Policy

A message for Foreign Exchange Strategy clients, There will be no report next week, as we take a summer break. We will be joining our clients and colleagues for our annual investment conference to be held in New York, on September 7 & 8. We will resume our publication the following week, with a Special Report on the Hong Kong dollar, together with our China Investment Strategy colleagues. Looking forward to seeing many of you in person. Kind regards, Chester Ntonifor, Foreign Exchange Strategist Executive Summary No Urgency To Tighten Policy No Urgency To Tighten Policy No Urgency To Tighten Policy The biggest medium-term threat for Japan remains deflation, rather than inflation. This suggests that the BoJ will be loathe to abandon yield curve control anytime soon. That said, inflation is still accelerating globally, and has meaningfully picked up in Japan. Betting on a hawkish BoJ policy shift could therefore be a significant macro trade. We have identified five conditions that need to be met for the BoJ to begin removing accommodation. None are currently indicating an imminent need to alter monetary policy settings, particularly with the Japanese economy softening alongside subdued inflation expectations. The yen will soar on any hawkish BoJ policy shift. Currently, BCA Foreign Exchange Strategy is short EUR/JPY. That said, the historical evidence suggests waiting for an exhaustion in yen selling pressure, before placing fresh bets on selling USD/JPY. Longer-term bond yields in Japan, for maturities beyond the BoJ yield target, are already moving higher, while speculative interest in shorting JGBs has increased.  We recommend fading these trends for now – shorting JGBs outright will remain a “widowmaker trade”. Bottom Line: The yen has undershot and longer-term investors should buy it - our preferred way to express that view in the near-term is to be short EUR/JPY.  Bond investors should be underweight “low-beta” JGBs in fixed-income portfolios on a tactical basis, not as a hawkish BoJ bet, but because global bond yields are more likely to stay in broad trading ranges than break to new highs. Feature Chart 1The BoJ Is A Lonesome Dove When Will The BoJ Abandon Yield Curve Control? When Will The BoJ Abandon Yield Curve Control? Almost every G10 central bank has raised rates over the last 12 months, even the perennially dovish banks like the ECB and Swiss National Bank, in response to soaring inflation.  The one exception has been the Bank of Japan (BoJ). The BoJ has kept policy rates unchanged throughout the year (Chart 1), while also maintaining its Yield Curve Control policy of capping 10-year Japanese government bond (JGB) yields at 0.25%. There has been interest from the macro investor community on Japan in recent months, betting on the BoJ eventually succumbing to the global monetary tightening trend.  If the BoJ were to shift gears and turn less accommodative, then the yen would surely soar, while JGBs will go on a fire sale. In this report, jointly published by BCA Research Foreign Exchange Strategy and Global Fixed Income Strategy, we explore the necessary conditions that need to be in place for the BoJ to meaningfully shift policy, most likely starting with the end of Yield Curve Control before interest rate hikes. We see five such conditions, which will form a “checklist” to be monitored in the months ahead. Condition 1: Overshooting Inflation Expectations The BoJ has a policy mandate on inflation and most measures of underlying Japanese inflation are still well below its 2% target. For example, the weighted median and mode CPI inflation rates are only at 0.5%, even as headline CPI inflation has climbed to 2.6% on the back of two primarily non-domestic factors – rapidly rising prices for energy and goods (Chart 2). With such low baseline inflation, it has been hard to lift market-based Japanese inflation expectations like CPI swap rates above 1%, even as far out as ten years (Chart 3). CPI swaps have tended to provide a more realistic assessment of underlying Japanese inflation, adhering more closely to trends in realized core CPI inflation, and thus deserve the most attention from the BoJ.  This is in stark contrast to the BoJ’s own consumer survey of inflation expectations, that has consistently overestimated inflation over the years, which is currently showing both 1-year-ahead and 5-year-ahead inflation expectations at a startling, yet highly inaccurate, 5%.  Chart 2Low Underlying Inflation In Japan Low Underlying Inflation In Japan Low Underlying Inflation In Japan Chart 3No Unmooring Of Inflation Expectations In Japan No Unmooring Of Inflation Expectations In Japan No Unmooring Of Inflation Expectations In Japan The BoJ is likely to side with the more subdued read on market-based inflation expectations in determining if monetary policy needs to turn less dovish – especially with the BoJ’s own estimate of the output gap now at -1.2%, indicating spare capacity in the economy and a lack of underlying inflation pressures (Chart 4). Chart 4Japan Still Suffers From Excess Capacity Japan Still Suffers From Excess Capacity Japan Still Suffers From Excess Capacity Condition 2: Excessive Yen Weakness Our more comprehensive measure of determining the pressure to change monetary policy is captured in our central bank monitor for Japan, a.k.a. the BoJ Monitor.  The Monitor includes economic, inflation and financial variables. This measure suggests that the BoJ should not be tightening monetary policy today (Chart 5). One of the variables that goes into our BoJ Monitor is the yen. The yen impacts monetary conditions through two ways. First, import prices tend to rise as the yen weakens, feeding into domestic inflation. In short, it eases monetary conditions. That has been the story over the last year with the yen falling -15% on a trade-weighted basis (Chart 6). The second impact is through profit translation effects. Overseas earnings for Japanese exporters are buffeted in yen terms as the currency depreciates. Both impacts would tend to put more pressure to tighten monetary policy, on the margin. Chart 5No Urgency To Tighten Policy No Urgency To Tighten Policy No Urgency To Tighten Policy Chart 6Yen Weakness Only Generates Temporary Inflation Yen Weakness Only Generates Temporary Inflation Yen Weakness Only Generates Temporary Inflation However, the impact of yen weakness in boosting profit translation costs for Japanese concerns has eased over the years. As many Japanese companies have offshored production, lower wages in Japan have been offset by higher costs abroad. As a result, profit margins for multinational Japanese corporations are not rising meaningfully relative to their G10 peers, despite yen weakness (Chart 7). That puts the central bank in a quandary regarding how to interpret yen weakness vis-à-vis future policy moves. On the one hand, soaring global inflation and a weak yen should be allowing the BoJ to declare victory on rising inflation expectations in Japan. On the other hand, domestic wage growth will not reach “escape velocity” (Chart 8), and inflation will fail to overshoot on a sustainable basis, if corporate profit margins are not rising meaningfully. Chart 7No Widespread Signs Of Increased Profitability From Yen Weakness No Widespread Signs Of Increased Profitability From Yen Weakness No Widespread Signs Of Increased Profitability From Yen Weakness Chart 8No Escape Velocity Yet In Japanese ##br##Wages No Escape Velocity Yet In Japanese Wages No Escape Velocity Yet In Japanese Wages Of course, Japanese authorities care about excessive moves in the yen, but they also understand their limited ability to alter the path of the currency. The Ministry of Finance last intervened to support the currency in 1998. That helped the yen temporarily, but global factors dictated its longer-term trend. A BoJ monetary tightening designed solely to stabilize the yen, before inflation expectations stabilize at the BoJ target, is a recipe for failure on both fronts. The bottom line is that yen weakness is giving a lift to inflation, but this is unlikely to be sticky. The yen needs to fall 10% every year just to generate a one percentage point increase in Japanese inflation. As such, the current bout of yen weakness is unlikely to alter the longer-term goals of BoJ policy, unless a wave of selling undermines financial stability. Condition 3: Continually Rising Energy Costs Chart 9Japan Is More Energy Dependent Than Many Other Countries Japan Is More Energy Dependent Than Many Other Countries Japan Is More Energy Dependent Than Many Other Countries Policy makers in the eurozone have told us that even in the face of a recession, a threat to their credibility on price stability – like the energy-fueled overshoot of European inflation - is worth defending through monetary tightening. Thus, a continued external energy shock could also cause the BoJ to shift. Our Chief Commodity Strategist, Robert Ryan, expects the geopolitical risk premium on oil to increase in the near term. Japan imports almost all its energy and has structurally been more dependent on fossil fuels than Europe (Chart 9). A rise in energy costs that unanchors inflation expectations is a threat worth monitoring for the BoJ, one that could drag it into monetary tightening as has been the case in Europe. That said, adjustments are already underway. Japanese and European LNG imports from the US are rising. As a result, the price arbitrage between US Henry Hub prices and the Dutch TTF equivalent is likely to soften, assuaging energy import costs (Chart 10). Japan is also ramping up nuclear power production, which can help provide alternative sources to imported energy (Chart 11). Chart 10An Unprecedented Arbitrage An Unprecedented Arbitrage An Unprecedented Arbitrage Chart 11Nuclear Power Could Help? Nuclear Power Could Help? Nuclear Power Could Help? The BoJ would likely not consider an early exit from accommodative monetary policy based solely on energy-fueled inflation.  After all, the current surge in global energy prices, compounded by yen weakness, has barely pushed headline inflation above the BoJ 2% target – with little follow-through into core inflation or wage growth. Condition 4: An Economic Revival In Japan A burst in Japanese growth that absorbs excess capacity and tightens labor market conditions could convince the BoJ that a policy adjustment is due. This could result in higher Japanese interest rates and bond yields.  The yen also tends to appreciate when the Japanese economy is improving (Chart 12). Unfortunately, Japanese growth momentum is going in the wrong direction for that outcome. Chart 12The Yen And the Japanese Economy The Yen And the Japanese Economy The Yen And the Japanese Economy Domestic demand has been under siege from the lingering effects of the pandemic, including an unprecedented collapse in tourism. As the pandemic effects have faded, however, Japan’s economy faces new threats from slowing global growth, waning export demand, and declining consumer confidence (Chart 13). It is notable that while goods spending has been picking up around the world, the personal consumption component of GDP in Japan remains nearly three percentage points below the level implied by its pre-pandemic trend. While Japan’s unemployment rate is 2.6% and falling, it remains above the low reached just before the start of the pandemic. Chart 13A Broad-Based Slowing Of Japanese Growth A Broad-Based Slowing Of Japanese Growth A Broad-Based Slowing Of Japanese Growth What Japan needs now is more fiscal spending. For a low-growth economy, with ultra-loose monetary settings, the fiscal multiplier tends to be much larger. Stronger fiscal spending could lift animal spirits in Japan and cause the BoJ to shift. Yet even on that front, the evidence does not point to a direct link from fiscal stimulus to rising inflation expectations – a necessary catalyst for the BoJ to turn more hawkish. A recent study by the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco concluded that there was no boost to depressed Japanese inflation expectations from the massive Japanese government fiscal programs during the worst of the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic shock. Waning Japanese economic momentum is not putting any pressure on the BoJ to begin considering a shift to less accommodative monetary settings. Condition 5: More Hawkish Members At The BoJ There are important transitions occurring within the BoJ’s nine-member board that could change the policy bias in a less dovish direction.  In July, two new board members – Hajime Takata and Naoki Tamura – were appointed to the BoJ board. Both brought up the notion of the need for an “exit strategy” from current easy monetary policies at their introductory press conference, although both were also careful to state that they did not think the conditions were in place yet for that to occur. Related Report  Foreign Exchange StrategyWhat To Do About The Yen? Nonetheless, the two new appointees represent a marginally hawkish shift in the policy bias of the BoJ board, especially Takata who replaced one of the more vocal advocates for maintaining aggressive monetary easing, economist Goushi Kataoka.  Of course, the big change at the top of the BoJ will come next April when Governor Haruhiko Kuroda’s current term ends. This will follow the departures of the two deputy governors, Masayoshi Amamiya and Masazumi Wakatabe in March. That means five of nine board members would be changed in less than one year, including the most senior leadership. That would be a huge change for any central bank, but especially for the BoJ where Governor Kuroda has overseen the introduction of all the current aggressive monetary policies, from negative interest rates to massive quantitative easing to Yield Curve Control. A growing constraint for the future of Yield Curve Control As outlined earlier, underlying inflation and growth trends in Japan are nowhere close to justifying an end to Yield Curve Control or even a mere upward tweak of the current 0.25% yield target on 10-year JGBs. However, there are negative spillover effects from the BoJ’s bond market manipulation that could make the current policies less sustainable over the medium term for the new incoming BoJ leadership. We addressed one of those issues earlier with the extreme yen weakness, which is largely a product of the BoJ keeping a lid on Japanese interest rates while almost the entire rest of the world is in a monetary tightening cycle. But another issue to be addressed is the impaired liquidity of the JGB market. After years of steady, aggressive bond buying, the BoJ has essentially “cornered” the JGB market.  The central bank now owns roughly 50% of all outstanding JGBs, doubling its ownership share since Yield Curve Control started in 2016 (Chart 14).  The numbers are even more extreme when focusing on the specific maturity targeted by the BoJ under Yield Curve Control, with the central bank now owning nearly 80% of all 10-year JGBs (Chart 15). Chart 14The BoJ Has Cornered The JGB Market The BoJ Has Cornered The JGB Market The BoJ Has Cornered The JGB Market Chart 15BoJ Now Owns 80% Of 10yr JGBs When Will The BoJ Abandon Yield Curve Control? When Will The BoJ Abandon Yield Curve Control? By absorbing so much supply of the main risk-free asset in the Japanese financial system, the BoJ has made life more difficult for Japanese commercial banks, insurance companies and pension funds that require JGBs for regulatory and risk management purposes. In the most recent BoJ survey of bond market participants, 68 of 69 firms surveyed described the JGB market as having poor liquidity conditions, with an equal amount stating that JGB trading conditions were as bad or worse than three months earlier. The change in BoJ leadership could also bring about a change in policymakers’ desire to continue manipulating the JGB market via Yield Curve Control.  Although the BoJ would have to be very careful in how it signals and executes any change to Yield Curve Control.  There is currently a very wide gap between a 10-year JGB yield at 0.25% and a 30-year JGB yield at 1.25% (Chart 16). If the BoJ completely ended Yield Curve Control, the 10-year yield would converge rapidly towards that 30-year yield, likely reaching 1%. That would create a major negative total return shock to the Japanese banks and institutional investors that still own nearly 40% of JGBs. Chart 1610yr JGB Yields Will Surge Without Yield Curve Control 10yr JGB Yields Will Surge Without Yield Curve Control 10yr JGB Yields Will Surge Without Yield Curve Control A more likely outcome would be the BoJ raising the yield target on the 10-year to something like 0.50%, or perhaps shifting to a different maturity target where the BoJ owns a smaller share of outstanding JGBs like the 5-year sector. Yet without an actual trigger for such a move coming from faster economic growth or core inflation hitting the 2% BoJ target, it is highly unlikely that the BoJ would dare tinker with its yield curve policy, and risk a JGB market blowup, solely over concerns about bond market liquidity. Investment Conclusions None of the items in our newly constructed “BoJ Checklist” are currently indicating that a shift in Japanese monetary policy is imminent.  We therefore see it as being too early to put on the legendary “widowmaker trade” of shorting JGBs, although a case can be made to go long the yen based on longer-term valuation considerations. Japanese yen The carnage in the yen is in an apocalyptic phase, but the BoJ is unlikely to rescue the yen in the near term. As such, short-term traders should be on the sidelines. For longer-term investors, being contrarian could pay off handsomely. The 1-year drawdown in the yen is within the scope of historical capitulation phases (Chart 17). Meanwhile, according to our PPP models (and a wide variety of others), the Japanese yen is the cheapest G10 currency, undervalued by around -41% (Chart 18). BCA Foreign Exchange Strategy is currently long the yen versus the euro and the Swiss franc. Chart 17The Yen Is On Sale The Yen Is On Sale The Yen Is On Sale Chart 18The Yen Is Very Cheap The Yen Is Very Cheap The Yen Is Very Cheap JGBs Chart 19Stay Tactically Underweight JGBs Stay Tactically Underweight JGBs Stay Tactically Underweight JGBs In the absence of a bearish domestic monetary policy trigger, JGBs should be treated by global bond investors as a risk management tool as much as anything else. The relative return performance of JGBs versus the Bloomberg Global Treasury Index of government bonds is highly correlated to the momentum of global bond yields (Chart 19). Thus, increasing the exposure to JGBs in a global bond portfolio is akin to reducing the interest rate duration of a bond portfolio – both positions will help a portfolio outperform its benchmark when global bond yields rise. On a tactical basis (3-6 month time horizon), an underweight allocation to JGBs in government bond portfolios seems appropriate, even with JGBs offering relatively attractive yields on a currency-hedged basis, most notably for USD-based investors.  Global bond yields are more likely to stay in broad trading ranges, capped by slowing global growth and decelerating goods inflation but floored by stickier non-goods inflation and hawkish central banks. Thus, the defensive properties of JGBs as a “duration hedge” in global bond portfolios are less necessary in the near-term. Beyond the tactical time horizon, the uncertainty over the potential makeup of new BoJ leadership in 2023, along with some easing of global inflation pressures from the commodity space, could justify lower JGB exposure on a more structural basis - if it appears that a new wave of more hawkish policymakers is set to take over in Tokyo. Stay tuned.   Chester Ntonifor Foreign Exchange Strategist chestern@bcaresearch.com Robert Robis, CFA  Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com Trades & Forecasts Strategic View Cyclical Holdings (6-18 months) Tactical Holdings (0-6 months) Limit Orders Forecast Summary

Listen to a short summary of this report     Executive Summary On the eve of the pandemic, most developed economies were operating at close to full capacity – the aggregate supply curve, in other words, had become very steep (or inelastic). Not surprisingly, in such an environment, pandemic-related stimulus, rather than boosting output, simply stoked inflation. Looking out, the inverse may turn out to be true: Just as an increase in aggregate demand did more to lift prices than output during the pandemic, a decrease in aggregate demand may allow inflation to fall without much loss in production or employment. Skeptics will argue that such benign disinflations rarely occur, pointing to the 1982 recession. But long-term inflation expectations were close to 10% back then. Today, they are broadly in line with the Fed’s target. Equities will recover from their recent correction as headline inflation continues to fall and the risks of a US recession diminish. Go long EUR/USD on any break below 0.99. Contrary to the prevailing pessimistic view, Europe is heading for a V-shaped recovery. The Aggregate Supply Curve Becomes Very Steep When Spare Capacity Is Exhausted Inelastic Supply: The Secret To A Soft Landing? Inelastic Supply: The Secret To A Soft Landing? Bottom Line: The US economy is entering a temporary Goldilocks period of falling inflation and stronger growth. The latest correction in stocks will end soon. Investors should overweight global equities over the next six months but look to turn more defensive thereafter.   Dear Client, I will be attending BCA’s annual conference in New York City next week. Instead of our regular report, we will be sending you a Special Report written by Mathieu Savary, BCA’s Chief European Strategist, and Robert Robis, BCA’s Chief Fixed Income Strategist, on Monday, September 12. Their report will discuss estimates of global neutral interest rates. We will resume our regular publication schedule on September 16. Best Regards, Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist The Hawks Descend On Jackson Hole Chart 1Markets Still Think The Fed Will Start Cutting Rates Next Year Markets Still Think The Fed Will Start Cutting Rates Next Year Markets Still Think The Fed Will Start Cutting Rates Next Year Jay Powell’s Jackson Hole address jolted the stock market last week. Citing the historical danger of allowing inflation to remain above target for too long, the Fed chair stressed the need for “maintaining a restrictive policy stance for some time.” Powell’s comments were consistent with the Fed’s dot plot, which expects rates to remain above 3% right through to the end of 2024. However, with the markets pricing in rate cuts starting in mid 2023, his remarks came across as decidedly hawkish (Chart 1). While Fedspeak can clearly influence markets in the near term, our view is that the economy calls the shots over the medium-to-long term. The Fed sees the same data as everyone else. If inflation comes down rapidly over the coming months, the FOMC will ratchet down its hawkish rhetoric, opting instead for a wait-and-see approach. The Slope of Hope Could inflation fall quickly in the absence of a deep recession? The answer depends on a seemingly esoteric concept: the slope of the aggregate supply curve. Economists tend to depict the aggregate supply curve as being convex in nature – fairly flat (or “elastic”) when there is significant spare capacity and becoming increasingly steep (or “inelastic”) as spare capacity is exhausted (Chart 2). The basic idea is that firms do not require substantially higher prices to produce more output when they have a lot of spare capacity, but do require increasingly high prices to produce more output when spare capacity is low. Chart 2The Aggregate Supply Curve Becomes Very Steep When Spare Capacity Is Exhausted Inelastic Supply: The Secret To A Soft Landing? Inelastic Supply: The Secret To A Soft Landing? When the aggregate supply curve is very elastic, an increase in aggregate demand will mainly lead to higher output rather than higher prices. In contrast, when the aggregate supply curve is inelastic, rising demand will primarily translate into higher prices rather than increased output. In early 2020, most of the developed world found itself on the steep side of the aggregate supply curve. The unemployment rate in the OECD stood at 5.3%, the lowest in 40 years (Chart 3). In the US, the unemployment rate had reached a 50-year low of 3.5%. Thus, not surprisingly, as fiscal and monetary policy turned simulative, inflation moved materially higher. Goods inflation, in particular, accelerated during the pandemic (Chart 4). Perhaps most notably, the exodus of people to the suburbs, combined with the reluctance to use mass transit, led to a surge in both new and used car prices (Chart 5). The upward pressure on auto prices was exacerbated by a shortage of semiconductors, itself a consequence of the spike in the demand for electronic goods. Chart 3The Pandemic Began When The Unemployment Rate In The OECD Was At A Multi-Decade Low The Pandemic Began When The Unemployment Rate In The OECD Was At A Multi-Decade Low The Pandemic Began When The Unemployment Rate In The OECD Was At A Multi-Decade Low Chart 4With Supply Unable To Meet Demand, Goods Prices Surged During The Pandemic With Supply Unable To Meet Demand, Goods Prices Surged During The Pandemic With Supply Unable To Meet Demand, Goods Prices Surged During The Pandemic The supply curve for labor also became increasingly inelastic over the course of the pandemic. Once the US unemployment rate fell back below 4%, wages began to accelerate sharply. The kink in the Phillips curve had been reached (Chart 6). Chart 5Car Prices Went On Quite A Ride During The Pandemic Car Prices Went On Quite A Ride During The Pandemic Car Prices Went On Quite A Ride During The Pandemic Chart 6Wage Growth Soared When The Economy Moved Beyond Full Employment Inelastic Supply: The Secret To A Soft Landing? Inelastic Supply: The Secret To A Soft Landing? Chart 7Job Switchers Usually See Faster Wage Growth Job Switchers Usually See Faster Wage Growth Job Switchers Usually See Faster Wage Growth Faster labor market churn further turbocharged wage growth. Both the quits rate and the hiring rate rose during the pandemic. Typically, workers who switch jobs experience faster wage growth than those who do not (Chart 7). This wage premium for job switching increased during the pandemic, helping to lift overall wage growth. A Symmetric Relationship? All this raises a critical question: If an increase in aggregate demand along the inelastic side of the aggregate supply curve mainly leads to higher prices rather than increased output and employment, is the inverse also true – that is, would a comparable decrease in aggregate demand simply lead to much lower inflation without much of a loss in output or employment? If so, this would greatly increase the odds of a soft landing. Skeptics would argue that disinflations are rarely painless. They would point to the 1982 recession which, until the housing bubble burst, was the deepest recession in the post-war era. The problem with that comparison is that long-term inflation expectations were extremely high in the early 1980s. Both consumers and professional forecasters expected inflation to average nearly 10% over the remainder of the decade (Chart 8). To bring down long-term inflation expectations, Paul Volcker had to engineer a deep recession. Chart 8Long-Term Inflation Expectations Are Much Better Anchored Now Than In The Early 1980s Inelastic Supply: The Secret To A Soft Landing? Inelastic Supply: The Secret To A Soft Landing? Chart 9Real Long Terms Bond Yields Are Currently A Fraction Of What They Were Four Decades Ago Real Long Terms Bond Yields Are Currently A Fraction Of What They Were Four Decades Ago Real Long Terms Bond Yields Are Currently A Fraction Of What They Were Four Decades Ago Jay Powell does not face such a problem. Both survey-based and market-based long-term inflation expectations are well anchored. Whereas real long-term bond yields reached 8% in 1982, the 30-year TIPS yield today is still less than 1% (Chart 9). The Impact of Lower Home Prices Chart 10Supply-Side Constraints Limited Home Building During The Pandemic, Helping To Push Up Home Prices Supply-Side Constraints Limited Home Building During The Pandemic, Helping To Push Up Home Prices Supply-Side Constraints Limited Home Building During The Pandemic, Helping To Push Up Home Prices While falling consumer prices would boost real incomes, helping to keep the economy out of recession, a drop in home prices would have the opposite effect on consumer spending. As occurred with other durable goods, a shortage of building materials and qualified workers prevented US homebuilders from constructing as many new homes as they would have liked during the pandemic. The producer price index for construction materials soared by over 50% between May 2020 and May 2022 (Chart 10). As a result, rising demand for homes largely translated into higher home prices rather than increased homebuilding.  Real home prices, as measured by the Case-Shiller index, have increased by 25% since February 2020, rising above their housing bubble peak. As we discussed last week, US home prices will almost certainly fall in real terms and probably in nominal terms as well over the coming years. Chart 11Despite Higher Home Prices, Households Have Not Been Using Their Homes As ATMs Despite Higher Home Prices, Households Have Not Been Using Their Homes As ATMs Despite Higher Home Prices, Households Have Not Been Using Their Homes As ATMs How much of a toll will falling home prices have on the economy? It took six years for home prices to bottom following the bursting of the housing bubble. It will probably take even longer this time around, given that the homeowner vacancy rate is at a record low and reasonably prudent mortgage lending standards will limit foreclosure sales. Thus, while there will be a negative wealth effect from falling home prices, it probably will not become pronounced until 2024 or so. Moreover, unlike during the housing boom, US households have not been tapping the equity in their homes to finance consumption (Chart 11). This also suggests that the impact of falling home prices on consumption will be far smaller than during the Great Recession. Inelastic Commodity Supply While inelastic supply curves had the redeeming feature of preventing a glut of, say, new autos or homes from emerging, they also limited the output of many commodities that face structural shortages. Compounding this problem is the fact that the demand for many commodities is very inelastic in the short run. When you combine a very steep supply curve with a very steep demand curve, small shifts in either curve can produce wild swings in prices.  Nowhere is this problem more evident than in Europe, where a rapid reduction in oil and gas flows has caused energy prices to soar, forcing policymakers to scramble to find new sources of supply.  Europe’s Energy Squeeze At this point, it looks like both the UK and the euro area will enter a recession. In continental Europe, the near-term outlook is grimmer in Germany and Italy than it is in France or Spain. The latter two countries are less vulnerable to an energy crunch (Spain imports a lot of LNG while France has access to nuclear energy). Both countries also have fairly resilient service sectors (Spain, in particular, is benefiting from a boom in tourism). The good news is that even in the most troubled European economies, the bottom for growth is probably closer at hand than widely feared. Despite the fact that imports of Russian gas have fallen by more than 60%, Europe has been able to rebuild gas inventories to about 80% of capacity, roughly in line with prior years (Chart 12). It has been able to achieve this feat by aggressively buying gas on the open market, no matter the price. While this has caused gas prices to soar, it sets the stage for a possible retreat in prices in 2023, something that the futures market is already discounting (Chart 13). Chart 12Europe: Squirrelling Away Gas For The Winter Europe: Squirrelling Away Gas For The Winter Europe: Squirrelling Away Gas For The Winter Chart 13Natural Gas Prices In Europe Will Come Back Down To Earth Natural Gas Prices In Europe Will Come Back Down To Earth Natural Gas Prices In Europe Will Come Back Down To Earth Europe is also moving with uncharacteristic haste to secure new sources of energy supply. In less than one year, Europe has become America’s biggest overseas market for LNG. A new gas pipeline linking Spain with the rest of Europe should be operational by next spring. In the meantime, Germany is building two “floating” LNG terminals. Germany has also postponed plans to mothball its nuclear power plants and has approved increased use of coal-fired electricity generators. Chart 14The Euro Is Undervalued The Euro Is Undervalued The Euro Is Undervalued France is seeking to boost nuclear capacity. As of August 29, 57% of nuclear generation capacity was offline. Electricité de France expects daily production to rise to around 50 gigawatts (GW) by December from around 27 GW at present. For its part, the Dutch government is likely to raise output from the massive Groningen natural gas field. All this suggests that contrary to the prevailing pessimistic view, Europe is heading for a V-shaped recovery. The euro, which is 30% undervalued against the US dollar on a purchasing power parity basis, will rally (Chart 14). Go long EUR/USD on any break below 0.99. Investment Conclusions Chart 15Falling Inflation Should Boost Real Wages And Buoy Consumer Confidence Falling Inflation Should Boost Real Wages And Buoy Consumer Confidence Falling Inflation Should Boost Real Wages And Buoy Consumer Confidence On the eve of the pandemic, most developed economies were operating at close to full capacity – the aggregate supply curve, in other words, had become very steep (or inelastic). Not surprisingly, in such an environment, pandemic-related stimulus, rather than boosting output, simply stoked inflation. Looking out, the inverse may turn out to be true: Just as an increase in aggregate demand did more to lift prices than output during the pandemic, a decrease in aggregate demand may allow inflation to fall with little loss in production or employment. Will this be the end of the story? Probably not. As inflation falls, US real wage growth, which is currently negative, will turn positive. Consumer confidence will improve, boosting consumer spending in the process (Chart 15). The aggregate demand curve will shift outwards again, triggering a “second wave” of inflation in the back half of 2023. Rather than cutting rates next year, as the market still expects, the Fed will raise rates to 5%. This will set the stage for a recession in 2024. Investors should overweight global equities over the next six months but look to turn more defensive thereafter. Peter Berezin Chief Global Strategist peterb@bcaresearch.com Follow me on            LinkedIn & Twitter   Global Investment Strategy View Matrix Inelastic Supply: The Secret To A Soft Landing? Inelastic Supply: The Secret To A Soft Landing? Special Trade Recommendations Current MacroQuant Model Scores Inelastic Supply: The Secret To A Soft Landing? Inelastic Supply: The Secret To A Soft Landing?      

Executive Summary US Military Constraint: Strait Of Hormuz Will Iran Crisis Be Averted? Will Iran Crisis Be Averted? A US-Iran deal would make for a notable improvement in the geopolitical backdrop during an otherwise gloomy year. It would remove the risk of a major new oil shock. We maintain our 40% subjective odds of a deal, which is well below consensus. The risk of failure is underrated. Our conviction level is only moderate because President Biden can make concessions to clinch a deal – and Supreme Leader Khamenei may want to earn some money and time. Yet we have high conviction in our view that the US will ultimately fail to provide Iran with sufficient security guarantees while Iran will pursue a nuclear deterrent. Hence the Middle East will present a long-term energy supply constraint. In the short term, global growth and recession risk will drive oil prices, not any Iran deal. Asset Initiation Date Return LONG GLOBAL AEROSPACE & DEFENSE / BROAD MARKET EQUITIES 2020-11-27 9.3% Bottom Line: Any US-Iran deal will be marginally positive for risky assets. However, the failure of a deal would sharply increase the odds of oil supply disruptions in the short run. Feature Negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program remain in a critical phase. Rumors suggest Iran has agreed to rejoin the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPA) with the United States. But these rumors are unconfirmed, while the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) just announced that Iran has started operating more advanced centrifuges at its Natanz nuclear site.1 In this report we provide a tactical update on the topic. A US-Iran nuclear deal is one item on our checklist for global macro and geopolitical stability (Table 1). We are pessimistic about a deal but it would be a positive outcome for markets. Table 1Not A Lot Of Positive Catalysts In H2 2022 Will Iran Crisis Be Averted? Will Iran Crisis Be Averted? A decision could come at any moment so investors should bear in mind our key conclusions about a deal: Chart 1Oil Volatility: The Only Certainty Of Iran Saga Oil Volatility: The Only Certainty Of Iran Saga Oil Volatility: The Only Certainty Of Iran Saga 1.  Any deal will be a short-term, stop-gap measure to delay a crisis until 2024 or beyond. This is not a small point because a crisis could lead to a large military conflict. 2.  The short-run implication of any deal is oil volatility, not a drop in oil prices (Chart 1). Global demand is wobbly and OPEC could cut oil production in reaction to a deal. 3.  Over the long run, global supply and demand balances will remain tight even if a deal is agreed. 4.  If there is no deal, then a major new source of global supply constraint will emerge immediately due to a new spiral of conflict in the Middle East. Iran’s nuclear program will continue which will prompt threats from Israel and the Gulf Arab states and Iranian counter-threats. We are sticking with our subjective 40/60 odds that a deal will occur – i.e. our conviction level is medium, not high. The Biden administration wants a deal and has the executive authority to conclude a deal. Iran wants sanctions lifted and can buy time with a short-term deal. Our pessimism stems from the fact that neither side can trust the other, the US can no longer give credible security guarantees, and Iran has a strategic interest in obtaining nuclear weapons. A deal can happen but its durability depends on the 2024 US election. Status Of Negotiations Table 2Iran’s Three Demands Of US For Rejoining 2015 Nuclear Deal Will Iran Crisis Be Averted? Will Iran Crisis Be Averted? Ostensibly there were three outstanding Iranian demands over the month of August that needed to be met to secure a deal (Table 2). Iran reportedly dropped the first demand: that the US remove the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps from the US State Department’s list of Designated Foreign Terrorist Organizations. This concession prompted the news media to become more optimistic about a deal. This leaves two outstanding demands. Iran wants the IAEA conclude a “safeguards” investigation into unexplained uranium traces found at unauthorized sites in Iran, indicating nuclear activity that has not been accounted for. The IAEA will be very reluctant to halt such a probe on a political, not technical, basis. But it could happen under US pressure. Related Report  Geopolitical StrategyRoulette With A Five-Shooter Iran also wants the US to provide a “guarantee” that future presidents will not renege on the nuclear deal and reimpose sanctions like President Trump did in 2019. President Biden cannot give any credible guarantee because the JCPA is an executive action, not a formal treaty, so a different president could reverse it. (The deal always lacked sufficient support in the Senate, even from top Democrats.) Iran is demanding certain diplomatic concessions and/or an economic indemnity in the event of another American reversal. Aside from attempting to incarcerate former President Trump, Biden can only offer empty promises on this front. In what follows we review the critical constraints facing the US and Iran. The US’s Constraints The first constraint on the US is the stagflationary economy. High inflation and oil prices pose a threat to President Biden and the Democrats not only in this year’s midterm elections but also in the 2024 presidential election. A recession is not at all unlikely by that time, given the inverted yield curve (Chart 2). If the US can help maintain stability in the Middle East, then the odds of another major oil supply shock (on top of Russia) will be reduced. Lifting sanctions on Iran will free up around 1 million barrels of oil to feed global demand. With Europe and the US imposing an oil and oil shipping embargo on Russia, the world is likely to lose around two million barrels of crude per day that the Gulf Arab states can only partially make up for, according to our Chief Commodity Strategist Bob Ryan (Table 3). This is a notable material constraint – and the main reason that Bob is more optimistic about an Iran deal than we are. Chart 2US Economic Constraint: Stagflation US Economic Constraint: Stagflation US Economic Constraint: Stagflation ​​​​​ Table 3The Oil Math Behind Any Iran Deal Will Iran Crisis Be Averted? Will Iran Crisis Be Averted? However, Saudi Arabia would be alienated by a US-Iran détente. The American view is that Iranian production would threaten Saudi market share and force the Saudis to produce more. But the Saudis are seeing weakening global demand and have signaled that they will cut production. There is still an economic basis for an Iran deal but it is not clear that it will lower prices, especially in the short run. Over the long run the Saudis are a more reliable oil producer than Iran for both economic and geopolitical reasons. The second constraint is political. The US public is primarily concerned about the economy. Stagflation or recession could ultimately bring down the Biden administration. However, in the short run, American voters are much more concerned about domestic social issues (such as abortion access) than they are about foreign policy. In the long run, American voters are likely to maintain their long-held negative view of Iran (Chart 3). So the Biden administration has an incentive to prevent geopolitical events from hurting the economy but not to join arms with Iran in a major diplomatic agreement. The third constraint is military. Americans are not as war-weary today as they were in 2008 or 2016 but they are still averse to any new military conflicts in the Middle East. An Iranian nuclear bomb could change that view – but until a bomb is tested it will persist. Chart 3US Political Constraint: Americans Ignore Foreign Policy, Dislike Iran Will Iran Crisis Be Averted? Will Iran Crisis Be Averted? ​​​​​​ Chart 4US Military Constraint: Strait Of Hormuz Will Iran Crisis Be Averted? Will Iran Crisis Be Averted? If Iran freezes its nuclear program then it will reduce the odds of a Middle Eastern war and large-scale oil supply disruptions. If Iran does not freeze its nuclear program, then Israel will have to demonstrate a credible military threat against nuclear weaponization, and then Iran will have to demonstrate its region-wide militant capabilities, including the ability to shut down the Strait of Hormuz (Chart 4). The Biden administration wants to delay this downward spiral or avoid it altogether. Chart 5US Strategic Constraint: Avoid Mideast Quagmires Will Iran Crisis Be Averted? Will Iran Crisis Be Averted? The fourth constraint is strategic. The Biden administration wants to avoid conflict if possible because it is attempting to reduce America’s burden in the Middle East so that it can focus on emerging great power competition in Eastern Europe and East Asia. The original motivation for the Iran deal was to enable the US to “pivot to Asia” and counter China. Iranian hegemony in the Middle East is less of a threat than Chinese hegemony in East Asia (Chart 5). This logic is sound if Iran can really be brought to halt its nuclear program. The Europeans need to stabilize and open up the Middle East to create an alternative energy supply to Russia. The Americans need to avoid a nuclear arms race and war in the Middle East that distracts them from China. However, if Iran continues to pursue a nuclear weapon, then the US suffers strategically for doing a short-term deal that provides Iran with time and access to funds. Ultimately the only thing that can dissuade Iran from going nuclear is American power projection in the Middle East – and this capability is also one of the US’s greatest advantages over China. Bottom Line: The US has a strategic, military, and economic interest in concluding a deal that freezes Iran’s nuclear program. It arguably has an interest in a deal even if Iran violates the deal and pursues nuclear weaponization, since that will provide a legitimate basis for what would then become a necessary military intervention. The Biden administration faces some political blowback for a deal but will suffer more if failure to get a deal leads to a Middle Eastern oil shock. For all these reasons Biden administration is attempting to clinch a deal. But Iran is the sticking point. Iran’s Constraints Our reasons for pessimism regarding the nuclear talks hinge on Iran, not the United States. Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s goal is to secure the regime and arrange for a stable succession in the coming years. A deal with the Americans made sense in that context. But going forward, if dealing with the Americans does not bring credible security guarantees and yet makes the economy vulnerable again to a future snapback of sanctions, then the justification for the deal falls apart. We cannot read Khamenei’s mind any more than we can read Biden’s mind, so we will look at the material limitations. Chart 6Iran's Economic Constraint: Stagflation Iran's Economic Constraint: Stagflation Iran's Economic Constraint: Stagflation First, the economic constraint: The Iranian economy suffered a huge negative shock from the reimposition of sanctions in 2019 (Chart 6). However, the economy has sputtered through this shock and the Covid-19 shock without collapsing. Social unrest is an ever-present risk but it has not spiraled out of control. There has not been an attempted democratic revolution like in 2009. The upswing in the global commodity cycle has reinforced the regime. Sanctions do not prevent exports entirely. There is still a huge monetary incentive to let the Biden administration lift sanctions if it wants to do so: a deal is estimated to free up $100 billion dollars per year in revenue for the regime for ten years.2 Realistically this should be understood as more than $275 billion for two years since the longevity of the deal is in question. The problem is that Iran’s economy would be fully exposed to sanctions again if the US changed its mind. The bottom line is that the economic constraint does not force Iran to accept a deal but it is enticing. Second comes the political constraint. President Ebrahim Raisi hopes to become supreme leader someday and is loath to put his name on a deal with weak foundations. He originally opposed the deal, was vindicated, and does not now want to jeopardize his political future by making the same mistake as his hapless predecessor, Hassan Rouhani. Opinion polls may not be reliable in putting Raisi as the most popular politician in Iran but they probably are reliable in showing Rouhani at the bottom of the heap (Chart 7). There is a significant political constraint against rejoining the deal. Chart 7Iran’s Political Constraint: Risk Of American Betrayal Will Iran Crisis Be Averted? Will Iran Crisis Be Averted? Chart 8Iran’s Military Constraint: Outgunned, Unsure Of Allies Will Iran Crisis Be Averted? Will Iran Crisis Be Averted? Third comes the military constraint. While Iran is extremely vulnerable to Israeli and American military attack, it is also a fortress of a country, nestled in mountains, and airstrikes may not succeed in destroying the entire nuclear program or bringing down the regime. An attack by Israel could convert an entirely new generation to the Islamic revolution. And Iran may believe that the US lacks the popular support for military action in the wake of Iraq and Afghanistan. Iran may also believe that China and Russia will provide military and economic support (Chart 8). Ultimately, America has demonstrated a willingness to attack rogue states and Iran will try to avoid that outcome, since it could succeed in toppling the regime. But if Iran believes it can acquire a deliverable nuclear weapon in a few short years, then it may make a dash for it, since this solution would be a permanent solution: a nuclear deterrent against western attack, as opposed to temporary diplomatic promises. We often compare Iran’s strategic predicament to that of Ukraine, Libya, and North Korea. Ukraine gave up its Soviet nuclear weapons after the 1994 Budapest Memorandum, which promised that Russia, the US, the UK, France, and China would guarantee its security. Yet Russia ended up invading 20 years later – and none of the others prevented it or sent troops to halt the Russian advance. Separately Libya gave up its nuclear program in 2003 but NATO attacked and toppled the regime in 2011 anyway. Meanwhile North Korea played the diplomatic game with the US, ever inching along on the path toward nuclear weapons, and today has achieved nuclear-armed status and greater regime security. The outflow of refugees from the various regimes shows why Iran will emulate North Korea (Chart 9). Chart 9Iran’s Strategic Constraint: The Need For A Nuclear Deterrent Will Iran Crisis Be Averted? Will Iran Crisis Be Averted? Bottom Line: Iran has a short-term economic incentive to agree to a deal and a long-term military incentive. But ultimately the US cannot provide ironclad security guarantees that would justify halting the quest for a nuclear deterrent. A nuclear deterrent would overcome the military constraint. Therefore Iran will continue on that path. Any deal will be a ruse to buy time. Final Assessment The 2015 deal occurred in a context of Iranian strategic isolation, when American implementation was credible, oil prices were weak, and Iran had not achieved nuclear breakout capacity. Today Iran is not isolated (thanks to US quarrels with Russia and China), American guarantees are not credible (thanks to the polarization of foreign policy), oil prices are not weak (thanks to Russia), and Iran has already achieved nuclear breakout (Table 4). Table 4Iran’s Nuclear Program Status Check, Aug. 31, 2022 Will Iran Crisis Be Averted? Will Iran Crisis Be Averted? The US’s strategic aim is to create a balance of power in the region but Iran’s strategic aim is to ensure regime survival. The US’s emerging balancing coalition (Israel and the Gulf Arab states) increases the strategic threat to Iran and hence its need for a nuclear deterrent. While Russia and China formally support the 2015 deal, they each see Iran as a valuable asset in a great power struggle with the United States. Iran sees them the same way. Russia needs Iran as a partner to bypass western sanctions. Regardless, it benefits from Middle Eastern instability, which could entangle the United States. China must develop a deep long-term partnership with Iran for its own strategic reasons and does not look forward to a time when the US divests from that region to impose tougher strategic containment on China. China can survive a US conflict with Iran – and such a conflict could reduce the US ability to defend Taiwan. While neither Russia nor China positively desire Iran to obtain nuclear weapons, neither power stopped North Korea from obtaining the bomb – far from it. Russia assumes that Israel and the US will take military action to prevent weaponization, which would be catastrophic for the region but positive for Russia. China also assumes Israel and the US will act, which reinforces its need to diversify energy options so that it can access Russian, Central Asian, and Middle Eastern oil via pipeline. Investment Takeaways Our negative view on the global economy and geopolitical backdrop is once again being priced into global financial markets as equities fall anew. An Iran deal would delay a notable geopolitical risk for roughly the next 24 months and hence remove a major upside risk for oil prices. This would be marginally positive for global equities, although it will not be the driver. Europe’s and China’s economic woes are the drivers. The failure of a deal would bring major upside risks for oil into the near term and as such would be negative for equities – and could even become the global driver, as Middle Eastern oil disruptions will follow promptly from any failure of the deal. We continue to recommend that investors overweight US equities relative to global, defensive sectors relative to cyclicals, and large caps relative to small caps. We are overweight aerospace and defense stocks, India and Southeast Asia within emerging markets, and underweight China and Taiwan.   Matt Gertken Chief Geopolitical Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1      See Iran International, “Exclusive: Ex-IAEA Official Says US And Iran To Sign Deal Soon,” August 30, 2022, iranintl.com. See also Francois Murphy, “Iran enriching uranium with more IR-6 centrifuges at Natanz -IAEA,” Reuters, August 31, 2022, reuters.com. 2     See Saeed Ghasseminejad, “Tehran’s $1 Trillion Deal: An Updated Forecast of Iran’s Financial Windfall From a New Nuclear Agreement,” Foundation for Defense of Democracies, August 19, 2022, fdd.org. Strategic Themes Open Tactical Positions (0-6 Months) Open Cyclical Recommendations (6-18 Months) Regional Geopolitical Risk Matrix

Dear Client, We will not be publishing the Commodity & Energy Strategy next week, as I will be participating in a panel discussion with Dr. Bassam Fattouh, Director of the Oxford Institute for Energy Studies (OIES), which will focus on global energy markets and their evolution.  Our panel will be moderated by my colleague Roukaya Ibrahim, Managing Editor of BCA Research's Daily Insights.  We will return to our regular publishing schedule on September 15, 2022. Sincerely, Robert Ryan Chief Commodity & Energy Strategist Executive Summary  The Biden administration’s Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) will throw just under $370 billion at incentivizing renewable-energy development via tax credits, grants and loans, and, in what arguably is a concession to common sense, to adding and extending incentives for conventional energy sources, carbon capture and hydrogen. In the short run, the IRA could add to systematic stress in the North American bulk power supply market, which still is contending with grid stability issues caused by solar PV generation. In a direct shot at the dominance of EV supply chains by China, the IRA subsidizes EVs assembled in North America using batteries sourced from there and critical minerals sourced either from the US or states which have a Free Trade Agreement with the US. The IRA will increase global competition for base metals supplies, which already are tight.  This will push prices higher to incentivize the development of the mines and local metals-refining operations required to satisfy this demand. IRA’s $370 Billion Allocations US IRA Supports Renewable, Conventional Energy US IRA Supports Renewable, Conventional Energy Bottom Line: The IRA incentivizes investment in clean energy, pollution reduction and GHG remediation, and employment in the energy-supply market writ large.  The next year likely will be taken up writing the actual regulations implementing the IRA.  If it succeeds in significantly boosting renewable energy investment and EV sales, it will stoke already-tight base metals markets and drive costs higher.  By incentivizing the development of carbon-capture and hydrogen technologies, it would extend the life of traditional hydrocarbon energy. Feature The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) will make $370 billion available to energy providers and households via tax credits, grants and loans to incentivize green-energy production and deployment in the US (Chart 1). It also seeks to incentivize the expansion of locally built EVs in North America, the batteries that will power them, and the critical minerals crucial for green energy, as it attempts to break China’s dominance of EV and critical mineral supply chains globally. Support for carbon-capture and use, and hydrogen as a fuel also will be expanded. Chart 1IRA’s $370 Billion Allocations US IRA Supports Renewable, Conventional Energy US IRA Supports Renewable, Conventional Energy The US DOE estimates the IRA and the previously passed Bipartisan Infrastructure Law will reduce Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions by 1,150 MMT CO2e in 2030, equivalent to a 40% reduction vs 2005 GHG levels, in 2030.1 The inclusion of Carbon-Capture-Use-and-Storage (CCUS) technology in the IRA will incentivize technology that would allow for fossil fuels to be used as a bridge for the green energy transition, which, if successful, will dramatically extend the useful life of hydrocarbon resources. Per the IRA, tax credits for CCUS can reach a maximum of USD 60 – USD 85/ MT of CO2 captured depending on how successful the technology is in actually removing CO2.2 This is $25-$35/MT more than what is provided by the existing CCUS tax credits. As we argued in previous reports, lower production costs for nascent green technologies such as CCUS will spur research and development, unlocking a virtuous cycle of increased production and deployment, and lower costs.3 The IRA is technologically agnostic as to how low-carbon energy is produced – i.e., via renewables, hydrocarbons, or nuclear power. From 2025, Investment- and Production-Tax Credits (IC and PC tax credits) will be available for technology-neutral electricity production, meaning electricity from fossil fuels or nuclear power will receive tax and investment credits alongside renewables, provided no toxic GHG emissions are released. This will catalyze the development and use of CCUS technology, especially in existing power plants, which can be retrofitted with this technology. Controversy Around Oil, Gas Attends The IRA Among the more controversial features of the Act are provisions supporting oil and gas production. One of the provisions requires 2mm acres of public land and 60mm acres of water to be offered for lease to oil and gas companies a year prior to issuing new onshore solar or wind rights-of-way. We do not believe this will meaningfully increase US oil production since its main constraint isn’t a dearth of land but investor-induced drilling restraint – i.e., the capital discipline that compels oil and gas producers to only produce what can profitably be produced. We also are doubtful that increasing oil and gas royalties to 16.6-18.75% under the IRA will influence drillers’ production decisions since most states’ royalties, most notably Texas and New Mexico’s will be at parity or higher than the revised rate under the new law.4 The duration and coverage of investment and production tax credits for solar and wind projects have increased. Furthermore, energy storage technology will now receive ITCs and PTCs, which should encourage the development of this technology. Energy storage technology – e.g., utility-scale lithium batteries – will make green electricity more reliable, providing a competitive alternative to fossil fuel-generated electricity. Increasing Solar PV Resources Strain Power Grids As Chart 1 shows, renewables are receiving massive support from the IRA, particularly solar PV and wind resources. This will, over the short run, present problems for grid stability. The North American power grid is being stressed by lack of investment in systems capable of fully integrating renewables – particularly solar PV – with incumbent bulk power supplies from fossil fuels and nuclear power. This is being exacerbated by extreme-weather events (e.g., prolonged heat waves, droughts, fire storms, flooding, etc.).5 The IRA focuses on incentivizing particular power-generation technologies and, in conjunction with the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, investing in and bolstering North American electric grids.6 This is and will remain a critical issue, given the threat to bulk power system (BPS) stability posed by the large amount of small-scale solar supplies, which are not required to meet NERC reliability standards, per the NERC’s analysis. This risk is being analysed in depth following widespread loss of solar PV power in California during the summer of 2021, which was compounded by droughts and wildfires.7 “The ongoing widespread reduction of solar PV resources continues to be a notable reliability risk to the BPS, particularly when combined with the additional loss of other generating resources on the BPS and in aggregate on the distribution system,” the April 2022 NERC report notes. In an earlier report, NERC analysts noted much of the solar PV resource operates at a smaller scale than other supplies (baseload nuclear power, e.g.), and are not part of the NERC’s bulk electric supply (BES) system (Chart 2).8 Practically speaking, the NERC noted, “the vast majority of solar PV plants connected to the BPS, totaling over half the capacity, are not considered BES and are therefore not subject to NERC Reliability Standards.” Chart 2Solar PV Resources Strain Grids US IRA Supports Renewable, Conventional Energy US IRA Supports Renewable, Conventional Energy In theory, this could limit the expansion of solar PV resources until the grid stability problems are addressed. Because of its intermittency, wind resources also can be unreliable sources of power, which means fossil-fuels alternatives – particularly natural-gas-fired generation – will continue to be favored to maintain grid stability and to provide back-up generation if wind or solar PV generation becomes unavailable. If CCUS technology can be harnessed to significantly reduce methane discharge – another goal of the IRA – along with particulates, natural gas production stands to increase as the US migrates to a low-carbon future. Investment Implications The recently enacted IRA law will incentivize increased investment in renewables and conventional resources. In addition, it will spur investment in energy-transmission and –transportation resources. The drafting and implementation of the regulations required to implement the law will be done over the next year or so, so it is difficult to forecast which investments will get off to the fastest start. We remain bullish base metals – the sine qua non of the renewal-energy transition – and conventional hydrocarbon resources. We continue to favor equity exposure via ETFs – the XME and XOP for exposure to miners and oil-and-gas producers, respectively. We also remain long the COMT ETF, an optimized version of the S&P GSCI to retain exposure to commodities directly.   Robert P. Ryan Chief Commodity & Energy Strategist rryan@bcaresearch.com Ashwin Shyam Research Analyst Commodity & Energy Strategy ashwin.shyam@bcaresearch.com Paula Struk Research Associate Commodity & Energy Strategy paula.struk@bcaresearch.com   Commodities Round-Up Energy: Bullish EU gas storage facilities were 80.17% full as of August 29 , reaching the bloc’s 80% target two months early (Chart 3) and raising the possibility of natgas rationing to reduce demand will not be needed this winter. The EU’s willingness to purchase gas at high prices over the summer injection months, given the dire consequences of possibly low gas storage levels in the winter withdrawal period, is responsible for this result. As Russian gas flows have dropped, the EU has had to rely on other sources, namely the US. LNG imports of 39 Bcm from the US to the EU over the first six months of this year have surpassed full year 2021 flows, according to Reuters. Elevated US gas flows to Europe have come at the expense of gas flows to states which are unable to afford the fuel at such high prices. In the US, high Henry Hub gas prices signal low domestic fuel availability primarily due to higher gas exports (Chart 4). Base Metals: Bullish High electricity and fuel prices in Europe are making metal smelting increasingly expensive, and are forcing refiners to voluntarily reduce operations. Nyrstar’s Budel zinc smelter and Norsk Hydro’s Slovalco aluminum smelter are the latest refinery operations forced to shutter operations going into the winter. Reduced domestic metal production runs counter to the continent’s aim of becoming more self-reliant on the supply of minerals critical to strategic industries such as defense and aerospace. Precious Metals: Neutral Federal Reserve chair Jerome Powell stressed the importance of price stability and reiterated the Fed’s commitment to restrictive policy to reduce inflation at the Jackson Hole conference. Gold prices fell on his speech as markets adjusted to higher interest rates than previously expected. However, counter to BCA’s US Bond Strategy view, markets still expect the Fed to start cutting rates in 2023. Two key drivers for gold prices next year will be the Fed’s rate hike regime and inflation perpetuated by potentially high oil prices following European sanctions on Russian oil and oil products. Chart 3 US IRA Supports Renewable, Conventional Energy US IRA Supports Renewable, Conventional Energy Chart 4 US IRA Supports Renewable, Conventional Energy US IRA Supports Renewable, Conventional Energy       Footnotes 1     Please see The Inflation Reduction Act Will Significantly Cut the Social Costs of Climate Change, published by the US Department of Energy on August 23.  See also 8.18 InflationReductionAct_Factsheet_Final.pdf (energy.gov) for additional DOE analysis of the IRA. 2     Manufacturers of different green technologies can maximize tax credits by ensuring certain labor and materials sourcing requirements are met. 3    For a report with our most recent discussion on this issue, please see EU Gas Crisis Boosts Hydrogen’s Prospects, which we published on April 7, 2022.  See also Assessing Risks To Our Commodity Views, published on July 8, 2021, and Industrial Commodities Super-Cycle Or Bull Market?, published on March 4, 2021, for additional discussion on the need for carbon-capture investment. 4    The Permian basin, which constitutes 60% of total US shale production is located in these two states. 5    Please see the North American Electric Reliability Corporation’s recent report entitled Summer Reliability Assessment, May 2022, for an in-depth discussion of electric grid reliability going into the 2022 summer. 6    Please see “The Inflation Reduction Act Drives Significant Emissions Reductions and Positions America to Reach Our Climate Goals,” published by the US DOE as DOE/OP-0018, August 2022. 7     Please see “Multiple Solar PV Disturbances in CAISO, Disturbances between June and August 2021, April 2022,” published by the North American Electric Reliability Corporation. 8    Please see “Summary of Activities, BPS-Connected Inverter-Based Resources and Distributed Energy Resources,” published by NERC in September 2019.   Investment Views and Themes  New, Pending And Closed Trades WE WERE STOPPED OUT OF OUR LONG SPDR S&P METALS & MINING ETF (XME) TRADE ON AUGUST 29, 2022 WITH A RETURN OF 19.43%. WE WILL RE-ESTABLISH A LONG POSITION IN THE XME AT TONIGHT'S CLOSE. Strategic Recommendations Trades Closed in 2022

Next week, on September 7-8, is the BCA New York Conference, the first in-person version since 2019. I look forward to seeing many of you there, and if you haven’t already booked your place, you still can! (a virtual version is also available). As such, the next Counterpoint report will come out on September 15. Executive Summary The 2022-23 = 1981-82 template for markets is working well. If it continues to hold, these are the major investment implications: Bonds: The 30-year T-bond (price) will trend sideways for the next few months, albeit with a potential correction that lifts the yield to 3.5 percent. However, bond prices will enter a sustained rally in 2023, in which the 30-year T-bond yield will fall to sub-2.5 percent. Stocks: A coordinated global recession will depress profits, causing the S&P 500 to test 3500. However, once past the worst of the recession, a strong rally will lift it through 5000 later in 2023. Sector allocation: Longer duration defensive sectors (such as healthcare) will strongly outperform shorter duration cyclical sectors (such as basic resources) until mid-2023, after which it will be time to flip back into cyclicals. Industrial metals: A tactical rebound in copper could lift it to $8500/MT after which the structural downtrend will resume, taking it to sub-$7000/MT in 2023. Oil: Just as in 1981-82, supply shortages will provide near-term support. But ultimately, demand destruction will dominate, depressing the price to, at best, $85, though our central case is $55 in 2023.  If 2022-23 = 1981-82, Then This Is What Happens To The Copper Price If 2022-23 = 1981-82, Then This Is What Happens To The Copper Price If 2022-23 = 1981-82, Then This Is What Happens To The Copper Price Bottom Line: The 2022-23 = 1981-82 template for markets is working well, and should continue to do so. Feature History doesn’t repeat, but it does rhyme. And the period that rhymes closest with the current episode in the global economy and markets is 1981-82, a rhyming which we first highlighted four months ago in Markets Echo 1981, When Stagflation Morphed Into Recession, and then developed in More On 2022-23 = 1981-82, And The Danger Ahead. In those reports, we presented three compelling reasons why 2022-23 rhymes with 1981-82: 1981-82 is the period that rhymes closest with the current episode in the global economy and markets. First, the simultaneous sell-off in stocks, bonds, inflation protected bonds, industrial commodities, and gold in the second quarter of 2022 is uniquely linked with an identical ‘everything sell-off’ in the second quarter of 1981. It is extremely rare for stocks, bonds, inflation protected bonds, industrial commodities, and gold to sell off together. Such a simultaneous sell-off has happened in just these 2 calendar quarters out of the last 200. Meaning a ‘1-in-a-100’ event conjoins 2022 with 1981 (Chart I-1 and Chart I-2). Chart I-1A 1-In-A-100 Event: The 'Everything Sell-Off' In 2022... A 1-In-A-100 Event: The 'Everything Sell-Off' In 2022... A 1-In-A-100 Event: The 'Everything Sell-Off' In 2022... Chart I-2...And The 'Everything Sell-Off' In 1981 ...And The 'Everything Sell-Off' In 1981 ...And The 'Everything Sell-Off' In 1981 Second, the Jay Powell Fed equals the Paul Volcker Fed. Now just as then, the world’s central banks are obsessed with ‘breaking the back’ of inflation. And now, just as then, the central banks are desperate to repair their badly battered credibility in managing inflation. Third, the Russia/Ukraine war that started in February 2022 equals the Iraq/Iran war that started in September 1980. Now, just as then, a war between two commodity producing neighbours has unleashed a supply shock which is adding to the inflation paranoia. To repeat, it is a 1-in-a-100 event for all financial assets to sell off together. This is because it requires an extremely rare star alignment. Inflation fears first morph to stagflation fears and then to recession fears. Leaving investors with nowhere to hide, as no mainstream asset performs well in inflation, stagflation, and recession. So, the once-in-a-generation star alignment conjoining 2022 with 1981 is as follows: Inflation paranoia is worsened by a major war between commodity producing neighbours, forcing reputationally damaged central banks to become trigger-happy in their battle against inflation, dragging the world economy into a coordinated recession. September 2022 Equals August 1981 If 2022-23 = 1981-82, then where exactly are we in the analogous episode? There are two potential synchronization points. One potential synchronization is that the Russia/Ukraine war which started on February 24, 2022 equals the Iraq/Iran war which started on September 22, 1980. In which case, September 2022 equals April 1981. But given that inflation is public enemy number one, a better synchronization is the Fed’s preferred measure of underlying inflation, the US core PCE deflator. Aligning the respective peaks in core PCE inflation, we can say that February 2022 equals January 1981. Meaning that our original report in May 2022 aligned with April 1981, and September 2022 equals August 1981 (Chart I-3 and Chart I-4). Chart I-3The Peak In Core PCE Inflation In ##br##February 2022 The Peak In Core PCE Inflation In February 2022 The Peak In Core PCE Inflation In February 2022 Chart I-4...Aligns With The Peak In Core PCE Inflation In ##br##January 1981 ...Aligns With The Peak In Core PCE Inflation In January 1981 ...Aligns With The Peak In Core PCE Inflation In January 1981 In which case, how has the template worked since we introduced it on May 19th? The answer is, very well. The template predicted that the long bond price would track sideways, which it has. The template predicted that the S&P 500 would decline from 4200 to 4000, which it has. The template predicted that the copper price would decline from $9250/MT to $8500/MT. In fact, it has fallen even further to $8200/MT. In the case of oil, the better synchronization is the starts of the respective wars. This template predicted that the Brent crude price would decline sharply from a knee-jerk peak in the $120s, which it has. Not a bad set of predictions! If 2022-23 = 1981-82, Here’s What Happens Next Assuming the template continues to hold, here are the major implications for investors: Bond prices will enter a sustained rally in 2023. Bonds: The 30-year T-bond (price) will trend sideways for the next few months, albeit with a potential tactical correction that takes its yield to 3.5 percent. However, bond prices will enter a sustained rally in 2023 in which the 30-year T-bond yield will fall to sub-2.5 percent (Chart I-5). Chart I-5If 2022-23 = 1981-82, Then This Is What Happens To Bond Prices If 2022-23 = 1981-82, Then This Is What Happens To Bond Prices If 2022-23 = 1981-82, Then This Is What Happens To Bond Prices Stocks: A coordinated global recession will depress profits, causing the S&P 500 to test 3500 in the coming months. However, once past the worst of the recession, a strong rally will lift it through 5000 later in 2023 (Chart I-6). Chart I-6If 2022-23 = 1981-82, Then This Is What Happens To Stock Prices If 2022-23 = 1981-82, Then This Is What Happens To Stock Prices If 2022-23 = 1981-82, Then This Is What Happens To Stock Prices Sector allocation: Longer duration defensive sectors (such as healthcare) will strongly outperform shorter duration cyclical sectors (such as basic resources) until mid-2023, after which it will be time to flip back into cyclicals (Chart I-7). Chart I-7If 2022-23 = 1981-82, Then This Is What Happens To Sector Allocation If 2022-23 = 1981-82, Then This Is What Happens To Sector Allocation If 2022-23 = 1981-82, Then This Is What Happens To Sector Allocation Industrial metals: A tactical rebound in copper could lift it to $8500/MT after which the structural downtrend will resume, taking it to sub-$7000/MT in 2023 (Chart I-8). Chart I-8If 2022-23 = 1981-82, Then This Is What Happens To The Copper Price If 2022-23 = 1981-82, Then This Is What Happens To The Copper Price If 2022-23 = 1981-82, Then This Is What Happens To The Copper Price Oil: Just as in 1981-82, supply shortages will provide near-term support. But ultimately, demand destruction will dominate, depressing the price to, at best, $85 (Chart I-9) though our central case is $55 in 2023.  Chart I-9If 2022-23 = 1981-82, Then This Is What Happens To The Oil Price If 2022-23 = 1981-82, Then This Is What Happens To The Oil Price If 2022-23 = 1981-82, Then This Is What Happens To The Oil Price But What If 2022-23 Doesn’t = 1981-82? And yet, and yet…what if the Jay Powell Fed doesn’t equal the Paul Volcker Fed? What if central banks lose their nerve before inflation is slayed? Long bond yields could gap much higher, or at least not come down, causing a completely different set of investment outcomes. In this case, the correct template would not be 1981-82, but the 1970s. If central banks lose the stomach to slay inflation, then the consequent housing market crash will do the job for them. However, there is one huge difference between now and the 1970s, which makes that template highly unlikely. In the 1970s, the global real estate market was worth just one times world GDP, whereas today it has become a monster worth four times world GDP, and whose value is highly sensitive to the long bond yield. In the US, the mortgage rate has surged to well above the rental yield for the first time in 15 years. Simply put, it is now more expensive to buy than to rent a home, causing a disappearance of would be homebuyers, a flood of home-sellers, and an incipient reversal in home prices (Chart I-10). Chart I-10If Bond Yields Don't Come Down, Then House Prices Will Crash If Bond Yields Don't Come Down, Then House Prices Will Crash If Bond Yields Don't Come Down, Then House Prices Will Crash Hence, if long bond yields were to gap much higher, or even stay where they are, it would trigger a housing market crash whose massive deflationary impulse would swamp any inflationary impulse. The upshot is that the 2022-23 = 1981-82 template would suffer a hiatus. Ultimately though, it would come good, because a crash in the $400 trillion global housing market would obliterate inflation. In other words, if central banks lose the stomach to slay inflation, then the consequent housing market crash will do the job for them. Fractal Trading Watchlist As just discussed, copper’s tactical rebound is approaching exhaustion. This is confirmed by the 130-day fractal structure of copper versus tin reaching the point of extreme fragility that has consistently marked turning-points in this pair trade (Chart I-11). Chart I-11Copper's Tactical Rebound Is Exhausted Copper's Tactical Rebound Is Exhausted Copper's Tactical Rebound Is Exhausted Hence, this week’s recommendation is to short copper versus tin, setting the profit target and symmetrical stop-loss at 12 percent.   Chart 1Expect Hungarian Bonds To Rebound Expect Hungarian Bonds To Rebound Expect Hungarian Bonds To Rebound Chart 2Copper Is Experiencing A Tactical Rebound Copper Is Experiencing A Tactical Rebound Copper Is Experiencing A Tactical Rebound Chart 3US REITS Are Oversold Versus Utilities US REITS Are Oversold Versus Utilities US REITS Are Oversold Versus Utilities Chart 4FTSE100 Outperformance Vs. Euro Stoxx 50 Is Vulnerable To Reversal FTSE100 Outperformance Vs. Euro Stoxx 50 Is Vulnerable To Reversal FTSE100 Outperformance Vs. Euro Stoxx 50 Is Vulnerable To Reversal Chart 5Netherlands' Underperformance Vs. Switzerland Has Ended Netherlands' Underperformance Vs. Switzerland Has Ended Netherlands' Underperformance Vs. Switzerland Has Ended Chart 6The Sell-Off In The 30-Year T-Bond At Fractal Fragility The Sell-Off In The 30-Year T-Bond At Fractal Fragility The Sell-Off In The 30-Year T-Bond At Fractal Fragility Chart 7Food And Beverage Outperformance Is Exhausted Food And Beverage Outperformance Is Exhausted Food And Beverage Outperformance Is Exhausted Chart 8German Telecom Outperformance Has Started To Reverse German Telecom Outperformance Has Started To Reverse German Telecom Outperformance Has Started To Reverse Chart 9Japanese Telecom Outperformance Vulnerable To Reversal Japanese Telecom Outperformance Vulnerable To Reversal Japanese Telecom Outperformance Vulnerable To Reversal Chart 10The Strong Trend In The 18-Month-Out US Interest Rate Future Has Ended The Strong Trend In The 18-Month-Out US Interest Rate Future Has Ended The Strong Trend In The 18-Month-Out US Interest Rate Future Has Ended Chart 11The Strong Downtrend In The 3 Year T-Bond Has Ended The Strong Downtrend In The 3 Year T-Bond Has Ended The Strong Downtrend In The 3 Year T-Bond Has Ended Chart 12A Potential Switching Point From Tobacco Into Cannabis A Potential Switching Point From Tobacco Into Cannabis A Potential Switching Point From Tobacco Into Cannabis Chart 13Biotech Is A Major Buy Biotech Is A Major Buy Biotech Is A Major Buy Chart 14Norway's Outperformance Has Ended Norway's Outperformance Has Ended Norway's Outperformance Has Ended Chart 15Cotton Versus Platinum Has Reversed Cotton Versus Platinum Has Reversed Cotton Versus Platinum Has Reversed Chart 16Switzerland's Outperformance Vs. Germany Is Exhausted Switzerland's Outperformance Vs. Germany Is Exhausted Switzerland's Outperformance Vs. Germany Is Exhausted Chart 17USD/EUR Is Vulnerable To Reversal USD/EUR Is Vulnerable To Reversal USD/EUR Is Vulnerable To Reversal Chart 18The Outperformance Of MSCI Hong Kong Versus China Has Ended The Outperformance Of MSCI Hong Kong Versus China Has Ended The Outperformance Of MSCI Hong Kong Versus China Has Ended Chart 19US Utilities Outperformance Vulnerable To Reversal US Utilities Outperformance Vulnerable To Reversal US Utilities Outperformance Vulnerable To Reversal Chart 20The Outperformance Of Oil Versus Banks Is Exhausted The Outperformance Of Oil Versus Banks Is Exhausted The Outperformance Of Oil Versus Banks Is Exhausted Dhaval Joshi Chief Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com Fractal Trading System Fractal Trades Markets Still Echoing 1981-82, So Here’s What Happens Next Markets Still Echoing 1981-82, So Here’s What Happens Next Markets Still Echoing 1981-82, So Here’s What Happens Next Markets Still Echoing 1981-82, So Here’s What Happens Next 6-12 Month Recommendations Structural Recommendations Closed Fractal Trades Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Euro Area Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Euro Area Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Euro Area Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Europe Ex Euro Area Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Europe Ex Euro Area Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Europe Ex Euro Area Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Asia Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Asia Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Asia Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Other Developed Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Other Developed Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Other Developed   Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-5Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations  

Dear Clients, Next week we will attend the BCA Investment Conference in New York. Therefore we will not publish our regular report. We will resume regular publication in the week of September 12. We apologize in advance for any inconvenience. Thank you, Matt Gertken, Senior Vice President US Political Strategy Executive Summary Top Issues On Voters’ Minds Waiting On The Biden Doctrine Waiting On The Biden Doctrine President Biden has a foreign policy but not yet a foreign policy doctrine.  The Biden Doctrine will emerge after critical tests. These tests are likely to be imminent, signaling more volatility and negative surprises for global investors. The three key foreign policy tests are: the Russia-EU energy crisis, the Iran nuclear crisis, and the fourth Taiwan Strait crisis. Of these, only Iran is looking like it could become a win for Biden – and a boon for markets – but even there deal is not yet confirmed. Biden’s foreign policy is domestically focused given the looming midterm elections. The result is likely to be high or higher volatility in the short run. Recommendation (Tactical) INITIATION DATE Return Long DXY (Dollar Index) Feb 23, 2022 13.1% Bottom Line: Stay defensive and long US dollar in the short run. The fourth quarter could be a turning point but for now political risk remains negative for risk assets. Feature Successful US presidents establish a foreign policy doctrine. The doctrine should not be defined by ideas and ideals but rather by the test of reality and experience – i.e. the decisions the president makes during crises. The Biden administration has a foreign policy and it has been tested in Ukraine. The focal point is to strengthen US alliances – even if that means deferring to allies’ interests on critical points. For example, while the US wanted to sell natural gas to Europe at the expense of Russia, Biden approved of Germany’s decision to finish building and operate the Nord Stream 2 pipeline to Russia in summer 2021. He condoned this decision even though Russia was already threatening Ukraine with invasion. Once Russia invaded, Germany froze the pipeline. The US had given its ally a choice, the choice ended badly, and now the ally is more certain that its interest lies with the United States. Bottom Line: The Biden administration’s foreign policy aims to restore US alliances and thus looks for the common denominator among allies. Biden’s Reactive Foreign Policy Biden’s foreign policy is fundamentally defensive, not offensive like that of the Trump administration. Trump initiated a trade war with China and others, revoked several international deals, tried to build a wall on the Mexican border, and imposed “maximum pressure” sanctions on Iran. By contrast, Biden, who entered office with a weak grip on Congress and a rebellion at the capitol, preferred to focus on domestic politics and social issues. He preferred to be reactive rather than proactive abroad, slapping sanctions on Russia only after it invaded Ukraine and so far avoiding major new sanctions on Iran or China. Biden’s foreign policy has also been reactive in the sense that it aims to win the approval of his domestic audience. Biden is a first-term US president, he faces midterm elections and the potential for re-election in 2024 – and the odds for him and his party are not great (Chart 1). Elections encourage him to maximize domestic legislation and minimize risks on the international scene. Chart 1Midterm Election Odds From The Street Waiting On The Biden Doctrine Waiting On The Biden Doctrine The second term – when the president is no longer eligible for re-election and could become a “lame duck” – is opportune for prioritizing national interests over partisan interests and taking risks abroad. The 2022 midterm election fits into this rubric: Biden’s foreign policy this year has been domestically focused and will continue to be through November. Biden’s goal must be balanced: to pursue his foreign policies but avoid worsening the Democratic Party’s difficulties at the voting booth. Our quantitative election models show that Democrats are likely to lose 21 seats in the House of Representatives (Table 1) and two seats in the Senate (Chart 2), thus losing control of all Congress to Republicans. The Senate is uncertain but the House is not. Given that the Senate is highly competitive, Biden must tread carefully to avoid worsening the economy or suffering a policy humiliation. Table 1BCA’s US House Election Quant Model Waiting On The Biden Doctrine Waiting On The Biden Doctrine Chart 2BCA’s US Senate Election Quant Model Waiting On The Biden Doctrine Waiting On The Biden Doctrine Hence while sanctions on Russia have pushed up energy prices and given ammunition to critics at home, Biden has encouraged Europe to take a pragmatic and gradual approach so as to soften the blow. The EU agrees for its own reasons and the oil embargo will not fully kick in until December 5, after the midterm election. Bottom Line: The Biden administration’s foreign policy is focused on its domestic audience, which means that midterm elections will continue to drive US foreign policy this year. Taking Risks Before The Midterms Since May we have observed that the Ukraine war and Biden’s midterm woes have stirred the administration into taking greater risks in its foreign policy. If American interests are asserted, Biden will look stronger at home. If a crisis erupts, Americans will rally around the flag. For example, Biden agreed to sell long-range artillery rockets (HIMARS) to Ukraine and provide higher value targeting intelligence to Ukraine. Biden expanded export controls on China and agreed to send legislators and eventually a new arms package to Taiwan. The current crisis in the Taiwan Strait arose because of the Biden administration’s initiatives – House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s trip. Similarly Biden has not, as of August 31, provided Iran with the concessions necessary to clinch a nuclear agreement, raising the risk of rising tensions across the Middle East. He has slightly expanded sanctions, though, to be fair, the odds of an Iran deal are not low.1 We are contrarians on this issue and have put the odds of a deal at 40%, but rumors are swirling in the news media that a deal is at hand. In short, with his job approval rating falling to a net negative 13 percentage points (net negative 18 percentage points on his handling of the economy), Biden is increasingly willing to take foreign policy risks. The domestic focus of foreign policy is overwhelming its initial defensiveness. Biden’s policy is becoming more offensive, albeit still not to the same degree as the Trump administration’s. This shift in foreign policy does not line up well with what voters want. Voter priorities for the midterms are shaping up as follows: Economy: Voters are far more concerned about the economy than anything else (Chart 3, first panel). Biden’s foreign policy actions – sanctions on oil producers like Russia and Iran and tariffs on manufacturers like China – add to inflation, which is the top concern for voters within the economic sphere. Society: Voters are concerned about a range of social grievances such as gun policy, health care, crime, the electoral system. Abortion access and gun rights have become more important over the year, while foreign policy and energy policy have become less important (Chart 3, second panel). Foreign Policy: True, Biden’s foreign policy can tap into unfavorable views of Russia, Iran, and China (Chart 3, third panel). But voters are not demanding a more hawkish foreign policy in this election, so Biden’s decision to take more foreign policy risks this year must come from somewhere else. That somewhere else is the need to respond to foreign events, such as Russian invasions, but there is also the political expediency of stirring up nationalism, as is clear in the case of China. Chart 3Top Issues On Voters’ Minds Waiting On The Biden Doctrine Waiting On The Biden Doctrine Bottom Line: Voters are focused on the economy and social issues but Biden must respond to international challenges. In doing so, Biden is increasingly willing to take risks as the Democrats could benefit from any crisis that leads to an outburst of nationalism and patriotism. Biden’s Foreign Policy And Anti-Inflation Drive Back in June the Biden administration unveiled an anti-inflation plan that consisted of (1) Fed rate hikes (2) a reconciliation bill (3) budget discipline. We pointed out that the first option was the only one that would truly reduce inflation – but that it would also bring recession within a year or two. Once the reconciliation bill passed, we showed how the Inflation Reduction Act would increase budget deficits and inflation, especially when taken along with other new legislation like the Chips and Science Act. More recently Biden’s $500 billion plan for student debt forgiveness has underscored the continuing inflationary bent of his policies. Gasoline prices have come down slightly over the summer but not to the extent that Democrats can declare victory (Chart 4). Midterm voters will feel the year-on-year increase in headline inflation. Chart 4Prices At The Pump Prices At The Pump Prices At The Pump Market-based inflation expectations are rising again and consumers still report very high expectations for the one-year period, which is most relevant this fall (Chart 5). This brings us to Biden’s three foreign policy options for reducing inflation: reduce tensions with Russia, lift sanctions on Iran, and lift tariffs on China. Back in June we doubted that any of these would come to fruition. Now Biden faces a series of tests that will define his foreign policy doctrine: Chart 5Inflation Expectations Unabated Inflation Expectations Unabated Inflation Expectations Unabated   European Energy Crisis: Biden faces a European energy crisis stemming from Russia’s clash with NATO. Biden is providing Ukraine with extensive support in the form of money and weapons. That will continue in the short run as the Ukrainians are launching a counter-offensive against Russia. There are some signs of Russia signaling a willingness to negotiate but until Russia defeats the new counter-offensive it is highly unlikely to offer any serious concessions, or to relieve the pressure on Europe. The Biden administration has not yet accepted Russia’s broader demands, namely on the topic of NATO enlargement and whether NATO will ever try to station military bases in Finland or Sweden when they join the alliance (Table 2). Russia’s reaction to western policy is to constrict Europe’s energy supply further – namely shutting down the Nord Stream 1 pipeline – which will also tighten American energy supply via exports and exacerbate energy price inflation and expectations (Chart 6). Table 2US Response To Russia’s Demands On Finland, Sweden Waiting On The Biden Doctrine Waiting On The Biden Doctrine  Biden can allow slippage on sanction enforcement prior to the midterm but still his Russia policy will be a source of both conflict and inflation. Chart 6Russia Squeezes Europe Harder Russia Squeezes Europe Harder Russia Squeezes Europe Harder   Iranian Nuclear Crisis: Biden faces an Iranian nuclear crisis but it could be resolved quickly through a return to the 2015 nuclear deal. Apparently Biden is closer to clinching a deal. But the US and Iran do not trust each other, as shown in Chart 3 above. Biden could unilaterally relieve sanctions and allow Iranian their oil exports to pick up substantially (Chart 7). He can overcome Congress after a 30-day delay. But any deal will alienate the Saudi Arabians, who are threatening to cut oil production and reverse the oil price drop that Biden is seeking on behalf of US voters. So Iran is an option for Biden but it is not very compelling: the oil can be traded regardless of any deal. Biden’s capitulation would hurt politically without helping much economically. However, the failure of a deal poses a greater risk of instability in the Middle East and inflationary energy price shocks. So Biden faces an immediate and critical foreign policy test on this issue. Chart 7Iranian Oil Exports By Destination Waiting On The Biden Doctrine Waiting On The Biden Doctrine Fourth Taiwan Strait Crisis: Biden also faces a crisis in relations with China over the One China Policy and the status quo in the Taiwan Strait. This is the fourth such crisis since 1954. In previous crisis the US sent aircraft carriers through the strait, including in 1995-96. But it is not clear that Biden will do so given that China’s capabilities are much greater today (Map 1). The crisis probably will not be resolved before the midterm election since China will remain firm given its own domestic concerns this fall. Recently there emerged a tentative deal on the US auditing Chinese firms that list on US stock exchanges and an attempt to restart talks on climate change cooperation. The US and China are still talking despite tensions. But Biden has ruled out the option of reducing tariffs … which would only marginally have reduced inflation anyway. Map 1US Aircraft Carriers Suggest Taiwan Risk Is Substantial Waiting On The Biden Doctrine Waiting On The Biden Doctrine Bottom Line: Biden faces three foreign policy crises that threaten to exacerbate inflation. In each case he will likely uphold US security interests at the expense of higher inflation expectations in the short run. Investment Takeaways The Biden administration has a foreign policy but it does not yet have a foreign policy doctrine. The Biden Doctrine will be forged in the crucible of experience. The critical tests look to be coming soon. It will be difficult for Biden to pass the tests without fanning inflation expectations, at least in the short run. While bold action on Iran will not reduce oil prices as much as the consensus holds, a deal could avoid a worse scenario in which the Middle East destabilizes and energy shocks multiply. Investors should brace for more volatility, at least through the November 8 midterm election. Investors will need to see US-Russia, US-China, and US-Iran relations improve concretely and verifiably before determining that the geopolitical and macroeconomic backdrop are turning more favorable for risk assets.   Matt Gertken Senior Vice President Chief US Political Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com       Footnotes 1     See Ivana Saric, “Biden administration ramps up Iran sanctions as nuclear talks falter,” Axios, June 16, 2022, axios.com; Ellen Nakashima, “Biden administration slaps export controls on Chinese firms for aiding PLA weapons development,” Washington Post, April 8, 2021, washingtonpost.com; see also Karen Freifeld, “Biden administration reviewing China chip export policies, official says,” Reuters, July 14, 2022, reuters.com.   Strategic View Open Tactical Positions (0-6 Months) Open Cyclical Recommendations (6-18 Months) Table A2Political Risk Matrix Waiting On The Biden Doctrine Waiting On The Biden Doctrine Table A3US Political Capital Index Waiting On The Biden Doctrine Waiting On The Biden Doctrine Chart A1Presidential Election Model Third Quarter US Political Outlook: Last Ditch Effort Third Quarter US Political Outlook: Last Ditch Effort Chart A2Senate Election Model Third Quarter US Political Outlook: Last Ditch Effort Third Quarter US Political Outlook: Last Ditch Effort  Table A4House Election Model Waiting On The Biden Doctrine Waiting On The Biden Doctrine Table A5APolitical Capital: White House And Congress Waiting On The Biden Doctrine Waiting On The Biden Doctrine Table A5BPolitical Capital: Household And Business Sentiment Waiting On The Biden Doctrine Waiting On The Biden Doctrine Table A5CPolitical Capital: The Economy And Markets Waiting On The Biden Doctrine Waiting On The Biden Doctrine  

Executive Summary Low-Yielding Countries Facing High USD Hedging Costs Low-Yielding Countries Facing High USD Hedging Costs Low-Yielding Countries Facing High USD Hedging Costs The US dollar will remain strong alongside continued Fed rate hikes. Interest rate differentials will remain positive for the greenback, alongside other USD-positive factors like slowing global growth and rising investor risk aversion. Relatively high US interest rates have made hedging away US currency risk very expensive for some of the largest holders of US Treasuries like Japan. US Treasury yields, on an FX-hedged basis, look unattractive relative to local currency denominated bonds across the developed world. Increased foreign demand for US Treasuries evident in the US TIC data appears to reflect a re-establishment of positions unwound by global hedge funds and mutual funds dating back to the 2020 “dash for cash” in global financial markets. UST yields must rise even further versus non-US yields to attract more fundamental buyers like Japanese and European institutional investors, given elevated volatility in both US Treasury prices and the dollar. Bottom Line: Global investors should continue to underweight US Treasuries in global bond portfolios, on both a currency-unhedged and USD-hedged basis. Feature Dear Client, The schedule for the next two Global Fixed Income Strategy reports will be impacted by the upcoming Labor Day holiday and next week’s BCA’s annual conference in New York (I hope to see you there!). This Friday, September 2, we will be publishing a joint report with our colleagues at Foreign Exchange Strategy discussing Japan. On Monday, September 12, we will be publishing another joint report with our colleagues at European Investment Strategy, covering estimates of global neutral interest rates. -Rob Robis The title of our report from four weeks ago was “Dovish Central Bank Pivots Will Come Later Than You Think.” This could have also been the title for Fed Chair Jerome Powell's Jackson Hole speech. He reiterated the Fed’s commitment to tighten policy further and “keep at it” until the US economy slows enough to bring down inflation. Other central bankers who spoke at the conference had a similar tone to Powell, talking up an ongoing inflation fight that will require much slower growth and higher unemployment. Related Report  Global Fixed Income StrategyRecent USD Strength Is Not Bond Bullish By quickly and bluntly dispensing any notion that the Fed could soon pause its rate hiking cycle, Powell poured ice cold water on the risk asset rally that boosted the S&P 500 by nearly 17% between mid-June and mid-August. The S&P 500 plunged 3.4% after Powell’s speech, a tightening of US financial conditions that was likely welcomed by the Fed, as it helps their goal of slowing the US economy. Minneapolis Fed President Neil Kashkari even said he was “happy” to see the negative market reaction to Powell’s speech. Powell, Kashkari and the rest of the FOMC are probably happy over the strength of the US dollar, which is also helping tighten US financial conditions – while also having a major impact on global bond returns and currency hedging decisions for investors. A Collision Of A USD Bull Market & Global Bond Bear Market Chart 1A Big Move In The USD A Big Move In The USD A Big Move In The USD The current strength of the US dollar is becoming increasingly broad-based. The EUR/USD exchange rate has fallen below parity, while USD/JPY continues to flirt with the 140 level (Chart 1). The British pound is trading at a 2-year low versus the US dollar, many important emerging market (EM) currencies are struggling, and the Chinese renminbi is set to retest the 7.0 level. The strength of the US dollar is no recent phenomenon. The current uptrend dates back to the start of 2021, with the DXY dollar index up 21% since then. The dollar bull market has been supported by several factors, most critically rising US interest rates. The 2-year US Treasury yield started 2021 just above 0% and now sits at 3.4%. Higher US interest rates have raised the benefit of hedging currency risk into US dollars for global bond investors. The Bloomberg Global Aggregate Bond Index in USD-hedged terms has outperformed the unhedged version of the index by 6.3% over the past year, one of the largest such increases dating back to 2000 (Chart 2). This means that global bond investors have been paid handsomely to simply swap non-US bond exposures into US dollars – in some cases, making low-yielding assets like Japanese government bonds (JGBs), hedged from yen into dollars, comparable to US Treasury yields. Chart 2Big Gains From Hedging Global Bond Exposure Into USD Big Gains From Hedging Global Bond Exposure Into USD Big Gains From Hedging Global Bond Exposure Into USD This wedge between USD-hedged and unhedged bond returns is unlikely to reverse soon, as the fundamental drivers of the dollar remain biased to more dollar strength. The US dollar is not only supported by more favorable interest rate differentials versus other currencies (both in nominal and inflation-adjusted terms), but is also benefitting from its safe haven status at a time of considerable uncertainty on the future of the global economy (Chart 3). Global growth expectations are depressed and showing no signs of turning around anytime soon, particularly in Europe and the UK where electricity and gas prices are climbing at a record pace. The dollar not only typically appreciates during periods of slowing growth, but also during episodes of investor risk aversion. Investors remain cautious, according to indicators like the US equity put/call ratio which shows greater demand for downside protection via puts – an outcome that also typically coincides with a stronger US dollar. In this current environment of broad-based US dollar strength, the gap between hedged and unhedged bond returns has varied widely depending on the base currency of the investor. For a euro-based investor, the performance gap between the unhedged Global Aggregate index and the EUR-hedged index has been 6% over the past year (Chart 4). Chart 3USD Strength Supported By Key Fundamental Drivers USD Strength Supported By Key Fundamental Drivers USD Strength Supported By Key Fundamental Drivers ​​​​​​ Chart 4FX Hedging Decisions Mean Everything In A Global Bond Bear Market FX Hedging Decisions Mean Everything In A Global Bond Bear Market FX Hedging Decisions Mean Everything In A Global Bond Bear Market ​​​​​ Chart 5Low-Yielding Countries Facing High USD Hedging Costs Low-Yielding Countries Facing High USD Hedging Costs Low-Yielding Countries Facing High USD Hedging Costs The gap has been even larger for yen-based investors, with the unhedged index beating the JPY-hedged index by a whopping 13% over the past twelve months. Although Japanese fixed income investors are not typically known for taking unhedged currency risk on foreign bond holdings, doing so would have turned an awful year of global bond returns into a great year, simply due to yen weakness. When looking at current levels of interest rate differentials versus the US, which are the main determinant of currency hedging costs, the low yielding currencies like the euro, yen and Swiss franc see the greatest gain on returns versus the high-yielding US dollar (Chart 5). Hedging euros into dollars results in an annualized pickup of 252bps, while hedging yen into dollars produces an even bigger gain of 327bps. At the same time, the USD-hedging gains for relatively higher yielders are much lower. Hedging Australian dollars into US dollars only produces an annualized gain of 48bps, while hedging Canadian dollars into US dollars produces an annualized loss of -18bps. These varying hedging costs matter for global bond investors, as they impact the attractiveness of an individual country’s bond yields, depending on the investor’s base currency. We show the unhedged yield levels, and currency-hedged yield levels for six main developed market base currencies (USD, EUR, JPY, GBP, CAD, AUD) in the tables on the next two pages. Table 1 shows 2-year government bond yields, Table 2 shows 5-year government bond yields, Table 3 shows 10-year government bond yields and Table 4 shows 30-year government bond yields. Unsurprisingly, hedging into euros and yen, where short-term interest rates are the lowest, produces the smallest yields. Meanwhile, hedging into higher-rate currencies like US dollars and Canadian dollars generates the highest yields. Table 1Currency-Hedged 2-Year Government Bond Yields Currency Hedging Matters More Than Ever For Bond Investors Currency Hedging Matters More Than Ever For Bond Investors Table 2Currency-Hedged 5-Year Government Bond Yields Currency Hedging Matters More Than Ever For Bond Investors Currency Hedging Matters More Than Ever For Bond Investors Table 3Currency-Hedged 10-Year Government Bond Yields Currency Hedging Matters More Than Ever For Bond Investors Currency Hedging Matters More Than Ever For Bond Investors Table 4Currency-Hedged 30-Year Government Bond Yields Currency Hedging Matters More Than Ever For Bond Investors Currency Hedging Matters More Than Ever For Bond Investors We take the analysis a step further in the next set of tables on pages 9-11. Here, we take the hedged yields for each currency and compare them to the yields of the base currency. For example, in Table 5, it can be seen that a 2-year US Treasury yield of 3.4%, hedged into euros, produces a yield of 0.82% that is -17bps below the 2-year German yield (which is obviously denominated in euros). In other words, from the point of view of a euro-based investor who wants to hedge away the currency risk in a global bond portfolio, he gets paid a bit more to own a German bond over a US Treasury. Table 5Currency-Hedged 2-Year Govt. Bond Yield Spreads Currency Hedging Matters More Than Ever For Bond Investors Currency Hedging Matters More Than Ever For Bond Investors Similar results are shown in the subsequent tables for 5-year yields (Table 6), 10-year yields (Table 7) and 30-year yields (Table 8). From these tables, we can make the following broad conclusions: Table 6Currency-Hedged 5-Year Govt. Bond Yield Spreads Currency Hedging Matters More Than Ever For Bond Investors Currency Hedging Matters More Than Ever For Bond Investors Table 7Currency-Hedged 10-Year Govt. Bond Yield Spreads Currency Hedging Matters More Than Ever For Bond Investors Currency Hedging Matters More Than Ever For Bond Investors Table 8Currency-Hedged 30-Year Govt. Bond Yield Spreads Currency Hedging Matters More Than Ever For Bond Investors Currency Hedging Matters More Than Ever For Bond Investors For USD-based bond investors, all non-US markets except Canada have a yield pickup over US Treasuries on an FX-hedged basis For EUR-based investors, all non-euro area markets except Australia produce yields lower than those of Germany on an FX-hedged basis For GBP-based investors, all non-UK bond markets except the US and Canada have yields greater than those of Gilts for maturities from 5-30 years (the results are more mixed across countries for 2-year yields) For JPY-based investors, euro area and Australian bonds are clearly more attractive than JGBs on an FX-hedged basis, while US Treasuries, UK Gilts and Canadian government bonds offer FX-hedged yields below puny JGB yields. This is true up to the 10-year maturity point, as 30-year JGB yields – which are not targeted by the Bank of Japan in its yield curve control program – are much higher than those on the rest of the JGB curve For CAD-based investors, hedging virtually all non-Canadian bonds into CAD results in yields that are higher than Canadian government bond yields, with the largest hedged yield advantage for euro area and Australian bonds For AUD-based investors, only euro area bonds offer a consistent yield pickup over Australian government bonds on an FX-hedged basis. Broadly speaking, government bonds in the euro area and Australia offer consistently attractive FX-hedged yield pickups over the unhedged bonds for all currencies shown in the tables. On the other hand, Canadian government bonds have consistently less attractive FX-hedged yields across all currencies shown. Perhaps most importantly, US Treasuries look unattractive on an FX-hedged basis to all but CAD-based investors – a result that has meaningful implications for the potential of foreign buying to help stem the rise of US bond yields. Bottom Line: The US dollar bull market is having a huge influence on global bond returns. US Treasury yields, on an FX-hedged basis, look unattractive relative to most local currency denominated bonds across the developed world. Who Are The Foreign Buyers Of US Treasuries? When simply looking at currency-unhedged yield spreads, US Treasury yields offer particularly inviting yields over low-yielding (and low “beta” to US yields) markets like Germany and Japan. The unhedged 10-year US-Germany spread is now 160bps, while the unhedged US-Japan spread is up to 286bps (Chart 6). Meanwhile, among high-beta markets, the US-Canada 10-year spread is flat on an FX-unhedged basis, while an unhedged Australian 10-year bond yields 56bps more than a 10-year US Treasury. Chart 6UST Yields Only Look Attractive In FX-Unhedged Terms UST Yields Only Look Attractive In FX-Unhedged Terms UST Yields Only Look Attractive In FX-Unhedged Terms Yet after factoring in the currency hedging costs shown earlier, US Treasuries look consistently unattractive versus the other major developed economy bond markets. Chart 7UST Yields Look Unattractive After Hedging Out USD Exposure UST Yields Look Unattractive After Hedging Out USD Exposure UST Yields Look Unattractive After Hedging Out USD Exposure ​​​​​ A 10-year US Treasury hedged into euros now yields -77bps less than a 10-year German bund, at the low end of the historical range for this spread dating back to 2000 (Chart 7). A 10-year Treasury hedged into GBP and JPY also offers lower yields versus 10-year UK Gilts (-11bps) and 10-year JGBs (-50bps), respectively. The 10-year hedged US-Australia spread (with the US yield hedged into AUD) is also at a stretched negative extreme at -114bps (Chart 8). Despite these broadly unattractive hedged US yield spreads, the US Treasury market has seen significant foreign inflows this year, according to the US Treasury Department’s capital flow (TIC) data. Total net purchases of US Treasuries by foreign buyers accelerated to $470bn (on a 12-month rolling total basis) as of the latest data for June (Chart 9). When broken down by type of buyer, private buyers bought a net $619bn, while official buyers were net sellers to the tune of -$149bn. Chart 8No Compelling Yield Advantage To Owning FX-Hedged USTs No Compelling Yield Advantage To Owning FX-Hedged USTs No Compelling Yield Advantage To Owning FX-Hedged USTs When looking at the TIC data by country, China was an important net seller of -$18bn of Treasuries. This is consistent with the reduced demand for US dollar assets from China, where policymakers are actively targeting a weaker renminbi. Chart 9TIC Data Shows USTs Seeing Foreign Buying (Ex-China) TIC Data Shows USTs Seeing Foreign Buying (Ex-China) TIC Data Shows USTs Seeing Foreign Buying (Ex-China) ​​​​​ There was also net selling from many EM countries that have seen reduced trade surpluses and, hence, fewer US dollars to recycle into Treasuries. Chart 10Even Higher UST Yields Needed To Entice Japanese & European Buyers Even Higher UST Yields Needed To Entice Japanese & European Buyers Even Higher UST Yields Needed To Entice Japanese & European Buyers The largest net buying (Chart 10) was seen from the UK (+$306bn) and Cayman Islands (+$154bn) – the latter being a large source of Treasury buying through hedge funds and offshore investment funds located there. Those two countries accounted for almost all of the net foreign inflows into Treasuries, despite the fact they only hold a combined 12% of all foreign US Treasury holdings. There was modest net buying from the euro area (+$37bn) and small net selling by the country with the largest stock of US Treasury holdings, Japan. The relatively subdued inflows from Europe, and lack of inflows from Japan, are consistent with the unattractive hedged US-Europe and US-Japan yield spreads shown earlier, particularly at a time of elevated US bond yield volatility. The huge inflows from the UK and Cayman Islands are harder to explain on a fundamental basis, but are likely due to a continued normalization of Treasury market liquidity after the spring 2020 “dash for cash”. In a report published back in January, Fed researchers analyzed foreign demand for US Treasuries around the worst of the COVID pandemic shock in 2020. The report concluded that the huge collapse in private inflows into Treasuries – from a peak of +$238bn at the start of 2020 to a trough of -$373bn at the end of 2020 – was the result of aggressive net selling by hedge funds and global mutual funds. These are exactly the types of investors that would be domiciled in the Cayman Islands and UK (London). Specifically, the Fed report noted that: “In short, two prominent reasons for the large sales are the unwind of the Treasury basis trade by hedge funds (including foreign-domiciled funds) and the sudden, massive investor outflows from mutual funds that caused these funds to sell their most liquid assets, U.S. Treasury securities, to meet these redemptions.” The “basis trade” mentioned likely involved buying cash Treasuries versus selling Treasury futures, attempting to exploit unsustainable price differences between the two. As market liquidity conditions dried up in the spring of 2020 during the first wave of global lockdowns, leveraged bond investors needed to frantically unwind positions. For Treasury basis trades, that would have involved selling cash Treasuries, which was likely what is being picked up in the TIC data from the Cayman Islands which showed a huge plunge in net buying in 2020. The mutual fund outflows were likely a global phenomenon, but given the large fund management presence in London, the huge net selling of Treasuries from the UK in 2020 were almost certainly related to global fund managers, not purely UK investors. As Treasury market liquidity conditions normalized in 2021 and 2022, those large sellers in the UK and Cayman Islands (and other offshore investment locations) have likely turned into big net buyers, as evidenced from the TIC data. However, the modest inflows from Europe, and outflows from Japan, tell a more important story about the fundamental demand for US Treasuries. Treasury yields must rise further, widening both currency-hedged and unhedged spreads versus non-US government bonds to more historically attractive levels, to entice more foreign buying. Bottom Line: UST yields must rise even further versus non-US yields to attract more fundamental buyers like Japanese and European institutional investors, given elevated volatility in both US Treasury prices and the dollar. Global investors should underweight US Treasuries in global bond portfolios, on both a currency-unhedged and USD-hedged basis.   Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com   GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Recommended Positioning     Active Duration Contribution: GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. Custom Performance Benchmark Currency Hedging Matters More Than Ever For Bond Investors Currency Hedging Matters More Than Ever For Bond Investors The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Global Fixed Income - Strategic Recommendations* Currency Hedging Matters More Than Ever For Bond Investors Currency Hedging Matters More Than Ever For Bond Investors Tactical Overlay Trades

Executive Summary   Reshoring And FDI Job Creation Have Accelerated After The Pandemic Industrials: A Trifecta Of Positives Industrials: A Trifecta Of Positives The US is entering a period of an industrial boom thanks to limited manufacturing capacity paired with strong demand for industrial and consumer goods. In addition, a trifecta of positive developments is further boosting US manufacturing: Onshoring, automation, and fiscal stimulus. Onshoring has accelerated after the onset of the pandemic and reshoring announcements are growing steadily. Automation and robotization allow industrial companies to circumvent labor shortages and rising wages and, hence, boost their profit margins.  The domestic political landscape in the US is also favorable for industrial stocks given the three major legislative Acts (Infrastructure Investment & Jobs, Inflation Reduction, and National Defense Authorization) that will secure a healthy demand pipeline. While long-term trends are favorable for the sector, a macroeconomic backdrop of slowing growth is a headwind.  However, thanks to a confluence of positive long-term trends, most companies are optimistic. Bottom Line: The US industrial sector is in the middle of a boom fueled by onshoring, automation, and favorable government policy. This trifecta of positives helps the sector to defy the gravity of the slowing economy. We remain overweight Industrials on both tactical and strategical time horizons but will continue to monitor it closely, watching out for potential cracks in operating performance. Feature A little over a year ago EMS, GIS, and USES co-published a report “Industrials as equity sector winner in the coming years”. In that report, we posited that the Industrial sector is poised for outperformance as it enjoys a boom thanks to strong new trends in onshoring and automation. In addition to the tectonic shifts described above, the sector has also found itself at the epicenter of the US legislative activity, which will provide a significant tailwind for its performance. Since we published the report on July 30, 2021, Industrials have performed in line with the S&P 500. However, since the beginning of the year, Industrials and Capital Goods outperformed the index by 7%, showing impressive resilience (Chart 1 and Table 1). Chart 1A Resilient Cyclical Sector A Resilient Cyclical Sector A Resilient Cyclical Sector In this week’s report, we take a close look at the trends highlighted above and conduct a deep dive to evaluate whether the sector is still attractive on a tactical basis considering the backdrop of rising rates and slowing economic activity. Our focus is on the Industrial sector in general, and the Capital Goods Industry Group, in particular. We will also assess which industries are best positioned for outperformance. Table 1Industrials Outperformed On The Way Down And During The Summer Rally Industrials: A Trifecta Of Positives Industrials: A Trifecta Of Positives Sneak Preview: The US industrial sector is in the middle of a boom fueled by onshoring, automation, and favorable government policy. This trifecta of positives helps the sector to defy the gravity of the slowing economy. For now, we are both strategically and tactically bullish on the sector but remain vigilant. US Manufacturing Capacity Has Been Severely Limited For Years US manufacturing capacity has been stagnant over the past 20 years, and the level of US manufacturing employment has declined by 30% since 2000 (Charts 2 & 3). Presently, manufacturing employment accounts for only 8% of total US employment. Chart 2US Manufacturing Employment Has Been Shrinking For Decades US Manufacturing Employment Has Been Shrinking For Decades US Manufacturing Employment Has Been Shrinking For Decades Chart 3US Manufacturing Capacity Has Not Expanded In The Past Two Decades US Manufacturing Capacity Has Not Expanded In The Past Two Decades US Manufacturing Capacity Has Not Expanded In The Past Two Decades The reason for the lack of capacity expansion over the past 20 years has been the outsourcing and shifting of production to other countries, especially China. The peak in US manufacturing capacity and employment occurred after the massive Asian currency devaluation in 1998 and China’s WTO admission in 2001. The semiconductor sector, which has recently come into the limelight, is a case in point: From 1990 to 2020, the percentage of chips manufactured in the US has fallen from 37% to 10%, with the lion’s share of chips manufactured in Asia. This trend has brought about The Chips Act which seeks to reverse the trend for national security reasons. Notably, more recently, the decline in manufacturing capacity and employment has started to reverse. More about this later. American Manufacturing Is Booming Again Limited manufacturing capacity paired with a strong demand for industrial and consumer goods translates into an industrial boom. Industrial companies are incentivized to expand given they are already operating at nearly full capacity (Chart 4) and enjoying considerable pricing power. Building industrial capacity in itself lifts demand for industrial goods and the US may be in the early innings of the new Capex cycle, unless the trend is derailed by headwinds from a significantly tighter monetary policy. After all, the age of US capital stock, at 24 years, is two years older than at previous peaks, indicating that many companies are overdue for replacing some of their equipment and machinery (Chart 5). Chart 4Industrial Companies Operate At Nearly Full Capacity Industrial Companies Operate At Nearly Full Capacity Industrial Companies Operate At Nearly Full Capacity Chart 5The US Capital Stock Has To Be Renewed The US Capital Stock Has To Be Renewed The US Capital Stock Has To Be Renewed Indeed, this may already be happening. According to S&P Dow Jones Indices, which analyzed second-quarter earnings season data, capital expenditures of the companies in the S&P 500, have been growing at a faster pace than stock repurchases for the first time since the first quarter of 2021, rising by 20% from a year earlier. Companies from Pepsi to Google to GM are investing in their production capacity, which in itself may be an encouraging sign that they are comfortable with the demand outlook. Of course, the caveat here is that industrials are late in cycle performance, as companies usually wait towards the end of the cycle to expand, only to find waning demand for their products. You Say “Reshoring,” I Say “Onshoring” A multi-decade decline in US manufacturing employment has started to reverse after the GFC, with the onset of the pandemic and geopolitical tensions accelerating the pace of reshoring and Foreign Direct Investing (FDI). Reshoring and FDI job announcements have increased from 6K in 2010 to 345K in 2022 (Chart 6). The resulting cumulative 950,000 incremental hires represent about 7% of US manufacturing employment. The acceleration of jobs coming back combined with the decline in the rate of offshoring has resulted in a 12-year steady uptrend in US manufacturing jobs. Truly amazing! Onshoring remains on top of mind for companies’ management. According to Statista, mentions of onshoring buzzwords in earnings calls and presentations of US public companies have increased from about 100 throughout 2020 to nearly 200 in Q2-2020. Chart 6Reshoring And FDI Job Creation Have Accelerated After The Pandemic Industrials: A Trifecta Of Positives Industrials: A Trifecta Of Positives According to Morgan Stanley’s survey of more than 400 executives of large corporations from the US to Germany to Japan, the most important factor in supply chain decisions is geopolitical stability, followed by skilled labor, physical infrastructure, and a developed supply chain ecosystem. On nearly every count, the US outranked Europe, China, and Mexico. Some 18% of the companies planned to significantly expand US manufacturing in the next 12 months, while 36% anticipated doing so within three years. More than 40% of US companies were taking steps to “onshore” supply chains. The reasons are well publicized: The COVID crisis has revealed over-dependence on imports. China’s decoupling from the US, tensions in the Taiwan Strait, and the Russian/Ukraine war have invoked concerns about the reliability of the existing supply chains. Supply chain disruptions have highlighted corporate vulnerabilities and had made companies realize that “just-in-case” trumps “just-in-time.” The US is pursuing protectionist policies that are to benefit companies operating in the US, Mexico, and Canada. According to Reshoring Initiative,1 Industrial and Tech companies are at the forefront of reshoring: Electrical Equipment, Chemicals, Transportation Equipment, Computer, and Electronic Products, and Medical Equipment suppliers are the leaders in onshoring (Table 2). Many large manufacturers such as Caterpillar have implemented or announced plans to bring offshore manufacturing back to the US. Table 2Reshoring Jobs By Top 5 Industries Industrials: A Trifecta Of Positives Industrials: A Trifecta Of Positives Will onshoring benefit some of the former manufacturing hubs? We believe it will, as Kentucky, North Carolina, Georgia, Ohio, and Alabama are the top five destinations (Table 3). However, there is a hitch. The US unemployment rate, which is at an all-time low of 3.5%, is certainly a speed limit. Moreover, companies that bring their businesses back home do realize that labor costs in this country are many times higher than, say, in Asia. Hence, one of the solutions they pursue is automation. After many years in the making, onshoring is finally gaining pace, benefiting the US manufacturing base. Table 32022 Projected Reshoring Jobs By Top 10 States Industrials: A Trifecta Of Positives Industrials: A Trifecta Of Positives Automation To The Rescue! The Pace of Robotization And Automation Is Accelerating A critical constraint for the expansion of US manufacturing is the labor shortage. Open vacancies in manufacturing are now at a record high, 100% above the 2018 peak (Chart 7, top panel). Notably, industrial companies have been experiencing difficulties hiring qualified staff over the past 10 years which has led to high wage growth (Chart 7, bottom panel). Chart 7US Manufacturers Cannot Fill Vacant Positions, Wages Are Surging US Manufacturers Cannot Fill Vacant Positions, Wages Are Surging US Manufacturers Cannot Fill Vacant Positions, Wages Are Surging Chart 8Automation Expands Profits Margins Of Global Industrials Automation Expands Profits Margins Of Global Industrials Automation Expands Profits Margins Of Global Industrials One remedy is automation. Replacing labor with automation/robots allows companies to produce more and avoid a profit margin squeeze (Chart 8). In a recent report published by the International Federation of Robotics, industrial robots reported record preliminary sales in 2021 with 486,800 units shipped globally, a 27% increase from 2020. The US has been lagging behind other developed countries in terms of automation and robotization (Chart 9). However, labor shortages brought about by the pandemic appear to have “moved the needle.” According to the Association for Advancing Automation (A3),2 the number of robots sold in the US in 2021 rose by 27% over 2020 with 49,900 units installed. 2022 is on pace to exceed previous records, with North American companies ordering a record 11,595 robots. Chart 9US Has Been Lagging Other Developed Nations In Robot Installations Industrials: A Trifecta Of Positives Industrials: A Trifecta Of Positives Non-automotive sales now represent 58% of the total, demonstrating a broadening reach of automation. Metals, Auto, and Food and Consumer Goods have the highest growth in the purchase of robots (Chart 10). Chart 10In 2021 The Pace Of Robot Installation Has Picked Up Industrials: A Trifecta Of Positives Industrials: A Trifecta Of Positives Implications For Industrial Companies The Industrials sector is home to companies that create robots and offer automation solutions as well as companies on the receiving end of the trend. Both sellers and buyers are to benefit: Buyers Of Robots: Manufacturing companies automating production and enlisting robots into their operations will enjoy higher operating leverage, lower labor costs, and more resilient margins. It is easier to automate processes in manufacturing than in service sectors. Consequently, we believe profit margins in manufacturing will outperform those of service sector companies, where automation will be slower. Sellers Of Robots: The sizzling demand for robots demonstrates that technological breakthroughs are no longer just about the Tech companies, and many industrial companies are to benefit from these nascent trends. Rockwell Automation, Eaton, and Caterpillar are the leaders in industrial automation. These companies also reach across the aisle to software companies to leverage their expertise in data storage, computing, and artificial intelligence. Rockwell has just recently partnered with Microsoft, while others are acquiring software companies. Deere has acquired GUSS Automation, a pioneer in semi-autonomous springs for high-value crops. These companies are to benefit from strong demand for their products and should exhibit strong sales and profit growth. To meet strong demand, industrial/manufacturing companies will automate their processes. This will allow them to boost volume and cap costs resulting in widening profit margins. Uncle Sam Loves American Manufacturing Both Biden and Trump before him, have stated that their overarching objective is to revive America’s manufacturing. However, their methods were drastically different, with Trump introducing tax cuts and tariffs, while Biden leans heavily on fiscal stimulus. The following is a recap of some of the recent laws passed by Congress and signed by President Biden. Infrastructure Investment And Jobs Act The $1.2-trillion Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act will increase US government non-defense spending to bring it to around 3% of GDP, a level comparable to the 1980s-90s and larger than the 2010s. The bill’s focus is on traditional infrastructure – roads, bridges, ports, and electrical grid modernization – but also includes more modern elements such as $65 billion for 5G broadband Internet and $36 billion for electric vehicles and environmental remediation (Table 4). Implementation of the bill is delayed to 2023-24. Table 4Itemized Infrastructure Plan Industrials: A Trifecta Of Positives Industrials: A Trifecta Of Positives However, the market is forward-looking and companies in Construction & Engineering, and Building Products industries are already winners, and are up 12% in relative terms since the bill was passed on November 15, 2021. The potential increase in public construction will help offset a slump in residential construction on the back of the softening housing market (Chart 11). Chart 11The Increase In Public Construction Will Help Offset A Slump In Residential Construction The Increase In Public Construction Will Help Offset A Slump In Residential Construction The Increase In Public Construction Will Help Offset A Slump In Residential Construction Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) The bill earmarks $370 billion for clean energy spending as well as EV tax credits for both new and used cars. We have written on the topic of “Green and Clean” and the effect of the IRA on renewable energy and EV industries, two industries that are major beneficiaries of the bill. However, the bill also creates an enormous opportunity for industrial companies, which can build and service renewable infrastructure, such as Quanta Services (PWR) and Eaton (ETN). Companies that produce and service wind turbines (GE) and solar batteries will also get a revenue boost from the package. Chips Act Congress has passed the CHIPS+ bill to alleviate the chip shortage and shore up US competitiveness with China. Money is earmarked for domestic semiconductor production and research, and factory construction. While the key beneficiaries are chip foundries, construction of new factories will require equipment and services of a wide range from industrial companies from Construction to Machinery. National Defense Authorization Act In December, the House and Senate Armed Services Committee leadership released the Fiscal Year 2022 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). This bill introduces an overall discretionary authorization of $768.2 billion including $740.3 billion for base Department of Defense programs and $27.8 billion for national security programs in the Department of Energy. At a later date, another $37 billion was amended to the bill to include $2.5 billion to help pay higher fuel costs; $550 million for Ukraine, funding for five ships, eight Boeing Co-made F-18 Super Hornet fighter jets, and five Lockheed Martin C-130 Hercules planes; and about $1 billion for four Patriot missile units. For FY 2023, the House has already passed $839 billion, which is $37 billion above the White House request. The Senate will work on the bill after the summer recess. But it is already clear that defense spending has become a bipartisan issue. The increase in the defense budget, as well as additional allocation of funds towards Ukraine, have been a major boost for the Aerospace and Defense industry. We overweighted the sector back in January and it is up 24% in relative terms. Overweight Or Not, That Is The Question Macroeconomic Backdrop Business Cycle: Performance of the Industrial sector tends to lag the business cycle, as sector customers tend to wait until they are sure of recovery and have high utilization of their existing capacity before they expand their own production. However, demand is not entirely cyclical, as the need to replace obsolete or aging equipment or machines is relatively stable. There is also a stark difference in behavior of the largest industrial companies and smaller companies in their ecosystems. Larger manufacturers are long-cycle as it takes months to build machines, planes, or equipment. These companies are less sensitive to the business cycle. On the other hand, their suppliers are “short cycle” as they sell parts to many customers, turn their inventory frequently, and are very sensitive to the economic condition. At present, as economic growth is slowing, long-cycle industrial companies are preferable to short-cycle ones. Despite a bifurcation in demand, Industrials tend to underperform in a generic economic slowdown (Chart 12). This is unsurprising as the relative performance of Industrials is correlated to industrial production and the ISM PMI (Chart 13). Chart 12Historically, Industrials Underperformed During The Slowdown Stage Of The Business Cycle Industrials: A Trifecta Of Positives Industrials: A Trifecta Of Positives Chart 13Industrials Usually Underperform When IP And ISM PMI Decline Industrials Usually Underperform When IP And ISM PMI Decline Industrials Usually Underperform When IP And ISM PMI Decline Chart 14Survey Of Capex Intentions Is Weakening Survey Of Capex Intentions Is Weakening Survey Of Capex Intentions Is Weakening And while we touted the beginning of the new industrial boom in the US, and a brand new Capex cycle, we need to monitor it carefully, as multiple surveys of Capex intentions are decelerating (Chart 14). Tighter Monetary Policy: Another potential headwind comes from rising rates. After all, the higher cost of corporate borrowing may weigh on demand for industrial goods. However, historically, US industrial stocks outperformed the S&P 500 Index in the past 70 years during periods of rising bond yields, including the inflation decade of the 1970s (Chart 15). Industrial companies are well positioned to withstand inflation as strong pricing power allows them to pass on their costs to customers. Chart 15When Rates Rise, Industrials Outperform When Rates Rise, Industrials Outperform When Rates Rise, Industrials Outperform The macroeconomic backdrop presents challenges to Industrial companies Fundamentals Are Strong Significant Pricing Power: While dangers are looming in the macroeconomic backdrop, so far industrial companies have been doing well thanks to their significant pricing power (Chart 16), which they enjoy due to high capacity utilization. The relationship between capacity utilization and selling prices is not linear but exponential. When capacity reaches its limit and shortages arise, potential buyers will likely be willing to pay considerably higher prices to secure the supply of goods that they require. High Operating Leverage: In addition to high pricing power, industrial companies enjoy high operating leverage, which implies that while the economy is growing, even if at a slower pace, they can easily convert sales into profits. This will not be the case when the economy is outright contracting – then high operating leverage will become a liability. Chart 16Industrials Enjoy Substantial Pricing Power Industrials Enjoy Substantial Pricing Power Industrials Enjoy Substantial Pricing Power Strong Q2-2022 Earnings And Sales Results: This explains the strong Q2-2022 sales and earnings results of the Industrial sector. Industrial earnings grew at 17.4%, while its sales increased by 13.3% – a remarkable feat, considering that many companies, especially consumer-facing ones, are struggling with shrinking profitability – earnings growth of the Consumer Discretionary sector was down 12.6%. Clearly, business-to-business companies are faring much better than consumer-facing ones, whose demand was pulled forward by the pandemic, and whose customers are reeling from rising prices and are tightening their belts. Looking ahead, margins are expected to shrink by 0.5% (Chart 17), which is modest compared to the 2.5% contraction expected for the S&P 500. In terms of earnings growth expectations, they have fallen but still exceed the market by an impressive 10% even after a series of downgrades. Importantly, earnings growth in real terms is also positive (Charts 18 & 19). Chart 17Operating Margins Are Expected To Hold Up Well Operating Margins Are Expected To Hold Up Well Operating Margins Are Expected To Hold Up Well Chart 18Industrial Earnings Will Grow Faster Than The Market Industrial Earnings Will Grow Faster Than The Market Industrial Earnings Will Grow Faster Than The Market Chart 19Earnings Expectations Have Been Re-calibrated Earnings Expectations Have Been Re-calibrated Earnings Expectations Have Been Re-calibrated What Companies Are Saying All the charts and numbers align well with what we have heard from companies during the earnings season. For instance, nearly every major player within its own respective sub-industry reported healthy demand, low inventories, and a hefty backlog this quarter. Here are a few quotes from the largest players: Caterpillar (CAT): “We expect production and utilization levels will remain elevated, and our autonomous solutions continued to gain momentum … overall demand remained healthy across our segments … was unable to completely satisfy strong customer demand for our machines and engines.” MMM: “Continued strong demand for our solutions in semiconductor, factory automation, and automotive end markets.” GE: “In Renewables, … we are making progress. Our pricing has substantially improved onshore … we're growing our higher-margin businesses, such as grid automation, which delivered double-digit orders growth.” Honeywell (HON): “Orders were up 12% year over year and closing backlog was also up 12% year over year.” The profitability of the Industrial sector is expected to be resilient and to better the market. Valuations And Technicals The Industrial sector and the Capital Goods Industry group trade on par with the S&P 500 on a forward earnings basis (17.7x and 17.9x to 18.0x). The BCA Valuations Indicator signals a neutral level of valuation which is roughly in line with the 10-year average. From the BCA Technical Indicator standpoint, Capitals Goods are also in the neutral zone (Chart 20). Valuations and technicals are moderate for the sector. Chart 20Valuations And Technicals Valuations And Technicals Valuations And Technicals Investment Implications The US industrial sector is in the middle of a boom fueled by a trifecta of positives: Onshoring, automation, and favorable government policy. And while it is hard to fight the Fed and the business cycle, it appears that for now, the sector is defying gravity despite slowing manufacturing surveys and tighter monetary policy. So far fundamentals appear strong, and earnings expectations are robust thanks to the high pricing power and operating leverage of the sector. Within Capital Goods, we favor industries and companies that benefit from these tailwinds: Aerospace and Defense which is to benefit from increased federal defense spending; Robotics and Automation which is overrepresented in the Electrical Equipment industry; and Renewables, i.e., companies that manufacture and service wind turbines and solar panels. Construction and building materials will have a second breath when Infrastructure spending projects will actually get selected and approved. We are both strategically and tactically bullish on the sector but will monitor it closely from a tactical standpoint. After all, industrial surveys are at odds with the resilient earnings expectations. ETFs There are a number of very inexpensive and highly liquid ETFs from Vanguard, iShares, and State Street, that capture the performance of the Industrial sector (Table 5). Table 5Industrial Sector ETFs Industrials: A Trifecta Of Positives Industrials: A Trifecta Of Positives Bottom Line The US industrial sector is in the middle of a boom fueled by onshoring, automation, and favorable government policy. This trifecta of positives helps the sector to defy the gravity of the slowing economy. Companies are optimistic and earnings growth expectations are both robust and resilient. We are both strategically and tactically bullish on the sector but will continue to monitor it closely, watching out for potential cracks in operating performance.   Irene Tunkel Chief Strategist, US Equity Strategy irene.tunkel@bcaresearch.com     Footnotes 1     Reshoring Initiative reshorenow.org 2     https://www.automate.org/   Strategic View Open Tactical Positions (0-6 Months) Open Cyclical Recommendations (6-18 Months) Table A2Political Risk Matrix Industrials: A Trifecta Of Positives Industrials: A Trifecta Of Positives Table A3US Political Capital Index Industrials: A Trifecta Of Positives Industrials: A Trifecta Of Positives Chart A1Presidential Election Model Third Quarter US Political Outlook: Last Ditch Effort Third Quarter US Political Outlook: Last Ditch Effort Chart A2Senate Election Model Third Quarter US Political Outlook: Last Ditch Effort Third Quarter US Political Outlook: Last Ditch Effort  Table A4House Election Model Biden's Midterm Tactics Bear Fruit… But There's A Snake Biden's Midterm Tactics Bear Fruit… But There's A Snake Table A5APolitical Capital: White House And Congress Industrials: A Trifecta Of Positives Industrials: A Trifecta Of Positives Table A5BPolitical Capital: Household And Business Sentiment Industrials: A Trifecta Of Positives Industrials: A Trifecta Of Positives Table A5CPolitical Capital: The Economy And Markets Industrials: A Trifecta Of Positives Industrials: A Trifecta Of Positives  

Executive Summary   Surging Electricity, Gas Prices Will Fuel Higher Inflation Energy-Price Surge Will Drive Inflation Higher Energy-Price Surge Will Drive Inflation Higher Heat waves in the Northern Hemisphere are sending electricity and natgas prices through the roof, which will feed into higher inflation prints in the months ahead. Heat waves and droughts this summer also will damage crops, and, on the back of higher natgas prices, will raise the cost of fertilizer, and push food prices up. Central banks attempting to control inflation cannot address exogenous supply shocks related to weather and commodity shortages via monetary policy, which will complicate their attempts to rein in inflation. Higher prices for necessary commodities – heat, cooling and food – will, perforce, account for increasing shares of firms’ operating expenses and household budgets. This will reduce spending on other goods and services. And it will provide central banks with some policy space to keep rate hikes from becoming so draconian they add unmanageable strains to firms’ and households’ budgets. Bottom Line: A remarkable confluence of exogenous weather shocks and supply constraints in commodity markets will push food and energy prices higher, and raise inflation expectations. Further down the line, supplies of base metals will come under pressure, as refinery and smelting operations are curtailed. We remain long direct commodity exposure via the COMT ETF. We also remain long equity exposure to oil and gas producers and miners via XOP and XME ETFs, respectively, (please see tables at the back of this report for details). Feature Electricity and natural gas prices continue to surge in Europe – this week on the back of reduced wind-power availability and higher air-conditioning demand (Chart 1). Meanwhile, Brent crude oil prices again were trading above $100/bbl earlier this week.1 Related Report  Commodity & Energy StrategyTight Commodity Markets: Persistently High Inflation             Elsewhere in the Northern Hemisphere, energy prices in the US also are trading higher, as are agricultural commodities. In the US, drought and heat are stressing grains. The US Climate Prediction Center is expecting hotter- and dryer-than-average weather conditions until November.2 In China, drought and heat waves are straining the electricity network. Energy rationing is forcing curtailments of power and closures of factories and metals refineries, and limiting exports of fertilizers; natural gas comprises ~ 70% of fertilizer inputs. Chart 1Surging Electricity, Gas Prices Will Fuel Higher Inflation Energy-Price Surge Will Drive Inflation Higher Energy-Price Surge Will Drive Inflation Higher Higher Energy, Grain Prices; Higher Inflation Chart 2AFood, Energy Drive US, EU Inflation Energy-Price Surge Will Drive Inflation Higher Energy-Price Surge Will Drive Inflation Higher Chart 2BFood, Energy Drive US, EU Inflation Energy-Price Surge Will Drive Inflation Higher Energy-Price Surge Will Drive Inflation Higher Higher energy and food prices will continue to drive inflation gauges in the US (Chart 2A) and Europe (Chart 2B). Our modeling shows the Bloomberg energy, agricultural and base metals spot subindexes – aggregations of the futures in the complete index – are cointegrated with the 5-year/5-year CPI swaps (5y5y CPI), meaning these series share a common long-term trend (Chart 3). The complete Bloomberg Commodity index based on prompt-delivery contracts also is cointegrated with CPI 5y5y inflation expectations, as is the 3-year forward WTI futures, which is one of the strongest relationships (Chart 4). Chart 35Y5Y CPI Inflation Expectations Move With Commodity Groups 5Y5Y CPI Inflation Expectations Move With Commodity Groups 5Y5Y CPI Inflation Expectations Move With Commodity Groups Chart 4Spot Commodities Impact 5y5y Expectations Spot Commodities Impact 5y5y Expectations Spot Commodities Impact 5y5y Expectations We continue to expect higher Brent and WTI crude oil prices going forward, particularly following the announcement from Saudi Arabia’s oil minister earlier this week that cutting oil production – say, in the event the US and Iran agree to revive the nuclear deal proffered by the EU – remains among its options to manage its production.3 For 4Q22, we expect Brent to trade at $119/bbl, while next year we expect prices to average $117/bbl. Any shock that moves Brent and WTI higher will push inflation higher. Fed Policy Rates And Commodities In earlier research, we noted oil prices are more than an input cost for manufacturing, mining, agriculture, etc. We share the ECB’s view that the oil price is a barometer of global economic activity, as well as being an input cost and the price of an asset.4 In this report, we delve into the relationship between Fed policy and commodity markets, specifically oil prices. We believe we have identified a feedback loop between market-cleared crude oil prices and Fed monetary policy vis-à-vis setting the Fed funds rate. We use the following theoretical framework to study this. High crude-oil prices feed into general price levels, which drive up inflation and inflation expectations as revealed in the CPI 5y5y swaps. Seeing this, the Fed begins to signal it will tighten monetary policy, trying to cool aggregate demand. On the other side of the coin, low crude oil prices drive inflation and inflation expectations lower – assuming markets are not in the midst of a market-share war – giving the Fed space to run a looser monetary policy. Granger Causality tests provide evidence of a short-term relationship between crude oil futures prices, inflation expectations evident in the 5y5y CPI swaps market, and Fed funds rate expectations revealed in the 1-year/1-year (1y1y) US Overnight Indexed Swap rates. We find past and present values of the front-month WTI contract help predict market expectations of 1-year Fed funds rates one year from now.5 What is interesting about this result is that we find Granger Causality between the expected Fed funds rates revealed in the 1y1y US OIS rate and 3-year forward WTI futures, which is a strong explanatory variable for 5y5y CPI swaps. This is to say, the 1y1y OIS rate Granger Causes the 3-year WTI futures, but not vice versa. Consistent with the feedback loop we posit between crude oil futures and Fed funds rates, we find that past and present values of the 1y1y Fed funds rate derived from the OIS curve help predict expected WTI prices 3 years forward. This means the 3-year WTI futures are reacting to short-term inflation expectations revealed in the OIS rates – and, most likely, the Fed’s assumed policy-response function contained in forward guidance – which, in turn, is used to calibrate 5y5y CPI swaps expectations (Chart 5). Chart 5Forward Oil Prices Drive 5y5y CPI Swaps Forward Oil Prices Drive 5y5y CPI Swaps Forward Oil Prices Drive 5y5y CPI Swaps Investment Implications Weather shocks – drought and heat waves across the Northern Hemisphere – and supply constraints (energy demand in excess of energy supply) will push food and energy prices higher, and lift inflation and inflation expectations. Tight natural gas markets will increase the cost of fertilizer, which will keep grain prices elevated. Further down the line, supplies of base metals will come under pressure, as refinery and smelting operations are curtailed. We remain long direct commodity exposure via the COMT ETF. We also remain long equity exposure to oil and gas producers and miners via XOP and XME ETFs, respectively.   Robert P. Ryan Chief Commodity & Energy Strategist rryan@bcaresearch.com Ashwin Shyam Research Analyst Commodity & Energy Strategy ashwin.shyam@bcaresearch.com Paula Struk Research Associate Commodity & Energy Strategy paula.struk@bcaresearch.com   Commodities Round-Up Energy: Bullish US commercial crude oil inventories ex-SPR barrels fell 3.3mm barrels week-on-week for the week ended 19 August 2022, according to the EIA. Including SPR barrels, total US crude oil inventories were down 11.4mm barrels. Total US oil stocks – crude and products – including the SPR barrels were down 6.7mm barrels; without the SPR draws, inventories built 1.4mm barrels. The US SPR now stands at 453.1 million barrels, the lowest since January 1985, according to reuters.com. The US has made 1mm b/d available to the market from its SPR over since May; this program will terminate at the end of October. We expect the SPR release will be extended, if the US and Iran cannot agree to extend the Iran nuclear deal in the near future. Low-sulfur distillates fell 1.7mm barrels, reflecting tight inventories of diesel, heating oil and jet fuel (Chart 6). Total products supplied (the EIA’s nomenclature for demand) fell 2.5mm b/d y/y, and now stands at 19.34mm b/d. Base Metals: Bullish Iron ore prices rose on Chinese growth prospects following the People’s Bank of China (PBoC) decision to cut lending rates on Monday, one week after its initial rate cut. More aggressive policy will be needed to stimulate credit activity and growth in an economy which has to contend with a zero COVID tolerance policy and a faltering property market. With no dearth of money in the economy, credit demand maybe the issue, not supply. M2 money supply – which includes cash and deposits - rose 12% y/y in July, while new bank lending dropped nearly 40% y/y (Chart 7). Precious Metals: Neutral Gold prices on Tuesday were supported by weak US manufacturing and household sales data. Significant support for the yellow metal will occur after the US Federal Reserve begins reducing interest rates, which we do not believe will occur this year. The Fed will continue tightening monetary policy, at the risk of increasing unemployment. Chart 6 Energy-Price Surge Will Drive Inflation Higher Energy-Price Surge Will Drive Inflation Higher Chart 7 M2 Money Supply Increasing While New Bank Loans Decreasing M2 Money Supply Increasing While New Bank Loans Decreasing       Footnotes 1     Please see European Power Prices Smash Records in Another Inflation Blow published by bloomberg.com on August 23, 2022. The surge in prices has lifted European power prices above the equivalent of $1,000/bbl, more than 10x the Brent price on Wednesday. See also Drought Negatively Impacting China, the U.S. and Europe, as Ukrainian Black Sea Exports Continue published on August 22, 2022 by farmpolicynews.illinois.edu. 2     Please see Prognostic Discussion for Long-Lead Seasonal Outlooks published by the National Weather Service’s Climate Prediction Center on August 18, 2022. See also Farm Futures Daily AM - U.S., China heat concerns lift grains - 08/24 (penton.com) for a summary of ag market trading and crop conditions. 3    Please see Oil pares losses after Saudi oilmin says OPEC+ has options including cuts published by reuters.com on August 22, 2022. 4    At a high level of abstraction, we model crude oil demand as a function of real GDP, while supply is assumed to react to realized demand – i.e., oil producers are data-dependent vis-à-vis the volume of crude they produce to meet demand. Our crude-oil price estimate is calculated using supply, demand and inventories – along with US financial variables. In other words, our model uses real and financial variables to estimate a crude-oil price, which, we contend, qualifies it as a summary statistic for the variables on the right-hand side of our model. Please see Tight Commodity Markets: Persistently High Inflation, a Special Report we published on March 24, 2022 for further discussion. We note this is aligned with the way the ECB thinks about oil prices. It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 5    Market expectations for the US federal funds rate are derived using US Overnight Indexed Swap rates. The US Secured Overnight Financing Rate (SOFR) is used as the floating rate for the swap deal and tracks the federal funds rate.   Investment Views and Themes Strategic Recommendations Trades Closed in 2022

Highlights The risk of a US recession has increased sharply over the past several months. We have not yet concluded that a recession over the coming year is inevitable, but substantial (further) supply-side and pandemic-related disinflation is likely needed for the US economy to avoid a contraction in output. The increased risk of a contraction has caused investors to ponder what the next recession might look like. One very important question concerns the likely behavior of short-term interest rates during the next recession, especially if it occurs sooner rather than later. The historical experience suggests that the Fed may cut interest rates to zero during the next recession, but that the re-establishment of a long-lasting zero interest rate policy and the associated resumption of large-scale asset purchases seem quite unlikely unless the recession is severe. In the post-WWII environment, severe US recessions have been accompanied by aggravating factors that appear to be missing in the current environment. In addition, there are several arguments pointing to the next US recession being a mild one. For fixed-income investors, the implication is that investors should not overstay their welcome in a long-duration position during the next US recession, and should be looking to reduce their duration exposure earlier rather than later. For equity investors, our findings underscore that meaningful downside risk exists for stocks even in a mild recession environment, because the decline in bond yields is not likely to offset a rise in the equity risk premium. Feature Over the past several months, investors have been faced with a sharp increase in the odds of a US recession. Gauging the risk of a recession has featured prominently in our recent reports, and we have concluded, for now, that a US recession over the coming year is not yet inevitable. Still, we acknowledge that the risks are quite elevated, and that substantial (further) supply-side and pandemic-related disinflation is likely needed for the US economy to avoid a contraction in output. Economic expansions do not last forever. This means that the US economy will eventually succumb to a recession at some point over the coming few years. One very important question for investors concerns the likely behavior of short-term interest rates during the next recession, especially if a contraction occurs sooner rather than later. A key aspect of this question is whether the Fed is likely to be forced back towards a zero or negative interest rate policy, and whether it will need to employ asset purchases as part of its stabilization efforts as it has during the last two recessions. If so, long-maturity bond yields are likely to fall significantly during the next recession; if not, investors may be surprised by how modestly long-maturity yields decline. In this report, we examine the historical record of short-term interest rates during recessions and discuss whether the next US recession is likely to be severe or mild. We conclude that the next US recession is more likely to be mild than severe, and that the 10-year Treasury yield is unlikely to fall below 2% during the recession (or fall below this level for very long). In the case of a more severe recession driven by unanchored inflation expectations, the implications would be clearly bearish for bonds. Within a fixed-income portfolio, one conclusion of our analysis is that investors should not overstay their welcome in a long-duration position during the next recession and should be looking to reduce their duration exposure earlier rather than later. For equity investors, our findings underscore that meaningful downside risk exists for stocks even in a mild recession environment, because the decline in bond yields is not likely to offset a rise in the equity risk premium. The Historical Recessionary Path Of Short-Term Interest Rates When projecting how the Fed funds rate is likely to evolve during the next US recession, most investors typically look to the average decline in short-term interest rates during previous recessions as a guide. Based on that approach, Table II-1 highlights that the Fed would likely have to cut rates into negative territory if a recession occurred over the coming 12-18 months, unless it is able to hike interest rates significantly more over the coming year than the market is currently expecting and the FOMC itself is projecting. But in our view, focusing on the historical recessionary decline in interest rates from their peak is not the right approach, because it ignores the fact that recessions typically occur when monetary policy is tight. If a recession occurs within the next 18 months, it will have happened in large part because of a collapse in real wage growth, not just because of the increase in interest rates that has occurred. Chart II-1 highlights that short-term interest rates remain well below potential GDP growth, highlighting that monetary policy would still be easy today – despite the quick pace of increase in short rates – if real wages were growing rather than contracting sharply. In our view, the right approach is to examine how much short-term interest rates have typically fallen during recessions relative to potential or average historical GDP growth. This method captures the degree to which monetary policy easing has typically been required relative to neutral levels to catalyze an economic recovery. Table II-1Based Only On The Historical Decline In Short-Term Interest Rates, The Fed Would Ostensibly Have To Cut Rates Into Negative Territory During The Next Recession September 2022 September 2022 Chart II-1Monetary Policy Would Still Be Easy Today If Real Wage Growth Was Positive Monetary Policy Would Still Be Easy Today If Real Wage Growth Was Positive Monetary Policy Would Still Be Easy Today If Real Wage Growth Was Positive Based on this approach, Chart II-2 highlights that the Fed might have to cut the target range for the Fed funds rate to 0-0.25% during the next recession, but there are some examples (like the 1990-1991 recession) that point to a cut to just 0.25-0.5%. The goal of this exercise is not to be specific about the exact level to which the Fed will have to cut the Fed funds rate, but rather whether the de facto re-establishment of a long-lasting zero interest rate policy and the associated resumption of large-scale asset purchases is likely. Chart II-2The Fed May Have To Cut To Zero During The Next Recession, But Probably Not Into Negative Territory September 2022 September 2022 Structural bond bulls might note that there are five recessions in the post-war era that could potentially point to that outcome based on Chart II-2. However, these episodes involved circumstances that we doubt would be present during the next US recession, especially if one were to emerge over the coming 12-18 months. The 1950s Recessions The recessions of 1953-54 and 1957-58 were fairly sizeable based on the total rise in the unemployment rate, but the monetary policy stance at that time was wildly stimulative in a way that is very unlikely to repeat itself today. In the 1950s, the level of interest rates was still an artifact of WWII (with the Treasury-Fed accord having only been agreed upon in March 1951). Monetary policy was both overly responsive to a period of pent-up disinflation following the initial burst of government spending associated with the Korean war and insufficiently responsive to a strongly positive output gap (Chart II-3). This was meaningfully compounded by a poor understanding of the size of the output gap at that time; the deviation of the unemployment rate from its 10-year average was significantly smaller than its deviation from today’s estimate of NAIRU (Chart II-4). In sum, the economic and monetary policy conditions that existed in the 1950s and that contributed to an interest rate level that was well below the prevailing rate of economic growth do not exist today. As such, we strongly doubt that the Fed’s response to the next US recession would resemble what occurred during that decade. Chart II-3We Strongly Doubt The Fed's Response To The Next US Recession Would Resemble What Occurred In The 1950s We Strongly Doubt The Fed's Response To The Next US Recession Would Resemble What Occurred In The 1950s We Strongly Doubt The Fed's Response To The Next US Recession Would Resemble What Occurred In The 1950s Chart II-4Low Interest Rates In The 1950s Were Partly Caused By Wrong Output Gap Estimates Low Interest Rates In The 1950s Were Partly Caused By Wrong Output Gap Estimates Low Interest Rates In The 1950s Were Partly Caused By Wrong Output Gap Estimates   1973-1975 The recession that began in 1973 occurred because of a huge energy shock that proved to be stagflationary in the true sense of the word. Excluding the 2020 recession, this was the third largest rise in the unemployment rate of any recession since WWII, following 2008/2009 and the 1981/1982 recessions. There are some parallels between this recession and the current economic environment, but the stability of inflation expectations so far does not point to a truly stagflationary outcome. As such, we do not see the 1973-74 recession as a reasonable parallel to today’s environment. In addition, manufacturing employment – which was heavily impacted by the permanent rise in oil prices due to the sector’s energy intensity – stood at 24% of total nonfarm employment in 1973, compared with 8% today. Finally, the weight of food and energy as a share of total consumer spending today is roughly half of what it was during the 1970s (Chart II-5). 2001 Of the five recessions potentially implying that the Fed may have to cut interest rates into negative territory during the next US recession, the 2001 recession is the most relevant parallel to today. It was a modern recession in which the Fed maintained very easy monetary policy for a significant amount of time, in response to concerns about a significant tightening in financial conditions and the impact of prior corporate sector excesses on aggregate demand. The total rise in the unemployment rate during this recession was not very large, but it took some time for the unemployment rate to return to NAIRU. Still, even though this justified a later liftoff, a Taylor rule approach makes it clear that the Fed overstimulated the economy in response to the recession – a view that is reinforced by the enormous rise in household debt that fueled the housing market bubble during that period (Chart II-6). The Fed was very concerned about the negative wealth effects of the bursting of the equity market bubble, which had been caused by a massive decline in the equity risk premium in the second half of the 1990s. These conditions are simply not present today. Chart II-5Today's US Economy Is Meaningfully Less Impacted By Energy And Food Prices Today's US Economy Is Meaningfully Less Impacted By Energy And Food Prices Today's US Economy Is Meaningfully Less Impacted By Energy And Food Prices Chart II-6The Fed Clearly Overstimulated In Response To The 2001 Recession The Fed Clearly Overstimulated In Response To The 2001 Recession The Fed Clearly Overstimulated In Response To The 2001 Recession 2008/2009 Chart II-7A Repeat Of The 2008/2009 Recession In The US Is A Totally Implausible Scenario A Repeat Of The 2008/2009 Recession In The US Is A Totally Implausible Scenario A Repeat Of The 2008/2009 Recession In The US Is A Totally Implausible Scenario Chart II-2 highlighted that the Fed would have to cut interest rates to -1% were the 2008/2009 recession to repeat itself, but we judge that to be a totally implausible scenario given the improvement in US household sector balance sheets and financial sector health since the global financial crisis (Chart II-7). As we discuss below, the next US recession is likely to be meaningfully less severe than the 2008/2009 and 2020 recessions, which we believe carries important significance for the path of interest rates and the response of long-maturity bond yields. The bottom line for investors is that, based on the historical experience of rate cuts during recessions, the Fed may end up cutting interest rates back to or close to the zero lower bound in response to the next recession. But the de facto re-establishment of a long-lasting zero interest rate policy and the associated resumption of large-scale asset purchases seems quite unlikely unless the recession is severe, which we do not expect. Will The Next US Recession Be Severe Or Mild? Chart II-8The Most Severe US Recessions Have Had Aggravating Factors That Do Not Appear To Be Present Today September 2022 September 2022 How drastically the Fed will be forced to cut interest rates during the next recession will be driven by its severity. Chart II-8 presents the total rise in the unemployment rate during post-WWII recessions (excluding 2020), in order to gauge whether the factors that have led to severe recessions in the past are likely to be present during the next contraction in output. From our perspective, the most severe US recessions in the post-WWII era have been driven by factors that are very unlikely to repeat themselves in the current environment. We noted above that a repeat of the 2008/2009 recession is a totally implausible scenario, leaving the 1981-1982, 1973-1975, and 1950s recessions as potential severe recession analogues. In three of these four cases we see clear signs of an aggravating factor that we do not (yet) believe will be present during the next US recession. Chart II-9Inflation Expectations Have Not Yet Unanchored To The Upside, In Sharp Contrast To The 1970s Inflation Expectations Have Not Yet Unanchored To The Upside, In Sharp Contrast To The 1970s Inflation Expectations Have Not Yet Unanchored To The Upside, In Sharp Contrast To The 1970s In the 1981-1982 recession, the unemployment rate rose significantly as the Federal Reserve confronted the fact that inflation expectations had become severely unanchored to the upside, causing a persistent wage/price spiral. While unanchored inflation expectations is a risk today, so far the evidence suggests that both households and market participants expect that currently elevated inflation will not persist over the long run (Chart II-9). If inflation expectations do become unanchored to the upside at some point over the coming 12-18 months (or beyond), we are very likely to change our view about the severity of the next recession. However, this would be a bond bearish outcome (at least initially), as it would imply sharply higher yields at both the short and long end of the yield curve in order to tame inflation and re-anchor inflation expectations. As noted above, in the 1973-74 recession, the unexpected and permanent rise in oil prices and outright energy shortages rendered a significant amount of capital and labor uneconomic, which is different than what has been occurring during the pandemic. Were the recent rise in natural gas prices to be permanent and no alternatives available, Europe’s current energy situation would be more reminiscent of the 1973-1974 recession than the pandemic-driven price pressures and supply shortages affecting the US and other developed economies. Chart II-10The US Is Currently Experiencing Fiscal Drag, But That Will Lessen Next Year The US Is Currently Experiencing Fiscal Drag, But That Will Lessen Next Year The US Is Currently Experiencing Fiscal Drag, But That Will Lessen Next Year Finally, while the 1957-58 recession appears to be somewhat of an anomaly driven by a mix of factors, the 1953-54 recession was clearly exacerbated by a sharp slowdown in government spending following the end of the Korean war. It is true that the US is currently experiencing fiscal drag (Chart II-10), but this has occurred against the backdrop of a strong labor market, and IMF forecasts imply that the drag will be significantly smaller over the coming year than what the US is currently experiencing. There are several additional points suggesting that the next US recession will be comparatively mild: Chart II-11The Milder US Recessions Were All Seemingly Triggered By Tight Monetary Policy (As Would Be The Case Today) The Milder US Recessions Were All Seemingly Triggered By Tight Monetary Policy (As Would Be The Case Today) The Milder US Recessions Were All Seemingly Triggered By Tight Monetary Policy (As Would Be The Case Today) Chart II-11 highlights that the milder recessions, those which have seen the unemployment rate rise by less than 3% from their previous low, have generally been the recessions that appear to have simply been triggered by monetary policy becoming tight or nearly tight. This would likely be the case during the next US recession. In the lead up to the 1970, 1990-91, and 2001 recessions, short-term interest rates approached or exceeded either potential growth or the rolling 10-year average growth rate of nominal GDP. The 1960-61 recession stands out slightly as an exception to this rule, in that interest rates were still moderately easy, which is based on our definition of the equilibrium short-term interest rate. But interest rates had risen close to 400 basis points from 1958 to 1960 (suggesting a change in addition to a level effect of interest rates on aggregate demand), and it is notable that the 60-61 recession was the mildest in post-war history, based on the total rise in the unemployment rate. Chart II-12Labor Scarcity May Mean That Firms Will Be Somewhat More Reluctant To Shed Labor During The Next Recession Labor Scarcity May Mean That Firms Will Be Somewhat More Reluctant To Shed Labor During The Next Recession Labor Scarcity May Mean That Firms Will Be Somewhat More Reluctant To Shed Labor During The Next Recession We argued in Section 1 of our report that monetary policy is not currently restrictive on its own, and that the recessionary risk currently facing the US is the result of a combination of the speed of adjustment in interest rates, the fact that real wages have fallen sharply, and the fact that the Fed is determined to see inflation quickly return to target levels. However, what this also highlights is that a recession would likely cause a rise in real wages via a significant slowdown in inflation (at least for a time); this would likely help stabilize aggregate demand and cause a comparatively mild rise in the unemployment rate. While the odds and magnitude of this effect are difficult to quantify, the fact that the labor market has been so tight over the past year and that the participation rate has yet to recover to its pre-pandemic levels suggests that some firms may be reluctant to shed labor during a recession (Chart II-12), suggesting that the total rise in unemployment in the next recession could be relatively small. Finally, Chart II-13 shows that the excess savings that have accumulated over the course of the pandemic, now primarily the result of reduced spending on services, dwarf the magnitude of precautionary savings that were generated in the prior three recessions as a % of GDP. We agree that the savings rate would likely still rise during the next recession, but the existence of excess savings implies that the rise in the savings rate may be surprisingly small – which would, in turn, imply a comparatively mild rise in the unemployment rate. We noted above that the household sector has deleveraged significantly, which is strong evidence against an outsized or long-lasting decline in consumer spending as a possible driver of an above-average rise in the unemployment rate during the next recession. One question that we often receive from clients is whether excessive corporate sector leverage could cause a more severe decline in economic activity once a recession emerges. Chart II-14 illustrates that the answer is “probably not.” The chart presents one estimate of the US nonfinancial corporate sector debt service ratio, based on national accounts data. The chart highlights that the current debt burden for the nonfinancial corporate sector is very low, underscoring that elevated corporate sector debt would not likely act as an aggravating factor driving an outsized rise in the unemployment rate were a recession to occur today. The chart also shows that even if the 10-year Treasury yield were to rise to 4% and corporate bond spreads were to widen in the lead up to a recession, the nonfinancial corporate sector debt service burden would rise to a lower peak than seen in the last three recessions. One key risk to a mild recession view is a scenario in which inflation does not return to or below the Fed’s target during the recession. In that kind of environment, the Fed would not likely cut interest rates to as low a level as they have in the past relative to potential growth. But the historical record is clear that recessions cause a deceleration in inflation, and if a recession emerges over the coming 12-18 months it will likely happen after supply-side and pandemic-related disinflation has already occurred. That means that inflation is likely to move back to or below the Fed’s target in a recessionary environment. We should note that this assessment differs somewhat from the scenario described by my former colleague Martin Barnes, who wrote a guest report on inflation published in our July Bank Credit Analyst.1 Chart II-13Today’s Pandemic-Related Excess Savings Dwarf Precautionary Savings During The Prior Three Recessions September 2022 September 2022 Chart II-14US Corporate Sector Debt Unlikely To Lead To A More Severe Recession, Even In A Higher Yield Environment US Corporate Sector Debt Unlikely To Lead To A More Severe Recession, Even In A Higher Yield Environment US Corporate Sector Debt Unlikely To Lead To A More Severe Recession, Even In A Higher Yield Environment   Long-Maturity Bond Yields And The Next US Recession What does our analysis imply for long-maturity bond yields and the duration call over the coming few years? In order to judge what is likely to happen to long-maturity bond yields in a recession scenario over the coming 12-18 months, we first project the fair value of the 5-year Treasury yield based on the following hypothetical circumstances: The onset of recession in March 2023 and a peak in the Fed funds rate at a target range of 3.75-4%. A recession duration of eight months, over which time the Fed steadily cuts the policy rate to 0-0.25%. An initial Fed rate hike in September 2024, nine months following the end of the recession, consistent with a relatively short return of the unemployment rate to NAIRU as an expansion takes hold. A rate hike pace of eight quarter-point hikes per year, with the Fed again raising rates to a peak of 4% A longer-term average Fed funds rate of 3%, which we regard as a low estimate. Chart II-15The 5-Year Treasury Yield Would Not Fall Enormously In A Mild Recessionary Scenario The 5-Year Treasury Yield Would Not Fall Enormously In A Mild Recessionary Scenario The 5-Year Treasury Yield Would Not Fall Enormously In A Mild Recessionary Scenario Chart II-15 highlights the fair value path for the 5-year Treasury yield in this scenario. Not surprisingly, the fair value today is lower than the current level of the 5-year yield, highlighting that a shift to a long duration stance will be warranted at some point over the coming year if the US economy enters a non-technical, typical income-statement recession. However, the chart also highlights that a long duration position is not likely to be warranted for very long, given that the lowest level of the 5-year fair value path is substantially higher than it was in 2020 and 2021 and is also higher than its 10-year average. Chart II-16 reveals the importance of forecasting the near-term path of interest rates when predicting the likely behavior of long-maturity bond yields. Even though near- and long-term interest rate expectations should be at least somewhat differentiated, the chart highlights that the real 5-year/5-year forward Treasury yield is very closely explained by the real 5-year Treasury yield and a 3-year lag of our adaptive inflation expectations model (which is highly consistent with BCA’s Golden Rule of bond investing framework). Chart II-16 shows that long-maturity bond yields should be higher than they are based on the current level of real 5-year yields and lagged inflation expectations, underscoring the point that we made in Section 1 of our report that significant upside risk exists for long-maturity bond yields in a non-recessionary outcome over the coming year. In a recessionary outcome, it is clear that bond yields will fall as the Fed cuts interest rates, as Chart II-15 demonstrated. But, Chart II-17 highlights that during recessions, there is little precedent for a negative 5-10 yield curve slope outside of the context of the persistently high inflation environment of the late 1960s and 1970s. Applying that template to the fair value path that we showed in Chart II-15 suggests that the 10-year Treasury yield will not fall below 2% during the next recession. As we noted in our August report,2 a 10-year Treasury yield decline to 2% would result in significant performance for long-maturity bonds, but it would not end the structural bear market in bonds that began two years ago – a fact that we suspect would be very surprising to bond-bullish investors. Chart II-165-Year Bond Yields Strongly Explain Yields 5-Years/5-Years Forward 5-Year Bond Yields Strongly Explain Yields 5-Years/5-Years Forward 5-Year Bond Yields Strongly Explain Yields 5-Years/5-Years Forward Chart II-17There Is Not Much Precedent For A Negative 5/10 Yield Curve During Modern Recessions, Suggesting 10-Year Yields Will Not Fall Below 2% During The Next Recession There Is Not Much Precedent For A Negative 5/10 Yield Curve During Modern Recessions, Suggesting 10-Year Yields Will Not Fall Below 2% During The Next Recession There Is Not Much Precedent For A Negative 5/10 Yield Curve During Modern Recessions, Suggesting 10-Year Yields Will Not Fall Below 2% During The Next Recession It is true that bond yields may deviate from the fair value levels shown in Chart II-15 if investors expect a different outcome for the path of the Fed funds rate than we described. However, it is worth noting that changes in our assumed post-recession peak Fed funds rate and the long-term average do not substantially change the outcome shown in Chart II-15. If investors instead assume that the Fed funds rate will peak at 3% during the next expansion, that lowers the fair value path for the 5-year yield by approximately 5 basis points. Changing the long-term average Fed funds rate to 2.4%, the Fed’s current neutral rate expectation, would reduce it by about 25 basis points. These levels would still be significantly above the lows reached in 2011-2013 and in 2020, underscoring that the length of the recession and the speed at which the Fed begins to raise interest rates will be far more important determinants of the path of US Treasury yields. We strongly suspect that investors will recognize that a comparatively mild recession will not result in the same hyper-accomodative monetary policy stance that occurred during the past two recessions, implying that long-maturity bond yields will have less downside during the next recession than may be currently recognized. Investment Conclusions As we have presented, the historical experience suggests that the Fed may cut interest rates to zero during the next recession, but that the re-establishment of a long-lasting zero interest rate policy and the associated resumption of large-scale asset purchases seem quite unlikely unless the recession is severe. In the post-WWII environment, severe US recessions have been accompanied by aggravating factors that appear to be missing in the current environment. In addition to this, there are several arguments pointing to the next US recession being a mild one. In a mild recession scenario, we doubt that the 10-year Treasury yield would fall below 2%, or fall below this level for very long. For fixed-income investors, while bond yields will fall for a time if a recession emerges, the implication is that investors should not overstay their welcome in a long-duration position during the recession and should be looking to reduce their duration exposure earlier rather than later. For equity investors, our findings underscore that meaningful downside risk exists for stocks even in a mild recession environment, because the decline in bond yields is not likely to offset a rise in the equity risk premium. We noted in our July report that if a recession occurred within the coming 6-12 months, that the S&P 500 would likely fall to 3100, even if the recession were average. A mild recession may see the S&P 500 decline less severely than this, but stocks are still likely to incur significant losses during the next recession unless investors price in a much shallower path for short-term interest rates than we believe will be warranted. As noted in Section 1 of our report, we have not yet concluded that a US recession is inevitable over the coming 6-12 months. Still, we acknowledge that the risks are quite elevated, and that substantial (further) supply-side and pandemic-related disinflation is likely needed for the US economy to avoid a contraction in output. Additional changes to our recommended cyclical allocation may thus occur over the coming few months, in response to incoming data, our assessment of the likely implications for monetary policy, and the response of long-maturity government bond yields. Jonathan LaBerge, CFA Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst   Footnotes 1  Please see The Bank Credit Analyst "Inflation Whipsaw Ahead," dated June 30, 2022, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 2  Please see The Bank Credit Analyst "August 2022," dated July 28, 2022, available at bca.bcaresearch.com