United States

Highlights A slower money and credit growth in China will eventually generate disinflationary pressures by weighing on demand for commodities. The PBoC has shifted its inflation anchor and policy framework to target core CPI and the PPI rather than headline CPI. Beijing is scaling back its fiscal supports and cooling the property sector to tackle local government and housing sector debt issues. In the next six to nine months we favor companies and sectors that will benefit from global economic recovery rather than China’s domestic demand. We are long CSI500 relative to China’s A shares. The CSI500 has a larger exposure to the global economy and lower valuation relative to China’s broad onshore market.  Feature As a follow up to last week’s report, we look at another topic raised in recent client meetings: whether rapidly rising producer prices in China will morph into a broad-based inflationary risk and how macroeconomic policies will evolve to counter such a risk. Clients who believe that the ongoing producer price inflation is transitory cited China’s low consumer price inflation, and slowing money and credit growth, as leading indicators of budding disinflationary pressures. Advocates of sustained inflation pointed to robust recoveries and demand among advanced economies, extremely accommodative monetary conditions worldwide, massive fiscal stimulus in the US, a weak US dollar, and supply constraints. It remains to be seen what the worldwide pandemic’s impact will be on the balance between global production capacity and aggregate demand. In this report we analyze the PBoC’s inflation target and policy framework, and conclude that while China’s monetary policy has not become more hawkish, policy tightening seems to be taking place on the fiscal front. Is Inflation In China A Risk? It is debatable whether the strong rebound in GDP growth in Q4 last year and in Q1 this year has closed China’s output gap and will lead to widespread inflation. Given data distortions due to low-base effects from the previous year and uncertainty about China’s productivity and labor force growth, any calculation of the output gap will be unreliable. In addition, China’s employment statistics lack cyclicality and cannot be used to gauge inflationary pressure stemming from wage growth and unit labor costs.     Chart 1A Rollover In Credit Growth Will Weigh On Chinese Demand For Commodities Our cyclical view of inflation is therefore based on the framework that the ongoing moderation in China's money and credit growth will eventually generate disinflationary pressures by weighing on the country’s demand for and price of commodities (Chart 1).  Furthermore, behind a resilient PPI, there are suggestions that the strength in China’s economy is still bifurcated. A narrow-based uptrend in the PPI lacks the ground for sustained inflation, and is unlikely to trigger a general tightening in monetary policy.  While mounting global prices for raw materials propelled strong upstream PPI, producer prices for consumer goods and core consumer price inflation remain very subdued (Chart 2).  The inconsistency in producer prices among various industries highlight the unevenness of the economic recovery and, importantly, persistently muted household consumption (Chart 3). Chart 2A Bifurcated Economic Recovery Chart 3A Muted Recovery In Household Consumption Chart 4Weak Price Transmission From Upstream To Downstream Industries The transmission from upstream industrial PPI to the middle and downstream sectors has also been weak (Chart 4). It is evidenced in the faster growth of manufacturing output volume compared with price increases (Chart 5). This contrasts with the previous inflationary cycles, as well as mining and ferrous metals where surging prices for raw materials have way surpassed recovery in output volume (Chart 6). Given that price changes are more important to corporate profits than volume changes, Chinese middle-to-downstream industries face downward pressure on their profit margins and will likely deliver disappointing profits, despite a strong rebound in production. Chart 5China's Manufacturing Recovery: Stronger Volume Than Prices Chart 6China's Upstream Industries: Prices Surged Faster Than Production Furthermore, PMI input prices, which lead core CPI by about nine months, rolled over in April (Chart 7). While it is too soon to conclude that input prices have peaked, it is implied that upward pressure on core CPI from input prices may start to ease in 2H21. Bottom Line: So far there is no sign that elevated upstream producer prices will create sustainable inflationary pressure on consumer prices. Hence our view is that the PBoC will not respond to a rising PPI by further tightening monetary policy. Chart 7PMI Input Prices Have Rolled Over Chart 8Core CPI And PPI Have Been The PBoC's Inflation Targets Since 2015 The PBoC’s Inflation Target Since 2015, China’s monetary tightening cycles have closely correlated with a combination of the core CPI and PPI instead of headline CPI (Chart 8). The shift to targeting core CPI and PPI occurred despite the central bank’s frequent mention of headline CPI as its inflation target. The reasons for the shift are twofold. First, swings in food and fuel prices have become much larger since 2014, often dominating fluctuations in headline CPI (Chart 9).  Secondly, the price swings were often driven by supply-side factors and did not reflect changes in demand. Therefore, monetary policies could do little to mitigate inflationary or deflationary pressures. Furthermore, the PPI seems to play a greater role in the PBoC’s monetary policymaking than the headline and core CPI (Chart 10).  The tighter relationship between the de facto policy rate and the PPI is not surprising, given that China’s ex-factory price inflation reflects changes in corporate pricing, profit, and inventory cycles – all are driven by the country’s money supply and credit cycles.  Chart 9Large Swings In Food And Energy Prices Distorted Headline CPI In Recent Years Chart 10PPI Plays A Greater Role In The PBoC's Monetary Policymaking The relationship between the 7-day repo rate - the de jure policy rate - and the PPI has broken down since 2015 (Chart 11). Meanwhile, the 3-month repo rate has maintained a close relationship with the PPI (Chart 10, bottom panel). The change in the relationship is because the PBoC shifted its policy to target interest rates instead of the quantity of money supply since 2015 (Chart 12). Moreover, since 2016 the PBoC has generated monetary policy tightening measures through changes in its Macro Prudential Assessment Framework (MPA) rather than directly through interest rate hikes.  Chart 11Relationship Between The 7-Day Repo Rate And The PPI Has Broken Down Since 2015... Chart 12...Due To Monetary Policy Regime Shifted Bottom Line:  The PBoC has shifted its inflation anchor and policy framework since 2015. Core CPI and the PPI are now the main inflation targets. A Quiet Fiscal Tightening? Despite a jump in the PPI, the 3-month repo rate fell sharply in the past two months (Chart 10 on page 6, bottom panel).  It is possible that the PBoC considers escalating producer prices as transitory and, therefore, intends to keep its overall policy stance unchanged. However, the PBoC’s relaxed policy response towards inflation risk may be explained by Beijing’s quiet tightening on the fiscal front. Chart 13The Central Bank Has Made Little Interbank Liquidity Injections Lately The PBoC can hold its policy rates steady by supplying adequate liquidity to the interbank system through open market operations or by reducing the demand for liquidity. On a net basis, the PBoC has recently injected very little liquidity into the interbank system, implying that banks’ liquidity demand has likely softened (Chart 13).  This might be a sign of weakening credit origination. In a previous report we discussed how fiscal stimulus has become a more relevant driver of China’s credit origination since the onset of the 2014/15 economic downcycle. A rising 3-month SHIBOR can be the result of rapid fiscal and quasi-fiscal expansions, which occurred in Q3 last year. A flood of local government bond issuance drained liquidity from commercial banks, which boosted the banks’ needs to borrow money from the interbank system and pushed up interbank rates. Despite higher interest rates, credit growth soared in Q3 as fiscal multiplier provided an imminent and powerful reflationary force to the economy. In contrast, local government bond issuance was down sharply in the first four months of this year, compared with 2019 and 2020. Local governments sold 222.7 billion yuan of special-purpose bonds (SPBs) from January to April, a plunge from 730 billion yuan of debt sold in the same period in 2019 and 1.15 trillion yuan in 2020. The total local government bond issuance in Q1 this year has also been 36% and 44% lower than in Q1 2019 and 2020, respectively. A lack of local governments’ appetite to borrow coupled with a shortage in profitable infrastructure projects might have contributed to the sharp drop in bond issuance this year. Local government financing and spending have been under increased scrutiny this year. Following the State Council Executive Meeting in late March, in which Premier Li Keqiang pledged to reduce government leverage ratio and raise regulatory standards on infrastructure investment, Beijing suspended two high-speed rail projects that were initiated by provincial governments. Messages from Politburo’s meeting last week reinforced our view that policymakers may be scaling back fiscal support while further tightening regulations in the property sector. Both aspects have the potential to cool China’s demand for industrial metals and global industrial material prices (Chart 14 and Chart 15). Chart 14A Slowdown In Chinese Manufacturing Demand Will Have A Greater Impact On Global Industrial Material Prices Chart 15Lower Housing Demand In China Will Help To Cool Industrial Metal Prices We expect the intensity of policy tightening to reach its peak between mid-year to third-quarter 2021. It is unclear at this point whether policymakers are willing to allow local governments to significantly undershoot their SPB quota for this year. Local governments reportedly experienced a shortage in profitable investment projects towards the end of last year, and thus, parked more than 10% of proceeds from 2020 SPB issuance at the central bank. The central government may be taking a wait-and-see attitude this year, and saving more fiscal dry powder for later this year when the economic slowdown becomes more meaningful. Bottom Line: Beijing is pulling back its fiscal supports and cooling the property sector to tackle local government and housing sector debt issues. The deleveraging efforts will curb China’s demand for commodities, and may work to ease inflationary pressure on prices for raw materials. Investment Conclusions The outlook for China’s risk asset prices remains bearish, at least in the next six months. If the credit and fiscal impulse slow enough to depress corporate pricing power, inflation will not be a problem because disinflationary pressures will resurface. However, the growth of corporate profits will disappoint (Chart 16). Beijing may be saving more fiscal dry powder for later this year. Still, SPBs are only a small part of local governments’ financing source for infrastructure projects. Given the central government’s renewed focus on reducing public debt, policymakers are unlikely to unleash fiscal power to significantly boost infrastructure spending or economic growth. In the next six to nine months, we favor companies and sectors that will benefit from global economic recovery rather than China’s domestic demand. With this week's report, we initiate a long position on the CSI500 index, which has a larger exposure to the global market and lower valuation relative to China’s broad onshore market (Chart 17).  Chart 16Aggregate Corporate Profit Growth Will Slow Even Though Inflation Is No Longer An Issue Chart 17Long CSI500/Broad Market   Jing Sima China Strategist jings@bcaresearch.com Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations

Highlights Chart 1Inflation Pressures Building As expected, base effects kicked in and pushed 12-month core PCE inflation from 1.37% to 1.83% in March. But a favorable comparison to last year’s depressed price level only explains part of inflation’s jump. Core PCE also rose at an annualized monthly rate of 4.4% in March, one of the highest readings seen during the past few years (Chart 1). Jerome Powell spoke about the Fed’s view of inflation at last week’s FOMC press conference and he reiterated that the Fed views current upward price pressures as transitory, the result of both base effects and temporary bottlenecks resulting from an economic re-opening where demand recovers more quickly than supply. Powell’s message is that the Fed won’t lift rates until the labor market returns to “maximum employment” and it won’t start tapering asset purchases until it sees “substantial further progress” toward that goal. Our view remains that the Fed will see enough improvement in the labor market to start tapering asset purchases in late-2021 or early-2022. It will also begin lifting rates before the end of 2022. As a result, we continue to recommend below-benchmark portfolio duration. Feature Table 1Recommended Portfolio Specification Table 2Fixed Income Sector Performance Investment Grade: Neutral Chart 2Investment Grade Market Overview Investment grade corporate bonds outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 13 basis points in April, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +111 bps. The combination of above-trend economic growth and accommodative monetary policy supports positive excess returns for spread product versus Treasuries. At 149 bps, the 2/10 Treasury slope is very steep and the 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rate sits at 2.26% – almost, but not quite, equal to the lower-end of the 2.3% - 2.5% range that the Fed considers “well anchored”. The message from these two indicators is that the Fed is not yet ready to turn monetary policy more restrictive. Despite the positive macro back-drop, investment grade corporate valuations are extremely tight. The investment grade corporate index’s 12-month breakeven spread is down to its 1st percentile (Chart 2). This means that the breakeven spread has only been tighter 1% of the time since 1995. The same measure shows that Baa-rated bonds have only been more expensive 2% of the time (panel 3). We don’t anticipate material underperformance versus Treasuries, but we see better opportunities outside of the investment grade corporate space. Specifically, we advise investors to favor both tax-exempt and taxable municipal bonds over investment grade corporates with the same credit rating and duration (see page 9). We also prefer USD-denominated Emerging Market Sovereign bonds over investment grade corporates with the same credit rating and duration (see page 8). Finally, the supportive macro environment means we are comfortable adding credit risk to a portfolio. With that in mind, we encourage investors to pick up the additional spread offered by high-yield corporates (see page 6). Table 3ACorporate Sector Relative Valuation And Recommended Allocation* Table 3BCorporate Sector Risk Vs. Reward* High-Yield: Overweight Chart 3High-Yield Market Overview High-Yield outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 70 basis points in April, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +335 bps. In a recent report, we looked at the default expectations that are currently priced into the junk index and considered whether they are likely to be met.1 If we demand an excess spread of 100 bps and assume a 40% recovery rate on defaulted debt, then the High-Yield index embeds an expected default rate of 3.2% (Chart 3). Using a model of the speculative grade default rate that is based on gross corporate leverage (aka pre-tax profits over debt) and C&I lending standards, we can estimate a likely default rate for the next 12 months using assumptions for profit and debt growth. The median FOMC forecast of 6.5% real GDP growth in 2021 is consistent with 31% corporate profit growth. We also assume that last year’s debt binge will be followed by relatively weak corporate debt growth in 2021. According to our model, 30% profit growth and 2% debt growth is consistent with a default rate of 3.4%, very close to what is priced into junk spreads. Given that the large amount of fiscal stimulus coming down the pike makes the Fed’s 6.5% real GDP growth forecast look conservative, and the fact that the combination of strong economic growth and accommodative monetary policy could easily cause valuations to overshoot in the near-term, we are inclined to maintain an overweight allocation to High-Yield bonds. MBS: Underweight Mortgage-Backed Securities outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 11 basis points in April, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +26 bps. The nominal spread between conventional 30-year MBS and equivalent-duration Treasuries tightened 5 bps in April. This spread remains wide compared to levels seen during the past few years, but it is still tight compared to the recent pace of mortgage refinancings (Chart 4). The conventional 30-year MBS option-adjusted spread (OAS) currently sits at 11 bps. This is considerably below the 51 bps offered by Aa-rated corporate bonds, the 33 bps offered by Agency CMBS and the 24 bps offered by Aaa-rated consumer ABS. All in all, the value in MBS is not appealing compared to other similarly risky sectors. In a recent report, we looked at recent MBS performance and valuation across the coupon stack.2 We noted that high coupon MBS have delivered strong excess returns versus Treasuries since bond yields troughed last August, while low coupon MBS have lagged (panel 4). This divergence occurred because the higher coupon securities are less negatively convex and thus their durations didn’t extend as much during the back-up in yields. Looking ahead, we recommend favoring 4% and 4.5% coupons and avoiding 2%, 2.5% and 3% coupons. The higher OAS and less negative convexity of those higher coupon securities will cause them to outperform in an environment of flat or rising bond yields. Lower coupon MBS only look poised to outperform in an environment of falling bond yields, which is not our base case. Chart 4MBS Market Overview Government-Related: Neutral The Government-Related index outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 6 basis points in April, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +72 bps (Chart 5). Sovereign debt underperformed duration-equivalent Treasuries by 19 bps in April, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to +21 bps. Foreign Agencies outperformed the Treasury benchmark by 2 bps on the month, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +34 bps. Local Authority bonds outperformed by 41 bps in April, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +329 bps. Domestic Agency bonds outperformed by 5 bps, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +19 bps. Supranationals outperformed by 3 bps, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +16 bps. We recently took a detailed look at USD-denominated Emerging Market (EM) Sovereign valuation.3 We found that, on an equivalent-duration basis, EM Sovereigns offer a spread advantage over investment grade US corporates. Attractive countries include: Mexico, Russia, Indonesia, Colombia, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and UAE. We prefer US corporates over EM Sovereigns in the high-yield space where there is still some value left in US corporate spreads and where the EM space is dominated by distressed credits like Turkey and Argentina. Chart 5Government-Related Market Overview Municipal Bonds: Overweight Chart 6Municipal Market Overview Municipal bonds outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 17 basis points in April, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +308 bps (before adjusting for the tax advantage). We took a detailed look at recent municipal bond performance and valuation in last week’s report and came to the following conclusions.4 First, the economic and policy back-drop is favorable for municipal bond performance. The recently passed American Rescue Plan includes $350 billion of funding for state & local governments, a bailout that comes after state & local government revenues already exceeded expenditures in 2020 (Chart 6). President Biden has also proposed increasing income tax rates. Though these increases may not pass before the 2022 midterm, the threat of higher tax rates could increase interest in municipal bonds. Second, Aaa-rated municipal bonds look expensive relative to Treasuries (top panel). Muni investors should move down the quality spectrum to pick up additional yield. Third, General Obligation (GO) and Revenue munis offer better value than investment grade corporates with the same credit rating and duration, particularly at the long-end of the curve. Revenue munis in the 12-17 year maturity bucket offer a before-tax yield pick-up versus corporates, while GO munis offer a breakeven tax rate of just 7% (panel 2). Fourth, taxable munis offer a yield advantage versus investment grade corporates (panel 3), one that investors should take advantage of. Finally, high-yield muni spreads are reasonably attractive relative to high-yield corporates, offering investors a breakeven tax rate of 19% (panel 4). Despite the attractive spread, we only recommend a neutral allocation to high-yield munis versus high-yield corporates since high-yield munis’ deep negative convexity makes the sector prone to extension risk if bond yields should rise. Treasury Curve: Buy 5-Year Bullet Versus 2/10 Barbell Chart 7Treasury Yield Curve Overview The Treasury curve bull-flattened in April, even as the economic data continued to surprise on the upside. The 2/10 Treasury slope flattened 9 bps to end the month at 149 bps. The 5/30 slope flattened 5 bps to end the month at 144 bps (Chart 7). As we showed in a recent report, the Treasury curve continues to trade directionally with yields out to the 10-year maturity point.5 Beyond 10 years, the curve has transitioned into a bear-flattening/bull-steepening regime where higher yields coincide with a flatter curve and vice-versa (bottom panel). For now, we are content to stick with our recommended steepener: long the 5-year bullet and short a duration-matched 2/10 barbell. However, we will eventually be close enough to an expected Fed liftoff date that the 5/10 slope will follow the 10/30 slope and transition into a bear-flattening/bull-steepening regime. When that happens, it will make more sense to either position in a steepener at the front-end of the curve (long 3-year bullet / short 2/5 barbell) or a flattener at the long-end of the curve (long 5/30 barbell / short 10-year bullet). We don’t yet see sufficient evidence of 5/10 bear-flattening to shift out of our current recommended position and into these new ones, and so we stay the course for now. TIPS: Overweight Neutral Chart 8TIPS Market Overview​​​​​​ TIPS outperformed the duration-equivalent nominal Treasury index by 52 basis points in April, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +394 bps. The 10-year and 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rates rose 4 bps and 5 bps on the month, respectively. At 2.43%, the 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate is near the top-end of the 2.3% to 2.5% range that is consistent with inflation expectations being well anchored around the Fed’s target (Chart 8). Meanwhile, at 2.26%, the 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rate is just below the target band (panel 3). This week, we are downgrading our TIPS allocation from overweight to neutral for two reasons. First, as noted above, long-maturity breakevens are consistent with the Fed’s target. The Fed has so far welcomed rising TIPS breakeven inflation rates, but it will have an increasing incentive to lean against them if they continue to move up. Second, TIPS breakevens and CPI swap rates are even higher at the front-end of the curve – the 1-year CPI swap rate is currently 2.93% – and there is a good chance that those lofty expectations will not be confirmed by the realized inflation data. In addition to shifting from overweight to neutral on TIPS versus nominal Treasuries, we also book profits on our inflation curve flattener trade (panel 4) and on our real yield curve steepener (bottom panel). The inflation curve will likely stay inverted, but it will have difficulty flattening further unless short-maturity inflation expectations move even higher. The real yield curve may continue to steepen as bond yields rise, but without additional inflation curve flattening it is better to position for that outcome along the nominal Treasury curve. ABS: Overweight Chart 9ABS Market Overview Asset-Backed Securities outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 4 basis points in April, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +19 bps. Aaa-rated ABS outperformed by 4 bps on the month, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +13 bps. Non-Aaa ABS outperformed by 2 bps on the month, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +58 bps. The stimulus from last year’s CARES act led to a significant increase in household savings when individual checks were mailed last April. This excess savings has still not been spent and already the most recent round of stimulus is pushing the savings rate higher again (Chart 9). The large stock of household savings means that the collateral quality of consumer ABS is very high, with many households using their windfalls to pay down debt (bottom panel). Investors should remain overweight consumer ABS and should also take advantage of the high quality of household balance sheets by moving down the quality spectrum.       Non-Agency CMBS: Neutral Chart 10CMBS Market Overview Non-Agency Commercial Mortgage-Backed Securities outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 44 basis points in April, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +121 bps. Aaa Non-Agency CMBS outperformed Treasuries by 36 bps in April, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +50 bps. Meanwhile, non-Aaa Non-Agency CMBS outperformed by 70 bps, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +365 bps (Chart 10). Though returns have been strong and spreads remain attractive, particularly for lower-rated CMBS, we continue to recommend only a neutral allocation to the sector because of the structurally challenging environment for commercial real estate. Even with the economic recovery well underway, commercial real estate loan demand continues to weaken and banks are not making lending standards more accommodative (panels 3 & 4). Agency CMBS: Overweight Agency CMBS outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 38 basis points in April, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +87 bps. The average index option-adjusted spread tightened 4 bps on the month and it currently sits at 33 bps (bottom panel). Though Agency CMBS spreads have completely recovered to their pre-COVID levels, they still look attractive compared to other similarly risky spread products. Stay overweight. Appendix A: Butterfly Strategy Valuations The following tables present the current read-outs from our butterfly spread models. We use these models to identify opportunities to take duration-neutral positions across the Treasury curve. The following two Special Reports explain the models in more detail: US Bond Strategy Special Report, “Bullets, Barbells And Butterflies”, dated July 25, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com US Bond Strategy Special Report, “More Bullets, Barbells And Butterflies”, dated May 15, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Table 4 shows the raw residuals from each model. A positive value indicates that the bullet is cheap relative to the duration-matched barbell. A negative value indicates that the barbell is cheap relative to the bullet. Table 4Butterfly Strategy Valuation: Raw Residuals In Basis Points (As Of April 30TH, 2021) Table 5 scales the raw residuals in Table 4 by their historical means and standard deviations. This facilitates comparison between the different butterfly spreads. Table 5Butterfly Strategy Valuation: Standardized Residuals (As Of April 30TH, 2021) Table 6 flips the models on their heads. It shows the change in the slope between the two barbell maturities that must be realized during the next six months to make returns between the bullet and barbell equal. For example, a reading of 47 bps in the 5 over 2/10 cell means that we would only expect the 5-year to outperform the 2/10 if the 2/10 slope steepens by more than 47 bps during the next six months. Otherwise, we would expect the 2/10 barbell to outperform the 5-year bullet. Table 6Discounted Slope Change During Next 6 Months (BPs) Appendix B: Excess Return Bond Map The Excess Return Bond Map is used to assess the relative risk/reward trade-off between different sectors of the US bond market. It is a purely computational exercise and does not impose any macroeconomic view. The Map’s vertical axis shows 12-month expected excess returns. These are proxied by each sector’s option-adjusted spread. Sectors plotting further toward the top of the Map have higher expected returns and vice-versa. Our novel risk measure called the “Risk Of Losing 100 bps” is shown on the Map’s horizontal axis. To calculate it, we first compute the spread widening required on a 12-month horizon for each sector to lose 100 bps or more relative to a duration-matched position in Treasury securities. Then, we divide that amount of spread widening by each sector’s historical spread volatility. The end result is the number of standard deviations of 12-month spread widening required for each sector to lose 100 bps or more versus a position in Treasuries. Lower risk sectors plot further to the right of the Map, and higher risk sectors plot further to the left. Chart 11Excess Return Bond Map (As Of April 30TH, 2021)   Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “That Uneasy Feeling”, dated March 30, 2021. 2 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “A New Conundrum”, dated April 20, 2021. 3 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Searching For Value In Spread Product”, dated January 26, 2021. 4 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Making Money In Municipal Bonds”, dated April 27, 2021. 5 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The Fed Looks Backward While Markets Look Forward”, dated March 23, 2021.

Tech titans (AAPL, MSFT, AMZN, GOOGL & FB) peaked last September at roughly 26% market cap weight in the SPX, and have since fallen 300bps despite four of the five stocks recently hitting new all-time highs (AAPL is the last man standing). This portfolio rebalancing that we first recommended in early September away from tech stocks and into other deep cyclicals remains intact, and while recently the tech titans have stabilized, more pain likely looms. The chart shows that the S&P 5 have been perfectly inversely correlated with the 10-year US Treasury (UST) yield. Keep in mind that bonds typically lead stocks: last early-August the 10-year UST yield troughed near 50bps and a month later the tech titans peaked (top panel). The implication is that when the selloff in the bond market resumes it will serve as a catalyst for a catch down phase in the tech titans. Bottom Line: We remain cyclically neutral the S&P tech sector, underweight the S&P communications services sector and continue to recommend investors rebalance away from the tech titans and into the still undervalued S&P industrials and S&P energy sectors. Also, from a structural perspective, we reiterate our long SPY/short QQQ trade. Chart 1

Highlights Portfolio Strategy Firming operating metrics, a capex upcycle, rock bottom valuations and deeply oversold conditions all suggest that it no longer pays to be bearish Big Pharma. Upgrade to neutral, today. A looming M&A boom, excess liquidity leaking into biotech stocks, extremely pessimistic Wall Street analysts’ forecasts and severe undervaluation, all suggest that now is the time to go against the grain and overweight biotech equities. Recent Changes Lift the S&P pharmaceuticals index to neutral and remove it from the high-conviction underweight list cementing gains of 12.6% and 10.3% respectively. Boost the S&P biotech index to overweight today. Both of these moves also lift the S&P health care sector to an above benchmark allocation. Table 1 Feature The bulls have taken full control of the equity market and propelled almost every index to fresh all-time highs despite a muted earnings season. Not only are the SPX, the DOW industrials and transports, the NASDAQ composite and the NASDAQ 100 all flirting with uncharted territory, but also more obscure indexes like the Value Line Arithmetic (gauging the average US stock) and Geometric (gauging the median US stock) indexes have also cleared the all-time high bar (Chart 1). On a stock level, bellwether AAPL – the largest stock in the world – has yet to make the leap to new highs despite a blowout profit report and gargantuan buyback announcement, which is cause for near-term concern. Given that the Fed orchestrated this once in a lifetime bonanza, it is also the Fed that can spoil this party, at least temporarily, by removing the proverbial punchbowl. Peering toward the back half of the year, our view remains that the Fed will have to relent and taper asset purchases as inflation will be rearing its ugly head not in a transitory, but more on a semi-permanent fashion. Importantly, the USD can further fan this inflationary impulse. Chart 2 shows that US real GDP expectations are trouncing the rest of the world (ROW) as we first showed in early March. Similarly the ISM manufacturing dichotomy compared with the ROW PMIs is as good as it gets. While this would typically call for a surge in the greenback, counterintuitively we think the path of least resistance is lower for the US dollar as the US economy reaches an inflection point versus the ROW mid-year. Crudely put, if the USD merely ticked up on such a wide economic differential, once Europe and Japan play catch up as the vaccine rollouts and economic reopening smoothen up, then investors will likely flee the US dollar. Chart 1All Time Highs Everywhere Chart 2Relative Growth Expectations At A Zenith With regard to stock market dynamics, this is welcome news for revenue growth, especially for internationally sourced SPX sales that garner a 40% share of total revenues. Since the US dollar floated in the early 1970s, the inverse correlation has increased between top line S&P 500 growth and the greenback (Chart 3). The implication is that a US dollar debasing from current levels will further boost the allure of companies that can raise selling prices. On that front our Corporate Pricing Power Indicator (CPPI) that we recently updated has been on a tear, underscoring that sales growth will soon follow suit (Chart 4). Chart 3Depreciating USD A Boon For SPX Sales Chart 4Rising Inflation Will Boost Revenues Tack on optimistic Chief Executives, and the picture brightens further for SPX revenue prospects. Inflation breakevens also corroborate the messages from our soaring CPPI and surging business confidence (Chart 4). One level down to the SPX GICS1 sector level, Charts 5, 6 & 7 highlight sales growth expectations, with deep cyclicals reigning supreme –especially the energy complex– and defensives the clear laggards (all sectors are compared with the broad market). On the early cyclical front, consumer discretionary equities are forecast to grow sales by 500bps more than the SPX, while financials are slated to trail the overall market by 500bps. Chart 5Consumer Discretionary… Chart 6…And Deep Cyclicals… Chart 7…Have The Upper Hand With regard to the contribution to SPX sales growth for calendar 2021, Table 2 details sector sales growth, sector sales weight, all ranked by sector contribution to SPX sales growth. Chart 8 highlights that consumer discretionary, energy and health care comprise roughly half of the increase in overall revenue growth for 2021. Adding industrials and tech to the mix and these five sectors explain 80% of this year’s projected top line growth contribution to the SPX. Table 2SPX GICS1 Sector Sales Analysis Chart 8Sector Contribution To 2021 SPX Sales Growth Drilling further into industry sub-groups and for inclusion purposes, Table 3 shows our universe of coverage, ranking GICS1 sectors by 12-month forward sales growth and then re-ranking by sub-groups always from highest-to-lowest. Table 3Identifying S&P 500 Sector Sales Growth Leaders And Laggards Circling back to investment implications and gelling everything together, what should investors do given this backdrop? If portfolio managers can stomach volatility and sail through the seasonally weak month of May, then holding the line and sitting tight is the appropriate strategy. However, if investors cannot stomach the bout of volatility that is likely looming, then playing some defense would make sense. We stand closer to the latter camp, and this week we take profits on a defensive group and lift exposure to neutral and boost another beaten down health care sub-group to overweight. These two moves also lift the S&P health care sector to an above benchmark allocation. Exiting The ER The bearish undertones haunting the S&P pharmaceuticals index are well ingrained in investors’ minds and our portfolio has also handsomely benefited from avoiding this key health care industry group. However, it no longer pays to be negative Big Pharma and today we book gains of 12.6% and lift exposure to neutral, and also take this index out of our high-conviction underweight list locking in gains of 10.3% since the early December inception. Chart 9 shows that likely all the adverse news is priced in rock bottom valuations and extremely oversold technical conditions. In fact, the pharma forward P/E ratio is trading at a 40% discount to the SPX and all time low since the GICS reclassification of sectors took place in the early 1990s! While such drubbing is warranted, as this defensive index has to contend an economy exiting recession and also a near unanimous outcry against industry pricing power gains, the easy money has been made on the short/underweight side. This de-rating has coincided with a collapse in relative forward profit growth, on a 12-month and five-year basis, both of which are probing all-time lows (Chart 10). The implication is that the EPS bar is so low it is nearly guaranteed that Big Pharma will surpass it. Such extreme pessimism is contrarily positive and if there is even a whiff of positive profit news, an explosive rally will take root. Chart 9Unloved And Under-owned Chart 10Analysts Have Given Up On Pharma Encouragingly, our macro EPS growth models signal that pharma profits have a strong pulse and will outshine the overall market in the coming year (Chart 11). We recently highlighted the near perfect inverse correlation of the relative share price ratio with the US leading economic indicator and the US ZEW. Similarly, we have shown in the recent past that a number of subcomponents of the ISM manufacturing survey also move inversely with pharma relative profitability. Now that the ISM is at a zenith, staying bearish pharmaceutical stocks will likely prove offside. Meanwhile, Chart 12 shows that the fed funds rate impulse is neither contracting nor weighing on relative share prices. Similarly, the bond market has already priced in two hikes in two years, warning that the relative share price ratio risk/reward tradeoff is slowly shifting to the overweight column. Chart 11Out Of The Ward On the operating front, Big Pharma is investing anew with capex gone parabolic (bottom panel, Chart 13). The last time pharma capital outlays rose over 20%/annum was in the early 1990s! Chart 12There Is A Pulse Chart 13Capex To The Rescue? Industry shipments are climbing roughly at a double digit clip and pharma output is also expanding smartly, underscoring that soon industry productivity will also ascend, which is a boon for profits (Chart 14). Tack on the export relief valve pharma manufacturers are enjoying of late, and factors are falling into place for an earnings led rebound in pharma equities (second panel, Chart 14). Finally, the top panel of Chart 15 highlights that demand for pharmaceuticals in as upbeat as ever and has been significantly diverging from relative share prices. The implication is that this steep gulf will narrow via a catch up phase in the latter. Chart 14Glimmers Of Hope Chart 15Upbeat Demand, But Deflation Is A Tough Pill To Swallow Nevertheless, before getting outright bullish this heavyweight health care sub-group, there are two significant (and related) offsets. Industry pricing power is under attack and will remain in duress until it reaches a new equilibrium (middle panel, Chart 15). As a result, pharmaceutical profit margins have been in an almost uninterrupted multi year squeeze, warranting only a neutral allocation to Big Pharma manufacturers, until these dark profit clouds clear (bottom panel, Chart 15). Netting it all out, firming operating metrics, a capex upcycle, rock bottom valuations and deeply oversold conditions all signal that it no longer pays to be bearish Big Pharma. Upgrade to neutral, today. Bottom Line: Crystalize gains in the S&P pharma index of 12.6% since inception and lift exposure to neutral. We are also removing it from the high-conviction underweight list locking in gains of 10.3% since inception. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5PHARX– JNJ, PFE, MRK, LLY, BMY, ZTS, CTLT, VTRS, PRGO. Buy Biotech Stocks Against The Grain We recommend investors buy the budding recovery in biotech stocks, and today we are boosting the S&P biotech index to an above benchmark allocation. Rising interest rates have dampened demand for biotech stocks as these high growth stocks should command a lower multiple on the back of a rising discount rate (top panel, Chart 16). Add on waning US dollar liquidity and the relative underperformance phase gets explained away (bottom panel, Chart 16). However, there still remains a sizable gap between relative profits and relative share prices. If our four-pronged bullish thesis that we detail below pans out, then a catch up phase looms in crushed biotech stocks (Chart 17). Chart 16Bearish Story Well Documented Chart 17Peculiarly Wide GapFirst, we posit that this highly fragmented industry is prime for consolidation. Even in the large cap S&P 500 biotech index there is scope for M&A activity. Not only intra-industry mergers, but also cash rich and drug pipeline extension thirsty Big Pharma is lurking in the shadows ready to deploy their cash hoard. Already, there is an ongoing mini M&A boom and given the recent biotech firms’ success stories in the race to discover the COVID-19 vaccine, they command a high profile in investment banking board rooms (Chart 18). Second, as long as the Fed remains committed to ZIRP and margin debt balances continue to balloon, some of this excess liquidity will flow toward biotech stocks that are more speculative than their safe-haven health care brethren. Historically, relative margin debt balances and relative share prices have been joined at the hip, and the message from spiking margin debt uptake is to expect a similar rebound in biotech equities (Chart 19). Chart 18M&A Boom Is Bullish Chart 19Speculative Excesses Go Hand-In-Hand With Biotech Stocks Third, the sell side has thrown in the towel on the prospects of the S&P biotech index. Relative sales growth expectations are negative, relative 12-month and five-year forward growth numbers are sinking like a stone and probing all-time lows (Chart 20). All this analyst pessimism is gaining steam at a time when the S&P biotech dividend yield is 2.5%, roughly 100bps higher than the 10-year US Treasury yield and 125bps higher than the SPX dividend yield (bottom panel, Chart 20). Finally, not only the relatively large dividend yield gap signals that biotech stocks are cheap, but on a forward P/E basis the S&P biotech index trades at a whopping 50% discount to the SPX (fourth panel, Chart 20). Our Valuation Indicator has collapsed to levels that have marked prior bull phases going back 25 years and similarly technicals are as downbeat as ever (Chart 21). Chart 20Low Threshold To Overcome Chart 21Cheap And Oversold In sum, a looming M&A boom, excess liquidity leaking into biotech stocks, extremely pessimistic Wall Street analysts’ forecasts and severe undervaluation, all signal that now is the time to go against the grain and overweight biotech equities. Bottom Line: Lift the S&P biotech index to overweight, today. This upgrade along with the S&P pharma upshift to neutral also lift the S&P health care sector to overweight. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5BIOTX– AMGN, ABBV, GILD, VRTX, REGN, ALXN, BIIB, INCY.       Anastasios Avgeriou US Equity Strategist anastasios@bcaresearch.com   Current Recommendations Current Trades Strategic (10-Year) Trade Recommendations Size And Style Views February 24, 2021 Stay neutral cyclicals over defensives January 12, 2021  Stay neutral small over large caps June 11, 2018 Long the BCA Millennial basket  The ticker symbols are: (AAPL, AMZN, UBER, HD, LEN, MSFT, NFLX, SPOT, ABNB, V). January 22, 2018 ​​​​​​​Favor value over growth

Highlights Last week featured a lot of good news for financial markets and the economy … : US GDP grew at 6.4% in the first quarter, powered by 10.7% growth in consumption; the six largest companies in the S&P 500 reported first quarter earnings that exceeded expectations by an average of 41%; and the Fed remained resolutely dovish. … and we continue to believe that they are likely to remain in our “just-right” base-case scenario over the next twelve months … : Our Goldilocks base-case scenario is underpinned by strong growth and accommodative monetary policy. Strong growth is assured as long as the virus doesn’t come roaring back, and the Fed still isn’t even talking about talking about tapering its asset purchases, much less hiking the fed funds rate. … so our risk-friendly asset allocation recommendations remain unchanged: There are no signs yet that equities and credit will not continue to generate significant excess returns over Treasuries and cash over the next twelve months. Feature We will be holding a webcast next Monday, May 10th at 10:00 a.m. Eastern time in lieu of publishing a Weekly Report. Please join us with your questions to make it a fully interactive event. We will resume our regular publication schedule on the 17th. Some say the world will end in fire, Some say in ice. – Robert Frost, “Fire and Ice”   We continue to view financial markets and the economy through the lens of our stylized Goldilocks-and-the-Two-Tails distribution (Figure 1). Though the figure gives short shrift to our subjective probability that the Goldilocks base-case scenario will unfold over the next twelve months (≈ 70-75%), and overstates the likelihood of a too-cold outcome (≈ 5-10%), the size of the too-hot right tail (≈ 20-25%) is roughly in line with our expectations. Last week’s spate of economic data, company earnings releases and Fed guidance supported our view and shored up our conviction in it. The twin pillars of well-above-trend growth and extremely accommodative monetary policy remain firmly in place. Figure 1Goldilocks And The Two Tails Last week’s data were especially strong. Sticking to the highlights, and skipping the uncertain impacts of the measures President Biden floated before a joint session of Congress, the following items suggest that the just-right scenario is considerably more probable than not. The Conference Board’s consumer confidence index surged higher (Chart 1, top panel) and given the way it tends to track the jobs plentiful sub-index (Chart 1, bottom panel), the road ahead looks good, provided that job openings rise as businesses still operating at limited capacity ramp up their operations. We have not found that consumer confidence is a robust predictor of key economic series, but the advance supports the notion that several elements are falling into place. Chart 1Consumer Confidence Is Surging ... Initial jobless claims for the week ended April 23rd made their third straight post-pandemic low and the four-week moving average extended its recent descent (Chart 2). The four-week moving average is poised to take another step lower next week once the 742,000 April 2nd reading falls out of the calculation (the last three weeks have averaged 568,000). Headline first-quarter GDP growth of 6.4% was strong, albeit just shy of consensus expectations, but the underlying details were better. Adjusting for the 2.6-percentage-point drag from inventory destocking, which will turn into a boost when inventories are replenished in the future, and backing out the 0.9-percentage-point trade deficit, real final domestic demand surged at an annualized rate of 9.9%. Chart 2... And Layoffs Are Steadily Falling On the corporate earnings front, the six largest S&P 500 constituents, Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, Google, Facebook and Tesla, all reported earnings that easily surpassed consensus expectations (Table 1). Those six companies account for 23% of aggregate index market cap and their beats drove projected per-share first-quarter earnings more than 7% higher, from $42.69 to $45.83. Even if the reports were not necessarily greeted by share-price gains, they have the index poised to deliver a fourth consecutive earnings beat of outsized proportions (Chart 3). Although the biggest companies’ successes in the calendar first quarter cannot blindly be extrapolated into the future, they suggest that S&P 500 earnings over the next four quarters will be greater than the market expected before last week. The beat goes on. Table 1Lifting All Boats Chart 3Four Straight Quarters Of Eye-Popping Beats The Fed Maintains Its Poker Face While the FOMC acknowledged that the economy has strengthened since its mid-March meeting, it showed no inclination to accelerate its timetable for dialing back accommodation. Though all four of the tweaks to its mid-March statement amounted to a marginal upgrade of its assessment of the economy’s current state and/or prospects, Chair Powell held fast to his messaging and the committee stayed the course on asset purchases. We continue to take the Fed at its word that it will not hike rates until the economy passes its “three tests” and it will not begin to taper asset purchases until it judges that the economy has made "substantial progress" toward meeting them. The picture has surely improved, but the inflation and employment criteria are not yet within reach. To recap, the Fed’s three preconditions for hiking the fed funds rate are as follows: 12-month PCE inflation must be 2% or higher. Labor market conditions must have reached levels consistent with maximum employment. 12-month PCE inflation must be on track to moderately exceed 2% for some time. Whether or not the economy has made substantial progress toward meeting those criteria is a squishier concept and the Fed has already given itself pre-emptive discretion on the first and most objective criterion by saying it will look through any transitory factors that push measured inflation higher. Powell called out base effects from last year’s pandemic wipeout that will disappear by June. He also cited supply-chain bottlenecks, and while he conceded that it is much harder to predict when they will be resolved, the committee is certain that they will prove to be a temporary phenomenon as well. “Full employment” is also a subjective metric, but the quarterly Summary of Economic Projections, released after every other FOMC meeting, provides a ready proxy. Our US Bond Strategy colleagues have calculated the average monthly net payroll gains required to reach the low end, the midpoint and the high end of the range of the participants’ long-run unemployment rate estimates, which currently span 3.5% to 4.5%, under various labor force participation rate assumptions (Tables 2A, 2B and 2C). We are focused on the top row of each iteration of the table because only a return to the pre-pandemic labor force participation rate of 63.3% would seem to satisfy the Fed’s stated commitment to achieving broad-based employment gains. While a return to the 3.5% pre-pandemic unemployment rate would also be consonant with spreading the gains from the expansion most broadly, it is useful to consider the full range of plausible outcomes given the Fed’s desire to retain some decision-making flexibility. Table 2AAverage Monthly Nonfarm Payroll Growth Required For The Unemployment Rate To Reach 4.5% By The Given Date Table 2BAverage Monthly Nonfarm Payroll Growth Required For The Unemployment Rate To Reach 4% By The Given Date Table 2CAverage Monthly Nonfarm Payroll Growth Required For The Unemployment Rate To Reach 3.5% By The Given Date Per our colleagues’ simple assumptions, it would require an average of anywhere from 701,000 to 833,000 monthly net payroll additions to hit full employment by the end of the year, 534,000 to 631,000 by the middle of 2022, and 410,000 to 487,000 by the end of 2022. The year-end 2021 targets are probably too ambitious, but we think the economy can return to full employment at some point next year, given that labor demand will likely rise sharply upon the release of pent-up consumption demand. As a back-of-the-envelope check on the tables’ conclusions, we take a return to pre-pandemic employment as the goal for a return to full employment. Through March, 8.3 million fewer people were employed than at the pre-pandemic peak in December 20191 (Chart 4). It would take fourteen months (May 2022) to regain full employment at an average monthly pace of 600,000 net hires or seventeen months (August 2022) to achieve that goal at a 500,000-per-month clip. Chart 4More Than 8 Million Workers Still Don't Have A Job A 500,000-to-600,000 range seems doable to us if herd immunity can be achieved before the end of the summer and we expect that the economy will return to full employment somewhere around the middle of next year. That will position the Fed to hike rates for the first time in 2022, in line with the market’s December 2022 lift-off projection, and announce the start of tapering at the end of 2021 or the beginning of 2022. Those Fed views support our recommendations to maintain below-benchmark duration within fixed income portfolios and underweight Treasuries. Press Conference Highlights Jay Powell stayed on message at the post-meeting press conference, resisting every attempt to goad him into revealing more about the tapering timetable or expressing concern about the pickup in inflation and inflation expectations or the economy’s potential to overheat following unprecedentedly large fiscal stimulus. On Tapering Direct questions about tapering bookended the press conference and Powell batted them away directly and concisely. Opening question: Is it time to start talking about talking about tapering yet? A: No, it is not time yet. We’ll give the public plenty of notice when it is. Final question: What are we getting for $120 billion [of Treasury and agency purchases each month] that we couldn’t get for less? A: There will come a time to talk about talking about tapering. That time is not now. On Inflation (And Armchair Quarterbacks) The combination of strong fiscal support and the reversal of a synchronized (and unprecedented) global economic shutdown has the economy beginning to move ahead with potent momentum. The re-opening is likely to produce increases in inflation but we are fully cognizant that they are likely to be temporary. While we are not going to adjust monetary policy unnecessarily in response to temporary inflation pressures, we do not want inflation expectations “materially above” 2% and we will use our tools to bring them down if they were to reach those levels. Our commitment to our price stability mandate is the key difference between now and the late sixties and seventies and we’re well aware of the history of that period. On Transitory Inflation Factors Base effects are going to add about one percentage point to headline and 70 basis points to core inflation in April and May. They will disappear and “carry no implications for the rate of inflation in later periods.” Bottlenecks are a temporary blockage or restriction in the supply chain that slows down the process of delivering a good or bringing it to market. We think of them as things that will naturally be resolved as businesses and individuals adapt. They therefore do not call for a change in monetary policy even if it’s difficult to predict when they will disappear. For the bottlenecks, it’s “a matter of when they will pass through, not whether they will pass through.” What’s happening to prices now is a function of the re-opening of the economy. Demand, spurred by fiscal transfers and people going back to work, has come back much more quickly while the supply side will take a little bit of time to adapt. On Overheating/Bubbles The overall financial stability picture is mixed, but we view it as manageable on balance. There’s some froth in capital markets and strong home price appreciation is not an “unalloyed good,” but the housing market is much more stable than it was before the crisis. Leverage in the financial system is not a problem, the large banks are very well capitalized and don’t have any funding issues and households are in very good shape. Investment Implications Although our conviction levels are lower against a backdrop of unprecedented fiscal stimulus and the inherent uncertainty surrounding a global pandemic, we continue to hold to our view that overheating is unlikely in the near term. The output gap has still not closed and while households have an enormous amount of dry powder in the form of what we estimate to be $2.1 trillion of excess savings, some of 2020’s foregone services demand has been lost forever. The share of foregone demand that has been deferred rather than destroyed will not be released immediately and may well be spread out over a broad range of price points where there is available capacity (think flying business instead of coach, sitting in the best seats at the stadium or the theater, or ordering more expensive bottles of wine). Most importantly on the inflation front, broad wage pressures have not yet emerged. As Chair Powell noted, if the labor market really were tightening, one would expect wages to be rising. We expect that idled workers will return to the labor force as vaccinations proceed, schools reopen and the pandemic becomes less of an impediment to working. We are skeptical that the $300 weekly federal unemployment insurance benefit supplement is having a material effect on labor force participation, but the program will cease in September in any event. Chart 5Neither TIPS Inflation Break-Evens ... Chart 6... Nor CPI Swap Inflation Break-Evens Are Sounding The Alarm Our biggest inflation concern revolves around long-term inflation expectations. As long as economic actors like workers and businesses do not believe the long-run trajectory of consumer prices has changed, they have no reason to change their behavior to demand wage and price increases to keep pace with an upward inflection in the CPI. The slope of the two-to-five-year and five-to-ten-year segments of the inflation expectations curve remain negative (Charts 5 and 6), suggesting that the inflation mindset necessary to support an upward price spiral has not taken hold. We will not worry about the risk-asset bull market’s fiery demise until the 2-year/5-year and 5-year/10-year break-even slopes start to test the top of their post-GFC range, implying that investors believe a new inflation era has arrived.   Doug Peta, CFA Chief US Investment Strategist dougp@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Per the household survey. The monthly employment situation report also includes the establishment survey of employers. We use the household survey here because it is used to calculate the unemployment rate though the establishment survey’s 8.4-million employment shortfall is nearly equivalent to the household survey's.