United States

Highlights The Biden Administration's $2.25 trillion infrastructure plan rolled out yesterday will, at the margin, boost global demand for energy and base metals more than expected later this year and next.  Global GDP growth estimates – and the boost supplied by US stimulus – once again will have to be adjusted higher (Chart of the Week). Energy and metals fundamentals continue to tighten. OPEC 2.0's so-far-successful production management strategy will keep the level of supply just below demand, which will keep Brent crude oil on either side of $60/bbl. Base-metals output will struggle to meet higher demand from the ongoing buildout of renewables infrastructure and growing electric-vehicle sales. Of late, concerns that speculative positioning suggests prices will head lower – or, at other times, higher – are entirely misplaced: Spec positioning conveys no information on price levels or direction.  Energy and metals prices, on the other hand, do convey useful information on spec positioning, demonstrating specs do not lead the news or prices, they follow them. Short-term headwinds caused by halting recoveries and renewed lockdowns – particularly in the EU – will fade in 2H21 as vaccines roll out, if the experience of the UK and US are any guide.  Continued USD strength, however, would remain a headwind. Feature If the Biden administration is successful in getting its $2.25 trillion infrastructure-spending bill through Congress, the US will join the rest of the world in the race to re-build – in some cases, build anew – its long-neglected bridges, roads, schools, communications and high-speed transportation networks, and, critically, its electric-power grid.  There's a lot of game left to play on this, but our Geopolitical Strategy group is giving this bill an 80% of passage later this year, after all the wrangling and log-rolling in Congress is done. In and of itself, the infrastructure-directed spending coming out of Biden's plan will be a catalyst for higher US industrial commodity demand – energy, metals and bulks.  In addition, it will support the lift in the demand boost coming out of higher GDP growth globally, which will be pushed higher by US fiscal spending, as the Chart of the Week shows.  Of note is the extremely robust growth expected in India, China and the US, which are among the largest consumers of industrial commodities globally.  Overall growth in the G20 and globally will be expansive in 2022 as well. Chart of the WeekBiden's $2.25 Trillion Infrastructure Bill Will Boost Global Commodity Demand Higher GDP growth translates directly into higher demand for commodities, all else equal, as can be seen in the relationship between EM and DM GDP, supply and inventories and Brent crude oil prices in Chart 2.  While we have reduced our Brent forecast for this year to $60/bbl on the back of renewed demand-side weakness in the EU due to problems in acquiring and distributing COVID-19 vaccines, we expect this to be reversed next year and into 2025, with prices trading between $60-$80/bbl (Chart 3).  OPEC 2.0, the oil-producer coalition led by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) and Russia, has done an excellent job of keeping the level of oil supply below demand over the course of the pandemic, which we expect to continue to the end of 2025.1 Chart 2Higher GDP Growth Presages Higher Commodity Demand Chart 3Brent Crude Oil Prices Will Average - / bbl to 2025 As the Biden plan makes its way through Congress, markets will get a better idea of how much diesel fuel, copper, steel, iron ore, etc., will be required in the US alone.  What is important to note here that the US is just moving to the starting line, whereas other economies like China and the EU already have begun their investment cycles in renewables and EVs.  At present, key markets already are tight, particularly copper (Chart 4) and aluminum (Chart 5).  In both markets, we expect physical deficits this year and next, which inclines us to believe the metals leg of this renewables buildout is just beginning – higher prices will be required to incentivize the development of new supply.2  Chart 4Copper Will Post Physical Deficit... Chart 5...As Will Aluminum This is particularly important in copper, where growth in mining output of ore has been flat for the past two years.  Copper is the one metal that spans all renewables technologies, and is a bellwether commodity for global growth.  We expect copper to trade to $4.50/lb (up ~ $0.50/lb vs spot) on the COMEX in 4Q21 on the back of increasing demand and tight supplies – i.e., falling mining supply and refined copper output growth (Chart 6). Worth noting also is steel rebar and hot-rolled coil prices traded at record highs this week on Chinese futures markets.  Stronger steel markets continue to support iron ore prices, although the latter is trading off its recent highs and likely will move lower toward the end of the year as Brazilian supply returns to the market.3  We use steel prices as a leading indicator for copper prices – steel leads copper prices by ~ 9 months.  This makes sense when one considers steel is consumed early in infrastructure and construction projects, while copper consumption occurs later as airports and houses are fitted with copper for electric, plumbing and communications applications. Chart 6Copper Ore Output Flat   Does Speculative Positioning Matter? Of late, media pundits and analysts have cited an unwinding of speculative positions in oil and metals markets following sharp run-ups in net long positions as a harbinger of weaker prices in the near future (Chart 7).4  At other times, speculation has been invoked as a reason for price surges – e.g., when oil rocketed  toward $150/bbl in mid-2008, which was followed by a price collapse at the start of the Global Financial Crisis (GFC).5 Brunetti et al note, "The role of speculators in financial markets has been the source of considerable interest and controversy in recent years. Concern about speculative trading also finds support in theory where noise traders, speculative bubbles, and herding can drive prices away from fundamental values and destabilize markets." (p. 1545) Chart 7Speculative Positioning Lower In Brent Than WTI We recently re-tested earlier findings in our research, which found that knowledge of how specs are positioned – either on the long or the short side of the market – conveys no information on the level of prices or the change that should be expected given that knowledge.  However, knowledge of the price level does convey useful information on how speculators are positioned in futures markets.6 In cointegrating regressions of speculative positions in crude oil, natural gas and copper futures on price levels for these commodities, we find the level of prices to be a statistically significant determinant of spec positions. We find no such relationship using spec positions as an explanatory variable for prices.7 On the other hand, Chart 2 above is an example of statistically significant relationships for Brent and WTI price as a function of supply-demand fundamentals displaying coefficients of determination (r-squares) of close to 90% in the post-GFC period (2010 to now).  This supports our earlier findings regarding spec behavior: They follow prices, they don't lead them.8 We are not dismissive of speculation.  It plays a critical role in markets, by providing the liquidity that enables commodity producers and consumers to hedge their price exposures, and to investors seeking to diversify their portfolios with commodity exposures that are uncorrelated to their equity and bond holdings.  Short-Term Headwinds Likely Dissipate COVID-19 remains the largest risk to markets generally, commodities in particular.  The mishandling of vaccine rollouts in the EU has pushed back our assumption for demand recovery deeper into 2H21, but it has not derailed it.  We expect COVID-related deaths and hospitalizations to fall in the EU as they have in the UK and the US following the widespread distribution of vaccines, which should occur in the near future as Brussels organizes its pandemic response (Chart 8).  Making vaccines available for other states in dire straits will follow, which will allow the global re-opening to progress as lockdowns are lifted (Chart 9). Chart 8EU Vaccination Rollouts Will Boost Global Economic Recovery Chart 9Global Re-Opening Has Slowed, But Will Resume In 2H21 The other big risk we see to commodities is persistent USD strength (Chart 10).  The dollar has rallied for the better part of 2021, largely on the back of improving US economic prospects relative to other states, and success in its vaccination efforts.  The resumption of the USD's bear market may have to wait until the rest of the world catches up with America's public-health response to the pandemic, and the global economy ex-US and -China enters a stronger expansionary mode. Bottom Line: We remain bullish industrial commodities expecting demand to improve as the EU rolls out vaccines and begins to make progress in arresting the pandemic and removing lockdowns.  Global fiscal and monetary policy, which likely will be bolstered by a massive round of US infrastructure spending beginning in 4Q21 will catalyze demand growth for oil and base metals.  This will prompt another round of GDP revisions to the upside.  The dollar remains a headwind for now, but we expect it to return to a bear market in 2H21. Chart 10The USD's Evolution Remains Important   Robert P. Ryan Chief Commodity & Energy Strategist rryan@bcaresearch.com Ashwin Shyam Research Associate Commodity & Energy Strategy ashwin.shyam@bcaresearch.com   Commodities Round-Up Energy: Bullish Going into the April 1 meeting of OPEC 2.0 today, we are not expecting any increase in production.  OPEC earlier this week noted demand had softened, mostly due to the slow recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic in the EU, which, based on their previous policy decisions, suggests the producer coalition will not be increasing production.  The coalition led by KSA and Russia will have to address Iran's return as a major exporter to China this year, which appears to have been importing ~ 1mm b/d of Iranian crude this month (Chart 11).  This puts Iran in direct competition with KSA as a major exporter to China, in defiance of the US re-imposition of sanctions against Iranian exports.  China and Iran over the weekend signed a 25-year trade pact that also could include military provisions, which could, over time, alter the balance of power in the Persian Gulf if Chinese military assets – naval and land warfare – deploy to Iran under their agreement.  Details of the deal are sparse, as The Guardian noted in its recent coverage.  Among other things, government officials in Tehran have come under withering criticism for entering the deal, which they contend was signed with a "politically bankrupt regime."  The Guardian also noted US President Joe Biden " is prepared to make a new offer to Iran this week whereby he will lift some sanctions in return for Iran taking specific limited steps to come back into compliance with the nuclear agreement, including reducing the level to which it enriches uranium," in the wake of the signing of this deal. Base Metals: Bullish Copper fell this week, initially on an inventory build, and has now settled right under the $4/lb mark, as investors await details on the US infrastructure bill unveiled in Pittsburgh, PA, on Wednesday.  According to mining.com, a major chunk of the proposed bill will be devoted to investments in infrastructure, which will be metals-intensive.  Precious Metals: Bullish Gold fell further this week, as US treasury yields rose, buoyed by the increased US vaccine efforts and President Biden’s proposed spending plans (Chart 12). USD strength also worked against the yellow metal, which has been steadily declining since the beginning of this year.  COMEX gold fell below the $1,700/oz mark for the third time this month and settled at $1,683.90/oz on Tuesday. Chart 11 Chart 12     Footnotes 1     Please see Five-Year Brent Forecast Update: Expect Price Range of $60 - $80/bbl, which we published 25 March 2021.  It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 2     Please see Industrial Commodities Super-Cycle Or Bull Market?, which we published 4 March 2021 for additional discussion, particularly regarding the need for additional capex in energy and metals markets. 3    Please see UPDATE 1-Strong industrial activity, profit lift China steel futures, published by reuters.com 29 March 2021. 4    See, e.g., Column: Frothy oil market deflates as virus fears return published 23 March 2021. 5    Brunetti, Celso, Bahattin Büyüksahin, and Jeffrey H. Harris (2016), " Speculators, Prices, and Market Volatility," Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 51:5, pp. 1545-74, for further discussion. 6    Please see Specs Back Up The Truck For Oil, which we published 26 April 2018, and Feedback Loop: Spec Positioning & Oil Price Volatility published 10 May 2018.  Both are available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 7     We group money managers (registered commodity trading advisors, commodity pool operators and unregistered funds) and swap dealers (banks and trading companies providing liquidity to hedgers and speculators) together to test these relationships. 8    In our earlier research, we also noted our results generally were supported in the academic literature.  See, e.g., Fattouh, Bassam, Lutz Kilian and Lavan Mahadeva (2012), "The Role of Speculation in Oil Markets: What Have We Learned So Far?" published by The Oxford Institute For Energy Studies.   Investment Views and Themes Strategic Recommendations Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Summary of Closed Trades

Highlights President Biden’s $2.4 trillion “American Jobs Plan” is a major US public investment that will dispel any endogenous deflationary tail risk from the US economy this cycle, increase inflation expectations yet boost productivity, and hike corporate taxes. The proposal has an 80% chance of passage before the end of the year given that infrastructure is popular and Democrats can pass the bill via reconciliation with zero Republican votes.   The $2.4 trillion infrastructure proposal will take effect over eight years and will be offset by corporate tax hikes that will take effect over 15 years. The increase in the budget deficit will be around $400 billion if all tax hikes pass and $1.4 trillion if only half the tax hikes pass. The American Families Plan will follow with another roughly $700 billion to $1.3 trillion increase to the budget deficit, depending on how much individual/household taxes go up. But this bill only has a 50/50 chance of passing before the 2022 midterm elections. Investors should maintain a bullish cyclical (12-month) bias and keep favoring value stocks, industrials, and materials over tech and health care. We also recommend going long consumer discretionary stocks and energy large caps versus small caps. Feature President Joe Biden spoke in Pittsburgh on Wednesday to unveil his economic vision and policy proposals going forward. Biden proposed a $2.4 trillion “American Jobs Plan” infrastructure and green energy package to be implemented over eight years, which will be part of a $4 trillion-plus “Build Back Better” legislative agenda that will be partially offset by an estimated $3 trillion in tax hikes to take effect over 15 years. The result will be a pro-cyclical boost to fiscal thrust, GDP growth, and inflation expectations; some potential for a productivity boom; a possible expansion of the social safety net; and tax reform that reduces US corporate profits. Pennsylvania is a Rust Belt state, Biden’s home state, and a critical swing state in the 2016 and 2020 elections, so the location makes sense. Biden aims to solidify the economic recovery and restore the Democratic Party’s leadership on infrastructure and manufacturing after Republican President Trump nearly stole their thunder. If he succeeds then his administration and party will improve their support substantially. The US economy is opening rapidly while the COVID-19 vaccination campaign continues apace. Chart 1 shows that household disposable income and net worth surged as a result of giant fiscal relief while consumer spending lags behind due to social distancing. The $1.7 trillion treasure chest of personal savings creates the basis for an increase in spending as consumers get vaccinated and regain their freedom. Economic policy uncertainty has collapsed, even relative to global uncertainty (Chart 2). There are no longer doubts about whether government will spend the country out of a slump. Even state and local governments have been bailed out despite having much stronger finances than predicted. However, there are doubts about how much more deficit spending the Biden administration will be able to push through, and that is what will now be debated in Congress following Biden’s Pittsburgh proposals. Chart 1Lower Spending And Higher Income Led To Mounting Excess Savings Chart 2US Policy Uncertainty Soon To Revive There will not be much of a deflationary tail risk to the new business cycle in the context of this expansive fiscal policy, as bullish investors are well aware. However, policy uncertainty will revive going forward as more spending will raise the risk of economic overheating, tax hikes will affect different sectors disproportionately, deficits and debt will balloon, and Biden’s challenges with immigration and foreign policy will intensify. There is an upside risk for the stock market that Congress delays tax hikes but this is not our base case. In this week’s report we revise and update our estimates for the impact of Biden administration’s legislative proposals – including his projected $4 trillion-plus in spending on infrastructure, health, and education – taking into consideration Biden’s Pittsburgh speech, his first press conference on March 25, and all the rumors and leaks that have come to light over the past two weeks. Back-Of-The-Envelope Estimates Of US Growth And Output Gap After ARPA First we need to revise our back-of-the-envelope estimates of the impact of the $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA). Chart 3 shows two scenarios for US GDP growth. The first is the “maximum” scenario, in which US real GDP grows by 10.7% because all of the money authorized under the new law is spent. The second scenario puts real growth at 6% by using only the Congressional Budget Office’s expected federal outlays (as opposed to budget authority) to estimate the government spending component of GDP. In both cases we assume that 33% of the fiscal relief is spent in FY2021 and the remainder in FY2022. These scenarios do not include Biden’s American Jobs and Families Plans because those bills have yet to be drafted, let alone pass Congress. Chart 3Revised US GDP Estimates With ARPA Consensus estimates put real GDP growth at 5.7% and the Federal Reserve estimates that 2021 growth will clock in at 6.5%, as shown in Chart 4. Not all of the government spending will translate directly into aggregate demand because 37% of the ARPA consists of direct checks and unemployment benefits to households that may only spend one-third of the amount they receive (while paying down debt with a third of it and saving a third of it). Yet more government deficit spending is coming down the pike and consumers are sitting on a huge pile of savings, which implies that growth could surprise to the upside of consensus estimates. Chart 4Consensus Estimates Of US GDP PosT-ARPA Chart 5 uses our same back-of-the-envelope calculation to estimate the impact of current law (including ARPA) on the US output gap. The output gap is the difference between actual GDP growth and potential GDP growth – during busts the country’s growth falls well beneath potential while during booms it rises above potential. The chart shows that if all of the government relief funds are spent then the output gap will be more than closed by the end of the year. By contrast, the CBO’s January projection shows the output gap persisting through 2025. While our estimates in Chart 5 may be too generous regarding federal cash handouts translating directly to consumer spending and higher demand, nevertheless the consensus estimate is entirely understated and out of date as a result of ARPA and the Biden administration’s additional fiscal spending that is coming. Chart 5Revised US Output Gap Estimates With ARPA Chart 6Revised US Budget Deficit Projection Post-ARPA Chart 6 updates our US budget deficit outlook using the CBO’s February budget baseline. The ARPA’s increase in government spending is added to create the new Democratic Party status quo scenario over the next ten years, with the budget normalizing by 2025. The Democratic low spending scenario assumes that Biden passes the $2.4tn infrastructure-plus plan announced in Pittsburgh (Table 1) using all the revenue from all the corporate tax hikes. Biden’s agenda will be broken into separate bills with varying probabilities of success. So in our budget deficit outlook we only include the infrastructure-and-corporate-tax-hikes component that is apparently being prioritized. Table 1Biden's 'American Jobs Plan' Bottom Line: US growth will surprise to the upside of consensus estimates while the US output gap will be closed much sooner than expected. Financial markets are largely prepared for this outcome, although it reinforces that investors should maintain a cyclically bullish view and tactically should buy on the dips. Biden’s Pittsburgh Speech And ‘American Jobs Plan’ Budget Impacts Our view is that the Biden administration has a subjective 80% chance of passing a second major budget reconciliation bill (FY2022) and a 50% chance of passing a third budget reconciliation bill (FY2023). The question appears to be resolved that Democrats will prioritize infrastructure over social welfare. Whichever one they prioritize can be linked to tax hikes and yet will still be highly likely to pass given that no Republican votes are needed under budget reconciliation rules. Moderate Democrats may water down the tax provisions but they would be suicidal to oppose their entire party on the administration’s signature piece of legislation. The social spending bill, assuming it follows infrastructure, would have to be pursued via a third reconciliation bill for FY2023 but it is less likely to pass. By next year Biden will have spent a lot of his political capital, fiscal spending fatigue will be a real phenomenon, and the 2022 midterm elections will loom. What matters for investors is the impact on the budget deficit since that will determine how big of an impact will hit GDP and how long US fiscal policy remains accommodative. Table 2 shows the impact on the budget balance if Biden gets all of his spending and all revenue proposals (Baseline), if he gets all the spending but only half the tax hikes (Scenario 1), and if he gets half the spending and half the tax hikes (Scenario 2). Scenarios 3 and 4 treat the social spending plan with varying degrees of tax revenue from the proposed individual tax hikes, while Scenarios 5 and 6 treat the infrastructure plan with varying tax revenue from corporate tax hikes. Table 2Biden’s Forthcoming ‘American Jobs Plan’ Legislative Proposals Table 3 shows the Biden campaign’s proposed tax hikes by line item along with the spending proposals. The range of net deficit spending runs from about $400 billion to about $3 trillion over ten years, which is a broad range and not very telling but which seems, subjectively, likely to settle in the $2 trillion range. Chart 7 shows the budget deficit’s deviation from the status quo trajectory in each of these scenarios, i.e. additional fiscal thrust. Table 3Biden’s Tax-And-Spend Proposals In Detail Chart 7US Budget Deficit Projections With ‘American Jobs Plan’ Agenda The infrastructure package consists of a range of proposals having to do with traditional roads and bridges, renewable energy, rural broadband Internet, domestic manufacturing incentives, supply chain security initiatives, affordable housing, and research and development (see Table 1 above). The social safety net expansion consists of making permanent the child tax credit that was extended in the ARPA; lowering the Medicare eligibility requirement to age 60 from 65; lengthening paid family/medical leave for workers; funding universal pre-school; and funding tuition-free community college. Some Democrats will oppose delaying social spending and tax hikes because they may not pass before the midterms and Republicans could easily take back control of the House of Representatives in 2022. Hence there is still a chance that Biden will pursue infrastructure on a bipartisan and piecemeal basis while using the FY2022 budget reconciliation for his social spending and tax hikes. The reasoning goes as follows: Historically the House has a high probability of shifting against a new president’s party in his first midterm election. The only exception to this rule were George W. Bush and Franklin D. Roosevelt. Republicans will definitely oppose social welfare and tax hikes, whereas they could be convinced to support an infrastructure plan. Republicans will not vote for infrastructure if it includes tax hikes and many Democrats believe that long-term infrastructure spending will enhance productivity and hence need not require revenue offsets. Hence there is still a chance of a bipartisan infrastructure bill. This would jeopardize its overall passage but it would ensure that Democrats could pass their social agenda via FY2022 reconciliation. What are the odds of bipartisanship? Throughout this year we have reserved some space for bipartisan lawmaking to take place under the radar. A recent example is the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) Extension Act of 2021, which Biden signed into law on March 30. This is a bipartisan extension of the small business emergency loan program that began under President Trump. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell quashed objections from within his party to extending the program, which has substantial support from the National Federation of Independent Business.1 The result was a 92-7 vote majority in the Senate, showing that Republican cooperation is possible. The fact that Republicans also cleared the way for the use of earmarks, or pork barrel spending directed at a critical lawmaker’s constituency in exchange for his or her vote, also suggests that bipartisanship is possible, particularly on infrastructure. Republicans can also be brought to support efforts to secure supply chains and energize the US technological race with China, such as the $50 billion funding for semiconductor manufacturing, which could be part of a major infrastructure package or regular budget appropriations. The catch is that Republicans will not support tax hikes, unionization, IRS strengthening, workplace enforcement, or climate change policies pursued under the guise of infrastructure. As a result the Democrats are highly incentivized to bypass Republicans from the beginning and pursue their agenda through two separate reconciliation bills. Finally, Democrats still have the option of removing the Senate filibuster, enabling regular bills to pass with merely 51 votes. Investors should plan on this occurring despite the news media narrative suggesting that moderate Democrats do not want it to happen – the point is that it is not an invincible check on the ruling party’s power. Biden signaled in his first press conference on March 25 that he is willing to see the filibuster removed. Bottom Line: Democrats can pass most of their infrastructure and social safety net proposals via budget reconciliation bills for FY2022 and FY2023, without a single Republican vote. If they do so they can only spare three votes in the House and zero votes in the Senate – meaning that the devil is in the details. Their odds of passing the first are high at a subjective 80% but then their odds of passing the second are 50/50 at best. Thus it is not wise to bet against Democratic tax hikes or new spending. The net impact on the deficit will be negative and hence stimulating for the economy. Growth and inflation will surprise to the upside. Biden’s Political Capital Still Moderate-To-Strong Our argument above is based in great part on Biden’s political capital, which is moderate but likely to strengthen as consumer sentiment rises. Table 4 updates our US Political Capital Index. Political polarization is subsiding from extreme peaks, and business sentiment and economic conditions are improving (with a surge in capex intentions albeit rising concerns over regulation). Table 4Biden’s Political Capital Sufficient For Another Major Bill The weak spot is household sentiment as Biden’s approval rating is falling (normal for presidents as their honeymoon ends). However, consumer confidence is already picking up and will surely accelerate with vaccinations gaining ground, the dole being delivered, and the service sector reviving. Chart 8 shows that Biden’s approval rating is settling in the mid-50% range, which is substantially better than Trump’s at this time although worse than President Obama’s. Biden can be understood as a synthesis of these two predecessors given that he is coopting Trump’s agenda on fiscal spending, infrastructure, trade, and manufacturing while continuing Obama’s legacy on regulation, immigration, civil rights, and foreign policy. We expect Biden’s approval rating not to fall too far, unless he suffers a foreign policy disaster with China, Iran, or Russia, given that over 50% of voters will tend to support him as long as President Trump is the obvious alternative. Chart 9 suggests that Biden’s economic approval rating is weak but this score is going to rise once the new relief funds are distributed and the economic recovery gets going full steam. The early business cycle will probably be a constant source of support for the president over his four-year term. Chart 8Biden’s Approval Rating Fairly Stout Chart 9Biden’s Approval On Economy Will Rise Remarkably even the US Congress is gaining greater popular approval (Chart 10). This is very rare in modern times and could suggest that a major change is taking shape as Congress pursues populist fiscal policy under both Trump and Biden. Congress is handing out free money so people suddenly don’t hate it as much. There is a limit to how popular Congress will become and it will certainly not shake off its hard-earned reputation for gridlock and partisan rancor by suddenly exemplifying enlightenment and bipartisanship. But any rise in congressional approval is notable and would imply greater political capital for the current government and hence greater policy certainty for investors in the short run. Biden’s political capital is not yet suffering due to economic overheating as the latter has not yet happened – but it is a risk to monitor over the medium term. Inflationary pressures continue to build across the supply chain. Small businesses are increasingly flagging cost of labor as a rising concern while consumer price inflation is likely to pick up. Chart 10Congress Is Becoming More Popular Inflation expectations are critical and will take time to change. Americans think about inflation through prices at the pump. Chart 11 shows the US and global crude oil price and average gasoline prices at the gas station for US consumers. Gasoline prices have surged although they are not yet at the $4 per gallon level that causes popular concern to escalate sharply. Chart 11Inflation Is Coming But Geopolitics Brings Oil Price Volatility Oil prices are expected to go higher in the coming two years, according to our Commodity & Energy Strategy, but over a five-year period global supply-demand trends and balances suggest that the price will fluctuate within the $60-$80 dollar range. Biden’s regulations and foreign policy will introduce some volatility by hampering domestic US production, triggering sparks in the Middle East over Iran, and yet ultimately increasing global supply via any diplomatic deal with Iran. The BCA Research House View holds that today’s inflation is a temporary phenomenon whereas a more substantial bout of inflation is waiting in the medium-to-long term. The reason our strategists are not overly concerned in the near term is that there is still substantial slack in the economy: the labor force participation rate has fallen from 63.3% to 61.4% since the pandemic, the U6 unemployment rate stands at 11.1% (up from 7% prior to the pandemic), and the all-important employment-to-population ratio for prime-age workers stands at 57.6%, down from 61.1% prior to the pandemic. However, this slack is on pace to be tightened quickly as long as the pandemic subsides and Biden’s American Jobs Plan passes. Bottom Line: Our US Political Capital Index suggests Biden’s political capital is moderate-to-strong, which supports our view that he can pass at least one more major piece of legislation and possibly two. Inflation expectations will rise further and the selloff in US treasuries will continue. Investment Takeaways The market rally since January has priced a lot of the good news from Biden’s proposals, which are broadly similar to his campaign proposals. There is not a clear legislative strategy and passing two major bills before the midterm elections is a stretch. The priority bill, however, looks to pass by the end of this year after a roller-coaster ride of congressional negotiations and horse-trading. Deep cyclical sectors will benefit the most. We remain long value over growth stocks, specifically industrials and materials. We are also maintaining our long BCA infrastructure basket at least until passage of the bill is secured. Our infrastructure basket consists of a range of materials and machinery producers, construction services, and environmental services, and does not focus on headline “infrastructure” companies in the utilities and telecoms sectors. We recommend going long large cap energy stocks relative to small caps, which will have a harder time adjusting to Biden’s regulatory, tax, and green agenda. A long-term infrastructure plan that includes green energy, manufacturing, digital infrastructure, and R&D could create a productivity boost. Hiking the corporate tax rate to 28% is negative for corporate earnings but it will take place over a longer time frame and is being introduced in the context of a cyclical upswing. Hence we remain bullish over the course of this year. Biden’s Pittsburgh speech ostensibly confirmed the news flow over the past month suggesting that the Democrats will not propose a government-provided health insurance option in their upcoming legislative proposals. Instead they are prioritizing lowering the Medicare eligibility requirement and enabling Medicare to negotiate pharmaceutical prices. Our short of the managed health care sub-sector suffered from this shift in policy focus although we will maintain the trade as we expect the public option to reemerge at a later date. Meanwhile our pair trade of long health equipment and facilities relative to pharmaceuticals and bio-tech continues to perform well (Chart 12). A clear beneficiary of the US’s newfound proactive fiscal policy is the consumer. Consumer spending has not fully recovered from the pandemic and recession. Household disposable income ticked down in February from January, after the distribution of the government’s $900 billion COVID-19 relief funds in the Consolidated Appropriations Act passed in December. However, disposable income is up 8% over the 12 months since COVID broke out, due to fiscal relief. The result of lower spending and higher income is an increase in the personal saving rate to 13.6% in February, well above normal, as our US Bond Strategy highlights in its latest report. Recent research from our US Investment Strategy highlights that consumer growth should track relatively well with increases in household net worth, implying that nominal personal consumption expenditures could grow at a rate of 8.8% by the end of the year and 6.9% by the end of next year. Chart 12Stay Long Industrials Over Health Care Chart 13Go Long Consumer Discretionary Stocks In this context we take a positive view of consumer stocks in general. Cyclically we would favor consumer discretionary stocks and recommend investors go long. While discretionary spending should outperform as the economic upswing gains pace, we are holding consumer staples as a hedge against bad news (Chart 13). Not only will Biden’s tax hikes, inflation, and the rise in bond yields cause ongoing risks to cyclical sectors, but Biden also faces a series of imminent foreign policy tests with China/Taiwan, Iran, Russia, and North Korea, as highlighted in our sister Geopolitical Strategy.     Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com   Appendix Table A1Political Risk Matrix Table A2APolitical Capital: White House And Congress Table A2BPolitical Capital: Household And Business Sentiment Table A2CPolitical Capital: The Economy And Markets Table A3Biden’s Cabinet Position Appointments   Footnotes 1     Bill Scher, “The Bipartisan Senate Bill You Haven’t Heard About,” Real Clear Politics, realclearpolitics.com.          

Feature The global macro landscape over the next six months or so will be characterized by a booming US economy and decelerating growth in China. Financial markets will move accordingly. US Treasury yields will remain under upward pressure, the US dollar will rebound, commodities prices will experience a setback and EM equities will continue underperforming DM stocks. The upcoming US economic boom is a well-known narrative and does not require much elaboration. China’s slowdown, on the other hand, is a matter of debate among investors and commentators. We have been arguing that macro policy tightening and a resumption of regulatory clampdowns on the financial system and property market are bound to result in a growth deceleration in China. There are already leading indicators that point to an impending growth slowdown: Chart 1China Is Set To Decelerate The latest datapoint for domestic orders from the PBOC’s survey of 5000 industrial enterprises has relapsed in Q1. It leads A-share companies EPS growth by six months (Chart 1, top panel). The message is that industrial companies’ profit growth will once again slow in H2 2021. The recent setback in Chinese A-shares is evidence that markets are already beginning to price in a profit deceleration in H2. The bottom panel of Chart 1 indicates that banks’ claims on enterprises and households have rolled over and will continue downshifting. This is consistent with easing bank loan approvals and reflects policymakers’ guidance for banks. In Charts 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 13 below, we illustrate more indicators and evidence of a forthcoming peak in the Chinese business cycle in general and commodities prices in particular. Weakening growth in China will hurt EM stocks and currencies more than those in DM, as many emerging economies are exposed to industrial commodities that are much more sensitive to demand in China versus trends in the US. Also, many Asian economies export more to China than they do to the US and Europe. Besides, the growth outlook in EM (ex-China, Korea and Taiwan) remains sub-par, especially relative to the US and DM more broadly. The reasons for this are slower vaccination rates and by extension economic reopening, a lack of fiscal stimulus and unhealthy banking systems. Notably, Chart 39 below demonstrates that EM bank stocks are breaking down relative to DM bank stocks. This potential breakdown reflects the state of EM fundamentals relative to those of DM. This week we recommend a new trade: short EM banks / long DM banks. In the US, the feature story will be the brisk pace of its reopening, an economic boom and intensifying inflationary pressures. So long as US bond yields continue rising, the US dollar will be supported. The next downleg in the greenback will occur when inflation rises but the Fed explicitly refuses to tackle it. Odds are that we are several months away from that. Hence, rising US bond yields will prop up the US dollar for now. The rebound in the US dollar and rising US bond yields will weigh on EM fixed income. The bottom panel of Chart 30 below illustrates that EM credit spreads negatively correlate with commodity prices. All in all, EM credit spreads will likely widen. Together with ascending US Treasury yields, this means higher EM sovereign and corporate dollar bond yields. The latter have always been associated with lower EM share prices (Chart 2, top panel). Chart 2Rising Corporate Bond Yields Are A Threat To Stocks Strategy: As a tactical strategy (three to six months), last week we recommended downgrading the allocation to EM within global equity and credit portfolios from neutral to underweight. We also recommended shorting a basket of the following EM currencies versus the US dollar for the next several months: HUF, PLN, PHP, TRY, CLP, ZAR, KRW, BRL and THB. Strategic portfolios should maintain neutral allocations to EM equities, credit, local bonds and currencies.   Arthur Budaghyan Chief Emerging Markets Strategist arthurb@bcaresearch.com   Chinese Share Prices Point To A Top In Commodities Prices The recent underperformance of Chinese onshore cyclical stocks relative to defensive stocks heralds a slowdown in growth and has historically been a good indicator for raw materials prices. Consistently, the latest pullback in share prices of materials companies included in the MSCI China Investable Index also signals a drop in industrial metals prices. Chart 3Chinese Share Prices Point To A Top In Commodities Prices Chart 4Chinese Share Prices Point To A Top In Commodities Prices Commodities: New Secular Bull Market Or A Trading Range? Various Chinese liquidity and money measures have historically led the CRB Raw Materials Price Index and presently signal a relapse in commodities. The 200-year chart showing raw materials (excluding oil and gold) prices in real (inflation-adjusted) terms suggests that commodities prices have not undershot their long-term time-trend (Chart 5). We do not argue for a continuation of a structural bear market in commodities, but a medium-term setback is likely in the next three to six months. Chart 5Commodities: New Secular Bull Market Or A Trading Range? Chart 6Commodities: New Secular Bull Market Or A Trading Range? Chart 7Commodities: New Secular Bull Market Or A Trading Range? EM Share Prices Are Beginning To Price A Profit Slowdown In H2 2021 The rally in EM share prices last year has priced the ongoing profit recovery. However, the apex in Chinese money/credit measures entails an EM profit slowdown in H2 this year (Chart 8). Besides, the considerable pullback in Chinese cyclicals-to-defensive stock prices implies further drawdown in EM share prices. Chart 8EM Share Prices Are Beginning To Price A Profit Slowdown In H2 2021 Chart 9EM Share Prices Are Beginning To Price A Profit Slowdown In H2 2021 The Chinese Economy: Shifting Into Low Gear In China, liquidity and money measures portend a peak business cycle. Excluding TMT companies, Chinese investable stocks have failed to break above their trading range of the past ten years. Notably, the slowdown is not limited to the old economy. The Caixin New Economy Index has dropped to its early 2019 level. Chart 10The Chinese Economy: Shifting Into Low Gear Chart 11The Chinese Economy: Shifting Into Low Gear Chart 12The Chinese Economy: Shifting Into Low Gear Chart 13The Chinese Economy: Shifting Into Low Gear Peak Growth And Equity Sentiment We have been showing Chart 14 for the past several months. The record high sentiment on EM equities in January preceded with an apex in EM share prices in February. This measure of sentiment is not yet low enough to expect a bottom in EM stocks. Chart 15 shows a similar indicator for euro area equities. Will it play out in the euro area as it did with EM? Chart 14Peak Growth And Equity Sentiment Chart 15Peak Growth And Equity Sentiment Booming IPOs And Secondary Issues = Peak Investor Sentiment The numbers of IPOs and secondary issuances have risen to a record high in China and EM. Often, this development is consistent with peak investor sentiment that coincides with some sort of top in share prices. Chart 16Booming IPOs And Secondary Issues = Peak Investor Sentiment Chart 17Booming IPOs And Secondary Issues = Peak Investor Sentiment Chart 18Booming IPOs And Secondary Issues = Peak Investor Sentiment Equity Risk Premium: EM Equities Are Not Cheaper Than European And Japanese Equities Equity earnings yield minus interest rates (a proxy for equity risk premium) in EM is similar to that of the US. Hence, adjusted for local interest rates, EM stocks are not cheap. In fact, European and Japanese stocks are cheaper than EM stocks. Chart 19Equity Risk Premium: EM Equities Are Not Cheaper Than European And Japanese Equities Chart 20Equity Risk Premium: EM Equities Are Not Cheaper Than European And Japanese Equities A US Dollar Rebound = EM Setback Both EM equity recent selloffs and relative underperformance versus DM occur alongside US dollar strength. Besides, EM equity relative performance often moves counter to US stocks relative performance against the global benchmark (Chart 23). Finally, emerging Asian stocks’ relative performance versus the global index has hit a major technical resistance. The path of least resistance is, for now, on the downside. Chart 21A US Dollar Rebound = EM Setback Chart 22A US Dollar Rebound = EM Setback Chart 23A US Dollar Rebound = EM Setback Chart 24A US Dollar Rebound = EM Setback EM Stocks Have Formed A Medium-Term Top The EM overall equity benchmark (shown in Chart 20) as well as EM ex-TMT stocks, EM (ex-China, Korea and Taiwan) share prices, EM small caps and the EM equal-weighted index have so far failed to break out.  The forthcoming slowdown in China, rising US Treasury yields, the US dollar rebound and poor fundamentals in EM (ex-China, Korea and Taiwan) are consistent with these technical patterns and warrant caution for now. Chart 25EM Stocks Have Formed A Medium-Term Top Chart 26EM Stocks Have Formed A Medium-Term Top Chart 27EM Stocks Have Formed A Medium-Term Top Chart 28EM Stocks Have Formed A Medium-Term Top Rising US Treasury Yields Are A Bad Omen For EM Fixed-Income Investor sentiment on US Treasurys is neutral, as is JP Morgan’s duration survey. Major market moves do not halt when sentiment is neutral but rather persist until sentiment becomes extreme. This and the economic boom and rising inflationary pressures in the US are the basis for higher US bond yields. The latter will push up both EM local currency and US dollar bond yields. In turn, a relapse in commodities prices will lead to a widening EM credit spread. Chart 29Rising US Treasury Yields Are A Bad Omen For EM Fixed-Income The US Dollar Rebound Is In The Making The US dollar will continue its rebound as the US economic growth outpaces others and US yields rise relative to their peers. In turn, a rollover in commodities prices is a harbinger of EM currency weakness. Chart 30The US Dollar Rebound Is In The Making Chart 31The US Dollar Rebound Is In The Making Chart 32The US Dollar Rebound Is In The Making Chart 33The US Dollar Rebound Is In The Making A Strong Dollar Will Redistribute Inflation From The US To The Rest Of the World US import prices are rising in US dollar terms but not enough to offset exporters’ currency appreciation of the past 12 months. In fact, export prices in local currency terms have been tame in China and Korea. The greenback might appreciate in the near term to redistribute inflationary pressures from the US to the rest of the world, where the risk remains deflation/disinflation. Chart 34A Strong Dollar Will Redistribute Inflation From The US To The Rest Of the World Chart 35A Strong Dollar Will Redistribute Inflation From The US To The Rest Of the World EMs’ Poor Fundamentals In recent weeks, Brazil and Russia have hiked their policy rates. However, core consumer price inflation in both countries remains well behaved. Both economies are sluggish. In short, economic growth and inflation did not herald higher policy rates. Higher borrowing costs will jeopardize growth in these and other EM economies. Critically, the breakdown in EM relative to DM bank share prices (Chart 39) is a sign of poor health of EM banks and their inability to finance the economic recovery. Chart 36EMs' Poor Fundamentals Chart 37EMs' Poor Fundamentals Chart 38EMs' Poor Fundamentals Investment Ideas A few of our investment recommendations outside our main strategy are: (1) long Chinese A-shares / short investable stocks; (2) long global value / short Chinese investable value stocks; (3) long global industrials / short global materials; (4) short a basket of EM currencies versus the US dollar or go long EM currency volatility. This week we are adding  a new recommendation: short EM banks / long DM banks (Chart 39). Chart 39Investment Ideas Chart 40Investment Ideas Chart 41Investment Ideas   Footnotes Equities Recommendations Currencies, Credit And Fixed-Income Recommendations

We recently came across an old BCA indicator – the Risk Appetite Index (RAI) – and after dusting it off we tweaked it a bit and are updating it today for the first time since US Equity Strategy last showed it in 2007! The RAI comprises eight equally weighted risk on and off indicators shown as a z-score and constructed so that a rising value indicates increasing risk appetite and vice versa. For example, a rising VIX indicates risk off and thus is inverted as part of the RAI. Currently the RAI has literally gone off the charts and signals that investors are craving risk. True, previous nose bleed readings have been associated with significant market tops including late-1990s, mid-2008 and late-2019 RAI readings over one (see chart). However, the last time the RAI was over four standard deviations above the historical mean was during the GFC rebound from late-2009/early-2010 when the SPX also had a monster run-up as we recently showed in our research. Excessive leverage and the January Melvin Capital and more recent Archegos Capital Management blowup anecdotes are unnerving, and in the near-term some caution is warranted (as a reminder, we continue to hold the long VIX June futures as a hedge). However, more often than not such a high RAI reading has been resolved with an SPX correction and not a meltdown. As we have been highlighting recently, our biggest risk, aside from China’s slowdown, remains the Fed becoming at the margin less accommodative in the back half of the year when it will start talking about talking about tapering. Bottom Line: While the SPX is getting close to our 4,000 year-end target and some near-term caution is warranted, the equity bull market (and business cycle) is in its infancy and we reiterate our cyclical and structural sanguine views.  

In the latest Special Report we attempted to answer the question of whether this coming rebound in CPI is a paradigm shift that will push the US into a new era of consistently high (i.e. above 3%/annum) core CPI inflation, or is it a merely counter trend inflationary spike within the broader deflationary megatrend? We took a deep dive into six structural forces behind inflation that we identified. Four of those forces were pro-inflationary, while the remaining two were anti-inflationary (Table 1). We also assigned a value on our subjective strength scale for each force. Each value incorporates how quickly a particular force will come to fruition, and how strong it will be over the next 5-to-10 year period. Based on our analysis, we concluded that there are rising odds that the deflationary megatrend has run its course and has reached an inflection point of turning inflationary. Bottom Line: On a structural basis (10-years), it is likely that the deflationary trend is turning. For more details please refer to this Monday’s Special Report.

Special Report

In the decade following the global financial crisis, investor concerns that the Fed’s monetary policies have artificially boosted equity market valuation have been mostly overblown. But today, it is now true that US equities are increasingly dependent on persistently low bond yields, as stocks can only avoid near bubble-like relative pricing if yields remain below trend rates of economic growth. Macroeconomic theory and the historical record both support the notion that nominal interest rates are normally in equilibrium when they are roughly equal to the trend rate of nominal income growth. A gap between interest rates and trend rates of growth was indeed justified for a few years following the global financial crisis, but in the few years prior to the pandemic, it is altogether possible that the neutral rate of interest (or “r-star”) was in fact meaningfully higher than academic estimates suggested. In a scenario where the US output gap closes quickly, inflation rises above target, and where permanent damage to the labor market from the pandemic is relatively limited, we expect the narrative of secular stagnation to be challenged and for investor expectations for the neutral rate to move closer to trend rates of economic growth. That would imply that the 5-year/5-year forward Treasury yield could hypothetically rise above 3%, and possibly as high as 4% or more. Such a shift would push the US equity risk premium back to 2002 levels based on current stock market pricing. This is not necessarily negative for equities, but it is also not clear what equity risk premium investors will require to contend with the myriad risks to the economic outlook that did not exist in the early 2000s. A low ERP that is technically not as low as that of the tech bubble era could thus still threaten stock prices, as T.I.N.A., “There Is No Alternative,” may not prevail. Many investors have questioned what asset allocation strategy should be pursued in a scenario where stock prices and bond yields are no longer positively correlated. While they are not likely to be without cost, options exist for investors to potentially earn positive absolute returns in a scenario where a significant shift in the interest rate outlook threatens both stock and bond prices. Chart II-1Equity Valuation Concerns Have Persisted For The Past Decade... For the better part of the last decade, many investors have argued that the Fed’s monetary policies have artificially boosted equity market valuation. Based on the cyclically-adjusted P/E ratio metric originated by Robert Shiller, stocks reached pre-global financial crisis (GFC) multiples in late 2014 and early 2015 (Chart II-1). Based on metrics such as the price-to-sales ratio, stocks rose to pre-GFC valuation in late 2013, and are now even more richly valued than they were at the height of the dotcom bubble. These concerns have mostly occurred in response to absolute changes in stock multiples, but equity valuation cannot be divorced from the prevailing level of interest rates. Relative to bond yields, stocks were extraordinarily cheap for many years following the GFC. Measured by one simple approach to calculating the equity risk premium, the spread between the 12-month forward earnings yield (the inverse of the forward P/E ratio) and the real 10-year Treasury yield, stocks were the cheapest following the GFC that they had been since the mid 1980s, and remain reasonably priced today (Chart II-2). Chart II-2...But Stocks Have Actually Been Cheap Versus Bonds The fact that stocks have appeared to be expensive for several years but quite cheap (or reasonably priced) relative to bonds underscores the fact that longer-term bond yields have been extraordinarily low following the global financial crisis. Still, equities were not dependent on low bond yields prior to the pandemic, as illustrated in Chart II-3. The chart highlights the range of 10-year Treasury yields that would be consistent with the pre-GFC equity risk premium range (measured from 2002-2007), alongside the actual 10-year yield and trend nominal GDP growth. The chart shows that for years following the financial crisis, bond yields could have risen to levels well above trend rates of economic growth and stocks would still have been priced in line with pre-crisis norms. This “normal pricing” range for the 10-year declined as the expansion continued, but remained consistent with trend growth rates and above the actual 10-year yield up until the beginning of the pandemic. Chart II-3 also highlights, however, that the circumstances changed last year. The equity risk premium briefly rose at the onset of the pandemic as stocks initially sold off sharply, but then quickly fell as stock prices recovered in response to aggressive fiscal and monetary easing. Today, it is true that US equities are increasingly dependent on persistently low bond yields, as stocks can only avoid bubble-like relative pricing if yields remain below trend rates of economic growth. Chart II-3Now, Stocks Are Increasingly Dependent On Low Bond Yields Prior to the pandemic, most fixed-income investors would have viewed the risk of bond yields rising to trend nominal GDP growth, let alone above it, as minimal. Global investors have come to accept the secular stagnation narrative as described by Larry Summers in November 2013, and have gravitated to academic estimates of the neutral rate of interest (“R-star”) that show a substantial gap between the natural rate and trend real growth (Chart II-4). This view has manifested itself in a decline in surveyed estimates of the long-run Fed funds rate, but at present the 5-year/5-year forward Treasury yield has pushed well above this survey-derived fair value range (Chart II-5). It is possible that the fiscal response to the pandemic will cause investor views about r-star to evolve even further over the coming 12-24 months, and in this report we explore the potential headwind that such an evolution could present to stock prices at some point – potentially as early as next year. Chart II-4Investors Have Accepted Secular Stagnation, And The View That R-star Is Well Below Trend Rates Of Growth Chart II-5The Market's Views About R-star May Be Shifting   R-star: A Brief Primer Macroeconomic theory and the historical record both support the notion that nominal interest rates are normally in equilibrium when they are roughly equal to the trend rate of nominal income growth. From the perspective of macro theory, the neutral rate of interest is determined by the supply of and demand for savings. But in practical terms, this implies that the neutral rate should normally be closely linked to the trend rate of economic growth. For example, if interest rates – and thus the cost of capital – were persistently below aggregate income growth, then demand for capital (and thus credit and likely labor demand) should increase as firms seek to profit from the gap between the interest rate and the expected rate of return from real investment. As such, the trend rate of growth acts as a good proxy for the interest rate that will balance the supply and demand for credit during normal economic circumstances. Empirically, academic estimates of r-star closely followed estimates of trend real GDP growth prior to the global financial crisis, as shown in Chart II-4 above. In addition, we noted in our January report that the stance of monetary policy, as defined by the difference between nominal GDP growth and the 10-year Treasury yield, has generally done a good job of explaining the US output gap prior to 2000. This supports the notion that monetary policy is stimulative (restrictive) when bond yields are below (above) trend growth rates. However, in the years following the GFC, investors’ estimates of r-star collapsed, as evidenced by the sharp decline in 5-year / 5-year forward Treasury yields (Chart II-6). This was followed by a decline in primary dealer and FOMC expectations for the long-term Fed funds rate, which investors took as validating their view that the neutral rate of interest has permanently declined. Chart II-6Investors Led The Fed And Others In Expecting A Lower Nominal Neutral Rate R-star And Trend Growth: Is A Gap Between The Two Really Justified? Chart II-7R-star Likely Did Decline Following The GFC (For A Time) It seems clear that r-star did indeed decline for a time after the GFC. The US and select European economies suffered a balance sheet recession in 2008/2009 that impacted credit demand for an extended period of time (Chart II-7), and extraordinarily low interest rates for several years did not fuel major credit excesses (at least in the household sector). But as we detailed in a Special Report last year,1 we doubt that the decline in r-star was permanent, for several reasons. The first, and most important, is that there have been at least four deeply impactful non-monetary shocks to both the US and global economies since 2008 that magnified the impact of prolonged household deleveraging and help explain the disconnect between growth and interest rates during the last economic cycle: The euro area sovereign debt crisis Premature fiscal austerity in the US, the UK, and euro area from 2010 – 2012/2014 The US dollar / oil price shock of 2014 The Trump administration’s aggressive use of tariffs beginning in 2018, impacting China but also other developed market economies. Chart II-8Recent Trends In US Private Sector Leverage Do Not Suggest R-star Is Very Low Except for the oil price shock of 2014 (which was driven by technological developments and a price war among producers), all of these non-monetary shocks were caused or exacerbated by policymakers – often for political reasons or due to regulatory failures. Second, the trend in US private sector credit growth last cycle does not suggest that r-star fell permanently. Chart II-8 underscores two points: the first is that while US household sector credit contracted for several years following the global financial crisis, it started growing again in 2013 and had largely closed the gap with income growth prior to the pandemic. The second point is that the nonfinancial corporate sector clearly leveraged itself over the course of the last expansion, arguing that interest rates have not in any way been restrictive for businesses. Third, we disagree with a common view in the marketplace that the 2018-2019 period supported the validity of low academic estimates of the neutral rate. Chart II-9 highlights that monetary policy ceased to be stimulative in 2019 according to the Laubach & Williams r-star estimate, which some investors have argued explains the late 2018 equity market selloff, the 2019 slowdown in the US housing market, the inversion of the yield curve, and the global manufacturing recession. Chart II-9Monetary Policy Ceased To Be Stimulative In 2019, According To The LW R-star Estimate But this narrative ignores other important factors that contributed to the slowdown. For example, Chart II-10 highlights that this period of economic weakness exactly coincided with the most intense phase of the Sino-US trade war, as well as a significant slowdown in Chinese credit growth. The chart highlights that the selloff in the US equity market began almost immediately after a surge in the effective tariff rates levied by the two countries against each other, and after the Chinese credit impulse fell three percentage points (from 30% to 27% of GDP). Chart II-10The 2018 Stock Market Selloff Occurred Once Sino-US Tariffs Exploded Chart II-11 highlights that interest rates did likely impact the housing market, but that it was the speed at which rates rose that was damaging rather than their level. The chart shows that the rise in mortgage rates from late 2016 to late 2018 was among the largest 2-year increases that has occurred since the early 1980s, so it is unsurprising that the growth in home sales and real residential investment slowed for a time. Additionally, Chart II-12 highlights that the rise in mortgage rates during this period did not cause a downtrend in mortgage credit growth, which only occurred in Q4 2018 in response to the impact of the sharp selloff in the equity market on household net worth. Chart II-11Mortgage Rates Rose Very Significantly From Late 2016 To Late 2018 Chart II-12A Record Rise In Mortgage Rates Did Not Crack The Housing Market   In short, the late 2018 / 2019 period saw a major global aggregate demand shock occur following an already-established slowdown in Chinese credit growth and a rapid rise in interest rates in the DM world. It is these factors that were likely responsible for the 2019 slowdown in economic growth, not the fact that interest rates reached levels that restricted economic activity on their own. R-star In A Post-Pandemic World Charts II-7 – II-12 above suggest that a gap between interest rates and trend rates of growth was indeed justified for a few years following the global financial crisis, but that a decline in r-star only appeared to be permanent due to persistent, non-monetary policy shocks to aggregate demand. In the few years prior to the pandemic, it is altogether possible that r-star was in fact meaningfully higher than academic estimates suggested. But that is now a counterfactual assertion, as the pandemic has transformed the outlook for interest rates and bond yields in conflicting ways. A 10% decline in the level of real output was the most intensely negative non-monetary shock to aggregate demand since the 1930s (Chart II-13), and we agree that another depression would have occurred without extraordinary government assistance. The economic damage caused by the pandemic certainly does not work in favor of a higher neutral rate, and we highlighted in Section 1 of our report that the Fed expects there to be some lingering and persistent slack in the labor market even once the pandemic is over. Chart II-13Without Major Monetary And Fiscal Policy Support, The Pandemic Would Probably Have Caused A Depression Chart II-14A Huge Increase In Government Transfers And Spending Is Underway On the other hand, Larry Summers, the chief proponent of the theory of secular stagnation, has argued for several years that increased fiscal spending was warranted in order to address an imbalance between private sector savings and investment. Summers himself now characterizes US fiscal policy as the “least responsible” that he has seen over the past 40 years, because of too-large government spending that risks overheating the economy (Chart II-14). Summers’ critique rests in large part on the fact that new government spending has not occurred in the form of investment (to balance out the existence of excess savings), but is instead providing transfers to households that in many cases have already accumulated significant excess savings. But the key point for investors is that the pandemic has completely shifted the narrative about fiscal spending, from “arguably insufficient for several years following the global financial crisis” to now “risking a dramatic overheating of the economy.” Some elements of Summers’ criticism of the Biden administration’s fiscal policy are justified, particularly the policy of large direct transfer payments to workers who have suffered no loss in employment or income as a result of the pandemic. Despite this, as detailed in Section 1 of our report, we are more sanguine about the risks of aggressive overheating for three reasons: it does seem likely that some portion of the spending on services that has been “missing” over the past year will never return or will be slow to return, some of the excess savings that have accumulated will not be immediately (or ever) spent, and the rise in consumer inflation expectations that has occurred over the past year has happened from an extremely low starting point and has yet to even rise above its post-GFC range. The low odds that we assign to dangerously above-target inflation over the coming 12-24 months does not, however, mean that investors’ expectations for r-star will stay low. For right or for wrong, the US government has aggressively dis-saved over the past year, in an environment where low expectations for the neutral rate were anchored by a view of excessive private sector savings and insufficient demand from governments. In a scenario where the US output gap closes quickly, inflation rises modestly above target, and where permanent damage to the labor market from the pandemic is relatively limited, it seems reasonable to conclude that the narrative of secular stagnation will be challenged and that investor expectations for the neutral rate will converge towards trend rates of economic growth. That would imply that the 5-year/5-year forward Treasury yield could hypothetically rise above 3%, possibly as high as 4% or more. This is not our base case view, but it will be an important possibility to monitor as the decisive end to social distancing and other pandemic control measures draws nearer. Investment Conclusions A rise in the 5-year/5-year forward Treasury yield does not, in and of itself, suggest that 10-year Treasury yields will rise to levels that would threaten a significant decline in stock prices. The Fed does not control the long-end of the Treasury curve, but it does exert a very strong influence on the short-end. For example, were the Fed to follow the median current projection of FOMC participants and refrain from raising interest rates until sometime after 2023, it would limit how high current 10-year Treasury yields could rise. But it is not difficult to envision plausible scenarios where the 10-year Treasury yield rises above the range consistent with the pre-GFC US equity risk premium. Chart II-15 presents three hypothetical fair value paths for the 10-year yield assuming a mid-2022 liftoff date and a 4% terminal Fed funds rate for the following three scenarios: Chart II-1510-Year Yields Could Rise Meaningfully Further If Investors Shift Their Expectations For R-star The Fed raises rates at a pace of 1% (4 hikes) per year, with a term premium of 10 basis points The Fed raises rates at a pace of 1% (4 hikes) per year, with a term premium of 50 basis points The Fed raises rates at a pace of 1.5% (6 hikes) per year, with a term premium of 50 basis points In the first scenario, based on the current US 12-month forward P/E ratio, the fair value of the 10-year Treasury yield would rise above the range consistent with a reasonable ERP in the middle of 2022, the liftoff point assumed in all three scenarios. In the second and third scenarios, the US equity ERP would already be quite low. When using the late 1999 / early 2000 bubble period as a reference point, even the scenarios shown in Chart II-15 are not very threatening to stock prices. Given current equity market pricing, the third scenario would take the US equity risk premium back to mid 2002 levels, which were still meaningfully higher than during the peak of the bubble. And that is assuming an earlier liftoff than the market currently expects, a faster pace of rate hikes than experienced during the last economic cycle, and a very meaningful increase in the market’s expectations for the neutral rate. But it is not clear what equity risk premium investors will require to contend with the myriad risks to the economic outlook that did not exist in the early 2000s. For example, equity investors are today faced with a riskier policy environment than existed 20 years ago in the US and in other developed economies that is at least partially driven by populist sentiment, potentially impacting earnings via lower operating margins or higher taxes. These or other risks existed at several points over the past decade and T.I.N.A. (“There Is No Alternative”) prevailed, but that occurred precisely because the equity risk premium was very elevated. A low ERP that is technically not as low as what prevailed during the tech bubble era could thus still threaten stock prices, raising the specter of negative absolute returns from stocks and nominal government bonds for a period of time, beginning potentially at or in the lead-up to the first Fed rate hike. Chart II-16There Are Alternatives To A Traditional 60/40 Portfolio In A Rising Rate Environment Many investors have questioned what asset allocation strategy should be pursued in a scenario where stock prices and bond yields are no longer positively correlated. Chart II-16 provides some perspective on the question, by comparing the total return of a 60/40 stock/bond portfolio to a strategy involving the opportunistic redeployment of cash into stocks. The strategy rule maintains a 50/50 stock/cash allocation during normal market conditions, but it then shifts the entire cash allocation into equities following a 15% selloff in the stock market. The portfolio is shifted back to a 50/50 allocation once stocks rise to a new rolling 1-year high. The chart highlights that 60/40 balanced portfolio-style returns may be achievable with cash as the diversifier without a significant reduction in the Sharpe ratio. In fact, the strategy has the effect of lowering average volatility due to prolonged periods of comparatively lower equity exposure, although this occurs at the cost of higher volatility during periods of high market stress (precisely when investors most want protection from volatility). But the bottom line for investors is that while they are not likely to be without cost, options exist for investors to potentially earn positive absolute returns in a scenario where a significant shift in the interest rate outlook threatens both stock and bond prices. As noted above, this remains a risk to our view rather than our expectation, but we will continue to monitor the potential threat posed to stock prices as the pandemic draws to a decisive close later this year. Jonathan LaBerge, CFA Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst Footnotes 1  2020-03-20 GIS SR “Revisiting The Neutral Rate Of Interest: A Contrarian View In A Time Of Crisis.”

Highlights Extremely accommodative fiscal policy and a rapid pace of vaccination puts the US on track to close its output gap by the end of the year. The situation is different in Europe, and the euro area economy will likely continue to underperform the US until at least the summer. Investors are now unusually more hawkish than the Fed, whose caution is driven by the expectation of some lingering and persistent slack in the labor market even once the pandemic is over. The Fed’s rate projections, coupled with the extraordinary size of the American Rescue Plan, have stoked investor concerns about a significant rise in inflation. For inflation to rise dangerously above the Fed’s target, the US would likely need to see a persistently strong and positive output gap, and/or a major upward shift in expectations among consumers and firms. We expect a meaningful recovery in inflation this year, perhaps to above-target levels even without factoring in transitory supply-chain effects, but probably not to levels that investors deem to be “out of control.” Over the coming 6 to 12 months, a comparatively sanguine perspective on inflation supports a bullish view on stocks and an overweight stance towards equities within a multi-asset portfolio. We recommend that investors maintain below-benchmark portfolio duration, and overweight US speculative over investment-grade corporate bonds. The fact that Europe may lag growth-wise for a few months could continue to impact regional equity performance as well as the trend in the dollar over the coming 0-3 months. But over a 6-12 month time horizon, we continue to favor global ex-US vs. US stocks, and expect the dollar to be lower than it is today. A Brighter Light At The End Of The Tunnel Chart I-1Even Better Than Some Optimists Would Have Predicted Over the past 4-6 weeks, the US has continued to make incredible progress in vaccinating its population against COVID-19. Chart I-1 highlights that the pace of vaccination is now well within the range required for herd immunity to be in place by the end of the third quarter. If this pace continues at an average of 2.5 million doses per day, the US will have vaccinated 90% of its population by the end of September (if it is determined that the vaccine is safe to give to children). And these calculations assume the continuation of a two-dose regime, meaning that the eventual rollout of Johnson & Johnson's Janssen vaccine – which requires only one dose and has shown to be extremely effective at preventing severe illness and death – could shorten the time to herd immunity rates of vaccination among adults even further. The situation is clearly different in Europe. The vaccination progress in several European countries is woefully behind that of the US and the UK (Chart I-2), and per capita cases in the euro area have again risen significantly above that of the US (Chart I-3). This reality motivated last week’s news that the European Union is reportedly planning on banning exports of the AstraZeneca vaccine for a period of time, as European policymakers grow increasingly concerned about the potential economic consequences of lengthened or additional pandemic control measures over the coming few months. Chart I-2Europe Is Badly Lagging The Vaccine Race… There was at least some positive economic news from Europe this month, as reflected by the flash manufacturing and services PMIs (Chart I-4). The euro area manufacturing PMI surpassed that of the US this month, reflecting that the prospects for goods-producing companies in Europe remain solidly linked to the strong global manufacturing cycle. Services, on the other hand, have been the weak spot in Europe, having remained below the boom/bust line since last summer (in contrast to the US). The March services PMI highlighted that this gap is now starting to narrow, although the euro area economy will likely continue to underperform the US until at least the summer. Chart I-3...And It Is Starting To Show Chart I-4Some Closure Of The Services Gap, But Still A Ways To Go   The underperformance of the European services sector over the past nine months has been due in part to more severe pandemic control measures, but also a comparatively timid fiscal policy. The IMF’s October Fiscal Monitor highlighted that the US had provided roughly eight percentage points more of GDP in above-the-line fiscal measures versus the European Union as a whole, and that was before the US December 2020 relief bill and this month’s $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan (ARP) act were passed. The CBO estimates that the ARP will result in about US$1 trillion in outlays in 2021, which is roughly 5% of nominal GDP. Consequently, Chart I-5 highlights that consensus expectations now suggest that the output gap will be marginally positive by the end of the year, with the Fed’s most recent forecast implying that real GDP will be more than 1% above the CBO’s estimate of potential output. Chart I-5The US Output Gap Will Likely Be Closed By The End Of This Year The Fed Versus The Market Despite this, the Fed held pat during this month’s FOMC meeting and did not validate market expectations of rate hikes beginning in early 2023. Chart I-6 highlights the Fed funds rate path over the coming years as implied by the OIS curve, alongside the Fed’s median projection of the Fed funds rate. This means that investors are now more hawkish than the Fed, which is the opposite of what has typically prevailed since the global financial crisis. Chart I-6The Market Is Now, Unusually, More Hawkish Than The Fed Fed Chair Jerome Powell implied during the March 17 press conference that some FOMC participants were unwilling to change their projections for the path of interest rates based purely on a forecast, which argues that the median dot in the Fed’s “dot plot” will shift higher in the second half of the year if participants’ growth and inflation forecasts come to fruition. But Charts I-7A and I-7B suggest that the Fed’s caution is also driven by the expectation of some lingering and persistent slack in the labor market even once the pandemic is over. Chart I-7AA Positive Output Gap Implies… Chart I-7B…An Unemployment Rate Below NAIRU   The charts highlight the historical relationship between the output gap and the deviation of NAIRU from the unemployment rate, from 2000 and 2010. In both cases, the charts show that the unemployment rate would be below the CBO’s estimate of NAIRU at the end of this year (roughly 4.5%) given the CBO’s estimate for potential (i.e. full employment) GDP and the Fed's forecast for growth. However, the Fed is forecasting that the unemployment rate will essentially be at NAIRU, which is itself above the Fed’s longer-run unemployment rate projection of 4%. As such, the Fed does not see the unemployment rate falling to “full employment” levels this year, a precondition for the onset of rate normalization. Investors should note that the relationships shown in Charts I-7A and I-7B suggest that the unemployment rate will be closer to 3-3.5% at the end of this year if the Fed’s growth forecast is correct, which would constitute full employment based on the Fed’s 4% unemployment rate target. The difference between a 3-3.5% unemployment rate and the Fed’s estimate of 4.5% translates to a gap of roughly 1.5-2.5 million jobs at the end of this year, which underscores that the Fed expects either a significant shift in temporary to permanent unemployment or an influx of unemployed workers back into the labor force who don’t quickly find jobs once social distancing ends and pandemic restrictions are no longer required. Chart I-8The Full Employment Level Of GDP Has Not Been Significantly Revised There are three possible circumstances that would resolve this seeming contradiction. The first is that the Fed’s estimate for growth this year is simply too high, and that the output gap will be close to zero at the end of the year (i.e., more in line with consensus market expectations). The second is that the CBO is understating the level of GDP that is consistent with full employment, namely that potential GDP is higher than what they currently project. But Chart I-8 shows that the CBO’s current estimate for potential output at the end of this year is only 0.4% below what it had estimated prior to the pandemic, which is smaller than the positive gap implied by the Fed’s growth estimate for this year (roughly 1.2%). The third possibility is that the Fed is overestimating the extent to which the pandemic will cause permanent damage to the labor market. As we noted in our February report, even once social distancing is no longer required, it does seem likely that some portion of the spending on services that has been “missing” over the past year will never return. While it seems reasonable to expect that the gap in spending on hospitality and travel will close quickly once the health situation allows, it also seems reasonable to expect that some service areas, particularly retail, will experience a permanent loss in demand owing to durable shifts in consumer behavior that occurred during the pandemic (greater familiarity and use of online shopping, a permanent reduction of some magnitude in commuting, etc). A gap of 1.5-2.5 million jobs accounts for roughly 10-15% of pre-pandemic employment in retail trade, or 4-7% of the sum of retail trade, leisure & hospitality, and other services. It is possible that permanent job losses or significantly deferred job recovery of this size will occur, but it is far from clear that it will. Were job losses / deferred jobs recovery of this magnitude to not materialize, it would suggest that the US will reach full employment earlier than the Fed is currently projecting, and would significantly increase the odds that the Fed will begin to taper its asset purchases and/or raise interest rates at some point next year – which is earlier than investors currently expect. For Now, Dangerously Above-Target Inflation Is Unlikely Fed projections of a 0% Fed funds rate for the next 2 1/2 years, coupled with the extraordinary size of the American Rescue Plan, have understandably stoked investor concerns about a significant rise in inflation. Larry Summers’ recent interview with Bloomberg was emblematic of the concern, during which he criticized the Biden administration’s fiscal policy as the “least responsible” that the US has experienced in four decades and warned of the potential inflationary consequences of overheating the economy.1 It is true that the Federal Reserve is explicitly aiming to generate a temporary overshoot of inflation relative to its target, the Biden administration’s fiscal plan is legitimately large, and there is a tremendous pool of excess savings that could be deployed later this year once the pandemic is essentially over. Clearly, the risks of overheating must be higher than they have been in the past. But from our perspective, out-of-control inflation over the coming 12-24 months would very likely necessitate one of two things to occur, and possibly both: US consumers decide to spend an overwhelmingly large amount of the excess savings that have been accumulated. Main street expectations for consumer prices rise sharply, prompted by a public discussion about the likelihood of a shifting inflation regime. Our view is rooted in the examination of the modern-day Phillips Curve that we presented in our January report, which considers both the impact of economic/labor market slack and inflation expectations as a driver of actual inflation. The modern-day Phillips Curve posits that expectations act as the trend for inflation, and slack in the economy determines whether actual inflation is above or below that baseline. Chart I-9 highlights that the output gap worked well prior to the global financial crisis at explaining the difference between actual and exponentially-smoothed inflation, the latter acting as a long-history proxy for expectations. Pre-GFC, the chart highlights that there have been only two exceptions to the relationship that concerned the magnitude rather than the direction of inflation. Post-GFC, the relationship deviated substantially, but in a way that implied that actual inflation was too strong during the last expansion, not too weak – particularly during the early phase of the economic recovery. This likely occurred because expectations initially stayed very well anchored due to the Fed’s strong record of maintaining low and stable inflation, but ultimately declined due to a persistently negative output gap as well as in response to the 2014 collapse in oil prices (Chart I-10). Chart I-9Pre-GFC, The Output Gap Generally Explained Inflation Surprises Chart I-10Inflation Expectations Eventually Succumbed Post-GFC To Collapsing Energy Prices Thus, for inflation to rise dangerously above the Fed’s target, the US would likely need to see a persistently strong and positive output gap, and/or a major upward shift in expectations among consumers and firms. Chart I-11 highlights that the amount of excess savings that have accumulated as a percentage of GDP does indeed significantly exceed the magnitude of the output gap, but some of those savings have been and will be invested in financial markets (boosting valuation), some will be used to pay down debt, some will eventually be spent on international travel (boosting services imports), and some will likely be permanently held as deposits in anticipation of future tax increases. And while long-term household expectations for prices have risen since the passing of the CARES act last year, the rise has merely unwound the decline that took place following the 2014 oil price collapse (Chart I-12). Chart I-11A Huge Pool Of Savings Exists, But Not All Of It Will Be Spent Chart I-12Long-Term Consumer Inflation Expectations Have Risen From A Very Low Base   For now, this framework points to a meaningful recovery in inflation this year, perhaps to above-target levels even without factoring in transitory supply-chain effects, but probably not to levels that investors deem to be “out of control.” Investment Conclusions Over the coming 6 to 12 months, a comparatively sanguine perspective on inflation supports a bullish view on stocks and an overweight stance towards equities within a multi-asset portfolio. While the Fed is likely to shift in a hawkish direction compared with its current projections, it is highly unlikely to become meaningfully more hawkish than current market expectations unless economic growth and the recovery in the labor market is much stronger than the Fed or the market is projecting. In fact, even if the market’s expectations for the first Fed rate hike shift to mid-2022 over the coming several months, Chart I-13 highlights that the impact on the equity market is likely to be minimal unless investors shift up their expectations for the terminal Fed funds rate. The chart presents a fair value estimate for the 10-year Treasury yield based on the OIS-implied path of the Fed funds rate out to December 2024, and assumes that short rates ultimately rise to the Fed’s long-term Fed funds rate projection of 2.5%. The second fair value series assumes that the shape of the OIS curve stays the same, but shifts closer by 6 months. Chart I-13The Market’s Assumed Rate Hike Path And Terminal Rate Are Not Threatening For Stocks The chart underscores that the 10-year yield will rise to at most between 2-2.2% by the end of the year based on these scenarios. A shift forward in the timing of Fed rate hikes will impact the short end of the curve, but the long end will remain relatively unchanged if terminal rate expectations stay constant and the term premium on long-term bonds remains near zero. These levels would in no way be economically damaging nor threatening to stock market valuation. It is possible, however, that investor expectations for the neutral rate of interest (“r-star”) will shift higher once the pandemic is over, and we explore this risk to stocks in Section 2 of our report. For now, this remains a risk to our view rather than our expectation, but it is likely to remain an important possibility to monitor as the decisive end to social distancing and other pandemic control measures draws nearer. Within fixed income, we recommend that investors maintain below-benchmark portfolio duration even though investors are already pricing in a more hawkish path for the Fed funds rate. First, Chart I-13 highlighted that yields at the long end of the curve are likely to continue to move modestly higher this year even if the projected path for the Fed funds rate remains relatively unchanged. But more importantly, barring a substantially negative development on the health or vaccine front that prolongs the pandemic, the risk appears to be clearly to the upside in terms of the timing of the first Fed rate hike and the terminal Fed funds rate. As such, from a risk-reward perspective, a long duration stance remains unattractive. We would also recommend overweighting US speculative over investment-grade corporate bonds, as spreads are not as historically depressed for the former than the latter (Chart I-14). Finally, in terms of the dimensions of equity market performance and the dollar, we recommend that investors overweight global ex-US equities vs. the US, overweight value vs. growth, overweight cyclicals vs. defensives, and overweight small vs. large caps. We are also bearish on the dollar on a 12-month time horizon. However, there are two caveats that investors should bear in mind. First, global cyclicals versus defensives (especially in equally-weighted terms) as well as small versus large caps have already mostly normalized not just the impact of the pandemic but as well that of the 2018-2019 Trump trade war (Chart I-15). We would expect, at best, modest further gains from both positions this year. Chart I-14Speculative-Grade Corporate Bonds Are Less Expensive Than Investment-Grade Chart I-15Going Forward, Expect More Modest Gains From Cyclicals And Small Caps   Second, the fact that Europe may lag growth-wise for a few months could continue to impact regional equity performance as well as the trend in the dollar on a 0-3 month time horizon. The US dollar is typically a counter-cyclical currency, but there have been exceptions to that rule. And historically, exceptions have tended to revolve around periods when US growth has been quite strong, as is currently the case (Chart I-16). A continued counter-trend rally in the dollar is thus possible over the course of the next few months, but we would expect USD-EUR to be lower than current levels 12 months from now. Chart I-16A Short-Term Counter-Trend Dollar Move Is Possible A counter-trend dollar move could also correspond with a period of US outperformance versus global ex-US, or at a minimum, a period of flat performance when global ex-US stocks would normally outperform. Our China strategists expect that the Chinese credit impulse will decelerate later this year (Chart I-17), which would weigh on EM stocks and heighten the importance of European equities in driving global ex-US outperformance. European equity outperformance, in turn, will likely necessitate the outperformance of euro area financials. Chart I-18 highlights that euro area equity underperformance versus the US last year was mostly a tech story, but today there is little difference between the relative performance of euro area stocks overall versus indexes that exclude the broadly-defined technology sector. In both cases, the euro area index is roughly 10% below its US counterpart relative to pre-pandemic levels, which exactly matches the extent to which euro area financials have underperformed. Chart I-17A Slowing Chinese Credit Impulse Means EM Equities Will Struggle To Outperform Chart I-18Euro Area Financials Need To Outperform For Europe To Outperform   Euro area financials have demonstrated very poor fundamental performance over the past decade, but they are likely to outperform for some period once the European vaccination campaign gains enough traction to alter the disease’s transmission and hospitalization dynamics. Chart I-19 highlights that euro area bank 12-month forward earnings have further room to recover to pre-pandemic levels than for banks in the US, and Chart I-20 highlights that euro area banks trade at their deepest price-to-book discount versus their US peers since the euro area financial crisis. Chart I-19Euro Area Bank Earnings Have Catch-Up Potential Chart I-20Euro Area Banks Are Extremely Cheap Versus The US   Thus, while euro area and global ex-US equities may not outperform on the back of rising global stock prices over the coming few months, investors focused on a 6-12 month time horizon should respond by increasing their allocation to European stocks and to further reduce dollar exposure. Jonathan LaBerge, CFA Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst March 31, 2021 Next Report: April 29, 2021 II. R-star, And The Structural Risk To Stocks In the decade following the global financial crisis, investor concerns that the Fed’s monetary policies have artificially boosted equity market valuation have been mostly overblown. But today, it is now true that US equities are increasingly dependent on persistently low bond yields, as stocks can only avoid near bubble-like relative pricing if yields remain below trend rates of economic growth. Macroeconomic theory and the historical record both support the notion that nominal interest rates are normally in equilibrium when they are roughly equal to the trend rate of nominal income growth. A gap between interest rates and trend rates of growth was indeed justified for a few years following the global financial crisis, but in the few years prior to the pandemic, it is altogether possible that the neutral rate of interest (or “r-star”) was in fact meaningfully higher than academic estimates suggested. In a scenario where the US output gap closes quickly, inflation rises above target, and where permanent damage to the labor market from the pandemic is relatively limited, we expect the narrative of secular stagnation to be challenged and for investor expectations for the neutral rate to move closer to trend rates of economic growth. That would imply that the 5-year/5-year forward Treasury yield could hypothetically rise above 3%, and possibly as high as 4% or more. Such a shift would push the US equity risk premium back to 2002 levels based on current stock market pricing. This is not necessarily negative for equities, but it is also not clear what equity risk premium investors will require to contend with the myriad risks to the economic outlook that did not exist in the early 2000s. A low ERP that is technically not as low as that of the tech bubble era could thus still threaten stock prices, as T.I.N.A., “There Is No Alternative,” may not prevail. Many investors have questioned what asset allocation strategy should be pursued in a scenario where stock prices and bond yields are no longer positively correlated. While they are not likely to be without cost, options exist for investors to potentially earn positive absolute returns in a scenario where a significant shift in the interest rate outlook threatens both stock and bond prices. Chart II-1Equity Valuation Concerns Have Persisted For The Past Decade... For the better part of the last decade, many investors have argued that the Fed’s monetary policies have artificially boosted equity market valuation. Based on the cyclically-adjusted P/E ratio metric originated by Robert Shiller, stocks reached pre-global financial crisis (GFC) multiples in late 2014 and early 2015 (Chart II-1). Based on metrics such as the price-to-sales ratio, stocks rose to pre-GFC valuation in late 2013, and are now even more richly valued than they were at the height of the dotcom bubble. These concerns have mostly occurred in response to absolute changes in stock multiples, but equity valuation cannot be divorced from the prevailing level of interest rates. Relative to bond yields, stocks were extraordinarily cheap for many years following the GFC. Measured by one simple approach to calculating the equity risk premium, the spread between the 12-month forward earnings yield (the inverse of the forward P/E ratio) and the real 10-year Treasury yield, stocks were the cheapest following the GFC that they had been since the mid 1980s, and remain reasonably priced today (Chart II-2). Chart II-2...But Stocks Have Actually Been Cheap Versus Bonds The fact that stocks have appeared to be expensive for several years but quite cheap (or reasonably priced) relative to bonds underscores the fact that longer-term bond yields have been extraordinarily low following the global financial crisis. Still, equities were not dependent on low bond yields prior to the pandemic, as illustrated in Chart II-3. The chart highlights the range of 10-year Treasury yields that would be consistent with the pre-GFC equity risk premium range (measured from 2002-2007), alongside the actual 10-year yield and trend nominal GDP growth. The chart shows that for years following the financial crisis, bond yields could have risen to levels well above trend rates of economic growth and stocks would still have been priced in line with pre-crisis norms. This “normal pricing” range for the 10-year declined as the expansion continued, but remained consistent with trend growth rates and above the actual 10-year yield up until the beginning of the pandemic. Chart II-3 also highlights, however, that the circumstances changed last year. The equity risk premium briefly rose at the onset of the pandemic as stocks initially sold off sharply, but then quickly fell as stock prices recovered in response to aggressive fiscal and monetary easing. Today, it is true that US equities are increasingly dependent on persistently low bond yields, as stocks can only avoid bubble-like relative pricing if yields remain below trend rates of economic growth. Chart II-3Now, Stocks Are Increasingly Dependent On Low Bond Yields Prior to the pandemic, most fixed-income investors would have viewed the risk of bond yields rising to trend nominal GDP growth, let alone above it, as minimal. Global investors have come to accept the secular stagnation narrative as described by Larry Summers in November 2013, and have gravitated to academic estimates of the neutral rate of interest (“R-star”) that show a substantial gap between the natural rate and trend real growth (Chart II-4). This view has manifested itself in a decline in surveyed estimates of the long-run Fed funds rate, but at present the 5-year/5-year forward Treasury yield has pushed well above this survey-derived fair value range (Chart II-5). It is possible that the fiscal response to the pandemic will cause investor views about r-star to evolve even further over the coming 12-24 months, and in this report we explore the potential headwind that such an evolution could present to stock prices at some point – potentially as early as next year. Chart II-4Investors Have Accepted Secular Stagnation, And The View That R-star Is Well Below Trend Rates Of Growth Chart II-5The Market's Views About R-star May Be Shifting   R-star: A Brief Primer Macroeconomic theory and the historical record both support the notion that nominal interest rates are normally in equilibrium when they are roughly equal to the trend rate of nominal income growth. From the perspective of macro theory, the neutral rate of interest is determined by the supply of and demand for savings. But in practical terms, this implies that the neutral rate should normally be closely linked to the trend rate of economic growth. For example, if interest rates – and thus the cost of capital – were persistently below aggregate income growth, then demand for capital (and thus credit and likely labor demand) should increase as firms seek to profit from the gap between the interest rate and the expected rate of return from real investment. As such, the trend rate of growth acts as a good proxy for the interest rate that will balance the supply and demand for credit during normal economic circumstances. Empirically, academic estimates of r-star closely followed estimates of trend real GDP growth prior to the global financial crisis, as shown in Chart II-4 above. In addition, we noted in our January report that the stance of monetary policy, as defined by the difference between nominal GDP growth and the 10-year Treasury yield, has generally done a good job of explaining the US output gap prior to 2000. This supports the notion that monetary policy is stimulative (restrictive) when bond yields are below (above) trend growth rates. However, in the years following the GFC, investors’ estimates of r-star collapsed, as evidenced by the sharp decline in 5-year / 5-year forward Treasury yields (Chart II-6). This was followed by a decline in primary dealer and FOMC expectations for the long-term Fed funds rate, which investors took as validating their view that the neutral rate of interest has permanently declined. Chart II-6Investors Led The Fed And Others In Expecting A Lower Nominal Neutral Rate R-star And Trend Growth: Is A Gap Between The Two Really Justified? Chart II-7R-star Likely Did Decline Following The GFC (For A Time) It seems clear that r-star did indeed decline for a time after the GFC. The US and select European economies suffered a balance sheet recession in 2008/2009 that impacted credit demand for an extended period of time (Chart II-7), and extraordinarily low interest rates for several years did not fuel major credit excesses (at least in the household sector). But as we detailed in a Special Report last year,2 we doubt that the decline in r-star was permanent, for several reasons. The first, and most important, is that there have been at least four deeply impactful non-monetary shocks to both the US and global economies since 2008 that magnified the impact of prolonged household deleveraging and help explain the disconnect between growth and interest rates during the last economic cycle: The euro area sovereign debt crisis Premature fiscal austerity in the US, the UK, and euro area from 2010 – 2012/2014 The US dollar / oil price shock of 2014 The Trump administration’s aggressive use of tariffs beginning in 2018, impacting China but also other developed market economies. Chart II-8Recent Trends In US Private Sector Leverage Do Not Suggest R-star Is Very Low Except for the oil price shock of 2014 (which was driven by technological developments and a price war among producers), all of these non-monetary shocks were caused or exacerbated by policymakers – often for political reasons or due to regulatory failures. Second, the trend in US private sector credit growth last cycle does not suggest that r-star fell permanently. Chart II-8 underscores two points: the first is that while US household sector credit contracted for several years following the global financial crisis, it started growing again in 2013 and had largely closed the gap with income growth prior to the pandemic. The second point is that the nonfinancial corporate sector clearly leveraged itself over the course of the last expansion, arguing that interest rates have not in any way been restrictive for businesses. Third, we disagree with a common view in the marketplace that the 2018-2019 period supported the validity of low academic estimates of the neutral rate. Chart II-9 highlights that monetary policy ceased to be stimulative in 2019 according to the Laubach & Williams r-star estimate, which some investors have argued explains the late 2018 equity market selloff, the 2019 slowdown in the US housing market, the inversion of the yield curve, and the global manufacturing recession. Chart II-9Monetary Policy Ceased To Be Stimulative In 2019, According To The LW R-star Estimate But this narrative ignores other important factors that contributed to the slowdown. For example, Chart II-10 highlights that this period of economic weakness exactly coincided with the most intense phase of the Sino-US trade war, as well as a significant slowdown in Chinese credit growth. The chart highlights that the selloff in the US equity market began almost immediately after a surge in the effective tariff rates levied by the two countries against each other, and after the Chinese credit impulse fell three percentage points (from 30% to 27% of GDP). Chart II-10The 2018 Stock Market Selloff Occurred Once Sino-US Tariffs Exploded Chart II-11 highlights that interest rates did likely impact the housing market, but that it was the speed at which rates rose that was damaging rather than their level. The chart shows that the rise in mortgage rates from late 2016 to late 2018 was among the largest 2-year increases that has occurred since the early 1980s, so it is unsurprising that the growth in home sales and real residential investment slowed for a time. Additionally, Chart II-12 highlights that the rise in mortgage rates during this period did not cause a downtrend in mortgage credit growth, which only occurred in Q4 2018 in response to the impact of the sharp selloff in the equity market on household net worth. Chart II-11Mortgage Rates Rose Very Significantly From Late 2016 To Late 2018 Chart II-12A Record Rise In Mortgage Rates Did Not Crack The Housing Market   In short, the late 2018 / 2019 period saw a major global aggregate demand shock occur following an already-established slowdown in Chinese credit growth and a rapid rise in interest rates in the DM world. It is these factors that were likely responsible for the 2019 slowdown in economic growth, not the fact that interest rates reached levels that restricted economic activity on their own. R-star In A Post-Pandemic World Charts II-7 – II-12 above suggest that a gap between interest rates and trend rates of growth was indeed justified for a few years following the global financial crisis, but that a decline in r-star only appeared to be permanent due to persistent, non-monetary policy shocks to aggregate demand. In the few years prior to the pandemic, it is altogether possible that r-star was in fact meaningfully higher than academic estimates suggested. But that is now a counterfactual assertion, as the pandemic has transformed the outlook for interest rates and bond yields in conflicting ways. A 10% decline in the level of real output was the most intensely negative non-monetary shock to aggregate demand since the 1930s (Chart II-13), and we agree that another depression would have occurred without extraordinary government assistance. The economic damage caused by the pandemic certainly does not work in favor of a higher neutral rate, and we highlighted in Section 1 of our report that the Fed expects there to be some lingering and persistent slack in the labor market even once the pandemic is over. Chart II-13Without Major Monetary And Fiscal Policy Support, The Pandemic Would Probably Have Caused A Depression Chart II-14A Huge Increase In Government Transfers And Spending Is Underway On the other hand, Larry Summers, the chief proponent of the theory of secular stagnation, has argued for several years that increased fiscal spending was warranted in order to address an imbalance between private sector savings and investment. Summers himself now characterizes US fiscal policy as the “least responsible” that he has seen over the past 40 years, because of too-large government spending that risks overheating the economy (Chart II-14). Summers’ critique rests in large part on the fact that new government spending has not occurred in the form of investment (to balance out the existence of excess savings), but is instead providing transfers to households that in many cases have already accumulated significant excess savings. But the key point for investors is that the pandemic has completely shifted the narrative about fiscal spending, from “arguably insufficient for several years following the global financial crisis” to now “risking a dramatic overheating of the economy.” Some elements of Summers’ criticism of the Biden administration’s fiscal policy are justified, particularly the policy of large direct transfer payments to workers who have suffered no loss in employment or income as a result of the pandemic. Despite this, as detailed in Section 1 of our report, we are more sanguine about the risks of aggressive overheating for three reasons: it does seem likely that some portion of the spending on services that has been “missing” over the past year will never return or will be slow to return, some of the excess savings that have accumulated will not be immediately (or ever) spent, and the rise in consumer inflation expectations that has occurred over the past year has happened from an extremely low starting point and has yet to even rise above its post-GFC range. The low odds that we assign to dangerously above-target inflation over the coming 12-24 months does not, however, mean that investors’ expectations for r-star will stay low. For right or for wrong, the US government has aggressively dis-saved over the past year, in an environment where low expectations for the neutral rate were anchored by a view of excessive private sector savings and insufficient demand from governments. In a scenario where the US output gap closes quickly, inflation rises modestly above target, and where permanent damage to the labor market from the pandemic is relatively limited, it seems reasonable to conclude that the narrative of secular stagnation will be challenged and that investor expectations for the neutral rate will converge towards trend rates of economic growth. That would imply that the 5-year/5-year forward Treasury yield could hypothetically rise above 3%, possibly as high as 4% or more. This is not our base case view, but it will be an important possibility to monitor as the decisive end to social distancing and other pandemic control measures draws nearer. Investment Conclusions A rise in the 5-year/5-year forward Treasury yield does not, in and of itself, suggest that 10-year Treasury yields will rise to levels that would threaten a significant decline in stock prices. The Fed does not control the long-end of the Treasury curve, but it does exert a very strong influence on the short-end. For example, were the Fed to follow the median current projection of FOMC participants and refrain from raising interest rates until sometime after 2023, it would limit how high current 10-year Treasury yields could rise. But it is not difficult to envision plausible scenarios where the 10-year Treasury yield rises above the range consistent with the pre-GFC US equity risk premium. Chart II-15 presents three hypothetical fair value paths for the 10-year yield assuming a mid-2022 liftoff date and a 4% terminal Fed funds rate for the following three scenarios: Chart II-1510-Year Yields Could Rise Meaningfully Further If Investors Shift Their Expectations For R-star The Fed raises rates at a pace of 1% (4 hikes) per year, with a term premium of 10 basis points The Fed raises rates at a pace of 1% (4 hikes) per year, with a term premium of 50 basis points The Fed raises rates at a pace of 1.5% (6 hikes) per year, with a term premium of 50 basis points In the first scenario, based on the current US 12-month forward P/E ratio, the fair value of the 10-year Treasury yield would rise above the range consistent with a reasonable ERP in the middle of 2022, the liftoff point assumed in all three scenarios. In the second and third scenarios, the US equity ERP would already be quite low. When using the late 1999 / early 2000 bubble period as a reference point, even the scenarios shown in Chart II-15 are not very threatening to stock prices. Given current equity market pricing, the third scenario would take the US equity risk premium back to mid 2002 levels, which were still meaningfully higher than during the peak of the bubble. And that is assuming an earlier liftoff than the market currently expects, a faster pace of rate hikes than experienced during the last economic cycle, and a very meaningful increase in the market’s expectations for the neutral rate. But it is not clear what equity risk premium investors will require to contend with the myriad risks to the economic outlook that did not exist in the early 2000s. For example, equity investors are today faced with a riskier policy environment than existed 20 years ago in the US and in other developed economies that is at least partially driven by populist sentiment, potentially impacting earnings via lower operating margins or higher taxes. These or other risks existed at several points over the past decade and T.I.N.A. (“There Is No Alternative”) prevailed, but that occurred precisely because the equity risk premium was very elevated. A low ERP that is technically not as low as what prevailed during the tech bubble era could thus still threaten stock prices, raising the specter of negative absolute returns from stocks and nominal government bonds for a period of time, beginning potentially at or in the lead-up to the first Fed rate hike. Chart II-16There Are Alternatives To A Traditional 60/40 Portfolio In A Rising Rate Environment Many investors have questioned what asset allocation strategy should be pursued in a scenario where stock prices and bond yields are no longer positively correlated. Chart II-16 provides some perspective on the question, by comparing the total return of a 60/40 stock/bond portfolio to a strategy involving the opportunistic redeployment of cash into stocks. The strategy rule maintains a 50/50 stock/cash allocation during normal market conditions, but it then shifts the entire cash allocation into equities following a 15% selloff in the stock market. The portfolio is shifted back to a 50/50 allocation once stocks rise to a new rolling 1-year high. The chart highlights that 60/40 balanced portfolio-style returns may be achievable with cash as the diversifier without a significant reduction in the Sharpe ratio. In fact, the strategy has the effect of lowering average volatility due to prolonged periods of comparatively lower equity exposure, although this occurs at the cost of higher volatility during periods of high market stress (precisely when investors most want protection from volatility). But the bottom line for investors is that while they are not likely to be without cost, options exist for investors to potentially earn positive absolute returns in a scenario where a significant shift in the interest rate outlook threatens both stock and bond prices. As noted above, this remains a risk to our view rather than our expectation, but we will continue to monitor the potential threat posed to stock prices as the pandemic draws to a decisive close later this year. Jonathan LaBerge, CFA Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst III. Indicators And Reference Charts BCA’s equity indicators highlight that the “easy” money from expectations of an eventual end to the pandemic have already been made. Our technical, valuation, and sentiment indicators are very extended, highlighting that investors should expect positive but more modest returns from stocks over the coming 6-12 months. Our monetary indicator has aggressively retreated from its high last year, reflecting a meaningful recovery in government bond yields. The indicator remains above the boom/bust line, however, highlighting that monetary policy remains supportive for risky asset prices. Forward equity earnings already price in a complete earnings recovery, but for now there is no meaningful sign of waning forward earnings momentum. Net revisions remain very strong, and positive earnings surprises have ticked slightly lower from their strongest levels on record. Within a global equity portfolio, US stocks have recently risen versus global ex-US, reflecting a countertrend rise in the US dollar and a lagging vaccination campaign in Europe. We expect a deceleration in the Chinese credit impulse later this year, which will weigh on EM stocks and heighten the importance of European equities in driving global ex-US outperformance. European equity outperformance, in turn, will likely necessitate the outperformance of euro area financials. The US 10-Year Treasury yield has risen well above its 200-day moving average. Long-dated yields are technically stretched to the upside, but our valuation index highlights that bonds are still extremely expensive and that yields could move higher over the cyclical investment horizon. The recent bounce in the US dollar has reflected improved relative US growth expectations, but also previously oversold levels. The dollar may continue to strengthen on a 0-3 month time horizon, but we expect it to be lower in 12 months’ time than it is today. Commodity prices have recovered not just back to pre-pandemic levels, but also back to 2014 levels. This underscores that many commodity prices are extended, and may be due for a breather once the Chinese credit impulse begins to decline. US and global LEIs remain in a solid uptrend, and global manufacturing PMIs are strong. This underscores that the global demand for goods is robust, and that output is below pre-pandemic levels in most economies because of very weak services spending. The latter will recover significantly later this year, as social distancing and other pandemic control measures disappear. EQUITIES: Chart III-1US Equity Indicators Chart III-2Willingness To Pay For Risk Chart III-3US Equity Sentiment Indicators   Chart III-4Revealed Preference Indicator Chart III-5US Stock Market Valuation Chart III-6US Earnings Chart III-7Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Chart III-8Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance   FIXED INCOME: Chart III-9US Treasurys And Valuations Chart III-10Yield Curve Slopes Chart III-11Selected US Bond Yields Chart III-1210-Year Treasury Yield ComponentsChart III-13US Corporate Bonds And Health Monitor Chart III-14Global Bonds: Developed Markets Chart III-15Global Bonds: Emerging Markets   CURRENCIES: Chart III-16US Dollar And PPP Chart III-17US Dollar And Indicator Chart III-18US Dollar Fundamentals Chart III-19Japanese Yen Technicals Chart III-20Euro Technicals Chart III-21Euro/Yen Technicals Chart III-22Euro/Pound Technicals   COMMODITIES: Chart III-23Broad Commodity Indicators Chart III-24Commodity Prices Chart III-25Commodity Prices Chart III-26Commodity Sentiment Chart III-27Speculative Positioning   ECONOMY: Chart III-28US And Global Macro Backdrop Chart III-29US Macro Snapshot Chart III-30US Growth Outlook Chart III-31US Cyclical Spending Chart III-32US Labor Market Chart III-33US Consumption Chart III-34US Housing Chart III-35US Debt And Deleveraging   Chart III-36US Financial Conditions Chart III-37Global Economic Snapshot: Europe Chart III-38Global Economic Snapshot: China   Jonathan LaBerge, CFA Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst Footnotes 1  “Summers Sees ‘Least Responsible’ Fiscal Policy in 40 Years,” Bloomberg News, March 20, 2021. 2  2020-03-20 GIS SR “Revisiting The Neutral Rate Of Interest: A Contrarian View In A Time Of Crisis.”

Highlights Central Bank Expectations: Market expectations of short-term interest rate moves over the next few years are inching higher. The potential for markets to offer a greater bond-bearish challenge to the current highly dovish forward guidance of the major central banks should not be dismissed given the growth-positive mix of expanding global vaccinations and US fiscal stimulus. Global Golden Rule: The gap between market expectations of global central bank policy rates and realized interest rate outcomes is a reliable predictor of government bond returns – a dynamic we have dubbed the “Global Golden Rule of Bond Investing”. Given our expectation that no major developed market central bank will hike rates within the next twelve months, the Global Golden Rule is calling for the recent government bond market laggards to outperform over the next year. Tapering & The Golden Rule: Government bonds in countries where central banks are most likely to begin tapering in 2022 well before considering rate hikes – most notably, the US and Canada – are likely to suffer returns worse than implied by the Global Golden Rule. It is too soon to raise allocations to those higher-beta bond markets. Feature As the first quarter of 2021 draws to a close, fixed income investors are licking their wounds from a rough start to the year. Government bonds across the developed world have absorbed heavy losses as yields have climbed higher, led by US Treasuries which are down -4.0% year-to-date in total return terms. Other markets have also been hit hard, like Canada (-3.9%), Australia (-3.5%) and the UK (-6.3%). The trend in rising yields has been concentrated at longer maturities, with shorter ends of yield curves seeing much smaller moves (Chart 1). Two-year government bond yields are still being pinned down by the dovish forward guidance of the major central banks. The Fed is signaling no rate hikes through at least the end of 2023, while other central banks are sending similar messages on the timing of any potential future rate moves. However, global growth expectations continue to gain upward momentum, fueled by the optimistic combination of expanding COVID-19 vaccinations and aggressive US fiscal stimulus. Real GDP growth is expected to soar to a mid-single digit pace in the US, UK, Canada and even the euro zone - moves heralded by the steady climb of the OECD leading economic indicators and composite purchasing manager indices (Chart 2). Chart 1Rising Yields Reflect Reflation Chart 2A Bond-Bearish Surge In Global Growth Markets will continue to pull forward the timing and pace of the next monetary tightening cycle if those faster above-trend growth forecasts are realized. This will represent a change of “leadership” in the global bond bear market from faster inflation breakevens to increased policy rate expectations helping drive real yields higher. That shift may already be underway according to the ZEW survey of global investor expectations which now shows that the net number of respondents expecting higher short-term interest rates in the US and UK has turned positive (Chart 3). Already, our Central Bank Monitors for the US, Canada and Australia (Chart 4) have climbed back to neutral levels suggesting that easier monetary policy is no longer required. Similar trends can be seen to a lesser extent in the UK, euro area and even Japan (Chart 5). These moves are already coinciding with increased cyclical upward pressure on global bond yields, even without any change in dovish central bank guidance alongside ongoing buying of government bonds via quantitative easing programs. Chart 3Shifting Expectations For Policy Rates? Chart 4Diminishing Need For Easy Monetary Policy Here   Chart 5Easy Policy Still Required Here How will a trend of rising short-term interest rate expectations translate into future expected returns on government bonds? For that, we revisit a framework temporarily set aside during the pandemic era of crisis monetary policies – the Global Golden Rule (GGR) of bond investing. An Update Of The Global Golden Rule, By Country In September 2018, we published a Special Report introducing a government bond return forecasting methodology called the “Global Golden Rule.” This was an extension of a framework introduced by our sister service, US Bond Strategy, that links US Treasury returns (versus cash) to changes in the fed funds rate that were not already discounted in the US Overnight Index Swap (OIS) curve.1 The historical results convincingly showed that investors who "get the Fed right" by making correct bets on changes in the funds rate versus expectations were very likely to make the right call on the direction of Treasury yields. We discovered that relationship also held in other developed market countries. Thus, we now had a framework to help project expected bond returns simply based on a view for future central bank interest rate moves versus market expectations.2 Specific details on the calculation of the Global Golden Rule can be found in those original 2018 papers. In the following pages, we present the latest results of the Global Golden Rule for the US, Canada, Australia, the UK, the euro area and Japan. The set-up for the chart shown for each country is the same. We show the 12-month policy rate “surprise”, defined as the actual change in the central bank policy rate over the preceding 12-months versus the expected 12-month change in the policy rate from a year earlier extracted from OIS curves (aka our 12-month discounters). We then compare the 12-month policy rate surprise to the annual excess return over cash (treasury bills) of the Bloomberg Barclays government bond index for each country. We also show the 12-month policy rate surprise versus the 12-month change in the government bond index yield. The very strong historical correlation between those latter two series is the backbone of the Global Golden Rule framework. After that, we present tables showing expected yield changes and excess returns for various maturity points, as well as the overall government bond index, derived from the Global Golden Rule regressions. The expected change in yield is derived from regressions on the policy rate surprises, with different estimations done for each maturity point. In the tables, we show the results for different scenarios for changes in policy rates. For example, the row in the return tables called “1 rate hike” would show the expected yield changes and excess returns if the central bank for that particular country lifts the policy interest rate by +25bps over the next 12 months. This allows us to pick the scenario(s) that most closely correlate to our own expectation for central bank actions, translating that into government bond return expectations. Global Golden Rule: US Chart 6UST Selloff Akin To A Hawkish Surprise The Golden Rule would have underestimated the losses realized by US Treasuries over the past year (-4.5%), as negative excess returns over cash typically occur when the Fed is more hawkish than expectations – an outcome that did not occur (Chart 6). The trailing 12-month policy rate surprise for the US is currently zero, as last year’s massively dovish rate cuts have rolled off. The US OIS curve now discounts only 5bps of interest rate increases over the next 12 months, a period that runs to the end of first quarter of 2022. This is in line with the Fed’s guidance that no rate hikes will take place before the end of 2023. Our base case is the “Flat” scenario shown in Table 1 and Table 2, with the Fed keeping the funds rate unchanged near 0% for the next twelve months – a very modest “dovish” surprise. This produces a Golden Rule forecast of the overall US Treasury index yield falling -2bps that generates a total return of +1.1%. This is essentially a coupon-clipping return equivalent to the current index yield. Table 1US: Government Bond Index Total Return Forecasts Over The Next 12 Months Table 2US: Expected Changes In Treasury Yields Over The Next 12 Months Global Golden Rule: Canada Chart 7Canadian Bond Selloff Worse Than Implied By Golden Rule Canadian government bonds have sold off smartly over the past 12 months, delivering an excess return over cash of -2.8%. That is a smaller loss, however, compared to other developed economy government bond markets. The Canadian OIS curve did not move as aggressively to price in rate cuts last year, so the rapid pace of Bank of Canada (BoC) easing that was actually delivered constituted a modest “dovish surprise” that helped mute Canadian bond losses to some degree (Chart 7). The trailing 12-month policy rate surprise for Canada is +37bps (a dovish surprise), but rate expectations are more aggressive on forward basis. The Canadian OIS curve now discounts +28bps of interest rate increases over the next 12-months, a period that runs to the end of first quarter of 2022. This stands out as the highest such figure among the countries discussed in this report. This is likely due to the relatively less dovish messaging from BoC officials who have hinted that QE could be tapered sooner than expected if the economy outperforms the BoC’s forecasts for 2021. Our base case is the “Flat” scenario shown in Table 3 and Table 4, with the BoC keeping the policy interest rate at 0.25% for the next twelve months. This produces a Golden Rule forecast of a decline in the overall Canadian government bond index yield of -12bps, delivering a projected total return of +1.69%. That return may turn out to be overly optimistic if the BoC does indeed begin tapering QE later this year. Table 3Canada: Government Bond Index Total Return Forecasts Over The Next 12 Months Table 4Canada: Expected Changes In Government Bond Yields Over The Next 12 Months Global Golden Rule: Australia Chart 8Australian Bonds Acting Like The RBA Was Hawkish Australian government bonds have delivered a negative excess return over cash of -3.6% over the past year (Chart 8). This underperformed the projection from the Golden Rule, as the Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) was not more hawkish than market expectations. The central bank actually delivered a dovish surprise in 2020, not only cutting policy rates dramatically but starting up a bond-buying QE program and instituting yield curve control to cap 3-year bond yields. The trailing 12-month policy rate surprise for Australia is zero, as last year’s massively dovish surprise rate cuts have rolled off. The Australia OIS curve now discounts only 7bps of interest rate increases over the next 12-months, a period that runs to the end of first quarter of 2022. This is in line with the RBA’s highly dovish guidance suggesting that there will be no change to current policy settings until Australian wage growth picks up to the 3% level consistent with the RBA’s 2-3% CPI inflation target. The central bank does not expect that to occur before 2023. We agree with dovish guidance from the RBA, thus our base case is the “Flat” scenario shown in Table 5 and Table 6, with the RBA keeping the Cash Rate unchanged at 0.1% for the next twelve months. This generates a Golden Rule forecast of an -5bps decline in the overall Australian government bond index yield, producing a total return projection of +1.4%. Table 5Australia: Government Bond Index Total Return Forecasts Over The Next 12 Months Table 6Australia: Expected Changes In Government Bond Yields Over The Next 12 Months Global Golden Rule: UK Chart 9A UK Gilt Selloff Without A Hawkish BoE UK Gilts underperformed the Golden Rule forecast over the past 12 months, delivering a negative excess return over cash of –5.1% even with the Bank of England (BoE) not delivering any hawkish surprise versus market expectations (Chart 9). The trailing 12-month policy rate surprise for the UK is currently zero. The UK OIS curve now discounts only 5bps of interest rate increases over the next 12-months, a period that runs to the end of first quarter of 2022. This is in line with the BoE’s guidance that no monetary tightening will take place until there is clear evidence that the excess capacity created by the pandemic shock is clearly being absorbed. Yet while the BoE has still left the door open to moving to a negative policy rate if needed, markets are not discounting any such move. Our base case is the “Flat” scenario shown in Table 7 and Table 8, with the BoE keeping the Bank Rate unchanged at 0.1% for the next twelve months. This produces a Golden Rule forecast of the overall UK Gilt index yield falling -2bps that generates a total return of +1.0%. This is a return only slightly above the current index yield. Table 7UK: Government Bond Index Total Return Forecasts Over The Next 12 Months Table 8UK: Expected Changes In Gilt Yields Over The Next 12 Months Global Golden Rule: Germany Chart 10Even Bunds Acting Like ECB Is "Hawkish" German government bonds have produced an excess return over cash of -1.6% over the past year. There was no surprise from the European Central Bank (ECB) during that time relative to market expectations (Chart 10), so that negative return reflected the modest rise in German bond yields on the back of improving global growth. The trailing 12-month policy rate surprise for Germany (and the overall euro area) remains stuck near zero, as has been the case since the ECB cut its deposit rate below zero and instituted QE back in 2016. The euro area OIS curve now discounts only -4bps of interest rate cuts over the next 12 months, a period that runs to the end of first quarter of 2022. This is in line with the ECB’s guidance that rates will be kept unchanged until at least 2023, as the central bank’s projections call for euro area inflation to not climb above 1.5% - below the ECB’s 2% target – through 2023. The OIS curve is discounting a small probability that the ECB could be forced to deliver a small rate cut given the degree of the euro area inflation undershoot. Our base case, however, is that the ECB will keep rates steady over the next 12 months (and likely for a few more years after that). Thus, the “Flat” scenarios shown in Table 9 and Table 10 are most relevant, with the German government bond index yield rising +2bps according to the Golden Rule. This produces a total return projection of -0.6%. Table 9Germany: Government Bond Index Total Return Forecasts Over The Next 12 Months Table 10Germany: Expected Changes In Bund Yields Over The Next 12 Months Global Golden Rule: Japan Chart 11JGBs Bucking The Global "Hawkish" Selloff Japanese government bonds (JGBs) have delivered an excess return versus cash of -0.8% over the past twelve months (Chart 11). Although it may sound unusual for Japan, there was actually a tiny “hawkish” surprise as the Bank of Japan (BoJ) kept policy rates steady over the past year even as markets had priced in a possibility of a small rate cut in response to the COVID-19 growth shock. Admittedly, the Golden Rule framework is poorly suited to project Japanese bond returns. The Bank of Japan (BoJ) has been unable to lift policy rates for many years, while they have instituted yield curve control on 10-year JGBs since 2016, anchoring yields near zero. With no variability on policy rates or bond yields, a methodology that links bond returns to unexpected policy interest rate changes will have poor predictive power. The Japan OIS curve now discounts -5bps of interest rate cuts over the next 12 months, a period that runs to the end of first quarter of 2022. The BoJ has not ruled out the possibility of a small rate cut sometime in the next few months, as Japanese inflation remains far below the 2% BoJ target. Our base case is the “Flat” scenarios shown in Table 11 and Table 12, with the BoJ keeping policy rates unchanged near 0% for the next twelve months. That generates a Golden Rule forecast of a +5bp increase in the Japanese government bond index yield, with a total return projection of -0.4%. This would be consistent with the BoJ producing a small hawkish “surprise” by not cutting rates deeper into negative territory. Table 11Japan: Government Bond Index Total Return Forecasts Over The Next 12 Months Table 12Japan: Expected Changes In JGB Yields Over The Next 12 Months Investment Implications Of The Global Golden Rule Projections Among all the scenarios laid out above, our base case has been that no change in policy rates should be expected over the next 12 months in any of the countries. This fits with our view that central banks will be reluctant to consider any changes to the current dovish forward guidance on future rate hikes until there is clear evidence that the global economy has moved beyond the pandemic. That means taking some near-term inflation risks given the very robust pace of growth expected over the rest of 2021. In Table 13, we rank all the return projections generated by the Global Golden Rule for the “Flat” scenarios on policy rates over the next year. Returns are shown both in local currency terms and in USD-hedged terms. Table 13Government Bond Index Total Return Forecasts Over The Next 12 Months Assuming Policy Rates Remain Unchanged The return rankings are a mirror image of the performance seen year-to-date, with the “higher beta” bond markets (Canada, Australia and the US) outperforming the more defensive low-yielding markets (the UK, Germany and Japan). Returns are projected to be moderate, however, with Canada leading the way both unhedged (+1.69%) and currency hedged (+1.73%). The return rankings excluding the +10-year maturity buckets of the government bond indices are shown in Table 14. We present these to allow a more “apples to apples” comparison of the six regions shown, as the UK index has a huge weighting in the +10-year bucket while there is no +10-year benchmark for Australia. On this basis, Australia stands out as having the best Global Golden Rule generated return projections, both unhedged (+1.44%) and USD-hedged (+1.66%).3 Table 14 These return rankings run counter to our current recommended country allocation: underweight the US, overweight Germany and Japan and neutral the UK, Canada and Australia. We still believe there is more near-term upside for global bond yields, led by US Treasuries, thus it is too soon to begin to position for the results projected by the Global Golden Rule. There is one other factor that leads us to interpret the results cautiously – the likelihood that some central banks will begin tapering their bond purchases within the next 12 months. Our expectation is that the Fed will begin to signal a need to slow the pace of its QE bond buying in the fourth quarter of this year, with actual tapering beginning in Q1 of 2022. The BoC is likely to follow suit shortly thereafter. Thus, the Fed and BoC will begin tapering within the 12-month forecasting window of the Global Golden Rule. The RBA and BoE will debate a need to taper later in 2022 – beyond that 12-month window – while the ECB and BoJ will maintain their current pace of bond buying until at least the end of 2022. From the point of view of bond markets, tapering by the Fed and BoC will likely feel as if those central banks were actually delivering rate hikes. Bond yields will likely rise by more than projected by the Global Golden Rule in the “Flat” scenarios highlighted earlier. Quantitative models that attempt to translate QE into interest rate changes, so-called “shadow rates”, show that the Fed’s QE bond buying over the past year has been equivalent to nearly 250bp of additional Fed rate cuts after the funds rate was slashed to 0% (Chart 12). Thus, when the Fed begins to taper QE, it will conceptually be as if the Fed started a rate hike cycle with the starting point of a fed funds rate at minus -2.5%. When looking at the historical correlation of changes in the US shadow rate and US Treasury yields, the +40bps rise in the Treasury index yield over the past 12 months is equivalent to roughly a 100bp increase in the shadow fed funds rate (Chart 13, top panel). That would line up with a fairly aggressive pace of Fed tapering when looking at the correlation of changes in the shadow rate to changes in the size of the Fed balance sheet (middle panel). Chart 12"Shadow Policy Rates" Are Below 0% Chart 13UST Yields Discount A Lot Of Fed Tapering US Treasury yields have been rising for more fundamental reasons like improving growth expectations alongside rising inflation expectations. If the Fed is forced to signal a tapering of QE later this year because that robust growth outlook comes to fruition, it is a stretch to think that Treasury yields will not see additional upward pressure. Thus, we are sticking with our current country allocations, despite the message from our Global Golden Rule. US Treasury returns may look more like the “1 rate hike” or “2 rate hikes” scenarios shown in Table 1 when the Fed begins tapering early in 2022. The same goes for Canadian bond yields once the BoC moves to taper soon after the Fed, as we expect, which is why we are keeping Canada on “downgrade watch.” Bottom Line: The Global Golden Rule is calling for the recent government bond market laggards to outperform over the next year if central banks keep rates on hold. Government bonds in countries where central banks are most likely to begin tapering in 2022 well before considering rate hikes – most notably, the US and Canada – are likely to suffer returns worse than implied by the Global Golden Rule. It is too soon to raise allocations to those higher-beta bond markets.   Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1 Please see BCA Research US Bond Strategy Special Report, "The Golden Rule Of Bond Investing", dated July 24, 2018, available at usbs.bcarearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Research Global Fixed Income Strategy Special Report, "The Global Golden Rule Of Bond Investing", dated September 25, 2018, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 3 Note that in Table 14, we rescale the other maturity buckets after removing the +10-year bucket. The index returns are presented as a market-capitalization weighted combination of the expected returns of the remaining maturity buckets. Recommendations The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns