establish a credible threat if Iran misbehaves. Hence the geopolitical setting is positive for oil prices at the moment. Beyond Iran, there is a clear basis for policy uncertainty to decline for Europe and the UK while it remains elevated for China and Russia (Chart 11). Chart 11Relative Policy Uncertainty Favors Europe and UK Over Russia And China Relative Policy Uncertainty Favors Europe and UK Over Russia And China Relative Policy Uncertainty Favors Europe and UK Over Russia And China The US international image has suffered from the Trump era and the Biden administration’s main priorities will lie in solidifying alliances and partnerships and stabilizing the US role in the world, rather than pursuing showdown and confrontation. However, it will not be long before scrutiny returns to the authoritarian states, which have been able to focus on domestic recovery and expanding their spheres of influence amid the US’s tumultuous election year. Chart 12GeoRisk Indicators Say Risks Underrated For These Bourses GeoRisk Indicators Say Risks Underrated For These Bourses GeoRisk Indicators Say Risks Underrated For These Bourses The US will not seek a “diplomatic reset” with Russia, aside from renegotiating the New START treaty. The Democrats will seek to retaliate for Russia’s extensive cyberattack in 2021 as well as for election interference and psychological warfare in the United States. And while there probably will be a reset with China, it will be short-lived, as outlined above. This situation contrasts with that of the Atlantic sphere. The Biden administration is a crystal clear positive, relative to a second Trump term, for the European Union. The EU and the UK have just agreed to a trade deal, as expected, to conclude the Brexit process, which means that the US-UK “special relationship” will not be marred by disagreements over Ireland. European solidarity has also strengthened as a result of the pandemic, which highlighted the need for collective policy responses, including fiscal. Thus the geopolitical risks of the new administration are most relevant for China/Taiwan and Russia. Comparing our GeoRisk Indicators, which are market-based, with the relative equity performance of these bourses, Taiwanese stocks are the most vulnerable because markets are increasingly pricing the geopolitical risk yet the relative stock performance is toppy (Chart 12). The limited recovery in Russian equities is also at risk for the same reason. Only in China’s case has the market priced lower geopolitical risk, not least because of the positive change in US administration. We expect Biden and Xi Jinping to be friendly at first but for strategic distrust to reemerge by the second half of the year. This will be a rude awakening for Chinese stocks – or China-exposed US stocks, especially in the tech sector. Investment Takeaways Chart 13Global Policy Shifts Drive Big Investment Reversals Global Policy Shifts Drive Big Investment Reversals Global Policy Shifts Drive Big Investment Reversals The US is politically divided. Civil unrest and aftershocks of the controversial election will persist but markets will ignore it unless it has a systemic impact. The policy consequence is a more proactive fiscal policy, resulting in virtual fiscal-monetary coordination that is positive both for global demand and risk assets, while negative for the US dollar. The Biden administration will succeed in partially repealing the Trump tax cuts, but the impact on corporate profit margins will be discounted fairly mechanically and quickly by market participants, while the impact on economic growth will be more than offset by huge new spending. Sentiment will improve after the pandemic – and Biden has not yet shown an inclination to take an anti-business tone. The past decade has been marked by a dollar bull market and the outperformance of developed markets over emerging markets and growth stocks like technology over value stocks like financials. Cyclical sectors have traded in a range. Going forward, a secular rise in geopolitical Great Power competition is likely to persist but the macro backdrop has shifted with the decline of the dollar. Cyclical sectors are now poised to outperform while a bottom is forming in value stocks and emerging markets (Chart 13). We recommend investors go strategically long emerging markets relative to developed. We are also going long global value over growth stocks. We are not yet ready to close our gold trade given that the two supports, populist fiscal turn and great power struggle, will continue to be priced by markets in the near term. We are throwing in the towel on our short CNY-USD trade after the latest upleg in the renminbi, though our view continues to be that geopolitical fundamentals will catch yuan investors by surprise when they reassert themselves. We also recommend preferring global equities to US equities, given the above-mentioned global trends plus looming tax hikes.   Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1 January 6, 2020, twitter.com. 2 See Turchin and Andrey Korotayev, "The 2010 Structural-Demographic Forecast for the 2010-2020 Decade: A Retrospective Assessment," PLoS ONE 15:8 (2020), journals.plos.org. 3 Not to mention that 2021 is the Communist Party’s 100th anniversary – not a time to make an unforced policy error with an already wobbly economy.

Feature Feature ChartEconomies Have Already Snapped Back Fragility In A New-Normal: 2021 Key Views Fragility In A New-Normal: 2021 Key Views In this final report of a tumultuous 2020, we present our key views for 2021 in the form of ten questions and answers during a recent conversation with a client. 1.  Let’s begin with a blunt question. How can your views ever anticipate a shock such as this year’s once-in-a-century pandemic? Nobody can predict when, where, or how a shock will come. But what we can, and should, always do is gauge the fragility of the market to an incoming shock, whatever that unknown shock might be. Before the pandemic struck, both our 2020 key views and our first report of this year, Markets Are Fractally Fragile, pointed out that a fragile market was vulnerable to “the tiniest of straws that could break its back.” Right now, markets are close to a similar point of fragility. 2.   What is the specific source of market fragility right now? The fragility is that tech stock valuations have become hyper-dependent on low bond yields in a so-called ‘rational bubble’. Specifically, the (earnings) yield premium on tech stocks versus the 10-year bond yield is at its 2.5 percent lower threshold that has signalled four previous fragilities in February 2018, October 2018, April 2019, and January 2020 (Chart I-2). Chart I-2Tech Stock Valuations Are Fragile Fragility In A New-Normal: 2021 Key Views Fragility In A New-Normal: 2021 Key Views These previous fragilities resulted in an exhaustion, or worse, a correction, in tech stocks, and by extension in the overall market. The upshot is that a meaningful rise in bond yields could once again undermine the stock market. 3.   But I thought that higher bond yields were good for stocks, if the higher bond yields imply that growth is accelerating? Not necessarily. Yes, a stock price is proportional to growth, but it is also inversely proportional to the discount rate, which is the required return that investors demand to hold it. If the discount rate increases by more than growth, then the stock price will fall, not rise. The discount rate equals the bond yield plus the equity risk premium. At ultra-low yields, the two components move together. This is because when the bond yield declines towards its lower bound, the bond price carries less upside versus downside and thereby more risk. Meaning that in relative terms, equities require a smaller risk premium. When bond yields increase, the opposite is true – both the bond yield and the equity risk premium rise together (Chart I-3). Chart I-3AUltra-Low Bond Yields Have Created The Greatest Asset-Price Inflation Of All Time Fragility In A New-Normal: 2021 Key Views Fragility In A New-Normal: 2021 Key Views Chart I-3BUltra-Low Bond Yields Have Created The Greatest Asset-Price Inflation Of All Time Fragility In A New-Normal: 2021 Key Views Fragility In A New-Normal: 2021 Key Views     The result is that growth would have to increase very sharply to counter the large rise in the bond yield plus equity risk premium. 4.   But 2021-22 are likely to be years of very strong growth just like the post-recession years 2009-10, right? Wrong. You see, after a slump the strongest growth occurs in the sharp snapback of lost output, and most of this sharp snapback has already happened. In 2008-09, the US and German economies shrank for four quarters. It then took five quarters of strong growth to recover two-thirds of this lost output. But in 2020, everything has happened at quintuple-speed. It has taken just one quarter to recover two-thirds of the lost output, and by the end of this year US GDP will be almost back to its pre-pandemic level (Feature Chart and Chart I-4). Chart I-4Economies Have Already Snapped Back Fragility In A New-Normal: 2021 Key Views Fragility In A New-Normal: 2021 Key Views This is because we quickly realised that even in a full-scale pandemic, 90 percent of economic activity can continue with face masks and social distancing. The activities that are most disrupted – retail, hospitality, and transport – account for just 10 percent of output. Meanwhile, China, which on some measures is the world’s largest economy, is already ‘back to normal’ because its effective track-and-trace system has circumvented the need for face masks and social distancing. The upshot is that, as far as global economic output is concerned, most of the powerful snapback has already happened. 5.   But if economic output has largely recovered, why does it not feel like it has? For three reasons. First, the most disrupted activities comprise so-called ‘social consumption’ such as going to bars and restaurants, having friends round for dinner, and going on holiday. In other words, all the fun things in life. Although these activities account for just 10 percent of economic output, they likely account for a much bigger proportion of our happiness. Second, we are producing and consuming the 90 percent of undisrupted output differently. For example, working from home, doing business meetings virtually, and doing our shopping on-line. Crucially, much of this ‘new-normal’ is here to stay even when the pandemic ends. Third, although the disrupted activities account for just 10 percent of output, they account for a very significant 25 percent of all jobs. Meaning that the jobs market has not snapped back to the same extent as output. Indeed, permanent unemployment continues to rise (Chart I-5). Chart I-5Permanent Unemployment Continues To Rise Fragility In A New-Normal: 2021 Key Views Fragility In A New-Normal: 2021 Key Views Alas, the jobs market will take a long time to fully recover even when the pandemic ends. This is because the new-normal way of producing and consuming will permanently scar traditionally high-employment sectors such as retail and hospitality. Constituting a major economic fragility in the new-normal (Table I-1). Table I-1Retail And Hospitality Employ 25 Percent Of All Workers Fragility In A New-Normal: 2021 Key Views Fragility In A New-Normal: 2021 Key Views 6.   All of which means inflation stays below the 2 percent target, right? Right. But your question should be framed differently. You see, inflation is a non-linear system with two states: price stability and price instability. You can shift an economy between these two states, but you cannot hit an arbitrary target like 2 percent, 3 percent, or 5 percent. So, your question should be, will developed economies stay in the state of price stability? And the answer is yes, because it is the much better state to be in, and it took decades of blood, sweat and tears to achieve. Nevertheless, any government can flip its economy into the state of price instability if it so desires. Just look at Turkey. A warning sign is that the central bank loses its independence, enabling it to monetise government debt. That’s the warning sign to look out for. 7.   Talking of fragility in a new-normal, hasn’t the double whammy of Brexit and the pandemic weakened the EU? No, quite the contrary. As Jean Monnet, a founding father of the EU, said: “Europe will be forged in crises.” And he was right. Each of the last three crises has strengthened the EU’s architecture. The euro debt crisis added the missing ‘lender of last resort to sovereigns’ weapon into the ECB armoury – a weapon whose mere presence means it has never had to be used. Brexit removed the most troublesome member from the EU fold, as well as demonstrating how costly it is to exit. And the pandemic has allowed the EU to smash two major taboos: explicit fiscal transfers across countries, and the large-scale issuance of common EU bonds. All of which means that the yield spreads on euro area ‘periphery’ bonds over Germany and France will continue to tighten, and ultimately disappear altogether (Chart I-6). Chart I-6The Yield Spread On Euro Periphery Bonds Will Vanish Fragility In A New-Normal: 2021 Key Views Fragility In A New-Normal: 2021 Key Views 8.   What about the prospects for the UK outside the EU? Like all divorces, Brexit is a gain of self-determination for a loss of wealth. Hence, since the Brexit vote in 2016, the UK economy has flipped from outperformer to underperformer (Chart I-7). Chart I-7The UK Economy Has Flipped From Outperformer To Underperformer Fragility In A New-Normal: 2021 Key Views Fragility In A New-Normal: 2021 Key Views The UK economy will continue to underperform until it forges a fresh purpose and role as a newfound singleton on the world stage. 9.   Turning to investments, will the 2020 losers become the 2021 winners, and vice-versa? No, that’s an over-simplification. For example, for bonds to lose their 2020 winnings, yields would have to back up a lot. But as we’ve already discussed, that would burst the ‘rational bubble’ in tech stocks, undermine the stock market, and put renewed downward pressure on bond yields. In which case, banks will struggle to sustain any outperformance (Chart I-8). Meaning that ‘value’ will struggle to sustain any outperformance. Hence, a much smarter strategy is to switch between winners and losers within ‘growth’ and within ‘value’. Specifically, overweight healthcare versus tech, and overweight utilities versus banks. Chart I-8Bank Relative Performance Tracks The Bond Yield Fragility In A New-Normal: 2021 Key Views Fragility In A New-Normal: 2021 Key Views Of course, sector allocations always carry implications for regional and country equity allocation. The main implications are to overweight Europe versus Emerging Markets (Chart I-9), and to overweight Developed Markets versus Emerging Markets. Chart I-9Europe Vs. EM = Healthcare Vs. Tech Fragility In A New-Normal: 2021 Key Views Fragility In A New-Normal: 2021 Key Views 10. Finally, what about your long-term recommendations? This brings us full circle to the first question. While we could not predict the pandemic, all our four mega-themes for the 2020s proved to be successful, and in some cases very successful. A hypersensitivity to higher interest rates. Overweight equities versus bonds. Europe conquers its disintegration forces. Overweight European currencies. Non-China exposed investments outperform. Underweight materials and resources. The rise of blockchain and alternative energy. Overweight alternative energy, underweight oil and gas, and underweight financials. Given their long-term nature, these structural recommendations are as appropriate today as they were a year ago. And with that, it is time to sign off on a tumultuous 2020 and usher in 2021, a year which we define as Fragility In A New-Normal. We wish you and your families a safe and healthy holiday season, and a less tumultuous 2021. Fractal Trading System* This week’s recommended trade is to go long US utilities (XLU) versus US materials (XLB). Set the profit target and symmetrical stop-loss at 5.7 percent. In other trades, short European retail (EXH8) versus the market (STOXX) achieved its 4.2 percent profit target at which it was closed. The rolling 12-month win ratio now stands at 61 percent. Chart I-10 Fragility In A New-Normal: 2021 Key Views Fragility In A New-Normal: 2021 Key Views When the fractal dimension approaches the lower limit after an investment has been in an established trend it is a potential trigger for a liquidity-triggered trend reversal. Therefore, open a countertrend position. The profit target is a one-third reversal of the preceding 13-week move. Apply a symmetrical stop-loss. Close the position at the profit target or stop-loss. Otherwise close the position after 13 weeks. * For more details please see the European Investment Strategy Special Report “Fractals, Liquidity & A Trading Model,” dated   December 11, 2014, available at eis.bcaresearch.com.   Dhaval Joshi Chief European Investment Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com Fractal Trading System   Cyclical Recommendations Structural Recommendations Closed Fractal Trades Trades Closed Trades Asset Performance Currency & Bond Equity Sector Country Equity Indicators Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Fragility In A New-Normal: 2021 Key Views Fragility In A New-Normal: 2021 Key Views Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Fragility In A New-Normal: 2021 Key Views Fragility In A New-Normal: 2021 Key Views Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Fragility In A New-Normal: 2021 Key Views Fragility In A New-Normal: 2021 Key Views Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Fragility In A New-Normal: 2021 Key Views Fragility In A New-Normal: 2021 Key Views   Interest Rate Chart II-5Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Fragility In A New-Normal: 2021 Key Views Fragility In A New-Normal: 2021 Key Views Chart II-6Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Fragility In A New-Normal: 2021 Key Views Fragility In A New-Normal: 2021 Key Views Chart II-7Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Fragility In A New-Normal: 2021 Key Views Fragility In A New-Normal: 2021 Key Views Chart II-8Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Fragility In A New-Normal: 2021 Key Views Fragility In A New-Normal: 2021 Key Views  

Highlights With a vaccine already rolling out in the UK and soon in the US, investors have reason to be optimistic about next year. Government bond yields are rising, cyclical equities are outperforming defensives, international stocks hinting at outperforming American, and value stocks are starting to beat growth stocks (Chart 1). Feature President Trump’s defeat in the US election also reduces the risk of a global trade war, or a real war with Iran. European, Chinese, and Emirati stocks have rallied since the election, at least partly due to the reduction in these risks (Chart 2). However, geopolitical risk and global policy uncertainty have been rising on a secular, not just cyclical, basis (Chart 3). Geopolitical tensions have escalated with each crisis since the financial meltdown of 2008. Chart 1A New Global Business Cycle A New Global Business Cycle A New Global Business Cycle Chart 2Biden: No Trade War Or War With Iran? Biden: No Trade War Or War With Iran? Biden: No Trade War Or War With Iran? Chart 3Geopolitical Risk And Global Policy Uncertainty Geopolitical Risk And Global Policy Uncertainty Geopolitical Risk And Global Policy Uncertainty Chart 4The Decline Of The Liberal Democracies? The Decline Of The Liberal Democracies? The Decline Of The Liberal Democracies? Trump was a symptom, not a cause, of what ails the world. The cause is the relative decline of the liberal democracies in political, economic, and military strength relative to that of other global players (Chart 4). This relative decline has emboldened Chinese and Russian challenges to the US-led global order, as well as aggressive and unpredictable moves by middle and small powers. Moreover the aftershocks of the pandemic and recession will create social and political instability in various parts of the world, particularly emerging markets (Chart 5). Chart 5EM Troubles Await EM Troubles Await EM Troubles Await Chart 6Global Arms Build-Up Continues Global Arms Build-Up Continues Global Arms Build-Up Continues   We are bullish on risk assets next year, but our view is driven largely from the birth of a new economic cycle, not from geopolitics. Geopolitical risk is rapidly becoming underrated, judging by the steep drop-off in measured risk. There is no going back to a pre-Trump, pre-Xi Jinping, pre-2008, pre-Putin, pre-9/11, pre-historical golden age in which nations were enlightened, benign, and focused exclusively on peace and prosperity. Hard data, such as military spending, show the world moving in the opposite direction (Chart 6). So while stock markets will grind higher next year, investors should not expect that Biden and the vaccine truly portend a “return to normalcy.” Key View #1: China’s Communist Party Turns 100, With Rising Headwinds Investors should ignore the hype about the Chinese Communist Party’s one hundredth birthday in 2021. Since 1997, the Chinese leadership has laid great emphasis on this “first centenary” as an occasion by which China should become a moderately prosperous society. This has been achieved. China is deep into a structural economic transition that holds out a much more difficult economic, social, and political future. Chart 7China: Less Money, More Problems China: Less Money, More Problems China: Less Money, More Problems The big day, July 1, will be celebrated with a speech by General Secretary Xi Jinping in which he reiterates the development goals of the five-year plan. This plan – which doubles down on import substitution and the aggressive tech acquisition campaign – will be finalized in March, along with Xi’s yet-to-be released vision for 2035, which marks the halfway point to the “second centenary,” 2049, the hundredth birthday of the regime. Xi’s 2035 goals may contain some surprises but the Communist Party’s policy frameworks should be seen as “best laid plans” that are likely to be overturned by economic and geopolitical realities. It was easier for the country to meet its political development targets during the period of rapid industrialization from 1979-2008. Now China is deep into a structural economic transition that holds out a much more difficult economic, social, and political future. Potential growth is slowing with the graying of society and the country is making a frantic dash, primarily through technology acquisition, to boost productivity and keep from falling into the “middle income trap” (Chart 7). Total debt levels have surged as Beijing attempts to make this transition smoothly, without upsetting social stability. Households and the government are taking on a greater debt load to maintain aggregate demand while the government tries to force the corporate sector to deleverage in fits and starts (Chart 8). The deleveraging process is painful and coincides with a structural transition away from export-led manufacturing. Beijing likely believes it has already led de-industrialization proceed too quickly, given the huge long-term political risks of this process, as witnessed in the US and UK. The fourteenth five-year plan hints that the authorities will give manufacturing a reprieve from structural reform efforts (Chart 9). Chart 8China Struggles To Dismount Debt Bubble China Struggles To Dismount Debt Bubble China Struggles To Dismount Debt Bubble Chart 9China Will Slow De-Industrialization, Stoking Protectionism China Will Slow De-Industrialization, Stoking Protectionism China Will Slow De-Industrialization, Stoking Protectionism Chart 10China Already Reining In Stimulus China Already Reining In Stimulus China Already Reining In Stimulus A premature resumption of deleveraging heightens domestic economic risks. The trade war and then the pandemic forced the Xi administration to abandon its structural reform plans temporarily and drastically ease monetary, fiscal, and credit policy to prevent a recession. Almost immediately the danger of asset bubbles reared its head again. Because the regime is focused on containing systemic financial risk, it has already begun tightening monetary policy as the nation heads into 2021 – even though the rest of the world has not fully recovered from the pandemic (Chart 10). The risk of over-tightening is likely to be contained, since Beijing has no interest in undermining its own recovery. But the risk is understated in financial markets at the moment and, combined with American fiscal risks due to gridlock, this familiar Chinese policy tug-of-war poses a clear risk to the global recovery and emerging market assets next year. Far more important than the first centenary, or even General Secretary Xi’s 2035 vision, is the impending leadership rotation in 2022. Xi was originally supposed to step down at this time – instead he is likely to take on the title of party chairman, like Mao, and aims to stay in power till 2035 or thereabouts. He will consolidate power once again through a range of crackdowns – on political rivals and corruption, on high-flying tech and financial companies, on outdated high-polluting industries, and on ideological dissenters. Beijing must have a stable economy going into its five-year national party congresses, and 2022 is no different. But that goal has largely been achieved through this year’s massive stimulus and the discovery of a global vaccine. In a risk-on environment, the need for economic stability poses a downside risk for financial assets since it implies macro-prudential actions to curb bubbles. The 2017 party congress revealed that Xi sees policy tightening as a key part of his policy agenda and power consolidation. In short, the critical twentieth congress in 2022 offers no promise of plentiful monetary and credit stimulus (Chart 11). All investors can count on is the minimum required for stability. This is positive for emerging markets at the moment, but less so as the lagged effects of this year’s stimulus dissipate. Chart 11No Promise Of Major New Stimulus For Party Congress 2022 No Promise Of Major New Stimulus For Party Congress 2022 No Promise Of Major New Stimulus For Party Congress 2022 Not only will Chinese domestic policy uncertainty remain underestimated, but geopolitical risk will also do so. Superficially, Beijing had a banner year in 2020. It handled the coronavirus better than other countries, especially the US, thus advertising Xi Jinping’s centralized and statist governance model. President Trump lost the election. Regardless of why Trump lost, his trade war precipitated a manufacturing slowdown that hit the Rust Belt in 2019, before the virus, and his loss will warn future presidents against assaulting China’s economy head-on, at least in their first term. All of this is worth gold in Chinese domestic politics. Chart 12China’s Image Suffered In Spite Of Trump 2021 Key Views: No Return To Normalcy 2021 Key Views: No Return To Normalcy Internationally, however, China’s image has collapsed – and this is in spite of Trump’s erratic and belligerent behavior, which alienated most of the world and the US’s allies (Chart 12). Moreover, despite being the origin of COVID-19, China’s is one of the few economies that thrived this year. Its global manufacturing share rose. While delaying and denying transparency regarding the virus, China accused other countries of originating the virus, and unleashed a virulent “wolf warrior” diplomacy, a military standoff with India, and a trade war with Australia. The rest of Asia will be increasingly willing to take calculated risks to counterbalance China’s growing regional clout, and international protectionist headwinds will persist. The United States will play a leading part in this process. Sino-American strategic tensions have grown relentlessly for more than a decade, especially since Xi Jinping rose to power, as is evident from Chinese treasury holdings (Chart 13). The Biden administration will naturally seek a diplomatic “reset” and a new strategic and economic dialogue with China. But Biden has already indicated that he intends to insist on China’s commitments under Trump’s “phase one” trade deal. He says he will keep Trump’s sweeping Section 301 tariffs in place, presumably until China demonstrates improvement on the intellectual property and tech transfer practices that provided the rationale for the tariffs. Biden’s victory in the Rust Belt ensures that he cannot revert to the pre-Trump status quo. Indeed Biden amplifies the US strategic challenge to China’s rise because he is much more likely to assemble a “grand alliance” or “coalition of the willing” focused on constraining China’s illiberal and mercantilist policies. Even the combined economic might of a western coalition is not enough to force China to abandon its statist development model, but it would make negotiations more likely to be successful on the West’s more limited and transactional demands (Chart 14). Chart 13The US-China Divorce Pre-Dates And Post-Dates Trump The US-China Divorce Pre-Dates And Post-Dates Trump The US-China Divorce Pre-Dates And Post-Dates Trump Chart 14Biden's Grand Alliance A Danger To China Biden's Grand Alliance A Danger To China Biden's Grand Alliance A Danger To China The Taiwan Strait is ground zero for US-China geopolitical tensions. The US is reviving its right to arm Taiwan for the sake of its self-defense, but the US commitment is questionable at best – and it is this very uncertainty that makes a miscalculation more likely and hence conflict a major tail risk (Chart 15). True, Beijing has enormous economic leverage over Taiwan, and it is fresh off a triumph of imposing its will over Hong Kong, which vindicates playing the long game rather than taking any preemptive military actions that could prove disastrous. Nevertheless, Xi Jinping’s reassertion of Beijing and communism is driving Taiwanese popular opinion away from the mainland, resulting in a polarizing dynamic that will be extremely difficult to bridge (Chart 16). If China comes to believe that the Biden administration is pursuing a technological blockade just as rapidly and resolutely as the Trump administration, then it could conclude that Taiwan should be brought to heel sooner rather than later. Chart 15US Boosts Arms Sales To Taiwan 2021 Key Views: No Return To Normalcy 2021 Key Views: No Return To Normalcy Chart 16Taiwan Strait Risk Will Explode If Biden Seeks Tech Blockade 2021 Key Views: No Return To Normalcy 2021 Key Views: No Return To Normalcy Bottom Line: On a secular basis, China faces rising domestic economic risks and rising geopolitical risk. Given the rally in Chinese currency and equities in 2021, the downside risk is greater than the upside risk of any fleeting “diplomatic reset” with the United States. Emerging markets will benefit from China’s stimulus this year but will suffer from its policy tightening over time. Key View #2: The US “Pivot To Asia” Is Back On … And Runs Through Iran Most likely President-elect Biden will face gridlock at home. His domestic agenda largely frustrated, he will focus on foreign policy. Given his old age, he may also be a one-term president, which reinforces the need to focus on the achievable. He will aim to restore the Obama administration’s foreign policy, the chief features of which were the 2015 nuclear deal with Iran and the “Pivot to Asia.” The US is limited by the need to pivot to Asia, while Iran is limited by the risk of regime failure. A deal should be agreed. The purpose of the Iranian deal was to limit Iran’s nuclear and regional ambitions, stabilize Iraq, create a semblance of regional balance, and thus enable American military withdrawal. The US could have simply abandoned the region, but Iran’s ensuing supremacy would have destabilized the region and quickly sucked the US back in. The newly energy independent US needed a durable deal. Then it could turn its attention to Asia Pacific, where it needed to rebuild its strategic influence in the face of a challenger that made Iran look like a joke (Chart 17). Chart 17The "Pivot To Asia" In A Nutshell The "Pivot To Asia" In A Nutshell The "Pivot To Asia" In A Nutshell It is possible for Biden to revive the Iranian deal, given that the other five members of the agreement have kept it afloat during the Trump years. Moreover, since it was always an executive deal that lacked Senate approval, Biden can rejoin unilaterally. However, the deal largely expires in 2025 – and the Trump administration accurately criticized the deal’s failure to contain Iran’s missile development and regional ambitions. Therefore Biden is proposing a renegotiation. This could lead to an even greater US-Iran engagement, but it is not clear that a robust new deal is feasible. Iran can also recommit to the old deal, having taken only incremental steps to violate the deal after the US’s departure – manifestly as leverage for future negotiations. Of course, the Iranians are not likely to give up their nuclear program in the long run, as nuclear weapons are the golden ticket to regime survival. Libya gave up its nuclear program and was toppled by NATO; North Korea developed its program into deliverable nuclear weapons and saw an increase in stature. Iran will continue to maintain a nuclear program that someday could be weaponized. Nevertheless, Tehran will be inclined to deal with Biden. President Hassan Rouhani is a lame duck, his legacy in tatters due to Trump, but his final act in office could be to salvage his legacy (and his faction’s hopes) by overseeing a return to the agreement prior to Iran’s presidential election in June. From Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei’s point of view, this would be beneficial. He also needs to secure his legacy, but as he tries to lay the groundwork for his power succession, Iran faces economic collapse, widespread social unrest, and a potentially explosive division between the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps and the more pragmatic political faction hoping for economic opening and reform. Iran needs a reprieve from US maximum pressure, so Khamenei will ultimately rejoin a limited nuclear agreement if it enables the regime to live to fight another day. In short, the US is limited by the need to pivot to Asia, while Iran is limited by the risk of regime failure. A deal should be agreed. But this is precisely why conflict could erupt in 2021. First, either in Trump’s final days in office or in the early days of the Biden administration, Israel could take military action – as it has likely done several times this year already – to set back the Iranian nuclear program and try to reinforce its own long-term security. Second, the Biden administration could decide to utilize the immense leverage that President Trump has bequeathed, resulting in a surprisingly confrontational stance that would push Iran to the brink. This is unlikely but it may be necessary due to the following point. Third, China and Russia could refuse to cooperate with the US, eliminating the prospect of a robust renegotiation of the deal, and forcing Biden to choose between accepting the shabby old deal or adopting something similar to Trump’s maximum pressure. China will probably cooperate; Russia is far less certain. Beijing knows that the US intention in Iran is to free up strategic resources to revive the US position in Asia, but it has offered limited cooperation on Iran and North Korea because it does not have an interest in their acquiring nuclear weapons and it needs to mitigate US hostility. Biden has a much stronger political mandate to confront China than he does to confront Iran. Assuming that the Israelis and Saudis can no more prevent Biden’s détente with Iran than they could Obama’s, the next question will be whether Biden effectively shifts from a restored Iranian deal to shoring up these allies and partners. He can possibly build on the Abraham Accords negotiated by the Trump administration smooth Israeli ties with the Arab world. The Middle East could conceivably see a semblance of balance. But not in 2021. The coming year will be the rocky transition phase in which the US-Iran détente succeeds or fails. Chart 18Oil Market Share War Preceded The Last US-Iran Deal Oil Market Share War Preceded The Last US-Iran Deal Oil Market Share War Preceded The Last US-Iran Deal Chart 19Still, Base Case Is For Rising Oil Prices Still, Base Case Is For Rising Oil Prices Still, Base Case Is For Rising Oil Prices Chart 20Biden Needs A Credible Threat Biden Needs A Credible Threat Biden Needs A Credible Threat The lead-up to the 2015 Iranian deal saw a huge collapse in global oil prices due to a market share war with Saudi Arabia, Russia, and the US triggered by US shale production and Iranian sanctions relief (Chart 18). This was despite rising global demand and the emergence of the Islamic State in Iraq. In 2021, global demand will also be reviving and Iraq, though not in the midst of full-scale war, is still unstable. OPEC 2.0 could buckle once again, though Moscow and Riyadh already confirmed this year that they understand the devastating consequences of not cooperating on production discipline. Our Commodity and Energy Strategy projects that the cartel will continue to operate, thus drawing down inventories (Chart 19). The US and/or Israel will have to establish a credible military threat to ensure that Iran is in check, and that will create fireworks and geopolitical risks first before it produces any Middle Eastern balance (Chart 20). Bottom Line: The US and Iran are both driven to revive the 2015 nuclear deal by strategic needs. Whether a better deal can be negotiated is less likely. The return to US-Iran détente is a source of geopolitical risk in 2021 though it should ultimately succeed. The lower risk of full-scale war is negative for global oil prices but OPEC 2.0 cartel behavior will be the key determiner. The cartel flirted with disaster in 2020 and will most likely hang together in 2021 for the sake of its members’ domestic stability. Key View #3: Europe Wins The US Election Chart 21Europe Won The US Election Europe Won The US Election Europe Won The US Election The European Union has not seen as monumental of a challenge from anti-establishment politicians over the past decade as have Britain and America. The establishment has doubled down on integration and solidarity. Now Europe is the big winner of the US election. Brussels and Berlin no longer face a tariff onslaught from Trump, a US-instigated global trade war, or as high of a risk of a major war in the Middle East. Biden’s first order of business will be reviving the trans-Atlantic alliance. Financial markets recognize that Europe is the winner and the euro has finally taken off against the dollar over the past year. European industrials and small caps outperformed during the trade war as well as COVID-19, a bullish signal (Chart 21). Reinforcing this trend is the fact that China is looking to court Europe and reduce momentum for an anti-China coalition. The center of gravity in Europe is Germany and 2021 faces a major transition in German politics. Chancellor Angela Merkel will step down at long last. Her Christian Democratic Union is favored to retain power after receiving a much-needed boost for its handling of this year’s crisis (Chart 22), although the risk of an upset and change of ruling party is much greater than consensus holds. Chart 22German Election Poses Political Risk, Not Investment Risk German Election Poses Political Risk, Not Investment Risk German Election Poses Political Risk, Not Investment Risk However, from an investment point of view, an upset in the German election is not very concerning. A left-wing coalition would take power that would merely reinforce the shift toward more dovish fiscal policy and European solidarity. Either way Germany will affirm what France affirmed in 2017, and what France is on track to reaffirm in 2022: that the European project is intact, despite Brexit, and evolving to address various challenges. The European project is intact, despite Brexit, and evolving to address various challenges. This is not to say that European elections pose no risk. In fact, there will be upsets as a result of this year’s crisis and the troubled aftermath. The countries with upcoming elections – or likely snap elections in the not-too-distant future, like Spain and Italy – show various levels of vulnerability to opposition parties (Chart 23). Chart 23Post-COVID EU Elections Will Not Be A Cakewalk Post-COVID EU Elections Will Not Be A Cakewalk Post-COVID EU Elections Will Not Be A Cakewalk Chart 24Immigration Tailwind For Populism Subsided Immigration Tailwind For Populism Subsided Immigration Tailwind For Populism Subsided The chief risks to Europe stem from fiscal normalization and instability abroad. Regime failures in the Middle East and Africa could send new waves of immigration, and high levels of immigration have fueled anti-establishment politics over the past decade. Yet this is not a problem at the moment (Chart 24). And even more so than the US, the EU has tightened border enforcement and control over immigration (Chart 25). This has enabled the political establishment to save itself from populist discontent. The other danger for Europe is posed by Russian instability. In general, Moscow is focusing on maintaining domestic stability amid the pandemic and ongoing economic austerity, as well as eventual succession concerns. However, Vladimir Putin’s low approval rating has often served as a warning that Russia might take an external action to achieve some limited national objective and instigate opposition from the West, which increases government support at home (Chart 26). Chart 25Europe Tough On Immigration Like US Europe Tough On Immigration Like US Europe Tough On Immigration Like US Chart 26Warning Sign That Russia May Lash Out Warning Sign That Russia May Lash Out Warning Sign That Russia May Lash Out Chart 27Russian Geopolitical Risk Premium Rising Russian Geopolitical Risk Premium Rising Russian Geopolitical Risk Premium Rising The US Democratic Party is also losing faith in engagement with Russia, so while it will need to negotiate on Iran and arms reduction, it will also seek to use sanctions and democracy promotion to undermine Putin’s regime and his leverage over Europe. The Russian geopolitical risk premium will rise, upsetting an otherwise fairly attractive opportunity relative to other emerging markets (Chart 27). Bottom Line: The European democracies have passed a major “stress test” over the past decade. The dollar will fall relative to the euro, in keeping with macro fundamentals, though it will not be supplanted as the leading reserve currency. Europe and the euro will benefit from the change of power in Washington, and a rise in European political risks will still be minor from a global point of view. Russia and the ruble will suffer from a persistent risk premium. Investment Takeaways As the “Year of the Rat” draws to a close, geopolitical risk and global policy uncertainty have come off the boil and safe haven assets have sold off. Yet geopolitical risk will remain elevated in 2021. The secular drivers of the dramatic rise in this risk since 2008 have not been resolved. To play the above themes and views, we are initiating the following strategic investment recommendations: Long developed market equities ex-US – US outperformance over DM has reached extreme levels and the global economic cycle and post-pandemic revival will favor DM-ex-US. Long emerging market equities ex-China – Emerging markets will benefit from a falling dollar and commodity recovery. China has seen the good news but now faces the headwinds outlined above. Long European industrials relative to global – European equities stand to benefit from the change of power in Washington, US-China decoupling, and the global recovery. Long Mexican industrials versus emerging markets – Mexico witnessed the rise of an American protectionist and a landslide election in favor of a populist left-winger. Now it has a new trade deal with the US and the US is diversifying from China, while its ruling party faces a check on its power via midterm elections, and, regardless, has maintained orthodox economic policy. Long Indian equities versus Chinese – Prime Minister Narendra Modi has a single party majority, four years on his political clock, and has recommitted to pro-productivity structural reforms. The nation is taking more concerted action in pursuit of economic development since strategic objectives in South Asia cannot be met without greater dynamism. The US, Japan, Australia, and other countries are looking to develop relations as they diversify from China.   Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com

Highlights COVID-19: Markets are trading off the longer-term positive news on COVID-19 vaccines, rather than the shorter-term negative news of surging numbers of new virus cases in Europe and North America. This will continue as long as the vaccine results stay promising, further boosting global equity and credit market performance, especially versus government bonds, as investors price in a return to “normalcy”. FX & Monetary Policy: An increasing number of central banks have raised concerns about unwanted currency appreciation. With interest rates stuck near-zero, asset purchases and balance sheet expansion will be the marginal policy tool used to limit currency moves, especially vs the US dollar. The greater impact will be on bond yield spreads versus US Treasuries with the Fed being less aggressive on QE. Stay underweight the US in global government bond portfolios. Feature Chart of the WeekMarkets Reacting Calmly To This COVID-19 Surge Markets Reacting Calmly To This COVID-19 Surge Markets Reacting Calmly To This COVID-19 Surge With US election uncertainty now fading away on a stream of failed Trump legal challenges, investors have turned their attention back to COVID-19. On that front, there has been both good and bad news. New cases and hospitalizations have surged across the US and Europe, leading to renewed economic restrictions to slow the spread at a time when governments are dragging their heels on fresh fiscal stimulus measures. Yet markets are seeing past the near-term hit to growth, focusing on the positive news from both Pfizer and Moderna about their COVID-19 vaccine trials with +90% success rates. With markets looking ahead to a possible end to the pandemic, growth sensitive risk assets have taken off. The S&P 500 is now at an all-time high, with beaten-up cyclical sectors outperforming. Market volatility is calm, with the VIX index back down to the low-20s. The riskier parts of the corporate bond universe are rallying hard, with CCC-rated US junk bond spreads tightening back to levels last seen in May 2019. Even the US dollar, which tends to weaken alongside improving global growth perceptions, continues to trade with a soggy tone - the Fed’s trade-weighted dollar index has fallen to a 19-month low (Chart of the Week). Expect more non-US quantitative easing (QE) over the next 6-12 months, to the benefit of non-US government bond performance. The weakening trend of the US dollar has already become a monetary policy issue for some central banks that do not want to see their own currencies appreciate versus the greenback at a time of depressed inflation expectations. Expect more non-US quantitative easing (QE) over the next 6-12 months, to the benefit of non-US government bond performance. There Is Room For Optimism Amid More Lockdowns The latest wave of coronavirus spread has dwarfed anything seen since the start of the pandemic. The number of daily new cases in the US, scaled by population, has climbed to 430 per million people in the US, setting a sad new high for the pandemic. The numbers are even worse in Europe, led by France where the number of new cases reached a high of 757 per million people on November 8 (Chart 2A). COVID-19 related hospitalization rates have also surged in the US and Europe, straining the capacity of health care systems to care for the newly sickened. In Europe, governments have already imposed severe restrictions on activity to limit the spread of the virus. According the data from Oxford University, the so-called “Government Response Stringency Index”, designed to measure the depth and intensity of lockdown measures such as school closures and travel restrictions, has returned to levels last seen during the first lockdowns back in March and April (Chart 2B). Chart 2AA Huge Second Wave of COVID-19 A Huge Second Wave of COVID-19 A Huge Second Wave of COVID-19 Chart 2BEconomic Restrictions Weighing On European Growth Vs US Economic Restrictions Weighing On European Growth Vs US Economic Restrictions Weighing On European Growth Vs US Oxford data on spending on sectors most impacted by lockdowns, like retail and recreation, also show declines in Europe and the UK similar in magnitude to those seen last spring. The data in the US, on the other hand, shows no nationwide pickup in lockdown stringency, or decline in spending. While economic restrictions are starting to be imposed in parts of the US, the hit to the overall domestic economy, so far, has been limited compared to what has taken place on the other side of the Atlantic. To be certain, the positive headlines on the vaccines will limit the ability of US local governments to impose unpopular restrictions anywhere near as severe as was seen earlier this year. Yet even if a vaccine ready for mass inoculation arrives relatively quickly, it will not be a smooth path to getting widespread public acceptance of the vaccine. According to a Pew Research survey conducted in late September, only 51% of Americans would take a COVID-19 vaccine as soon as it was available (Chart 3). This was down from 72% in a similar survey conducted in May during the panic of the first US wave of the virus. The declines in willingness to take the vaccine were consistent across groupings of age, race, education and political leanings. Of those who said they would not take a vaccine right away, 76% cited a concern about potential side effects as a major reason. Chart 3Most Americans Are Wary Of A COVID-19 Vaccine Nobody Wants A Stronger Currency Nobody Wants A Stronger Currency So even with an effective vaccine now on the horizon, it may take some time to convince people that it is safe to take it. What is clear now, however, is that economic sentiment took a hit from the surge in COVID-19 cases before the vaccine news arrived. The latest ZEW survey of economic forecasters, published last week, showed a decline in growth expectations across the developed economies in the early days of November (Chart 4). The decline occurred for all countries, including the US, but was most severe for the UK, where there are not only new COVID-19 lockdowns but also the looming risk of a messy upcoming resolution to the Brexit saga. Yet the net balance of survey respondents was still positive for all countries in the survey, suggesting that underlying economic sentiment remains robust even in the face of more COVID-19 cases and increased lockdowns in Europe. The ZEW survey also asks questions on sentiment for other factors besides growth. Expectations for longer-term bond yields have moved moderately higher in recent months, as have inflation expectations, although both took a slight dip in the latest survey (Chart 5). No changes for short-term interest rates are expected, consistent with most central banks promising to keep policy rates near 0% for at least the next couple of years. Chart 4COVID-19 Surge Weighing On Global Growth Expectations COVID-19 Surge Weighing On Global Growth Expectations COVID-19 Surge Weighing On Global Growth Expectations While global bond yield expectations have clearly bottomed, the ZEW survey shows that expectations for global equity and currency markets have also shifted in what appears to be pro-growth fashion. Chart 5Global Interest Rate Expectations Have Bottomed Global Interest Rate Expectations Have Bottomed Global Interest Rate Expectations Have Bottomed Survey respondents expect both the US dollar and British pound to weaken versus the euro. At the same time, expectations for future equity market returns have improved, even for European bourses full of companies whose profitability would presumably suffer with a stronger euro (Chart 6). As the US dollar typically trades as an “anti-growth” currency, depreciating during global growth upturns and vice versa, greater bullishness on global equities and more bearishness on the US dollar are not inconsistent views – especially with bond yield and inflation expectations also rising. Greater bullishness on global equities and more bearishness on the US dollar are not inconsistent views – especially with bond yield and inflation expectations also rising. Chart 6Bullish Equity Sentiment, Bearish USD Sentiment Bullish Equity Sentiment, Bearish USD Sentiment Bullish Equity Sentiment, Bearish USD Sentiment The big question that investors must now grapple with is if the near-term hit to growth from the latest COVID-19 surge will be large enough to offset the more medium-term improvement in economic sentiment with a vaccine now more likely to be widely distributed in 2021. Given the message from bullish equity and corporate credit markets, and with US Treasury yields drifting higher even with US COVID-19 cases surging, investors are clearly viewing the vaccine news as more significant for medium-term growth than increased near-term economic restrictions. We agree with that conclusion. We continue to recommend staying moderately below-benchmark on overall duration exposure, with an overweight tilt towards corporate credit versus government bonds, in global fixed income portfolios. A more comprehensive breakdown of the US dollar would be a signal that investors have grown even more comfortable with the economic outlook for 2021. Chart 7A New Leg Of USD Weakness On The Horizon? A New Leg Of USD Weakness On The Horizon? A New Leg Of USD Weakness On The Horizon? A more comprehensive breakdown of the US dollar would be a signal that investors have grown even more comfortable with the economic outlook for 2021. The DXY index now sits at critical downside resistance levels, while a basket of commodity-sensitive currencies tracked by our foreign exchange strategists is approaching upside trendline resistance (Chart 7). While emerging market (EM) currencies have generally lagged the US dollar weakness story of the past several months, the Bloomberg EM Currency Index is also approaching a potentially important breakout point. The US dollar is very technically oversold now, so some consolidation of recent moves is likely needed before a new wave of weakness can unfold. Any such breakout of non-US currencies versus the US dollar will open up a whole new assortment of problems for policymakers outside the US, however – particularly those suffering from depressed inflation expectations. Bottom Line: Markets are trading off the longer-term positive news on COVID-19 vaccines, rather than the shorter-term negative news of surging numbers of new virus cases in Europe and North America. This will continue as long as the vaccine results stay promising, further boosting global equity and credit market performance, especially versus government bonds, as investor’s price in a return to “normalcy”. Currency Wars 2.0? On the surface, more US dollar weakness should be welcome by policymakers around the world. Much of the downward pressure on global traded goods prices over the past decade can be traced to the stubborn strength of the greenback. With the Fed’s trade-weighted dollar index now -1.9% lower on a year-over-year basis, global export prices and commodity indices like the CRB Raw Industrials are no longer deflating (Chart 8). While a weaker US dollar would help mitigate the downward pressure on global inflation rates from traded goods prices, such a move would hardly be welcomed everywhere. Within the developed world, some countries are currently suffering from more underwhelming inflation rates than others. The link between currency swings and headline inflation is particularly strong in the US, euro area and Australia (Chart 9). While a weaker dollar has helped lift headline US CPI inflation over the past few months, a stronger euro and Australian dollar have dampened euro area and Australian realized inflation. It should come as no surprise that both the European Central Bank (ECB) and Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) have recently cited currency strength as a factor weighing on their latest dovish policy choices. Chart 8An Inflationary Impulse From A Weaker USD An Inflationary Impulse From A Weaker USD An Inflationary Impulse From A Weaker USD There is not only a link between exchange rates and inflation for policymakers to worry about – currencies represent an important part of financial conditions, and therefore growth, in many countries. Chart 9Currency Impact On Inflation Greater In Some Countries Currency Impact On Inflation Greater In Some Countries Currency Impact On Inflation Greater In Some Countries Chart 10Biggest Currency Impact On Financial Conditions Outside The US Biggest Currency Impact On Financial Conditions Outside The US Biggest Currency Impact On Financial Conditions Outside The US Financial conditions indices, which combine financial variables like equity prices and corporate bond yields, typically place a big weighting on trade-weighted currencies in countries with large export sectors like the euro area, Japan, Canada and Australia (Chart 10). This makes sense, as a strengthening currency represents a meaningful drag on growth via worsening export competitiveness. In the US with its relatively more closed economy and greater reliance on market-based corporate finance, the dollar is a less important factor determining financial conditions. So what can central banks do to limit appreciation of their currencies? The choices are limited when policy rates are at 0% as is the case in most developed countries. Negative policy rates are a possible option to help weaken currencies, but seeing how negative rates have destroyed the profitability of Japanese and euro area banks, central bankers in other countries are reluctant to go down that road. It is noteworthy that the two central banks that have made the loudest public flirtation with negative rates in 2020, the Bank of England (BoE) and the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (RBNZ), have not yet pulled the trigger on that move. Both have chosen to go down a more “traditional” route doing more QE to ease monetary policy at a time of weak domestic inflation. The ECB is set to do the same thing next month, increasing its balance sheet via asset purchases and cheap bank funding in an attempt to stem the dramatic decline in euro area inflation expectations. Currencies represent an important part of financial conditions, and therefore growth, in many countries. Can more QE help weaken currency levels in any individual country? Like anything involving currencies, it must be considered on a relative basis to developments in other countries. In Chart 11, we plot the ratio of the Fed’s balance sheet to other developed economy central bank balance sheets versus the relevant US dollar currency pair. The thick dotted lines denote the projected balance sheet ratio based on current central bank plans for asset purchases.1 The visual evidence over the past few years suggests a weak correlation between balance sheet ratios and currency levels. At best, more QE can help mitigate currency appreciation that would otherwise have occurred – which might be all that the likes of the RBA and RBNZ can hope for now. There is a more robust correlation is between relative balance sheets and cross-country government bond spreads. Where there is a more robust correlation is between relative balance sheets and cross-country government bond spreads (Chart 12). This is reasonable since expanding QE purchases of government bonds can dampen the level of bond yields - either by signaling a desire to push rate hikes further into the future (forward guidance) or by literally creating a demand/supply balance for bonds that is more favorable for higher bond prices and lower yields. Chart 11Relative QE Matters Less For Currencies Relative QE Matters Less For Currencies Relative QE Matters Less For Currencies Chart 12Relative QE Matters More For Bond Yield Spreads Relative QE Matters More For Bond Yield Spreads Relative QE Matters More For Bond Yield Spreads This is the critical point to consider for investors: the more efficient way to play the relative QE game is through cross-country bond spread trades, not currency trades. On that basis, favoring government bonds of countries where central banks have turned more aggressive with expanding their QE programs – like the UK, Australia and Canada – relative to the debt of countries where the pace of QE has slowed – like the US, Japan and Germany – in global bond portfolios makes sense (Chart 13). Although in the case of Germany (and euro area debt, more generally), we see the ECB’s likely move to ramp up asset purchases at next month’s policy meeting moving euro area bonds into the “expanding QE” basket of countries. Chart 13More Non-US QE Will Support Non-US Bond Outperformance More Non-US QE Will Support Non-US Bond Outperformance More Non-US QE Will Support Non-US Bond Outperformance Chart 14Central Banks Are Increasingly 'Funding' Government Spending Central Banks Are Increasingly 'Funding' Government Spending Central Banks Are Increasingly 'Funding' Government Spending One final note: central banks that choose to expand their QE buying of government bonds may actually provide the biggest economic benefit by “funding” fiscal stimulus and limiting the damage to bond yields from rising budget deficits (Chart 14). This may be the most important factor to consider as governments contemplate more stimulus measures to offset any short-term hit to growth from the rising spread of COVID-19. Bottom Line: With interest rates stuck near-zero, asset purchases and balance sheet expansion will be the marginal policy tool used to limit currency moves, especially versus the US dollar. The greater impact will be on bond yield spreads versus US Treasuries with the Fed being less aggressive on QE. Stay underweight the US in global government bond portfolios.   Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 The projections incorporate the following: by June 2021, the Fed grows its balance sheet by US$840 billion, the ECB by €600 billion, the BoJ by ¥80 trillion, the BoE by £150 billion, the BoC by C$180 billion, and the RBA by A$100 billion. Recommendations The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Nobody Wants A Stronger Currency Nobody Wants A Stronger Currency Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

Your feedback is important to us. Please take our client survey today. Highlights US Election & Duration: We estimate that there is an 80% probability of a US election result that will give a lift to US Treasury yields via increased fiscal stimulus. Those are strong enough odds to justify a move to a below-benchmark cyclical US duration stance on a 6-12 month horizon. US Treasuries: We anticipate a moderate bear market in US Treasuries to unfold during the next 6-12 months. In addition to below-benchmark portfolio duration, investors should overweight TIPS versus nominal Treasuries, hold nominal and real yield curve steepeners, and hold inflation curve flatteners. Non-US Country Allocation: Within global government bond portfolios, downgrade the US to underweight. Favor countries that have lower sensitivity to rising US Treasury yields with central banks that are likely to be more dovish than the Fed in the next few years. That means increasing allocations to core Europe and Japan, while reducing exposure to Canada and Australia. Stay neutral on the UK given the near-term uncertainties over the final Brexit outcome. Feature With the US presidential election just two weeks away, public opinion polls continue to show that Joe Biden is the favorite to win the White House. However, the odds of a “Blue Sweep” - combining a Biden victory with the Democratic Party winning control of both the US Senate and House of Representatives - have increased since the end of September according to online prediction markets. US Treasury yields have also moved higher over that same period (Chart II-1), which we interpret as the bond market becoming more sensitive to the likelihood of a major increase in US government spending under single-party Democratic control. Chart II-1A Blue Sweep Is Bond Bearish A Blue Sweep Is Bond Bearish A Blue Sweep Is Bond Bearish Table II-1A Comparison Of The Candidates' Budget Proposals November 2020 November 2020 According to a recent analysis done by the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, President Trump’s formal policy proposals would increase US federal debt by $4.95 trillion between 2021 and 2030, while Biden’s plan would increase the debt by $5.60 trillion (Table II-1).1 While those are both massive fiscal stimulus plans, there is a stark difference in the policy mix of their proposals that matters for the future path of US bond yields. Under Biden, spending is projected to increase by a cumulative $11.1 trillion, partially offset by $5.8 trillion in revenue increases and savings with the former vice-president calling for tax hikes on corporations and high-income earners. On the other hand, Trump’s plan includes $5.45 trillion of spending increases and tax cuts over the next decade, offset by $0.75 trillion in savings. Conclusion: Biden would increase spending by over twice that of a re-elected Trump, with much of that spending expected to be front-loaded in the early part of his first term. Outright spending is more reflationary than tax cuts because it puts more money in the pockets of consumers (spenders) relative to producers (savers). The Biden plan would be more stimulating for overall activity even if the increase in debt is about the same. Chart II-2The Biden Platform Is Highly Stimulative The Biden Platform Is Highly Stimulative The Biden Platform Is Highly Stimulative Another analysis of the Biden and Trump platforms was conducted by Moody’s in September, based on estimates of how much of each candidate’s promises could be successfully implemented under different combinations of White House and Congressional control.2 The stimulus figures were run through the Moody’s US economic model, which is similar to the budget scoring model of the US Congressional Budget Office, to produce a year-by-year path for the US economy over the next decade (Chart II-2). Moody’s concluded that the US economy would return to full employment in the second half of 2022 under a President Biden – especially if the Democrats win the Senate - compared to the first half of 2024 under a re-elected President Trump. Such a rapid closing of the deep US output gap that opened up because of the COVID-19 recession would likely trigger a reassessment of the Fed’s current highly dovish policy stance. At the moment, the US overnight index swap (OIS) curve discounts one full 25bp Fed hike by late 2023/early 2024, and two full hikes by late 2024/early 2025 (Chart II-3). This pricing of the future path of interest rates has occurred even with the Fed promising to keep the funds rate anchored near 0% until at least the end of 2023. The likelihood of some form of increased fiscal spending after the election will cause the bond market to challenge the Fed’s current forward guidance even more, putting upward pressure on Treasury yields. Chart II-3US Fiscal Stimulus Will Pull Forward Fed Liftoff US Fiscal Stimulus Will Pull Forward Fed Liftoff US Fiscal Stimulus Will Pull Forward Fed Liftoff Our colleagues at BCA Geopolitical Strategy see a Blue Sweep as the most likely outcome of the US election, although their forecasting models suggest that the race for control of the Senate will be much closer than the Biden vs Trump battle (there is little chance that control of the House of Representatives would switch back to the Republicans).3 Their scenarios for each of the White House/Senate combinations, along with their own estimated probability for each, are the following: Biden wins in a Democratic sweep: BCA probability = 27%. The US economy will benefit from higher odds of unfettered fiscal stimulus in 2021, although financial markets will simultaneously have to adjust for the negative shock to US corporate earnings from higher taxes and regulation. Government bond yields should rise on the generally reflationary agenda. Trump wins with a Republican Senate: BCA probability = 23%. In this status quo scenario, a re-elected President Trump would still face opposition from House Democrats on most domestic economic issues, forcing him to tilt towards more protectionist foreign and trade policies in his second term. Fiscal stimulus would be easy to agree, though not as large as under a Democratic sweep. US Treasury yields would rise, but would later prove volatile due to the risk to the cyclical recovery from a global trade war, as Trump’s tariffs will not be limited to China and could even affect the European Union. Biden wins with the Senate staying Republican: BCA probability = 28%. This is ultimately the most positive outcome for financial markets - reduced odds of a full-blown trade war with China, combined with no new tax hikes. Bond yields would drift upward over time, but not during the occasional fiscal battles that would ensue between the Democratic president and Republican senators. The first such battle would start right after the election. Treasuries would remain well bid until financial market pressures forced a Senate compromise with the new president sometime in H1 2021. Trump wins with a Democratic Senate: BCA probability = 22%. This is the least likely scenario but one that could produce a big positive fiscal impulse. Trump is a big spender and will veto tax hikes, but will approve populist spending on areas where he agrees. The Democratic Senate would not resist Trump’s tough stance on China, however, thus keeping the risk of US-China trade skirmishes elevated. This is neutral-to-bearish for US Treasuries, depending on the size of any bipartisan stimulus measures and Trump’s trade actions. The key takeaway is that the combined probability of scenarios that will put upward pressure on US Treasury yields is 72%, versus a 28% probability of a more bond-neutral outcome. That is a bond-bearish skew worth positioning for by reducing US duration exposure now, ahead of the November 3 election. Of this 72%, 45 percentage points come from scenarios in which President Trump would remain in power. Hence his trade wars would eventually undercut his reflationary fiscal policy. This would become the key risk to the short duration view after the initial market response. Bottom Line: The most likely scenarios for the US election will give a cyclical lift to US Treasury yields via increased fiscal stimulus. This justifies a move to a below-benchmark US duration stance on a 6-12 month horizon. If Trump is re-elected, the timing of Trump’s likely return to using broad-based tariffs will have to be monitored closely. A Moderate Bear Market While our anticipated Blue Sweep election outcome will lead to a large amount of fiscal spending in 2021 and beyond, we anticipate only a modest increase in bond yields during the next 6-12 months. In terms of strategy, our recommended reduction in portfolio duration reflects the fact that fiscal largesse meaningfully reduces the risk of another significant downleg in bond yields and strengthens our conviction in a moderate bear market scenario for bonds. This does raise the question of how large an increase in US Treasury yields we expect during the next 6-12 months. We turn to this question now. Chart II-4Less Election-Day Upside Than In 2016 Less Election-Day Upside Than In 2016 Less Election-Day Upside Than In 2016 Not Like 2016 First, we do not expect a massive election night bond rout like we saw in 2016 (Chart II-4). For one thing, the Fed was much more eager to tighten policy in 2016 than it is today, and it did deliver a rate hike one month after the Republicans won the House, Senate and White House (Chart II-4, bottom panel). This time around, the Fed has made it clear that it will wait until inflation is running above its 2% target before lifting rates off the zero bound and will not respond directly to expectations for greater fiscal stimulus. Second, 2016’s election result was mostly unanticipated. This led to a dramatic adjustment in market prices once the results came in. The PredictIt betting market odds of a “Red Sweep” by the Republicans in 2016 were only 16% the night before the election. As of today, the betting markets are priced for a 58% chance of a Blue Sweep in 2020. Unlike in 2016, bonds are presumably already partially priced for the most bond-bearish election outcome. A Slow Return To Equilibrium To more directly answer the question of how high bond yields can rise, survey estimates of the long-run (or equilibrium) federal funds rate provide a useful starting point. In a world where the economy is growing at an above-trend pace and inflation is expected to move towards the Fed’s target, it is logical for long-maturity Treasury yields to settle near estimates of the long-run fed funds rate. Indeed, this theory is borne out empirically. During the last two periods of robust global economic growth (2017/18 & 2013/14), the 5-year/5-year forward Treasury yield peaked around levels consistent with long-run fed funds rate estimates (Chart II-5). As of today, the median estimates of the long-run fed funds rate from the New York Fed’s Survey of Market Participants and Survey of Primary Dealers are 2% and 2.25%, respectively. In other words, a complete re-convergence to these equilibrium levels would impart 80 – 100 bps of upward pressure to the 5-year/5-year forward Treasury yield. We expect this re-convergence to play out eventually, but probably not within the next 6-12 months. In both prior periods when the 5-year/5-year forward Treasury yield reached these equilibrium levels, the Fed’s reaction function was much more hawkish. The Fed was hiking rates throughout 2017 & 2018 (Chart II-5, panel 4), and the market moved quickly to price in rate hikes in 2013 (Chart II-5, bottom panel). The Fed’s new dovish messaging will ensure that the market reacts less quickly this time around. Also, continued curve steepening will mean that the 5-year/5-year forward yield’s 80 – 100 bps of upside will translate into significantly less upside for the benchmark 10-year yield. The 10-year yield and 5-year/5-year forward yield peaked at similar levels in 2017/18 when the Fed was lifting rates and the yield curve was flat (Chart II-6). But, the 10-year peaked far below the 5-year/5-year yield in 2013/14 when the Fed stayed on hold and the curve steepened. Chart II-5How High For Treasury Yields? How High For Treasury Yields? How High For Treasury Yields? Chart II-6Less Upside In 10yr Than In 5y5y Less Upside In 10yr Than In 5y5y Less Upside In 10yr Than In 5y5y   The next bear move in bonds will look much more like 2013/14. The Fed will keep a firm grip over the front-end of the curve, leading to curve steepening and less upside in the 10-year Treasury yield than in the 5-year/5-year forward. In addition to shifting to a below-benchmark duration stance, investors should maintain exposure to nominal yield curve steepeners. Specifically, we recommend buying the 5-year note versus a duration-matched barbell consisting of the 2-year and 10-year notes (Chart II-6, bottom panel).4 TIPS Versus Nominals We have seen that a full re-convergence to “equilibrium” implies 80 – 100 bps of upside in the 5-year/5-year forward nominal Treasury yield. Bringing TIPS into the equation, we have also observed that long-maturity (5-year/5-year forward and 10-year) TIPS breakeven inflation rates tend to settle into a range of 2.3 – 2.5 percent when inflation is well-anchored and close to the Fed’s target (Chart II-7). The additional fiscal stimulus that will follow a Blue Sweep election makes it much more likely that the economic recovery will stay on course, leading to an eventual return of inflation to target and of long-maturity TIPS breakeven inflation rates to a 2.3 – 2.5 percent range. However, as with nominal yields, this re-convergence will be a long process whose pace will be dictated by the actual inflation data. To underscore that point, consider that our Adaptive Expectations Model of the 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate – a model that is driven by trends in the actual inflation data – has the 10-year breakeven rate as close to fair value (Chart II-8).5 This fair value will rise only slowly over time, alongside increases in actual inflation. Chart II-7Overweight TIPS Versus Nominals Overweight TIPS Versus Nominals Overweight TIPS Versus Nominals Chart II-8Real Yields Have Likely Bottomed Real Yields Have Likely Bottomed Real Yields Have Likely Bottomed   All in all, we continue to recommend an overweight allocation to TIPS versus nominal Treasuries. TIPS breakeven inflation rates will move higher during the next 6-12 months, but are unlikely to reach our 2.3 – 2.5 percent target range within that timeframe. TIPS In Absolute Terms As stated above, we expect nominal yields to increase more than real yields during the next 6-12 months, but what about the absolute direction of real (aka TIPS) yields? Here, our sense is that real yields have also bottomed. If we consider the extreme scenario where the 5-year/5-year forward nominal yield returns to its equilibrium level and where long-maturity TIPS breakeven inflation rates return to our target range, it implies about 80 bps of upside in the nominal yield and 40 bps of upside in the breakeven. This means that the 5-year/5-year real yield has about 40 bps of upside in a complete “return to equilibrium” scenario. While we don’t expect this “return to equilibrium” to be completed within the next 6-12 months, the process is probably underway. The only way for real yields to keep falling in this reflationary world is for the Fed to become increasingly dovish, even as growth improves and inflation rises. After its recent shift to an average inflation target, our best guess is that Fed rate guidance won’t get any more dovish from here. Real yields fell sharply this year as the market priced in this change in the Fed’s reaction function, but the late-August announcement of the Fed’s new framework will probably mark the bottom in real yields (Chart II-8, bottom panel).6 Chart II-9Own Inflation Curve Flatteners And Real Curve Steepeners Own Inflation Curve Flatteners And Real Curve Steepeners Own Inflation Curve Flatteners And Real Curve Steepeners Two More Curve Trades In addition to moving to below-benchmark duration, maintaining nominal yield curve steepeners and staying overweight TIPS versus nominal Treasuries, there are two additional trades that investors should consider in order to profit from the reflationary economic environment. The first is inflation curve flatteners. The cost of short-maturity inflation protection is below the cost of long-maturity inflation protection, meaning that it has further to run as inflation returns to the Fed’s target (Chart II-9). In addition, if the Fed eventually succeeds in achieving a temporary overshoot of its inflation target, then we should expect the inflation curve to invert. Real yield curve steepeners are in some ways the mirror image of inflation curve flatteners. Assuming no change in nominal yields, the real yield curve will steepen as the inflation curve flattens. But what makes real yield curve steepeners look even more attractive is that increases in nominal yields during the next 6-12 months will be concentrated in long-maturities. This will impart even more steepening pressure to the real yield curve. Investors should continue to hold inflation curve flatteners and real yield curve steepeners. Bottom Line: We anticipate a moderate bear market in US Treasuries to unfold during the next 6-12 months. In addition to below-benchmark portfolio duration, investors should overweight TIPS versus nominal Treasuries, hold nominal and real yield curve steepeners, and hold inflation curve flatteners. Non-US Government Bonds: Reduce Exposure To US Treasuries The mildly bearish case for US Treasuries that we have laid out above not only matters for our recommended duration stance, but also for our suggested country allocation within global government bond portfolios. Simply put, the risk of rising bond yields is much higher in the US than elsewhere, both for the immediate post-election period but also over the medium-term. Thus, the immediate obvious portfolio decision is to downgrade US Treasuries to underweight. The move higher in US Treasury yields that we expect is strictly related to spillovers from likely US fiscal stimulus. While other countries in the developed world are contemplating the need for additional fiscal measures, particularly in Europe where there is a renewed surge in coronavirus infections and growing economic restrictions, no country is facing as sharp a policy choice as the US with its upcoming election. We can say with a fair degree of certainty that the US will have a relatively more stimulative fiscal policy stance than other developed economies over at least the next couple of years. This implies a higher relative growth trajectory for the US that hurts Treasuries more on the margin than non-US government debt. In addition, the likely path of relative monetary policy responses are more bearish for US Treasuries. As described above, the scope of the US stimulus will cause bond investors to further question the Fed’s commitment to keeping the funds rate unchanged for the next few years. That also applies to the Fed’s other policy tools, like asset purchases. The Fed is far less likely to continue buying US Treasuries at the same aggressive pace it has for the past eight months if there is less need for monetary stimulus because of more fiscal stimulus. Chart II-10The Fed Will Gladly Trade Less QE For More Fiscal Stimulus November 2020 November 2020 According to the IMF, the Fed has purchased 57% of all US Treasuries issued since late February of this year, in sharp contrast to the ECB and Bank of Japan that have purchased over 70% of euro area government bonds and JGBs issued (Chart II-10). If US Treasury yields are rising because of improving US growth expectations, fueled by fiscal stimulus, the Fed will likely tolerate such a move and buy an even lower share of Treasuries issued – particularly if the higher bond yields do not cause a selloff in US equity markets that can tighten financial conditions and threaten the growth outlook. The fact that US equities have ignored the rise in Treasury yields seen since the end of September may be a sign that both bond and stock investors are starting to focus on a faster trajectory for US growth. In terms of country allocation, beyond downgrading US Treasuries to underweight, we recommend upgrading exposure to countries that are less sensitive to changes in US Treasury yields (i.e. countries with a lower yield beta to changes in US yields). In Chart II-11, we show the rolling beta of changes in 10-year government bond yields outside the US to changes in 10-year US Treasury yields. This is a variation of the “global yield beta” concept that we have discussed in the BCA Research bond publications in recent years. Here, we modify the idea to look at which countries are more or less correlated to US yields, specifically. A few points stand out from the chart: Chart II-11Reduce Exposure To Bond Markets More Correlated To UST Yields Reduce Exposure To Bond Markets More Correlated To UST Yields Reduce Exposure To Bond Markets More Correlated To UST Yields All countries have a “US yield beta” of less than 1, suggesting that Treasuries are a consistent outperformer when US yields fall and vice versa. This suggests moving to underweight the US when US yields are rising is typically a winning strategy in a portfolio context. The list of higher beta countries includes Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the UK and Germany; although Canada stands out as having the highest yield beta in this group. The list of lower beta countries includes France, Italy, Spain, and Japan. In Chart II-12, we show what we call the “upside yield beta” that is estimated only using data for periods when Treasury yields are rising. This gives a sense of which countries are more likely to outperform or underperform during a period of rising Treasury yields, as we expect to unfold after the election. From this perspective, the “safer” lower US upside yield beta group includes the UK, France, Germany and Japan. The riskier higher US upside yield beta group includes Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Italy and Spain. Chart II-12Favor Bond Markets Less Correlated to RISING UST Yields Favor Bond Markets Less Correlated to RISING UST Yields Favor Bond Markets Less Correlated to RISING UST Yields Spain and Italy are less likely to behave like typical high-beta countries as US yields rise, however, because the ECB is likely to remain an aggressive buyer of their government bonds as part of their asset purchase programs over the next 6-12 months. We also do not recommend trading UK Gilts off their yield beta to US Treasuries in the immediate future, given the uncertainties over the negotiations over a final Brexit deal. Both sets of US yield betas suggest higher-beta Canada, Australia and New Zealand are more at risk of relative underperformance versus lower-beta France, Germany and Japan. In terms of government bond country allocation, we recommend reducing exposure to the former group and increasing allocations to the latter group. Bottom Line: Within global government bond portfolios, downgrade the US to underweight. Favor countries that have lower sensitivity to rising US Treasury yields, especially those with central banks that are likely to be more dovish than the Fed in the next few years. That means increasing allocations to core Europe and Japan, while reducing exposure to “higher-beta” Canada and Australia.   Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 http://www.crfb.org/papers/cost-trump-and-biden-campaign-plans 2 https://www.moodysanalytics.com/-/media/article/2020/the-macroeconomic-consequences-trump-vs-biden.pdf 3 Please see BCA Research Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, “Introducing Our Quantitative US Senate Election Model”, dated October 16, 2020, available at gps.bcaresearch.com 4 For more details on this recommended steepener trade please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Positioning For Reflation And Avoiding Deflation”, dated August 11, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 5 For more details on our Adaptive Expectations Model please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “How Are Inflation Expectations Adapting?”, dated February 11, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 6 For a detailed look at the implications of the Fed’s policy shift please see US Bond Strategy / Global Fixed Income Strategy Special Report, “A New Dawn For US Monetary Policy”, dated September 1, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com

Highlights US Election & Duration: We estimate that there is an 80% probability of a US election result that will give a lift to US Treasury yields via increased fiscal stimulus. Those are strong enough odds to justify a move to a below-benchmark cyclical US duration stance on a 6-12 month horizon. US Treasuries: We anticipate a moderate bear market in US Treasuries to unfold during the next 6-12 months. In addition to below-benchmark portfolio duration, investors should overweight TIPS versus nominal Treasuries, hold nominal and real yield curve steepeners, and hold inflation curve flatteners. Non-US Country Allocation: Within global government bond portfolios, downgrade the US to underweight. Favor countries that have lower sensitivity to rising US Treasury yields with central banks that are likely to be more dovish than the Fed in the next few years. That means increasing allocations to core Europe and Japan, while reducing exposure to Canada and Australia. Stay neutral on the UK given the near-term uncertainties over the final Brexit outcome. Feature With the US presidential election just two weeks away, public opinion polls continue to show that Joe Biden is the favorite to win the White House. However, the odds of a “Blue Sweep” - combining a Biden victory with the Democratic Party winning control of both the US Senate and House of Representatives - have increased since the end of September according to online prediction markets. US Treasury yields have also moved higher over that same period (Chart 1), which we interpret as the bond market becoming more sensitive to the likelihood of a major increase in US government spending under single-party Democratic control. Chart 1A Blue Sweep Is Bond Bearish A Blue Sweep Is Bond Bearish A Blue Sweep Is Bond Bearish According to a recent analysis done by the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, President Trump’s formal policy proposals would increase US federal debt by $4.95 trillion between 2021 and 2030, while Biden’s plan would increase the debt by $5.60 trillion (Table 1).1 While those are both massive fiscal stimulus plans, there is a stark difference in the policy mix of their proposals that matters for the future path of US bond yields. Table 1A Comparison Of The Candidates' Budget Proposals Beware The Bond-Bearish Blue Sweep Beware The Bond-Bearish Blue Sweep Under Biden, spending is projected to increase by a cumulative $11.1 trillion, partially offset by $5.8 trillion in revenue increases and savings with the former vice-president calling for tax hikes on corporations and high-income earners. On the other hand, Trump’s plan includes $5.45 trillion of spending increases and tax cuts over the next decade, offset by $0.75 trillion in savings. Conclusion: Biden would increase spending by over twice that of a re-elected Trump, with much of that spending expected to be front-loaded in the early part of his first term. Outright spending is more reflationary than tax cuts because it puts more money in the pockets of consumers (spenders) relative to producers (savers). The Biden plan would be more stimulating for overall activity even if the increase in debt is about the same. Another analysis of the Biden and Trump platforms was conducted by Moody’s in September, based on estimates of how much of each candidate’s promises could be successfully implemented under different combinations of White House and Congressional control.2 The stimulus figures were run through the Moody’s US economic model, which is similar to the budget scoring model of the US Congressional Budget Office, to produce a year-by-year path for the US economy over the next decade (Chart 2). Chart 2The Biden Platform Is Highly Stimulative The Biden Platform Is Highly Stimulative The Biden Platform Is Highly Stimulative Moody’s concluded that the US economy would return to full employment in the second half of 2022 under a President Biden – especially if the Democrats win the Senate - compared to the first half of 2024 under a re-elected President Trump. Such a rapid closing of the deep US output gap that opened up because of the COVID-19 recession would likely trigger a reassessment of the Fed’s current highly dovish policy stance. The US output gap would close more rapidly under a President Biden, likely triggering a reassessment of the Fed’s current highly dovish policy stance.  At the moment, the US overnight index swap (OIS) curve discounts one full 25bp Fed hike by late 2023/early 2024, and two full hikes by late 2024/early 2025 (Chart 3). This pricing of the future path of interest rates has occurred even with the Fed promising to keep the funds rate anchored near 0% until at least the end of 2023. The likelihood of some form of increased fiscal spending after the election will cause the bond market to challenge the Fed’s current forward guidance even more, putting upward pressure on Treasury yields. Chart 3US Fiscal Stimulus Will Pull Forward Fed Liftoff US Fiscal Stimulus Will Pull Forward Fed Liftoff US Fiscal Stimulus Will Pull Forward Fed Liftoff Our colleagues at BCA Geopolitical Strategy see a Blue Sweep as the most likely outcome of the US election, although their forecasting models suggest that the race for control of the Senate will be much closer than the Biden vs Trump battle (there is little chance that control of the House of Representatives would switch back to the Republicans).3 Their scenarios for each of the White House/Senate combinations, along with their own estimated probability for each, are the following: Biden wins in a Democratic sweep: BCA probability = 45%. The US economy will benefit from higher odds of unfettered fiscal stimulus in 2021, although financial markets will simultaneously have to adjust for the negative shock to US corporate earnings from higher taxes and regulation. Government bond yields should rise on the generally reflationary agenda. Trump wins with a Republican Senate: BCA probability = 30%. In this status quo scenario, a re-elected President Trump would still face opposition from House Democrats on most domestic economic issues, forcing him to tilt towards more protectionist foreign and trade policies in his second term. Fiscal stimulus would be easy to agree, though not as large as under a Democratic sweep. US Treasury yields would rise, but would later prove volatile due to the risk to the cyclical recovery from a global trade war, as Trump’s tariffs will not be limited to China and could even affect the European Union. Biden wins with the Senate staying Republican: BCA probability = 20%. This is ultimately the most positive outcome for financial markets - reduced odds of a full-blown trade war with China, combined with no new tax hikes. Bond yields would drift upward over time, but not during the occasional fiscal battles that would ensue between the Democratic president and Republican senators. The first such battle would start right after the election. Treasuries would remain well bid until financial market pressures forced a Senate compromise with the new president sometime in H1 2021. Trump wins with a Democratic Senate: BCA probability = 5%. This is the least likely scenario but one that could produce a big positive fiscal impulse. Trump is a big spender and will veto tax hikes, but will approve populist spending on areas where he agrees. The Democratic Senate would not resist Trump’s tough stance on China, however, thus keeping the risk of US-China trade skirmishes elevated. This is neutral-to-bearish for US Treasuries, depending on the size of any bipartisan stimulus measures and Trump’s trade actions. The key takeaway is that the combined probability of scenarios that will put upward pressure on US Treasury yields is 80%, versus a 20% probability of a more bond-neutral outcome. That is a bond-bearish skew worth positioning for by reducing US duration exposure now, ahead of the November 3 election. Of this 80%, 35 percentage points come from scenarios in which President Trump would remain in power. Hence his trade wars would eventually undercut his reflationary fiscal policy. This would become the key risk to the short duration view after the initial market response. Bottom Line: The most likely scenarios for the US election will give a cyclical lift to US Treasury yields via increased fiscal stimulus. This justifies a move to a below-benchmark US duration stance on a 6-12 month horizon. If Trump is re-elected, the timing of Trump’s likely return to using broad-based tariffs will have to be monitored closely. A Moderate Bear Market Chart 4Less Election-Day Upside Than In 2016 Less Election-Day Upside Than In 2016 Less Election-Day Upside Than In 2016 While our anticipated Blue Sweep election outcome will lead to a large amount of fiscal spending in 2021 and beyond, we anticipate only a modest increase in bond yields during the next 6-12 months. In terms of strategy, our recommended reduction in portfolio duration reflects the fact that fiscal largesse meaningfully reduces the risk of another significant downleg in bond yields and strengthens our conviction in a moderate bear market scenario for bonds. This does raise the question of how large an increase in US Treasury yields we expect during the next 6-12 months. We turn to this question now. Not Like 2016 First, we do not expect a massive election night bond rout like we saw in 2016 (Chart 4). For one thing, the Fed was much more eager to tighten policy in 2016 than it is today, and it did deliver a rate hike one month after the Republicans won the House, Senate and White House (Chart 4, bottom panel). This time around, the Fed has made it clear that it will wait until inflation is running above its 2% target before lifting rates off the zero bound and will not respond directly to expectations for greater fiscal stimulus. A complete re-convergence to long-run fed funds rate estimates would impart 80 – 100 bps of upward pressure to the 5-year/5-year forward Treasury yield. Second, 2016’s election result was mostly unanticipated. This led to a dramatic adjustment in market prices once the results came in. The PredictIt betting market odds of a “Red Sweep” by the Republicans in 2016 were only 16% the night before the election. As of today, the betting markets are priced for a 58% chance of a Blue Sweep in 2020. Unlike in 2016, bonds are presumably already partially priced for the most bond-bearish election outcome. A Slow Return To Equilibrium To more directly answer the question of how high bond yields can rise, survey estimates of the long-run (or equilibrium) federal funds rate provide a useful starting point. In a world where the economy is growing at an above-trend pace and inflation is expected to move towards the Fed’s target, it is logical for long-maturity Treasury yields to settle near estimates of the long-run fed funds rate. Indeed, this theory is borne out empirically. During the last two periods of robust global economic growth (2017/18 & 2013/14), the 5-year/5-year forward Treasury yield peaked around levels consistent with long-run fed funds rate estimates (Chart 5). As of today, the median estimates of the long-run fed funds rate from the New York Fed’s Survey of Market Participants and Survey of Primary Dealers are 2% and 2.25%, respectively. In other words, a complete re-convergence to these equilibrium levels would impart 80 – 100 bps of upward pressure to the 5-year/5-year forward Treasury yield. We expect this re-convergence to play out eventually, but probably not within the next 6-12 months. In both prior periods when the 5-year/5-year forward Treasury yield reached these equilibrium levels, the Fed’s reaction function was much more hawkish. The Fed was hiking rates throughout 2017 & 2018 (Chart 5, panel 4), and the market moved quickly to price in rate hikes in 2013 (Chart 5, bottom panel). The Fed’s new dovish messaging will ensure that the market reacts less quickly this time around. Also, continued curve steepening will mean that the 5-year/5-year forward yield’s 80 – 100 bps of upside will translate into significantly less upside for the benchmark 10-year yield. The 10-year yield and 5-year/5-year forward yield peaked at similar levels in 2017/18 when the Fed was lifting rates and the yield curve was flat (Chart 6). But, the 10-year peaked far below the 5-year/5-year yield in 2013/14 when the Fed stayed on hold and the curve steepened. Chart 5How High For Treasury Yields? How High For Treasury Yields? How High For Treasury Yields? Chart 6Less Upside In 10yr Than In 5y5y Less Upside In 10yr Than In 5y5y Less Upside In 10yr Than In 5y5y The next bear move in bonds will look much more like 2013/14. The Fed will keep a firm grip over the front-end of the curve, leading to curve steepening and less upside in the 10-year Treasury yield than in the 5-year/5-year forward. In addition to shifting to a below-benchmark duration stance, investors should maintain exposure to nominal yield curve steepeners. Specifically, we recommend buying the 5-year note versus a duration-matched barbell consisting of the 2-year and 10-year notes (Chart 6, bottom panel).4 TIPS Versus Nominals We have seen that a full re-convergence to “equilibrium” implies 80 – 100 bps of upside in the 5-year/5-year forward nominal Treasury yield. Bringing TIPS into the equation, we have also observed that long-maturity (5-year/5-year forward and 10-year) TIPS breakeven inflation rates tend to settle into a range of 2.3 – 2.5 percent when inflation is well-anchored and close to the Fed’s target (Chart 7). The additional fiscal stimulus that will follow a Blue Sweep election makes it much more likely that the economic recovery will stay on course, leading to an eventual return of inflation to target and of long-maturity TIPS breakeven inflation rates to a 2.3 – 2.5 percent range. However, as with nominal yields, this re-convergence will be a long process whose pace will be dictated by the actual inflation data. To underscore that point, consider that our Adaptive Expectations Model of the 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate – a model that is driven by trends in the actual inflation data – has the 10-year breakeven rate as close to fair value (Chart 8).5 This fair value will rise only slowly over time, alongside increases in actual inflation. Chart 7Overweight TIPS Versus Nominals Overweight TIPS Versus Nominals Overweight TIPS Versus Nominals Chart 8Real Yields Have Likely Bottomed Real Yields Have Likely Bottomed Real Yields Have Likely Bottomed All in all, we continue to recommend an overweight allocation to TIPS versus nominal Treasuries. TIPS breakeven inflation rates will move higher during the next 6-12 months, but are unlikely to reach our 2.3 – 2.5 percent target range within that timeframe. TIPS In Absolute Terms As stated above, we expect nominal yields to increase more than real yields during the next 6-12 months, but what about the absolute direction of real (aka TIPS) yields? Here, our sense is that real yields have also bottomed. If we consider the extreme scenario where the 5-year/5-year forward nominal yield returns to its equilibrium level and where long-maturity TIPS breakeven inflation rates return to our target range, it implies about 80 bps of upside in the nominal yield and 40 bps of upside in the breakeven. This means that the 5-year/5-year real yield has about 40 bps of upside in a complete “return to equilibrium” scenario. While we don’t expect this “return to equilibrium” to be completed within the next 6-12 months, the process is probably underway. The only way for real yields to keep falling in this reflationary world is for the Fed to become increasingly dovish, even as growth improves and inflation rises. After its recent shift to an average inflation target, our best guess is that Fed rate guidance won’t get any more dovish from here. Real yields fell sharply this year as the market priced in this change in the Fed’s reaction function, but the late-August announcement of the Fed’s new framework will probably mark the bottom in real yields (Chart 8, bottom panel).6 Two More Curve Trades Chart 9Own Inflation Curve Flatteners And Real Curve Steepeners Own Inflation Curve Flatteners And Real Curve Steepeners Own Inflation Curve Flatteners And Real Curve Steepeners In addition to moving to below-benchmark duration, maintaining nominal yield curve steepeners and staying overweight TIPS versus nominal Treasuries, there are two additional trades that investors should consider in order to profit from the reflationary economic environment. The first is inflation curve flatteners. The cost of short-maturity inflation protection is below the cost of long-maturity inflation protection, meaning that it has further to run as inflation returns to the Fed’s target (Chart 9). In addition, if the Fed eventually succeeds in achieving a temporary overshoot of its inflation target, then we should expect the inflation curve to invert. Real yield curve steepeners are in some ways the mirror image of inflation curve flatteners. Assuming no change in nominal yields, the real yield curve will steepen as the inflation curve flattens. But what makes real yield curve steepeners look even more attractive is that increases in nominal yields during the next 6-12 months will be concentrated in long-maturities. This will impart even more steepening pressure to the real yield curve. Investors should continue to hold inflation curve flatteners and real yield curve steepeners. Bottom Line: We anticipate a moderate bear market in US Treasuries to unfold during the next 6-12 months. In addition to below-benchmark portfolio duration, investors should overweight TIPS versus nominal Treasuries, hold nominal and real yield curve steepeners, and hold inflation curve flatteners. Non-US Government Bonds: Reduce Exposure To US Treasuries The mildly bearish case for US Treasuries that we have laid out above not only matters for our recommended duration stance, but also for our suggested country allocation within global government bond portfolios. Simply put, the risk of rising bond yields is much higher in the US than elsewhere, both for the immediate post-election period but also over the medium-term. Thus, the immediate obvious portfolio decision is to downgrade US Treasuries to underweight. The move higher in US Treasury yields that we expect is strictly related to spillovers from likely US fiscal stimulus. While other countries in the developed world are contemplating the need for additional fiscal measures, particularly in Europe where there is a renewed surge in coronavirus infections and growing economic restrictions, no country is facing as sharp a policy choice as the US with its upcoming election. The Fed has purchased 57% of all US Treasuries issued since late February of this year, in sharp contrast to the ECB and Bank of Japan that have purchased over 70% of euro area government bonds and JGBs issued. We can say with a fair degree of certainty that the US will have a relatively more stimulative fiscal policy stance than other developed economies over at least the next couple of years. This implies a higher relative growth trajectory for the US that hurts Treasuries more on the margin than non-US government debt. Chart 10The Fed Will Gladly Trade Less QE For More Fiscal Stimulus Beware The Bond-Bearish Blue Sweep Beware The Bond-Bearish Blue Sweep In addition, the likely path of relative monetary policy responses are more bearish for US Treasuries. As described above, the scope of the US stimulus will cause bond investors to further question the Fed’s commitment to keeping the funds rate unchanged for the next few years. That also applies to the Fed’s other policy tools, like asset purchases. The Fed is far less likely to continue buying US Treasuries at the same aggressive pace it has for the past eight months if there is less need for monetary stimulus because of more fiscal stimulus. According to the IMF, the Fed has purchased 57% of all US Treasuries issued since late February of this year, in sharp contrast to the ECB and Bank of Japan that have purchased over 70% of euro area government bonds and JGBs issued (Chart 10). If US Treasury yields are rising because of improving US growth expectations, fueled by fiscal stimulus, the Fed will likely tolerate such a move and buy an even lower share of Treasuries issued – particularly if the higher bond yields do not cause a selloff in US equity markets that can tighten financial conditions and threaten the growth outlook. The fact that US equities have ignored the rise in Treasury yields seen since the end of September may be a sign that both bond and stock investors are starting to focus on a faster trajectory for US growth. In terms of country allocation, beyond downgrading US Treasuries to underweight, we recommend upgrading exposure to countries that are less sensitive to changes in US Treasury yields (i.e. countries with a lower yield beta to changes in US yields). In Chart 11, we show the rolling beta of changes in 10-year government bond yields outside the US to changes in 10-year US Treasury yields. This is a variation of the “global yield beta” concept that we have discussed in the BCA Research bond publications in recent years. Here, we modify the idea to look at which countries are more or less correlated to US yields, specifically. A few points stand out from the chart: Chart 11Reduce Exposure To Bond Markets More Correlated To UST Yields Reduce Exposure To Bond Markets More Correlated To UST Yields Reduce Exposure To Bond Markets More Correlated To UST Yields All countries have a “US yield beta” of less than 1, suggesting that Treasuries are a consistent outperformer when US yields fall and vice versa. This suggests moving to underweight the US when US yields are rising is typically a winning strategy in a portfolio context. The list of higher beta countries includes Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the UK and Germany; although Canada stands out as having the highest yield beta in this group. The list of lower beta countries includes France, Italy, Spain, and Japan. In Chart 12, we show what we call the “upside yield beta” that is estimated only using data for periods when Treasury yields are rising. This gives a sense of which countries are more likely to outperform or underperform during a period of rising Treasury yields, as we expect to unfold after the election. From this perspective, the “safer” lower US upside yield beta group includes the UK, France, Germany and Japan. The riskier higher US upside yield beta group includes Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Italy and Spain. Chart 12Favor Bond Markets Less Correlated to RISING UST Yields Favor Bond Markets Less Correlated to RISING UST Yields Favor Bond Markets Less Correlated to RISING UST Yields Spain and Italy are less likely to behave like typical high-beta countries as US yields rise, however, because the ECB is likely to remain an aggressive buyer of their government bonds as part of their asset purchase programs over the next 6-12 months. We also do not recommend trading UK Gilts off their yield beta to US Treasuries in the immediate future, given the uncertainties over the negotiations over a final Brexit deal. Both sets of US yield betas suggest higher-beta Canada, Australia and New Zealand are more at risk of relative underperformance versus lower-beta France, Germany and Japan. In terms of government bond country allocation, we recommend reducing exposure to the former group and increasing allocations to the latter group. Bottom Line: Within global government bond portfolios, downgrade the US to underweight. Favor countries that have lower sensitivity to rising US Treasury yields, especially those with central banks that are likely to be more dovish than the Fed in the next few years. That means increasing allocations to core Europe and Japan, while reducing exposure to “higher-beta” Canada and Australia.   Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 http://www.crfb.org/papers/cost-trump-and-biden-campaign-plans 2 https://www.moodysanalytics.com/-/media/article/2020/the-macroeconomic-consequences-trump-vs-biden.pdf 3 Please see BCA Research Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, “Introducing Our Quantitative US Senate Election Model”, dated October 16, 2020, available at gps.bcaresearch.com 4 For more details on this recommended steepener trade please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Positioning For Reflation And Avoiding Deflation”, dated August 11, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 5 For more details on our Adaptive Expectations Model please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “How Are Inflation Expectations Adapting?”, dated February 11, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 6 For a detailed look at the implications of the Fed’s policy shift please see US Bond Strategy / Global Fixed Income Strategy Special Report, “A New Dawn For US Monetary Policy”, dated September 1, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com

NOTE: There will be no report on Wednesday, July 17 due to our regular summer break. Highlights Chinese policymakers as well as the People’s Bank of China (PBoC) have historically been reactive, meaning they have typically waited for economic pain to become entrenched before accelerating reflationary measures. The agreement reached at the June G20 Summit to renew trade negotiations with the U.S., while temporary, takes the pressure off the immediate need to further stimulate the economy. While China has the ability to juice the economy, the pain threshold has been raised higher during this cycle, and the country’s leadership has been reluctant to let go of its financial deleveraging campaign. This approach has resulted in a “half measure” stimulus over the past 12 months. The outlook for Chinese stocks is negative over the next three months, as a flip-flop policy approach will increase market volatility.  However, over a cyclical (i.e. six- to 12-month) time horizon, we are maintaining a bullish stance toward Chinese stocks in hedged currency terms. Feature Last week marked the first anniversary of the imposition of tariffs on imports from China by the U.S. – an event that has clearly had a lasting and meaningful impact on global economic activity. Last week was also the first anniversary of a significant monetary easing measure: China’s 3-month interbank repo rate fell 90 basis points on July 3, 2018, 3 days before the first tranche of import tariffs took effect. This decline was just under half of what would ultimately occur (the 3-month repo rate fell from 4.5% in early July to 2.4% in early August), and was taken as a sign by many investors that the PBoC had shifted to a maximum reflationary stance (Chart 1). Chart 1Indecisively Falling Interbank Rate Indecisively Falling Interbank Rate Indecisively Falling Interbank Rate However, several facts underscore that either the PBoC did not, in retrospect, move completely toward a pro-growth stance, or that China’s monetary transmission mechanism is seriously impaired. In our view, it is a combination of both: Despite evidence suggesting it should, the PBoC did not cut its benchmark lending rate. The repo rate declined in the third quarter last year on the back of increased liquidity supply in the interbank market. The weighted average lending rate also fell, but not massively, and not by as much as our model had predicted (Chart 2). A pickup in credit expansion has significantly lagged easing. Excluding local government bonds, the general pickup in credit has been modest. Based on this measure of Total Social Financing, new credit to GDP still remains lower today than at any point during the 2015-2016 downturn (Chart 3). Chart 2Lending Rate: Not Much Easing Lending Rate: Not Much Easing Lending Rate: Not Much Easing Chart 3No Strong Re-Leveraging No Strong Re-leveraging No Strong Re-leveraging With the conclusion of the G20 Summit temporarily halting the trade war escalation and implementation of additional tariffs, these observations raise important questions: Will the PBoC be proactive in easing policy? What does this mean for investors over the coming year? The PBoC Will Be Reactive Rather Than Proactive Chart 4Shadow-Banking Crackdown Continues Shadow-Banking Crackdown Continues Shadow-Banking Crackdown Continues In our view, the PBoC’s policy actions last year can at best be described as half-measures, despite the fact that the central bank was quick to reduce interbank interest rates in last July by cutting the reserve requirement ratio (RRR). The reason is that the PBoC clearly maintained macro-prudential/administrative restrictions on shadow banking activity, despite significantly easing liquidity in the interbank market. Chart 4 shows that shadow-banking credit as a share of total adjusted social financing continued to decelerate rapidly throughout 2018. It now accounts for a mere 12% of the stock of total adjusted social financing, by far the lowest point since 2009. This underscores that the PBoC and policymakers more generally have a deep-seated desire to avoid (further) inflating China’s substantial money and credit excesses – a dynamic that we have discussed in previous reports.1 Looking forward, there are three reasons why the PBoC’s reactive nature is unlikely to change in the near term, in addition to policymakers’ concerns about financial system’s excesses. First, the PBoC has historically been a reactive central bank, in a way that goes beyond the now-typical “data dependent” approach of its developed-market peers. Chart 5 provides a close look at China’s previous economic growth cycles and their corresponding credit expansions. The chart highlights that Chinese policymakers tend to stay behind the curve when it comes to monetary easing: In the previous three growth cycles, the first sign of monetary easing (defined as an RRR and/or benchmark lending rate cut) lagged the peak of nominal GDP growth by an average of four quarters. Rate cuts took place not when economic growth peaked, but once economic activity had already weakened considerably (Chart 6). Chart 5Chinese Policymakers Tend To Stay 'Behind The Curve' Chinese Policymakers Tend To Stay 'Behind The Curve' Chinese Policymakers Tend To Stay 'Behind The Curve' Chart 6More 'Pain' Needed For Massive Easing More 'Pain' Needed for Massive Easing More 'Pain' Needed for Massive Easing The same pattern has applied to other monetary easing tools that the PBoC has deployed in the past, including the Medium Lending Facility (MLF), the Targeted Medium-term Lending Facility (TMLF), the standing Lending Facility (SLF), and the Pledged Supplementary Lending program (PSL) – all of which only took shape after the economy had already shown across-the-board weakness. It will take more widespread and entrenched economic weakness for the PBoC to meaningfully ease further. The local government debt-to-bond swap program was also launched well into the 2015 growth downturn. When widespread and sustained weakness in activity emerged, Chinese policymakers responded by “throwing the kitchen sink” at the economy – by moving forward with multiple rate cuts and often creating new forms of easing in an attempt to catalyze a quick rebound. Since the PBoC has already implemented a series of easing measures, we believe it will take more widespread and entrenched weakness in the real economy for the PBoC to meaningfully ease further. Chart 7Chinese Currency Is Under Pressure Chinese Currency Is Under Pressure Chinese Currency Is Under Pressure Second, the PBoC is likely to be reactive because of the potentially negative effects that proactive rate cuts could cause on sentiment towards the RMB. Chart 7 highlights the close historical correlation between the RRR, interest rate differentials and the USD/CNY. USD/CNY was trading at 7.8 the last time the weighted average RRR was at 11%, which was back in 2007. At the current juncture, interest rate differentials already point to a weaker currency. The PBoC has signaled that USD/CNY at 7 is no longer a line in the sand that must be defended, meaning this level is not a hard constraint that would prevent the central bank from cutting either the RRR or the benchmark lending rates if warranted. In fact, a measured depreciation in the RMB would help mitigate some of the blow from increased tariffs. Nevertheless, in an environment where the currency has already weakened significantly, cutting the RRR or the benchmark lending rates quickly or by a large amount could create self-reinforcing expectations of further depreciation. China has implemented a better counter-cyclical mechanism to defend the RMB than it had in 2015-‘16,2 but the potential for capital outflows remains a serious concern.3 Third, the Trump-Xi meeting at the June G20 Summit in Osaka temporarily averted a further escalation of the trade war and additional tariffs. The agreement to continue trade negotiations lacks tangible progress from either side, and thus the “truce” is likely to be short-lived. Chart 8Markets So Far Unimpressed By Stimulus Markets So Far Unimpressed By Stimulus Markets So Far Unimpressed By Stimulus However, as we pointed out in last week’s report,4 the existence of talks is likely to take some pressure off Chinese policymakers’ immediate need to floor the reflation accelerator. Readouts from recent PBoC leadership meetings indicate that speculative excesses in the financial system remain a top concern for Chinese policymakers. China’s onshore market, after rallying by 2% following the good news from the G20 meeting, has given back all its gain (Chart 8). Given that the onshore equity market is extremely sensitive to China’s credit growth, the short-lived rally since the G20 meeting suggests markets have been unimpressed by the authorities’ reflationary efforts so far. Bottom Line: Chinese policymakers have not fully abandoned their financial deleveraging campaign, which President Xi Jinping initiated two years ago. This implies China’s central bank is likely to maintain its reactive approach in further easing monetary policy, and will likely try to avoid going “all-in” on stimulus for as long as possible. The Reduced Effectiveness Of Monetary Policy The events of the past year have also demonstrated that the effectiveness of Chinese monetary policy has declined relative to past economic cycles. This, in conjunction with the reluctant/reactive nature of the monetary authorities, has clear implications for investors over the coming year. When there is lack of clarity in policy interpretation, Chinese banks tend to stay on the sidelines. Chart 9A Long Delayed Credit Response To Monetary Easing A Long Delayed Credit Response To Monetary Easing A Long Delayed Credit Response To Monetary Easing The PBoC has cut the RRR five times since the second quarter of last year, which has freed up a total of 3.35 trillion yuan of liquidity for the banking system5 and has helped spur significant easing in overall monetary conditions. Yet, as we noted earlier, overall credit growth did not pick up until January of this year, lagging the first rate cut by three quarters (Chart 9). Prior to the economic slowdown in 2015-2016, credit growth used to respond to cuts in the RRR almost immediately. In other words, when banking system liquidity was ample, banks historically lent without hesitation. Post-2015, however, this relationship has changed. The PBoC has increasingly been having trouble channeling new liquidity into actual financing for the real economy. A sharp deterioration in reported bank asset quality that began in 2014 is likely part of the explanation,6 but we suspect that more recent extreme policy contradiction – in particular, repeated flip-flopping among authorities between their desire to support growth and their focus on financial stability – has caused economic agents to wait on the sidelines. While monetary conditions eased and the government urged banks to lend (particularly to the private sector) in the second half of 2018, the “prudent” stance coming from Chinese top leaders was little changed, and tight regulations on financial institutions remained in place. This combination did not give banks the confidence to lend. This changed in the first quarter of this year, when new credit creation-to-GDP surged from 23.6% to 25.6%. The surge occurred shortly after the late-December Central Economic Work Conference (CEWC), which sent a clear message that the central government’s policy focus had shifted to “stabilizing aggregate demand.” Incredibly, the tone shifted again in February, when Premier Li Keqiang and the PBoC publicly disputed whether the January credit spike represented “flood irrigation-style” stimulus, something Premier Li made clear was to be avoided.7 Charts 10 and 11 highlight how these shifts impacted credit growth: The first quarter was clearly on track for a 2015-2016-magnitude outcome, whereas April and May saw the path of credit growth return back to a moderate re-leveraging scenario. Chart 10 Chart 11 To get back on track for a 2015-2016 magnitude reflation, we will need to see June’s credit creation at or above 5 trillion yuan – equivalent to January’s credit numbers (Chart 12). Chart 12'Credit Binge' In June Unlikely Credit Binge' in June Unlikely Credit Binge' in June Unlikely As we go to press, the number for June’s total social financing has not been officially released yet. But the official reading from the total local government bond issuance in June (including both general bond and special-purpose bond issuance), a key component of our adjusted total social financing series, came in at 900 billion yuan. This is three times more than local government bonds issued in May and twice the size of January’s. Nevertheless, January’s bank lending, particularly short-term lending, was unusually large; an episode highly criticized by Chinese leadership as we mentioned above. As PBoC stated in its defense to this criticism, January is “traditionally the biggest month of the year for bank loans due to seasonal factors”. Therefore, without a clear shift in policy signal from China’s top leadership, we do not expect June’s bank lending number to be a repeat of January’s. Instead, June’s total credit impulse will likely put the cumulative progress in credit growth closer to our 27% of nominal GDP assumption (assuming an 8% nominal GDP growth for the remainder of 2019). This would fall into our “half-strength” credit cycle scenario relative to past reflationary episodes. Bottom Line: Ultimately, we do not doubt that Chinese policymakers will be able to engineer a significant re-acceleration in economic activity should they choose to do so. But in order for policymakers to achieve this goal, policy ambiguity and inconsistency will have to be meaningfully reduced.  Investment Implications Over a cyclical time horizon, we recommend staying long/overweight Chinese stocks in hedged currency terms. From our perspective, neither policymakers’ bias towards reluctance nor the reduced effectiveness of monetary policy convincingly argue against our bullish stance towards Chinese stocks over a cyclical (i.e. six- to twelve-month) time horizon, but the tactical implications are clearly negative. Over a cyclical horizon, one of two scenarios is likely to unfold: Either downside risk brought on by current tariffs and weakness in domestic demand is contained enough such that Chinese economic activity does not materially decelerate, or the trade dispute escalates into a full-tariff scenario of 25% on all U.S. imports from China that dramatically impacts Chinese growth. In the first scenario, policymakers will likely to continue providing half-measured responses, and unconstrained “across-the-board” easing will not occur. But Chart 13 highlights that Chinese stocks, particularly the investable market, are priced for a much worse economic outcome, suggesting Chinese relative equity performance would trend higher in these circumstances. Chart 13Chinese Stocks Priced In For A Worse Economic Outlook Chinese Stocks Priced In For A Worse Economic Outlook Chinese Stocks Priced In For A Worse Economic Outlook Chart 14Bullish On A Cyclical Horizon, Bearish In The Near Term Bullish On A Cyclical Horizon, Bearish In The Near Term Bullish On A Cyclical Horizon, Bearish In The Near Term In the second scenario, Chinese business and consumer sentiment is likely to collapse and policymakers will be facing high odds of a substantial slowdown in economic activity. This will create the political will necessary for unconstrained “across-the-board” easing, similar to what occurred in 2015-2016. The sharp re-acceleration in economic activity that would result from broad-based stimulus would clearly be positive for listed Chinese earnings per share (Chart 14), meaning the cyclical outlook for Chinese stocks would likely be even more positive than in the first scenario. However, the near-term equity market outlook of the second scenario would be extremely negative, as a financial market meltdown in of itself would likely be required to build the political will necessary to ultimately ease. Bottom Line: For investors with a time horizon of less than three months, we would not recommend a long position in Chinese stocks, neither in absolute terms nor relative to the global benchmark. However, over a strictly cyclical (i.e. six- to 12-month) time horizon, we recommend staying long/overweight Chinese stocks in hedged currency terms.   Jing Sima China Strategist JingS@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes   1      Please see Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, “China: How Stimulating is The Stimulus?”, dated August 8, 2018, available at cis.bcaresearch.com 2      A series of countercyclical measures China implemented in 2016-2017 includes: tightening controls on capital outflows, reducing offshore RMB liquidity supply, raising offshore RMB borrowing costs, and setting a firmer daily reference point for the RMB’s trading band. 3      Please see China Investment Strategy Special Report, “Monitoring Chinese Capital Outflows”, dated March 20, 2019, available at cis.bcaresearch.com 4      Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “China Macro and Market Review”, dated July 4, 2019, available at cis.bcaresearch.com 5      According to PBoC announcements. 6      Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “Trade Is Not China’s Only Problem”, dated November 21, 2018, available at cis.bcaresearch.com 7      Please see “Chinese Premier In Rare Spat With Central Bank”, Financial Times. Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations

We are strongly committed to our 2 percent inflation objective and to achieving it on a sustained and symmetric basis. – Jerome Powell, May 1, 2019 St Louis Fed President James Bullard, a voting member of the central bank’s policy committee, said he “certainly would be open to a cut” should inflation continue to fall short of expectations after the summer. – Financial Times, May 3, 2019 The Federal Reserve’s preferred measure of prices (the core personal consumption deflator) rose by 1.6% in the year to March, a shortfall from the 2% inflation target. Moreover, the 10-year-moving average of core inflation has remained persistently below the 2% level over the past 17 years (Chart 1). Recent comments from some policymakers and market analysts highlight growing concerns about this shortfall. Personally, I see little to worry about. Chart 1Core Inflation: Not Quite At 2% Core Inflation: Not Quite At 2% Core Inflation: Not Quite At 2% For investors, high and rising inflation is a terrible thing, as is its even more evil twin, a high and accelerating pace of deflation. The Holy Grail for investors and policymakers alike is for actual inflation and inflation expectations to remain both low and stable. It seems to me that this has been achieved, with resulting huge benefits to the economy and financial markets. It matters little that inflation has fallen slightly short of the arbitrary 2% target. If inflation was problematically low, what might we expect to see? Importantly, companies would be complaining about a tough pricing environment and pressure on profits. Yet, S&P 500 profit margins are close to an all-time high (Chart 2). And that is providing powerful support to the stock market, with the S&P 500 also close to its highs. If there were building deflationary pressures in the economy, then it also would be reasonable to expect spreading signs of economic distress. While not every indicator is flashing green, the overall economy is doing just fine. Healthy employment growth, rising real wages and strong profits are more consistent with a nascent inflation problem than with deflation. According to the National Federation of Independent Business survey, small companies’ main problem is the quality of labor, not concerns about demand. Excessively low inflation is a problem for debtors, but loan delinquency rates – albeit a lagging indicator – are well contained. The Fed makes a big deal about the importance of keeping inflation expectations anchored – i.e. stable at a low level. There does not appear to be any major problem on this front. For example, the New York Fed’s survey of consumers shows median expected inflation of 2.9% in three years’ time (Chart 3). The University of Michigan Survey of Consumers shows expected inflation of 2.3% over the next 5-10 years. The gap between nominal and real 10-year Treasury yields – a proxy for financial market inflation expectations – is lower (currently 1.88%), but that measure moves around a lot and is highly correlated with oil prices. No measures of expected inflation are in free-fall or dangerously low. Chart 2No Signs Of Pricing Distress No Signs of Pricing Distress No Signs of Pricing Distress Chart 3Inflation Expectations Are Contained Inflation Expectations Are Contained Inflation Expectations Are Contained   What If? Suppose that the Fed had been prescient enough to realize 10 years ago that, despite its best efforts, core inflation would average only 1.6% rather than the desired 2% over the coming decade. Presumably, the Fed would have taken even more extreme actions than actually occurred, implying a bigger expansion of its balance sheet. It is unclear whether it would have been any more successful in pushing up actual inflation. But we can be sure that it would have further inflated asset prices and encouraged even more leverage in the corporate sector. Increased financial imbalances in the economy – asset price overshoots and greater leverage – would not have been an attractive trade-off to pushing up inflation by an average 40 basis points. The core problem is that monetary policy is ill-equipped to deal with the forces that have held back economic growth. A combination of demographics, high debt and slower productivity growth have limited the U.S. economy’s potential. Thus, I have a lot of sympathy for Larry Summer’s secular stagnation thesis. Yes, that implies that the real equilibrium interest rate is very low and, therefore, that monetary policy needs to be accommodative. But it also implies that force-feeding the system with easy money is more likely to lead to asset bubbles and financial distortions than to increased consumer price inflation. What About Policy Ammo For The Next Downturn? One of the main arguments for getting inflation up is to give the Fed more scope to ease policy in the next recession. In the past, the Fed has cut the funds rate by an average of around 500 basis points during recessions. Going into the next downturn with inflation and thus interest rates close to current levels means it would not take long for the funds rate reach the constraints of the zero bound. However, this also would be the case if core inflation was at or modestly above the 2% target. That is why some commentators (e.g. Olivier Blanchard and Larry Summers) have argued for an inflation target of 4% during good times in order to allow for a large fall in interest rates when times turn bad. As long as inflation is in moderate single digits, its stability probably is more important than its level. In other words, if inflation was at 4% and was expected by all economic and financial agents to remain at that level for the foreseeable future, then the economy should not perform any worse than if inflation had stabilized at 2% - and it might even perform better. However, central banks have long had the view that the higher the inflation rate, the less stable it would be. And the same logic would apply to the downside if there was deflation. For example, once inflation rises from 2% to 4%, then it could easily move from 4% to 6% etc. Given the challenges of fine-tuning monetary policy, that view has merit. Raising the inflation target is all very well, but if central banks are having trouble getting the rate to 2%, how on earth would they get it to 4%. And the same point applies if the Fed were to shift from targeting the inflation rate to targeting the level of prices or of nominal GDP. If boosting the Fed’s balance sheet from less than $1 trillion to $4.5 trillion did not get inflation to 2%, what would it take to get inflation to 4%? It is always possible to increase inflation. For example, the government could give all households a check for $10,000 that had to be spent on domestically-produced goods and services. Furthermore, assume the checks were valid only for one year and the fiscal costs were directly financed by the Fed. This would undoubtedly unleash a powerful consumer boom and a spike in inflation. And the government could keep repeating the exercise until a sustained inflation upturn took hold. But that is an unrealistic scenario except in the event of an Armageddon economic situation. And it hardly would fit in with keeping inflation stable at a modestly higher pace. A recession is very likely within the next couple of years and monetary policy will indeed face major constraints on its actions. We undoubtedly would see renewed quantitative easing on a heroic scale with an expanded range of assets purchased by the central bank. And advocates of Modern Monetary Theory may well have their wishes granted with direct monetary financing of fiscal deficits. But, as already noted, policymakers would face these policy challenges regardless of whether inflation was modestly below or above the 2% target. Be Careful What You Wish For The Fed spent three decades squeezing inflation out of the system. In the 1970s and 1980s, high inflation expectations were deeply embedded in the behavior of consumers, companies and investors. It was a long and at times painful process to change that psychology. With inflation expectations now in the range of 2% to 3%, the Fed can claim success. Why would they want to risk undoing that achievement? Letting the economy run hot to try and offset sub-2% inflation with a period of above-2% inflation would be a dangerous strategy. History shows us that central banks have both limited understanding of the inflation process and limited control over the economy. If policymakers were successful in raising inflation, they run the risk that expectations would no longer be anchored. Moreover, the Fed would have a massive problem in communicating the logic of a pro-inflation strategy. Having spent so long in selling the message that low and stable inflation is the best way to maximize long-run economic growth, it likely would create considerable confusion to then say that a period of higher inflation was acceptable. Investors and businesses would face huge uncertainty about the magnitude and duration of an inflation overshoot and about whether the Fed could even control the process. The Fed’s credibility undoubtedly would suffer. It is true that policymakers know how to bring inflation back under control – they simply have to tighten policy. But that introduces increased instability into the economy and financial markets. Rather than be obsessed about hitting the 2% target, policymakers should be happy that they have met the requirements of the Federal Reserve Act: “to promote effectively the goals of maximum employment, stable prices, and moderate long-term interest rates.” The Policy Outlook And Market Implications The Fed was right to stop raising interest rates. The economy does not appear to be on the verge of overheating and there are enough risks to the outlook to warrant a cautious wait-and-see approach to policy. Yet, I am somewhat troubled by the dovish tone of some Fed officials. Thank goodness President Trump’s recent choices for Fed Board positions are now out of the picture. If I am worried now, I can only imagine how much worse I would have felt with Stephen Moore and Herman Cain on the Board. With no recession on the horizon and the labor markets extremely tight, I fully expect to see inflation gather steam later this year. But I suspect that the Fed will be slow to react. And then the timing of the 2020 elections will become a factor. The FOMC is not particularly sensitive to political considerations, but this is no ordinary President. The Fed would have to be very sure of itself before it started raising rates again in the midst of the election cycle. The bottom line is that we are setting up for a monetary policy error with the Fed falling behind the inflation curve later this year or in early 2020. This will be positive for risk assets in the short run, but poses a big threat down the road. Notwithstanding our concerns about the near-term market impact of current U.S.-China trade tensions, our strategy is thus to remain overweight equities and corporate credit until we see signs that financial conditions are about to significantly tighten.   Martin H. Barnes, Senior Vice President Economic Advisor mbarnes@bcaresearch.com

Highlights There are many things that central bankers know they don't know. "Known unknowns" include the outlook for growth (both actual and potential), NAIRU, the neutral rate of interest, and the true shape of the Phillips curve. "Unknown unknowns" are, by definition, unknowable, but are often at the heart of economic downturns. Central bankers, like military leaders, tend to fight the last war. They have tirelessly waged a battle against deflation over the past decade, so it is logical to conclude that they will err on the side of keeping monetary policy too loose rather than too tight. This will prolong the recovery, but it also means that economic and financial imbalances will be greater by the time the next downturn rolls around, most likely in 2020. Keep a close eye on credit spreads. Stay overweight risk assets for now, but look to move to neutral later this year and outright underweight in the first half of 2019. Bond yields will fall as the next recession approaches, but they will do so from higher levels than today. Feature Reports that say that something hasn't happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns - the ones we don't know we don't know. And if one looks throughout the history of our country and other free countries, it is the latter category that tend to be the difficult ones. - Donald Rumsfeld, former Secretary of Defense under George W. Bush Uncertainty Galore Central bankers know many things. They know that growth is currently strong across most of the world, unemployment is falling and inflation, while still low, has been slowly trending higher. Unfortunately, there are also many things they don't know. These include things they know they don't know, as well as things that are not even on their radar screens - the "unknown unknowns" that Donald Rumsfeld famously warned about. Known Unknowns Let's start with five "known unknowns." 1. Will Growth Stay Strong? Global growth has likely peaked, but should remain comfortably above-trend over the remainder of this year (Chart 1). The OECD's Global Leading Economic Indicator (LEI) has leveled off, while the diffusion index, which tabulates the share of countries with rising LEIs, has dropped below 50 percent. A fall in the diffusion index has often foreshadowed outright declines in the composite LEI. Consistent with this prognosis, the Citi global Economic Surprise Index has swooned, the Chinese Keqiang index has decelerated, and Korean export growth - a leading indicator for global trade - has slowed. Global manufacturing PMIs have also edged off their highs (Chart 2). The one exception is the U.S., where the ISM index continues to power higher. Despite the occasional blip such as this week's retail sales report - which was probably depressed by tax refund delays - recent U.S. economic data have been reasonably upbeat. Goldman Sachs' Current Activity Indicator remains near cycle highs, implying strong momentum going into the second quarter. Chart 1Global Growth Has Peaked ##br##But Will Remain Above Trend Global Growth Has Peaked But Will Remain Above Trend Global Growth Has Peaked But Will Remain Above Trend Chart 2Global Manufacturing PMIs ##br##Are Off Their Highs Global Manufacturing PMIs Are Off Their Highs Global Manufacturing PMIs Are Off Their Highs Changes in financial conditions tend to lead growth by about six-to-nine months. U.S. financial conditions have eased a lot more since the start of 2017 than elsewhere (Chart 3). In addition, U.S. fiscal policy is likely to be much more expansionary over the next two years than in the rest of the world (Chart 4). All this suggests that the composition of global growth will shift in favor of the U.S. over the coming months. Chart 3Composition Of Global ##br##Growth Will Shift To The U.S. ... Composition Of Global Growth Will Shift To The U.S. ... Composition Of Global Growth Will Shift To The U.S. ... Chart 4U.S. Fiscal Policy Will Become More ##br##Expansionary Than In R.O.W. What Central Bankers Don't Know: A Rumsfeldian Taxonomy What Central Bankers Don't Know: A Rumsfeldian Taxonomy 2. Will Potential Growth Accelerate? The U.S. unemployment rate has declined from a high of 10% in 2009 to 4.1% in February 2018, even though real GDP growth has averaged a meager 2.2% over this period. Extremely weak productivity growth explains why the output gap has managed to contract in the face of subdued GDP growth. Sluggish capital spending has exacerbated the productivity downturn, but probably did not cause it. Chart 5 shows that productivity growth began to decelerate well before the financial crisis erupted. The slowdown has been pervasive across countries and sectors. Economists have a poor track record of predicting productivity trends. Not only did they fail to predict the productivity revival in the late 1990s, but because of data lags and subsequent revisions, they did not even know it had happened until the early 2000s. It is too early to say whether robotics and AI will yield the same sort of productivity windfall that the Internet did. My colleagues, Mark McClellan and Brian Piccioni, have cast a skeptical eye on some of the alleged revolutionary breakthroughs in both fields.1 If it turns out that the late 1990s was the exception rather than the rule, and that we are going back to the lackluster productivity performance of the 1970s, this will make life more challenging for central bankers. 3. What Is The True Level Of NAIRU? Spare capacity has diminished in most countries, but questions linger over how much slack remains. No one truly knows where NAIRU - the so-called Non-Accelerating Inflation Rate of Unemployment - really stands. The Fed and the Congressional Budget Office believe that NAIRU has fallen from over 6% in the late 1970s to around 4.5%-to-4.7% today (Chart 6). Chart 5Productivity Growth Slowdown ##br##Has Been Pervasive Productivity Growth Slowdown Has Been Pervasive Productivity Growth Slowdown Has Been Pervasive Chart 6NAIRU Is Low By Historic Standards NAIRU Is Low By Historic Standards NAIRU Is Low By Historic Standards An aging workforce has reduced frictional unemployment because older workers are less likely to switch jobs than younger ones. The internet has also made it easier for employers to find suitably qualified workers. On the flipside, globalization, automation, and the opioid crisis have likely made it difficult for a growing list of workers to hold down a job for long. Our best guess is that the U.S. economy is operating at close to full employment. This is confirmed by various employer surveys, which show that companies are struggling to find qualified workers (Chart 7). The fact that the share of people outside the labor force who want a job has fallen to pre-recession levels also suggests that labor slack is running thin (Chart 8). Chart 7U.S. Economy: Operating At ##br##Close To Full Employment U.S. Economy: Operating At Close To Full Employment U.S. Economy: Operating At Close To Full Employment Chart 8Few People Left Who Are Eager ##br##To Rejoin The Labor Force Few People Left Who Are Eager To Rejoin The Labor Force Few People Left Who Are Eager To Rejoin The Labor Force There is more slack outside the United States. Labor underutilization is still 2.5 percentage points higher in the euro area than it was in 2008. Taking Germany out of the picture, labor underutilization is nearly six points higher (Chart 9). A number of major emerging markets, most notably Brazil and Russia, also have a lot of excess cyclical unemployment. The Japanese labor market has tightened significantly in recent years, but there is probably a fair amount of hidden underemployment left, particularly in the service sector (factoid of the week: there are more police officers in Tokyo than in New York City).2 4. Where Is The Neutral Rate Of Interest? One of the most vexing questions facing central banks is how high interest rates can go before they move into restrictive territory. There are a variety of reasons for thinking that the neutral real rate of interest - the rate consistent with full employment and stable inflation - is lower today than it was in the past. Trend real GDP growth has fallen. This has reduced the need for firms to expand capacity. The shift to a capital-lite economy - where value-added increasingly takes the form of bits and bytes rather than factory output - has further reduced the need for fresh investment. Meanwhile, a reluctance to take on new debt has restrained spending. Rising inequality has shifted more wealth into the hands of people who tend to save a lot. Globally, savings must equal investment. If desired savings go up and desired investment goes down, interest rates must fall to push down the former and push up the latter (Chart 10). Chart 9Euro Area: There Is Still Labor ##br##Market Slack Outside Of Germany Euro Area: There Is Still Labor Market Slack Outside Of Germany Euro Area: There Is Still Labor Market Slack Outside Of Germany Chart 10Interest Rates Must Fall If Desired Savings ##br##Increase And Desired Investment Declines What Central Bankers Don't Know: A Rumsfeldian Taxonomy What Central Bankers Don't Know: A Rumsfeldian Taxonomy None of these forces are immutable, however. Investment demand appears to be picking up, as judged by capex intention surveys (Chart 11). Consumer credit is rising anew. The U.S. personal saving rate is back near an all-time low (Chart 12). A tighter labor market is likely to cause labor's share of income to rise, just like it did in the late 1990s (Chart 13). This should boost aggregate demand. An unprecedented increase in the U.S. budget deficit should help absorb much of the savings from cash-rich corporations (Chart 14). Meanwhile, savings are likely to decline over the long haul as well-paid baby boomers retire en masse. All this is causing the neutral rate to move higher. Chart 11Upswing In Global Capex Is Underway Upswing In Global Capex Is Underway Upswing In Global Capex Is Underway Chart 12U.S. Consumer Credit Revival U.S. Consumer Credit Revival U.S. Consumer Credit Revival Chart 13Tight Labor Market And Rising Labor ##br##Share Of Income: A Replay Of The 1990s? Tight Labor Market And Rising Labor Share Of Income: A Replay Of The 1990s? Tight Labor Market And Rising Labor Share Of Income: A Replay Of The 1990s? Chart 14Now Is The Time For Fiscal Consolidation, Not Profligacy Now Is The Time For Fiscal Consolidation, Not Profligacy Now Is The Time For Fiscal Consolidation, Not Profligacy 5. What Is The Shape Of The Phillips Curve? Central bankers assume that dwindling spare capacity will lead to higher inflation, a relationship immortalized by the so-called Phillips curve. The fact that inflation has barely risen over the past few years is an obvious challenge to this theory. It may simply be that the Phillips curve is "kinked" at very low levels - it only steepens when the economy has gone beyond full employment. The fact that it has taken this long to reach the kink could explain why inflation has not taken off sooner. The success that central banks have enjoyed in anchoring long-term inflation expectations is another reason why the Phillips curve has become flatter. Chart 15An Overheated Economy Led To ##br##Rising Inflation In The 1960s An Overheated Economy Led To Rising Inflation In The 1960s An Overheated Economy Led To Rising Inflation In The 1960s The problem is that there is no God-given reason why inflation expectations should stay well anchored. Core inflation was remarkably low and stable in the first half of the 1960s. However, the combination of low real interest rates and increased fiscal spending associated with Lyndon Johnson's Great Society programs and the Vietnam War led to a surge in inflation starting in 1966 (Chart 15). Inflation kept climbing thereafter, rising to 6% in 1970. This was three years before the first oil shock occurred, suggesting that an overheated economy, rather than OPEC, was the main inflationary culprit. Unknown Unknowns Then there are the things central bankers are not even thinking about, or even worse, the things they think are true but aren't.3 In the lead-up to the Great Recession, U.S. policymakers blithely assumed that house prices could not fall at the nationwide level. This caused them to turn a blind eye to soaring home prices and the deterioration of underwriting standards in the mortgage market. Warren Buffet once said, "Only when the tide goes out do you discover who's been swimming naked." Our guess is that rising rates will expose a lot of things one would rather not see in the corporate debt market. In the latest issue of the Bank Credit Analyst, my colleague Mark McClellan estimated that the interest coverage ratio for U.S. companies would drop from 4 to 2.5 if rates increased by 100 basis points across the corporate curve. Such a move would take the coverage ratio to the lowest level in the 30-year history of our sample (Chart 16A and Chart 16B).4 Consumer staples, tech, and health care would be the most adversely affected. Chart 16AU.S. Interest Coverage Ratio ##br##Breakdown By Sector (I) U.S. Interest Coverage Ratio Breakdown By Sector (I) U.S. Interest Coverage Ratio Breakdown By Sector (I) Chart 16BU.S. Interest Coverage Ratio ##br##Breakdown By Sector (II) U.S. Interest Coverage Ratio Breakdown By Sector (II) U.S. Interest Coverage Ratio Breakdown By Sector (II) Political shocks are also very difficult for policymakers to foresee. President Trump's decision to impose steel and aluminum tariffs spooked the markets. NAFTA negotiations remain stalled and the odds are high that the U.S. will pursue trade sanctions against China for alleged intellectual property theft. That said, as we noted last week, an all-out trade war would cause equities to crater.5 Trump remains focused on the value of the stock market as a gauge of the success of his presidency. This will curb his hawkishness. Unemployment is also very low these days, which limits the attractiveness of protectionist policies. The specter of trade wars will escalate if a recession causes stocks to tumble and unemployment to rise in key midwestern swing states. Other "unknown unknowns" include another flare-up in sovereign debt markets in Europe, a hard landing in China, and a supply-induced spike in oil prices. Investment Conclusions It may be tempting to think that central banks can calibrate monetary policy as events unfold in order to keep economies on an even keel. If only it were so easy. Monetary policy affects the economy with a lag of 12-to-24 months. By the time it is clear that either more or less monetary stimulus is needed, it is often too late to act. Central bankers have to work with incomplete or inaccurate data. One of the reasons that inflation spiraled out of control in the 1970s was because the Federal Reserve systematically overstated the size of the output gap (Chart 17). This led the Fed to falsely conclude that slower growth was the result of inadequate demand rather than a deceleration in the economy's supply-side potential. It is impossible to know what mistakes central banks will make in the future, but it is almost certain that something will go awry. Central bankers, like military leaders, tend to fight the last war. They have tirelessly waged a battle against deflation over the past decade, so it is logical to conclude that they will err on the side of keeping monetary policy too loose rather than too tight. This will prolong the recovery, but it also means that economic and financial imbalances will be greater by the time the next downturn rolls around. As we discussed several weeks ago, the next recession is most likely to arrive in 2020.6 Investors should stay overweight risk assets for now, but look to move to neutral later this year and outright underweight in the first half of 2019. Bond yields will fall as the next recession approaches, but they will do so from higher levels than today. Similar to the 1970s, investors should expect inflation and bond yields to make a series of "higher highs" and "higher lows" with every boom/bust episode (Chart 18). Chart 17The Fed Continuously Overstated The ##br##Magnitude Of Economic Slack In The 1970s The Fed Continuously Overstated The Magnitude Of Economic Slack In The 1970s The Fed Continuously Overstated The Magnitude Of Economic Slack In The 1970s Chart 18A Template For The Next Decade? A Template For The Next Decade? A Template For The Next Decade? Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Technology Sector Strategy Special Report, "The Coming Robotics Revolution," dated May 16, 2017; The Bank Credit Analyst, "Did Amazon Kill The Phillips Curve?" dated August 31, 2017; and The Bank Credit Analyst, "The Impact Of Robots On Inflation," dated January 25, 2018. 2 "As crime dries up, Japan's police hunt for things to do," The Economist, May 18, 2017. 3 Mark Twain is often credited for saying that "It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so." It's a great quote, but there's only one problem: There is no evidence that he ever said it. 4 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst, "Leverage And Sensitivity To Rising Rates: The U.S. Corporate Sector," dated February 22, 2018. 5 Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Trump's Tariffs: A Q&A," dated March 9, 2018. 6 Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "The Next Recession: Later But Deeper," dated February 23, 2018. Tactical Global Asset Allocation Recommendations Strategy & Market Trends Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades